The socio-economic system is a phenomenon of the life of society, which determines the “coordinate system” in which it carries out its life activities. Based on I. Kant’s slightly adjusted understanding of the system, we can define it as a unity of diverse elements united by a common quality that constitutes this system and determines the position of the system elements relative to each other. This quality forms totality - “many considered as unity.” The indispensable existence of connections between the elements of the system regarding socio-economic development is also emphasized (they - these connections - provide the opportunity to combine the parts-elements into a single whole).

So, a socio-economic system is an integral set of interconnected and interacting social and economic institutions (subjects) and relations regarding the distribution and consumption of material and non-material material resources, production, distribution, exchange and consumption of goods and services. Socially economic development is a normal and natural process in the existence of any society.

The socio-economic system, as well as socio-economic development, as well as any other, are characterized by systemic qualities. Among them, one can note a special economic relationship, which binds all the others with a unity of origin, from which more and more complex relationships then develop. It represents the simplest way for given conditions to distribute resources and maintain proportions.

In connection with the above decoding of the concept “ economic relations» it would be appropriate to apply the definition given by E. Ilyenkov regarding economic system. By it he means “a set of economic forms connected into a single system that developed from a single foundation” and constituting “the specific nature of an economic organism.”

The socio-economic system, and socio-economic development, is inevitably localized in economic time and space, as well as in relation to its alternative options. It has certain historical, geographical, ethnic, spiritual, political and economic boundaries. This, in turn, means that it can be embodied in specific state-political entities or in the form of other, smaller-scale, social and economic organizations. As the effect of globalization intensifies, it is legitimate to consider all of humanity as a socio-economic system. This determines the historicity of the study: any system being studied, on the one hand, is inevitably historically conditioned, and, on the other, all categories and laws of this system are historically conditioned.

Not all features of a given system arise simultaneously, including socio-economic development, but the simplest social and economic forms, and based on them - more and more complex. N. Hessin defines this simplest form as an “economic cell” containing “in embryo all the main features and contradictions this method production." From it the entire diverse system of production relations subsequently develops. It, according to him, plays the role of both a starting point (as well as a basis), and a constantly reproduced result, a consequence of the development of a given system of relations, and universal form relationships between individuals.

Regional Policy (RP) - important component economic policy of the state. Regional policy of the state - this is the field of activity for managing the economic, social and political development of the country in a spatial, regional aspect, that is, associated with the relationship between the state and the regions, as well as the regions among themselves. Regional policy covers the following main areas:

· Economic policy, aimed at mitigating regional economic imbalances.

· Social politics, aimed at smoothing out regional differentiation in living standards, as well as a general improvement in the quality of the social environment.

· Population policy, which involves state regulation of the natural and mechanical movement of the population.

· Ekistic (settlement)) policy aimed at increasing the efficiency of using the territorial resources of a particular region through the optimal placement of production, communications and places of settlement, taking into account natural, economic, architectural, construction and engineering factors.

· Environmental policy, which involves preventing deterioration and improving ecological situation in the region.

· Science and technology policy, aimed at regulating the relationships between placements scientific centers And productive forces, regional movements scientific personnel etc.

Development region– a multidimensional and multidimensional process, which is usually considered from the point of view of a set of various social and economic goals. Even we're talking about only about economic development, it is usually considered together with social development. Socio-economic developmentincludes the following. composite:

· growth in production and income and, as a result, an increase in the well-being of the population;

· changes in institutional, social and administrative structures society;

· changes in public consciousness;

· changes in traditions and habits;

· improving the health of the population and increasing the level of its education;

· creation of conditions conducive to the growth of people’s self-esteem as a result of the formation of social, political, economic and institutional systems focused on respect human dignity;

· increasing the degree of freedom of people.

Directly to social parameters development include: degree public consent regarding basic values ​​and property rights, religion and the institutional foundations of society. As goals sir region are used: Increasing income, improving education, nutrition and healthcare, etc.

When planning sir regions are distinguished: long term goals - the formation and development of a post-industrial society, the creation of highly qualified jobs for future generations, increasing the standard of living of all citizens of the country, including the level of health care, education and culture. Short term goals we can consider overcoming the crisis and achieving specific growth rates in the gross national product in next year, quarter, month, etc. The main goal of social-economic. regional development is an improvement quality of life population.

Among the tactical goals for the development of a region (city) are:: attracting new types of business; expansion of existing business, development of small business, city center, service sector, increasing the level of employment of the region's population, attracting funds from us. into life support and life infrastructure

Indicators and criteria of social and economic. development of the region: 1) HDI. The UN, as a result of research into the “man-nature-society” system, has developed an indicator of the development of the world community - a measurement system that allows assessing the degree of progress of individual countries towards the realization of the main human values, which include longevity, access to knowledge and means of subsistence.

The mechanism for calculating the HDI comes down to constructing a composite indicator for certain period time by values: life expectancy, specific gravity literacy in the entire adult population, the proportion of students in primary, secondary and higher educational institutions, welfare measured as GDP per capita.

2) Universal indicator of the degree of development of the region, it determines the degree of development of the region from 0 to 1. To calculate it, the following indicators are used: value per capita income taking into account purchasing power; life expectancy; intellectual potential;

3) Particular indicators of the level of development of the region: 1. level of education; 2. life expectancy; 3. level of physical health; 4. national income per capita; 5. individual consumption level material goods; 6. degree of differentiation of income of the population; 7. degree of happiness of the population. When managing social and economic development of a particular region, it is necessary to monitor such parameters as: the level of quality of schools, other educational institutions and their availability. Supply of food products, control over their quality, respect for consumer rights in the retail market are also parameters for assessing the level of regional development.

32. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT Region is an integral system with its own structure, functions, connections with external environment, history, culture, living conditions of the population, which are characterized by:

· high dimension;

· a large number of interconnected subsystems various types for local purposes;

· multi-circuit control;

· the importance of coordinating influences when increasing the dynamism of elements;

· hierarchical structure.

How is the socio-economic system of the region can be presented as a set 5 subsystems : system-forming base, service complex, ecology, population and market infrastructure. The basis of all subsystems is man.

Socio-economic development includes:

· Growth in production and income;

· Changes in public consciousness;

· Changes in traditional habits.

Directly to social parameters relate:

1) The degree of general agreement on core values;

2) Property rights;

3) Religion and institutional foundations of society.

Assessment of social and economic development usually relies on social values ​​shared by the population:

1. welfare and its growth; 2. social equality; 3. universal education; 4. national independence; 5. democracy; 6. right to private property; 7. preservation of the traditions of social institutions.

Considering the strategic goal - improving the quality of life of the population of the Russian Federation - social-economic process development should include:

1. Increasing income, improving education;

2. Creation of conditions conducive to the growth of human dignity, as a result of which social, political, economic, and institutionalization systems that are human-oriented are formed.

3. Increasing the degree of freedom of people.

Conditions for the development of the region include:

1) Creation of economic, social, cultural, political, conditions necessary for the implementation of rapid, structural and investment transformation of the region.

2) Dissemination of the results of scientific and technical progress to a wider population.

3) Coordination of environmental processes and their transformation.

In the new conditions of social development, taking into account the specifics of the development of the Russian region, it is necessary to take into account factors for increasing the efficiency of economic development:

1. Creation of economy, culture;

2. New rethinking of regional policy (population);

3. Structural policy (implies a regional management system);

4. Attracting foreign and domestic capital.

5. Restructuring of enterprises.

6. Education positive attitude personnel of enterprises and organizations.

7. Increasing the ability to generate and perceive innovations.

The concept of socio-economic development projects and programs should be based on the following provisions:

1. Personal development is seen as a goal and as driving force social development.

2. Society, state, market infrastructure and other structures must be reoriented to create necessary conditions a decent life and quality of life.

3. The rights and responsibilities of every citizen arise from the universal declaration.

No country had such losses during the Second World War as the Soviet Union and its component - Russia. The war claimed 27 million. Soviet people, part of them - civilian population, who died in Hitler's death camps as a result of fascist repressions, disease, and hunger. These losses accounted for approximately 40% of all casualties in World War II. More than 1 million soldiers of the Soviet Armed Forces gave their lives during the liberation of the peoples of Europe and Asia from fascism. The Nazis turned 1,710 cities and towns and over 70 thousand villages into ruins. 30% were destroyed national wealth Soviet Union.

In general, the losses of the Soviet Union and its peoples, including Russia, are estimated at 2.569 billion rubles. (in comparable prices).

The process of restoration and development of industry, transport, and other sectors took place at the cost of extreme tension and concentration of limited resources. As a result, the pre-war level of industrial production was reached by 1950.

The matter was significantly complicated by the fact that the grain harvest - the main food crop for 1949-1953. averaged only 81 million tons. Meat production barely exceeded the levels of pre-revolutionary years, and grain resources per capita were significantly less. The trade in bread in many cities and industrial centers was intermittent. The protracted solution to the grain problem affected the well-being of millions of people and hampered the development of industry. Was created real threat emergence of acute social problems.

Already in the first half of the 50s. the Soviet economy, just rising after a devastating war, was faced with complex problems: feeding and clothing people, raising culture and science, implementing extensive structural changes in technology, organization and management of production, strengthening the country's defense through newest types weapons.

There were not sufficient financial and material resources to simultaneously solve all these problems. Looking for a way out of this situation special meaning had correct definition the main link in the chain of tasks and corresponding priorities.

Got extremely sharp food problem. The program for the development of virgin lands, among others, was aimed at solving this problem. At the same time, a number of measures were implemented to redistribute national income in favor of the countryside. Among them is change tax system and an increase in purchasing and procurement prices. The preconditions were created for the growth of the peasants' welfare, which in turn increased their interest in increasing field yields and livestock productivity. As a result commercial products Agriculture in 1960 it increased by 60% compared to 1953.

The rise of agriculture was an important prerequisite for expanding the production of consumer goods. In 1953-1955. The Soviet leadership took measures to update and develop light and local industries, additional production and improve the quality of goods for the population. Heavy and heavy industry enterprises were involved in the implementation of this task. defense industry, which was especially important for expanding production of relatively complex and scarce products for that time household goods: radios, clocks, sewing machines, bicycles. The development of mass production of refrigerators, tape recorders, and televisions began. All this served as a material basis for improving the standard of living of the population.

Development of the Soviet economy during the 50s. characterized by dynamism, which in turn was ensured by high growth rates capital investments and a faster pace of commissioning of fixed assets. This was due to the fact that a significant part of the savings was spent on restoring objects destroyed by the war, and it is still easier to restore than to build anew.

It is also important to note that the entire increase in agricultural production, including the harvest on virgin lands, was obtained due to an increase in labor productivity. In industry, more than half of the increase in production was achieved through additional work force, which, as a rule, migrated from the village.

In 1960-1962 the ordering was completed wages in industry, construction, transport and communications enterprises. The country introduced one system rates and salaries, linked by industry, production and category of working personnel.

By the end of 1960, all workers and employees switched to a seven- and six-hour working day. Average duration working week was about 40 hours. In the mid-50s. the beginning of the formation of the system was laid pension provision workers and employees.

An important task was to establish state system social security collective farmers.

In the second half of the 50-60s. a lot of work was done to streamline wages, improve the existing distribution mechanism, increase material level life of the people.

Among the most acute social problems that the country faced in the 50s was housing issue. As a result of the destruction, 25 million people were left homeless after the war.

To relieve the severity of the problem, on the initiative of N.S. Khrushchev, measures were taken to increase housing construction. The goal was to build more, faster and cheaper. Ways to solve it were indicated: widespread use standard projects, introduction of industrial flow methods of construction residential buildings, widespread use of reinforced concrete and block structures. IN major cities Mostly four- and five-story buildings were built. In such houses it was possible to do without an elevator, and to simplify special engineering equipment.

The scope of new construction has acquired significant proportions. If in 1951-1955. In cities and towns, an average of 30.4 million total residential areas were introduced per year. square meters, then in 1957 52 million square meters were introduced (Capital construction in the USSR. M., 1961. P. 192-193). Tens of millions of people, having lost hope that their queue for housing would ever lead to the desired result, suddenly began to move into their own rooms, and large families - into separate two- or three-room apartments.

All these socio-economic measures contributed to an increase in people's well-being, which was especially noticeable in the second half of the 50s.

One of the central places in the activity Soviet power in the 50s were occupied by problems related to stimulation scientific and technological progress And widespread use its results in the national economy. At the end of the 50s. Soviet science received important positive results in a number of areas of applied knowledge, including in the field of semiconductors and electronic computers. A clear indication of the high scientific and technical level of production was the launch of the first artificial Earth satellite and the first manned flight into space.

However, despite whole line successes of scientists, already in the 50s. contradictions arose in science, which, constantly growing and intensifying, served as one of the main reasons for our lag behind those profound structural changes in technology, quality and efficiency that occurred in the production of developed capitalist countries.

And yet, in the 50s, despite objective and subjective difficulties, mistakes and miscalculations of management, it was possible to make significant progress in solving global problems, which persistently declared themselves at the beginning of the decade: noticeable changes occurred in social policy; science and technology have chalked up a number of achievements; The country's defense power has increased significantly. Of course, many contradictions not only remained unresolved, but also deepened. However high dynamism development generated big hopes for the future, especially since in those years it was mainly about satisfying the most pressing, urgent problems.

In May 1955, decisions were also made to further expand the functions and rights of the union republics V planning areas capital construction, on budgetary issues.

One of the most unexpected steps taken in the process of searching for new organizational forms production management and implemented on the initiative of N. S. Khrushchev, is the law of 1957, according to which all all-Union and Union-Republican industrial and construction ministries, with the exception of power plants, defense, aviation, shipbuilding, radio engineering and chemical industry, were abolished. Industry and construction management within large administrative regions was organized according to territorial principle. In each of them a council was created National economy(Economy Council), to which the functions of planning and direct management of the activities of enterprises and construction projects were transferred.

In November 1962, the all-Union planning bodies underwent another significant reorganization. Functions of the USSR State Planning Committee operational planning and management were transferred to the newly created central authority- Council of the National Economy of the USSR (SNH USSR).

Thus, in the first half of the 60s. a number of contradictions accumulated in hidden or obvious form, which inevitably entailed an aggravation of the economic and social situation in the country.

Quite high growth rates of agricultural production, achieved largely extensively through the development of additional arable areas, overshadowed the significant lag in yields.

The new situation and changed tasks required expanding the initiative and independence of enterprises, strengthening economic accounting, and, consequently, changing methods and tools: planning, organizational structure. An endless chain of ill-conceived reorganizations did not produce the desired effect. In this regard, since the beginning of the 60s. One of the most important socio-economic problems in the USSR, including in Russia, was the problem of economic renewal, changing the forms and methods of management. Its promotion to the fore was dictated by the new socio-economic situation that had developed in the Soviet Union by the beginning of the 60s. The fact is that since the second half of the 50s. It became clear that the management mechanism was largely outdated. It developed in the late 20s - early 30s. in extraordinary, in many ways extreme, circumstances. The economic system that emerged during the first five-year plans turned out to be necessary during the Great Patriotic War. Patriotic War, and in the post-war also very difficult conditions restoration of the national economy.

However, since the 50s. stopped working extraordinary factors. The scale of the Soviet economy changed dramatically.

Thus, in 1966, the industry of the USSR already had more than 300 branches. Number of different combinations economic ties measured in astronomical figures. Under these conditions, it has become economically infeasible and technically impossible to manage using direct methods. administrative influence, regulate, as before, the activities of enterprises. Difficulties in management grew. Previous level centralization turned out to be excessive. The question of expanding the economic independence of enterprises became increasingly pressing.

There have also been changes in human resources. If earlier a significant mass of highly qualified specialists was concentrated in the management system, then in the 50-60s. it has largely moved to the sphere of production. Educational and professional level working class and peasantry. Life demanded that conditions be created for a more complete and effective use of the experience and knowledge of the working people, and that more local independence be given.

New economic situation was determined by the scientific and technological revolution that had begun in the country. It was associated with mastery nuclear energy, space exploration, development of chemistry, automation of production.

However, the existing management mechanism and planning practice hampered the technical re-equipment of production. Enterprises were not sufficiently interested in discontinuing obsolete products and replacing them with older ones. perfect technology. For example, when in the early 60s. At Uralmash, for the first time in world practice, a comprehensively mechanized and automated blooming machine “1300” was created with a productivity 2 times higher than any of the existing ones, it turned out that it was unprofitable for the enterprise to produce it. The new blooming weighed 1.5 thousand tons less. Enormous metal savings were achieved. The national benefit was obvious. But when existing order product planning in tonnage, the transition to the production of this more advanced equipment reduced performance indicators large enterprises. Many factories and factories found themselves in this situation. The interests of scientific and technological progress required restructuring planning, creating conditions that stimulate the interest of enterprises in technical re-equipment, expanding their economic efficiency and entrepreneurship in the field of implementation new technology.

Thus, a serious contradiction has arisen between the achieved level of development of production, the opportunities that scientific and technological progress has opened up, new phenomena in the economy, on the one hand, and outdated administrative-command forms and methods of management, old planning practices, petty regulation of enterprise activities - with another. As a result, the country's economy began to experience negative phenomena. There has been a decrease in efficiency industrial production. If the country's fixed production assets increased in 1959-1965. approximately 2 times, then the volume industrial products grew by only 84%. The growth rate of labor productivity has decreased. The tasks of the seven-year plan were also not fulfilled in the field of agriculture.

Since the late 50s. the search for new approaches to economic policy. In this regard, the restructuring of administration carried out in 1957 on a territorial basis and the creation of economic councils initially had a certain positive effect. Within economic regions, opportunities for specialization and cooperation have expanded; business executives began to “see” each other better, the organization of material and technical supplies improved, and so on. However, a decline soon began, and parochial tendencies intensified. The districts seem to have closed in on themselves, losing the public market and creating their own smaller production. But most importantly, the industry perspective in the area was lost scientific developments, technical re-equipment.

This weakened the possibility of implementing a unified technical policy in the country. Attempts to overcome the noted shortcomings by consolidating economic councils in 1962, forming republican economic councils, the USSR National Economy Council, and also by creating state committees for industrial sectors did not produce the desired results.

Thus, attempts were made to solve complex problems of economic progress using the old, administrative methods. The calculation was mainly based on the effect of organizational restructuring. There were numerous subjectivist improvisations to the detriment of the scientific nature of the leadership. Most importantly, the measures taken to improve economic management did not provide for major radical changes affecting deep layers economic ties and relationships, but partial improvement of individual elements economic mechanism could not and did not give the expected effect. The need for economic reforms was obvious. On the way to its implementation, the first serious event was the liquidation of the economic council system territorial administration. But its implementation was carried out under the influence of the administrative-command way of thinking and the corresponding actions. Instead of economic councils, ministries were restored. Moreover, the number of ministries constantly increased and reached by the mid-80s. about 100 union and 800 republican. Most ministries operated in Russian Federation. This is understandable if we take into account the volume of industrial production in Russia compared to other union republics.

During 1964-1965 Experiments were conducted at more than 100 enterprises in the country to test individual elements of the reform of the economic mechanism proposed by scientists. On the pages of the central press there was a discussion of the problems of improving management, and the emphasis was increasingly placed on the need to change general conditions management, strengthening economic levers and incentives.

In September 1965, a decision was made to begin economic reform.

The essence of the proposed reform was the following: reduction of planned indicators reported to the enterprise; creation of financial incentive funds at the enterprise; the introduction of a fixed, but profit-dependent payment for the production assets used by enterprises, i.e., a kind of introduction of a tax in kind in industry; financing industrial construction not by issuing irrevocable subsidies, but through credit; preventing changes in plans without agreement with enterprises.

In the sphere of agricultural production, a multi-year (5-year) plan was established, which excluded arbitrary changes and the issuance of additional, unplanned tasks to collective and state farms. This determined more stable economic conditions, the opportunity to carry out economic maneuvers more widely, and to show initiative and entrepreneurship. Economic incentives for labor were strengthened: the conditions for the procurement and purchase of agricultural products were changed, material incentives for their above-plan sales were introduced, and the remuneration of collective farmers and state farm workers was improved. These measures ensured the interest of workers in increasing agricultural production.

A. N. Kosygin, who became Chairman of the Council of Ministers in those years, played an active role in trying to implement the reform. Coming from a family of St. Petersburg workers, he was a textile engineer by training, trained in the 30s. in an exceptionally short period of time, he made the path from a foreman at a factory to the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR during the war years great job to organize mass evacuation of enterprises and the population. Among the leaders of the 50-60s. A. N. Kosygin was distinguished by his professionalism, modesty, and understanding of the need to solve national economic problems using economic methods.

During the implementation of the main provisions of the reforms in the economy of the Soviet Union, including in Russia, positive changes occurred.

The results achieved by agriculture in 1966-1970 were higher than in the previous period. Suffice it to say that the volume of production increased in 1966-1970. on average by about 4% per year, whereas in 1961-1965. only by 2%.

In the field of industrial production it has improved territorial system management. The State Committee for Science and Technology of the USSR, the State Supply Committee of the USSR, and the State Committee for Prices of the USSR were formed. All this created Better conditions for the development of scientific and technological progress.

However, the main thing for industry was the development and implementation of economic management methods. A set of measures was taken to expand economic independence enterprises, reduction administrative regulation their activities. The number of directive planned indicators of their work was reduced from 30 to 9, enterprises received the right to retain part of the profit at their disposal, to create production development funds from these funds, material incentives, social and cultural events. It was proposed to intensify methods economic stimulation and economic control over the activities of enterprises, use, for example, such forms of economic control as the profit received by the enterprise. As a lever of economic control, fees for funds were introduced, which forced enterprises to avoid unnecessary inventories and use machines, equipment, and raw materials more efficiently. The role of credit increased. An indicator of the strengthening of economic methods in management were measures to strengthen the material interest of industrial workers.

The progress of economic reform in 1966-1970. indicated that it gave a certain impetus to the economic development of the country. The reform unleashed the initiative of enterprises and increased their responsibility for labor results and for identifying internal reserves. The promotion of products to consumers has accelerated. The reform stimulated the emergence of production associations, within which there were more high level issues of technical re-equipment, improvement of labor and production organization were resolved, social problems. The reform had a direct, concrete impact on improving the economy. The growth rate of production volume was in 1966-1970. 5.6% (on average per year), whereas in the previous five-year period they were equal to 4.9%, the growth rate of national income was correspondingly 7.1%.

Why did the reform of the mid-60s? failed? The main thing was that the old, ineffective model of economic, extensive development continued to persist.

The failures of the 1965 reform were largely determined by miscalculations during its practical implementation. The transition to the new management system was slow, uneven across groups of enterprises and industries. In a number of industries (trade, public utilities, supply, sales), the reform was carried out only in the form of experience in groups of enterprises. Such areas of the economy as finance, pricing, etc. were weakly affected by the reform. The reform did not cover the echelons of management. Financial incentives in management bodies practically did not depend on the results of the industries. Cost accounting did not reach a specific workplace.

There was a defect in certain elements new system management (mechanism for economic control over improving product quality, methods of economic influence on accelerating scientific and technological progress, etc.).

One of significant reasons The failure of the 1965 reform was that it was blocked by the forces of bureaucratic conservatism. IN central ministries and departments, and even in the management of enterprises, there has appeared a tendency towards familiar, stable, previously proven centralized, administrative forms management. Inertia, momentary interests, and the desire to brush aside what did not fit into the usual schemes prevailed. Many management cadres were not competent enough. They not only did not want, but also could not quickly adapt to work in new conditions.

Ministries and departments, by inertia, continued to impose old requirements on enterprises. Yes, the Ministry light industry in 1968, it continued to plan production according to 15 indicators instead of 9. In 1969, the Ministry of Ferrous Metallurgy even approved repair schedules for its enterprises open hearth furnaces, rolling mills and other equipment. The Ministry of Agriculture began to plan for the delivery of produce to collective farms above the plan. The self-supporting rights and independence of enterprises were increasingly infringed. Economic methods completely replaced by administration. Even when ministries and departments received funds to stimulate economic enterprises, this only strengthened their administrative dictates.

The forces of bureaucratic conservatism, incompetence, departmentalism and localism could be countered by the deployment of initiative and control of the masses. However, this did not happen.

In the 70s there was an increase in contradictions in the economic and social spheres.

The scientific and technological process was sluggish. The old system of planning and evaluating the activities of enterprises aimed them mainly not at replacing outdated equipment, not at fighting for the integration of science and production and the production of fundamentally new equipment, better products, but at fulfilling current tasks, sometimes at any cost. In this situation, when, moreover, the previous regulation of the activities of enterprises was preserved, the initiative and creativity of the masses did not receive due scope. The existing management system did not interest labor collectives in the introduction of new technology, in working with the greatest return, since fulfilling the plan and receiving guaranteed bonuses could be achieved using technology that had already been mastered for a long time. At the same time, the transition to new equipment, associated with the abandonment of previous technology, was fraught with underfulfillment of planned targets and loss of bonuses at the end of the year. The economic mechanism gave little encouragement even to innovators.

One can give a typical example in this regard of the Ivanovo Machine Tool Association. The company started in the mid-70s. radical reconstruction at your own risk and switched to production the latest equipment, high-quality processing machines, which were then purchased by many capitalist countries- USA, Japan, Germany. However, no economic benefits Ivanovo residents did not receive it. Moreover, from year to year planning authorities they continued to approve assignments for products that the association had previously produced, machines that no longer met last word technology. At the same time, the association received bonuses not for new equipment, but for fulfilling routine planned tasks. It is no coincidence that not a single plant in the industry followed the example of the Ivanovo leaders (Economics and organization of industrial production. 1982. No. 1. P. 104-105).

The experience of the Shchekino association "Azot" is well known. A system for stimulating highly productive labor was introduced here, ensuring a significant increase in production output and an increase in labor productivity while simultaneously reducing the number of employees. During the experiment, the technical level of production increased significantly, the content of workers' labor was enriched, and their professional level increased. However, the dissemination of the Shchekino method proceeded with great difficulty, since the governing bodies carried out numerous changes in the experimental conditions in relation to the teams that followed the example of the Shchekinsky people. Their work was planned from the “achieved level,” which reduced the economic interest of enterprises in releasing personnel, technical re-equipment, and searching for reserves. As a result of these changes, the Shchekino association "Azot" lost 1.2 million rubles, which, according to the original conditions, could have been transferred to the material incentive fund (Kommunist. 1979. No. 11. P. 44).

Still progressive changes held back old system management.

Serious deformations accumulated in the planning. At the initiative of ministries and departments, plans were overgrown with various additions of a sectoral and regional nature, and real national economic opportunities were often not taken into account. The plans were unbalanced, unstable, and lacked scientific validity.

Serious miscalculations have accumulated in commodity-money relations. Cooperative forms of farming were underestimated. Weakened economic control for the use of forms of ownership.

There were direct miscalculations in economic policy. Mechanical engineering, which formed the basis for the development of scientific and technological progress, was not given priority. The growth rate of development of this industry in 1971-1985. were at the same level as the growth rate of the entire industry.

No reforms were carried out in the field of development of self-government in production, which restrained the activity of workers.

In 1971-1985. there was a negative growth trend in the most important economic indicators. So, if the growth rate of national income in the eighth five-year plan was 41%, then in the eleventh it was 17% (Questions of Economics. 1986. No. 2. P. 16; Working class and modern world. 1986. No. 6. P. 4). The “imbalance” of the economy began to increase. One of its manifestations was the accumulation of material resources in trade, in enterprises, and in the population of monetary resources, and these flows did not occur. Energy and food problems have become acute.

But most importantly, the type of economic development continued to remain extensive. There was a constant process of aging production equipment. The production of the most advanced machines, equipment, and instruments slowly increased against the background of a relatively rapid increase in the gross output of mechanical engineering. About 30% of mass-produced products in the USSR corresponded to world standards. There was an increase in the cost of new equipment, scientific and technical measures, and an extension of the payback period for scientific and technical measures. Protracted extensive development deepened socio-economic difficulties. Problems and contradictions that arose in 1971-1985. didn't dare.

In the 70s has grown immeasurably and has become decisive for all spheres public life role social factors. Social sphere began to stand out as a special area of ​​government leadership. As main task Economic development in these years put forward the task of ensuring the well-being of the Soviet people, raising the material and cultural level of the working people. In accordance with this, guidelines were given to accelerate the pace of development of light and Food Industry, agriculture and services, industries producing consumer goods. To some extent, approaches to assessing the activities of enterprises have changed, when they began to take into account not only purely production results their work, but also addressing issues of improving working conditions and living conditions of workers. Extensive social programs. A course was set for rapid growth cash income low- and medium-paid categories of workers. At the same time, the rates and salaries of average-paid categories of workers increased. There were regulations and increases in wages across industries and regions of the Soviet Union, including Russia. However, the increase in wage growth also revealed negative sides such growth in income of the population. Line for convergence of wage levels various categories workers actually led to a relative reduction in pay for more complex skilled labor engineers, doctors, teachers, scientists.

One of the serious miscalculations in social policy in the 70s and early 80s. was not consistent enough and not enough comprehensive solution social issues. On the one hand, the instructions were given to concentrate everything more strength and funds for solving problems related to the well-being of people; on the other hand, investment policy in this area did not provide the necessary conditions for their implementation. At the same time, the production of goods consumer consumption, development of services, trade, transport, recreation and culture, medical support could not keep up with the new level of consumption.

A serious flaw was the "deafness" to social issues at enterprises. Overall Soviet Union manual labor about 50 million people were employed. Approximately 70% of them lived in Russia. In the same time average level education of workers by the beginning of the 80s. reached 9 years of study.

If we look through newspapers and magazines from the 70s today. and look at the articles dedicated to development industry of those years, the picture will be impressive. After all, it was then that KamAZ came into operation, the development of oil and gas fields in Siberia proceeded at an unprecedented scale and pace, construction works On the Baikal-Amur Mainline, mass production of Zhiguli cars and color televisions began. The largest event in the historical chronicle of those years was the joint flight of cosmonauts from the USSR and the USA (“Soyuz-Apollo”).

But, no matter how tangible these successes were, difficulties and contradictions grew steadily. Efficiency decreased from five-year period to five-year period social labor, capital productivity fell, deteriorated qualitative indicators industry as a whole.

The transfer of the national economy to an intensive path of development was supposed to be carried out within one decade. However, in 1981, at the 26th Party Congress, it was necessary to admit that this would require two more five-year plans. In other words, the slogan to organically combine the achievements of scientific and technological revolution with the advantages of socialism, put forward at the 24th Congress of the CPSU in 1971, failed to be put into practice. In fact, the results of the ninth and especially the tenth five-year plans were far from the planned milestones.

Meanwhile, the industrialized countries of the world have made leaps in the deployment scientific and technological revolution. This is reflected in the rapid growth of knowledge-intensive industries, mass use computer technology, general progress in the culture of work and life of the general population. The consequences of such a leap turned out to be very significant, while the party and state leadership of our country made a miscalculation in determining the prospects for the development of science and technology at the new stage of scientific and technological revolution, and did not take appropriate measures to reorganize the economic mechanism and train qualified personnel to meet the urgent needs of production. And yet the concept of “stagnation” cannot be given an unambiguous meaning. This very name, “period of stagnation,” which has established itself over a significant period of our history, suggests an analogy with a swamp in which all movement has frozen. Meanwhile, the 15 years leading up to April 1985 were a tense time, full of contrasts. Speaking about him, one cannot help but see, on the one hand, conscientious work millions of workers, which made it possible to recreate entire industries, build new enterprises, make large scientific discoveries; on the other hand, a decrease in economic growth rates and a “residual” principle in the social sphere.

After the industrial boom of the 1890s, Russia experienced difficult economic crisis 1900-1903 , then a period of long depression 1904-1908. In 1909-1913. The country's economy made a new sharp leap. The volume of industrial production increased 1.5 times. These same years saw a number of unusually fruitful years, which gave the country’s economic development a solid basis. Monopolization process Russian economy received a new impetus. The crisis began in the century and accelerated the process of concentration of industrial production. The corporatization of enterprises proceeded at a rapid pace. As a result, the temporary business associations of the 1880-1890s were replaced by powerful monopolies - mainly cartels and syndicates that united enterprises for joint sales of products (Prodmed, Produgol, Prodvagon, Prodparovoz, etc.).
At the same time, banks were being strengthened and banking groups were being formed (Russian-Asian, St. Petersburg International, Azov-Don Banks). Their ties with industry were strengthened, as a result of which new monopolistic associations such as trusts and concerns emerged. The export of capital from Russia did not gain much scope, which was explained as a disadvantage financial resources, and the need to develop the vast colonial regions of the empire. Participation was also insignificant Russian entrepreneurs in international unions. Russia became involved in the redistribution of spheres of influence in the world, but at the same time, along with the interests of the Russian bourgeoisie, the military-feudal aspirations of tsarism played a significant role.
Despite the high rates of economic development, Russia still failed to catch up with the leading Western countries. At the beginning of the 20th century. it was a moderately developed agrarian-industrial country with a clearly diverse economy. Along with the highly developed capitalist industry, a large share in the Russian economy belonged to various early capitalist and semi-feudal forms of economy, from manufacturing, small-scale commodities to patriarchal-natural ones.
The Russian village remained the concentration of remnants of the feudal era. The most important of them were, on the one hand, latifundial landownership, large landowner estates, and widely practiced labor (a direct relic of corvee). On the other hand, peasant land shortage, medieval allotment land tenure, the community with its redistributions, striping, which were a brake on modernization peasant farm. Although certain changes took place here, expressed in the expansion of sown areas, an increase in gross yields of agricultural crops, and an increase in productivity, in general the agricultural sector lagged strikingly behind the industrial sector, and this lag increasingly took the form of an acute contradiction between the needs of the bourgeois modernization of the country and the inhibitory influence of feudal remnants. The social class structure of a country reflected the nature and level of its economic development. Along with the emerging classes of bourgeois society (bourgeoisie, proletariat), class division continued to exist in it - as a legacy of the feudal era: nobility, merchants, peasantry, philistinism.
To the beginning