If a nation does not know its history, if the country loses its history, then its citizens have nowhere to go.
Mirzhakyp Dulatuly

Tendencies of social and economic development.

Tendencies of social and economic development. - e-history.kz
Accumulation of economic potential was carried out at the expense of involvement in an economic turn of raw material and fuel and energy resources.

The economic reform begun in 1966, gave at the beginning a certain impulse to economic development. By the beginning of the ninth five-years period on new system of planning and economic incentives worked 1578 Kazakhstan industrial enterprises or 84% from total. The plan of the eighth five-years period on the main economic indicators was executed: the gross output of the industry increased on 56, agriculture — by 54%. All industries became profitable. But despite a certain radicalism, the economic reform from the very beginning bore on itself the press of inconsistency, incompleteness. The totalitarian system didn't allow its exit out of limits of the existing economic structures which have been held down in the development by the dominating paradigm of a bestovarny socialism.

As a result by the beginning of the 70th the ideas originally put in it directed on increase of efficiency of a social production, were distorted. The main plan of reform — expansion of economic independence of the enterprises — was actually reduced to reduction of planned and reporting indicators lowered from above and changes of an order of formation pooshchritel-nykhfondov collectives. Many enterprises in a pursuit of profit went on the easiest way — artificial rise in prices for the production. The profit got at the expense of a rise in prices, allowed to increase a salary which dynamics began to advance labor productivity growth that became the reason of inflationary tendencies already in the early seventies, negatively influencing economy development. Incompleteness of reform was shown and that, having expanded independence of the enterprises, it strengthened admi-nistrativnyei economic powers of the ministries and departments. Central planning from above by the principle from reached remained, gross indicators, despite their recognized imperfection continued to work.

But the main reasons for failure of reform were covered in curtailment of process of democratization in the political sphere. Limited to only the organizational and technical sphere of economy, she didn't mention political structures of society, the property relations, kept monopoly of state ownership — a bureaucracy stronghold, rejected the market relations. Brezhnev and his environment were against deep reorganization of economy on the basis of reform, they sought for preservation in inviolability of a role of a management system in economy functioning.

At the beginning of the 70th there is a curtailment of reform. And though in the 70th years yet time attempts to improve the mechanism of managing, planning and stimulation, due effect it were made didn't bring. It wasn't succeeded to lift efficiency of a social production. The negative phenomena accrued — capital productivity decreased, new capacities slowly accustomed, wasteful nature of economic activity amplified, extensive factors still defined economy development. The principle of mainly directive management remained untouched.

By the beginning of the ninth five-years period the industry took a leading place in republic economy. In structure of a gross public product in 1970 its specific weight made 48%. 39,8% of the fixed business assets of a national economy on which service 1052 thousand people, or 22,4% of all workers of the republic were occupied fell to its share.

In 1970 — 1985 there was a certain increase of industrial capacity of the republic. In development of the industry 40,8 billion rubles, or 32% from all capital investments in a national economy were enclosed. The fixed business assets increased by 3,1 times, thus in chemical and petrochemical by 6,5 times, in mechanical engineering almost in 4, in fuel industry by 3,8 times. In 15 years the total amount of an industrial output increased twice, and such branches, as mechanical engineering and the chemical industry, more than three times. About 1000 new industrial enterprises and shops were put into operation. Among them the Kazakh gas-processing plant, Shevchenkovsky plant of plastic, the Karaganda plant of rubber products, the Pavlodar and Chimkent oil refineries, shop of a white tin at the Karaganda iron and steel works, Ekibastuzsky and Ermakovs-kaya of state district power station, Kapchagaysky hydroelectric power station, the Chimkent and Dzhambul phosphoric plants, Zhayremsky mining and processing works, etc. On industrial output Kazakhstan took the third place in the USSR (after RSFSR and Ukraine). Territorial and production complexes — Mangyshlakskyy, Karatau-Dzhambulsky and Pavlodar-Ekibastuzsky were created.

Accumulation of economic potential was carried out at the expense of involvement in an economic turn of raw material and fuel and energy resources.

At rigid centralization of management by economy invariable the branch structure of the industry, being characterized a raw orientation remained. Being conformed with ambitious interests of the basic ministries, the center gave a priority in development of economy of the republic to extracting branches. Large capital investments went to them to the detriment of development of the knowledge-intensive productions. The share of extracting branches in the republic industry in the early eighties was 1,7 times higher, than on the average about the country. About a half of the industry of the republic was under authority of the allied ministries. Extorting from the republic raw material resources and getting enormous profit, allied departments almost didn't invest in the republican budget on development infrastuktu-ry. At the general profit of the enterprises in 15 billion rubles a year they deducted in it only 30 million rubles, or less than 1%. In a pursuit of gross indicators and profit the allied ministries ignored interests of the republic in development of social infrastructure, in preparation of national personnel, in environmental protection.

Orientation in 70 — on development of raw branches in the form of the huge enterprises led the 80th years to that growth rates of production processing and processing industry remained low, production of consumer goods, food and light industry were insufficiently developed. About 60% of consumed nonfoods arrived to Kazakhstan from other republics, thus the part from them was made of the Kazakhstan raw materials, but the profit on realization of the final product remained with manufacturers.

Directive planning and interests of departments monopolists conducted to squandering and pumping out from the republic of non-renewable resources. The got raw materials and energy were used with low efficiency.

From a five-years period in a five-years period capital investments in the industry, character industrial accrued, constructions was defined by huge volumes. The leaders of the republic supported this gigantomania, reporting to the next congresses of CPSU about start-up of the largest in the country or in Europe of the industrial enterprises — mines, oil fields, combines, plants. The condition of the republic was defined not by a population standard of living, completeness and reality of its sovereign rights in USSR, development of spiritual culture, and the sum of capital investments, tons of the extracted ore, coal, oil and so forth.

Essential problems in economy were solved by mainly command methods. Didn't undergo any essential changes state planning. To the enterprises directive plan targets went down from above without coordination with labor collectives. All product range, prime cost indicators and so forth was planned practically. It compelled the enterprises to carry out plans at any cost, deprived of consumers of opportunity to influence production. Because of imbalance of production, directive management of a commonplace there was a correction of annual, quarter and monthly tasks. In 1981 — 1985 in the republic plans of the various ministries and departments were corrected more than 300 times.

The accruing crisis phenomena in economy conducted to dynamism loss in development of a national economy. Average annual rates of a gain of an industrial output in the ninth five-years period decreased from 8,4% to 3,8% — in the eleventh, and the national income — according to 4,4 to 1,4%. Despite all efforts of system and the party leaders of the republic to provide implementation of the plan at any cost, the plan of the ninth five-years period on increase in industrial output was underfulfilled for 12,6%, the tenth — for 25%, the eleventh — for 3,6%.

Huge material values and work were deadened in incomplete construction. On objects of production appointment it made in 1980 — 1989 from 85 to 101% from the total amount of capital investments. Only for 1976 — 1985 builders of the republic недоосвоили 4,2 billion rubles of capital investments. As a result the population received less 1,4 million sq.m of housing, 121,5 thousand school places, 49,5 thousand places in preschool institutions, 67 thousand — in technical training colleges and 7 thousand places — in hospitals. In capital construction "unfinished construction" was strongly approved, many not planned objects to the detriment of planned were constructed, the dispersion of objects, dispersion of means and labor on many buildings, absence of interrelation between design and supplies of equipment, commissioning of objects with subquality work and defects, additions and squandering of building materials were characteristic.

The existing system tore away all undertakings going from below which were directed on economy revival. In the 70th in construction the grass-roots movement of development of a team contract began. In its basis the aspiration of workers to bring an order on production to use of resources, to eliminate equalization in compensation, to receive a big share of independence lay. Actually it was a question of that the most part of means earned by workers, turned out them, instead of I went on payment of employees of numerous administrative structures. In 1982 in republic construction 5,7 thousand worked at a team contract, and in 1985 — 6,8 thousand crews. In этихколлективах labor productivity was 23 — 25% higher, than in usual, and cost of works — is 13 — 15% lower. Formally team contract was supported and propagandized but as soon as business reached reduction of administrative personnel and transfer of its functions to labor collectives, it was undermined by numerous instructions which deprived labor collectives of any independence on hand earned means. Practically despite promotion the team contract as economic event was buried by system.

I didn't gain in the republic distribution and the economic experiment of staff of chemical combine of of Shchekino of Tula region passing under the motto: "There are less than workers — more production". Thus saved from reduction of workers of means of a salary were used for material encouragement of the working. Carrying out this experiment conducted to reduction of managers at the enterprises, in central boards, trusts, the ministries. This experiment also was "successfully" failed by bureaucracy.

Falling of growth rates of production, deterioration of structure of production and quality of production was accompanied by increase and lag in the sphere of scientific and technical progress. Since the beginning of the 70th the developed capitalist countries entered a new stage of scientific and technical revolution.

The Soviet management correctly defined during this period the main task in development of a national economy of the country — transfer of economy to an intensive way of development and expansion of scientific and technical revolution. At first sight being available scientific and technical potential in the republic as well as in the country allowed to solve objectives. For the end of 1985 in Kazakhstan functioned together with higher education institutions of 227 scientific institutions, including 91 research institutes; the factory science was presented by 108 design offices, 99 laboratories, 52 skilled and experimental divisions.

There was no lack of interesting ideas and offers, big scales reached an efficiency work and invention, the chisloavtor which have submitted improvement proposals and demands for estimated inventions in 1981 — 1985, made 818,8 thousand people. B1976 — on the average annually arrived 1985 more than 165 thousand improvement suggestions and demands for inventions. Governing bodies, parties and the governments annually adopted resolutions on measures for introduction of achievements of scientific and technical progress and production efficiency increase. However they having a little influenced practice of introduction of scientific and technical progress in production.

The operating mechanism of managing in fact counteracted introduction of achievements of science and technology in production. Staff of the enterprises wasn't interested in development of new equipment as it negatively affected results of work of the enterprise and each worker separately. Therefore terms of development and release of new production and products lasted for many years. Automation and complex mechanization covered not all process of production, but only separate sites. As a result in the mid-eighties about a third of industrial workers was occupied with primitive hard manual skills, in construction — more than a half.

The operating system showed the inability not only to interest workers in results of the work in economic methods, but also undermined incentives to innovation, to creative activity and high-performance work at people.

In republic economy in 70 — the 80th years were shown all those deformations which were characteristic for a national economy of the country as a whole. It first of all consolidation of command and administrative methods of management. Ignoring economic incentives, the system for a long time detained economy on rails of extensive development. Domination of the state form of ownership, and in essence transformation into departmental property led it to alienation of workers of production in relation to means of production. The system of compensation wasn't coordinated to results of work. Bases of economic life were defined by the directive of departments which deprived of the enterprise of any independence and an initiative. The national economy sustained big losses from mismanagement, weak introduction of new equipment and technology. In the republic it was aggravated with center dictatorship represented by economic departments. To the middle of the 80th the economy of the republic appeared in a condition of crisis.

Revelry of departmental bureaucracy, rigid directive management "from above", leveling tendencies in compensation, monopolism of state ownership and alienation of the worker from property and from results of work, narrowing of democratic principles in production management had the result sharp recession of creative activity of working class. In the conditions of rigid directive management when to labor collective the role of the performer of plans and orders of higher bodies intended only, involvement of workers to performance of any administrative functions at the enterprise had formal character. The public organizations involvement of workers to production management was which purpose, various public bureaus, the commissions, constantly operating production meetings, etc. in the vast majority idled. Big distribution was gained by imaginary, illustrative activity, additions in the field of public work became habitual business. According to reporting data of public organizations was considered that about 60% of workers participate in production management. Actually on self-assessments of workers no more than 1/6 from them felt as owners at the enterprise, really influencing a situation.

The existing economic mechanism tore away rather initiative and active workers, didn't allow to prove at full capacity to innovators of production. One system roughly suppressed, others, supported system, for years remained "beacons" though experience didn't find them distribution. The organization of socialist competition gained formal character. Though according to official figures over 90% of workers participated in it, it practically wasn't reflected in growth rates of production and labor productivity, improvement of quality of production, production improvement. Zaformalizovannym it appeared after initial splash and movement for the communistic relation to work. Production activity also didn't increase, and decreased. Direct consequence of it was falling of rates of development of production, production deterioration, falling of technological and labor discipline, lag increase in the sphere of scientific and technical process. In production there was habitual an indifference, negligence, lack of initiative, plunders and other lines of the thriftless relation to business.