Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

The Press SATURDAY, APRIL 27, 1957. Devolution in Russia

Radical changes in Russian administration are not undertaken lightly; they usually reflect deep dissatisfaction with the inefficiency of past practices. When Mr Khrushchev recently announced his plan for decentralised control of Soviet industry, he proposed nothing less than a revolution which may change the face of Soviet social and industrial life as much as the first five-year plans of the twenties. The wonder is that under the present centralised system, in which all divisions of industry are managed by Ministries with headquarters in Moscow and controlled by millions of bureaucrats, Russia has made such industrial progress since the war. Mr Khrushchev gave many examples of the muddle caused when 20 or 30 industrial Ministries are in competition with each other. Russia, he said, could have had plenty of newtype tractors years ago “ but “ for the existence of depart“mental barriers”. He quoted the case of a Ministry sending scrap metal 2000 miles to a place which was sending the same kind of metal the same distance in the opposite direction. And again:

In the Chelyabinsk region, for example, construction work is carried on by 182 building and assembly organisations of 25 Ministries and departments. In the Sverdlovsk region it is done by 203 building and assembly organisations of 30 Ministries and departments, often working side by side in one district or even in one street

This is indeed a sorry state of affairs in a country which depends on its industrial progress to a greater extent than any other. But Mr Khrushchev,

with characteristic vigour, has produced an ambitious decentralisation scheme in an endeavour to correct these abuses. The plan, to be presented to the Supreme Soviet next month, would dismantle the Moscow bureaucratic machine with its tight control of industry and replace it with a system of regional management. In each of the 15 Soviet republics and in each industrially important

area within each republic, national economic councils will be set up. The councils, composed of local leaders, will be responsible for industrial management, long-term and current production plans, and industrial development in their areas; they will ensure, as far as possible, that raw materials and semi-finished goods are exchanged within each area. The councils will be supervised by the State Planning Commission, which will be responsible for over-all production plans and their co-ordination.

Bureaucracy has, of course, long plagued Russian governments, even those before the revolution, and Mr Khrushchev cannot get rid of it by a stroke of the legislative pen. He has warned that the national economic councils must not become bulky; but the councils are to be given so much planning and liaison work that, as “ The Times ” puts it, “ bureau- “ crats will grow like blue- “ bells ”, The councils are warned, too, that they must not become “ autarkic ”, turning production inwards for their own benefit rather than for the good of the Fatherland. Mr Khrushchev’s belief that the future of the Soviet Union as a world Power depends on its ability to produce exportable surpluses with which to win the uncommitted nations is probably the major reason for the proposed change. There is, too, a need for higher production to satisfy the demands of the Russian people for more of the comforts of life. He may well be justified in thinking that the regional organisation will produce better results than the present centralised system, which tends to encourage rivalry rather than co-operation among industrial groups, often with a consequent waste of manpower and materials. But the success of the experiment remains to be seen. It will certainly cause some disruption of production and of national life during the transition period. It may well lead to a looser union of the republics of Russia in the future.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19570427.2.93

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28262, 27 April 1957, Page 10

Word count
Tapeke kupu
628

The Press SATURDAY, APRIL 27, 1957. Devolution in Russia Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28262, 27 April 1957, Page 10

The Press SATURDAY, APRIL 27, 1957. Devolution in Russia Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28262, 27 April 1957, Page 10

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert