Features of state administration by the economy of Buryatia in 1950-1960

The purpose of the study is to analyze the functioning of the territorial management's system of the country's national economy and its regions, including Buryatia. The task is to determine the efficiency and basic results of the East Siberian administrative district's work in 1957-1965, as well as their industrial and building companies.The work carried out on the basis of legal acts regulating the activities of the government departments of the USSR, the RSFSR and the Buryat ASSR, foreign publications and monographs, archival documents, as well as statistical compilations, shows the main aspects of reforming as an attempt of implementation of a new pulse in coun-try'seconomic development and the decision of social problems on the basis of decentralization of economic management and increasing the role of regions. Management, organizational issues are considered in the activities of the East Siberian and the Buryat Councils of the National Economy, the features of their interaction with party, executive, representative bodies of various levels. Territorial methods of management had obvious advantages. The Soviet national economies achieved significant and impressive successes in the development of the productive forces, especially in the early years. Institutional changes have taken place in macroeconomics and regional policy. In infrastructure many issues have been solved that needed to be solved at a specific stage of Buryatia's economic development as a multinational region. Conditions were created for expanding and deepening the local economicpotential and activities that would allow the development intersectoral specialization and cooperation of industrial production and buildingon a particular territory. At the same time, the development of industrial specialization, as well as integration and rational economic communications between enterprises located in different regions were limited. This detached scientific results from the production, created a multi-stage system of management of branches, loss of efficiency in work with subsequent deterioration of economic indicators. Thus, in the conditions of the administrative-command system it was impossible to provide a full-fledged combination of sectoral and territorial principles of economic management. There was a serious recurrence of bureaucracy with its consequences. The Soviet national economies have shown themselves as a superfluous link in the management.

Keywords

Authors

References