Gosplan of the USSR and the organization of economic planning. State Planning Commission (Gosplan) of the USSR (i). Tasks and functions of the State Planning Committee of the USSR

The Grand Inquisition and the Great Renaissance The Inquisition formally began in the 12th century. against the backdrop of numerous Crusades. And, in general, we can say that there were two waves of the Inquisition. The peak of the first wave can be called the Fourth Crusade, which ended

Source - Wikipedia

Gosplan of the USSR
(State Planning Committee of the Council of Ministers of the USSR) - a state body that carried out nationwide planning for the development of the national economy of the USSR and monitoring the implementation of national economic plans. In the union republics (including Russia) and autonomous entities there were state planning commissions (in Russia - the State Planning Commission of the RSFSR), in the regions (including autonomous regions) - regional planning commissions, in the districts - district planning commissions, in cities - city planning commissions.

On August 21, 1923, the USSR State Planning Commission was established under the Council of Labor and Defense of the USSR (STO USSR) under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR.
The prototype of its creation was the State Commission for Electrification of Russia (GOELRO), which worked from 1920 to 1921.
In the Regulations on the State General Planning Commission, approved by the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR of February 28, 1921, it is determined:
“Under the Council of Labor and Defense, a general planning commission is being created to develop a single nationwide economic plan based on the electrification plan and for general observation for the implementation of this plan
Initially, the USSR State Planning Committee played an advisory role, coordinating the plans of the union republics and developing a general plan. Since 1925, the State Planning Committee of the USSR began to form annual plans development of the national economy of the USSR, which were called "control figures".
At the beginning of its activity, the State Planning Committee of the USSR was engaged in studying the situation in the economy and compiling reports on certain problems, for example, on the restoration and development of coal-mining regions. The development of a unified economic plan for the country began with the issuance of annual control figures and directives for 1925-1926, which set guidelines for all sectors of the economy.
At first, the apparatus of the State Planning Commission consisted of 40 economists, engineers and other personnel, by 1923 it already had 300 employees, and by 1925 a network of planning organizations subordinate to the State Planning Committee of the USSR was created throughout the USSR.
The State Planning Committee of the USSR primarily combined the functions of the highest expert body in the economy and the scientific coordinating center.
The work of the USSR State Planning Committee in the 1920s is illustrated by V. V. Kabanov in his book.
Let's take the fund of the State Planning Committee of the USSR, stored in the RGAE. Suppose we are interested in material on agriculture in the mid-20s. Where to look for it?
It can be established that the complex will include documents formed as a result of the activities of the Presidium of the State Planning Commission, the agricultural section, as well as all other sections, the work of which, to one degree or another, came into contact with agricultural issues. First of all, we can single out the economic and statistical section, which carried out preparatory work for building perspective plan development of the national economy, which studied the methodology of compiling the grain and fodder balance, productivity, grain prices, peasant budgets, etc. The materials of the sections of domestic and foreign trade gravitate to the problems of the domestic and foreign markets for agricultural products. Questions of mechanical engineering for agriculture reveal the documents of the industrial section. The materials of the agricultural section, which prepared the issue for consideration by the Presidium of the State Planning Commission, without fail passed the stage of discussion in all interested sections. A preliminary discussion of the issue took place in the presidium of the agricultural section, and then, after approval, its results were submitted for consideration by the presidium of the State Planning Commission.
Thus, the first thematic set of documents on a particular issue was first formed at the level of the agricultural section and concentrated as part of the appendices to the minutes of the meeting of the presidium of the agricultural section. Then, in its final form, with the addition of the composition of materials, the conclusions of the people's commissariats and departments, a set of documents is formed as part of the annexes to the minutes of the State Planning Commission's presidium.
The structure of the State Planning Commission before the arrival of N. A. Voznesensky, consisted of seven sections:
accounting and distribution of material resources and organization of labor;
energy;
Agriculture;
industry;
transport;
foreign trade and concessions;
zoning.
In 1927, the defense sector of the State Planning Committee of the USSR was added to them.

Under the leadership of the State Planning Committee of the USSR, large-scale industrialization programs of the USSR were successfully implemented, which turned the USSR from a predominantly agrarian country into a leading industrial power.
During the first five-year plan (1928-1932), 1,500 large enterprises were built, including: automobile plants in Moscow (AZLK) and Nizhny Novgorod (GAZ), Magnitogorsk and Kuznetsk metallurgical plants, Stalingrad and Kharkov tractor plants).
At the January (1933) plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, it was announced that the first five-year plan would be completed in 4 years and 3 months.
As a result of the implementation of the second five-year plan for the development of the national economy of the USSR, 4,500 large state-owned industrial enterprises were put into operation. For the preparation by the State Planning Committee of the USSR of the second five-year plan, see R. Davis, O. V. Khlevnyuk: “Second Five-Year Plan: a Mechanism for Changing Economic Policy”

Decree of the State Committee of Defense of the USSR dated August 7, 1941 No. 421 “On the procedure for placing evacuated enterprises” assigned the task of ensuring the evacuation and mobilization of the industry of the USSR to the State Planning Committee of the USSR. In particular, special attention was paid to the fact that, when locating evacuated enterprises, priority should be given to the aviation industry, the industry of ammunition, weapons, tanks and armored vehicles, ferrous, non-ferrous and special metallurgy, and chemistry. The people's commissars were instructed to coordinate with the State Planning Committee of the USSR and the Council for the Evacuation of the final points for the enterprises exported to the rear and the organization of duplicating industries.
N. A. Voznesensky was appointed authorized by the State Defense Committee for the implementation of the ammunition production plan by the industry, and M. Z. Saburov as his deputy
During July-November 1941, more than 1,500 industrial enterprises and 7.5 million people - workers, engineers, technicians and other specialists - were relocated to the east of the country. The evacuation of industrial enterprises was carried out to the eastern regions of the RSFSR, as well as to the southern republics of the country - Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan.

In 1945, active work began on the Soviet atomic project, and a Special Committee was created to manage the work. The State Planning Commission was assigned a special role in the activities of the special committee:
The head of the State Planning Commission, N. A. Voznesensky, became a member of the special committee;
Department No. 1 was created in the State Planning Commission, which was responsible for the work of the Special Committee. I. V. Stalin appointed N. A. Borisov as the head of Directorate No. 1, releasing him from other duties in the State Planning Commission.
The Gosplan was also entrusted with the tasks of supplying the organizations of the nuclear industry, and the head of the State Planning Committee, Voznesensky, was appointed responsible for their implementation.
In 1949, the state security organs began organizing the largest series of political trials in the post-war period, the so-called "Leningrad case". The head of the State Planning Commission, Voznesensky, was to become a key figure in the conspiracy to overthrow Soviet power and the separation of Russia from the USSR, making Leningrad the capital of the new state. The "Leningrad case", "Voznesensky case" and "Gosplan case" were closely intertwined and complemented each other, they were the result of rivalry and struggle between Stalin's associates in the highest echelons of power.
The adoption of the resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of March 5, 1949 "On the USSR State Planning Committee" and the resolution of the Politburo of September 11, 1949 "On the numerous facts of the disappearance of secret documents in the State Planning Committee of the USSR" was a significant personnel purge in the apparatus of the USSR State Planning Committee:
By April 1950, the entire main staff of responsible and technical workers was checked - about 1,400 people. 130 people were fired, more than 40 were transferred from Gosplan to work in other organizations. During the year, 255 new employees were hired by Gosplan. Of the 12 deputies of Voznesensky, seven were removed, and only one was arrested by April 1950, and four received new responsible jobs (which also testified to the predominantly non-political nature of the “Gosplan affair”). The composition of the heads of departments and departments and their deputies has been updated by a third. Of the 133 heads of sectors, 35 were replaced
.
Chairman of the State Planning Commission N. A. Voznesensky was removed from all posts, removed from the Politburo of the Central Committee, expelled from the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and from members of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. Arrested on October 27, 1949, shot on October 1, 1950. Rehabilitated in 1954.
In May 1955, the State Planning Committee of the USSR was divided into two parts:
The State Commission of the Council of Ministers of the USSR for Long-term Planning developed long-term plans for 10-15 years
State Economic Commission of the Council of Ministers of the USSR for the current planning of the national economy (State Economic Commission) (1955-1957) - developed five-year plans.
On November 24, 1962, the State Planning Committee of the Council of Ministers of the USSR was transformed into the Council of the National Economy of the USSR. On the same day, a new Gosplan of the USSR Council of Ministers was formed on the basis of the State Scientific and Economic Council of the USSR Council of Ministers.
Later, Gosplan was renamed several more times, as can be seen from the table below.
The Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation (formally speaking, it is the successor to the Gosplan of the RSFSR) can conditionally be considered the successor to the State Planning Committee of the USSR.

Official names and subordination

1921-1923 State General Planning Commission under the Council of Labor and Defense of the RSFSR
1923-1931 State Planning Commission under the Council of Labor and Defense of the USSR
1931-1946 State Planning Commission under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR
1946-1946 State Planning Commission under the Council of Ministers of the USSR
1946-1948 State Planning Commission of the Council of Ministers of the USSR
1948-1955 State Planning Committee of the Council of Ministers of the USSR
1955-1957 State Planning Commission of the Council of Ministers of the USSR for long-term planning of the national economy of the USSR
1957-1963 State Planning Committee of the Council of Ministers of the USSR
1963-1965 State Planning Committee of the USSR of the Supreme Council of the National Economy of the USSR
1965-1991 State Planning Committee of the USSR Council of Ministers of the USSR
1991-1991 USSR Ministry of Economics and Forecasting

The main task in all periods of its existence was the planning of the economy of the USSR, drawing up plans for the development of the country for various periods.
In accordance with Article 49 of the Constitution of the RSFSR, adopted by the 5th All-Russian Congress of Soviets on July 10, 1918, the subject of jurisdiction of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of Soviets is: “j) Establishing the foundations and general plan of the entire national economy and its individual branches on the territory of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic.
In accordance with Article 1 of the Constitution of the USSR, adopted by the II All-Union Congress of Soviets of the USSR on January 31, 1924, the supreme authorities of the USSR are assigned: “h) establishing the foundations and general plan for the entire national economy of the Union, determining industries and individual industrial enterprises of all-Union significance, conclusion of concession agreements, both all-union and on behalf of the union republics.
Article 14 of the Constitution of the USSR, approved by the Extraordinary VIII Congress of Soviets USSR December 5, 1936 provided that the jurisdiction of the USSR in the person of its highest authorities and state administration bodies is: “k) the establishment of the national economic plans of the USSR”, and Article 70 referred the USSR State Planning Committee to state administration bodies, the Chairman of the USSR State Planning Committee was a member of the Council of Ministers of the USSR .
Article 16 of the Constitution of the USSR, adopted by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on October 7, 1977, provided that the management of "the economy is carried out on the basis of state plans for economic and social development, taking into account sectoral and territorial principles, with a combination of centralized management with economic independence and the initiative of enterprises, associations and other organizations. The jurisdiction of the USSR, represented by its highest bodies of state power and administration, includes: “5) pursuing a unified socio-economic policy, managing the country's economy: determining the main directions of scientific and technological progress and general measures for rational use and protection natural resources; the development and approval of state plans for the economic and social development of the USSR, the approval of reports on their implementation, the control over the implementation of state plans and tasks is carried out by the bodies of people's control, formed by the councils of people's deputies (Article 92). The approval of state plans for the economic and social development of the USSR is carried out by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR (Article 108). The Council of Ministers of the USSR: “2) develops and submits to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR current and long-term state plans for the economic and social development of the USSR, the state budget THE USSR; takes measures to implement state plans and budgets; submits to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR reports on the fulfillment of plans and the execution of the budget” (Article 131). There is no mention of the State Planning Committee of the USSR in this Constitution.
By the USSR Law of December 19, 1963 No. 2000-VI, the State Planning Committee of the USSR was transformed from an all-Union body into a Union-Republican body. The same act determined that the Chairman of the State Planning Committee of the USSR is a member of the Council of Ministers of the USSR (Article 70).
The main task of the State Planning Committee of the USSR from the end of the 60s until its liquidation in 1991 was: the development, in accordance with the Program of the CPSU, the directives of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the decisions of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, of state economic plans that ensure the proportional development of the national economy of the USSR, the continuous growth and increase in the efficiency of social production in for the purpose of creating the material and technical base of communism, steadily raising the standard of living of the people and strengthening the country's defense capability.
“State plans for the development of the national economy of the USSR must be optimal, based on the economic laws of socialism, on modern achievements and prospects for the development of science and technology, on the results of scientific research into the economic and social problems of communist construction, a comprehensive study of social needs, on the correct combination of sectoral and territorial planning, as well as centralized planning with the economic independence of enterprises and organizations. (Regulations on the State Planning Committee of the USSR, approved by the Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of September 9, 1968 No. 719) "
The work of the State Planning Committee of the USSR in planning the national economy was coordinated with the Central Statistical Office (CSB), the People's Commissariat of Finance (later the Ministry of Finance of the USSR), the Supreme Council of the National Economy (VSNKh of the USSR), and later with the USSR State Committee on Science and Technology, the USSR State Bank and the USSR State Supply Committee.
Since 1928, the State Planning Committee of the USSR began to draw up five-year plans and monitor their implementation.

Implementation period Serial number Document name Approved
1928-1932 I five-year plan of the Directive for drawing up a five-year plan for the development of the national economy XV Congress of the CPSU (b) in 1927; Adopted by the 5th All-Union Congress of Soviets in 1929
1933-1937 II Five-Year Plan Resolution "On the Second Five-Year Plan for the Development of the National Economy of the USSR" XVII Congress of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks in 1934
1938-1942 III Five-Year Plan - thwarted by the outbreak of World War II Resolution of the XVIII Congress of the CPSU (b) on the report of comrade. Molotov XVIII Congress of the CPSU (b) in 1939
1946-1950 IV five-year plan Law on the five-year plan for the restoration and development of the national economy (for 1946-1950) by the first session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR March 18, 1946
1951-1955 Fifth Five-Year Plan Directives on the Five-Year Plan for the Development of the National Economy of the USSR XIX Congress of the CPSU in 1952
1956-1960 VI five-year plan - instead of it from 1959 to 1965 there was a seven-year plan of the Directive on the five-year plan for the development of the national economy of the USSR XX Congress of the CPSU in 1956
1959-1965 VII five-year plan (seven-year plan) Directives on the seven-year plan for the development of the national economy of the USSR XXI Congress of the CPSU in 1959
1966-1970 VIII five-year plan Directives on the five-year plan for the development of the national economy of the USSR XXIII Congress of the CPSU in 1966
1971-1975 IX five-year plan Directives on the five-year plan for the development of the national economy of the USSR XXIV Congress of the CPSU in 1971
1976-1980 X five-year plan The main directions of development of the national economy of the USSR for 1976-1980. XXV Congress of the CPSU in 1976
1981-1985 XI five-year plan The main directions of the economic and social development of the USSR for 1981-1985. and for the period up to 1990 XXVI Congress of the CPSU in 1981
1986-1990 XII five-year plan The main directions of the economic and social development of the USSR for 1986-1990 and for the future until 2000 XXVII Congress of the CPSU in 1986
1991-1995 XIII five-year plan Was not implemented due to the collapse of the USSR.

Our plans are not plans-forecasts, not plans-guesses, but plans-directives, which are obligatory for the governing bodies and which determine the direction of our economic development in the future on a national scale.
- I. V. Stalin - December 3, 1927

Administrative structure
The apparatus of the State Planning Committee of the USSR in the 1980s consisted of sectoral departments (for industries, agriculture, transport, trade, foreign trade, culture and education, health care, housing and communal services, public services, etc.) and consolidated departments ( the consolidated department of the national economic plan, the department of territorial planning and distribution of productive forces, the consolidated department of capital investments, the consolidated department of material balances and distribution plans, the department of labor, the department of finance and prime cost, etc.
The State Planning Committee of the USSR, within the limits of its competence, issued resolutions that were binding on all ministries, departments, and other organizations. He was granted the right to involve the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, the academies of sciences of the Union republics, branch academies of sciences, research and design institutes, design and other organizations and institutions, as well as individual scientists, specialists and leaders for the development of draft plans and individual economic problems. production.

Structural units
1930-1931 - Economic and Statistical Sector (ESS)
1931-1931 - Sector of National Economic Accounting
Department of Energy and Electrification
Subdivision of Nuclear Power Plants (1972)
Department of Automotive, Tractor and Agricultural Engineering
Department for the Activities of the Soviet Parts of the Standing Committees of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance
Fuel Industry Department
Department of Construction and Construction Industry
Consolidated department of the agro-industrial complex
Consolidated Department of the National Economic Plan
First department

Commissions under the State Planning Committee of the USSR
Special commission of the Council of Labor and Defense under the State Planning Commission of the USSR for the consideration of charters of trusts (1923-1925)
State Expert Commission (GEC of the State Planning Committee of the USSR)
Interdepartmental Commission on Economic Reform (formed 1965 - ?)
Concession Committee of the State Planning Committee of the USSR
Council of Techno-Economic Expertise of the State Planning Committee of the USSR
booking commission work force for the national economy (Executive Secretary 1969-1990 Major General Malafeev S.P.)

Chairman of the State Planning Committee of the USSR
The chairmen of the State Planning Committee of the USSR were deputy chairmen of the Council of Ministers of the USSR.

Last name, first name and patronymic Period of work Years of life Notes
Krzhizhanovsky, Gleb Maximilianovich 1921-1923 1872-1959 1921 GOELRO
Tsyurupa, Alexander Dmitrievich 1923-1925 1870-1928
Krzhizhanovsky, Gleb Maximilianovich 1925-1930 1872-1959 1928 1st five-year plan
Kuibyshev, Valerian Vladimirovich 1930-1934 1888-1935
Mezhlauk, Valery Ivanovich 1934-1937 1893-1938
Smirnov, Gennady Ivanovich 1937-1937 1903-1938 February - October
Mezhlauk, Valery Ivanovich 1937-1937 1893-1938 October - December
Voznesensky, Nikolai Alekseevich 1938-1941 1903-1950
Saburov, Maxim Zakharovich 1941-1942 1900-1977 from March 10, 1941 to December 1942
Voznesensky, Nikolai Alekseevich 1942-1949 1903-1950
Saburov, Maxim Zakharovich 1949-1953 1900-1977
Kosyachenko, Grigory Petrovich 1953-1953 1901-1983 March - June
Saburov, Maxim Zakharovich 1953-1955 1900-1977
Baibakov, Nikolai Konstantinovich 1955-1957 1911-2008 1957 Khrushchev's reform
Kuzmin, Joseph Iosifovich 1957-1959 1910-1996
Kosygin, Alexei Nikolaevich 1959-1960 1904-1980
Novikov, Vladimir Nikolaevich 1960-1962 1907-2000
Dymshits, Veniamin Emmanuilovich 1962-1962 1910-1993 July - November
Lomako, Pyotr Faddeevich 1962-1965 1904-1990
Baibakov, Nikolai Konstantinovich 1965-1985 1911-2008 The economic reform of 1965
Talyzin, Nikolai Vladimirovich 1985-1988 1929-1991 1987-88 the planned economy was dismantled (laws "On State Enterprise" and "On Cooperation")
Maslyukov, Yuri Dmitrievich 1988-1991 1937-2010

Vice Chairs
1921-1929 Osadchiy, Pyotr Semyonovich - First Deputy Chairman (1866-1943)
1921-1938 Strumilin, Stanislav Gustavovich - Deputy Chairman (1877-1974)
1923-1927 Pyatakov, Georgy Leonidovich - Deputy Chairman (1890-1937)
1925-1926 Smilga, Ivar Tenisovich - Deputy Chairman (1892-1938)
1926-1930 - N. N. Vashkov - Deputy Chairman, Chairman of the electrification section of the State Planning Committee of the USSR (1874-1953)
1926-1928 Sokolnikov, Grigory Yakovlevich - Deputy Chairman (1888-1939)
1926-1927 Vladimirsky, Mikhail Fedorovich - Deputy Chairman (1874-1951)
1927-1931 Quiring, Emmanuil Ionovich - Deputy Chairman (1888-1937)
1928-1929-Grinko, Grigory Fedorovich - Deputy Chairman (1890-1938)
1929-1934 Milyutin, Vladimir Pavlovich - Deputy Chairman (1884-1937)
1930-1934 Smilga, Ivar Tenisovich - Deputy Chairman - Head of the Integrated Planning Department (1892-1938)
1930-1937 Smirnov, Gennady Ivanovich - Deputy Chairman (1903-1938)
1931-1935 Mezhlauk, Valery Ivanovich - First Deputy Chairman (1893-1938)
1931-1933 Oppokov, Georgy Ippolitovich (Lomov A.) - Deputy Chairman (1888-1938)
1932-1934 Gaister, Aron Izrailevich - Deputy Chairman (1899-1938)
1932-1935 Obolensky, Valerian Valerianovich - Deputy Chairman (1887-1937)
1933-1933 Troyanovsky, Alexander Antonovich - Deputy Chairman (1882-1955)
1934-1937 - Quiring, Emmanuil Ionovich - First Deputy Chairman (1888-1937)
1935-1937 Kraval, Ivan Adamovich - Deputy Chairman (1897-1938)
1936-1937 Gurevich, Alexander Iosifovich - Deputy Chairman (1896-1937)
1937-1937 Vermenichev, Ivan Dmitrievich - Deputy Chairman (1899-1938)
1938-1940 Sautin, Ivan Vasilievich - Deputy Chairman (1905-1975)
1939-1940 Kravtsev, Georgy Georgievich - First Deputy Chairman (1908-1941)
1940-1940 Kosyachenko, Grigory Petrovich - Deputy Chairman (1901-1983)
1940-1948 Starovsky, Vladimir Nikonovich - Deputy Chairman (1905-1975)
1940-1941 Saburov, Maxim Zakharovich - First Deputy Chairman (1900-1977)
1940-1943 Kuznetsov, Vasily Vasilievich - Deputy Chairman (1901-1990)
1940-1946 Panov, Andrey Dmitreevich - Deputy Chairman (1904-1963)
1940-1949 - Petr Ivanovich Kirpichnikov - Deputy Chairman (1903-1980)
1941-1944 Kosyachenko, Grigory Petrovich - First Deputy Chairman (1901-1983)
1941-1945 Sorokin, Gennady Mikhailovich - Deputy Chairman (1910-1990)
1941-1948 Starovsky, Vladimir Nikonovich - Deputy Chairman (1905-1975)
1942-1946 Mitrakov, Ivan Lukich - Deputy Chairman (1905-1995)
1944-1946 Saburov, Maxim Zakharovich - First Deputy Chairman (1900-1977)
1945-1955 Borisov, Nikolai Andreevich - Deputy Chairman (1903-1955)
1946-1947 Saburov, Maxim Zakharovich - Deputy Chairman (1900-1977)
1946-1950 Panov, Andrey Dmitreevich - First Deputy Chairman (1904-1963)
1948-1957 - Perov, Georgy Vasilyevich - Deputy Chairman (1905-1979)
1949-1953 Kosyachenko, Grigory Petrovich - First Deputy Chairman (1901-1983)
1951-1953 - Korobov, Anatoly Vasilievich - Deputy Chairman (1907-1967)
1952-1953 - Sorokin, Gennady Mikhailovich - Deputy Chairman (1910-1990)
1953-1953 - Pronin, Vasily Prokhorovich - Deputy Chairman (1905-1993)
1955-1957 - Zhimerin, Dmitry Georgievich - First Deputy Chairman (1906-1995)
1955-1957 - Yakovlev, Mikhail Danilovich - Deputy Chairman (1910-1999)
1955-1957 - Sorokin, Gennady Mikhailovich - Deputy Chairman (1910-1990)
1955-1957 - Kalamkarov, Vartan Aleksandrovich - Deputy Chairman (1906-1992)
1955-1957 - Khrunichev, Mikhail Vasilyevich - Deputy Chairman (1901-1961)
1956-1957 - Kosygin, Alexey Nikolaevich - First Deputy Chairman (1904-1980)
1956-1957 - Malyshev, Vyacheslav Alexandrovich - First Deputy Chairman (1902-1957)
1957-1959 - Perov, Georgy Vasilyevich - First Deputy Chairman (1905-1979)
1957-1962 - Zotov, Vasily Petrovich - Deputy Chairman (1899-1977)
1957-1961 - Matskevich, Vladimir Vladimirovich - Deputy Chairman (1909-1998)
1957-1961 - Khrunichev, Mikhail Vasilyevich - First Deputy Chairman (1901-1961)
1958-1958 - Zasiadko, Alexander Fedorovich - Deputy Chairman (1910-1963)
1958-1958 - Ryabikov, Vasily Mikhailovich - Deputy Chairman (1907-1974)
1958-1960 - Lesechko, Mikhail Avksentievich - First Deputy Chairman (1909-1984)
1960-1962 Orlov, Georgy Mikhailovich - First Deputy Chairman (1903-1991)
1960-1966 Korobov, Anatoly Vasilyevich - Deputy Chairman (1907-1967)
1961-1961 Ryabikov, Vasily Mikhailovich - First Deputy Chairman (1907-1974)
1961-1962 Dymshits, Veniamin Emmanuilovich - First Deputy Chairman (1910-1993)
1961-1965 Lobanov, Pavel Pavlovich - Deputy Chairman (1902-1984)
1963-1965 Stepanov, Sergey Alexandrovich - Deputy Chairman (1903-1976)
1963-1965 Korobov, Anatoly Vasilyevich - Deputy Chairman (1907-1967)
1963-1973 Goreglyad, Alexey Adamovich - First Deputy Chairman (1905-1986)
1963-1965 Tikhonov, Nikolai Alexandrovich - Deputy Chairman (1905-1997)
1965-1973 Lebedev, Viktor Dmitrievich - Deputy Chairman (1917-1978)
1965-1974 Ryabikov, Vasily Mikhailovich - First Deputy Chairman (1907-1974)
1966-1973 Misnik, Mikhail Ivanovich - Deputy Chairman (1913-1998)
1973-1978 Lebedev, Viktor Dmitrievich - First Deputy Chairman (1917-1978)
1974-1983 Slyunkov, Nikolai Nikitovich - Deputy Chairman
1976-1988 Paskar, Petr Andreevich - First Deputy Chairman
1979-1982 Ryzhkov, Nikolai Ivanovich - First Deputy Chairman
1979-1983 - Ryabov, Yakov Petrovich - First Deputy Chairman
1980-1988 Voronin, Lev Alekseevich - First Deputy Chairman (1928-2008)
1982-1985 Maslyukov, Yuri Dmitrievich - First Deputy Chairman (1937-2010)
1983-1989 - Sitaryan, Stepan Armaisovich - First Deputy Chairman (1930-2009)
1983-1991 Lukashov, Anatoly Ivanovich - Deputy Chairman (1936-2014)
1988-1990 Paskar, Pyotr Andreevich - Deputy Chairman, Head of the Consolidated Department of the Agro-Industrial Complex
1988-1991 Anisimov, Pavel Petrovich - Deputy Chairman
1988-1991 Troshin, Alexander Nikolaevich - Deputy Chairman
1988-1991 Serov, Valery Mikhailovich - Deputy Chairman
1989-1991 Durasov, Vladimir Alexandrovich - First Deputy Chairman
1988-1989 Khomenko, Yuri Pavlovich - First Deputy Chairman

Institutes under the State Planning Committee of the USSR
Name of organization Period of operation
Research Economic Institute 1955-1991
Council for the Study of Productive Forces 1960-1991
Institute of Complex Transport Problems 1954-1991
All-Union Research Institute of Complex Fuel and Energy Problems 1974-1991
Research Institute for Planning and Regulations 1960-1991
Economic Research Institute (IEI) 1929-1938
Central Institute for Technical Information of the Coal Industry (CITI of the Coal Industry) CITI of the State Planning Committee of the USSR 1957-1959
Institute for the Design of Non-Ferrous Metallurgy Enterprises "Giprotsvetmet"1957-1960

Since 1923, the State Planning Committee of the USSR has been publishing the monthly industry magazine Planned Economy, and has been awarded the Order of the Red Banner of Labor.

The building was built on the site of the Church of St. Paraskeva (Friday) in Okhotny Ryad (1686-1928).
The main building is located on Okhotny Ryad Street, Building 1. It was built in 1934-1938 according to the design of the architect A. Ya. Langman to house the Council of Labor and Defense, then the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, the Council of Ministers of the USSR and, finally, the State Planning Committee of the USSR. The building has a characteristic imperial style - heavy columns and wide halls.
The second building of the State Planning Committee of the USSR was the building overlooking Georgievsky Lane, designed in the late 70s by the architect N. E. Gigovskaya. It is completely different in style, completely made of glass and concrete.
The buildings are connected to each other by a passage.
According to some reports, the building of the State Planning Committee of the USSR was mined in 1941, and cleared only in 1981. By a lucky chance, the builders discovered wires "going nowhere."
Currently, these buildings house the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation.
Also for the State Planning Committee of the USSR in 1936, according to the project of the outstanding architect Konstantin Melnikov, in collaboration with the architect V. I. Kurochkin, a garage was built on Aviamotornaya Street in Moscow, currently known as the Gosplan Garage and which is a monument of history and culture.

V.L. Nekrasov

Chairmen of the State Planning Committee of the USSR (1955-1964): political status, power potential, career trajectories

Study of the reforms of the State Planning Committee of the USSR in the second half of the 1950s - the first half of the 1960s. is impossible without a special analysis of the activities, personal and business qualities of the leadership of this planning body. Refer to the study of the leaders of the State Planning Committee of the second half of the 1950s - the first half of the 1960s. causes a number of significant circumstances. Most of the leaders of the planning bodies of the second half of the 1950s - the first half of the 1960s belonged to the "Stalinist people's commissars" - a group of economic leaders who were promoted to leadership positions in the late 1930s - first half of the 1940s. Their career growth was facilitated by the extreme conditions of this period - political repression 1937-1938 and the Great Patriotic War. After the end of the war, they formed the core of the ministerial corps, acting in the second half of the 1950s - the first half of the personnel reserve for leading positions in planning bodies. In fact, all the chairmen of the State Planning Committee - N.K. Baibakov, I.I. Kuzmin, A.N. Kosygin, V.N. Novikov, P.F. Lomako - were nominated on the personal initiative of Khrushchev. Thus, they turned out to be inextricably linked with the process of Khrushchev's formation as political leader and his policy of placing his nominees in key positions in the state and party leadership. These circumstances allow us to assert that the chairmen of the State Planning Committee of the second half of the 1950s - the first half of the 1960s. were a group with common social and political characteristics.

In the newest Russian historiography there are no special studies devoted to the analysis of the leadership of planning bodies as one of the groups the highest nomenclature and pressure groups in the political leadership. In historiography, works of the bibliographic genre were established, dedicated to individual statesmen who led planning bodies in the "Khrushchev period". Meanwhile, the "Khrushchev" planners should be regarded as one of the groups of influence in the top political leadership. Moreover, the analysis of this group of influence should be carried out in connection with the reforms of the State Planning Commission in the second half of the 1950s - the first half of the 1960s.

In the Soviet economic system, Gosplan was one of the key government bodies responsible for preparing state national economic plans, coordinating the activities of various departments, controlling and defending "general state interests" in the fight against "departmental egoism."

Second half of the 1950s - first half of the 1960s turned out to be the richest in decisions and decisions that broke the old system of operational management and planning of the national economy. The factors of continuous organizational changes were, firstly, the need to reorganize the State Planning Commission as the bearer of the inertia of the “Stalinist economic model”, and secondly, the desire to subordinate the State Planning Commission to the apparatus of the Central Committee of the CPSU. In the "Khrushchev period" a complex system of operational management and planning of the national economy was formed and functioned. It included special bodies that carried out separate current and long-term planning, management of material and technical supply, statistics and accounting for the development of the national economy. The main organizational transformations in operational management and planning are shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Reorganization of the State Planning Committee of the USSR (1955-1963)

Along with the reorganization of the State Planning Commission, the status of its head in the system of higher political power. The Chairman of the State Planning Commission held a high position in the Soviet party-state hierarchy. In the late Stalinist period, the chairman of the State Planning Commission necessarily held the position of deputy (first deputy) chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, was a candidate or full-fledged member of the Politburo (Presidium) of the Central Committee of the CPSU. And it should be noted that the members of the Presidium of the Central Committee closely followed who was appointed to the post of chairman of the State Planning Commission and were very jealous of the fact that a person was appointed to this post, bypassing the more honored and influential leaders of the party and government. Khrushchev changed this practice, believing that "many temptations arise, and departmental interests sometimes prevail over public ones." After the reorganization of the management system in May 1957 and the resignation of M.G. Pervukhin, the heads of planning bodies will never again be part of the Presidium of the Central Committee as full members, and sometimes even in the composition of the plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU (I.I. Kuzmin, V.N. Novikov, A.F. Zasyadko). Thus, in the current configuration of political institutions, Khrushchev limited the powers of the Chairman of the State Planning Commission, effectively depriving him of political mechanisms of influence.

The position of chairman of the State Planning Commission turned out to be less stable, there was a continuous rotation of the leadership of the planning authorities. So, during the years 1955-1963. in the planning bodies of the USSR, eight leaders were replaced - two in the State Economic Commission (1955-1957), six in the State Planning Commission (1955-1963), three in the State Economic Council (1959-1962). While in 1940 - the first half of the 1950s. - three leaders, and in the second half of the 1960s - the first half of the 1980s. - two.

The highest echelons of power had their own hierarchy of leaders, based on experience, merit, breadth and strength of business and friendly relations with members of the top political leadership, proximity to the political leader. This circumstance must be taken into account when assessing the position of the chairman of the State Planning Commission in the top political leadership. Based on these criteria, all heads of planning bodies can be divided into four groups. The first group consisted of M.G. Pervukhin, M.Z. Saburov, who claimed a certain independence from Khrushchev. They were obliged to I.V. Stalin, and not Khrushchev, with his career advancement. These statesmen were introduced to the Presidium of the Central Committee and the Bureau of the Presidium of the Council of Ministers of the USSR on the rights of full members by Stalin. In addition, they had unique, especially Pervukhin, experience in solving strategic problems.

The second group of Gosplan chairmen is formed by A.N. Kosygin and V.N. Novikov, who were experienced business executives and administrators, and who had wide trusting and friendly ties in the top management. Kosygin, in 1950-1957. "political outsider", but, firstly, he was an experienced administrator, and, secondly, he maintained trusting relations with Khrushchev's closest associates F.R. Kozlov and E.A. Furtseva, as well as with friends of the war years, "cool defense ministers" V.A. Malyshev, M.V. Khrunichev. Novikov, from the war years he worked and was friends with D.F. Ustinov, with experience, influence and position in the military-industrial circles, whom Khrushchev was considered, and in addition, was a protégé of F.R. Kozlov.

The third group included N.K. Baibakov, P.F. Lomako, whose positions were determined by their reputation as talented business executives and administrators, since they did not have other statuses, merits and opportunities at that time.

The weakest positions were occupied by I.I. Kuzmin and A.F. Zasyadko, who demonstrated complete loyalty to Khrushchev. Kuzmin, possessing energy, did not have experience in leading administrative work, and any wide and stable trusting relationships in the top political leadership and the party-state apparatus. Zasyadko is a "big business executive", but alcoholism "led him to flattery and sycophancy" in relations with Khrushchev.

Khrushchev sought to influence the personal composition of the leadership of the State Planning Commission, even when he had not yet recruited full force personal power. This striving is quite clearly seen in the reform of the USSR State Planning Committee in 1955 in the question of the chairmen of the State Planning Committee and the State Economic Commission.

The reform of the Gosplan in 1955 is closely connected with the reshuffling of the top political leadership. Resignation in January 1955 G.M. Malenkov from the post of Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR and the appointment of N.A. Bulganin, with whom Khrushchev had a trusting relationship, strengthened the position of the latter, and gave him the opportunity to act more decisively in the reorganization of state administration and the placement of his proteges in the state apparatus. According to D.T. Shepilova, “Khrushchev said without much hesitation that it was necessary to remove the “Malenkov people” and place “our own cadres” everywhere.

Minister of the Oil Industry of the USSR N.K. Baibakov. The State Economic Commission for Current Planning was headed by M.Z. Saburov, who headed the State Planning Commission in 1953-1955. Valuable evidence of these appointments is provided by S.N. Khrushchev.

According to his testimony in 1955-1956. Saburov was "among the most active supporters" of Khrushchev, supporting his political and economic initiatives. The "Gosplan" experience of Saburov was necessary for conducting "battles" with sectoral ministers. The fact that there was a trusting relationship between Khrushchev and Saburov is indicated by the fact that in 1955-1956. Saburov (and M.G. Pervukhin) were entrusted with the duties of chairing the meetings of the Council of Ministers of the USSR during the absence of N.A. Bulganin.

Baibakov's appointment corresponded to Khrushchev's plan that Gosplan "should be led by an extraordinary person, not blinkered, not mired in routine ... The choice fell on ... Baibakov, a person who was not burdened by the Gosplan "experience" of endless balancing and showed himself capable of non-trivial actions during the war » . At the same time, it cannot be ruled out that Baibakov was nominated on the advice of L.M. Kaganovich, who knew Baibakov well from the time of his work in the People's Commissariat of the Oil Industry. But Khrushchev viewed Baibakov not as a major independent political personality, but as a “technical” chairman of the State Planning Commission - an experienced, without ambition, business manager-manager, the developer of the sixth five-year plan and the executor of his ideas for modernizing and reforming the economy.

This confirms the point of view existing in historiography that Khrushchev, in the struggle for power, sought to redistribute forces in the Council of Ministers of the USSR in his favor. This policy was associated with the weakening of the influential members of the Presidium of the Council of Ministers of the USSR (G.M. Malenkov, V.M. Molotov) who were in opposition to Khrushchev by strengthening the “young” members of the Presidium of the Council of Ministers of the USSR (M.G. Pervukhina, M.Z. Saburova) and promotion of their candidacies to the Presidium of the Council of Ministers of the USSR (I.I. Kuzmin), the State Planning Commission (N.K. Baibakov) and the State Economic Commission (A.N. Kosygin). Although, as the events of the first half of 1957 showed, this policy had its natural limits. Despite the consistency and regularity of the personnel policy pursued by Khrushchev in relation to the State Planning Commission and the State Economic Commission, it did not produce results. The stumbling block between Khrushchev and the planners was the industrial and construction management reform of 1957. The discussion of the management reform of 1957 was extremely difficult, moreover, the discussion around the reform acted as a catalyst for confrontation in the top political leadership. The management reform that Khrushchev conceived in December 1956-January 1957 provided for the decentralization of management of industries and the construction complex, breaking down departmental barriers, and increasing the role of party and Soviet authorities in managing the national economy. To do this, Khrushchev proposed to move from management through sectoral ministries to management through economic councils. The management reform of 1957, which accumulated social and economic expectations and contradictions, was considered by its initiators and developers as an effective tool for eliminating the main flaws of the centralized economy.

However, both Gosplan Chairman Baibakov and Chairman of the State Economic Commission Pervukhin did not hide and openly expressed to Khrushchev their concerns about the reform he had conceived. Comparative analysis Baibakov and Pervukhin's argument suggests that they did not deny the fundamental principles of the reform, but insisted on the gradual implementation of the reform and the preservation of centralized management for a number of heavy industries. Centralized administration was to be carried out either through the ministries, which would be obliged to "relocate a number of main departments to the places of production", or through the Supreme Council of the National Economy for Heavy Industry. A feature of the rhetoric of this group of planners was the opinion that the liquidation of the ministries would lead to the loss of management of industries, the stability of the economy, and a unified technical policy. In other words, they were characterized by a technocratic, devoid of political motives, approach, which consisted in the expediency of preserving, as far as possible, sectoral mechanisms in new system industrial and construction management. However, in the conditions of 1957, the preservation of centralized management of heavy industries was beyond the scope of the reform proposed by Khrushchev. Its implementation could lead to the preservation of "management of industry and construction according to the sectoral principle." In fact, these proposals represented a conservative version of the reform implementation, in which its main idea was modified in favor of preserving the sectoral management principle, the implementation period increased, and, in general, the risks of its implementation increased.

However, in the unfolding struggle for power, Khrushchev needed like-minded people in the leadership of the planning bodies, not opponents. As a result, Baibakov and Pervukhin were released from their duties in May 1957. Baibakov was appointed chairman of the State Planning Committee of the RSFSR. Baibakov's appointment to the post of chairman of the State Planning Committee of the RSFSR was fully consistent with the new political and economic realities that came after the liquidation of ministries and the creation of economic councils, the practice of appointing former ministers, and his competencies as an economic manager-manager. And among the candidates for the post of chairman of the State Planning Commission in May 1957, Baibakov had minimal chances, since he did not have political influence, and Khrushchev's confidence in him weakened. Pervukhin, given his status as a member of the Presidium of the Central Committee and First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR and experience in leadership work, could take the post of Chairman of the State Planning Commission, but was appointed Minister of Medium Machine Building. A possible candidate for the post of chairman of the State Planning Commission could be Kosygin, who in December 1956 - May 1957 held the position of head of the State Planning Commission. the post of First Deputy State Economic Commission, and loyal to Khrushchev. However, the appointment of Pervukhin or Kosygin was not destined to come true, and one of the reasons could be their skepticism about the creation of economic councils. As a result, Kosygin remained in Khrushchev's team, while Pervukhin "joined the ranks of potential opponents" of Khrushchev. The Chairman of the State Planning Commission, at the initiative of Khrushchev, is approved by the head of the department of mechanical engineering of the Central Committee of the CPSU I.I. Kuzmin, who won Khrushchev's trust by supporting his idea of ​​reforming the management of industry and construction. Obviously, in the conditions of a "radical restructuring of industrial management" and the struggle for political leadership, Khrushchev sought to put a "think tank" under his control economic life countries.

However, in general, when he was appointed to the post of chairman of the State Planning Commission, Khrushchev first of all evaluated the experience and professionalism of the applicant. Most of the leaders of the State Planning Commission at the time of their appointment to this post had unique economic and administrative experience, including management of the national economy of the RSFSR, heavy and light industries, finance, economic councils, strategic projects and construction projects, including abroad. The exception in this group was I.I. Kuzmin is a representative of the party apparatus, whose nomination was opportunistic.

Career trajectories of leaders of planning authorities in 1955-1964. are presented in table 2.

table 2

Career trajectories of leaders of planning authorities

At the same time, we should talk about institutional differences between the heads of planning bodies appointed in 1955-1956 and 1957-1959. and 1960-1964 In 1955-1956. the leaders of the planning bodies were representatives of the highest bureaucracy, - M.Z. Saburov and M.G. Pervukhin - members of the Presidium of the Central Committee. Chairman of the State Planning Committee Baibakov, having extensive experience in administrative and economic work, was only an "ordinary" member of the Central Committee of the CPSU, and thus was deprived of the opportunity to exert political influence on many issues of the development of the national economy, especially if they formally went beyond the competence of the State Planning Commission. In 1957-1959. the situation is changing dramatically, and the main criterion for appointment is personal loyalty, loyalty and unquestioning fulfillment of the tasks of the new political leader. Namely, this factor, as already noted, determined the appointment of I.I. Kuzmina, A.F. Zasyadko, and also, although to a lesser extent, A.N. Kosygin. In 1960-1964 Technocrats who did not have political weight, but with experience in economic work in both the "old" sectoral and the "new" territorial economy, come to the leadership of the State Planning Commission. V.N. Novikov, in 1957-1958. headed the Leningrad Economic Council, in 1958-1960. - Chairman of the State Planning Committee of the RSFSR. P.F. Lomako, from 1957 to 1961 headed the Krasnoyarsk Economic Council, in 1961-1962. - Deputy Chairman of the Bureau of the Central Committee of the CPSU for the RSFSR, in July-November 1962 - Chairman of the State Economic Council.

It is expedient to turn to such a problem as the "image of planners" posed by P. Gregory when studying the history of the State Planning Committee of the first five-year plans. In the history of the State Planning Committee of the 1930s. P. Gregory singled out two images of the planner - "poorly educated party bureaucrat" V.V. Kuibyshev (1930-1934) and the image of the “professional planner” V.I. Mezhlauk (1934-1937). In his opinion, these images of the planner symbolize the two poles of Gosplan itself, two alternatives for its development: Gosplan could become an organization that develops plans in accordance with formal rules, or it could turn into an organization that blindly implements party directives, even in those cases when they contrary to economic logic. Regarding the second half of the 1950s - the first half of the 1960s. one can definitely talk about three “images of planners”. Kosygin, M.G. Pervukhin, M.Z. Saburov. The second is Khrushchev's nominees, loyal, party and state functionaries who approved of his ideas and unquestioningly carried out his orders, such as A.F. Zasyadko, I.I. Kuzmin. The third image is experienced, but without political ambitions, business executives, sectoral ministers put forward by Khrushchev to implement his initiatives - N.K. Baibakov, V.N. Novikov, V.E. Dymshits, P.F. Lomako.

The lowering of the political status, the limitation of the power potential of the chairman of the State Planning Commission, the strengthening of party institutions when appointed to the post of head of the planning body reflected the process of eliminating the independence of state institutions from the apparatus of the Central Committee of the CPSU. The situation around the State Planning Commission in the second half of the 1950s - the first half of the 1960s. can be considered among the transformation of other state institutions and changes in the status of their leaders - the Ministry of Internal Affairs, headed by L.P. Beria, the Council of Ministers of the USSR headed by G.M. Malenkov and N.A. Bulganin, the armed forces - G.K. Zhukov, who, according to R.G. Pikhoi, "were consistently defeated by the apparatus of the Central Committee of the CPSU."

Vakser A.Z. Alexey Nikolaevich Kosygin // Clio. 2008. No. 3. S. 116-123; Gvozdetsky V.L. Dmitry Georgievich Zhimerin. A life dedicated to energy. M., 2006; Zamostyanov A.A. A.N. Kosygin. Biographical sketch. M., 2002; Kudashin A.S. Party and state activity A. N. Kosygina 1939-1980: Diss. Ph.D. M., 2005; Podolsky S.I. The reformer of the "Khrushchev" period - V.N. Novikov // Bulletin of the Leningrad State University named after A.S. Pushkin. Series "History". 2011. No. 1. S. 63-73; Nekrasov V.L. N.K. Baibakov: a personal factor in the years of leadership of N.S. Khrushchev (1955-1957) // Actual problems historical research: the view of young scientists: Collection of materials of the I All-Russian Youth scientific conference. Novosibirsk, 2011, pp. 229-236; Slavkina M.V. Baibakov. Moscow: Parallel, 2010; Sushkov A.V. Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU: personality and power. Yekaterinburg, 2009.

State power of the USSR. The highest bodies of power and administration and their leaders ... S. 211, 297, 313, 363, 375, 393, 442, 466, 509; RGAE. F. 739 Op. 1 D. 174 L. 18-19.

HISTORY OF ECONOMIC SCIENCE

GOSPLAN AND STATE STRATEGIC PLANNING

B.A. Reisberg

The article outlines the main milestones in the creation and activities of the State Planning Commission as the central body of strategic planning in the Soviet economy. The related problems of the revival of strategic planning of socio-economic development in modern Russia are considered.

The name "Gosplan" is known to the younger generation of Russians only as a historical category of the irrevocably gone past, a relic of the Soviet era. Older people associate Gosplan with a symbol, the personification of the system that dominated Russia for seven decades, which, according to many people, was the bastion of the planned economic system, general staff the so-called "command" economy. Persons who, for one reason or another, feel hostility to the communist ideology, to the Soviet past, who know little about the activities of the State Planning Committee as an organ of the government of the Soviet Union, tend to unconditionally condemn the State Planning Committee, consider it archaism that has sunk into oblivion due to its complete unsuitability for managing the market economy. economy. And vice versa, those who are nostalgic for the old days, remembering not only the shortage of goods and queues in stores, but also fixed state prices that are not subject to chronic inflation, and sometimes even falling, remember the “late” Gosplan with regret.

The existence of the State Planning Committee (State Planning Committee) covers the period from February 22, 1921, when it was created by a decree of the Council people's commissars RSFSR on the basis of the Commission for the development of the State Plan for the Electrification of Russia (GOELRO), and until 1991, when the Ministry of Economy of the Russian Federation was created instead of the State Planning Commission. The State Planning Committee was organized as a body carrying out nationwide planning for the development of the country's national economy and control over the implementation of national economic plans. The first chairman of the State Planning Commission was a personal friend of Lenin, a well-known scientist in the field of energy, academician G.M. Krzhizhanovsky.

At first, Gosplan acted as an analytical and advising center; since 1925, it began to develop planned guidelines for the development of economic sectors for the next year in the form of control figures. Since 1928, the development of state five-year plans for the development of the national economy began. In total, up to 1990, 12 such plans were drawn up (one of them, in the period from 1959 to 1965, turned out to be seven years old at the behest of Khrushchev).

There is no doubt that the State Planning Commission made a significant contribution to the formation and growth of the Soviet economy, the industrialization of the country, the formation of an industrial potential that made it possible to resist and win in the terrible war years. The field of activity of the State Planning Commission, its relations with other bodies of state management of the economy were constantly expanding, a network of scientific organizations included in the State Planning Committee was developing, institutions and prominent scientists of the Academy of Sciences, research and design industry, regional organizations (Strumilin, 1957). Alas, the Gosplanov tradition of involving economic science in the process of developing and substantiating strategic national economic decisions was subsequently largely lost.

The history of the State Planning Commission is far from cloudless, it was marked by political struggle, intrigues in power, and the elimination of the so-called "enemies of the people." Already in the 1920s. scientific controversy, when there was a creative discussion about plans and planning under socialism, in which the largest Russian scientists-economists of that time were involved, was supplanted by party dictatorship. Scientists objectionable to the regime were declared bourgeois, removed from scientific research, and physically destroyed. Outstanding scientists of world renown became victims of persecution and repression

A.B. Chayanov and N.D. Kondratiev.

The creator of the theory of economic cycles, long waves, Kondratiev defended the idea that the role of long-term plans is not to fix quantitative volume indicators, but to establish a general development orientation, to develop a strategy. Meanwhile, in Stalin's political report at the 15th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in December 1927, it was clearly stated: “Our plans are not plans-forecasts, not plans-guesses, but plans-directives that are binding on the governing bodies and which determine the direction of our economic development in the future on a national scale. Perhaps it was this Stalinist attitude that had a decisive influence on the rejection of state indicative planning (plans-forecasts), which is still observed in our country.

Personnel purges and repressions did not escape the leading workers, the leaders of the State Planning Commission. Among those repressed in 1937 were the chairmen of the State Planning Committee V.I. Mezhlauk and

B.I. Smirnov, who were shot in 1938. The same tragic fate befell N.V. Voznesensky, who headed the State Planning Committee during the Great Patriotic War, was appointed in 1949 the authorized representative of the State Defense Committee for the production of ammunition, one of the main blacksmiths of the victory over fascism in the war.

Throughout Soviet history, despite the above-mentioned and other tragic events, failures in state planning that did not allow reaching many planned targets and winning competition with the capitalist system, Gosplan steadily expanded the scope of its activities. In 1921, the personnel of the Gosplan apparatus consisted of 40 economists, engineers and support workers; the number of employees in the Gosplan system exceeded 3,000 workers (Baibakov, 2001).

But it's not just about numbers. The Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation, which inherited a small fraction managerial functions Gosplan, in 2006 there were over 2,000 employees. Meanwhile, Gosplan directed and controlled the economic activities of all ministries and departments of the country, i.e. the range of functions performed by him went far beyond the scope of one single modern ministry, even such as the Ministry of Economy or the Ministry of Finance.

The Gosplan system included an extensive network of research organizations (Economic Institute, Institute of Planning and Regulations, Institute of Complex Transport Problems, Council for the Study of Productive Forces), the Main Computing Center, the State Expert Commission, the Interdepartmental Commission on Economic Reform, Higher Economic Courses. Gosplan published the leading economic journal, Planned Economy, which has now been transformed into the journal The Economist. Thus, the planning center of the country had a scientific and information infrastructure that made it possible to maintain a high level of methodological support planned developments, designs. Moreover, scientific organizations were directly involved in the preparation and substantiation of plans, in the development of forecasts and target

programs on which short- and medium-term plans were based (http://www.cultinfo.ru/&Wex^1/001/008/012/165.htm).

In the post-Stalin period of the socio-political thaw that was observed in the 1960s, there are tangible changes in the methodology and organization of state planning, directive-command planning shifts towards distributive-coordination, acquires a more democratic, liberal character. Forecasting is not only recognized, but becomes part of the planning process at the state level. At the initiative of the Prime Minister A.N. Kosygin, who was previously the Chairman of the State Planning Commission, in 1965 an economic reform was carried out, which increased the economic independence of production enterprises. The number of planned indicators sent down to enterprises from above by the State Planning Commission and ministries was reduced. Enterprises have gained the ability to plan their activities based on indicators of sold products, profits and profitability of production, which were previously considered seditious as "capitalist".

The movement towards combining state planning with the gradual expansion of the zone of commodity-money, contractual-market relations continued in subsequent years, along with the liberalization of planning processes. Predominantly sectoral national economic planning was increasingly linked to regional planning. Part of the long-term plans were the general schemes for the distribution of productive forces, which are being developed with the participation of the Union republics, major regions countries.

The planning process was built according to the scheme of iterative inter-level coordination. Draft plans received from the State Planning Committee in the form of consolidated control figures, the main directions were disaggregated, detailed, concretized by ministries, regional planning bodies, production organizations -

and, after which they returned in an aggregate form back to the upper levels of the planning system, which ensured the coordination of plans along the vertical in the territorial and sectoral sections.

It is fundamentally important to note that the planning directives (or rather, guidelines) of the State Planning Commission in the form of indicators of the volume of production of goods and services and financial indicators were supported by the allocation of an appropriate amount of state capital investments and material resources, the supply of which was provided by the state system of material and technical supply in the person of Gossnab. The volumes of resource provision of commodity producers were determined in accordance with the standards, and sufficiently stable price parameters were guaranteed by the existing methods of state pricing, price planning. To a certain extent, reciprocal planning took place, in which planning initiatives and proposals were put forward not from above, but from below - from enterprises, organizations, ministries, departments, and regions.

It cannot be said that the Soviet system of state planning was overly rigid. Failure to comply with plans was rarely punished with severe penalties. Gosplan devoted as much time to correcting plans as to developing them. Among the Gosplanners, with a smile and hidden sarcasm, the statement was expressed: "The final idea of ​​​​the annual plan can be obtained only at the end of the year, when it is subjected to the last adjustment." It is clear that the revised plans were mostly carried out.

I would like to refute the widespread false belief, according to which the State Planning Commission planned the entire range of manufactured products, right down to the “screw and nut”. In fact, the state annual plan for economic and social development was developed by the State Planning Committee for the production of only a few thousand types of products.

tion, and the five-year one - according to an even more narrowed structure of indicators, while the Soviet economy produced tens of millions of types of products. Practically all economic entities had a certain degree of “planned freedom”.

With all the imperfections and individual flaws of the Soviet system of state planning, which are not so much the responsibility of the State Planning Committee as the party-state ideology, tied to the regime of power that existed during this period, communist in form and non-communist in content, the methods and organization of state planning were continuously progressing. In any case, the improvement and improvement of planning at the national, union-republican, ministerial, local production levels was the subject of constant concern and attention of the State Planning Commission itself and the highest bodies of state power. The status position of the state socio-economic planning was enshrined in Ch. 16 of the Constitution of the USSR, the state plan itself had the force of law. The system of Soviet planning was studied and to some extent borrowed by both socialist and capitalist countries.

In Soviet economic science and the practice of planned management, the following organizational and methodological principles and forms of strategic state planning were worked out and partially implemented:

Building a system of multi-level plans with different lengths of the planning period, combining short-, medium- and long-term plans, extended through the use of continuous-rolling planning;

Combining forecasting, planning, accounting and control over the progress of the plans into a single process;

Development and implementation of targeted programs as one of the forms of state long-term planning;

Application of economic and mathematical methods, computer and information technology in planning, the creation of an automated system of planned calculations (ASPR) of the State Planning Committee of the USSR and the state plans of the Union republics.

Among the least successful undertakings of the State Planning Commission, one has to include numerous unsuccessful attempts to master long-term strategic planning in the form of long-term, designed for 15 years, state plans for economic and social development. It was also not possible to solve the problem of embedding targeted programs in annual and five-year plans, which turned out to be not linked in terms of goals, resources, terms with production plans and budgetary possibilities.

But the crushing blow to state planning in Russia was dealt not by imperfections inherent in the planned system, but by market reforms, which were also accompanied by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dismemberment of its economy. As is known, there was no coherent, well-thought-out, predetermined program for the transition from a centrally controlled Soviet economy to some other, more attractive economy, which was called a market economy, not knowing, in essence, what it would be like in Russia. It was rather a political task to eliminate the system that had existed for 70 years and prevent its revival than the task of building a renewed economy according to a sound project, built taking into account the historical, national, natural features of the country and the mentality of its people.

In order to reliably solve the political problem, the reformers linked it with the elimination of economic and administrative institutions that existed in the dying political system. State property began to be taken away, dispersed and immediately picked up through hasty privatization. They got rid of the shortage of goods by releasing the price “genie”, which he immediately ate, turned monetary gains into dust.

population decline in the amount of hundreds of billions of rubles, causing hyperinflation. And the planned economic system was declared not only unnecessary, but also harmful, contraindicated for the coveted market. Gosplan was also sacrificed.

The logic of abandoning plans and planning was amazing, hard to comprehend. For example, the zealous near-scientific lady Larisa Piyasheva, who is fond of extravagant, but impressive-sounding ideas expressed in a non-trivial form, declared at the top of her voice: “Either the plan, or the market, you can’t be half-pregnant.” Oddly enough, but the physiological analogy in its application to the management of the economy turned out to be acceptable for the more respectable people who decided to liquidate the State Planning Commission, as well as for free market apologists who believe that state planning is evil.

The very opposition of the plan and the market as incompatible categories belongs to the category of misunderstandings. Plans, planning is a universal property, immanently inherent in any kind of conscious, purposeful, externally controlled activity, including market activity. Human, social group, society, the state, setting themselves certain goals, are forced and obliged to make plans to achieve these goals. Otherwise, the goals themselves are a fiction, a product of the imagination, an instrument of suggestion or deception.

The main agents of any market represented by producers of goods, sellers, buyers, and other persons involved in the sphere of circulation cannot do without planning. The manufacturer must plan production, and the seller must plan the sale of goods, based on effective market demand. Buyers, acquirers, customers, before entering the market, plan the volume and structure of purchases, orders, based on their needs and solvency. So the market itself needs planning and forecasting. We can only talk about the extent to which the planning of market turnover, purchase and sale is the business of market participants, and

in which - the state, although the state itself is also a market participant.

Adam Smith's fair remark that the market is regulated by its own "invisible hand" by no means precludes planning. After all, this very “hand” is guided by business plans, concluded agreements, contracts, pre-planned programs for production, purchases, sales, price intentions, which are nothing more than plans that have not been announced for the time being.

The contempt for plans inherent in liberal doctrine has fortunately not extended its influence to corporate planning. In the context of the formation of market forms and methods of management in Russia, entrepreneurial planning, on the contrary, strengthened its positions, embodied in numerous, largely mandatory business plans, programs, projects, planned and reporting balance sheets of firms. Budget planning has been strengthened at the regional and state levels. Budgets have become the main form of macroeconomic financial plans, and there has been a trend to move from annual to three-year budgeting. The ban on the development of state plans did not formally affect federal, regional and municipal socio-economic programs and projects, which, in the opinion of marketers, are capable of replacing the national plans they hate so much.

Market reforms dealt a powerful blow to state planning in its tangible form: in the form of macroeconomic indicators of plans for production and consumption in kind, physical dimension, representing the most reliable way to get an objective view of the economy. In the established system of budgetary and program macroeconomic planning, physical indicators that occupied a leading place in Soviet state planning have been pushed aside by cost and monetary indicators.

As a result of the cumulative effect of market transformations, the liberal model of economic management introduced from outside, strategic, nationwide, national planning for the long term has practically ceased to exist in Russia. It has been reduced to declarative concepts that do not have planned power, do not oblige and do not give rise to responsibility. For the sake of objectivity, we note that even in the former state planning system it was not possible to breathe life into long-term plans, to give effectiveness, reality to long-term strategic state target programs. Nevertheless, the landmarks of the five-year state plans for economic and social development still existed and were largely achieved. Now the visibility of strategic planning is supported only by long-term forecasts, periodically updated target programs that do not reach the intended end result, and long-term strategies for the development of oil and gas, fuel and energy, and transport complexes formed in recent years.

The legislative and regulatory framework for state forecasting, programming, and planning is represented by the one adopted in 1995. federal law No. 115-FZ "On State Forecasting and Programs for the Socio-Economic Development of the Russian Federation". The imperfection of this law was clearly felt even at the stage of its consideration and approval, but it is still in force with minor changes. The draft law on state strategic planning prepared by the Government of the Russian Federation is at an early stage of consideration. The concepts of "strategic plan", "state plan" have lost so much interest on the part of society that in order to revive them, they had to resort to the formula "Putin's plan".

An important role in the extinction of state strategic planning

played the curtailment of scientific research in this area, the exclusion of state planning from the subjects studied in universities of economic profile, the lack of curricula universities of the course "Program-targeted planning".

The transformation of the forms and methods of management in the Russian economy, called market reforms, led to the abolition of the Soviet system of state planning, the liquidation of the State Planning Commission without replacing it with an adequate planning body on a national scale, in which the reformers simply did not see the need. The functions of state forecasting were assigned to the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation. These functions were reduced to the periodic development of several options (optimistic, pessimistic, medium) according to the concept of medium-term, but in fact short-term forecasts, which did not have a significant impact on the conduct of state economic, industrial, social policy. Forecast developments of the Ministry did not turn into planned designs, into the construction of strategic plans and did not have a significant impact on the formation of disparate, unrelated federal, regional, municipal target programs. The transition from annual to three-year budgets did not lead to the development of strategic planning through synthesis, the unification of the planning and management activities of the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, to the achievement of consistency in budget and program projections.

Separate functions of strategic planning and management in modern Russia are performed by the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation, which follows from the increasing linkage of the main directions and decisions in the field of socio-economic policy to the annual presidential messages. To some extent, it is legitimate to consider that expert management is related to strategic planning.

President of the Russian Federation, authorized to coordinate, develop and review national projects, develop forecasts and scenarios for the development of socio-economic relations (Polterovich, 2007).

At the same time, there is practically no public discussion and promulgation of the state socio-economic strategy in a form accessible to the perception of every citizen, the mechanisms, technology and organization of the formation of the strategy remain obscured, it is not clear who develops it, substantiates it, gives it a public character, bears for it responsibility. There is an obvious need to create a federal body, in whose hands the instruments of state production and financial, sectoral and regional, program-targeted, foreign economic, social planning in its strategic, long-term implementation should be concentrated.

Among the most serious theoretical, methodological, organizational problems of state strategic planning is the establishment of a relationship between long-term state plans and targeted socio-economic programs. It is well known that in an economy based on market relations and forms of management, many functions of the plan are assumed by state social, production and technological, scientific and technical, environmental, military, and foreign economic programs. There is even an opinion that the totality of such programs implemented by the state with the involvement of private companies through state orders and interested participation embodies state planning in a market economy. In support of this idea, facts are cited showing that in some economically developed countries government programs consume the lion's share of the budget.

The Russian practice of developing and implementing federal, regional, intersectoral and sectoral socio-economic programs in both the Soviet and post-Soviet periods did not give rise to the transformation of strategic state planning into program-targeted, although it did not reject such a possibility. Numerous federal targeted programs, of which there are now about 50, serve more as a way for the initiators and participants of programs to extract funds from the state budget than as tools for strategic national economic planning. Perhaps, as a result, target programs are underfunded by the budget, are not implemented, are postponed to new dates, or even completely forgotten. In addition, targeted programs in Russia do not cover the entire spectrum of urgent large-scale socio-economic problems.

In recent years, the most acute, significant federal targeted programs have acquired the status of national projects, which to a certain extent made it possible to achieve a concentration of efforts and funds on solving the strategic tasks of ensuring the availability of housing for Russian citizens, the development of education and healthcare, and the rise of the agro-industrial complex. However, the totality of national projects does not compensate for the absence complete system state strategic planning.

The process of developing and approving federal targeted programs actually does not provide for a procedure for their mutual agreement, the same applies to linking federal and regional programs, only their “fit” into the total amount of budget allocations is checked. It is also legitimate to assert that there is no coherence, taking into account the interpenetration and “intersection” of national projects.

One should not dispute the fairness of the provision according to which state target programs are capable, under conditions of a reasonable choice of problems to be solved.

programmatically, and the application of progressive methods of managing the development and implementation of programs to become a full-fledged tool for state strategic planning. But the presence of programs does not exclude the need to develop a single strategy for socio-economic development for the long term, embodied in the form of a long-term state plan, into the fabric of which programs and national projects. It remains to be seen whether this should be a purely conceptual plan, an indicative forecast plan, a binding plan based on the principles of public-private cooperation and partnership.

Among the most serious difficulties in creating an effective, not ostentatious, but real system of strategic planning in Russia is the lack of scientifically based goal-setting, not fettered by inertia and prejudices, not limited by a period of time, the duration of which depends on the length of the zone of own, group, public interests of the persons receiving strategic decisions. Objective formation and substantiation of the goals of the country's strategic plan, reflecting the true needs, in the form of interrelated quantitative and qualitative indicators, the totality of which forms the "tree of goals" of the long-term plan, is the subject of highly intellectual activity, limitedly amenable to formalization, requiring mental insight and synthetic experience. One cannot do without a systematic, integrated scientific approach, liberated from bias, controlled by different branches of government and civil society.

The Russian practice of strategic planning and the goal-setting that precedes it everywhere confirms the tendency to overestimate promises by persons called upon to construct, express in verbal form and numerically, long-term targets.

The adoption of such propagandistic, projectionist guidelines undermines the plan, dooms it to the deliberate unattainability of results. Russian society repeatedly witnessed the setting of illusory strategic goals and a participant in the subsequent search for those responsible for the fact that the goals were not achieved, were forgotten, replaced by new, equally illusory landmarks.

As follows from the above, the path to the revival and construction of an updated system of state strategic planning in Russia is thorny, it requires overcoming many expected and as yet unknown obstacles, such as psychological barriers, inertia, insufficient professionalism of personnel. But the benefits of a well-founded planned strategy of action, gaining public acceptance, certainly will pay off the costs. And there is simply no other successful path for the Russian economy. Without a strategic planning system, the social orientation of the economy, ensuring the economic, financial, military security of the country, transferring the national economy to an innovative path of development and achieving high level competitiveness.

AT THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND THE SECTION OF ECONOMICS OF THE RAS

Literature

Baybakov N. Modern Russia needs a planning system // Nezavisimaya Gazeta. Feb 22, 2001

Polterovich V.M. On the strategy of catch-up development for Russia // Economic science of modern Russia. 2007. No. 3 (38).

Introduction

1. History

On August 21, 1923, the USSR State Planning Commission was established under the Council of Labor and Defense of the USSR under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR (STO USSR). Initially Gosplan of the USSR played an advisory role, coordinating the plans of the union republics and developing a general plan. Since 1925, the State Planning Committee of the USSR began to form annual plans for the development of the national economy of the USSR, which were called "control figures".

The prototype of its creation was the State Commission for Electrification of Russia (GOELRO), which worked from 1920 to 1921.

1.1. Building

To understand the history of this most important body of state power of the USSR for the socialist era, it is necessary to briefly describe the history of the building occupied by the State Planning Committee of the USSR.

The building was built on the site of the Church of St. Paraskeva (Friday) in Okhotny Ryad (1686-1928)

The main building is located on Okhotny Ryad Street, 6. It was built in 1934-1938 according to the design of the architect A. Ya. Langman to house the Council of Labor and Defense, then the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, the Council of Ministers of the USSR and, finally, the State Planning Committee of the USSR. The building has a characteristic imperial style - heavy columns and wide halls.

The second building of the State Planning Committee of the USSR was the building overlooking Georgievsky Lane, designed in the late 70s by the architect N. E. Gigovskaya. It is completely different in style, completely made of glass and concrete.

The buildings are connected to each other by a passage.

According to some reports, the building of the State Planning Committee of the USSR was mined in 1941, and cleared only in 1981. By a lucky chance, the builders discovered the wires "going nowhere"

Currently, the building houses the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation.

Also for the State Planning Committee of the USSR in 1936, according to the project of the outstanding architect Konstantin Melnikov, in collaboration with the architect V. I. Kurochkin, a garage was built on Aviamotornaya Street in Moscow, currently known as the Gosplan Garage and which is a monument of history and culture.

Previous names and subordination Tasks and functions of the State Planning Committee of the USSR

See also: Five-Year Plan, Seven-Year Plan.

In the Regulations on the State General Planning Commission, approved by the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR of February 28, 1921, it is determined:

“Under the Council of Labor and Defense, a general planning commission is being created to develop a unified national economic plan based on the electrification plan and for general monitoring of the implementation of this plan”

At the beginning of its activity, the State Planning Committee of the USSR was engaged in studying the situation in the economy and compiling reports on certain problems, for example, on the restoration and development of coal-mining regions. The development of a unified economic plan for the country began with the issuance of annual control figures and directives for 1925-1926, which set guidelines for all sectors of the economy.

The main task in all periods of its existence was the planning of the economy of the USSR, drawing up plans for the development of the country for various periods.

In accordance with Article 49 of the Constitution of the RSFSR, adopted by the 5th All-Russian Congress of Soviets on July 10, 1918, the subject of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of Soviets is: Federative Soviet Republic".

In accordance with Article 1 of the Constitution of the USSR, adopted by the II All-Union Congress of Soviets of the USSR on January 31, 1924, the supreme authorities of the USSR are assigned: “h) establishing the foundations and general plan for the entire national economy of the Union, determining industries and individual industrial enterprises of all-Union significance, conclusion of concession agreements, both all-union and on behalf of the union republics.

Article 14 of the Constitution of the USSR, approved by the Extraordinary VIII Congress of Soviets of the USSR on December 5, 1936, provided that the jurisdiction of the USSR, represented by its highest authorities and state administration bodies, is: state administration, Chairman of the State Planning Committee of the USSR was a member of the Council of Ministers of the USSR.

Article 16 of the Constitution of the USSR, adopted by the Supreme Council of the USSR on October 7, 1977, provided that the management of the "economy is carried out on the basis of state plans for economic and social development, taking into account sectoral and territorial principles, with a combination of centralized management with economic independence and the initiative of enterprises, associations and other organizations." The jurisdiction of the USSR, represented by its highest bodies of state power and administration, includes: “5) pursuing a unified socio-economic policy, managing the country's economy: determining the main directions of scientific and technological progress and general measures for the rational use and protection of natural resources; development and approval of state plans for the economic and social development of the USSR, approval of reports on their implementation”, Control over the implementation of state plans and tasks is carried out by the bodies of people's control, formed by the councils of people's deputies (Article 92). The approval of state plans for the economic and social development of the USSR is carried out by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR (Article 108). The Council of Ministers of the USSR: “2) develops and submits to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR current and long-term state plans for the economic and social development of the USSR, the state budget of the USSR; takes measures to implement state plans and budgets; submits to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR reports on the fulfillment of plans and the execution of the budget” (Article 131). There is no mention of the State Planning Committee of the USSR in this Constitution.

By the USSR Law of December 19, 1963 No. 2000-VI, the State Planning Committee of the USSR was transformed from an all-Union body into a Union-Republican body. The same act determined that the Chairman of the State Planning Committee of the USSR is a member of the Council of Ministers of the USSR (Article 70).

The main task of the State Planning Committee of the USSR from the end of the 60s until its liquidation in 1991 was: the development, in accordance with the Program of the CPSU, the directives of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the decisions of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, of state economic plans that ensure the proportional development of the national economy of the USSR, the continuous growth and increase in the efficiency of social production in in order to create the material and technical base of communism, steadily increase the standard of living of the people and strengthen the country's defense capability.

“State plans for the development of the national economy of the USSR must be optimal, based on the economic laws of socialism, on modern achievements and prospects for the development of science and technology, on the results of scientific research on the economic and social problems of communist construction, on a comprehensive study of social needs, on the correct combination of sectoral and territorial planning , as well as central planning with the economic independence of enterprises and organizations. (Regulations on the State Planning Committee of the USSR, approved by the Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of September 9, 1968 No. 719) "

The work of the State Planning Committee of the USSR in planning the national economy was coordinated with the Central Statistical Office (CSB), the People's Commissariat of Finance (later the Ministry of Finance of the USSR), the Supreme Council of the National Economy (VSNKh of the USSR), and later with the USSR State Committee on Science and Technology, the USSR State Bank and the USSR State Supply Committee.

Evacuation and mobilization of industry in the USSR during the Great Patriotic War

Decree of the State Committee of Defense of the USSR dated August 7, 1941 No. 421 “On the procedure for placing evacuated enterprises” assigned the task of ensuring the evacuation and mobilization of the industry of the USSR to the State Planning Committee of the USSR. In particular, special attention was paid to the fact that, when locating evacuated enterprises, priority should be given to the aviation industry, the industry of ammunition, weapons, tanks and armored vehicles, ferrous, non-ferrous and special metallurgy, and chemistry. The people's commissars were instructed to coordinate with the State Planning Committee of the USSR and the Council for the Evacuation of the final points for the enterprises exported to the rear and the organization of duplicating industries.

N. A. Voznesensky was appointed authorized by the State Defense Committee for the implementation of the ammunition production plan by the industry, and M. Z. Saburov as his deputy

During July-November 1941, more than 1,500 industrial enterprises and 7.5 million people - workers, engineers, technicians and other specialists - were relocated to the east of the country. The evacuation of industrial enterprises was carried out to the eastern regions of the RSFSR, as well as to the southern republics of the country - Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan.

After the war

In May 1955, the State Planning Committee of the USSR was divided into two parts:

State Commission of the Council of Ministers of the USSR for Forward Planning developed long-term plans for 10-15 years

State Economic Commission of the Council of Ministers of the USSR for the current planning of the national economy (State Economic Commission) (1955-1957) - developed five-year plans.

2. Plans for the development of the national economy of the USSR

Our plans are not plans-forecasts, not plans-guesses, but plans-directives, which are obligatory for the governing bodies and which determine the direction of our economic development in the future on a national scale..

Since 1928, the State Planning Committee of the USSR began to draw up five-year plans and monitor their implementation.

2.1. Gosplan of the USSR and the implementation of plans for the development of the national economy of the USSR

First Five-Year Plan (1928-1932)

1,500 large enterprises were built, including: automobile plants in Moscow (AZLK) and Nizhny Novgorod(GAZ), Magnitogorsk and Kuznetsk metallurgical plants, Stalingrad and Kharkov tractor plants).

In the same period (early 1933), I. V. Stalin issued a directive: “To prohibit all departments, republics and regions until the publication of the official publication of the State Planning Committee of the USSR on the results of the implementation of the first five-year plan, the publication of any other final works, both consolidated, and sectoral and regional, with the fact that even after the official publication of the results of the five-year plan, all works based on the results can be published only with the permission of the USSR State Planning Committee ", which certainly indicates the desire of the political leadership of the country to censor statistical data and, at the same time, the central the role of the apparatus of the State Planning Committee of the USSR in the management of the national economy.

At the January (1933) plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, it was announced that the first five-year plan would be completed in 4 years and 3 months

Second Five-Year Plan (1933-1937)

For the preparation by the State Planning Committee of the USSR of the second five-year plan, see R. Davis, O. V. Khlevnyuk: “Second Five-Year Plan: a Mechanism for Changing Economic Policy”

3. Apparatus of the State Planning Committee of the USSR

3.1. Apparatus in the 1920s

At first, the apparatus consisted of 40 economists, engineers and other personnel, by 1923 it already had 300 employees, and by 1925 a network of planning organizations subordinate to the State Planning Committee of the USSR was created throughout the USSR.

The State Planning Committee of the USSR primarily combined the functions of the highest expert body in the economy and the scientific coordinating center.

The work of the USSR State Planning Committee in the 1920s is well illustrated by V. V. Kabanov in his book.

Let's take the fund of the State Planning Committee of the USSR, stored in the RGAE. Suppose we are interested in material on agriculture in the mid-20s. Where to look for it? It can be established that the complex will include documents formed as a result of the activities of the Presidium of the State Planning Commission, the agricultural section, as well as all other sections, the work of which, to one degree or another, came into contact with agricultural issues. First of all, we can single out the economic and statistical section, which carried out preparatory work to draw up a long-term plan for the development of the national economy, studied the methodology of compiling the grain and fodder balance, productivity, grain prices, peasant budgets, etc. The materials of the sections gravitate to the problems of the internal and external market of agricultural products domestic and foreign trade. Questions of mechanical engineering for agriculture reveal the documents of the industrial section. The materials of the agricultural section, which prepared the issue for consideration by the Presidium of the State Planning Commission, without fail passed the stage of discussion in all interested sections. A preliminary discussion of the issue took place in the presidium of the agricultural section, and then, after approval, its results were submitted for consideration by the presidium of the State Planning Commission. Thus, the first thematic set of documents on a particular issue was first formed at the level of the agricultural section and concentrated as part of the appendices to the minutes of the meeting of the presidium of the agricultural section. Then, in its final form, with the addition of the composition of materials, the conclusions of the people's commissariats and departments, a set of documents is formed as part of the annexes to the minutes of the State Planning Commission's presidium.

The structure of the State Planning Commission before the arrival of Voznesensky, seven sections: 1) accounting and distribution of material resources and organization of labor; 2) energy; 3) agriculture; 4) industry; 5) transport; 6) foreign trade and concessions; 7) zoning. In 1927, the defense sector of the State Planning Committee of the USSR was added to them.

3.2. "Gosplan case" in 1949

The "Gosplan case", "Voznesensky case" and "Leningrad case" were closely intertwined and complemented each other, they were the result of rivalry and struggle between Stalin's associates in the highest echelons of power.

As a result of the adoption of the Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of March 5, 1949 "On the State Planning Committee of the USSR" and the Politburo resolution of September 11, 1949 "On the Numerous Facts of the Loss of Secret Documents in the State Planning Committee of the USSR", a significant personnel purge took place in the apparatus of the State Planning Committee of the USSR:

By April 1950, the entire main staff of responsible and technical workers was checked - about 1400 people. 130 people were fired, more than 40 were transferred from Gosplan to work in other organizations. During the year, 255 new employees were hired by Gosplan. Of the 12 deputies of Voznesensky, seven were removed, and only one was arrested by April 1950, and four received new responsible jobs (which also testified to the predominantly non-political nature of the “Gosplan affair”). The composition of the heads of departments and departments and their deputies has been updated by a third. Of the 133 heads of sectors, 35 were replaced

Chairman of the State Planning Commission N. A. Voznesensky was removed from all posts, removed from the Politburo of the Central Committee, expelled from the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and from members of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. October 27, 1949 arrested, October 1, 1950 shot. Rehabilitated in 1954.

3.3. Apparatus in the 1980s

The apparatus of the State Planning Committee of the USSR consisted of sectoral departments (for industries, agriculture, transport, trade, foreign trade, culture and education, health care, housing and communal services, public services, etc.) and consolidated departments (consolidated department of national economic plan, the department of territorial planning and distribution of productive forces, the consolidated department of capital investments, the consolidated department of material balances and distribution plans, the department of labor, the department of finance and cost, etc.

The State Planning Committee of the USSR, within the limits of its competence, issued resolutions that were binding on all ministries, departments, and other organizations. He was granted the right to involve the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, the academies of sciences of the Union republics, branch academies of sciences, research and design institutes, design and other organizations and institutions, as well as individual scientists, specialists and leaders for the development of draft plans and individual economic problems. production.

Chairmen of the State Planning Committee of the USSRThe Chairmen of the State Planning Committee of the USSR were Deputy Chairmen of the Council of Ministers of the USSR. Vice Chairs

20 years

1921-1929 Osadchiy, Pyotr Semenovich - First Deputy Chairman (1866-1943) 1921-1938 Strumilin, Stanislav Gustavovich - Deputy Chairman (1877-1974) 1923-1927 Pyatakov, Georgy Leonidovich - Deputy Chairman (1890-1937) 1925 -1926 - Smilga, Ivar Tenisovich - Deputy Chairman (1892-1938) 1926-1930 - N. N. Vashkov - Deputy Chairman, Chairman of the electrification section of the State Planning Committee of the USSR (1874-1953) 1926-1928 - Sokolnikov, Grigory Yakovlevich - Deputy Chairman ( 1888-1939) 1926-1927 - Vladimirsky, Mikhail Fedorovich - Deputy Chairman (1874-1951) 1927-1931 - Quiring, Emmanuil Ionovich - Deputy Chairman (1888-1937) 1928-1929 - Grinko, Grigory Fedorovich - Deputy Chairman (1890- 1938) 1929-1934 Milyutin, Vladimir Pavlovich - Deputy Chairman (1884-1937)

30 years

1930-1934 - Smilga, Ivar Tenisovich - Deputy Chairman - Head of the Integrated Planning Department (1892-1938) 1930-1937 - Smirnov, Gennady Ivanovich - Deputy Chairman (1903-1938) 1931-1935 - Mezhlauk, Valery Ivanovich - First Deputy Chairman ( 1893-1938) 1931-1933 - Oppokov, Georgy Ippolitovich (A. Lomov) - Deputy Chairman Deputy Chairman (1887-1937) 1933-1933 Troyanovsky, Alexander Antonovich - Deputy Chairman (1882-1955) 1934-1937 - Quiring, Emmanuil Ionovich - First Deputy Chairman (1888-1937) 1935-1937 - Kraval, Ivan Adamovich - Deputy Chairman (1897-1938) 1936-1937 - Gurevich, Alexander Iosifovich - Deputy Chairman (1896-1937) 1937-1937 - Vermenichev, Ivan Dmitrievich - Deputy Chairman (1899-1938) 1938-1940 - Sautin, Ivan Vasilyevich - Deputy Chairman ( 1905-1975) 1939-1940 Kravtsev, Georgy Georgievich - First Deputy Chairman (1908-1941)

40 years

1940-1940 Kosyachenko, Grigory Petrovich - Deputy Chairman (1901-1983) 1940-1948 Starovsky, Vladimir Nikonovich - Deputy Chairman (1905-1975) 1940-1941 Saburov, Maxim Zakharovich - First Deputy Chairman (1900-1977) 1940 -1943 - Kuznetsov, Vasily Vasilievich - Deputy Chairman 1940-1946 - Panov, Andrey Dmitreevich - Deputy Chairman (1904-1963) 1941-1944 - Kosyachenko, Grigory Petrovich - First Deputy Chairman (1901-1983) 1941-1945 - Sorokin, Gennady Mikhailovich - Deputy Chairman (1910-1990) 1941-1948 - Starovsky, Vladimir Nikonovich - Deputy Chairman (1905-1975) 1942-1946 - Mitrakov, Ivan Lukich - Deputy Chairman 1944-1946 - Saburov, Maxim Zakharovich - First Deputy Chairman (1900-1977 )1945-1955-Borisov, Nikolai Andreevich - Deputy Chairman (1903-1955) 1946-1947-Saburov, Maxim Zakharovich - Deputy Chairman (1900-1977) 1946-1950-Panov, Andrey Dmitreevich - First Deputy Chairman (1904-1963) 1948-1957-Perov, G George Vasilyevich - Deputy Chairman (1905-1979) 1949-1953-Kosyachenko, Grigory Petrovich - First Deputy Chairman (1901-1983)

50 years

1951-1953 - Korobov, Anatoly Vasilievich - Deputy Chairman (1907-1967) 1952-1953 - Sorokin, Gennady Mikhailovich - Deputy Chairman (1910-1990) 1953-1953 - Pronin, Vasily Prokhorovich - Deputy Chairman 1955-1957 - Zhimerin, Dmitry Georgievich - First Deputy Chairman (1906-1995) 1955-1957 - Yakovlev, Mikhail Danilovich - Deputy Chairman (1910-1999) 1955-1957 - Sorokin, Gennady Mikhailovich - Deputy Chairman (1910-1990) 1955-1957 - Kalamkarov, Vartan Aleksandrovich - Deputy Chairman (1906-1992) 1955-1957 - Khrunichev, Mikhail Vasilyevich - Deputy Chairman (1901-1961) 1956-1957 - Kosygin, Alexei Nikolaevich - First Deputy Chairman (1904-1980) 1956-1957 - Malyshev, Vyacheslav Alexandrovich - First Deputy Chairman (1902-1957) 1957-1959 - Perov, Georgy Vasilyevich - First Deputy Chairman (1905-1979) 1957-1962 - Zotov, Vasily Petrovich - Deputy Chairman 1957-1961 - Matskevich, Vladimir Vladimirovich - Deputy Chairman (1909-1998) 1957-1961 - Khrunichev, Mikhail Vasilyevich - First Deputy Chairman (1901-1961) 1958-1958 - Zasyadko, Alexander Fedorovich - Deputy Chairman (1910-1963) 1958-1958 - Ryabikov, Vasily Mikhailovich - Deputy Chairman 1958 -1960 - Lesechko, Mikhail Avksentievich - First Deputy Chairman (1909-1984)

60 years

1960-1962 Orlov, Georgy Mikhailovich - First Deputy Chairman 1960-1966 Korobov, Anatoly Vasilievich - Deputy Chairman (1907-1967) 1961-1961 Ryabikov, Vasily Mikhailovich - First Deputy Chairman -1965 - Lobanov, Pavel Pavlovich - Deputy Chairman (1902-1984) 1963-1965 - Stepanov, Sergey Alexandrovich - Deputy Chairman (1903-1976) 1963-1965 - Korobov, Anatoly Vasilyevich - Deputy Chairman (1907-1967) 1963-1973 - Goreglyad, Alexey Adamovich - First Deputy Chairman 1963-1965 - Tikhonov, Nikolai Alexandrovich - Deputy Chairman 1965-1973 - Lebedev, Viktor Dmitrievich - Deputy Chairman (1917-1978) 1965-1974 - Ryabikov, Vasily Mikhailovich - First Deputy Chairman 1966-1973 - Misnik , Mikhail Ivanovich - Deputy Chairman (1913-1998)

70 years

1973-1978 Lebedev, Viktor Dmitrievich - First Deputy Chairman (1917-1978) 1974-1983 Slyunkov, Nikolai Nikitovich - Deputy Chairman -1983 - Ryabov, Yakov Petrovich - First Deputy Chairman

80 years

1980-1988 - Voronin, Lev Alekseevich - First Deputy Chairman 1982-1985 - Maslyukov, Yuri Dmitrievich - First Deputy Chairman 1983-1989 - Sitaryan, Stepan Armaisovich - First Deputy Chairman -1991 - Anisimov, Pavel Petrovich - Deputy Chairman 1988-1991 - Troshin, Alexander Nikolaevich - Deputy Chairman 1988-1991 - Serov, Valery Mikhailovich - Deputy Chairman 1989-1991 - Durasov, Vladimir Alexandrovich - First Deputy Chairman 1988-1989 - Khomenko, Yuri Pavlovich - First vice-chairman

90 years

3.6. Structural units

1930-1931 - Economic and Statistical Sector (ESS) 1931-1931 - Sector of National Economic Accounting

Department of Energy and Electrification

• Subdivision of Nuclear Power Plants (1972)

Department of Automotive, Tractor and Agricultural Engineering

Department for the Activities of the Soviet Parts of the Standing Committees of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance

Fuel Industry Department

Department of Construction and Construction Industry

Consolidated department of the agro-industrial complex

Consolidated Department of the National Economic Plan

4. Commissions under the State Planning Committee of the USSR

Special commission of the Council of Labor and Defense under the State Planning Commission of the USSR for the consideration of charters of trusts (1923-1925)

State Expert Commission (GEC of the State Planning Committee of the USSR)

Interdepartmental Commission on Economic Reform (formed 1965 - ?)

Concession Committee of the State Planning Committee of the USSR

Council of Techno-Economic Expertise of the State Planning Committee of the USSR

5. Institutes under the State Planning Committee of the USSR

6. Organizations under the State Planning Committee of the USSR

Organizations are not all.

7. Publications of the State Planning Committee of the USSR

Since 1923, the State Planning Committee of the USSR has been publishing the monthly industry magazine Planned Economy, and has been awarded the Order of the Red Banner of Labor.

Literature

Lenin V.I., Draft of the main clause of the SRT resolution on the general planning commission, PSS, 5th ed., vol. 42, p. 338

Lenin V.I., On giving legislative functions to the State Planning Commission, PSS, 5th ed., vol. 45, p. 349-53

Lenin V.I., On a single economic plan, PSS, 5th ed., vol. 42, p. 339-47

Baybakov N.K., State planning management - essential condition successful development of the USSR economy, Planned Economy, 1971, No. 2, p. 5 - 19

Strumilin S. G., Planning in the USSR, M., 1957

Bibliography:

Naydenov N. A. Moscow. Cathedrals, monasteries and churches. Part II: White City. M., 1882, No. 23

According to the International Socio-Ecological Union

s:Constitution of the RSFSR (1918)

s: Constitution of the USSR (1924) original version

s: Constitution of the USSR (1936) edition 12/5/1936

s:Constitution of the USSR (1977)

Bulletin of the Financial Academy, Issue 1 (25) 2003.

Stalin I. V. Political report of the Central Committee to the XV Congress of the CPSU (b). Library of Mikhail Grachev

Quote from the book by V. Z. Rogovin "Power and Opposition"

R. Davis, O. V. Khlevnyuk: “The Second Five-Year Plan: The Mechanism for Changing Economic Policy”

V. V. Kabanov, "Source study of the history of Soviet society"

The text of the resolution on the website of the socio-political journal "Breakthrough"

Khlevnyuk O. V. Soviet economic policy at the turn of the 1940s-1950s and the “case of the State Planning Commission”, National history/ RAN. Institute Russian history. - M.: Nauka, 2001. - N 3.

Voznesensky Nikolai Alekseevich, short biography

Note by V. I. Lenin, PSS v. 45