Home History of Kazakhstan Kazakhstan in the Soviet Union Kazakhstan in 70-s-80-s The crisis phenomena in agriculture.

The crisis phenomena in agriculture.

30 July 2013

The agrarian reform developed by March (1965) by Plenum of the Central Committee of CPSU, was attempt of transfer of agriculture on an intensive way of development. Measures for redistribution of the national income in favor of agrarian sector, to the solution of social problems of the village, self-financing introduction, increase of purchase prices of agricultural production were planned. But thus invariable there were relations of production and a control system of this sphere of a national economy.

The agriculture of the republic received large investments. In 1971 — 1989 in it 58,2 billion rubles, including on objects of production appointment — 43 billion rubles were enclosed. The fixed agricultural business assets counting on one worker increased more than втрое12. As a result by 1985 the main field works — a plowed land, sowing, cleaning of grain crops, for 75 — 98% — the main works in animal husbandry were completely mechanized. However complex mechanization of all branches it wasn't reached. Manual skills prevailed when landing and cleaning vegetables, collecting fruits and berries, on repair работах13.

Attempts to solve agriculture problems only at the expense of increase in volume of capital investments didn't give expected effect. More than a half of them, to 55% water management construction, agricultural machinery acquisition, instead of their use on increase of fertility of lands, electrification, creation of the enterprises for storage and agricultural products processing went on sooruzheniyedorogostoyashchy huge zhvotnovodchesky complexes. The residual principle dominated and in the social sphere of arrangement of an aul and the village. Such neglect to needs of people turned back that in 1987 more than a half of aulno-rural settlements had no healthcare institutions, nearly a half of rural hospitals took place in the unadapted rooms, every fifth hospital had no water supply system, the sewerage and catering departments.

Hopes of collective farms and state farms didn't come true to improve the situation at the expense of increase of purchase prices of agricultural products sold to the state. The prices were doubled approximately, and for agriculture they rose by an industrial output by 2 — 5 times. Thus the price of equipment was torn off from its productivity. Monopoly of the industrial enterprises to establish any prices violated price parity between the industry and agriculture. The enterprises compelled state farms and collective farms to take equipment unnecessary them which almost went at once to repair. Aul and the village the enterprises of Agricultural machinery, Agricultural chemistry, meliorative, etc. literally "plundered" the organizations. All this conducted to growth of prime cost of agricultural products, reduction of the sizes of profit in agriculture, to decrease in a material interest of rural workers.

The measures taken by the state met support of the peasantry and at the beginning recovered economic activity of state farms and collective farms. At the end 60-х-the beginning of the 70th population supply by the food, the industries — raw materials improved. However the expected change in development of the agrarian sphere didn't occur. A lot of things from this that originally were declared and planned, remained unrealized. While requirements of the population and the industry grew in agricultural production, raw materials, rates of its gain decreased from year to year.

Increase in production of agricultural products took place in the republic extremely unevenly. The highest rates of a gain were reached in the ninth five-years period — 3% a year and in 1986 — 1989 — about 4% a year. B1981 — actually a gain of gross output didn't occur 1985. Production efficiency, its capital productivity, labor productivity, profit of farms decreased, product cost grew. It were available all signs of crisis.

Development of grain production was unstable. At stabilization of cultivated areas at the level of 25,5 — 25,1 million hectares productivity grain tended to decrease.

Throughout three five-years periods (1971 — 1985) gross production and government procurements of cotton, potatoes, vegetables a little increased, but production of sugar beet was reduced. Increase of productivity and increase in production of vegetables and potatoes were promoted by creation round the cities of industrial centers, the specialized state enterprises and state farms of suburban type in which production of these cultures concentrated. Here progressive methods and the ways of production increasing productivity were used, the city rendered to the village the economic and labor help.

Production of livestock production was uneven. Sharp jump in increase in production of milk in state farms and collective farms happened in the ninth five-years period (22%), in 1976 — 1980 rates of a gain decreased to 8%, and in 1981 — 1985 to 6%. As a whole production of milk for 1971 — 1985 increased for 17,3%. But this gain occurred only on an extensive basis, at the expense of growth of a livestock of cows as average milk yield in public economy for these years remained invariable. After long stagnation situation changed in 1986 — 1989 when the average yield of milk of milk from one cow increased to 2238 kg (12,3%) a little.

In 1971 — 1985 there was no steady increase in production of meat. If in the ninth five-years period average annual rates of a gain made 4,2%, in 1976 — 1980 they fell to 0,5% and rose in 1981 — 1985 (3%) a little. Since the tenth five-years period production of meat in the republic made more than 1 million t. Approximately from one quarter to one heel from the general production of meat it was delivered in all-union fund.

The greatest rate of a gain of production of meat was reached in poultry farming where average annual production in 1989 in comparison with 1970 increased by 5 times. It became result of construction of a wide network of the state poultry farms, transfer grow on industrial technology with the centralized kormoobespecheniye from the state resources.

Traditional branch of agriculture of Kazakhstan was sheep breeding. The livestock of sheep to the eleventh five-years period though slowly, but increased from 31,8 million in 1971 to 35,2 million heads in 1981. In 1981 — 1985 growth almost stopped, and production of mutton in 1970 — 1985 was reduced from 272 thousand tons to 220 thousand tons. or for 19%. The reason for that — essential reduction of meat efficiency. Not casually in the 80th trade in big sizes began to realize mutton below average fatness, so-called "toschak". In this branch many problems constraining its development collected. One of them was indifference cultivated by system to hard chabansky work, ignoring of labor skills of Kazakhs in the maintenance of cattle, loss passed tests by eyelids of national production technologies.

As a whole the measures taken by the state for development of agriculture were vague and a little that changed in this major branch of a national economy. In aspiration to unify agricultural production the central governing bodies considered interests of the republic in division and a full development of work, regional potential opportunities and requirements a little. In the conditions of action of a uniform economic complex of the country dependence of the republic on the center amplified.

One of the reasons of a distress of agriculture was the undivided power over the peasant of a management system. Numerous decisions on expansion of economic independence of collective farms and state farms were suppressed by this system. Party district committees, district executive committees, agricultural bodies were the means, an allowing administrative way somehow to compensate absence in the village of the normal economic relations. The economic initiative of shots was paralyzed, their responsibility for results of managing decreased, the red tape replaced concrete organizing work. Attempts made from time to time considerably to change a control system of agriculture were fruitless. The decision of the Central Committee of CPSU (1976) became the next such step to elimination of collective-farm independence about development in agriculture of specialization, cooperation and agro-industrial integration. On its basis there was in essence a violent connection of collective farms and state farms in intereconomic and so-called agro-industrial associations. At creation of these associations large miscalculations were allowed.

Financial and material resources were taken away from farms shareholders, and their interests were a little considered by offices of the intercollective-farm organizations.

Low-productive there were also attempts of radical change of a control system by agriculture through creation of regional agro-industrial associations (RAPO) on the basis of solutions of May (1982) of Plenum of the Central Committee of CPSU. In RAPO structure along with state farms and collective farms the enterprises of serving branches and processing industry united. As practice showed, such association was in many respects formal. RAPO wasn't succeeded to develop integration communications and to overcome departmental dissociation. As integrators the serving organizations and the processing enterprises which appropriated the profit created substantially by efforts of farms quite often acted.

At a boundary of the 60th — the 70th administrative methods of control over agrarian sector of economy contrary to the concept of economic reform of 1965 amplified. Considerably process of democratization of collective-farm self-government began to be turned, control amplified from party, executive and administrative bodies behind financial and economic activity of collective farms and state farms.

Purchase prices often didn't cover product cost, the number of unprofitable farms from here accrued. If in 1970 the specific weight of unprofitable farms of state farms made 26%, and collective farms — 4%, in 1985 53% of state farms and 49% of collective farms were unprofitable. The profit in collective farms was reduced for this period from 240,8 million to 83,4 million rubles, state farms from 597,4 million profit to 35,7 million rubles a loss. Except for production of a bird production of all other livestock products was unprofitable.

In the conditions of alienation of the worker from means of production and results of work, noneconomic coercion even positive at the beginning the measures undertaken by the state, addressed in the contrast. So was, for example, with introduction in July, 1965 of the guaranteed monetary compensation in collective farms. At the beginning it lifted interest of rural workers as a result of the work. However further monetary payment lost character of an equivalent of work. In payment leveling tendencies prevailed, paid for separate operations irrespective of the end result. Single state tariffs, coefficients and standards on which the salary of workers of the village was under construction, poorly considered a difference in working conditions, complexity and variety of works, people often received money for appearance at work, instead of for result of work. Compensation advanced growth of its productivity. It conducted to that quite often the compensation fund in collective farm was above a gross revenue.

It is impossible to tell that society indifferently belonged to situation in agriculture. On places searches of the best organization of production, increase of its efficiency were conducted. But they not only didn't find support, but sometimes and were punished. Tragicly attempt to change the work organization in production and to operate ended leaning on economic levers, for the head of a pilot farm on production of a grassy flour of state farm of Akchi of the Kurtinsky region of Almaty area of I.N. Hudenko. Social сущноть its experiment made in the late sixties — the beginning of the 70th in state farm "Iliysky" and in a pilot farm, consisted in connection of functions of production and management, and performance of these functions directly the peasant, overcoming his estrangement from results of work. Experimental conditions were coordinated with allied and republican bodies. On the basis of introduction of new forms of the organization and production management labor productivity in a pilot farm was tripled by 6 times, earnings in comparison with usual state farms. Compensation was put in dependence on the end result. The economy constructed the settlement with a totality of the engineering equipment. Several times cost of production decreased, workers realized themselves full owners of production. But instead of support and experiment development the economy was liquidated by the decision of the Ministry of Agriculture of the republic allegedly because of unprofitability. Over organizers of experiment uniform punishment was made. The party leaders of the republic supported officials of the Ministry of Agriculture in experiment elimination. Its results could be infectious for others, undermined existing system. They "pricked eyes", showing a true situation in system of agriculture of the republic.

The system cruelly finished with experimenters. I.Hudenko expelled from party, accused of attempt of plunder of public funds and judged. In prison he died. Only in the late eighties I.N. Hudenko was posthumously rehabilitated by the decision of board of the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan and blighters of experiment are called by name.

At the beginning of the 80th distressful agriculture tortured infinite transformations, the integration, new types of management, experiments with technology, with the prices, integration and specialization etc., being under rigid administrative control, it appeared in a crisis situation. Attempts to change situation by acceptance new the decision didn't yield essential results.

In the eleventh five-years period in the republic purchases of grain, cotton raw, sugar beet, sunflower were reduced. Some growth of government purchases of meat, milk and dairy products, eggs couldn't compensate the increased demand of the population for these products. In the city district rated supply on a number of the main food was entered.

The Central Committee of CPSU put forward in April, 1985 a course on acceleration of social and economic development of the country, assuming changes and in agriculture, quickly enough found the insolvency. In agro-industrial sector capital investments amplified. Purchase prices were raised, debts from collective farms and state farms are written off, carried out next "improvement" of management by agro-industrial complex. But, despite numerous decisions on expansion of independence of farms, in practice press methods of the management remained, and the increased management personnel didn't try to find an optimum combination of centralism and a local initiative.

Invariable there were economic relations in agriculture. Attempt to change them by introduction of the rent relations wasn't successful. Economy translation process on rent gained nature of the next campaign and was carried out by administrative methods. Rent collectives were opposed to other forms of managing, their creation was unreasonably forced. Rent didn't mention the deep economic relations, didn't change essentially opportunities of workers and their collectives in assignment of means and results of the work, the created income and the order of. The peasant still wasn't neither the owner of means of production, nor the owner of production made by it. The system of farms and free cooperatives didn't gain by 1990 a wide circulation. On the one hand, its introduction was slowed down by heads of collective farms and state farms and local party bodies, with another — psychological inertia of employees of collective farms and state farms. As a result there was a further falling of agrarian production.

Use of materials for publication, commercial use, or distribution requires written or oral permission from the Board of Editors or the author. Hyperlink to National Digital History portal is necessary. All rights reserved by the Law RK “On author’s rights and related rights”. To request authorization email to kaz.ehistory@gmail.com or call to (7172) 79 82 06 (ext.111)


To leave comment you must enter or register