- Email: [email protected]
Planning in the Soviet Union
relationship between (renewable) energy and employment, the emancipaand the need to tion of women, emphasize end uses ofenergy as much as its sources, Disappointingly, “conspicuous conservation” (a term coined, I believe, by Ted Gordon’s Futures Group) in the industrial segments of the world economy was all but side-stepped. New technologies, such as growing petroleum on the Jojoba plant (which grows wild in many deserts) on a commercial scale, were the stepchildren of the conference, which was mostly with the political and concerned financial aspects of solving the energy crisis.
The major challenge It may well take another severe Middle East crisis to bring home to political leaderships and constituencies alike, the genuine issues of the energy crisis. These were well summed up, even if from altogether different vantage
points, by leading futurists attending the Nairobi conference, including Hazel Henderson from the USA, Rashmi Mayur from India, Johann Galtung from Norway, and Maurice Strong from Canada. Mr Strong was the keynote speaker at the opening plenary session of the (parallel) conference of the representatives of 300 non-governmental organizations, which lobbied incessantly for a more human and humane treatment of the energy crisis. And that, I is perhaps the foremost believe, challenge: the concept of energy for development-which in Nairobi was strongly advocated, for instance, by Indira Gandhi and Maurice Strong, as well as by a housewife from Mali and a farmer from Nepal. To them, the energy crisis is not a matter ofso many joules, or hydrogen from blue-green algae, or a World Bank energy affiliate-but simply a matter of cooking food or not cooking food. Andre’ van Dam
BOOKS n
.
1
.
.
Kussian plannmg revlewea Michael
1
Perrins
Planning in the Soviet Union Judith Pallot and Denis J. B. Shaw xii + 303 pages, X16.95 (London, Groom Helm, 1981) Soviet economic planning operates upon three basic principles: the productionbranch or ‘sectoral’, the functional, and the territorial or spatial. The sectoral and functional principles are concerned respectively with the production of goods under the direction of centralised Michael Purim is at the Departmentof russian and Sovirt Studies, UniveAity of I.ancaster. Lonsdale C:ollegr, Bailrigg, I.ancastrr IA1 4YN, UK.
ministries, and with the allocation of raw materials, capital, energy and other resources by the hierarchy of state planning committees (Gosplan). Since Gosplan was established in 192 1, these twin principles have dominated the structure of economic planning in the Soviet Union to the neglect of the third. Drawing upon a broad mix ofwestern and Soviet sources, the authors of this book have attempted with some success to break new ground in exploring the history and relative effectiveness of spatial determinants in Soviet planning decisions. Three chapters are devoted to a survey of the historical and ideological
FUTURES
FabruNy
1982
Books
context of Soviet planning and the institutional machinery which administers it. The remainder concentrate upon inter-related aspects ofspatial planning, ranging from the problems of industrial and agricultural location to regional variations in population distribution, income and price levels, the provision of welfare and social services and levels and types of urbanisation, all supported up-to-date and uncomplicated bY statistical tables.
Jurisdictional confusion Several valid observations are made. What appear to be distinct political and administrative hierarchies in fact conceal a morass ofjurisdictional confusion, and whatever extravagant claims are made for its ‘scientific’ basis, Soviet planning does indeed “rely heavily on previous experience”, meaning presumably that one year’s figures are of the utmost importance for the next, and that ingrained habits of mind are perpetuated and errors often repeated. Interest groups, we are told, do exist in the Soviet polity, although this thread is not systematically pursued throughout the book. On the other hand, the authors frequently draw attention to the important fact that planning theory is not a static science in the Soviet Union but, on the contrary, a matter of intense debate which may yet yield tangible results. Population distribution and patterns of migration and urban settlement are among the subjects covered at length. The bulk of the population dwells in the European part of the USSR, whilst the majority of established energy resources now lie in Siberia. This sort ofdisparity, and the high costs of overcoming the harsh climatic and geographical conditions which pertain m Siberia, impose obvious constraints upon planning choice. The authors point out that traditional Soviet practice has been to locate new industry in the near vicinity of material and energy sources, to re-
FUTURES February 1982
85
duce transport and associated costs. Evidently the opening up to industrial development of the Siberian hinterland demands new criteria in the assessment of what is cost-effective, and a qualitative leap in Soviet planning theory.
Pessimistic view In general, whilst recognising the considerable Soviet achievements in industrial expansion, the authors take the pessimistic view that such a new model is unlikely to emerge, at least in the short term. Indeed, despite the existence of general plans for the industrialisation and integration of the developing economic regions of the USSR and of so-called laws and principles, the pattern of industrial location has often resulted from short-term expediency on the part of largely autarkic production-branch ministries. Urban population growth and its attendant problems in the larger cities have similarly come about in an unplanned way. This is surely the crux of the problems confronting spatial planning in the Soviet state. Not only are plans for the regional integration of the economy secondary to those concerned directly with production operations, but without a new administrative structure for the economic regions transcending that of the political subdivisions of the country (Republics and oblasti), such plans are unlikely to have sufficient teeth to neutralise the vested interests of the industrial ministries and territorial Party organisations. Recently there have been structural experiments which have spatial connotations, such as the agrarian-industrial complexes or associations, most commonly between state farms and processing plants, but even here the reluctance of the centre to relinquish decisionmaking to intermediate levels of management has made progress painfully slow. Yet the authors do not devote much space to the crucial role of the Party apparatus, nor to the chequered
86
Books
history of Soviet industrial associations (ob”edineniia). The frequent lack of congruity between the boundaries of the oblasti, each presided over by a powerful Party secretariat, and the territorial disposition of the associations, imposes limits upon the effectiveness and scope of their linked operations. Moreover, few associations have separate accounting status, which tends to inhibit the independence and authority of their governing boards. The book lacks a proper conclusion. Although each chapter carries its own brief summary, the reader is left to glean
from the text what the authors believe to be the principal causes of the weakness of spatial planning in the Soviet Union. There are also errors of detail. The Machine Tractor Stations were abolished in 1958 and not 1957 [p.46]. The nominative plural of okrug (district) is okruga, not okrugi, and they are designated as ‘national’, not ‘autonomous’ 1p.241. Nevertheless, the authors offer a fresh perspective on Soviet planning and make many sound observations. The price, however, is unlikely to encourage a widespread private readership.
What is a healthy American Andrew
city?
Kirby
Urban Revitalization Donald B. Rosenthal, editor 308 pages, f 12.50 hardback, X6.25 paperback (Sage, 1980) This collection of 12 essays is a very detailed account of the American experience of inner urban planning in the past decade. It contains an statistical, enormous amount of and political information, economic, and is of interest on this criterion alone. It is however not a neutral account. Although written well before the demise of the Carter administration in 1980, there lurks behind the quantitative and information a detectable factual hostility to the policies then emerging from FVashington; in consequence, much of the discussion is also fotwardlooking-almost a foretaste of the Reaganite policies now beginning to emerge. The book is undoubtedly strongest in its assessment of the ‘Carter years’. The President’s approach appears to have rested upon twin foundations: what is Andrew Kirby is a lecturer at the Departnwnt of Geography, University of Reading, \Vhitrkni,qhts, Reading RCX ‘LAB, L’ti.
described as “an almost mystical belief in neighbourhoods” [p. 1781, and an urge to spend. Because “no neighbourhood, no matter how run down, should be written off’ [p. 1661, federal spending increased dramatically after 1976; in San Francisco, from $101 to $254 per head; in New Orleans, from $81 to $232, and in b’ashington, from $167 to $825. This level of expenditure does not go uncriticized, and it also seems clear that to urban response the American problems has historically been as eclectic (ie muddled) as the British responses: from the War on Poverty and the Model Cities programmes through to the more recent Comprehensive Training Act Employment and (CETA), there has been an inability to tackle the cities’ problems comprehensively: instead there has been a “smorgasbord of policies” [p. 15 11. The general mood in this vrolume is thus one of doubt and realignment. In keeping with the general swing to the Right in the USA (and Britain), old are revaluated. The editor axioms “there is nothing himself states, inherently wrong with choices involving the abandonment of neighbourhoods which have already reached a point
FUTURES February 19t32
The major challenge It may well take another severe Middle East crisis to bring home to political leaderships and constituencies alike, the genuine issues of the energy crisis. These were well summed up, even if from altogether different vantage
points, by leading futurists attending the Nairobi conference, including Hazel Henderson from the USA, Rashmi Mayur from India, Johann Galtung from Norway, and Maurice Strong from Canada. Mr Strong was the keynote speaker at the opening plenary session of the (parallel) conference of the representatives of 300 non-governmental organizations, which lobbied incessantly for a more human and humane treatment of the energy crisis. And that, I is perhaps the foremost believe, challenge: the concept of energy for development-which in Nairobi was strongly advocated, for instance, by Indira Gandhi and Maurice Strong, as well as by a housewife from Mali and a farmer from Nepal. To them, the energy crisis is not a matter ofso many joules, or hydrogen from blue-green algae, or a World Bank energy affiliate-but simply a matter of cooking food or not cooking food. Andre’ van Dam
BOOKS n
.
1
.
.
Kussian plannmg revlewea Michael
1
Perrins
Planning in the Soviet Union Judith Pallot and Denis J. B. Shaw xii + 303 pages, X16.95 (London, Groom Helm, 1981) Soviet economic planning operates upon three basic principles: the productionbranch or ‘sectoral’, the functional, and the territorial or spatial. The sectoral and functional principles are concerned respectively with the production of goods under the direction of centralised Michael Purim is at the Departmentof russian and Sovirt Studies, UniveAity of I.ancaster. Lonsdale C:ollegr, Bailrigg, I.ancastrr IA1 4YN, UK.
ministries, and with the allocation of raw materials, capital, energy and other resources by the hierarchy of state planning committees (Gosplan). Since Gosplan was established in 192 1, these twin principles have dominated the structure of economic planning in the Soviet Union to the neglect of the third. Drawing upon a broad mix ofwestern and Soviet sources, the authors of this book have attempted with some success to break new ground in exploring the history and relative effectiveness of spatial determinants in Soviet planning decisions. Three chapters are devoted to a survey of the historical and ideological
FUTURES
FabruNy
1982
Books
context of Soviet planning and the institutional machinery which administers it. The remainder concentrate upon inter-related aspects ofspatial planning, ranging from the problems of industrial and agricultural location to regional variations in population distribution, income and price levels, the provision of welfare and social services and levels and types of urbanisation, all supported up-to-date and uncomplicated bY statistical tables.
Jurisdictional confusion Several valid observations are made. What appear to be distinct political and administrative hierarchies in fact conceal a morass ofjurisdictional confusion, and whatever extravagant claims are made for its ‘scientific’ basis, Soviet planning does indeed “rely heavily on previous experience”, meaning presumably that one year’s figures are of the utmost importance for the next, and that ingrained habits of mind are perpetuated and errors often repeated. Interest groups, we are told, do exist in the Soviet polity, although this thread is not systematically pursued throughout the book. On the other hand, the authors frequently draw attention to the important fact that planning theory is not a static science in the Soviet Union but, on the contrary, a matter of intense debate which may yet yield tangible results. Population distribution and patterns of migration and urban settlement are among the subjects covered at length. The bulk of the population dwells in the European part of the USSR, whilst the majority of established energy resources now lie in Siberia. This sort ofdisparity, and the high costs of overcoming the harsh climatic and geographical conditions which pertain m Siberia, impose obvious constraints upon planning choice. The authors point out that traditional Soviet practice has been to locate new industry in the near vicinity of material and energy sources, to re-
FUTURES February 1982
85
duce transport and associated costs. Evidently the opening up to industrial development of the Siberian hinterland demands new criteria in the assessment of what is cost-effective, and a qualitative leap in Soviet planning theory.
Pessimistic view In general, whilst recognising the considerable Soviet achievements in industrial expansion, the authors take the pessimistic view that such a new model is unlikely to emerge, at least in the short term. Indeed, despite the existence of general plans for the industrialisation and integration of the developing economic regions of the USSR and of so-called laws and principles, the pattern of industrial location has often resulted from short-term expediency on the part of largely autarkic production-branch ministries. Urban population growth and its attendant problems in the larger cities have similarly come about in an unplanned way. This is surely the crux of the problems confronting spatial planning in the Soviet state. Not only are plans for the regional integration of the economy secondary to those concerned directly with production operations, but without a new administrative structure for the economic regions transcending that of the political subdivisions of the country (Republics and oblasti), such plans are unlikely to have sufficient teeth to neutralise the vested interests of the industrial ministries and territorial Party organisations. Recently there have been structural experiments which have spatial connotations, such as the agrarian-industrial complexes or associations, most commonly between state farms and processing plants, but even here the reluctance of the centre to relinquish decisionmaking to intermediate levels of management has made progress painfully slow. Yet the authors do not devote much space to the crucial role of the Party apparatus, nor to the chequered
86
Books
history of Soviet industrial associations (ob”edineniia). The frequent lack of congruity between the boundaries of the oblasti, each presided over by a powerful Party secretariat, and the territorial disposition of the associations, imposes limits upon the effectiveness and scope of their linked operations. Moreover, few associations have separate accounting status, which tends to inhibit the independence and authority of their governing boards. The book lacks a proper conclusion. Although each chapter carries its own brief summary, the reader is left to glean
from the text what the authors believe to be the principal causes of the weakness of spatial planning in the Soviet Union. There are also errors of detail. The Machine Tractor Stations were abolished in 1958 and not 1957 [p.46]. The nominative plural of okrug (district) is okruga, not okrugi, and they are designated as ‘national’, not ‘autonomous’ 1p.241. Nevertheless, the authors offer a fresh perspective on Soviet planning and make many sound observations. The price, however, is unlikely to encourage a widespread private readership.
What is a healthy American Andrew
city?
Kirby
Urban Revitalization Donald B. Rosenthal, editor 308 pages, f 12.50 hardback, X6.25 paperback (Sage, 1980) This collection of 12 essays is a very detailed account of the American experience of inner urban planning in the past decade. It contains an statistical, enormous amount of and political information, economic, and is of interest on this criterion alone. It is however not a neutral account. Although written well before the demise of the Carter administration in 1980, there lurks behind the quantitative and information a detectable factual hostility to the policies then emerging from FVashington; in consequence, much of the discussion is also fotwardlooking-almost a foretaste of the Reaganite policies now beginning to emerge. The book is undoubtedly strongest in its assessment of the ‘Carter years’. The President’s approach appears to have rested upon twin foundations: what is Andrew Kirby is a lecturer at the Departnwnt of Geography, University of Reading, \Vhitrkni,qhts, Reading RCX ‘LAB, L’ti.
described as “an almost mystical belief in neighbourhoods” [p. 1781, and an urge to spend. Because “no neighbourhood, no matter how run down, should be written off’ [p. 1661, federal spending increased dramatically after 1976; in San Francisco, from $101 to $254 per head; in New Orleans, from $81 to $232, and in b’ashington, from $167 to $825. This level of expenditure does not go uncriticized, and it also seems clear that to urban response the American problems has historically been as eclectic (ie muddled) as the British responses: from the War on Poverty and the Model Cities programmes through to the more recent Comprehensive Training Act Employment and (CETA), there has been an inability to tackle the cities’ problems comprehensively: instead there has been a “smorgasbord of policies” [p. 15 11. The general mood in this vrolume is thus one of doubt and realignment. In keeping with the general swing to the Right in the USA (and Britain), old are revaluated. The editor axioms “there is nothing himself states, inherently wrong with choices involving the abandonment of neighbourhoods which have already reached a point
FUTURES February 19t32