No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 October 2009
The formulation and execution of economic policy towards the Soviet block has generally been based on the presumption by Western governments of the inevitable and demonstrable economic superiority of capitalist over communist systems. Expectations derived from theoretical analysis of the misallocation of economic resources that would obtain in an economy lacking a rational price system appear to be sustained by empirical investigation of the Soviet Union. The impossibility of ensuring consistent and optimal plans, the failure to meet demand in terms of both quantity and quality of consumer goods and the requirement of excessive inputs of factors and resources per unit of output in both industry and agriculture compared with the mixed economies have been well documented, and appear to be endemic in Eastern Europe. Although it is more difficult to make international comparisons of dynamic efficiency due to the lack of an appropriate conceptual framework, both theoretical and empirical analyses appear to sustain the conventional orthodoxy. Material balances planning, and in particular the system of factor rewards prevailing in the U.S.S.R., give rise to expectations of bias against technical progress. The most comprehensive investigation into the sources of technological progress in the Soviet Union shows that in the period 1945–65, only 11 per cent of the technologies then in use had been internally generated, the rest being imported from capitalist sources. It has been estimated that, the technology gap between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. may be between 10 and 25 years. The impressively high growth rates achieved by the Soviet Union in the 1950s and early 1960s, it is further claimed, are not evidence of the eventual dynamic superiority of the planned system, as Soviet economists insist, but are no more than a reflection of the low level of economic development which the Soviet economy had attained by the beginning of the period of the Five Year Plans. Once abundant and under-utilized factors of production were fully absorbed into the economy, the requirement of the extensive growth model for large inputs of labour and capital per unit of output would cause a deceleration of growth rates. Statistics for the 1970s appear to bear out the prediction.
1. See for instance Peterson, P. G., US-Soviet Commercial Relationships in a New Era, Department of Commerce (Washington D.C., 1972).Google Scholar
2. Keizer, W., The Soviet Questfor Economic Rationality (Rotterdam, 1971), Chap. VII.Google Scholar
3. Marczewski, J., Crisis in Socialist Planning, Eastern Europe and the U.S.S.R. (translated from the French by N. Lindsay) (New York, 1976).Google Scholar
4. Berliner, J., Prospects for Technological Progress in Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, Soviet Economy in a New Perspective (Washington D.C., 1976).Google Scholar
5. Sutton, A., Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development 1945–1965, iii (Stanford, 1973).Google Scholar
6. Boretsky, M., Comparative Progress in Technology, Productivity and Economic Efficiency in the U.S.S.R. Versus the U.S.A. in Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, New Directions in the Soviet Economy (Washington D.C., 1966).Google Scholar
7. Cohn, S., Economic Development in the Soviet Union (Lexington, 1970).Google Scholar
8. S. Cohn, Deficiencies in Soviet Investment Policies and the Technological Imperative in Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, 1976, op cit.
9. Shulman, M., ‘Towards a Western Philosophy of Coexistence’, Foreign Affairs, 52 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Ingersoll, R., ‘The Role of East-West Trade in United States Foreign Policy’, Department of State Bulletin, lxxiv (1973).Google Scholar
11. Hansen, P., ‘Technology Transfer to the Soviet Union’, Survey, 23 (1977–1978).Google Scholar
12. Brown, S., New Forces in World Politics (Washington D.C., 1974).Google Scholar
13. Keesing, D., ‘Labour Skills and International Trade Evaluating Many Trade Flows with a Single Measuring Device’, Review of Economics and Statistics, 47 (1965).Google Scholar
14. Moran, T., ‘Foreign Expansion as an Institutional Necessity for U.S. Corporate Capitalism’, World Politics, xxv (1972–73)Google Scholar.
15. Christopher, W., ‘Economics: Strategy for a New Agenda’, Department of State Bulletin, 78 (1978).Google Scholar
16. Barnet, R. and Muller, R., Global Reach, The Power of the Multinational Corporations (London, 1975), p. 16.Google Scholar
17. Nelson, R., ‘Aggregate Production Functions and Medium Range Growth Projections’, American Economic Review, liv (1964).Google Scholar
18. I.M.F., Annual Report of the Executive Directors For Fiscal year ended April 1979 (Washington D.C., 1979).Google Scholar
19. Kahler, M., ‘America's Foreign Economic Policy’, International Affairs, 56 (1980).Google Scholar
20. Smith, Industrial Cooperation Agreements: Soviet Experience and Planning. Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States (1976). op. cit.
21. J. Farrell and P. Ericson, Soviet Trade and Payments with the West. Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States (1976), op. cit.
22. M. Smith, loc. cit.
23. Financial Times, 2 October 1979.Google Scholar
24. Financial Times, 11 September 1979.Google Scholar
25. The Economist, 17 March 1980.Google Scholar
26. Maier, C., ‘The Politics of Productivity, Foundations of American International Economic Policy After World War II’, International Organization, xxxi (1977).Google Scholar
27. Lowe, W., ‘Creating Power Plants: The Cost of Technology’, Technology Review, 74 (1972).Google Scholar
28. Levinson, C., Capital, Inflation and the Multinationals (London, 1971).Google Scholar
29. Morse, E., Modernization and the Transformation of the International System (New York, 1976), ch. 2.Google Scholar
30. Rivlin, A., ‘Income Distribution, Can Economists Help?’ American Economic Review, 65 (1975), Papers and Proceedings, p. 1.Google Scholar
31. Bell, D., ‘The Future World Disorder’, Foreign Policy, 27 (1977).Google Scholar
32. Olson, M., ‘The Political Economy of Growth Repressing Forces’ (Mimeo).Google Scholar
33. D. Bell, op cit.
34. Financial Times, 26 May 1979.Google Scholar
35. The Economist, 20 October 1979.Google Scholar
36. Wang, S., ‘Where Will Nuclear Power be in 1980?’ Consulting Engineer, xxxvii (1971).Google Scholar
37. Faltermayer, E., ‘It's Time to End the Holy War over Nuclear Power’, Fortune, 12 March 1979.Google Scholar
38. Bupp, I. and Devain, J., ‘The Economics of Nuclear Power’, Technology Review, 11 (1975).Google Scholar
39. King, M., ‘Survey of World Energy Prospects’, Canadian Mining and Metallurgy Bulletin, 66 (1973).Google Scholar
40. Meyer, A., ‘The Function of Ideology in the Soviet Political System, A Speculative Essay Designed to Promote Discussion’, Soviet Studies, xvii (1965)Google Scholar.
41. Goldman, J., ‘Externalities and Growth in the U.S.S.R.’, Journal of Political Economy, 80 (1972).Google Scholar
42. ‘Coal Through Pipes’, Izvestia, 6 February 1980.Google Scholar Reported in Current Digest of the Soviet Press, xxxvii (1980).
43. Keesings Contemporary Archives, xxv, (1979).Google Scholar
44. Pryde, P. and Pryde, L., 'Soviet Nuclear Power, Environment, 16 (1974).Google Scholar
45. W. Keizer, op. cit.
46. Rothman, S. and Breslauer, G., ‘Soviet Politics and Society’, (St. Paul, 1978), ch. 12.Google Scholar
47. Nove, A., The Soviet Economic System (London, 1977), ch. 14.Google Scholar
48. Nove, A., ‘Is there a Ruling Class in the Soviet Union?’ Soviet Studies, 27 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49. C. Maier, op. cit.
50. Spero, J., The Politics of International Economic Relations (London, 1977), ch. 3.Google Scholar
51. Cooper, R., ‘Trade Policy in Foreign Policy’, Foreign Policy, No. 9 (1972–1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
52. I.M.F. Annual Report, Exchange Arrangements and Exchange Restrictions (Washington D.C., 1979).Google Scholar
53. Beckerman, W. (ed.), Slow Growth in Britain (London, 1979).Google Scholar
54. Ebinger, C., International Politics of Nuclear Energy, Sage Policy Paper published for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (Beverly Hills, 1978).Google Scholar
55. Friedland, E., Seabury, P. and Wildanski, A., ‘Oil and the Decline of Western Power’, Political Science Quarterly, 90 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
56. O'Leary, J., ‘Perspectives on Interdependence’, Orbis, 22 (1978).Google Scholar
57. Bobrow, D. and Kundrie, R., ‘Energy R & D: In Tepid Pursuit of Collective Goods’, International Organization, 33 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
58. Richardson, D., ‘The Prospects for an International Monetary System’, Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin, 19 (1979).Google Scholar
59. Holzman, F., International Trade under Communism, Politics and Economics (New York, 1976), ch. 3.Google Scholar
60. Soviet Economic Problems and Prospects, A Study Prepared for the Use of the Subcommittee on Priorities and Economy in Government, Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States (Washington D.C., 1977).
61. Soviet Proved Oil Reserves 1946–1980, PetroStudies (Malmo, Sweden, 1979).Google Scholar
62. Haberstroth, J., Eastern Europe, Growing Energy Problems. Eastern European Economies Post Helsinki, Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States (Washington D.C., 1977).Google Scholar
63. Financial Times, 23 January 1980.Google Scholar
64. Financial Times, 25 January 1980.Google Scholar
65. Financial Times, 12 September 1979.Google Scholar
66. Kosygin, A. N., ‘On the Basis of Fraternal Cooperation’, Pravda, 8 July 1976. Quoted in Current Digest of the Soviet Press, 28 (1976).Google Scholar