The Press Thursday, November 27, 1930. Russia's Five Year Plan.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20096, 27 November 1930, Page 10

The Press Thursday, November 27, 1930. Russia's Five Year Plan.

One of the cable messages which during the last few days have reported rumbles of impending collapse in Russia suggested that the Soviet Government is failing through the failure of it? Five Year Plan; but the cable-s-ram wa3 even less informative about this national economic programme than other messages which have from time to time referred to it, and said nothing

about either the causes or the consequences of its supposed breakdown. If that has come —though most readers will think the sceptical attitude still the safest —then what is breaking down is the largest experiment in productive socialisation ever known. It is well sketched, though not critically, in Russia To-day and To-morrow, a pamphlet by Mr Maurice Dobbs, Lecturer in Economics at Cambridge. According to him, the plan now being worked out is the more ambitious of two variants prepared by the State Economic Planning Commission (Gosplan) to cover the period from October, 1925, to October, 1933. Since the I plan necessarily rests on financial foundations, its magnitude can be traced in their design, which called for an enormous volume of new investment. For the full period, 84.6 milliard roubles [lO roubles &1 at the par of exchange, though on the basis of purchasing power the equation is more n -ly 15 roubles to the £] are budgeteu"for, more than twice the amount of the preceding five years. Of this 10.4 milliards are allocated to industry, 23.2 to agriculture, 10 to transport, and 5.9 to housing; and the increase in the fixed capital of the economic system is estimated at 80 per cent., the industrial capital being nearly trebled and that of agriculture raised by a third. Among the results expected from this expansion of financial energy are these: new—not reconstructed —factories are to deliver 35 per cent, of the industrial output by 1933, State and collective farms to produce a fifth of the grain harvest ! and over 40 per cent, of the exportable surplus, and the collective farms to include about a fifth o®' the peasantry. Railways are to be exfct .wed by 17,000 kilometres; and electrification is to be j pushed on by building 42 large power stations and raising the power delivery from 5 milliard kilowatt-hours to 22 milliards a year. If the money for such a revolution were found, the measure of the achievement would be something like this. Russia would have saved, in proportion to national income, at least twice as much as Great Britain normally saves; and if the ' national income were doubled within the period, according to the estimate, the rate of increase would be three times that of pre-war Russia and three times that of the chief Western industrial countries. Estimates, of course, sure one thing-, and facts another; but -while Mr Dobbs thinks it natural to dismiss as idle all hope of doubling national output, doubling the mechanical horse-power per worker, and increasing industrial employment by a third, he says that his own cautious estimates of possible progress, three years ago, were too cautious by half. The results of the first year, to October, 1929, showed that the official estimate of an increase of 21 per cent, in State industrial production was exceeded by two per ftent., -while the following quarter was 27 per cent, above the same quarter of the previous year; and during the summer a third of the total agricultural area, or twice that provided for in the plan, was under collective cultivation. But Mr Dobbs perhaps aecepts the State figures without very carefully examining the realities behind them. He touches on the difficulty of providing finance and the difficulty of providing the technical and administrative skill, making: little of either. Professor S. Procopovicz, of Prague, however, contributes to the January-August nuiriber of Annals of Collective Economy a review of the Five Year Plan, in which he concludes that these two difficulties are insuperable. Though it is quite impossible to summarise a paper So elaborately furnished with comparative tables and analyses, and so closely argued, his financial argument may fairly be summarised by itself. The plan depends on maintaining for five years a rate of savings which exceeds by 70 per cent. " the average in the most advanced " capitalistic countries." The authors of the plan think it can be maintained, but supply no better demonstration of the possibility than appears ill their remark that " such a division of the "national revenue is indispensable for '"resolving the great economic problems whose solution does not brook " delay, and which is not beyond the " powers of our economy." The agricultural part of the plan alone rests upon the supposed ability of the peasants to find 80 per cent, of the funds required, say 18 milliards of roubles; but no evidence is given that they possess or can build up such a volume of savings, or, it might be hdded, would yield them up if they did. Professor Procopovicz agrees that the Russians can greatly expand industry. What they cannot do, he believes, is to I 'ng costs down, when production is controlled by men of whom a large proportion have little techni ,il ability and experience in organisation. Evidence of this technical failure has already appeared, and been admitted and deplored by the Government's officers and economists, in the fact that as production has gone up quality has deteriorated, with enormous wastage and loSs as a result.

Population and Building. J The annual statistical report of popu- j lations and buildings, just issued from the Census and Statistics Office, con- ( tains information of such interest and value as to suggest again how unwise it is to interrupt the regularity of any survey, as the Government is interrupting the regularity of the quinquennial census, due next year. One of the facts revealed by the report is that the present depression is not -without influence on the growth of population: " The rate of increase during- the past "three years is virtually the lowest " Bince, and is comparable only with, the " level in the late 'eighties' and early "'nineties,' at v/hien period the " Dominion passed through perhaps " the most severe depression in its " history.*' Both in natural increase and in the excess of arrivals over departures, there has been a decline; but Key/ Zealand's growth is still as last as all but a few countries, and faster than most. Statistics covering the latest five-year period show the percentages of increase to be: Argentina 14.4, South Africa 9.8, Australia 9.2, 2s T ew Zealand 7.9, Netherlands i .2, United States 7. Canada (5.1, Japan G.l, Denmark 4.G, Italy 4.5, Belgium 4.3 France 3.5, Finland 3.3, Germany 3.1, Norway 3, Great Britain 2, and Sweden 1.7. The actual increase in population in New Zealand for the year ended March 31st last was 1/.941, equal to 1.2 a per cent, of the population at the beginning of the fiscal year. The estimated population (inclusive of Maoris) at March 31st last was 3,485,595 (759,903 males and 728,632 females). The net gain of population in the North Island for the year was 15,235 and in the South Island 1382; but as the excess of births over deaths in the North was 9330 and in the South 4950, the Northern gain in population, over and abo%*e the natural increase, was 5905, while 35G8 left the South Island. The statistics show that the ! South Island has been losing population to the North for several years past; and they also reveal a steady urban drift since about J9OG. The 1916 census showed that 55.25 per cent, of the population was urban and 44.76 rural. When the 1926 census was taken the urban population had risen to 57.99 per cent. The 1931 figures, of course, will not be taken. Building statistics for the Dominion depend principally upon data furnished by the census, and these also will suffer an interruption. The 3 920 census showed that since 1921 the total number of buildings in the different categories in the Dominion had increased from 266,736 to 306,945, private dwellings showing the highest number and the largest increase. The only classes to show a decline were educational institutions, prisons, and " others." Statistics of building; permits issued by local authorities are however collected and calculated annually, and for the past year the value of new buildings and alterations to existing buildings totalled £9,959,877. This, although an improvement on the preceding two years, is much below the record totals for 1926 and J 927. Most of the new building was carried out in Wellington, where the value of the permits issued totalled 017,041. Auckland City followed with £1,310,030, Christchurch City with £822,378. and Dutiedin City with £567,421.