Was Soviet Union a Command Economy? Sample Essay

A bid economic system is one in which the co-ordination of economic activity is controlled and undertaken through administrative agencies instead than through the market mechanism ( Ericson. 2005 ) . Many facets of the Soviet economic system tantrum this description such as its organizational construction. the methods by which purposes and directives were carried out and its deficiency of a usage of pricing within its fiscal mechanisms. therefore it can be argued that the term bid economic system is an accurate description. However there are another of other facets to see such as the usage of bargaining to develop a 2nd ‘economy of agreement’ and the usage of economic inducements to accomplish marks that earnestly undermine the description of the Soviet Economy as a bid economic system. This essay will discourse the points above and demo that despite some factors such as the being of a 2nd economic system there can be no other manner to depict the Soviet Economy as many economic experts would hold as the best illustration of a ‘command economy’ at that place has of all time been. The institutional construction of the Soviet Economy surely suggests that it was in fact a Command Economy.

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union ( CPSU ) was the governing power in authorities and played a cardinal function in be aftering the economic system as a whole. The province was responsible for over 88 per centum of concluding agricultural merchandise in 1986 ; 75 per centum of urban lodging and 98 per centum of retail trade ( Narkhoz. 1987 ) . with such an extended interest in so many markets. a huge and complex organizational hierarchy was needed to garner information. manage inter and intra industry communications every bit good as to guarantee effectual marks were set and met consequently ( Ericson. 1991 ) . What could be considered the zenith of this hierarchy was known as the Council of Ministers which consisted of a figure of ministries or cardinal planning bureaus and was responsible for interpreting the purposes and aims of the CPSU into feasible programs and instructions for those lower down in the hierarchy to implement. This meant that the council of curates was basically responsible for make up one’s minding the way and come on the economic system would see.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Before Gorbachev took power in 1985 there were over 20 of these ministries responsible for be aftering the economic system. which included the Gosplan ( ministry of planning ) ; Gossnab ( ministry of stuffs and equipment supply ) and the Gosbank ( the province bank ) . The Gosplan was likely the most imperative ministry as it devised programs and marks for the other ministries to implement and apportion goods and natural stuffs consequently and efficaciously. At the base of this hierarchal construction lay the administrations responsible for transforming the macroeconomic aims into microeconomic results. these associations and endeavors answered to local administrative subdivisions which were all closely watched and controlled by province constitutions ( Gregory & A ; Stuart. 2001 ) . For a bid economic system to work decently at that place needs to be in being some signifier of and big usage of monitoring and regulation administrations ( Ericson. 2005 ) . such as the political party. a constabulary force and Bankss. These organic structures are needed to forestall and press out any illegalities whilst besides guaranting that all microeconomic administrations were executing good.

These administrations were besides responsible for guaranting that the purposes and aims of the CPSU were being carried out sufficiently at all degrees of the hierarchy. every bit good as to vouch that agents did non work such jobs at the disbursal of the principle’s purposes and marks. An illustration of such multi-layer. multi-stage monitoring organic structures was the Gosarbitrah ( State Arbitration ) . which was a quasi-legal system that was responsible for deciding plan execution issues between different endeavors on the same hierarchal degree. Another such monitoring organic structure was the People’s Control. an disposal put in topographic point to breed the popular observation and monitoring of planned activity ( Adams. 1967 ) . Such an extended system of supervising administrations ensured that the Soviet Economy could be adequately controlled by the province ( Harrison. 2005 ) . One manner to ease the attempt of implementing and accomplishing an effectual bid equilibrium was to try to act upon the agent to draw a bead on to the same outcomes as the party ( Harrison. 2005 ) .

Through the usage of media and schooling the CPSU invested to a great extent in indoctrinating the public to follow a corporate outlook that coincided with party purposes and aims. The usage of mortifying rites to penalize those that did non conform to party ideals such as the ‘boards of shame’ . helped to trade name bad citizens as such and loyal behavior was besides rewarded by offers of publicity. However there was non ever a lucifer for the figure of loyal draw a bead oning persons when compared to the figure of retiring individuals. This job was overcome by Stalin by making new taking places by implementing legion purgings and the coincident creative activity of ministerial subsectors that increased the sum of taking places drastically. This tactic nevertheless was non sustainable in the long tally as such alterations to the ministerial construction was dearly-won and intend the system was finally threatened with bankruptcy ( Lazarev. 2005 ) . Within a bid economic system there is ever an inducement for domestic economic agents to negociate with foreign organic structures to gain better results. for illustration trading natural stuffs to accomplish lower costs in the production procedure.

In order to cut down the ability of domestic agents to make this. the Soviet Economy invested to a great extent in the defense mechanism industry and ensured that defense mechanism manufacturers were good paid. This had a double consequence ; it discouraged the interaction of foreign and domestic integrating through the fright of being caught executing any illegal private minutess. every bit good as increasing the chance cost of coaction with foreign organic structures through a higher pay ( Ericson. 2005 ) . This huge array of enforcement mechanisms helped to command the job of bid in the Soviet economic system. A combination of publicities. side payments and terrible punishments helped to suppress the fecundity of unpatriotic agents’ trading at the disbursal of the principal. These methods did all have their different costs which meant that in the long tally they ceased to be feasible methods of maintaining the public loyal ( Harrison. 2005 ) . For a bid economic system to work decently the State demands to be able to curtail the ability of agents to execute undertakings and prosecute aims outside the range of the program.

Having perfect programs for efficient resource allotment would all turn out useless if there was no limitation put on consumers to buy or use province production or commissariats ( Ericson. 2005 ) . In order for the Soviet economic system to accomplish this. labour mobility was badly restricted with people working where they were told to. and monetary values were unbroken inactive simply in topographic point to pacify those responsible for accounting and measuring. Monetary values had no contemplation on the allotment of good or services and nor did they reflect any growing or economic development with monetary values and rewards by and large being predetermined within the program and frequently staying unchanged for long periods of clip and frequently without economic motive ( Nuti. 1986 ) . The function of money in the Soviet economic system was simply to uncover and mensurate the flow of commanded activity and as such money did non play the same function as it would in a market economic system as a measuring of puting and carry throughing societal aims.

The market was besides most to the full replaced in the efficient allotment of good and services. as there was no monetary value mechanism with which to find supply or ingestion degrees ( Bornstein. 1962 ) . This facet of the Soviet economic system was where the Party could hold the most influence and control over agents at the lowest points in the hierarchy. Mobilization of resources occurred in direct response to differing dazes and crises as they occurred. This method of distribution besides helped to guarantee that agents had no ability to run outside of the program. if there was a deficit in 100 metric tons of a specific resource in one industry’s production procedure so this industry would so be supplied with the needed 100 metric tons and nil more. Thus the thought of net income as an inducement for work was basically eliminated. guaranting that agents worked merely in conformity with the program as there would be no benefit of non making so.

This meant that as net income was non a motivational factor for concerns to admit. houses frequently sacrificed of import considerations such as quality. assortment and invention in order to bring forth the big sums required by the program ( Freris. 1984 ) . Firms operated within a premiss of holding one province provider and most probably would stop up presenting to one user of their merchandises and therefore houses were insulated from the thought of monetary value or merchandise competition both from foreign and domestic houses. Such troubles meant that houses were frequently inefficient in their production procedures and sometimes found they could non make marks set by the program ( Granick. 1954 ) . With the above jobs of houses being unable to run into the demand placed upon them by the program. the Soviet economic system witnessed the outgrowth of a booming new market. we now call the ‘Second economy’ or better known as the black market ( Sampson. 1987 ) . Maresse. 1981 describes the ‘Second Economy’ as “all of the non-regulated ( legal and illegal ) facet of economic activities in province and co-operative administrations. plus all unreported activity. plus all signifiers of private ( legal. semi-legal and illegal ) economic activity” .

This market earnestly undermined the Soviet systems effectivity and finally led it to fall in as the costs of keeping such a system whilst the 2nd economic system existed grew excessively dearly-won. The rigorous ordinances placed on houses to seek and promote them to run into the marks all but encouraged directors to seek and work exterior of the system and negotiate between different industries to seek and run into the current twelvemonth marks. This could take the signifier of trading between houses for natural stuffs that were in demand or were in extra supply in exchange for resources that each house needed severally. Poor planning and the usage of financial stimulation to actuate people to remain loyal to the Soviet brotherhood via publicities and increased wage coupled with pent-up rising prices led to big sums of ‘loose cash’ go arounding within the economic system. led to an ignition of a ‘profit motive’ within the economic system and therefore besides helped to fuel this 2nd economic system as some people now had money to buy more goods for their households ( Ericson. 2005. 1982 ) .

The 2nd economic system provided for consumers in a manner that the Soviet program could non. Consumers now could buy goods that they wanted instead than what the program had decided they would be allowed to. It gave consumers new entree to certain goods and services they would ne’er derive under the Soviet Plan. As the Soviet economic system grew as did scarceness and deficit and therefore fuelled the Second economic system even more and dealt with the allocative issues the Soviet Economy created. The Second economic system acted as a erstwhile impermanent force per unit area valve to the existent economic system as it repaired errors or inadvertences made by contrivers and cardinal directors and therefore counterbalanced the fact that several facets of it undermined the Soviet economic system ( Ericson. 2005 ) .

Despite the being of this 2nd economic system there can be no confusion as to whether or non the Soviet Economy was a bid economic system. It shared many of the same features of what defines a Command Economy. including the deficiency of market mechanisms to find monetary values and the organizational and bid construction. Despite the fact that there was a important 2nd economic system that existed alongside the Soviet Economy it is non significant plenty to challenge the definition of the Soviet Economy as a bid economic system.

Bibliography

1. Adams. J. S. 1967. ‘People’s Control’ in the Soviet Union. Michigan State University Press 2. Bornstein. M 1974. Soviet Price Theory and Policy. The Soviet Economy: A Book of Readings. 3. Ericson. R. E 1982. The “Second Economy” and Resource Allocation under Central Planning. Journal of Comparative Economics. 4. Ericson. R. E 1991. The classical Soviet –type economic system: Nature of the system and deductions for reform. The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 5. Ericson. R. E 2005. Command vs. shadow: The conflicted psyche of the Soviet economic system. Comparative Economic Systems. 6.
Freris. A 1984. The Soviet Industrial Enterprise. New York: St. Martin’s Press. 7. Granick. G 1954. Management of the Industrial Firm in the USSR. New York: Columbia University Press. 8. Gregory. P. R. and Stuart. R. C. 2001. Russian & A ; Soviet Economic Performance & A ; Structure 7th Edition. 9. Harrison. M 2005. The Cardinal Problem of Command: Plan and Conformity in a Partially Centralized Economy. Comparative Economic Studies. 10. Lazarev. V 2005. Promotion Contracts and Support for Soviet Regime. Comparative Economic Studies. 11. Maresse. M. 1981. The Development of Wage Regulation in Hungary. Northwestern University Department of Economics. 12. Nuti. D. M 1986. Hidden and Repressed Inflation in Soviet Type Economies: Definitions. Measurements and Stabilisation. Contributions to Political Economy. 13. Sampson S. L 1987. The Second Economy of the Soviet Union. The ANNALS of American Academy of Political Science.