Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T01:31:52.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS AND THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION: THE SOVIET INDUSTRIALISATION DEBATE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2018

Diego Azqueta
Diego Azqueta*
Affiliation:
Universidad de Alcala de Henares
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

After the triumph of the October Revolution in Russia the issue of how to develop a backward economy towards a socialist society took pre-eminence. The relationship between agriculture and industry was one of the key issues. In this respect, the Left Opposition argued in favour of a Big Push for industrialisation financed through the exploitation of the peasantry, while the Right Deviation defended adjusting industrial growth to the development of the agricultural surplus. The First 5-Year Plan meant the complete victory of one of these positions. Unfortunately, all discussions were banned subsequently, the leading figures of these two factions were expelled from the Party and many of them executed. Yet, this problem was of the utmost importance for underdeveloped countries, as Development Economics was to discover 25 years later. This new branch of Economics would have benefitted greatly from the lessons of the Soviet experience regarding industrialisation, as well as from the theoretical discussions surrounding it.

Resumen

Tras el triunfo de la Revolución de Octubre en Rusia el reto de cómo construir el socialismo en una economía atrasada pasó a ocupar el primer plano. Uno de los principales problemas en este sentido era el de las relaciones entre agricultura e industria. La Oposición de Izquierdas abogaba por una industrialización acelerada financiada mediante la explotación del sector agrícola. La Desviación de Derechas argumentaba la necesidad de ajustar el desarrollo industrial al agrícola. El Primer Plan Quinquenal supuso el triunfo absoluto de una de ellas. Desgraciadamente toda discusión fue suprimida después de su aprobación, y los principales protagonistas expulsados del Partido y muchos de ellos ejecutados. Sin embargo, los problemas discutidos eran de la mayor importancia para los países subdesarrollados, como descubriría 25 años después la Economía del Desarrollo. Esta nueva rama de la economía se habría beneficiado enormemente del conocimiento de la experiencia de la industrialización soviética, y de las discusiones teóricas que la acompañaron.

Keywords

Fel´dman-Mahalanobis modelagrarian questiondevelopment economicsN14B24O21Modelo Fel´dman-MahalanobisCuestión AgrariaEconomía del Desarrollo
Type
Articles/Artículos
Information
Revista de Historia Economica - Journal of Iberian and Latin American Economic History , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , September 2018 , pp. 275 - 298
Copyright
© Instituto Figuerola, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

a

Department of Economics. [email protected]

References

Adamovsky, E. (2011): «Development Economics and the “Russian Case”: The Impact of Russia’s Realities and Thinkers in the Mid-Twentieth-Century Debate on Economic Development». Journal of the History of Economic Thought 33 (4), pp. 528-550.Google Scholar
Alacevich, M. (2011): «Early Development Economics Debates Revisited». Journal of the History of Economic Thought 33 (2), pp. 145-171.Google Scholar
Allen, R. C. (1997): «Agricultural Marketing and the Possibilities for Industrialization in the Soviet Union in the 1930s». Explorations in Economic History 34, pp. 387-410.Google Scholar
Allen, R. C. (1998): «Capital Accumulation, the Soft Budget Constraint and Soviet Industrialization». European Review of Economic History 2 (1), pp. 1-24.Google Scholar
Azqueta, D. (1983): Teoría de la acumulación socialista. Madrid: Hermann Blume.Google Scholar
Azqueta, D. (2003): «Reflexiones en torno a la NEP y la estrategia de industrialización acelerada en la URSS, 1921-1929». Revista de Historia Económica 21 (3), pp. 593-622.Google Scholar
Bai, Y., and Kung, J. K. (2014): «The Shaping of an Institutional Choice: Weather Shocks, the Great Leap Famine, and Agricultural Decollectivization in China». Explorations in Economic History 54, pp. 1-26.Google Scholar
Bardhan, P. (1993): «Economics of Development and the Development of Economics». Journal of Economic Perspectives 7 (2), pp. 129-142.Google Scholar
Barnett, V. (1995): «A Long Wave Goodbye: Kondrat’ev and the Conjuncture Institute, 1920-28». Europe-Asia Studies 47 (3), pp. 413-441.Google Scholar
Barnett, V. (2006): «Further Thoughts on Clarifying the Idea of Dissent: The Russian and Soviet Experience». Journal of the History of Economic Thought 28 (1), pp. 111-118.Google Scholar
Bettelheim, C. (1976): Class Struggles in the USSR, 1st Period 1917-1923. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
Bettelheim, C. (1978): Class Struggles in the USSR, 2nd period 1923-1930. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
Boianovsky, M. (2013): «The Economic Commission for Latin America and the 1950s’ Debate on Choice of Techniques». Review of Political Economy 25 (3), 373-398.Google Scholar
Boldyrev, I., and Kragh, M. (2015): «Isaak Rubin: Historian of Economic Thought During the Stalinization of Social Sciences in Soviet Russia». Journal of the History of Economic thought 37 (3), pp. 363-386.Google Scholar
Carr, E. H. (1969): 1917: Before and After. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Carr, E. H. (1972): Socialism in One Country. 4 vols London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Carr, E. H. (1974): Foundations of a Planned Economy, 3 vols (the 1st one with R.W. Davies). London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Charemza, W. W., and Kiraly, J. (1990): «Plans and Exogeneity: The Genetic-Teleological Dispute Revisited». Oxford Economic Papers 42, pp. 562-573.Google Scholar
Cheremukhin, A.; Golosov, M.; Guriev, S., and Tsyvinski, A. (2017): «The Industrialization and Economic Development of Russia through the Lens of a Neoclassical Growth Model». Review of Economic Studies 84, pp. 613-649.Google Scholar
Coulson, A. (2014): «The Agrarian Question: The Scholarship of David Mitrany Revisited». The Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (3), 405-419.Google Scholar
Dobb, M. (1966): Soviet Economic Development since 1917, 6th edn, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Domar, E. (1957): Essays in the Theory of Growth. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Findlay, R. (1962): «Capital Theory and Development Planning». Review of Economic Studies 29 (2), 85-98.Google Scholar
Hunter, H. (1998): «Tracking Economic Change With Ambiguous Tools: Soviet Planning, 1928-1991». Journal of Economic History 58 (4), pp. 1027-1031.Google Scholar
Kopsidis, M.; Bruisch, K., and Bromley, D. W. (2015): «Where is the Backward Russian Peasant? Evidence Against the Superiority of Private Farming, 1883–1913». The Journal of Peasant Studies 42 (2), 425-447.Google Scholar
Krugman, P. (1993): «Toward a Counter-Counterrevolution in Development Theory», in L. Summers, and S. Shah (eds), Proceedings of the World Bank Annual Conference on Development Economics 1992. Washington, DC: The World Bank. pp. 15-38.Google Scholar
Kung, J. K., and Lin, J. Y. (2003): «The Causes of China’s Great Leap Famine, 1959-1961». Economic Development and Cultural Change 52 (1), pp. 51-73.Google Scholar
Lewis, W. A. (1954): «Economic Development With Unlimited Supplies of Labour». The Manchester School XXII (2), 139-191.Google Scholar
Li, W., and Yang, D. T. (2005): «The Great Leap Forward: Anatomy of a Central Planning Disaster». Journal of Political Economy 113 (4), pp. 840-877.Google Scholar
Mahalanobis, P. C. (1953): «Some Observations on the Process of Growth of National Income». Sankhya 12 (4), 307-312.Google Scholar
Meier, G. M. (1970): Leading Issues in Economic Development. 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Meier, G. M. (2001): «The Old Generation of Development Economists and the New», in G. Meier, and J. Stiglitz (eds), Frontiers of Development Economics. New York: World Bank and Oxford University Press, pp. 13-50.Google Scholar
Nove, A. (1972): An Economic History of the USSR. London, Pelican Books.Google Scholar
Raj, K. N., and Sen, A. K. (1962): «Alternative Patterns of Growth Under Conditions of Stagnant Export Earnings». Oxford Economic Papers 13 (1), 43-52.Google Scholar
Ranis, G., and Fei, J. (1961): «A Theory of Economic Development». American Economic Review LI (4), 533-565.Google Scholar
Riskin, K. (1975): «Surplus and Stagnation in Modern China». in D. Perkins (ed.), China’s Modern Economy in Historical Perspective. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 49-84.Google Scholar
Sah, R. K., and Stiglitz, J. E. (1984): «The Economics of Price Scissors». American Economic Review 74 (1), 125-138.Google Scholar
Sah, R. K., and Stiglitz, J. E. (1987): «Price Scissors and the Structure of the Economy». Quarterly Journal of Economics 102 (1), 109-134.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. (1960): Choice of Techniques. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K.; Dasgupta, P., and Marglin, S. (1972): Guidelines for Project Evaluation. Vienna: United Nations Industrial Development Organization.Google Scholar
Spulber, N. (ed.) (1964): Foundations of Soviet Strategy for Economic Growth. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Wheatcroft, S. G. (2009): «The First 35 Years of Soviet Living Standards: Secular Growth and Conjunctural Crises in a Time of Famines». Explorations in Economic History 46, pp. 24-52.Google Scholar