Command-administrative system- the system of managing the country's economy, in which the dominant role belongs to the distribution, command methods and power is concentrated in the central government, in the bureaucracy. The administrative-command system is characterized by centralized directive planning, enterprises act in accordance with the planned targets brought to them from the upper echelons of management. The administrative-command system is based on totalitarian regimes, it contradicts the democratic principles of governance, hinders the development of a free market, competition, and entrepreneurship.
Command-administrative control system- this is a centralized state administration, which forces all enterprises to fulfill planned directives (mandatory tasks) using orders and other non-economic methods. Mukhaev R. T. History of the state and municipal government. / R. T. Mukhaev - St. Petersburg, Unity-Dana, 2006 - 176 p.
In our country, the administrative management of the economy was established at the end of 1918, when the civil war and foreign intervention began. November 30, 1918 The Council of Workers' and Peasants' Defense was created, which became the main military-economic and planning center. The needs of defense demanded the centralization of government. Surplus appropriation was introduced (all surplus food was taken from the peasants). The industry did not produce goods for the population, and naturalization took place economic relations. General labor service was established. The leadership of industry was concentrated in their hands by the main departments of the All-Russian Council of the National Economy. They deprived the enterprises of any independence, supplied them in a directive manner material resources and sell finished products.
This means that the command-administrative system of management can be recognized - however paradoxical it may seem - as a normal form of economic regulation, suitable, however, only for extraordinary historical conditions, when social order some country and the lives of its citizens are under serious threat.
On the contrary, when the war ends, command management of the economy becomes unnecessary, becomes obsolete and, as a rule, is eliminated. Command methods do not meet the tasks of peaceful economic construction. Therefore, in our country at the beginning of 1921, the purely administrative system of government was abolished. However, in the late 1920s and early 1930s, the economy was completely nationalized again. All power actually passed to the central state apparatus, and the totalitarian system of command of the national economy was again established.
At the beginning of economic construction, super-centralized management gave a definite result. For the volume of output of all products was still very small, and the structure of industry was relatively simple. When production reached modern scales, it became impossible to effectively manage it from the center. If in the 1920s we had only two dozen industrial branches, then in the early 1990s there were more than 500 branches, sub-sectors and types of production, more than 45 thousand industries. large enterprises. The industry produced over 24 million types of products. Nasonov V. Ya. Administrative law Russian Federation. / V. Ya. Nasonov, V. A. Konshin, K. S. Petrov. -- St. Petersburg, Academy, 2003 - 108 p.
Is it possible to competently, with knowledge of the matter, solve from the center all the variety of specific problems connected with the development of such an economy? Of course not.
The central planning bodies were unable to capture all the national economic proportions. Approximately and simplistically, only the main tasks of the plan were linked with the available number of the most important and limited resources(for example, in the 80s, the State Planning Commission covered no more than 5% of all proportions in the economy). In more detail, the national plan was finalized mechanically - by applying standard standards based on past experience. As a rule, the task was set to increase production based on “what has been achieved”: starting not from real aggregate demand, but from that level economic indicators that ended the previous planning period.
The State Planning Committee limited itself to the development of one version of the state plan, not trying to find the most effective ones through multivariate calculations. economic decisions. After the plan was officially approved, it was repeatedly altered on the instructions of the governing bodies for objective and subjective reasons. Since a deficit economy was maintained in a planned manner, and the reserves normally necessary for reproduction (free production capacity, raw material, financial resources) were always absent, then the plan was a kind of redrawn "Trishkin's caftan" more than once.
Its final fine-tuning and correction were carried out in the course of the implementation of planned targets, which were prescribed to be carried out “at any cost”.
And then, obvious errors in the calculations and disproportions inherent in the plan itself were inevitably discovered.
That got too much a large number of iron ore, and there was not enough coke for smelting metal.
Or, few spare parts were produced to keep the machines installed in the new plant running. It is no coincidence that national economic plans - contrary to victorious official reports - very often were not carried out.
Nobel Prize winner V. Leontiev gave a realistic assessment of the main planning method used command system management: “As for the method economic planning in Russia, it is quite possible to characterize it by recalling the saying about the talking horse: what is surprising is not what it talks about, but that it can talk at all. Western economists have often tried to uncover the "principle" of the Soviet method of planning.
They never succeeded, because until now such a method does not exist at all.” Mukhaev R. T. History of state and municipal management. / R. T. Mukhaev - St. Petersburg, Unity-Dana, 2006 - 256 p.
For more than 50 years of existence, the command-administrative management system has undermined the foundations of the normal functioning of social production and, as a result, plunged our country into deep stagnation and an economic crisis.
It is possible to form a highly effective management mechanism if you master and use all the positive that has been developed by domestic and world practice in this area.
MODERN RUSSIA is undergoing a different process of moving away from a command-and-control system based on directive pricing and centralized allocation of resources to a market methods regulation - this is the fundamental difference between primitive accumulation in the old sense and the new. Combines their process of creating a class of entrepreneurs with a material basis in the form of private property.
In Russia, where for many years the economy was dominated by state monopoly in the form of a command-administrative system, demonopolization is carried out by disaggregating large enterprises and associations through their corporatization, privatization, and other measures that prevent the capture of the country's domestic market by a few producers of goods and services. Andrianov V. D. Bureaucracy, Corruption and Efficiency government controlled. History and modernity. / V. D. Andrianov. -- St. Petersburg, Wolters Kluver, 2011 - 78 p.
The administrative-command system (ACS) is one of the types of economy that exists in present stage human civilization, classified by economists according to certain essential features.
All types of economies modern world can be broadly classified into three main types:
1. Free market system, or free market economy.
An example of such an economy is the economy of England in the 19th century. In modern times, this type of economy as the economy of any single country no longer exists. However, the classical elements of such a system appear and operate in any modern industrialized country. The main principle of this type of economy is the principle of "Laissez faire" - freedom of choice, determined by the interaction of the forces of supply and demand in a competitive market.
2. Administrative-command system of the economy.
The essence of this system is the planned administrative regulation of the country's economy from a single center by bureaucrats (bureaucracy). An example of this type is the economy of totalitarian regimes, such as the former USSR. Journalists, politicians and writers also call it "planned economy", "economy of state socialism", " socialist economy", "communist economy", "administrative economy".
3. Economy of "mixed" type.
This type can be attributed to the economy of modern industrial developed countries. The essence of this economic system consists in a certain (in different countries to varying degrees) state intervention and its impact on market mechanism.
The economy of any modern country cannot be rigidly attributed to one or the other of the above types. To one degree or another, elements of each type are present in any economy with a predominance of leading elements in it, according to which it can be attributed to one or another type. A similar classification of the world's economies is used by economists to build econometric models for the development of the economy of a particular country for the subsequent development of forecasts of its trends.
Another type of delimitation of economic systems is forms of coordination. Since any social system is made up of relationships between people and organizations, any system can be represented through some form of coordination. J. Kornai distinguishes four forms of coordination:
1. Bureaucratic coordination.
Her characteristic features:
a) vertical relationships from the manager to the executor prevail;
b) there is a multi-level hierarchy;
c) there is a strict regulation of relationships;
d) exchange, transactions are not necessarily of a monetary nature; but if they are of a monetary nature, then the persons or organizations that commit them are financially dependent on a higher authority.
2. Market coordination
Her characteristic features:
a) there are horizontal links between legally equal persons and organizations;
b) the main motive for behavior in such a system is profit;
c) transactions are made only in cash.
3. Ethical coordination
Her characteristic features:
a) there are horizontal links between equal persons or organizations;
b) behavior is determined not by administrative coercion and not by making a profit, but by the expectation of mutual assistance;
c) the underlying principles of behavior are elevated to moral standards and are sufficiently durable if they are deposited in customs and traditions.
4. Aggressive coordination.
Her characteristic features:
a) vertical connections of subordination of the weak to the stronger;
b) the result is achieved with the help of a force that is not recognized by law or morality;
c) transactions are made both in monetary and non-monetary form.
The administrative-command system of the economy uses mainly two types of coordination: bureaucratic and aggressive; both tend to produce scarcity and unlimited demand. Departments in such a system try to imitate the market. But such an imitation differs from the market in its main feature: the dependence of the consumer on the department, and not the seller on the buyer, on the relationship between supply and demand, as it manifests itself in a competitive market.
The more often and more irrelevant the bureaucracy, government bodies intervene in market relations, the weaker they become. And this forces the authorities to intervene even more intensively in the economy to regulate it, and thus the market will atrophy.
The "mixed" market system of the economy mainly uses market and bureaucratic coordination.
Bureaucracy cannot be eradicated completely, because in any type of economy, some administrative intervention is required to resolve the negative consequences of the operation of any economic mechanism. And the main problem is not to completely destroy the bureaucracy, but to limit its operation to such an extent that it does not interfere with the development of market coordination.
Any social system, including economic, has its own mechanisms of functioning, development, which reproduce it as a relatively independent system, self-regulating, and do not allow it to perish. In this sense, every system is conservative. The structure of the economic system, as already established, offers stable relationships between its elements, between part and whole. And if an element is missing, the system works it out from the social material available in the given country and adapts this material to itself. And the stability, optimality, stability of the system depends on what type of coordination dominates in it.
In any economy at different times, for its positive dynamics, it was important to involve direct producers in this process with a positive result. The positive result of the participation of individuals in economic processes is quantitatively expressed in the growth of labor productivity. But the active involvement of the working population in this process is, in general, the prerogative of the state. Whichever mechanism the state uses, this will be the result.
The activation of the individual in the economic processes of society does not occur by itself, automatically. It is impossible without tangible changes in economic methods, national management, aimed at creating conditions for the implementation of the urgent needs of individuals.
In the domestic economic literature, the following are distinguished as the main mechanisms influencing the "motivation of labor":
1. Pay. The essence of this mechanism or leverage is quite simple - "let's pay the employee well, and he will work well." However, as both domestic and foreign experience shows, this mechanism more or less fulfills its intended role if three conditions are met: a) the salary is large enough to provide the employee with decent living conditions, ) it becomes a means for acquiring any goods and services necessary for life, and not signs for scarcity. Because in domestic economy, especially in its Soviet period, all these three conditions were not provided, insofar as this mechanism, stimulating labor, worked poorly, or did not even work at all.
2. Use for stimulation not money, but various material and social benefits. Its essence is also quite simple - "if you work hard, we'll give you an apartment, a ticket to a sanatorium, a voucher for a refrigerator", etc. This mechanism is applicable only in a deficit economy and works even worse than the first one. For the deficit is what it is, that the products are quickly running out, and there is not enough of them even for well-working workers, not to mention everyone else.
3. The so-called "paternalism", or "concern for people", the concern of directors for the employees of their enterprises. Although most directors understand the value of such a mechanism, few really use it; in the same place where it is used, after the departure of such a director, the team, as a rule, "fails".
4. Creation of conditions in the workplace for attractive, meaningful work. It is focused primarily on talented workers who would like to realize their personal potential in work. And if in production more than half of all activity is routine, strictly regulated work, then this mechanism does not work.
5. Make workers the real owners of production. But this basic mechanism can operate only under conditions of private ownership of the means of production; it does not work in state production.
As we can see, the so-called "work motivation" is an amorphous term; it does not reflect essential connections. Economic interest is directly realized in income and in business benefits, i.e. it is directly related to the economic realization of property. Translated from Latin, real interest means income arising from money, or, in other words, the entrepreneurial right to some profit (beneficio que sesaca del dinero: interes legal. Derecho eventual a alguna ganancia: tener intereses en una empresa). "Work motivation" is certainly related to "interest", but is more economically neutral or inert, or, in other words, it is less economic phenomenon. It may be not so much an economic as a psychological, subjective phenomenon.
In itself, the "motivation of labor" is provided or realized through the provision or realization of interest. By itself, without "interest", it "hangs in the air." And the provision or realization of interest is affected by economic freedom, by which we mean the freedom to make an economic decision, the freedom of economic action. But it is necessarily directly related to the ownership of any factor of production. In diagrammatic form, these relationships can be depicted as follows. Fig.1. Interest and its relationships
In this diagram, continuous lines show the direct influence (as the root cause) of one or another argument on the corresponding function. Dotted lines show indirect (indirect) influence.
So, we see that the activation of the human factor in economic processes objectively depends on one or another economic mechanism that is used in a given state at a given time. An example of the economic mechanism of the administrative-command system shows that the management of the domestic economy lagged behind the requirements economic development. The economic mechanism of the administrative-command system, of course, prevents the manifestation of the economic activity of individuals and entire collectives. This was evident at least in the example of the "introduction" of the so-called cost accounting in the conditions of the Soviet economy. The state administration tried to introduce it from 1965 until the period of "perestroika", but nothing happened. The system rejected even such a form, loyal to itself, as self-financing.
Any social system has its own mechanisms of functioning, development, which reproduce it as a relatively independent system. And in this sense it is conservative. The structure of the economic system as already established also implies stable relationships between its elements, between the part and the whole. And if any element is missing, the system produces it from the material available in it. But it does not only create the elements it lacks from social material. It gets rid of, rejects from itself those of them that impede its preservation, its stability. In the administrative-command system of the economy, in which the structure is provided not by the interconnections and interdependence of all elements, but by the one-way connection of the control center with all other elements, in such a system "self-supporting", rent, cooperative, and even more so independent private initiative (entrepreneurship) are elements alien to the system and it rejects them. Let's try to substantiate this with factual material.
In the media, as well as in special economic literature, there was enough evidence that the administrative-command system, in principle, does not accept intensive development paths. Extensive management methods, even according to very cautious estimates, lead to a decrease in the production activity of workers. They also mean, in fact, an increase in the cost of accumulating in the national income and therefore also an increase in the compensation fund on a macroeconomic scale. According to an investment specialist, the increase in accumulation does not accelerate the growth rate of production. "It is generally accepted that the increase specific gravity accumulation in the national income accelerates the growth rate of production. However, this dependence is only valid for a limited time. The increase in the share of accumulation occurs due to a decrease in the share of consumption, which affects labor productivity and, accordingly, the rate of production growth, and the more sharply, the stronger the relative growth of accumulation. As a result, the increase in production is slowing down." This is confirmed by statistical data for the previous decades. Thus, over the three five-year periods preceding the "perestroika" period, accumulation in the Soviet economy amounted to: in 1970 - 84.2 billion rubles; in 1980 - 108 ,6 in 1985 - 150.3 billion rubles The average annual number of workers, employees and collective farmers was respectively: 106.8 million people, 125.6 and 130.3 million people. outpaced at least twice the growth rate of the population employed in social production.In this case, the growth rate of production could increase or at least remain at the same level, provided that the insufficient growth rate of the population employed in new production would be compensated by an increase in labor productivity to the same extent as accumulation increased, but in reality this did not occur.
Separating the "accumulation" and methods of intensive use of resources, which the national management tried to "introduce" into the economic mechanism of the system, economic policy the leadership of the country only trailed behind the vicious practice of the ministries. This practice consisted in the direction of material, financial and labor resources in industries, mainly for the expansion of production areas, technical equipment, construction of new production buildings, etc., i.e. to increase and create new means of production without a corresponding expansion of the social and household sphere of workers. In connection with such a vicious practice, "accumulation" itself was erroneously narrowed down to purely "productive" purposes.
In absolute figures, this economic policy was expressed as follows. “So, in 1918-1940, 17.7 billion rubles of capital investments were directed to the development of industries of group A of industry, and 3.8 billion rubles of investments to group B, the ratio of investments in both complexes was 4, 5: 1. After 20 years, in the eighth five-year plan, the amount of investment in groups "A" and "B" of industry was equal to 118.8 billion and 20.9 billion rubles, respectively, that is, the ratio was already almost 6: 1, and in 1981-1985 - 264.4 billion and 36.3 billion rubles - more than 7:1 ".
The dynamics clearly show that the economic policy of the country's leadership, with all the fluctuations and changes in its course, its main, priority goal was production itself, production for the sake of production, and in no way meeting the needs of the population, as Soviet propaganda constantly repeated. The increase in production volumes in the first division was self-sustaining. The rulers in this system seemed to compete with the economic regularity of the predominant growth in the production of the Ιth division in comparison with the production of the life support environment for the population: they forcibly carried out measures aimed at constantly artificially outpacing the Ιth division.
Russian critic-publicist M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, back in the century before last, gave a figurative description of the administrative rage of the domestic authorities, which retains its significance in relation to the authorities throughout the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century. "It never seems to any administrator who clearly understands the benefits of the measure being taken that this benefit could be obscure or doubtful for anyone." In addition, "every administrator seeks to be trusted, and which the best way to express this trust, if not the unquestioning fulfillment of what you do not understand?
Be that as it may, but the subservient domestic population always learned about the higher plans of the authorities, only after the end of the corresponding campaigns for their implementation. But our situation still differs for the better from the state of the population of the city of Glupov. At least by the fact that our bosses not only know how to scribble with the people so that their name becomes popular, but they also carry out all sorts of events in accordance with science. For the science of "political economy" said: in order to produce enough essential products for the population, it is necessary to produce more machine tools, machines, tractors, coal, steel, etc. In "political economy" this is called the law of outpacing the growth of the production of means of production in comparison with the production of consumer goods. And therefore, throughout the history of the Soviet economy, domestic leaders carefully observed this pattern, and sometimes even successfully overfulfilled it. Of course, if you obediently follow this trend, then the population will become poor. But what does it matter to our superiors if a great historical goal constantly looms before their eyes, the mission of fulfilling which they have placed on their shoulders. And the results exceeded expectations - at the beginning of "perestroika" we had the most coal, steel, rolled products, tanks, blast furnaces, cast iron, etc. in the world. But it was not clear how to turn all this into food, clothing, housing.
But in this matter, the leaders did not save. They constantly opened our eyes to the key positions of scientific and technological progress (STP), which are migrating from chemistry, nuclear energy and mechanical engineering to the agro-industrial complex. And therefore "centrally planned" investments were directed, first of all, to these migrating "key positions" of scientific and technological progress. And in this matter they found understanding among the people's choices. And indeed, how can you produce sausage in abundance on technological equipment that has become unusable? But the population still had doubts about how they were going to produce the same sausage in abundance on new lines bought for foreign currency, if these lines were serviced by workers who did not know how to approach them. Our bosses also prepared an answer to such doubts of the population: new state investments are needed in the next industrial complex. There remained one problem, and even that concerned only ideologists, to explain to the dull population: what is the difference between “production for the sake of production”, which they constantly accused the capitalist system of, and Soviet “production for the production of iron, steel, rolled products, and etc.".
But let's leave the irony aside. Let's try to understand the logic of public investment in the "key industries" of scientific and technical progress. In an economic system in which there is a free exchange of results of activity and the activity itself, the growth of labor productivity in any one "leading" branch of scientific and technical progress necessarily causes the same growth in all other sectors, including those that produce the means of subsistence. for the population. And therefore, indeed, it is necessary to develop "key industries". But, unfortunately, in the administrative-command system of the economy, this is an impossible phenomenon. Could productivity growth in, say, the space technology industry lead to equally high productivity growth in, say, household appliances? It turns out that this is not possible in this system.
The economic mechanism of this system does not allow this. The mechanism of economic management here is such that inventions, discoveries, technological innovations, rationalization proposals had to be "introduced" into production, i.e. try by force methods with an order from above to artificially integrate them into the economic system, which naturally does not accept them. In this system, it was economically profitable for enterprises not to seek and apply innovations in their production, as firms are forced to do in a market economy in order to survive in the competition, but, on the contrary, it was profitable not to introduce anything new. "... In the machine-building complex..., where, first of all, the world level should be ensured, the number of objects of new technology based on inventions is still less than half...". There is a "decrease in the average annual rate of inventions introduced in the country for the first time in engineering, fuel and energy, building complexes. The term of use of inventions is on average 7-9 years. The vast majority (90%) of inventions are introduced only at one enterprise ". This was the case in almost all sectors of the Soviet economy, separated by departmental barriers. Evidence from the period of "perestroika", when censorship was partially removed from publications about the real facts of the existence of the system, provide a lot of examples irrationality and even absurdity of the existing economic mechanism.Suffice it to give just a few examples to confirm it.Thus, the progressive method of steel casting discovered by domestic scientists was not used in practice, as a result of which the economy lost as much energy in ferrous metallurgy as it was not produced by all of the country's nuclear power plants. Or another example: in the Soviet economy, millions of rubles were annually "thrown to the wind" during the exploration and development of new oil fields only because the relevant departments were unprofitable for a new biotechnical method discovered in the country to increase the return of oil fields. ny . Finally, one more example. Raw silk was not received in the country only because, again, the departments prevented the spread of a new method for processing silk cocoons, also discovered by domestic scientists. And such examples can be cited in many.
On the one hand, under the existing economic order, it was unprofitable for state enterprises to "mess about" with inventions, rationalization, since the demand from the management of enterprises was for the figures of "production targets", and they could change in one direction or another due to the introduction of any innovation. On the other hand, the relevant state economic management bodies influenced this process in such a way that it was economically unprofitable for inventors to invent something new. And inventors who were too obsessed with a new idea were persecuted right up to prison bars.
State economic mechanism does not accept anything new in any of the areas economic activity, since such an initiative of state enterprises washes away the monopoly of commanding production from ministries and departments. Any economic changes, innovations in this system lead to the loss of economic power on the part of the state apparatus. The interest of ministries, departments in state economy does not coincide with the interests of development, growth national economy, and therefore the former hinder such development in every possible way, as evidenced by numerous facts.
So, in this economic system, the real owners of the means of national production are state committees, ministries, departments, etc. administrative structures. This real property gives any official, administrator the power and control of economic processes, without, however, enclosing any economic responsibility for his management. This is the main essence of the mechanism of management in a nationalized economy.
Under and under economic management government department in this system is a huge variety of various enterprises scattered throughout the country. Usually, any national or transnational corporation does not manage the enterprises included in it, but only controls the situation in production, marketing, prices, and finances. But in the administrative-command system of the economy, by virtue of its very essence, the ministries and departments were engaged in the management of enterprises subordinate to them. For such management, appropriate levers were needed in the form of various standards and sanctions for their violation. But since the limits of an encyclopedic scientific article are limited, for more details on these existing standards, see the monograph (14).
In that economic mechanism government administration sought to compensate low level real income, low level of compensation of the labor force, largely due to the insufficient quantity and quality of means of subsistence, consumer products, wage increases certain categories workers. And this last state was caused, as its root cause, by the main principle of the management of this system, the essence of which was not to satisfy the needs of the population, but to realize the ephemeral illusions of the state leadership: by all means surpass the leading economies in production steel, coal, cast iron, rolled products, etc.
What were the reasons for the deplorable state of affairs in the domestic economy of the Soviet period? It seems to us that the dogmas of domestic social science played an important role in this, on the basis of which the corresponding recommendations were formulated. economic practice. A huge proportion of all the recommendations of economists and their implementation in the practice of management were based on the so-called "Marxist-Leninist" postulate, but, in fact, on the postulate of Soviet political economists about the main and only basis economic processes- Ownership of the means of production.
Literature:
1. Kornai J. Bureaucracy and the market / Issues of Economics. 1989, N12.
2. See: National economy USSR for 70 years. M., 1987, p.139.
3. Khachaturov T. Perestroika in the sphere capital investments// Questions of Economics, 1988. N 1, p. eight.
4. The national economy of the USSR for 70 years. Anniversary stat. collection. M., 1987, p. 411, 430.
5. See ibid.: p. 51. See also: Dobrynin A.I., Ivanov V.A., Kolesnikov V.V. The national economy of the USSR in the twelfth five-year plan. L., 1987, p. 4.5.
6. Loginov V. Causes of the crisis of the Soviet economy: reproduction aspect // Questions of Economics, 1992. NN 4-6, p. 6-7.
7. Saltykov-Shchedrin M.E. History of one city. M., 1934, p. 119-120.
8. Tyurin E.I. Consciousness of responsibility for perestroika // Inventor and innovator, 1988. N 7, p. four.
9. Solntsev V., Nesterov A. Strange situation // Pravda, 1989. Feb. 17; Kulikov Ya. We are such masters ... // Arguments and Facts, 1989. N 51.
10. Shumilin B. Waiting for permission // Inventor and innovator, 1986. N 11, p. eleven.
11. Tyurin N. Secrets of the dollhouse // Inventor and innovator, 1988. N 2, p. ten.
12. Kushner G. Dangerous because he is not guilty // Inventor and innovator, 1990. N 2, p. ten; Kaplun I. Once again about the persistence of Mazanov // Literary newspaper, 1989. November 8, N 45, p. 13; Kaplun I. Games in the case of Mazanov. For the third time about the same // Literary newspaper, 1990. May 23, N 21, p. 12; Smirnov V. Vicious circle // Inventor and innovator, 1990. N 1, p. eighteen.
13. Kadyshev G. Contribution and salary. Nobody should get paid just for going to work // Pravda, 1988. Dec. 20; "Numbers for reflection. Currency in stock" // Literary newspaper, 1989. Oct. 25, N 43, p. 2; Gaidar E. Difficult choice. Economic review following the results of 1989 // Kommunist, 1990. N 2, p. 30-31; Zalygin S., Kazannik A., Tikhonov V., Yablokov A., Yanshin A. Letter to the Editor. Water in the networks of the Ministry of Water Resources // Izvestia, 1990. February 7; Reznichenko G. And a glass pure water not added... // New world, 1990. N 1, p. 202; Amiridze S., Samokhin A. Ecological disaster zone // Arguments and Facts, 1989. N 51, p.4; Returning to water problems... // Kommunist, 1988. N 13, p. 59; About simple truths // Literary newspaper, 1989. Feb. 15; Kon Yu. Unsinkable Minvodkhoz // Arguments and Facts, 1990. N 28, p. 3; Protsenko A. The system on guard of the deficit. What is behind the "tobacco riots"? // Izvestia, 1990. 14 September.
14. Feoktistov A.G. Theoretical aspects forecasting economic reality. / A.G. Feoktistov. - St. Petersburg: SZTU, 2005.
During the period under review, the formation of a totalitarian regime and an administrative-command control system was completed, which ensured the solution of the utopian task of building socialism in as soon as possible. The characteristic features of the Soviet state model were: the autocracy of the CPSU (b) as the ruling party and the obligatory nature of the communist ideology, the regime of personal power of I.V. Stalin and the personality cult of the leader, the substitution of party bodies for state bodies, the complete nationalization of the economy, command and repressive methods of management, the widespread use of state coercion and extrajudicial repression.
Formally, the supreme power belonged to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, however, contrary to the Constitution and other legislative acts, real power was concentrated in the party apparatus. The highest bodies of the CPSU (b) - the Politburo, the Orgburo and the Secretariat of the Central Committee considered at their meetings not only the most important political problems, but also all the current issues of governing the country. Party decisions actually acquired the character of normative acts and were perceived by state bodies as binding. Party instances formed the personal composition of the authorities and administration. For this, the so-called nomenklatura lists were used - lists of various positions that were filled solely on the recommendation of party bodies. For the Soviet nomenklatura - party workers and officials of various management levels - special norms for food supply, housing, and wages were established.
In the late 20s - 30s. In the CPSU(b), inner-party democracy is curtailed, and leaders opposed to Stalin are consistently eliminated (up to and including physical liquidation on the basis of trumped-up court cases). At the same time, all the most important government posts are occupied by supporters and nominees of Stalin.
There is a strict centralization of the management process in all spheres of society, and first of all in the economy. The administrative apparatus began to be built according to the sectoral principle, which led to the creation of additional management units (new people's commissariats, main departments), and an increase in the number of officials.
Centralization of management and planned economy led to restructuring credit system. In 1927, private credit organizations were banned, and in 1930, the commercial lending system. Loans began to be issued for their intended purpose exclusively by the State Bank. All settlements between enterprises were carried out only through the offices of the State Bank.
Law enforcement agencies are being reorganized. The functions of the militia are expanding, its numerical strength is growing. In 1933, the USSR Prosecutor's Office was formed, which supervised the compliance of all decisions of central and local authorities and administration with the provisions of the Constitution, the correct and uniform application of laws by judicial institutions, the legality of the actions of the police, the OGPU, and also supported charges in court. In 1934, the All-Union People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs (NKVD) was created, which included the former OGPU, the Main Police Department, the Main Directorate of Corrective Labor Camps (GULAG). The organizational structures of the People's Commissariat have become the main instrument of political repression in the USSR.
Administrative coercion has become one of the main methods of "socialist construction". This manifested itself with particular force in the agricultural sector of the economy. In the early 30s. continuous collectivization is carried out (forcible association of peasants into collective farms - collective farms), the dispossession of the strongest peasant farms, the physical liquidation and expulsion of unreliable peasants to special settlements in the east of the country. Rigid administration was also used to completely oust private enterprises from industry and trade. As a result, the XVII Congress of the CPSU (b) in 1934 announced the victory of socialism in the USSR.
ADMINISTRATIVE-COMMAND SYSTEM
the system of managing the country's economy, in which the dominant role belongs to the distribution, command methods and power is concentrated in the central government, in the bureaucracy. The administrative-command system is characterized by centralized directive planning, enterprises act in accordance with the planned targets brought to them from the upper echelons of management. The administrative-command system is based on totalitarian regimes, it contradicts the democratic principles of governance, hinders the development of a free market, competition, and entrepreneurship.
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
The role of management methods in the enterprise. Principles of choice of management methods. The role of the manager in terms of administrative methods of management. Administrative management at the enterprise "Belaruskali" and its shortcomings, prospects for improvement.
term paper, added 03/08/2011
The study of the prerequisites for the creation, research representatives, structure and main provisions of the administrative school of management. Analysis of the content of the main concepts of the theory of administration and determination of their role, significance and relevance in modern conditions.
term paper, added 09/29/2011
Development and formation of the views of representatives of the administrative school and the school of scientific management on issues related to production management, their similarities and differences. Achievements in the development of management science used in modern management.
term paper, added 04/17/2011
Theoretical aspects of firm management in market conditions. Analysis of company management. Modern tendencies of firm management in the conditions of the market. Ways to improve the management of the company in market conditions. State regulation.
term paper, added 09/20/2006
The concept of organizational structure, types, types and principles of their construction. Forms of management: extensive (command-administrative) and intensive (market), their manifestations in management activities. Modern trends and construction tools.
term paper, added 03/25/2009
Disadvantages of domestic risk management. Application of a command-and-expert approach to risk assessment in logistics systems. The need for differentiation of processes between the links of the logistics chain. The main reasons for the occurrence of risks.
test, added 08/06/2013
Management activity acts in modern conditions as the most important factor functioning and development of organizations. Analysis of the dynamics of technical and economic indicators and elements of the control system. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the management system.
term paper, added 12/20/2010
This system dominated earlier in the USSR and countries of Eastern Europe, and a number
Asian states.
Its characteristic features are public (and in reality -
state) ownership of virtually all economic resources,
monopolization and bureaucratization of the economy in specific forms,
centralized economic planning as the basis of economic
mechanism.
The economic mechanism of the command-administrative system has a number of
features. He suggests:
1. direct management of all enterprises from a single center - higher
echelons of state power, which negates the independence
business entities;
2. the state has full control over production and distribution
products, as a result of which free market relationships between
individual farms;
3. the state apparatus directs economic activity with the help,
predominantly administrative and administrative methods, which undermines
material interest in the results of labor.
The complete nationalization of the economy is causing unprecedented in its scale
monopolization of production and marketing of products. giant monopolies,
established in all areas of the national economy and supported
ministries and departments, in the absence of competition, do not care about
introduction of new equipment and technology. For generated by monopoly
deficit economy is characterized by the absence of normal material and human
reserves in case of an imbalance in the economy.
In countries with a command-administrative system, the solution of general economic
tasks had their own specific features. In accordance with the prevailing
ideological guidelines the task of determining the volume and structure of products
was considered too serious and responsible to convey her decision to
direct producers - industrial enterprises, state farms and
collective farms.
Centralized distribution of material goods, labor and financial
resources was carried out without the participation of direct producers and
consumers, in accordance with pre-selected goals and criteria, on
basis of central planning.
A significant part of the resources in accordance with the prevailing ideological
installations were directed to the development of the military-industrial complex.
The distribution of created products between production participants is strictly
regulated by the central authorities through the universally applied
tariff system and through centrally approved standards
funds to the fund wages. This led to the predominance of egalitarian
payroll approach
A distinctive feature of the distribution of products in the command
administrative system was the privileged position of the party-
state elite.
The traditional and command-administrative systems were replaced by market
This system is based on:
1) the right of private property;
2) private economic initiative;
3) market organization of the distribution of the limited resources of society.
The right to private property is a recognized and legally protected right
an individual to own, use and dispose of a certain type of
and the amount of limited resources (for example, a piece of land, a deposit
coal or factory), and therefore, to receive income from this.
At first, the right to private property was protected only by force of arms, and
only kings and feudal lords were the owners. But then after a long way
wars and revolutions, humanity has created a civilization in which to become a private
every citizen could become an owner if his income allowed him to acquire
own.
Private economic initiative is the right of every owner
production resources independently decide how and to what extent
use them to generate income. At the same time, the well-being of everyone
is determined by how successfully he can sell on the market a resource that
owns: its labor force, skills, hand-made products,
own land, the products of one's own factory, or the skill
organize business transactions. The one who will offer buyers
the best product and on more favorable terms, is the winner in
struggle for the money of buyers and opens the way to the growth of wealth.
And, finally, the actual markets, that is, organized in a certain way
goods exchange activities.
The market system has its advantages and disadvantages.
Advantages:
1. A competitive market system directs resources into the production of those
goods and services that society needs most.
2. Dictates the use of the most efficient methods of combining resources
for production.
3. Promotes the development and implementation of new, more efficient technologies
production.
4. Relies on the role of personal freedom, i.e. the market system coordinates
economic activity without coercion, provides freedom
entrepreneurship and choice.
Flaws:
1. The extinction of competition. Critics believe that there are two main
source of weakening competition:
à criticism most of all annoys the individual producer of his
ruthless reality;
à the technological progress itself, which the market system encourages,
contributes to the decline of competition.
As a result, as competition weakens, sovereignty is also undermined.
consumer, the market system loses its ability to allocate resources in
in exact accordance with the desires of consumers.
2. Unequal distribution of income.
