V.L. Nekrasov

Chairmen of the State Planning Committee of the USSR (1955-1964): political status, power potential, career trajectories

Study of the reforms of the State Planning Committee of the USSR in the second half of the 1950s - the first half of the 1960s. is impossible without a special analysis of the activities, personal and business qualities of the leadership of this planning body. Refer to the study of the leaders of the State Planning Committee of the second half of the 1950s - the first half of the 1960s. causes a number of significant circumstances. Most of the heads of planning bodies in the second half of the 1950s - the first half of the 1960s belonged to the "Stalinist people's commissars" - a group of economic leaders who were promoted to senior positions in the late 1930s - first half of the 1940s. Their career growth was facilitated by the extreme conditions of this period - the political repressions of 1937-1938. and the Great Patriotic War. After the end of the war, they formed the core of the ministerial corps, acting in the second half of the 1950s - the first half of the personnel reserve for leading positions in planning bodies. In fact, all the chairmen of the State Planning Committee - N.K. Baibakov, I.I. Kuzmin, A.N. Kosygin, V.N. Novikov, P.F. Lomako - were nominated on the personal initiative of Khrushchev. Thus, they turned out to be inextricably linked with the formation of Khrushchev as a political leader and his policy of placing his nominees in key positions in the state and party leadership. These circumstances allow us to assert that the chairmen of the State Planning Committee of the second half of the 1950s - the first half of the 1960s. were a group with common social and political characteristics.

In the latest Russian historiography, there are no special studies devoted to the analysis of the leadership of planning bodies as one of the groups of the highest nomenclature and groups of influence in the political leadership. In historiography, works of the bibliographic genre were established, dedicated to individual statesmen who led planning bodies in the "Khrushchev period". Meanwhile, the "Khrushchev" planners should be regarded as one of the groups of influence in the top political leadership. Moreover, the analysis of this group of influence should be carried out in connection with the reforms of the State Planning Commission in the second half of the 1950s - the first half of the 1960s.

In the Soviet economic system, Gosplan was one of the key bodies state power, responsible for the preparation of state national economic plans, coordinating the activities of various departments, controlling and defending "general state interests" in the fight against "departmental egoism."

Second half of the 1950s - first half of the 1960s turned out to be the richest in decisions and decisions that broke the old system of operational management and planning of the national economy. The factors of continuous organizational changes were, firstly, the need to reorganize the State Planning Commission as the bearer of the inertia of the “Stalinist economic model”, and secondly, the desire to subordinate the State Planning Commission to the apparatus of the Central Committee of the CPSU. In the "Khrushchev period" was formed and functioned a complex system operational management and planning National economy. It included special bodies that carried out separate current and long-term planning, management of material and technical supply, statistics and accounting for the development of the national economy. The main organizational transformations in operational management and planning are shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Reorganization of the State Planning Committee of the USSR (1955-1963)

Along with the reorganization of the State Planning Commission, the status of its leader in the system of supreme political power was transformed. The Chairman of the State Planning Commission held a high position in the Soviet party-state hierarchy. In the late Stalinist period, the chairman of the State Planning Commission necessarily held the position of deputy (first deputy) chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, was a candidate or full-fledged member of the Politburo (Presidium) of the Central Committee of the CPSU. And it should be noted that the members of the Presidium of the Central Committee closely followed who was appointed to the post of chairman of the State Planning Commission and were very jealous of the fact that a person was appointed to this post, bypassing the more honored and influential leaders of the party and government. Khrushchev changed this practice, believing that "many temptations arise, and departmental interests sometimes prevail over public ones." After the reorganization of the management system in May 1957 and the resignation of M.G. Pervukhin, the leaders of planning bodies will never again be part of the Presidium of the Central Committee as full members, and sometimes even in the plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU (I.I. Kuzmin, V.N. Novikov, A.F. Zasyadko). Thus, in the current configuration of political institutions, Khrushchev limited the powers of the chairman of the State Planning Commission, effectively depriving him of political mechanisms of influence.

The position of chairman of the State Planning Commission turned out to be less stable, there was a continuous rotation of the leadership of the planning authorities. So, during the years 1955-1963. in the planning bodies of the USSR, eight leaders were replaced - two in the State Economic Commission (1955-1957), six in the State Planning Commission (1955-1963), three in the State Economic Council (1959-1962). While in 1940 - the first half of the 1950s. - three leaders, and in the second half of the 1960s - the first half of the 1980s. - two.

The highest echelons of power had their own hierarchy of leaders, based on experience, merit, breadth and strength of business and friendly relations with members of the top political leadership, proximity to the political leader. This circumstance must be taken into account when assessing the position of the chairman of the State Planning Commission in the top political leadership. Based on these criteria, all heads of planning bodies can be divided into four groups. The first group consisted of M.G. Pervukhin, M.Z. Saburov, who claimed a certain independence from Khrushchev. They were obliged to I.V. Stalin, and not Khrushchev, with his career advancement. These statesmen were introduced to the Presidium of the Central Committee and the Bureau of the Presidium of the Council of Ministers of the USSR on the rights of full members by Stalin. In addition, they had unique, especially Pervukhin, experience in solving strategic problems.

The second group of Gosplan chairmen is formed by A.N. Kosygin and V.N. Novikov, who were experienced business executives and administrators, and who had wide trusting and friendly ties in the top management. Kosygin, in 1950-1957. "political outsider", but, firstly, he was an experienced administrator, and, secondly, he maintained trusting relations with Khrushchev's closest associates F.R. Kozlov and E.A. Furtseva, as well as with friends of the war years, "cool defense ministers" V.A. Malyshev, M.V. Khrunichev. Novikov, from the war years he worked and was friends with D.F. Ustinov, with experience, influence and position in the military-industrial circles, whom Khrushchev was considered, and in addition, was a protégé of F.R. Kozlov.

The third group included N.K. Baibakov, P.F. Lomako, whose positions were determined by their reputation as talented business executives and administrators, since they did not have other statuses, merits and opportunities at that time.

The weakest positions were occupied by I.I. Kuzmin and A.F. Zasyadko, who demonstrated complete loyalty to Khrushchev. Kuzmin, possessing energy, did not have experience in leading administrative work, and any wide and stable trusting relationships in the top political leadership and the party-state apparatus. Zasyadko is a "big business executive", but alcoholism "led him to flattery and sycophancy" in relations with Khrushchev.

Khrushchev sought to influence the personal composition of the leadership of the State Planning Commission, even when he had not yet recruited full force personal power. This striving is quite clearly seen in the reform of the USSR State Planning Committee in 1955 in the question of the chairmen of the State Planning Committee and the State Economic Commission.

The reform of the Gosplan in 1955 is closely connected with the reshuffling of the top political leadership. Resignation in January 1955 G.M. Malenkov from the post of Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR and the appointment of N.A. Bulganin, with whom Khrushchev had a trusting relationship, strengthened the position of the latter, and gave him the opportunity to act more decisively in the reorganization of state administration and the placement of his proteges in the state apparatus. According to D.T. Shepilova, “Khrushchev said without much hesitation that it was necessary to remove the “Malenkov people” and place “our own cadres” everywhere.

Minister of the Oil Industry of the USSR N.K. Baibakov. The State Economic Commission for Current Planning was headed by M.Z. Saburov, who headed the State Planning Commission in 1953-1955. Valuable evidence of these appointments is provided by S.N. Khrushchev.

According to his testimony in 1955-1956. Saburov was "among the most active supporters" of Khrushchev, supporting his political and economic initiatives. The "Gosplan" experience of Saburov was necessary for conducting "battles" with sectoral ministers. The fact that there was a trusting relationship between Khrushchev and Saburov is indicated by the fact that in 1955-1956. Saburov (and M.G. Pervukhin) were entrusted with the duties of chairing the meetings of the Council of Ministers of the USSR during the absence of N.A. Bulganin.

Baibakov's appointment corresponded to Khrushchev's plan that Gosplan "should be led by an extraordinary person, not blinkered, not mired in routine ... The choice fell on ... Baibakov, a man who was not burdened by the State Planning "experience" of endless balancing and who showed himself capable of non-trivial actions during the war » . At the same time, it cannot be ruled out that Baibakov was nominated on the advice of L.M. Kaganovich, who knew Baibakov well from the time of his work in the People's Commissariat of the Oil Industry. But Khrushchev viewed Baibakov not as a major independent political personality, but as a "technical" chairman of the State Planning Commission - an experienced, without ambition, business manager-manager, the developer of the sixth five-year plan and the executor of his ideas for modernizing and reforming the economy.

This confirms the point of view existing in historiography that Khrushchev, in the struggle for power, sought to redistribute forces in the Council of Ministers of the USSR in his favor. This policy was associated with the weakening of the influential members of the Presidium of the Council of Ministers of the USSR (G.M. Malenkov, V.M. Molotov) who were in opposition to Khrushchev by strengthening the “young” members of the Presidium of the Council of Ministers of the USSR (M.G. Pervukhina, M.Z. Saburova) and promotion of their candidacies to the Presidium of the Council of Ministers of the USSR (I.I. Kuzmin), the State Planning Commission (N.K. Baibakov) and the State Economic Commission (A.N. Kosygin). Although, as the events of the first half of 1957 showed, this policy had its natural limits. Despite the consistency and plannedness of the personnel policy pursued by Khrushchev in relation to the State Planning Commission and the State Economic Commission, it did not produce results. The stumbling block between Khrushchev and the planners was the industrial and construction management reform of 1957. The discussion of the management reform of 1957 was extremely difficult, moreover, the discussion around the reform acted as a catalyst for confrontation in the top political leadership. The management reform that Khrushchev conceived in December 1956-January 1957 provided for the decentralization of management of industries and the construction complex, breaking down departmental barriers, and increasing the role of party and Soviet authorities in managing the national economy. To this end, Khrushchev proposed to move from management through sectoral ministries to management through economic councils. The management reform of 1957, which accumulated social and economic expectations and contradictions, was considered by its initiators and developers as an effective tool for eliminating the main flaws of the centralized economy.

However, both Gosplan Chairman Baibakov and Chairman of the State Economic Commission Pervukhin did not hide and openly expressed to Khrushchev their concerns about the reform he had conceived. Comparative analysis Baibakov and Pervukhin's argument suggests that they did not deny the fundamental principles of the reform, but insisted on the gradual implementation of the reform and the preservation of centralized management for a number of heavy industries. Centralized administration was to be carried out either through the ministries, which would be obliged to "relocate a number of main departments to the places of production", or through the Supreme Council of the National Economy for Heavy Industry. A feature of the rhetoric of this group of planners was the opinion that the liquidation of the ministries would lead to the loss of management of industries, the stability of the economy, and a unified technical policy. In other words, they were characterized by a technocratic, devoid of political motives, approach, which consisted in the expediency of preserving, as far as possible, sectoral mechanisms in new system industrial and construction management. However, in the conditions of 1957, the preservation of centralized management of heavy industries was beyond the scope of the reform proposed by Khrushchev. Its implementation could lead to the preservation of "management of industry and construction according to the sectoral principle." In fact, these proposals represented a conservative version of the reform implementation, in which its main idea was modified in favor of preserving the sectoral management principle, the implementation period increased, and, in general, the risks of its implementation increased.

However, in the unfolding struggle for power, Khrushchev needed like-minded people in the leadership of the planning bodies, not opponents. As a result, Baibakov and Pervukhin were released from their duties in May 1957. Baibakov was appointed chairman of the State Planning Committee of the RSFSR. Baibakov's appointment to the post of Chairman of the State Planning Committee of the RSFSR fully corresponded to the new political and economic realities that came after the liquidation of ministries and the creation of economic councils, the practice of appointing former ministers, and his competencies as an economic manager-manager. And among the candidates for the post of chairman of the State Planning Committee in May 1957, Baibakov had minimal chances, since he did not have political influence, and Khrushchev's confidence in him weakened. Pervukhin, given his status as a member of the Presidium of the Central Committee and First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR and experience in leadership, could take the post of Chairman of the State Planning Commission, but was appointed Minister of Medium Machine Building. A possible candidate for the post of chairman of the State Planning Commission could be Kosygin, who in December 1956 - May 1957 held the position of head of the State Planning Commission. the post of First Deputy State Economic Commission, and loyal to Khrushchev. However, the appointment of Pervukhin or Kosygin was not destined to come true, and one of the reasons could be their skepticism about the creation of economic councils. As a result, Kosygin remained in Khrushchev's team, while Pervukhin "joined the ranks of potential opponents" of Khrushchev. The Chairman of the State Planning Commission, at the initiative of Khrushchev, is approved by the head of the department of mechanical engineering of the Central Committee of the CPSU I.I. Kuzmin, who won Khrushchev's trust by supporting his idea of ​​reforming the management of industry and construction. Obviously, in the conditions of "radical restructuring of industrial management", and the struggle for political leadership, Khrushchev sought to put under his control the "think tank" of the country's economic life.

However, in general, when he was appointed to the post of chairman of the State Planning Commission, Khrushchev first of all evaluated the experience and professionalism of the applicant. Most of the leaders of the State Planning Commission at the time of their appointment to this post had unique economic and administrative experience, including management of the national economy of the RSFSR, heavy and light industries, finance, economic councils, strategic projects and construction projects, including abroad. The exception in this group was I.I. Kuzmin is a representative of the party apparatus, whose nomination was opportunistic.

Career trajectories of leaders of planning authorities in 1955-1964. are presented in table 2.

table 2

Career trajectories of leaders of planning authorities

At the same time, we should talk about institutional differences between the heads of planning bodies appointed in 1955-1956 and 1957-1959. and 1960-1964 In 1955-1956. the leaders of the planning bodies were representatives of the highest bureaucracy, - M.Z. Saburov and M.G. Pervukhin - members of the Presidium of the Central Committee. Chairman of the State Planning Commission Baibakov, having extensive experience in administrative and economic work, was only an "ordinary" member of the Central Committee of the CPSU, and thus was deprived of the opportunity to exert political influence on many issues of the development of the national economy, especially if they formally went beyond the competence of the State Planning Commission. In 1957-1959. the situation is changing dramatically, and the main criterion for appointment is personal loyalty, loyalty and unquestioning fulfillment of the tasks of the new political leader. Namely, this factor, as already noted, determined the appointment of I.I. Kuzmina, A.F. Zasyadko, and also, although to a lesser extent, A.N. Kosygin. In 1960-1964 Technocrats who did not have political weight, but with experience in economic work in both the "old" sectoral and the "new" territorial economy, come to the leadership of the State Planning Commission. V.N. Novikov, in 1957-1958. headed the Leningrad Economic Council, in 1958-1960. - Chairman of the State Planning Committee of the RSFSR. P.F. Lomako, from 1957 to 1961 headed the Krasnoyarsk Economic Council, in 1961-1962. - Deputy Chairman of the Bureau of the Central Committee of the CPSU for the RSFSR, in July-November 1962 - Chairman of the State Economic Council.

It is expedient to turn to such a problem as the "image of planners" posed by P. Gregory when studying the history of the State Planning Committee of the first five-year plans. In the history of the State Planning Committee of the 1930s. P. Gregory singled out two images of the planner - "poorly educated party bureaucrat" V.V. Kuibyshev (1930-1934) and the image of the “professional planner” V.I. Mezhlauk (1934-1937). In his opinion, these images of the planner symbolize the two poles of Gosplan itself, two alternatives for its development: Gosplan could become an organization that develops plans in accordance with formal rules, or it could turn into an organization that blindly executes party directives, even in those cases when they contrary to economic logic. Regarding the second half of the 1950s - the first half of the 1960s. one can definitely talk about three “images of planners”. Kosygin, M.G. Pervukhin, M.Z. Saburov. The second is Khrushchev's nominees, loyal, party and state functionaries who approved of his ideas and unquestioningly carried out his orders, such as A.F. Zasyadko, I.I. Kuzmin. The third image is experienced, but without political ambitions, business executives, sectoral ministers put forward by Khrushchev to implement his initiatives - N.K. Baibakov, V.N. Novikov, V.E. Dymshits, P.F. Lomako.

The lowering of the political status, the limitation of the power potential of the chairman of the State Planning Commission, the strengthening of party institutions during the appointment of the head of the planning body reflected the process of eliminating independence state institutions from the apparatus of the Central Committee of the CPSU. The situation around the State Planning Commission in the second half of the 1950s - the first half of the 1960s. can be considered among the transformation of other state institutions and changes in the status of their leaders - the Ministry of Internal Affairs, headed by L.P. Beria, the Council of Ministers of the USSR headed by G.M. Malenkov and N.A. Bulganin, the armed forces - G.K. Zhukov, who, according to R.G. Pikhoi, "were consistently defeated by the apparatus of the Central Committee of the CPSU."

Vakser A.Z. Alexey Nikolaevich Kosygin // Clio. 2008. No. 3. S. 116-123; Gvozdetsky V.L. Dmitry Georgievich Zhimerin. A life dedicated to energy. M., 2006; Zamostyanov A.A. A.N. Kosygin. Biographical sketch. M., 2002; Kudashin A.S. Party and state activities of A. N. Kosygin 1939-1980: Diss. Ph.D. M., 2005; Podolsky S.I. The reformer of the "Khrushchev" period - V.N. Novikov // Bulletin of the Leningrad state university named after A.S. Pushkin. Series "History". 2011. No. 1. S. 63-73; Nekrasov V.L. N.K. Baibakov: a personal factor in the years of leadership of N.S. Khrushchev (1955-1957) // Actual problems of historical research: the view of young scientists: Collection of materials of the I All-Russian Youth scientific conference. Novosibirsk, 2011, pp. 229-236; Slavkina M.V. Baibakov. Moscow: Parallel, 2010; Sushkov A.V. Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU: personality and power. Yekaterinburg, 2009.

State power of the USSR. The highest bodies of power and administration and their leaders ... S. 211, 297, 313, 363, 375, 393, 442, 466, 509; RGAE. F. 739 Op. 1 D. 174 L. 18-19.

Introduction

1. History

On August 21, 1923, the USSR State Planning Commission was established under the Council of Labor and Defense of the USSR under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR (STO USSR). Initially Gosplan of the USSR played an advisory role, coordinating the plans of the union republics and developing a general plan. Since 1925, the State Planning Committee of the USSR began to form annual plans for the development of the national economy of the USSR, which were called "control figures".

The prototype of its creation was State Commission for the electrification of Russia (GOELRO), which worked from 1920 to 1921.

1.1. Building

To understand the history of this most important body of state power of the USSR for the socialist era, it is necessary to briefly describe the history of the building occupied by the State Planning Committee of the USSR.

The building was built on the site of the Church of St. Paraskeva (Friday) in Okhotny Ryad (1686-1928)

The main building is located on Okhotny Ryad Street, 6. It was built in 1934-1938 according to the design of the architect A. Ya. Langman to house the Council of Labor and Defense, then the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, the Council of Ministers of the USSR and, finally, the State Planning Committee of the USSR. The building has a characteristic imperial style - heavy columns and wide halls.

The second building of the State Planning Committee of the USSR was the building overlooking Georgievsky Lane, designed in the late 70s by the architect N. E. Gigovskaya. It is completely different in style, completely made of glass and concrete.

The buildings are connected to each other by a passage.

According to some reports, the building of the State Planning Committee of the USSR was mined in 1941, and cleared only in 1981. By a lucky chance, the builders discovered the wires "going nowhere"

Currently, the building houses the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation.

Also for the State Planning Committee of the USSR in 1936, according to the project of the outstanding architect Konstantin Melnikov, in collaboration with the architect V. I. Kurochkin, a garage was built on Aviamotornaya Street in Moscow, currently known as the Gosplan Garage and which is a monument of history and culture.

Previous names and subordination Tasks and functions of the State Planning Committee of the USSR

See also: Five-Year Plan, Seven-Year Plan.

In the Regulations on the State General Planning Commission, approved by the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR of February 28, 1921, it is determined:

“Under the Council of Labor and Defense, a general planning commission is being created to develop a unified national economic plan based on the electrification plan and for general monitoring of the implementation of this plan”

At the beginning of its activity, the State Planning Committee of the USSR was engaged in studying the situation in the economy and compiling reports on certain problems, for example, on the restoration and development of coal-mining regions. The development of a unified economic plan for the country began with the issuance of annual control figures and directives for 1925-1926, which set guidelines for all sectors of the economy.

The main task in all periods of its existence was the planning of the economy of the USSR, drawing up plans for the development of the country for various periods.

In accordance with Article 49 of the Constitution of the RSFSR, adopted by the 5th All-Russian Congress of Soviets on July 10, 1918, the subject of jurisdiction of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of Soviets is: “j) Establishing the foundations and general plan of the entire national economy and its individual branches on the territory of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic.

In accordance with Article 1 of the Constitution of the USSR, adopted by the II All-Union Congress of Soviets of the USSR on January 31, 1924, the supreme authorities of the USSR are assigned: “h) establishing the foundations and general plan for the entire national economy of the Union, determining industries and individual industrial enterprises of all-Union significance, conclusion of concession agreements, both all-union and on behalf of the union republics.

Article 14 of the Constitution of the USSR, approved by the Extraordinary VIII Congress of Soviets of the USSR on December 5, 1936, provided that the USSR, represented by its highest authorities and state administration bodies, is in charge of: state administration, Chairman of the State Planning Committee of the USSR was a member of the Council of Ministers of the USSR.

Article 16 of the Constitution of the USSR, adopted by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on October 7, 1977, provided that the management of the "economy is carried out on the basis of state plans for economic and social development, taking into account sectoral and territorial principles, with a combination of centralized management with economic independence and the initiative of enterprises, associations and other organizations." The jurisdiction of the USSR in the person of its highest bodies of state power and administration includes: “5) conducting a unified socio-economic policy, managing the country's economy: determining the main directions of scientific and technological progress and general measures for the rational use and protection natural resources; development and approval of state plans for the economic and social development of the USSR, approval of reports on their implementation”, Control over the implementation of state plans and tasks is carried out by the bodies of people's control, formed by the councils of people's deputies (Article 92). The approval of state plans for the economic and social development of the USSR is carried out by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR (Article 108). The Council of Ministers of the USSR: “2) develops and submits to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR current and long-term state plans for the economic and social development of the USSR, the state budget of the USSR; takes measures to implement state plans and budgets; submits to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR reports on the fulfillment of plans and the execution of the budget” (Article 131). There is no mention of the State Planning Committee of the USSR in this Constitution.

By the USSR Law of December 19, 1963 No. 2000-VI, the State Planning Committee of the USSR was transformed from an all-Union body into a Union-Republican body. The same act determined that the Chairman of the State Planning Committee of the USSR is a member of the Council of Ministers of the USSR (Article 70).

The main task of the State Planning Committee of the USSR from the end of the 60s until its liquidation in 1991 was: the development, in accordance with the Program of the CPSU, the directives of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the decisions of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, of state economic plans that ensure the proportional development of the national economy of the USSR, the continuous growth and increase in the efficiency of social production in in order to create the material and technical base of communism, steadily increase the standard of living of the people and strengthen the country's defense capability.

“State plans for the development of the national economy of the USSR must be optimal, based on economic laws socialism, on modern achievements and prospects for the development of science and technology, on the results scientific research economic and social problems of communist construction, a comprehensive study of social needs, on the correct combination of sectoral and territorial planning, as well as centralized planning with the economic independence of enterprises and organizations. (Regulations on the State Planning Committee of the USSR, approved by the Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of September 9, 1968 No. 719) "

The work of the State Planning Committee of the USSR in planning the national economy was coordinated with the Central Statistical Office (CSB), the People's Commissariat of Finance (later the Ministry of Finance of the USSR), the Supreme Council of the National Economy (VSNKh of the USSR), and later with the USSR State Committee on Science and Technology, the USSR State Bank and the USSR State Supply Committee.

Evacuation and mobilization of industry in the USSR during the Great Patriotic War

Decree State Committee Defense of the USSR dated August 7, 1941 No. 421 "On the procedure for placing evacuated enterprises" the USSR State Planning Committee was entrusted with the task of ensuring the evacuation and mobilization of the industry of the USSR. In particular, special attention was paid to the fact that, when locating evacuated enterprises, priority should be given to the aviation industry, the industry of ammunition, weapons, tanks and armored vehicles, ferrous, non-ferrous and special metallurgy, and chemistry. The people's commissars were instructed to coordinate with the State Planning Committee of the USSR and the Council for the Evacuation of the final points for the enterprises exported to the rear and the organization of duplicating industries.

N. A. Voznesensky was appointed authorized by the State Defense Committee for the implementation of the ammunition production plan by the industry, and M. Z. Saburov as his deputy

During July-November 1941, more than 1,500 industrial enterprises and 7.5 million people - workers, engineers, technicians and other specialists - were relocated to the east of the country. The evacuation of industrial enterprises was carried out in the eastern regions of the RSFSR, as well as in southern republics countries - Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan.

After the war

In May 1955, the State Planning Committee of the USSR was divided into two parts:

The State Commission of the Council of Ministers of the USSR for Long-term Planning developed long-term plans for 10-15 years

State Economic Commission of the Council of Ministers of the USSR for the current planning of the national economy (State Economic Commission) (1955-1957) - developed five-year plans.

2. Plans for the development of the national economy of the USSR

Our plans are not plans-forecasts, not plans-guesses, but plans-directives, which are obligatory for the governing bodies and which determine the direction of our economic development in the future on a national scale..

Since 1928, the State Planning Committee of the USSR began to draw up five-year plans and monitor their implementation.

2.1. Gosplan of the USSR and the implementation of plans for the development of the national economy of the USSR

First Five-Year Plan (1928-1932)

1,500 large enterprises were built, including: automobile plants in Moscow (AZLK) and Nizhny Novgorod(GAZ), Magnitogorsk and Kuznetsk metallurgical plants, Stalingrad and Kharkov tractor plants).

In the same period (beginning of 1933), I. V. Stalin issued a directive: “To prohibit all departments, republics and regions until the publication of the official publication of the State Planning Committee of the USSR on the results of the implementation of the first five-year plan, the publication of any other final works, both summary and sectoral and district with the fact that even after the official publication of the results of the five-year plan, all works based on the results can be published only with the permission of the State Planning Committee of the USSR ", which certainly indicates the desire of the country's political leadership to censor statistical data and, at the same time, the central role of the apparatus of the State Planning Committee of the USSR in managing the national economy is increasing. .

At the January (1933) plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, it was announced that the first five-year plan would be completed in 4 years and 3 months

Second Five-Year Plan (1933-1937)

For the preparation by the State Planning Committee of the USSR of the second five-year plan, see R. Davis, O. V. Khlevnyuk: “Second Five-Year Plan: a Mechanism for Changing Economic Policy”

3. Apparatus of the State Planning Committee of the USSR

3.1. Apparatus in the 1920s

At first, the apparatus consisted of 40 economists, engineers and other personnel, by 1923 it already had 300 employees, and by 1925 a network of planning organizations subordinate to the State Planning Committee of the USSR was created throughout the USSR.

The State Planning Committee of the USSR primarily combined the functions of the highest expert body in the economy and the scientific coordinating center.

The work of the USSR State Planning Committee in the 1920s is well illustrated by V. V. Kabanov in his book.

Let's take the fund of the State Planning Committee of the USSR, stored in the RGAE. Suppose we are interested in material on agriculture in the mid-20s. Where to look for it? It can be established that the complex will include documents formed as a result of the activities of the Presidium of the State Planning Commission, the agricultural section, as well as all other sections, the work of which, to one degree or another, came into contact with issues Agriculture. First of all, we can single out the economic and statistical section, which carried out preparatory work to draw up a long-term plan for the development of the national economy, studied the methodology of compiling the grain and feed balance, productivity, grain prices, peasant budgets, etc. The materials of the sections gravitate to the problems of the internal and external market for agricultural products. internal and foreign trade. Questions of mechanical engineering for agriculture reveal the documents of the industrial section. The materials of the agricultural section, which prepared the issue for consideration by the Presidium of the State Planning Commission, without fail passed the stage of discussion in all interested sections. A preliminary discussion of the issue took place in the presidium of the agricultural section, and then, after approval, its results were submitted for consideration by the presidium of the State Planning Commission. Thus, the first thematic set of documents on a particular issue was first formed at the level of the agricultural section and concentrated as part of the materials of the annexes to the minutes of the meeting of the presidium of the agricultural section. Then, in its final form, with the addition of the composition of materials, the conclusions of the people's commissariats and departments, a set of documents is formed as part of the annexes to the minutes of the State Planning Commission's presidium.

The structure of the State Planning Commission before the arrival of Voznesensky, seven sections: 1) accounting and distribution of material resources and organization of labor; 2) energy; 3) agriculture; 4) industry; 5) transport; 6) foreign trade and concessions; 7) zoning. In 1927, the defense sector of the State Planning Committee of the USSR was added to them.

3.2. "Gosplan case" in 1949

The "Gosplan case", "Voznesensky case" and "Leningrad case" were closely intertwined and complemented each other, they were the result of rivalry and struggle between Stalin's associates in the highest echelons of power.

As a result of the adoption of the Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of March 5, 1949 "On the State Planning Committee of the USSR" "and the Politburo resolution of September 11, 1949 "On the numerous facts of the disappearance of secret documents in the State Planning Committee of the USSR", a significant personnel purge took place in the apparatus of the State Planning Committee of the USSR:

By April 1950, the entire main staff of responsible and technical workers was checked - about 1400 people. 130 people were fired, more than 40 were transferred from Gosplan to work in other organizations. During the year, 255 new employees were hired by Gosplan. Of the 12 deputies of Voznesensky, seven were removed, and only one was arrested by April 1950, and four received new responsible jobs (which also testified to the predominantly non-political nature of the “Gosplan affair”). The composition of the heads of departments and departments and their deputies has been updated by a third. Of the 133 heads of sectors, 35 were replaced

Chairman of the State Planning Commission N. A. Voznesensky was removed from all posts, removed from the Politburo of the Central Committee, expelled from the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and from members of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. October 27, 1949 arrested, October 1, 1950 shot. Rehabilitated in 1954.

3.3. Apparatus in the 1980s

The apparatus of the State Planning Committee of the USSR consisted of sectoral departments (for industries, agriculture, transport, trade, foreign trade, culture and education, health care, housing and communal services, consumer services, etc.) and consolidated departments (consolidated department of national economic plan, the department of territorial planning and distribution of productive forces, the consolidated department of capital investments, the consolidated department of material balances and distribution plans, the department of labor, the department of finance and cost, etc.

The State Planning Committee of the USSR, within the limits of its competence, issued resolutions that were binding on all ministries, departments, and other organizations. He was granted the right to involve the USSR Academy of Sciences, the academies of sciences of the Union republics, branch academies of sciences, research and design institutes, design and other organizations and institutions, as well as individual scientists, specialists and leaders for the development of draft plans and certain national economic problems. production.

Chairmen of the State Planning Committee of the USSRThe Chairmen of the State Planning Committee of the USSR were Deputy Chairmen of the Council of Ministers of the USSR. Vice Chairs

20 years

1921-1929 Osadchiy, Pyotr Semenovich - First Deputy Chairman (1866-1943) 1921-1938 Strumilin, Stanislav Gustavovich - Deputy Chairman (1877-1974) 1923-1927 Pyatakov, Georgy Leonidovich - Deputy Chairman (1890-1937) 1925 -1926 - Smilga, Ivar Tenisovich - Deputy Chairman (1892-1938) 1926-1930 - N. N. Vashkov - Deputy Chairman, Chairman of the electrification section of the State Planning Committee of the USSR (1874-1953) 1926-1928 - Sokolnikov, Grigory Yakovlevich - Deputy Chairman ( 1888-1939) 1926-1927 - Vladimirsky, Mikhail Fedorovich - Deputy Chairman (1874-1951) 1927-1931 - Quiring, Emmanuil Ionovich - Deputy Chairman (1888-1937) 1928-1929 - Grinko, Grigory Fedorovich - Deputy Chairman (1890- 1938) 1929-1934 Milyutin, Vladimir Pavlovich - Deputy Chairman (1884-1937)

30 years

1930-1934 - Smilga, Ivar Tenisovich - Deputy Chairman - Head of the Integrated Planning Department (1892-1938) 1930-1937 - Smirnov, Gennady Ivanovich - Deputy Chairman (1903-1938) 1931-1935 - Mezhlauk, Valery Ivanovich - First Deputy Chairman ( 1893-1938) 1931-1933 - Oppokov, Georgy Ippolitovich (A. Lomov) - Deputy Chairman Deputy Chairman (1887-1937) 1933-1933 Troyanovsky, Alexander Antonovich - Deputy Chairman (1882-1955) 1934-1937 - Quiring, Emmanuil Ionovich - First Deputy Chairman (1888-1937) 1935-1937 - Kraval, Ivan Adamovich - Deputy Chairman (1897-1938) 1936-1937 - Gurevich, Alexander Iosifovich - Deputy Chairman (1896-1937) 1937-1937 - Vermenichev, Ivan Dmitrievich - Deputy Chairman (1899-1938) 1938-1940 - Sautin, Ivan Vasilyevich - Deputy Chairman ( 1905-1975) 1939-1940 Kravtsev, Georgy Georgievich - First Deputy Chairman (1908-1941)

40 years

1940-1940 Kosyachenko, Grigory Petrovich - Deputy Chairman (1901-1983) 1940-1948 Starovsky, Vladimir Nikonovich - Deputy Chairman (1905-1975) 1940-1941 Saburov, Maxim Zakharovich - First Deputy Chairman (1900-1977) 1940 -1943 - Kuznetsov, Vasily Vasilievich - Deputy Chairman 1940-1946 - Panov, Andrey Dmitreevich - Deputy Chairman (1904-1963) 1941-1944 - Kosyachenko, Grigory Petrovich - First Deputy Chairman (1901-1983) 1941-1945 - Sorokin, Gennady Mikhailovich - Deputy Chairman (1910-1990) 1941-1948 - Starovsky, Vladimir Nikonovich - Deputy Chairman (1905-1975) 1942-1946 - Mitrakov, Ivan Lukich - Deputy Chairman 1944-1946 - Saburov, Maxim Zakharovich - First Deputy Chairman (1900-1977 )1945-1955-Borisov, Nikolai Andreevich - Deputy Chairman (1903-1955) 1946-1947-Saburov, Maxim Zakharovich - Deputy Chairman (1900-1977) 1946-1950-Panov, Andrey Dmitreevich - First Deputy Chairman (1904-1963) 1948-1957-Perov, G George Vasilyevich - Deputy Chairman (1905-1979) 1949-1953-Kosyachenko, Grigory Petrovich - First Deputy Chairman (1901-1983)

50 years

1951-1953 - Korobov, Anatoly Vasilievich - Deputy Chairman (1907-1967) 1952-1953 - Sorokin, Gennady Mikhailovich - Deputy Chairman (1910-1990) 1953-1953 - Pronin, Vasily Prokhorovich - Deputy Chairman 1955-1957 - Zhimerin, Dmitry Georgievich - First Deputy Chairman (1906-1995) 1955-1957 - Yakovlev, Mikhail Danilovich - Deputy Chairman (1910-1999) 1955-1957 - Sorokin, Gennady Mikhailovich - Deputy Chairman (1910-1990) 1955-1957 - Kalamkarov, Vartan Aleksandrovich - Deputy Chairman (1906-1992) 1955-1957 - Khrunichev, Mikhail Vasilyevich - Deputy Chairman (1901-1961) 1956-1957 - Kosygin, Alexei Nikolaevich - First Deputy Chairman (1904-1980) 1956-1957 - Malyshev, Vyacheslav Alexandrovich - First Deputy Chairman (1902-1957) 1957-1959 - Perov, Georgy Vasilyevich - First Deputy Chairman (1905-1979) 1957-1962 - Zotov, Vasily Petrovich - Deputy Chairman 1957-1961 - Matskevich, Vladimir Vladimirovich - Deputy Chairman (1909-1998) 1957-1961 - Khrunichev, Mikhail Vasilyevich - First Deputy Chairman (1901-1961) 1958-1958 - Zasyadko, Alexander Fedorovich - Deputy Chairman (1910-1963) 1958-1958 - Ryabikov, Vasily Mikhailovich - Deputy Chairman 1958 -1960 - Lesechko, Mikhail Avksentievich - First Deputy Chairman (1909-1984)

60 years

1960-1962 Orlov, Georgy Mikhailovich - First Deputy Chairman 1960-1966 Korobov, Anatoly Vasilyevich - Deputy Chairman (1907-1967) 1961-1961 Ryabikov, Vasily Mikhailovich - First Deputy Chairman -1965 - Lobanov, Pavel Pavlovich - Deputy Chairman (1902-1984) 1963-1965 - Stepanov, Sergey Alexandrovich - Deputy Chairman (1903-1976) 1963-1965 - Korobov, Anatoly Vasilyevich - Deputy Chairman (1907-1967) 1963-1973 - Goreglyad, Alexey Adamovich - First Deputy Chairman 1963-1965 - Tikhonov, Nikolai Alexandrovich - Deputy Chairman 1965-1973 - Lebedev, Viktor Dmitrievich - Deputy Chairman (1917-1978) 1965-1974 - Ryabikov, Vasily Mikhailovich - First Deputy Chairman 1966-1973 - Misnik , Mikhail Ivanovich - Deputy Chairman (1913-1998)

70 years

1973-1978 Lebedev, Viktor Dmitrievich - First Deputy Chairman (1917-1978) 1974-1983 Slyunkov, Nikolai Nikitovich - Deputy Chairman -1983 - Ryabov, Yakov Petrovich - First Deputy Chairman

80 years

1980-1988 - Voronin, Lev Alekseevich - First Deputy Chairman 1982-1985 - Maslyukov, Yuri Dmitrievich - First Deputy Chairman 1983-1989 - Sitaryan, Stepan Armaisovich - First Deputy Chairman -1991 - Anisimov, Pavel Petrovich - Deputy Chairman 1988-1991 - Troshin, Alexander Nikolaevich - Deputy Chairman 1988-1991 - Serov, Valery Mikhailovich - Deputy Chairman 1989-1991 - Durasov, Vladimir Alexandrovich - First Deputy Chairman 1988-1989 - Khomenko, Yuri Pavlovich - First vice-chairman

90 years

3.6. Structural units

1930-1931 - Economic and Statistical Sector (ESS) 1931-1931 - Sector of National Economic Accounting

Department of Energy and Electrification

• Subdivision of Nuclear Power Plants (1972)

Department of Automotive, Tractor and Agricultural Engineering

Department for the Activities of the Soviet Parts of the Standing Committees of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance

Fuel Industry Department

Department of Construction and Construction Industry

Consolidated department of the agro-industrial complex

Consolidated Department of the National Economic Plan

4. Commissions under the State Planning Committee of the USSR

Special commission of the Council of Labor and Defense under the State Planning Commission of the USSR for the consideration of charters of trusts (1923-1925)

State Expert Commission (GEC of the State Planning Committee of the USSR)

Interdepartmental Commission on Economic Reform (formed 1965 - ?)

Concession Committee of the State Planning Committee of the USSR

Council of Techno-Economic Expertise of the State Planning Committee of the USSR

5. Institutes under the State Planning Committee of the USSR

6. Organizations under the State Planning Committee of the USSR

Organizations are not all.

7. Publications of the State Planning Committee of the USSR

Since 1923, the State Planning Committee of the USSR has been publishing the monthly industry magazine Planned Economy, and has been awarded the Order of the Red Banner of Labor.

Literature

Lenin V.I., Draft of the main clause of the SRT resolution on the general planning commission, PSS, 5th ed., vol. 42, p. 338

Lenin V.I., On giving legislative functions to the State Planning Commission, PSS, 5th ed., vol. 45, p. 349-53

Lenin V.I., On a single economic plan, PSS, 5th ed., vol. 42, p. 339-47

Baibakov N. K., State planning leadership is the most important condition for the successful development of the USSR economy, "Planned Economy", 1971, No. 2, p. 5 - 19

Strumilin S. G., Planning in the USSR, M., 1957

Bibliography:

Naydenov N. A. Moscow. Cathedrals, monasteries and churches. Part II: White City. M., 1882, No. 23

According to the International Socio-Ecological Union

s:Constitution of the RSFSR (1918)

s: Constitution of the USSR (1924) original version

s: Constitution of the USSR (1936) edition 12/5/1936

s:Constitution of the USSR (1977)

Bulletin of the Financial Academy, Issue 1 (25) 2003.

Stalin I. V. Political report of the Central Committee to the XV Congress of the CPSU (b). Library of Mikhail Grachev

Quote from the book by V. Z. Rogovin "Power and Opposition"

R. Davis, O. V. Khlevnyuk: “The Second Five-Year Plan: The Mechanism for Changing Economic Policy”

V. V. Kabanov, "Source study of the history of Soviet society"

The text of the resolution on the website of the socio-political journal "Breakthrough"

Khlevnyuk O. V. Soviet economic policy at the turn of the 1940s-1950s and the “case of the State Planning Commission”, National history/ RAN. Institute Russian history. - M.: Nauka, 2001. - N 3.

Voznesensky Nikolai Alekseevich, short biography

Note by V. I. Lenin, PSS v. 45

Gosplan of the USSR (State Planning Committee of the Council of Ministers of the USSR) was a state body that carried out nationwide planning for the development of the national economy of the USSR and control over the implementation of national economic plans. It was formed on February 22, 1921 by a decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR. Liquidated in 1991.

On August 21, 1923, the USSR State Planning Commission was established under the Council of Labor and Defense of the USSR under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR (STO USSR). Initially, the USSR State Planning Committee played an advisory role, coordinating the plans of the union republics and developing a general plan. Since 1925, the State Planning Committee of the USSR began to form annual plans for the development of the national economy of the USSR, which were called "control figures".

The prototype of its creation was the State Commission for Electrification of Russia (GOELRO), which worked from 1920 to 1921.

To understand the history of this most important body of state power of the USSR for the socialist era, it is necessary to briefly describe the history of the building occupied by the State Planning Committee of the USSR.

The building was built on the site of the Church of Saint Paraskeva (Friday) in Okhotny Ryad (1686-1928). Defense, then the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, the Council of Ministers of the USSR and, finally, the State Planning Committee of the USSR. The building has a characteristic imperial style - heavy columns and wide halls.

The second building of the State Planning Committee of the USSR was the building overlooking Georgievsky Lane, designed in the late 70s by the architect N. E. Gigovskaya. It is completely different in style, completely made of glass and concrete. The buildings are connected to each other by a passage. According to some reports, the building of the State Planning Committee of the USSR was mined in 1941 and cleared only in 1981. Luckily, the builders discovered wires "going nowhere." The building currently houses The State Duma Federal Assembly Russian Federation.

Also for the State Planning Committee of the USSR in 1936, according to the project of the outstanding architect Konstantin Melnikov, in collaboration with the architect V. I. Kurochkin, a garage was built on Aviamotornaya Street in Moscow, currently known as the Gosplan Garage and which is a monument of history and culture.

Tasks and functions of the State Planning Committee of the USSR

The Statute on the State General Planning Commission, approved by the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR of February 28, 1921, defines: "A general planning commission is created under the Council of Labor and Defense to develop a unified national economic plan based on the electrification plan and for general supervision of the implementation of this plan."

At the beginning of its activity, the State Planning Committee of the USSR was engaged in studying the situation in the economy and compiling reports on certain problems, for example, on the restoration and development of coal-mining regions. The development of the country's unified economic plan began with the issuance of annual control figures and directives for 1925-1926, which set guidelines for all sectors of the economy.

The main task in all periods of its existence was the planning of the economy of the USSR, drawing up plans for the development of the country for various periods.

In accordance with Article 49 of the Constitution of the RSFSR, adopted by the 5th All-Russian Congress of Soviets on July 10, 1918, the subject of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of Soviets is: Federative Soviet Republic".

In accordance with Article 1 of the Constitution of the USSR, adopted by the II All-Union Congress of Soviets of the USSR on January 31, 1924, the jurisdiction of the supreme authorities of the USSR is assigned to: "the establishment of the foundations and the general plan for the entire national economy of the Union, the definition of industries and individual industrial enterprises of all-Union significance, the conclusion of concession treaties, both all-union and on behalf of the union republics.

Article 14 of the Constitution of the USSR, approved by the Extraordinary VIII Congress of Soviets of the USSR on December 5, 1936, provided that the USSR, represented by its highest authorities and state administration bodies, is in charge of: State Administration, Chairman of the State Planning Committee of the USSR was a member of the Council of Ministers of the USSR.

Article 16 of the Constitution of the USSR, adopted by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on October 7, 1977, provided that the management of the "economy is carried out on the basis of state plans for economic and social development, taking into account sectoral and territorial principles, with a combination of centralized management with economic independence and the initiative of enterprises, associations and other organizations." The jurisdiction of the USSR in the person of its supreme bodies of state power and administration includes: “5) pursuing a unified socio-economic policy, managing the country's economy: determining the main directions of scientific and technological progress and general measures for the rational use and protection of natural resources; development and approval of state plans for the economic and social development of the USSR, approval of reports on their implementation”, Control over the implementation of state plans and tasks is carried out by the bodies of people's control, formed by the councils of people's deputies (Article 92). State plans for the economic and social development of the USSR are approved by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR (Article 108). The Council of Ministers of the USSR: “2) develops and submits to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR current and prospective state plans for the economic and social development of the USSR, the state budget of the USSR; takes measures to implement state plans and budgets; submits to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR reports on the fulfillment of plans and the execution of the budget” (Article 131). There is no mention of the State Planning Committee of the USSR in this Constitution.

By the USSR Law of December 19, 1963 No. 2000-VI, the State Planning Committee of the USSR was transformed from an all-Union body into a Union-Republican body. The same act determined that the Chairman of the State Planning Committee of the USSR is a member of the Council of Ministers of the USSR (Article 70).

The main task of the State Planning Committee of the USSR from the end of the 60s until its liquidation in 1991 was: - development, in accordance with the Program of the CPSU, the directives of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the decisions of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, state economic plans that ensure the proportional development of the national economy of the USSR, continuous growth and increase in efficiency social production in order to create the material and technical base of communism, steadily raise the standard of living of the people and strengthen the country's defense capability.

“State plans for the development of the national economy of the USSR must be optimal, based on the economic laws of socialism, on modern achievements and prospects for the development of science and technology, on the results of scientific research on the economic and social problems of communist construction, on a comprehensive study of social needs, on the correct combination of sectoral and territorial planning , as well as central planning with the economic independence of enterprises and organizations. (Regulations on the State Planning Committee of the USSR, approved by the Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of September 9, 1968 No. 719)”.

The work of the State Planning Committee of the USSR in planning the national economy was coordinated with the Central Statistical Office (CSB), the People's Commissariat of Finance (later the Ministry of Finance of the USSR), the Supreme Council of the National Economy (VSNKh of the USSR), and later with the USSR State Committee on Science and Technology, the USSR State Bank and the USSR State Supply Committee.

Evacuation and mobilization of industry in the USSR during the Great Patriotic War

Decree of the State Committee of Defense of the USSR dated August 7, 1941 No. 421 “On the procedure for placing evacuated enterprises” assigned the task of ensuring the evacuation and mobilization of the industry of the USSR to the State Planning Committee of the USSR. In particular, special attention was paid to the fact that, when locating evacuated enterprises, priority should be given to the aviation industry, the industry of ammunition, weapons, tanks and armored vehicles, ferrous, non-ferrous and special metallurgy, and chemistry. The people's commissars were instructed to coordinate with the State Planning Committee of the USSR and the Council for the Evacuation of the final points for the enterprises exported to the rear and the organization of duplicating industries.

N. A. Voznesensky was appointed authorized by the State Defense Committee for the implementation of the ammunition production plan by the industry, and M. Z. Saburov as his deputy. In July-November 1941, more than 1,500 industrial enterprises and 7.5 million workers were relocated to the east of the country. , engineers, technicians and other professionals. The evacuation of industrial enterprises was carried out to the eastern regions of the RSFSR, as well as to the southern republics of the country - Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan.

After the war

In May 1955, the State Planning Committee of the USSR was divided into two parts:
The State Commission of the Council of Ministers of the USSR for Prospective Planning developed long-term plans for 10-15 years. The State Economic Commission of the Council of Ministers of the USSR for the current planning of the national economy (State Economic Commission) (1955-1957) - developed five-year plans.

Plans for the development of the national economy of the USSR

Since 1928, the State Planning Committee of the USSR began to draw up five-year plans and monitor their observance. 1,500 large enterprises were built, including: automobile plants in Moscow (AZLK) and Nizhny Novgorod (GAZ), Magnitogorsk and Kuznetsk metallurgical plants, Stalingrad and Kharkov tractor plants.

In the same period (beginning of 1933), I. V. Stalin issued a directive: “To prohibit all departments, republics and regions until the publication of the official publication of the State Planning Committee of the USSR on the results of the implementation of the first five-year plan, the publication of any other final works, both summary and sectoral and district with the fact that even after the official publication of the results of the five-year plan, all works based on the results can be published only with the permission of the USSR State Planning Committee, which, of course, indicates the desire of the political leadership of the country to censor statistical data, and at the same time the central role of the apparatus of the USSR State Planning Committee in managing the people's economy.

At the January (1933) plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, it was announced that the first five-year plan had been completed in 4 years and 3 months. About the preparation by the State Planning Committee of the USSR of the second five-year plan R. Davis, O. V. Khlevnyuk: “The Second Five-Year Plan: a mechanism for changing economic policy ".

Apparatus of the State Planning Committee of the USSR

Apparatus in the 1920s

At first, the apparatus consisted of 40 economists, engineers and other personnel, by 1923 it already had 300 employees, and by 1925 a network of planning organizations subordinate to the USSR State Planning Committee was created throughout the USSR.

The State Planning Committee of the USSR combined, first of all, the functions of the highest expert body in the economy and the scientific coordination center. The State Planning Committee of the USSR, within the limits of its competence, issued resolutions that were binding on all ministries, departments, and other organizations. He was granted the right to involve the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, the academies of sciences of the Union republics, branch academies of sciences, scientific research and design institutes, design and other organizations and institutions, as well as individual scientists, specialists and leaders in production for the development of draft plans and individual economic problems.

STATE PLANNING COMMISSION (GOSPLAN) USSR, the highest planning body, in which the compilation of long-term and annual plans for the national economy is concentrated, and the highest body for directing the planning work of departments and union republics.

System of planning organs; The State Planning Commission was established by a decree of the Council of People's Commissars on February 22, 1921, under the STO "to develop a unified national economic plan, based on the electrification plan approved by the VIII Congress of Soviets and for general monitoring of the implementation of this plan." However, the decree provides (and this had a significant impact on the direction of the work of the first period of the Gosplan's activity and is indubitably connected with the ideas of V. I. Lenin about his work) that “the economic tasks of the first stage, especially those that should be carried out in the shortest possible time, in particular, during 1921, should be developed by the General Planning Commission or its subcommittee in the most detailed way, with full consideration of the actual conditions of concrete economic reality. In this first Regulation on the State Planning Commission, we can thus distinguish in embryo two categories of the national economic plan - the "construction plan" and the "exploitation plan"; this idea was developed by G. M. Krzhizhanovsky on the experience of the first few months of the work of the State Planning Commission.

In subsequent regulations on the State Planning Committee, the division of the plan into “construction” and “operational” finds its expression in the distinction between “promising” and “operational” plans (Regulations on the State General Planning Commission, Decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of June 8, 1922), “promising” and “ calendar" annual plans (Regulations on the State General Planning Commission, Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of August 21, 1923). The regulation on the State Planning Committee was changed twice: on June 8, 1922 and on August 21, 1923. The last change was connected with the formation of the USSR and with the transformation of the Gosplan of the RSFSR into the Gosplan of the USSR. Simultaneously with the establishment of the State Planning Commission, by a decree of the Council of People's Commissars of March 17, 1921, a number of planning commissions were established under the people's commissariats and the STO "to eliminate parallelism and inconsistency, to increase harmony and simplify the economic apparatus and to create the correct subordination of its parts." According to the decree, from the moment of the establishment of a planning commission under any people's commissariat, all interdepartmental commissions and permanent meetings that exist under this people's commissariat are abolished, and henceforth it is forbidden to organize interdepartmental meetings on issues within the competence of planning commissions under the STO and under this people's commissariat. All the established planning commissions, both under the STO and under the people's commissariats, had an interdepartmental character in their composition. By the above decree of the Council of People's Commissars, the following planning commissions were established, 1) Under the People's Commissariat of Agriculture: a) to develop a general plan for agriculture and forestry and to coordinate the work of the People's Commissariat of Agriculture with all other people's commissariats and b) for raw materials. 2) At the Supreme Council of National Economy: a) on the development of a general plan for industry, the consideration of production programs for all branches of industry and the coordination of all relevant work of the Supreme Council of National Economy with the activities of other people's commissariats; b) to coordinate the work of the Main Committee of State Constructions with the work of all commissariats and institutions in the field of construction, to develop a general plan for all branches of state construction and to plan the construction work of people's commissariats; c) to develop a fuel plan (at Glavtop). 3) Under the NKPS: the planning commission is not established (subsequently, Transplan was established); the functions of the QCD, which is attached to the service station, are expanded by including items of the upper track equipment and repair and restoration work of the cargo and passenger fleet under the jurisdiction of the QTC; at the same time, the Supreme Council for Transportation is preserved, which still remains subordinate to the CTO. 4) Under the NKVT: planning functions are assigned to the Foreign Trade Council. 5) Under the People's Commissariat of Food: to establish programs for apportionment and tax in kind on the products of the villages prepared by the People's Commissariat. economy and raw materials. 6) Under the NCF: the planning commission is not established; questions about the budget and the distribution of banknotes are considered by the people's commissariat with the participation of representatives of interested departments; at the same time, all interdepartmental commissions under the NKF and interdepartmental budget meetings under the people's commissariats are abolished. 7) Finally, according to the distribution, the Use Commission is retained, but transferred from the VSNKh to the STO.

Not all of these planning commissions turned out to be vital and entered the system of planning bodies of the country. Some commissions were episodic in nature, others merged with each other, and, finally, subsequently, under a number of people's commissariats (NKPS, Narkomtrud, Narkomtorg), planning commissions were formed that were not provided for by the decree. The significance of the decree of the Council of People's Commissars of March 17, 1921 was not in those specific planning commissions, which, according to it, should be. established, but in the very principle of concentration of planning efforts and in an effort to give the planning work itself a systematic character. However, this goal was not achieved, and it could not be achieved in one act. The creation of a system of planning bodies was a long process of creative effort, which took place in parallel with the restoration of the country's economy on the basis of new methods of struggle for the plan in the context of the New Economic Policy. The organizational period of the planning organs was of a protracted nature and, in essence, has not ended to this day.

In accordance with the nature of the tasks outlined in the Regulations on the State Planning Commission, and in accordance with the entire economic situation in 1921, the following sections and subcommissions were established in the State Planning Commission: 1) Subcommittee of planned households. tasks of the current year; 2) Energy section (transformed from GOELRO); 3) Section of agriculture; 4) Industry section; 5) Transport section; 6) Subcommittee for accounting and distribution of material resources; 7) Subcommittee for Foreign Trade and Concessions. Subsequently, some subcommissions were renamed into sections, some were abolished (the Subcommission for Economic Tasks of the Current Year, the Subcommittee for Accounting and Distribution), others reappeared (for example, the Regionalization Section, the Economic and Statistical Section), but in general this structure of the State Planning Commission lasted until the end of 1923 ., i.e., until the moment of the autumn sales crisis, which forced us to revise the methods of planned work and the very structure of the State Planning Commission. The connection between the State Planning Commission and the departments during this period was of an unformed, elementary nature of "cooperation", and the connection between the State Planning Commission and the planning bodies was established almost a year later - with the publication of the Regulations on regional planning commissions (June 8, 1922). The publication of this Regulation is motivated by the need for "coordination both between individual sectors of the national economy and between individual regions of the Soviet Federation." The creation of regional planning commissions is closely connected with the problem of zoning, which has not left the scene since the October Revolution as a method of economic construction and organization of planned work. Simultaneously with the Regulations on regional planning commissions, the decree of the same June 8, 1922 changes the version of the Regulations on the State Planning Commission, and both Regulations, along with the decree of the Council of People's Commissars of March 17, 1921 on planning commissions and actually organized by the State Planning Commissions of the Union republics, represent the backbone of the system of planning bodies countries.

According to the regulations, the long-term plan of the national economy developed by the State Planning Commission, as well as the operational plan for the current year, applies both to the RSFSR and to all the Union Soviet republics. In its work, the State Planning Committee relies on the planning commissions of the economic people's commissariats and on the regional planning commissions, which submit their preliminary plans to the State Planning Commission for a final summary and submission for approval by the STO. In their turn, the regional planning commissions rely on the work of departmental regional bodies, correct the planning assumptions of the latter and bring them into the regional economic plan. The last link in the system of planning bodies - provincial planning commissions - was not created by a special legislative act and has not yet been legally formalized. The planned work of the provincial executive committees is mentioned only in the regulations on the provincial departments of internal trade, which refers to the duties of the provincial executive committees in relation to the development of a long-term plan for the development of internal trade. But it cannot be said that the law completely ignored the existence of provincial planning commissions: clause 10 of the Regulations on Provincial Ecosystems establishes that "general planning commissions ... are auxiliary commissions of the Gubernia Economic Conference." The second time the provincial planning commissions are mentioned in the resolutions on the abolition of the provincial ecoso: the resolution of the III Session of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the X convocation of November 3, 1923 considers it necessary to preserve the provincial planning commissions as commissions of the provincial executive committees when abolishing the provincial ecoso.

The State Planning Committees of the Union Republics were formed by decrees of the relevant bodies of the republics and are currently operating on the basis of the following provisions: 1) in the RSFSR - on the basis of the Decree of the Ecoso RSFSR of February 28, 1925; 2) in the Ukrainian SSR - on the basis of the decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the Ukrainian SSR of April 10, 1925; 3) in the BSSR - on the basis of the decision of the Council of People's Commissars of the BSSR of November 18, 1925; 4) in the Uzbek SSR - on the basis of a resolution of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the Uzbek SSR dated April 6, 1927. But long before the publication of these provisions, the State Planning Commissions of the Union republics (with the exception of the RSFSR) actually existed under the republican Council of People's Commissars and Ecoso, as their planning commissions, on the basis of temporary regulations, and the State Planning Committee of the Ukrainian SSR still operates on the basis of a “temporary” regulation.

In the organization of planning bodies after the creation of the State Planning Commission, several stages can be noted: 1) 1921-1924. - the initial period of creating the material and organizational prerequisites for the planned coverage of the economy; 2) 1924-1926 - a period of intensive, so-called "recovery" process and strengthening of the people's commissar's regulation; 3) 1926/1927 - the initial period of the so-called "reconstructive" process and the organization of the generalizing work of planning bodies; 4) the period after the Fifteenth Party Congress—an as yet unfinished turning point in the organization of planning bodies and their methods of work. It goes without saying that at each planned stage one can observe the features of the next and the remnants of the previous stages.

The first period of work of planning bodies. G. M. Krzhizhanovsky in his book "Exchange of Goods and Planned Work" notes the exceptional attention that V. I. Lenin paid to the State Planning Commission at the beginning of the latter's activities, and the enormous influence that he had on the organization and first steps of the State Planning Commission. The organization of the Sub-Commission for Economic Tasks was undoubtedly influenced by the ideas of V. I. Lenin. In a letter to G. M. Krzhizhanovsky on February 25, 1921, V. I. Lenin writes: “The subcommittee for studying, checking, “linking”, coordinating, making proposals for changing current economic plans should be of exceptional importance.” And further, in response to the transcript of the speech of G. M. Krzhizhanovsky at the solemn meeting of the first approved presidium of the State Planning Commission on April 5, 1921, V. I. Lenin wrote: “Its main drawback: too much about electrification, too little about current economic plans. The main emphasis has been placed on the wrong thing, on what is needed ... Take care of them now, gentlemen. professor. Your electrification is in alien Ehren! To him, honor, honor!.. But the General Planning Commission of the state should not do this now, but immediately, with all its might, take up the current economic plans. Fuel - today, for 1921, now, in the spring! Collection of rubbish, garbage, dead materials. Using them to exchange for bread. 1-2 sub-commissions for electrification, 9-8 sub-commissions for current economic plans. Here is how to distribute forces for 1921. To sum up the thoughts scattered in the letters of V.I. Lenin to G.M. inextricable connection with concrete reality. “The greatest danger,” writes V.I. Lenin, “is to overbureaucratize business with a plan state economy. This is a great danger... A whole, whole, real plan for us now is a bureaucratic utopia... Don't chase after it. Immediately, not delaying, not a day, not an hour, bit by bit, highlight the most important, a minimum of enterprises and put them.

The directives that, under the influence of the difficult economic situation of 1921, V. I. Lenin gave to the State Planning Committee, pushed back at first the problem of a long-term plan and forced the State Planning Committee to come close to direct economic work, to those "current issues" that subsequently began to be assessed negatively. and indeed turned out to be a hindrance to planned work to a certain extent. But in 1921 and even the following year, it was precisely this current "expert" work of the State Planning Commission and local planning commissions that played an exceptional role in economic construction and in organizing strong departmental apparatuses in the center and in the localities. In the same first period of its work, the State Planning Committee played another major role - the role of a pusher for the then still hesitant mass of technical and scientific forces by establishing a closer connection between the top of the technical intelligentsia and economic construction, thanks to which the broad mass of the intelligentsia was finally drawn over to the side of the Soviet government. .

The first period of Gosplan's work is still characterized by impact. To put it more correctly, the State Planning Commission had at first to clear the principle of impact from those stratifications that deprived impact of the significance of the method of concentration of forces. By the beginning of the second half of 1921, the State Planning Committee drew up a fuel plan and at the same time took part in the reorganization of the Glavtop. In the same year, 1921, a food plan is drawn up, which reduces the number of dependents of the state (except for the army) from 35 million to 7 million people, and the first estimate is made for transport planning. The hungry year of 1921 forces the State Planning Committee to deal with the problems of combating the drought and taking measures to eliminate the consequences of the famine. Nevertheless, these scattered, little reminiscent of a "single economic plan" of the work of the State Planning Commission during the first period of activity were of great organizational importance and had a huge impact on the work of the people's commissariats. The “Basic Provisions for Drawing up an Industrial Plan for 1922/23”, the index calculation and a number of other works worked out by the State Planning Commission, along with the material prerequisites for the restoration process, created the organizational prerequisites for systematic “People's Commissariat” regulation. The "expert" work of the State Planning Commission, despite its enormous organizing role, was fraught, however, with dangers that were not slow to affect during the autumn sales crisis of 1923. Neither in the State Planning Committee itself, nor in the entire Soviet system was there a body that and studied the totality of economic factors that cause changes in the economic situation, and which would signal in time the need for certain economic maneuvering measures. The crisis of 1923 led to the establishment under the Gosplan of the Market Conjuncture Council, which in a very short time covered the entire country with a network of observation stations - regional market bureaus. The creation of the opportunistic bureaus, along with the previously created (in March 1923) Permanent Bureau of Congresses for the Study of the Productive Forces of the USSR, completes the first period of the organization of the system of planning bodies. However, it still lacks the State Planning Committee of the RSFSR and one significant link in economic work, namely, the link in social and cultural construction. The organization of this branch of planned activity was already begun in the next period, and above all by the republican Gosplans, especially the RSFSR, and only very recently its unification has been completed in the Gosplan of the USSR.

Strengthening the People's Commissariat Regulation. The XII Party Congress on April 17-25, 1923, and the XIII Party Conference on March 16-18, 1924 summarize the results of the first organizational stage of the planning bodies and outline the direction of their further work at the level of economic construction achieved by 1923/24. Coordinating the plans of individual branches, regions and national republics, economic foresight and instructing the relevant bodies on certain phenomena - these are the elements of planned work that the Twelfth Congress outlines for the State Planning Commission. The 13th Party Conference is taking place under the sign of the strengthening of the planning principle and the strengthening of the State Planning Commission. But, along with this, at the conference, more than ever before and after it, one can note an extremely wary attitude towards the centralization of planning leadership and towards "firm" plans embracing the entire national economy and the entire Union as a whole.

The resolution of the 13th Party Conference emphasizes the importance of success in creating the basic prerequisites for planning leadership, without which planning could easily turn into a bureaucratic utopia. These prerequisites for successful planning are: 1) the creation of a hard currency, 2) the organization of credit, 3) the accumulation of material resources that allow them to be manipulated, 4) the implementation and strengthening of certain forms of economic organization (trusts, etc.), 5 ) there are a number of separate plans built on the basis of experience - first of all, real budget plans, etc. The XIII Party Conference put forward the priority task of strengthening the State Planning Commission, increasing its role in the field of financial and credit policy, the work of the Narkomfin, the Supreme Economic Council, the People's Commissariat of Agriculture, the Komvnutorg, etc., the strengthening of its local bodies and, as its immediate task, set a systematic study of the current market situation and the development of basic measures in order to influence the emerging market relations.

The stage of organizing planned work in the period from the 12th Party Congress to 1926, i.e., approximately until the 1st Congress of the Presidiums of the State Planning Commission, is formally under the directives of the 13th Party Conference on strengthening planning bodies; in fact, it is a complex interweaving of various currents of planning thought from a skeptical attitude towards the plan and towards planning in general to the recognition of the need for a "solid" planning discipline. The extremely intensive growth of the national economy in the period 1924-26, with the still insufficient generalizing work of the State Planning Commission at that time and with the scattered front of planning work - the growth of the economy, in which patterns could only be grasped empirically, and predictions were overturned in the most unexpected way by a combination of unaccounted for factors and underestimation of internal technical and production reserves - this intensive "recovery process" especially favored a skeptical attitude towards planned assumptions and to the constraints on "maneuvering" actions. The anti-planning jet captured a wide range of operational workers, receiving reinforcements from the ever-increasing people's commissariat regulation, which during this period begins to make significant progress. As the skills of planning work under the conditions of commodity-money relations spread and as the planning or replacing bodies became stronger in the people's commissariats, with the assistance of the State Planning Commission, the people's commissariat regulation begins to occupy a prominent place, and at the same time, the tendency to to separate "planned work" from "current planning", tearing the latter away from the State Planning Commission and the planning bodies. This trend, in its logical completeness, was not put into practice, but it drew attention to the danger of breaking the unity of planning leadership and gave a new direction to the organization of planned work. This question served as the subject of discussion at the first extended meeting of the Gosplan of the RSFSR with local workers, but it was put forward with particular insistence at the First All-Union Congress of Planning Organs.

Synthetic work of the State Planning Commission. The First Congress of the Presidiums of the State Planning Commission on March 10-17, 1926 outlined a number of important issues planning methodology and, along the way, established a number of provisions for the organization of planned work, i.e., established what G. M. Krzhizhanovsky called the “regulations of planning discipline” for a variety of types, due to the evolution of forms and the territorial intersection of planned work. The expert work of the State Planning Commission and its periphery, with all the merits of this form of work and with all its importance for planning methodology, was becoming obsolete, and synthetic work required other forms of communication between central and lower planning bodies and between planning and operational bodies. In this regard, the Congress, in addition, developed a number of provisions establishing systematic organized cooperation between the planning bodies, namely: 1) periodic convening of meetings of the presidiums of the planning bodies; 2) the establishment of uniform methods and directives for the republican and regional planning bodies for the development of control figures, long-term and master plans; 3) information from the republican Gosplans and regional planning commissions by all-Union economic bodies and organizations operating partially or completely on the territory of the republic or region, about all planning assumptions and undertakings; 4) ensuring constant cooperation between the leaders of the RCT, the CSB and trade union associations in the presidium of the State Planning Commission and planning commissions. In addition, the Congress worked out the basics of the standard regulations for the State Planning Commissions of the Union republics and regional planning commissions. Some of these resolutions of the Congress have not been implemented to this day, others have received legislative formalization in the resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of June 8, 1927, which, having subordinated the planning bodies of departments directly to the leadership of the relevant people's commissariats, left for them the directives of the State Planning Committee of the USSR in the field of methodology, work programs and calendar deadlines for their implementation and obliged the departments to submit to the State Planning Committee all necessary materials. The State Planning Commissions of the Union Republics, according to the same resolution, are subordinate to the leadership of the State Planning Committee of the USSR on a directive basis. If the relationship between the planning bodies of the Union and the State Planning Committee of the USSR is so legally formalized, then the relationship between the departmental planning bodies of the republics and the State Planning Commissions of the republics, and even more so the relationship between local departmental bodies and local planning commissions (regional and provincial plans), remain unformed to this day.

The First Congress of the Presidiums of the State Planning Commission formulated the following main tasks of planned work: a) revision of the electrification plan "as the main core of the general plan for the reconstruction of the national economy on an energy basis"; b) a long-term national economic plan; c) annual target figures, “preceding and concluding the annual operating plans”; d) a system of market observations; e) work on a complex of socio-cultural phenomena. The same tasks are included in the resolutions of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of June 8, 1927 No.

The First Congress of the Presidiums of the State Planning Commission and the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of June 8, 1927, give shape and sum up the great synthetic work that was done by the State Planning Commission in the previous stages of its activity. Synthetic work of the State Planning Commission and the entire system of planning bodies in the previous periods of their activity is the dominant, but by no means the only form of planning work. Not to mention work on zoning, individual sections of the State Planning Commission, beginning in 1921, that is, from the moment the State Planning Committee was formed, and then also pure planning commissions, have been carrying out a number of generalizing works on long-term planning.

Synthetic work in the State Planning Commission and in the republican and local planning bodies was also carried out along other lines of planning activity - along the line of budgetary work, along the line of research work, and especially along the line of studying the dynamics of the national economy in the bodies of market surveillance. During a certain period, until the first attempt to draw up a national economic plan in the form of control figures for the national economy. it was market observations that made it possible to establish the interdependence of individual branches of the national economy and thereby correct the gaps that are inevitable in the development and consideration of separate, disparate plans. The very form of planning, which became known in 1925 as the "control figures of the national economy," became possible only on the basis of experience, materials, and the organization of market observations. By the very first Congress of Presidiums, the structure of the State Planning Commission, adapted to synthetic planned work, was also completed. Gosplan was divided into three main sectors: 1) Reconstruction sector; 2) Economic sector and 3) Industrial sector. Each sector unites a number of sections. Thus, the Reconstruction Sector includes sections: Electrification, Fuel, Construction, Zoning and the Bureau of Congresses for the Study of Productive Forces; Economic Sector - Trade, Budgetary and Financial, Economic and Statistical and Conjuncture Bureau; Sector production - Industrial, Agricultural and Transport. To unite the work of the sectors on the compilation of target figures, a long-term plan and on the revision of the GOERLO plan (master plan), three special commissions were formed: the Commission on target figures, the Commission on the long-term plan and the Commission on the master plan, whose tasks were to develop the methodology of the corresponding plans, in the consideration of individual sections of the plans and in their summary into a single plan. These 3 commissions were merged in 1928 into a single Central Commission advanced planning(CKPP). Thus, by the time of the First Congress of Presidiums, the organizational and, to a certain extent, methodological prerequisites and the experience of those new forms of work that the increasingly complex tasks of the national economy required from the planning bodies were already in place. But the front of planned work was still fragmented. The Congress of Presidiums gave impetus to the unification of disparate planning work, and the entire period following it passes under the sign of consolidation and concentration of planning efforts to solve the main problems of economic construction. The II Congress of the Presidiums of the State Planning Commission, March 25-31, 1927, devoted to the consideration of materials on a long-term five-year plan, again returns to the problem of organizing planned work, again puts forward the task of further work on the economic zoning of the USSR and again emphasizes the need for full cooperation of the people's commissariats and planning bodies with the State Planning Commission USSR. In a special resolution on organizational issues of planning, the II Congress of Planned Workers defines the system of planned work as a combination of control figures approved by the STO with operational plans approved by People's Commissariats, and establishes the procedure for reviewing and approving control figures and operational plans, which then received legislative formalization in a resolution of the Council of People's Commissars USSR dated June 8, 1927

The 15th Party Congress (December 2-19, 1927) did not specifically consider the question of organizing planned work; he gave directives for the preparation of a five-year long-term plan and only in passing stated "a significant step forward in the preparation of plan targets", and also recognized the need, in view of the growing complexity of planning and its growing importance, to strengthen planning discipline, strengthen planning bodies and improve planning management. But the content of the directives of the XV Congress on the five-year long-term plan made it necessary to change the very method of constructing the plan and the organization of work on its preparation. In contrast to previous works, not only the central departments, but also the entire periphery of the republican and local planning and departmental bodies are now forcibly involved in the preparation of the five-year plan. The country's scientific and technical forces are also drawn into planned work. The congress will finally give a definite solution to the problem of organizing planned work, which, beginning with the GOELRO, has never ceased to occupy planning thought, i.e., the problem of economic zoning.

The III Congress of the Presidiums of the State Planning Commission, which took place already after the XV Party Congress, namely on March 6-14, 1928, also returns to the organizational problem of planning. The resolution of the congress indicates the following principles for organizing further work on the construction of a five-year plan: 1) a long-term plan for the development of the national economy of the USSR is drawn up by the State Planning Committee of the USSR together with the State Planning Commissions of the Union republics and Union departments, etc. b. it is structured in such a way that it presents concretely integral plans for the development of the economy of the Union republics and economic regions and plans for individual branches of the national economy of the USSR; 2) The state planning committees of the union republics and the union departments draw up plans for the development of individual branches of the national economy, plans for the republics and regions on the basis of the directives and assignments of the union and republican governments, according to the forms taught by the USSR State Planning Committee. Gosplans of the republics and union departments, as well as individual economic regions if they consider it necessary, they develop, along with this, also options for individual elements of the long-term plan; 3) the largest enterprises of union significance on the territory of the union republics or regions must take an active part in the work of the corresponding planning bodies; 4) in order to achieve unity, the Central Statistical Board of the USSR and the union republics should also take part in the work according to the long-term plan.

Modern organization of planners. The modern system of planning bodies is determined by the above provisions on the State Planning Committee of the USSR and the State Planning Committees of the Union Republics, the decision of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of June 3, 1927, as well as the main provisions on the planning bodies of the people's commissariats of the USSR, adopted by the decision of the Council of People's Commissars of the Union on June 14, 1928. Planning bodies exist under all allied people's commissariats, with the exception of the people's commissariat for foreign affairs and the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs. The planning bodies of the people's commissariats are under the direct supervision of the relevant people's commissars, but in the field of the methodology of planned work and the timing of their implementation, they are also guided by the directives of the State Planning Committee of the USSR. Similar relations are being established between the State Planning Committee of the USSR and the State Planning Committees of the Union republics, which are directly subordinate to the Council of People's Commissars of the corresponding republic. Planning bodies are entrusted with the development of general and long-term plans, as well as annual control figures. In addition, the planning bodies of the people's commissariats are entrusted with the development of a consolidated annual plan for the relevant sectors, on the basis of approved control figures, the consideration of special operational plans and verification of their implementation from the point of view of the implementation of the plan. In the field of market observations, a connection is established in exactly the same way between the State Planning Committee of the USSR and other planning bodies: the latter are obliged to submit their reviews of the situation to the State Planning Committee of the USSR, which is entrusted with compiling a general review of the state of the national economy. The Gosplan of the USSR also concentrates the management of research work on issues related to the preparation of plans, and the research program of planning bodies and people's commissariats. agreed with the State Planning Committee of the USSR. At present, work on the general and long-term plans, as well as work on the control figures of the national economy, are methodologically and organizationally linked to each other, and in the general range of issues of long-term planning in the State Planning Committee of the USSR (and in the planning bodies of the republics and in local planning bodies - also in areas of current planning) introduced a set of problems of socio-cultural construction.

Organizing Ideas for Planned Work. A study of the stages in the organization of planned work indicates the enormous organizing influence that the idea of ​​the unity of the plan had on the system of planning organs. After the first experience of creating a single economic center in the person of the Supreme Council of National Economy and a single economic plan in terms of the electrification of the RSFSR, the unity of planning work is carried out, however, not in a direct, but in a roundabout way, by solving specific and individual tasks and by creating a number of autonomous planning bodies. Feature The process of realizing the unity of planned work lies precisely in this realization of the inevitability and necessity of approaching the unity and integrity of the plan from an individual and concrete approach, an approach that leads along the path of long-term efforts and struggle. And in this view of the plan and the organization of planned work, as a "struggle for the plan," as a process of long-term collective work to overcome a number of obstacles, lies the second organizing idea of ​​the past segment of planned work. Starting with the enormous synthetic work of the GOELRO on a unified economic plan, planning thought and planning practice abruptly change the direction of their work at a certain stage of the economic struggle and the state of the productive forces and, fearing to bureaucratize the plan, turn almost all their efforts, all their attention to current questions. In this conscious desire to work without breaking away from a specific economic activity This parallelism of the stages of organizing planned work and the stages of organizing operational work is the third organizing idea of ​​planned thought - an idea that formed the methodology of planned work, but at the same time created a number of difficulties and dangers for it. And, finally, one more organizing idea was noted at all stages of the planned work of the past period: the idea of ​​economic zoning of the country as a method of economic construction and economic planning. This idea also has not yet been put into practice; its implementation is also a long process of collective creativity and struggle for a plan. The legislative formalization of the system of planning bodies is far from being completed.

The study of legislation and the actual organization of planned work reveals an important feature of planning bodies in Soviet construction. The planning bodies are neither bodies of power nor an independent authority in the management of the national economy. They are subsidiary cells of those governing bodies under which they serve as commissions. In this sense, the entire system of planning bodies is fragmented among many - union, republican and local - government bodies. Each planning commission is autonomous in relation to the planning body above and next to it, and is directly subordinate to its own government body. Nevertheless, the planned system is one, just as the entire apparatus for managing the national economy of the Union is one. The unity of the planning system is achieved, however, not through a hierarchy and subordination of planning authorities, but through peculiar normative acts regulating the process of planning activity itself, both by legislative means and at congresses and meetings of planners (see diagram).

HISTORY OF ECONOMIC SCIENCE

GOSPLAN AND STATE STRATEGIC PLANNING

B.A. Reisberg

The article outlines the main milestones in the creation and activities of the State Planning Commission as the central body of strategic planning in the Soviet economy. The related problems of the revival of strategic planning of social economic development in modern Russia.

The name "Gosplan" is known to the younger generation of Russians only as a historical category of the irrevocably gone past, a relic of the Soviet era. Older people associate Gosplan with a symbol, the personification of the system that dominated Russia for seven decades, which, according to many people, was the bastion of the planned economic system, the general headquarters of the so-called "command" economy. Persons who, for one reason or another, feel hostility to the communist ideology, to the Soviet past, who know little about the activities of the state planning committee as a government body Soviet Union, tend to unconditionally condemn the State Planning Commission, consider it an archaism that has sunk into oblivion due to its complete unsuitability for managing a market economy. And vice versa, those who are nostalgic for the old days, remembering not only the shortage of goods and queues in stores, but also fixed state prices that are not subject to chronic inflation, and sometimes even declining, remember the “late” Gosplan with regret.

The existence of the State Planning Committee (State Planning Committee) covers the period from February 22, 1921, when it was created by a decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR on the basis of the Commission for the Development of the State Plan for the Electrification of Russia (GOELRO), and until 1991, when the Ministry of economy of the Russian Federation. The State Planning Committee was organized as a body carrying out nationwide planning for the development of the country's national economy and control over the implementation of national economic plans. The first chairman of the State Planning Commission was a personal friend of Lenin, a well-known scientist in the field of energy, academician G.M. Krzhizhanovsky.

At first, Gosplan acted as an analytical and advising center; since 1925, it began to develop planned guidelines for the development of economic sectors for the next year in the form of control figures. Since 1928, the development of state five-year plans for the development of the national economy began. In total, up to 1990, 12 such plans were drawn up (one of them, in the period from 1959 to 1965, turned out to be seven years old at the behest of Khrushchev).

There is no doubt that the State Planning Commission made a significant contribution to the formation and growth of the Soviet economy, the industrialization of the country, the formation of an industrial potential that made it possible to resist and win in the terrible war years. The field of activity of the State Planning Commission, its ties with other bodies of state management of the economy were constantly expanding, the network of scientific organizations included in the State Planning Committee was developing, institutions and prominent scientists of the Academy of Sciences, research and design industry, regional organizations (Strumilin, 1957). Alas, the Gosplanov tradition of involving economic science in the process of developing and substantiating strategic national economic decisions was subsequently largely lost.

The history of the State Planning Commission is far from cloudless, it was marked by political struggle, intrigues in power, and the elimination of the so-called "enemies of the people." Already in the 1920s. scientific controversy, when there was a creative discussion about plans and planning under socialism, in which the largest Russian scientists-economists of that time were involved, was supplanted by party dictatorship. Scientists objectionable to the regime were declared bourgeois, removed from scientific research, and physically destroyed. Outstanding scientists of world renown became victims of persecution and repression

A.B. Chayanov and N.D. Kondratiev.

The creator of the theory of economic cycles, long waves, Kondratiev defended the idea that the role of long-term plans is not to fix quantitative volume indicators, but to establish a general development orientation, to develop a strategy. Meanwhile, in Stalin's political report at the XV Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in December 1927, it was clearly stated: “Our plans are not plans-forecasts, not plans-guesses, but plans-directives that are binding on the governing bodies and which determine the direction of our economic development in the future on a national scale. Perhaps it was this Stalinist attitude that had a decisive influence on the rejection of state indicative planning (plans-forecasts), which is still observed in our country.

Personnel purges and repressions did not escape the leading workers, the leaders of the State Planning Commission. Among those repressed in 1937 were the chairmen of the State Planning Committee V.I. Mezhlauk and

B.I. Smirnov, who were shot in 1938. The same tragic fate befell N.V. Voznesensky, who headed the State Planning Committee during the Great Patriotic War, was appointed in 1949 as an authorized representative of the State Defense Committee for the production of ammunition, one of the main blacksmiths of the victory over fascism in the war.

Throughout Soviet history Despite the mentioned and other tragic events, failures in state planning, which did not allow reaching many planned targets, winning competition with the capitalist system, the State Planning Committee steadily expanded the scope of its activities. In 1921, the personnel of the Gosplan apparatus consisted of 40 economists, engineers and support workers; the number of employees in the Gosplan system exceeded 3,000 workers (Baibakov, 2001).

But it's not just about numbers. The Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation, which inherited a small fraction of Gosplan's managerial functions, had over 2,000 employees in 2006. Meanwhile, Gosplan directed and controlled economic activity all ministries and departments of the country, i.е. the range of functions performed by him went far beyond the scope of one single modern ministry, even such as the Ministry of Economy or the Ministry of Finance.

The Gosplan system included an extensive network of research organizations (Economic Institute, Institute of Planning and Regulations, Institute of Complex Transport Problems, Council for the Study of Productive Forces), the Main Computing Center, the State Expert Commission, the Interdepartmental Commission on Economic Reform, Higher Economic Courses. Gosplan published the leading economic journal, Planned Economy, which has now been transformed into the journal The Economist. Thus, the planning center of the country had a scientific and information infrastructure that made it possible to maintain the methodological support of planned developments and designs at a high level. Furthermore, scientific organizations were directly involved in the preparation and substantiation of plans, in the development of forecasts and target

programs on which short- and medium-term plans were based (http://www.cultinfo.ru/&Wex^1/001/008/012/165.htm).

In the post-Stalin period of the socio-political thaw that was observed in the 1960s, there are tangible changes in the methodology and organization of state planning, directive-command planning is shifting towards distributive-coordination, acquiring a more democratic, liberal character. Forecasting is not only recognized, but becomes part of the planning process at the state level. At the initiative of the Prime Minister A.N. Kosygin, who was previously the Chairman of the State Planning Commission, in 1965 was carried out economic reform which increased the economic independence of manufacturing enterprises. The number of planned indicators sent down to enterprises from above by the State Planning Commission and ministries was reduced. Enterprises have gained the ability to plan their activities based on indicators of sold products, profits and profitability of production, which were previously considered seditious as "capitalist".

The movement towards a combination of state planning with a gradual expansion of the zone of commodity-money, contractual and market relations continued in subsequent years, along with the liberalization of planning processes. Predominantly sectoral national economic planning was increasingly linked to regional planning. Part of the long-term plans were the general schemes for the distribution of productive forces, which are being developed with the participation of the Union republics and large regions of the country.

The planning process was built according to the scheme of iterative inter-level coordination. Draft plans received from the State Planning Committee in the form of consolidated control figures, the main directions were disaggregated, detailed, concretized by ministries, regional planning bodies, production organizations -

and, after which they returned in an aggregate form back to the upper levels of the planning system, which ensured the coordination of plans along the vertical in the territorial and sectoral sections.

It is fundamentally important to note that the planning directives (or rather, installations) of the State Planning Commission in the form of indicators of the volume of production of goods and services and financial indicators were supported by the allocation of an appropriate amount of state capital investments and material and material resources, the supply of which was provided by the state system of material and technical supply represented by Gossnab. The volumes of resource provision of commodity producers were determined in accordance with the standards, and sufficiently stable price parameters were guaranteed by the existing methods of state pricing, price planning. To a certain extent, reciprocal planning took place, in which planning initiatives and proposals were put forward not from above, but from below - from enterprises, organizations, ministries, departments, and regions.

It cannot be said that the Soviet system of state planning was overly rigid. Failure to comply with plans was rarely punished with severe penalties. Gosplan devoted as much time to correcting plans as to developing them. Among the Gosplanners, with a smile and hidden sarcasm, the statement was expressed: "The final idea of ​​​​the annual plan can be obtained only at the end of the year, when it is subjected to the last adjustment." It is clear that the revised plans were mostly carried out.

I would like to refute the widespread false belief, according to which the State Planning Commission planned the entire range of manufactured products down to the “screw and nut”. In fact, the state annual plan for economic and social development was developed by the State Planning Commission for the production of only a few thousand types of products.

tion, and the five-year one - according to an even more narrowed structure of indicators, while the Soviet economy produced tens of millions of types of products. Practically all economic entities had a certain degree of “planned freedom”.

With all the imperfections and individual vices of the Soviet system of state planning, which are not so much the responsibility of the State Planning Committee as the party-state ideology, tied to the regime of power that existed during this period, communist in form and non-communist in content, the methods and organization of state planning were continuously progressing. In any case, the improvement and improvement of planning at the national, union-republican, ministerial, local production levels was the subject of constant concern and attention of the State Planning Commission itself and the highest bodies of state power. The status position of the state socio-economic planning was enshrined in Ch. 16 of the Constitution of the USSR, the state plan itself had the force of law. The system of Soviet planning was studied and to some extent borrowed by both socialist and capitalist countries.

In Soviet economic science and the practice of planned management, the following organizational and methodological principles and forms of strategic state planning were worked out and partially implemented:

Building a system of multi-level plans with different lengths of the planning period, combining short-, medium- and long-term plans, extended through the use of continuous-rolling planning;

Consolidation of forecasting, planning, accounting and control over the implementation of plans into a single process;

Development and implementation of targeted programs as one of the forms of state long-term planning;

The use of economic and mathematical methods, computer and information technology in planning, the creation of an automated system of planned calculations (ASPR) of the State Planning Committee of the USSR and the state plans of the Union republics.

Among the least successful undertakings of the State Planning Commission, one has to include numerous unsuccessful attempts to master long-term strategic planning in the form of long-term, designed for 15 years, state plans for economic and social development. It was also not possible to solve the problem of embedding targeted programs in annual and five-year plans, which turned out to be not linked in terms of goals, resources, terms with production plans and budgetary possibilities.

But the crushing blow to state planning in Russia was dealt not by the imperfections inherent in the planned system, but by market reforms, which were also accompanied by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dismemberment of its economy. As you know, there was no coherent, well-thought-out, predetermined program for the transition from a centrally controlled Soviet economy to some other, more attractive economy, which was called a market economy, not knowing, in essence, what it would be like in Russia. The political task was rather to eliminate the system that had existed for 70 years and prevent its revival than the task of building a renewed economy according to a sound project, built taking into account the historical, national, natural features of the country and the mentality of its people.

In order to reliably solve the political problem, the reformers linked it with the elimination of economic and administrative institutions that existed in the dying political system. State property began to be taken away, dispersed and immediately picked up through hasty privatization. They got rid of the shortage of goods by releasing the price “genie”, which he immediately ate, turned monetary gains into dust.

population decline in the amount of hundreds of billions of rubles, causing hyperinflation. And the planned economic system was declared not only unnecessary, but also harmful, contraindicated for the coveted market. Gosplan was also sacrificed.

The logic of abandoning plans and planning was amazing, hard to comprehend. For example, the zealous near-scientific lady Larisa Piyasheva, who is fond of extravagant, but impressive-sounding ideas expressed in a non-trivial form, declared at the top of her voice: “Either the plan, or the market, you can’t be half-pregnant.” Oddly enough, but the physiological analogy in its application to the management of the economy turned out to be acceptable for the more respectable people who decided to liquidate the State Planning Commission, as well as for free market apologists who believe that state planning is evil.

The very opposition of the plan and the market as incompatible categories belongs to the category of misunderstandings. Plans, planning is a universal property, immanently inherent in any kind of conscious, purposeful, externally controlled activity, including market activity. A person, social group, society, state, who set themselves certain goals, are forced and obliged to make plans to achieve these goals. Otherwise, the goals themselves are a fiction, a product of the imagination, an instrument of suggestion or deception.

The main agents of any market represented by producers of goods, sellers, buyers, and other persons involved in the sphere of circulation cannot do without planning. The manufacturer must plan production, and the seller must plan the sale of goods, based on effective market demand. Buyers, purchasers, customers, before entering the market, plan the volume and structure of purchases, orders, based on their needs and solvency. So the market itself needs planning and forecasting. We can only talk about the extent to which the planning of market turnover, purchase and sale is the business of market participants, and

in which - the state, although the state itself is also a market participant.

Adam Smith's fair remark that the market is regulated by its own "invisible hand" by no means precludes planning. After all, this very “hand” is guided by business plans, concluded agreements, contracts, pre-planned programs for production, purchases, sales, price intentions, which are nothing more than plans that have not been announced for the time being.

The contempt for plans inherent in liberal doctrine has fortunately not extended its influence to corporate planning. In the context of the formation of market forms and methods of management in Russia, entrepreneurial planning, on the contrary, strengthened its positions, embodied in numerous, largely mandatory business plans, programs, projects, planned and reporting balance sheets of firms. Budget planning has been strengthened at the regional and state levels. Budgets have become the main form of macroeconomic financial plans, and there has been a trend to move from annual to three-year budgeting. The ban on the development of state plans did not formally affect federal, regional and municipal socio-economic programs and projects, which, according to marketers, are capable of replacing the national plans they hate so much.

Market reforms dealt a powerful blow to state planning in its tangible form: in the form of macroeconomic indicators of plans for production and consumption in kind, physical dimension, representing the most reliable way to get an objective view of the economy. In the established system of budgetary and program macroeconomic planning, physical indicators that occupied a leading place in Soviet state planning have been pushed aside by cost and monetary indicators.

As a result of the cumulative effect of market transformations, the liberal model of economic management introduced from outside, strategic, nationwide, national planning for the long term has practically ceased to exist in Russia. It has been reduced to declarative concepts that do not have planned power, do not oblige and do not give rise to responsibility. For the sake of objectivity, we note that even in the former state planning system it was not possible to breathe life into long-term plans, to give effectiveness, reality to long-term strategic state target programs. Nevertheless, the landmarks of the five-year state plans for economic and social development still existed and were largely achieved. Now the visibility of strategic planning is supported only by long-term forecasts, periodically updated by target programs that do not reach the planned final result, and formed in last years long-term strategies for the development of oil and gas, fuel and energy, transport complexes.

The legislative and regulatory framework for state forecasting, programming, and planning is represented by Federal Law No. 115-FZ adopted in 1995 “On State Forecasting and Programs for the Socio-Economic Development of the Russian Federation”. The imperfection of this law was clearly felt even at the stage of its consideration and approval, but it is still in force with minor changes. The draft law on state strategic planning prepared by the Government of the Russian Federation is at an early stage of consideration. The concepts of "strategic plan", "state plan" have lost so much interest on the part of society that in order to revive them, they had to resort to the formula "Putin's plan".

An important role in the extinction of state strategic planning

the curtailment of scientific research in this area, the exclusion of state planning from the composition of subjects studied in universities of economic profile, the absence of the program-targeted planning course in the curricula of universities played a role.

The transformation of the forms and methods of management in the Russian economy, called market reforms, led to the abolition of the Soviet system of state planning, the liquidation of the State Planning Commission without replacing it with an adequate planning body on a national scale, in which the reformers simply did not see the need. The functions of state forecasting were assigned to the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation. These functions were reduced to the periodic development of several options (optimistic, pessimistic, medium) according to the concept of medium-term, but in fact short-term forecasts that did not have a significant impact on the conduct of the state economic, industrial, social policy. Forecast developments of the Ministry did not turn into planned designs, into the construction of strategic plans and did not have a significant impact on the formation of disparate, unrelated federal, regional, municipal target programs. The transition from annual to three-year budgets did not lead to the development of strategic planning through synthesis, the unification of planning and management activities of the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, to the achievement of consistency in budget and program projections.

Separate functions of strategic planning and management in modern Russia are performed by the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation, which follows from the increasing linkage of the main directions and decisions in the field of socio-economic policy to the annual presidential messages. To some extent, it is legitimate to consider that expert management is related to strategic planning.

President of the Russian Federation, authorized to coordinate, develop and review national projects, develop forecasts and scenarios for the development of socio-economic relations (Polterovich, 2007).

At the same time, there is practically no public discussion and promulgation of the state socio-economic strategy in a form accessible to the perception of every citizen, the mechanisms, technology and organization of the formation of the strategy remain obscured, it is not clear who develops it, substantiates it, gives it a public character, bears for it a responsibility. There is an obvious need to create a federal body, in whose hands the instruments of state production and financial, sectoral and regional, program-targeted, foreign economic, social planning in its strategic, long-term implementation should be concentrated.

Among the most serious theoretical, methodological, organizational problems of state strategic planning is the establishment of a relationship between long-term state plans and targeted socio-economic programs. It is well known that in an economy based on market relations and forms of management, many functions of the plan are assumed by state social, production and technological, scientific and technical, environmental, military, and foreign economic programs. There is even an opinion that the totality of such programs implemented by the state with the involvement of private companies through state orders and interested participation embodies state planning in a market economy. In support of this idea, facts are cited showing that in some economically developed countries, state programs absorb the lion's share of the budget.

The Russian practice of developing and implementing federal, regional, intersectoral and sectoral socio-economic programs in both the Soviet and post-Soviet periods did not give rise to the transformation of strategic state planning into program-targeted, although it did not reject such a possibility. Numerous federal targeted programs, of which there are now about 50, serve more as a way to extract funds from the state budget by the initiators and participants of programs than as tools for strategic national economic planning. Perhaps, as a result, targeted programs are underfunded by the budget, are not implemented, are postponed to new dates, or even completely forgotten. In addition, targeted programs in Russia do not cover the entire spectrum of urgent large-scale socio-economic problems.

In recent years, the most acute, significant federal targeted programs have acquired the status of national projects, which to a certain extent made it possible to achieve a concentration of efforts and funds on solving the strategic tasks of ensuring the availability of housing for Russian citizens, developing education and healthcare, and raising the agro-industrial complex. However, the totality of national projects does not make up for the absence of an integral system of state strategic planning.

The process of developing and approving federal targeted programs actually does not provide for a procedure for their mutual agreement, the same applies to linking federal and regional programs, only their “fit” into the total amount of budget allocations is checked. It is also legitimate to assert that there is no coherence, taking into account the interpenetration and “intersection” of national projects.

One should not dispute the fairness of the provision according to which state targeted programs are capable, in conditions of a reasonable choice of problems to be solved.

programmatically, and the application of progressive methods of managing the development and implementation of programs to become a full-fledged tool for state strategic planning. But the presence of programs does not exclude the need to develop a single strategy of socio-economic development for the long term, embodied in the form of a long-term state plan, in the fabric of which programs and national projects should be woven. It remains to be seen whether this should be a purely conceptual plan, an indicative forecast plan, a binding plan based on the principles of public-private cooperation and partnership.

Among the most serious difficulties in creating an effective, not ostentatious, but real system of strategic planning in Russia is the lack of scientifically based goal-setting, not fettered by inertia and prejudices, not limited by a period of time, the duration of which depends on the length of the zone of own, group, public interests of the persons receiving strategic decisions. Objective formation and justification of goals strategic plan countries, reflecting the true needs, in the form of interrelated quantitative and qualitative indicators, the totality of which forms the "tree of goals" of the long-term plan, is the subject of highly intellectual activity, limitedly amenable to formalization, requiring mental insight and synthetic experience. One cannot do without a systematic, integrated scientific approach, liberated from bias, controlled by different branches of government and civil society.

The Russian practice of strategic planning and its preceding goal-setting everywhere confirms the trend towards overestimation of promises by persons called upon to construct, verbally and numerically express targets related to the long term.

The adoption of such propagandistic, projectionist guidelines undermines the plan, dooms it to the deliberate unattainability of results. Russian society has repeatedly witnessed the setting of illusory strategic goals and a participant in the subsequent search for those responsible for the fact that the goals were not achieved, were forgotten, replaced by new, equally illusory landmarks.

As follows from the above, the path to the revival and construction of an updated system of state strategic planning in Russia is thorny, it requires overcoming many expected and yet unknown obstacles, such as psychological barriers, inertia, and insufficient professionalism of personnel. But the benefits of a well-founded planned strategy of action, gaining public acceptance, certainly will pay off the costs. Yes, and another successful way Russian economy simply no. Without a strategic planning system, the social orientation of the economy, ensuring the economic, financial, military security of the country, transferring the national economy to an innovative development path and achieving high level competitiveness.

AT THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND THE SECTION OF ECONOMICS OF THE RAS

Literature

Baybakov N. Modern Russia needs a planning system // Nezavisimaya Gazeta. Feb 22, 2001

Polterovich V.M. On the catch-up development strategy for Russia // economic science modern Russia. 2007. No. 3 (38).