Affiliation:
1. Institute of European and Russian Studies, United Nations, New Economic School, Moscow
Abstract
Abstract
Overall, the Soviet Union’s record in maintaining economic growth and a high level of welfare indicators was quite spectacular, especially until the mid-1960s. The major strength of the centrally planned economies from the 1950s to the 1970s came from their ability to mobilize savings and to turn them into investment. After the Second World War the “big push” (industrialization) of the 1930s began to pay off—massive retirement of fixed capital stock had not yet started, so new investment could be used to alleviate inherent supply bottlenecks. By the 1970s, the drawbacks of the centrally planned economy (economic calculation problem) began to outweigh the advantages (such as the ability to mobilize savings for investment). This chapter argues that the planners influenced the development of the national economies, not so much via adopting the planned targets, but by choosing the priority investment projects. The financing of these projects spurred the other industries via a multiplier process that triggered either price increases or output increases, depending on the gap between the potential and actual output, very much as in a market economy.
Reference27 articles.
1. Time Scales and Mechanisms of Economic Cycles: A Review of Theories of Long Waves.;Review of Keynesian Economics,2014
2. A Comparison of Soviet and American Inventory-Output Ratios.;American Economic Review,1958
3. The Soviet Economic Decline.;World Bank Economic Review,1995
4. Hare, P. 1989. “The Economics of Shortage in the Centrally Planned Economies.” In Models of Disequilibrium and Shortage in Centrally Planned Economies, edited by C. Davis and W. Charemza, 49–82. London: Chapman and Hall.