Economic progress in Russia in the years 1981-1982 Essay

condescension frequent changes in indemnity, Russian and Soviet governments were spectacularly thwarted in securing sustained stinting progress in the familys 1881-1982. Assess the validity of this statement.Between 1981 and 1982, Russia beneathwent large changes, particularly the in economy. Russian history is come up kn avow for its frequent changes in policy as the country approach revolutions, changes in regime, changes in leadership and not to mention its involvement in various conflicts. As a result, Russias economic policy was hooked to major change apart from three key areas, industry, cultivation and the ordinal sector. These three areas of the economy remained a constant in its ever changing climate further, m all historians appease argue that Russias economy was unrealized and poorly managed despite its frequent change in policy. Thus begs the question, To what finis is this true?The czarist regime, for many Russians, was a period of economic unbalance as kitchen-gardening was seen as a secondary concern. Growth roll was not structured and offshoot rate trim considearned run averagebly amongst the late 1890s and 1905.1 Meanwhile, opposite economies expanded leaving Russia struggling to examine up and any(prenominal) historians see agriculture as a contend for Russias economic decline. For display case, Carol. S. Leonard argued that Russias iota employment per capita GDP was lagged ut virtually stinker that of America in 1913.2 This argument shows how agriculture in tsaristic Russia wasnt dealt with effectively and as a result, the economy suffered.On the other hand, just about historians have pointed out that agriculture in Russia during the late czaristic years were not so destructive. One argument maintains that actually, Russias agriculture grew and developed kinda substantially pre- revolution. For example from 1890 to 1913, cereal production per capita increase by 35%3. Although this evidence is intemperate to ignore, it is in any case difficult to bring a blind eye to the contrasting evidence which suggests that agriculture suffered under the late Tsarist regime and consequently, affected the economy as a whole. For exampleThere was very little investment in agriculture in Imperial Russia and this lead to small yields and economic volatility when prices blush and felllack of investment in agriculture frequently caused grain prices to rise which caused famines4Overall, although agriculture grew slightly during the Tsarist regime, ultimately it suffered greatly as did the Russian people. Looking at agriculture al unmatched, Russias economy looked dumb however industry had slightly more success during this time so perhaps the economy was not so bad after all.S J lee puts forward a simple statement The periods of most rapid growth were in the reign of Nicholas II (1894-1917) as a result of the economic reforms of Sergei Witte (1892-1903)5. This is easy to see, when one considers that in 1914, Russia produced 35 one thousand thousand tons of coal, ranking Russia fifth amongst the main producers.6 Building on Lees argument, there seems to be a lot of evidence pointing to Sergei Witte as the main reason for Russias industrial boom. Upon taking office, Witte raised broad amounts of capital by securing a loan from France and raising taxes and tariffs and interest rates.7 However, it is the reading of Russian railways which Witte is perhaps most remembered for. Under his guidance the railway profit grew from around thirty one thousand km to around cubic decimetre three km worth of track.8With Witte at the helm, Russias industry keep to develop with growth rates comparing rise up next to those of the unite States and Germany. Witte has often been credited with modernizing Russia to such a great extent that its industrial boom continued long after he left his gestate as Finance Minister in 1903. For example, in 1913, Russias firebrand production stood at 4.9 one thousand thousand metric tons next to Frances 4.7 million, with coal and iron not far behind.9On the other hand, Wittes industrialization policies were not always so successful. For example, between 1890 and 1899, Russias industrial growth stood at 8.0% whereas between 1900-06, it reduced to 1.4%10. His aims of modernizing came with a heavy apostrophize and it was consumers who had to pay the price. Taxes were raised but only for the lower classes, indeed the wealthier classes were spared from tax revenue although their currency was needed for private capital. Tariffs also caused problems as, although they protected Russian industry, they added to the damage of financial backing.11 Whatsmore, although some historians have credited Wittes decision to seek loans from irrelevant investors, some remain critical. This is because the interest added to the loans had to be paid in a secure medium meaning, in order to pay off their debts, Russia was coerce to export grain regularl y, including during the famine of 1891.12Overall, although Witte make huge strides in modernizing the Russian economy, he was not entirely faultless. Industry picked up, but there were slake issues and it was the common man who had to pay. The economy still suffered, although, arguably, not as such(prenominal) as it would have done without Witte. However, the tertiary sector also contributed to the economy.Although some historians critique Russias dependence of Western investors, these ties had corresponding benefits in the formula of manage. 13 Business also boomed within Russia with eight large banks emerging in 1899 which owned more than half the total bank capital. This provided free entry for foreign capital, controlling important branches of the Russian economy, including the fuel and metallurgical industries. 14 Moreover, stultificationonize to Robert Service, domestic industrialists and banks were thriving too.15 This argument can be escorted by the growth in towns an d cities between 1897 and 1914. For example the population in St Petersburg grew from 1300 thousand (1987) to 2 hundred thousand (1914)16. This shows that the economic growth had a positive impact on society and the country was doing well under the Tsarist regime.However, although to the naked eye Russia seemed to be doing well, their growth wasnt so great. Compared to the other Great powers of the period, Russia was lagging far behind. Between 1894 and 1913, Austria-Hungary had a 79% increase in national income whereas Russia was lagging far behind with only a 50% increase17. This clearly demonstrates that Russias overall blank space was not so great and actually, Russian people did suffer.When Lenin came to power in 1917, he brought with him a change in regime and economic policy including the introduction of war communism. War communism aimed to socialize the economy by state involvement. Rural areas were subjected to grain requisition which was forcibly removed by the military .18 This inevitably was unpopular and caused much suffering and peasants who stored their crops were often wrongfully prosecuted.It was not just agriculture which suffered. Factories were nationalized by November 1920 and were geared towards war production.19 Additionally, private trade was banned and rationing was introduced on consumer goods including food and clothing.War communism was, effectively a self destructive policy. Grain requisitioning meant more than three million people died of starvation by late 1922.20 Moreover, money lost its grade and people got by through a system of barter. Inflation cerebrovascular accident up and multiplied 1917 costs by four million in 1922. Additionally, in comparison to the growth in city population during the Tsarist regime, people f take the cities. For example in December 1920 the population in Petrograd fell by 57.5%21Lenin k invigorated that it was time for a change. War communism caused more harm then good so Lenin came up with an a lternative, the New Economic insurance policy (NEP). Peasants were allowed to sell grain for profit and they paid tax on what they produced kinda than giving it up22.Things also changed industrially and in the tertiary sector. Businessmen could own small or medium sized businesses however large firms were still state owned.23 The NEP basically gave the people of Russia freedom and Lenin hoped that it would boost economic growth as well. However, in 1924, Lenin died and Stalin came to power. Stalin also brought spick-and-span ideas and his own ways of modernizing the economy.In November 1927, Stalin introduced his policies of industrial enterprise and collectivisation with the aim of modernising the economy. They were supported by a serial publication of five year thinks, the first (1928-32) aimed to improve living standards and the second (1933-37) and tierce (1938-41) aimed to highlight and thus, amend, Russias weaknesses24.Industrialisation was relatively successful as by th e late 1930s many workers conditions had improved and they had acquired better paid dividing lines and unemployment was virtually non-existent. Accounts from the time support this viewGood progress was made4500 new factories, plants, mines and power stations were commissioned, three times as many as the first Five-Year period25.On the other hand, industrialisation was harsh and lateness for work often led to employees getting the sack. Many prisoners also paid the price by working on the grand engine room projects and working in appalling and dangerous conditions. For example around 100000 workers died structure the Belmor Canal26.Collectivisation was ultimately unsuccessful and peasants were in a worsened position than ever before. The concept of sharing farms and thus, sharing salary meant there wasnt enough money to go around and crop production fell too. For example Grain shortages, combined with continued forced procurements, led to rural famine27 However, some people benef itted from collectivisation such as Bertha Malnick We have more than 600 hectaresour farmers have built 70 new houses for themselves during the coda few years28. However, it is reason adapted to conclude overall that collectivisation was unsuccessful given the various sources which provide figures of those who died or badly suffered during Stalins reign. Stalin died in 1953 and Khrushchev took over. Khrushchev tapered on DeStalinisation, distancing the USSR as far away from Stalin as possible.Khrushchev was perspicacious to adopt a different economic policy with the aim of building on the countrys previous economic growth and amending its weaknesses and one way he did this was by abandoning the five year plans and starting a new, seven year plan (1959-65) which aimed to take advantage of newly find mineral resources and fit in with industry29. Khrushchev pumped a lot of money into agriculture and overall 40% of investment was put into the neglected east regions of the USSR30.Ho wever, the seven year plan had similar flaws to the previous five year plans such as mistakes in resource distribution. Living standards got worse, the opposite to what Khrushchev had hoped to achieve. For example only five in one thousand citizens owned a car and in 1963, the USSR was forced to import grain from the capitalist westbound to compensate shortages.31There were successes during this time such as the rise in foreign trade however this cant compensate for the huge failures experienced during this time. Khrushchev made an honest attempt to improve the economy however his plans backfired and once again the country was left to clean up an economic mess. Eventually, Khrushchev was removed from power and in his place came Brezhnev who did little to change the economy.The era of Brezhnev has often been described as a period of economic stagnation but some historians believe that this is not fair. Like Khrushchev, Brezhnev wanted to focus on improving agriculture and living st andards in Russia. Historians Gwyneth Hughes and Simon Welfare support this view sayingAfter the terror of Stalins reign and the cuckoos nest of Khrushchevs, the Soviet Union was in for a period of stability, and that meant everyone kept their job and their perks for life.32 Brezhnev allowed farmers to work on state own plots which motivated them to produce as much as possible in order to sell the surplus33. This, in theory, should have been beneficial and shows that Brezhnev was trying to improve the economy through new methods however, he was not so lucky.In 1975, the USSR suffered another poor yield meaning Brezhnev had to increase foreign exports to keep everyone fed. This was just another cataclysm in Russia but Brezhnev did little to help. His aim to improve agriculture and living standards meant he neglected industry and production rates continued to quick fall34. However, arguably his biggest flaw was his inability to change the already ridged economy. Brezhnev had new id eas but couldnt fight the system and by the end of his reign, Russia had made little improvement. Historian Dmitri Volkognov best sums up the Brezhnev period sayingIf Lenin and Stalin, and to some extent even Khrushchev, were able to enliven the moribund ideology of Communism, it was quite beyond Brezhnev35.In conclusion, between 1881 and 1982, Russia experienced much hardship especially surrounding the economy. After analyzing this one hundred year period it is hard to deny that the statement Despite frequent changes in policy, Russian and Soviet governments were spectacularly unsuccessful in securing sustained economic progress in the years 1881-1992. The economy under the Tsarist regime had its faults and during and after the 1917 revolution, it was wide believed that the countrys economic situation would improve. However, from Lenin to Stalin and Khrushchev to Brezhnev, it seemed that no leader was able to sustain a long-lasting and successful economic policy. The economy grew a s quickly as it declined and it has taken many years to make any significant progress since. Therefore, this statement is valid.________________1 Heinemann Advanced bill The currentisation of Russia 1856-19852 plain Productivity Growth in Russia 1861-1913. From Inertia to Ferment by Carol. S. Leonard3 The Penguin History of Modern Russia by Robert Service4 www.historymadefun.co.uk/Tsarism5 Overview from Russia and the USSR Autocracy and Dictatorship (questions and answers in History) by Stephen. J. Lee6 Stephen J Lee7 http//www.slideshare.net/russeltarr/tsar-nicholas-ii-and-industry8 The Industrialisation of Russia by M. Falkus9 http//www.portalus.ru/modules/english_russia10 M. Falkus11 A2 History OCR A Russia and its Rulers 1855-196412 A2 History OCR13 S. J Lee14 A History of the USSR15 Penguin History of Modern Russia16 M. Falkus17 The Making of the Revolution, 1881-190518 From Years of Russia and the USSR, 1851-1991 by Evans and Jenkins19 Evans and Jenkins20 The Russian Revolu tions 1914-192421 Evans and Jenkins22 The USSR, Germany and the USA between the wars23 Russia and the USSR 1905-194124 The USSR, Germany and Russia between the wars25 A Soviet view of the second five year plan from History of the USSR by Y. Kukushkin26 Stalin and the Soviet Economy27 European History 1848-1945 by T.A Morris28 Everyday Life in Russia by Bertha Malnick29 AQA A2 History Triumph and crease Russia and the USSR 1941-1991 by John Laver & Sally Waller30 Russia 1855- 1964 Flagship History by D. Murray and T. Morris31 The Soviet Economy 1917-80 by S J Lee32 Red Empire. The prohibit History of the USSR by G. Hughes and S. Welfare33 www.ibguides.com/history/notes.ccom34 Years of Russia and the USSR, 1851-199135 The Rise and attend of the Soviet Empire by D.Volkognov