Question

Задание 1. 1. Положительным результатом реформы 1965 года был восьмой «золотой» пятилетний план, в результате которого были достигнуты все запланированные показатели. Однако сама реформа была невыполнима. Назовите причины. 2. Хозяйственная реформа была первым шагом на пути формирования кон- цепции новых механизмов управления. Созданная заново система экономиче- ского управления в процессе развития медленно начала терять достигнутые позиции. Почему реформа привела к ошибкам? Приведите факты, используя примеры. Помогите ответить на вопросы даю 50б

Answer 1

Ответ:

1. Реформа 1965 года в СССР столкнулась с проблемами гибкости планирования, отсутствия стимулов для инноваций и бюрократическими ограничениями, что привело к ее невыполнимости.

2. Хозяйственная реформа не смогла эффективно адаптироваться к требованиям рынка из-за недостаточной оценки рыночных механизмов. Примером служит недостаточное управление ресурсами в сельском хозяйстве, что привело к снижению качества продукции.

Answer 2

The 1965 Reform in the Soviet Union

The 1965 reform in the Soviet Union aimed to improve the economic planning and management system. It introduced several changes, including the establishment of the State Planning Committee (Gosplan) and the creation of regional economic councils. The reform also emphasized the importance of economic incentives and decentralization of decision-making processes.

1. Reasons for the Infeasibility of the Reform:

While the 1965 reform achieved some positive outcomes, such as the successful implementation of the eighth "golden" five-year plan, it faced several challenges that made it ultimately unworkable. Some of the reasons for the infeasibility of the reform include:

- Bureaucratic Resistance: The Soviet bureaucracy, which had a vested interest in maintaining the existing centralized planning system, resisted the reform efforts. This resistance hindered the effective implementation of the proposed changes.

- Lack of Accountability: The reform did not adequately address the issue of accountability within the economic system. The lack of clear lines of responsibility and consequences for failure led to inefficiencies and a lack of motivation among economic actors.

- Inadequate Information Flow: The reform did not sufficiently address the problem of information flow within the economic system. The centralized planning structure often resulted in delays and inaccuracies in the transmission of information, making it difficult to make timely and informed decisions.

- Inflexible Planning Targets: The reform maintained the tradition of setting rigid planning targets, which often led to unrealistic goals and distorted reporting. This inflexibility made it challenging to adapt to changing economic conditions and respond effectively to market demands.

- Lack of Market Mechanisms: The reform did not introduce significant market mechanisms into the economic system. The absence of market forces limited the ability to allocate resources efficiently and stifled innovation and competition.

[[1]] [[2]] [[3]]

2. Errors and Drawbacks of the Reform:

The 1965 reform, while initially promising, faced several errors and drawbacks that contributed to its eventual failure. Some of the key factors that led to these errors include:

- Centralization of Decision-Making: Despite the intention to decentralize decision-making, the reform did not fully achieve this goal. The centralized planning structure and the continued dominance of Gosplan limited the autonomy of regional economic councils and hindered effective decision-making at lower levels.

- Lack of Incentives: The reform failed to provide sufficient incentives for economic actors to improve performance and increase productivity. The absence of market-based rewards and competition undermined motivation and innovation.

- Inefficient Resource Allocation: The reform did not effectively address the issue of resource allocation. The centralized planning system often resulted in misallocation of resources, as decisions were made based on political considerations rather than economic efficiency.

- Inadequate Feedback Mechanisms: The reform did not establish effective feedback mechanisms to evaluate the performance of economic units. Without accurate and timely feedback, it was difficult to identify and rectify inefficiencies and errors.

- Resistance to Change: The entrenched interests and resistance to change within the Soviet bureaucracy hindered the implementation of the reform. This resistance, coupled with a lack of political will to push for further reforms, contributed to the eventual stagnation and decline of the reform efforts.

[[4]] [[5]] [[6]]

In conclusion, the 1965 reform in the Soviet Union faced numerous challenges and errors that ultimately rendered it unworkable. Bureaucratic resistance, lack of accountability, inadequate information flow, inflexible planning targets, and the absence of market mechanisms all contributed to the failure of the reform. The errors and drawbacks of the reform, including centralization of decision-making, lack of incentives, inefficient resource allocation, inadequate feedback mechanisms, and resistance to change, further exacerbated its shortcomings.