Indicative planning is used in combination with directive planning. Directive and indicative planning

22.09.2019

A planned economy, or planned economy, is an economic system in which material resources are publicly owned and distributed centrally, obliging individuals and businesses to act in accordance with a centralized economic plan. A system of central planning existed in the USSR and other countries that identified themselves as socialist. The last to abandon it were Cuba and the DPRK.

...transformation of the entire state economic mechanism into a single large machine, into an economic organism working so that hundreds of millions of people are guided by one plan...

Peculiarities

Under planned (command) management, state bodies almost completely plan the range and volumes of production of all goods and services, regulate (by command methods) the prices of all products and the amounts of all wages. Investment decisions are also made centrally.

Such an economic system often denies private ownership of the means of production, either completely or partially, and opposes itself to a market economy.

Advantages

Less social stratification;
The ability to concentrate all resources for the production of certain products, which can be important in a crisis situation.

Flaws

Labor-intensive planning process.
According to a number of researchers (G.D. Lovely, M. Castells and E. Kiseleva, J. Kornai), the centralized planning system is not able to quickly respond to the latest achievements of scientific and technological progress with long-term plans, which negatively affects production efficiency and economic activity of the country. A planned economy is capable of satisfying the demand either for mass-produced goods of the same type (for example, military products: machine guns, tanks, beef stew), or for unique products, the production costs of which can be very high (for example, jet engines, satellites, space technology).
Closedness negatively affects economic development, especially in the case of small countries that are not adapted to autarky.

Planning in the USSR and the countries of the socialist bloc

Five-year plans for the development of the national economy of the USSR have been used as a tool for the rapid economic development of the USSR since 1928. The plans were developed centrally on a nationwide scale by a specially created state body (Gosplan of the USSR) under the leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

During the period in which I.V. Stalin was in power, the following priorities of centralized planning were established:

investment before consumption, industry before agriculture, material production before the service sector;
production of capital goods before production of consumer goods;
military products before civilian ones;
domestic goods over imported ones.

The key priority of investment over consumption at the end of the 1920s received theoretical justification in the mathematical model of economic growth by G. A. Feldman. In the USSR and Eastern European countries, compared with countries with market economies at a comparable level of development, production more products heavy industry and military purposes, fewer services, the share of investment in GDP was higher, the scale of foreign trade and the level of urbanization were lower.

The practice of centralized planning, in addition to theoretical guidelines, was influenced by interested social forces and lobbying by industry interests, which led to a correction of the main trend, when consumption issues became predominant for some time. Data opened in the 1990s Soviet archives indicate that the actual distribution of resources did not correspond to its basic declared principles. The general directions approved by the top political leadership were not linked to the operational plans of the enterprises and were not provided with the supply of resources in the required volume. Plans were set on the basis of guesswork and intuition; instead of precise calculations and vertical subordination, administrative bargaining was carried out at each level of the Soviet economy, as a result of which annual plans were often revised in the process of their implementation.

Five-year plans as the main planning tool were also used in many socialist countries, usually based on the experience of the USSR. The member countries of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) also carried out joint planning activities on the basis of the adopted long-term Comprehensive Program of Socialist Economic Integration.

The last states with a fully centralized planned economy were Cuba and North Korea. In October 2010, Cuba began a large-scale reform program involving a turn towards private business and the abandonment of total central planning. In the DPRK, the abandonment of the planned system occurred “from below”, under the influence of economic problems in the country, even despite the government’s negative attitude towards the market. The current leadership of the country is more accepting of the changes that have taken place in the economy.

Planning in market economies

Elements of central planning have been used by many countries, including those with market economies. Thus, during the Second World War, they were widely used in all warring states, and after it, five-year plans were introduced even in monarchical Nepal. In many countries Western Europe indicative planning is used. Thus, in France there is the position of Commissioner General for Planning. The role of the state in the economy in neighboring Belgium is significant; government spending in the structure of GDP amounts to 55%. Scandinavian countries also differ in their planning and significant public sector. Thus, in Norway, oil and gas and biological resources are in the hands of the state and are managed by it. In these countries, the principle of inviolability of private property is fully respected.

Currently, India, China, Vietnam and other countries are forming national five-year economic development plans that are indicative in nature, the key indicators of which are used for the purposes of their own planning by public and private companies in these countries.

Criticism

One of the first serious critics of the planned economy was Ludwig von Mises. In 1922, the book “Socialism” was published, in which the author criticized the ideas of socialism and for the first time tried to prove the impossibility of socialism and a socialist economy.

The disadvantages of a planned economy include:

the difficulty of promptly responding to the needs of society, which can lead to a shortage of goods and services in demand, a high probability of making incorrect decisions on investments, on the volume of production of certain products (services);
soft budget restrictions, the absence of bankruptcies and the artificial preservation by the state of unprofitable enterprises contribute to the inflated consumption of production resources;
lack of incentives for producers to use resources efficiently, to expand the range of goods and services, and to innovate;
the desire to exceed the plan may negatively affect the quality of products;
the impossibility of effectively managing the increasing complexity of the production chain, which limits the use of economies of scale for various technological stages and does not allow reducing production costs.

E. Zaleski, in a book on planning during the Stalinist period, showed that five-year plans had little to do with reality, were poorly connected with operational plans and were poorly implemented. The planned targets of the first five-year plan were fulfilled on average by less than 60%, of the second five-year plan by a little more than 70%. The Third Five-Year Plan was interrupted by the war. The Fourth Five-Year Plan was also not equal to the sum of the annual operational plans. The implementation of plans by the defense industry in the fifth five-year plan fell far behind the set goals.

Alternative view

The founder of the Soviet economic school of strategic planning, economist and cyberneticist Nikolai Veduta, summarized the experience of the USSR when constructing a centralized-mixed (hybrid) economy modeled on the mechanism of free competition, including the influence of the market on establishing proportions in the plan. The principles of combining plan and market were outlined by him back in 1971 in the book “Economic Cybernetics”.

The Polish economist Oskar Lange pointed to the use of computers as an opportunity to improve planning efficiency. Projects of such automated control were the National Automated System of Accounting and Information Processing (OGAS) in the USSR and Cybersyn in Chile, implemented under the government of Salvador Allende.

According to journalist Anatoly Wasserman, the computing power of modern computer technology makes it possible to create a unique and accurate production plan, devoid of the flaws that plague a market economy. Wasserman is opposed by the writer and journalist Alexander Nikonov, explaining the impossibility of this model due to the fact that robots cannot think and create for people.

Decentralized planning

Among modern anarchists, Marxists and democratic socialists, in contrast to centralized planning in the USSR, the concepts of decentralized, or horizontal, planning are proposed.

Notes

Cuba was given freedom // Vedomosti, 04/21/2011.
1 2 Lankov A. Revival market economy in North Korea // Carnegie Moscow Center, August 2015.
V. I. Lenin. Complete set of works. Volume 36. Page XXIX
1 2 BRE.
Castells M., Kiseleva E. The crisis of industrial statism and the collapse of the Soviet Union // World of Russia, 1999, No. 3.
Kornai J. Innovation and dynamism: the relationship of systems and technical progress Voprosy ekonomiki, 2012, No. 4
1 2 Didenko D. V. System of priorities for central planning // Economic journal. 2013. No. 2.
Gregory, 2008, p. 159.
Gregory, 2008.
Harrison M. The fundamental problem of command: plan and compliance in a partially centralized economy // Comparative Economic Studies. 2005. Vol. 47. No. 2. P. 296-314.
BuenoLatina. Cuba has begun reform
1 2 Storchevoy M. Fundamentals of Economics
1 2 Potapov V. Course in economic theory
Gregory, 2008, p. 154.
Veduta N.I. Socially effective economics. - Moscow: REA Publishing House, 1999. - 254 p.
Veduta N. I. Economic cybernetics. - Minsk: Science and Technology, 1971.
Wasserman A. Socialism is already possible
Nikonov A. Why Anatoly Wasserman is wrong

Literature

Planned economy / G. D. Lovely // Great Russian Encyclopedia: [in 35 volumes] / ch. ed. Yu. S. Osipov. - M.: Great Russian Encyclopedia, 2004-2017.
Gregory P. The Political Economy of Stalinism = The Political Economy of Stalinism. - M.: ROSSPEN, 2008. - 400 p.
Olsevich Yu. Ya., Gregory P. Planning system in retrospect. Analysis and interviews with USSR planning leaders. - M.: Faculty of Economics of Moscow State University, TEIS, 2000. - 159 p.
Feldman G. A. On the theory of the rate of national income // Planning economy. 1928. No. 11. P. 146-170. No. 12. P. 151-178.
Bergson A. The Economics of Soviet Planning. - New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964.
Ellman M. Socialist Planning. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3rd ed. 2014.
Zaleski E. Stalinist Planning for Economic Growth, 1933-1952. - Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1980.

Links

wikiredia.ru

Directive planning

Directive planning is a process of making decisions that are binding on planning objects. It should be emphasized that the entire system of socialist national economic planning had an exclusively directive nature, the force of law. Therefore, for failure to fulfill planned targets, managers of business entities bore disciplinary and sometimes criminal liability. Directive plans are, as a rule, targeted in nature and are characterized by excessive detail.

Many of the shortcomings of socialist planning arise from its directive nature. However, this does not lead to the conclusion that the use of such planning in market conditions is inappropriate. Directive planning can serve as an effective means of solving many people's problems. economic tasks of national importance, for example, in the field of environmental protection, defense, social policy, economic restructuring, etc. Experts in the field of planning note that directive planning, being an alternative to market self-adjustment, is nevertheless not an antipode to the market. This is a product and its important constituent element, practiced not only by the state, but also by business itself.

Essence

Directive planning is the process of developing and adopting plans that have the force of law and a set of measures to ensure their implementation.

Directive planning refers to the development of mandatory indicators for production, distribution, exchange and consumption.

Policy planning is the process of developing plans that have the force of legal law and a set of measures to ensure their implementation. Directive plans are targeted in nature, mandatory for all executors, and officials are responsible for their implementation. In the former USSR and a number of socialist countries, they were used to directly influence the center on all levels of the national economy. In addition, the directive plans were characterized by excessive detail, which made them difficult to implement.

Directive plans are developed both by government authorities and within firms and concerns.

The directive nature of planning is manifested in the endowment of plans with the force of a document binding on all executors. From the directive nature of planning follows the requirement of strict adherence to planning discipline, responsibility of enterprises, economic bodies, officials for failure to complete tasks. Directive planning provides control over the production and distribution of resources from a single economic center. Each supplier is tied to its consumer, and each consumer knows who will supply him with raw materials, semi-finished products, and components. An economic entity cannot independently decide what, how and when to produce, to whom to sell and at what price. Directive planning is carried out by establishing targeted tasks and distributing the resources necessary for their implementation among the plan's implementers. In conditions of the monopoly of state ownership of the main means of production, planning extends to all aspects of society. The main levers of directive planning are budget financing, capital investment limits, funds of material and technical resources, and government orders.

In the development of indicators of the directive plan, its executors do not play main role. The main developers of the plan undertake obligations for logistical support for the implementation of planned indicators. This situation turns out to be a weak spot in directive planning; the implementation of plans is often not supported by the allocation of the necessary resources for them, which in this case turns the plan into a burden, a type of tax. Directive planning completely excludes the impact of the market on the economy and brings almost all microeconomic decisions to the macro level. There is no autonomy of the enterprise and the analysis of microeconomic points when making decisions is excluded. In place of the market there is a plan, in place of price - volume, in place of loans - financing, in place of commodity exchange - aggregation and disaggregation, in place of supply and demand - balance.

The transition from directive planning to its other forms involves, first of all, the elimination of conflicting interests between the developers and implementers of plans. Plans are no longer presented in the form of tasks and are developed by their executors themselves.

Characteristics:

1) Management comes from one center.

2) There is no economic independence for business entities.

3) There is an equal distribution

4) State control over prices.

5) Centralized material and technical supply.

2. History

Planning as one of the main methods of state regulation of the socialist economy appeared in the Soviet Union in the 20s. XX century It was during that period that the government of the Union began to draw up plans for the economic development of the state, in which specific indicators were formed in the form of tasks (directives) for individual people's commissariats (ministries) in accordance with the main goals of development or transformation of the country. These plan documents were initially adopted for one year, then they began to be developed for five years. Thus, it was in Russia that directive, or mandatory, planning for enterprises of all forms of ownership appeared. It was implemented in a huge number of indicators that were developed by management structures both at the country level and for industries and regions. Directive planning had to ensure the development of the state in accordance with clear quantitative targets, in compliance with given proportions and taking into account the capabilities of the country's economy.

Such economic management was able to ensure our country’s victory in the Great Patriotic War, despite the fact that more than half of the country’s production potential was temporarily lost in the occupied territory. National planning largely ensured the dynamic development of the state in the 40-50s, when the country had stable indicators of GDP growth, industrial production, and the introduction of scientific and technological progress.

As the experience of the development of the domestic economy has shown, in a peaceful, non-extreme environment, directive planning has lost its advantages over other methods that states use in market conditions.

In our country, in the early years of directive planning, the problem of living standards was viewed as secondary. In the process of increasing the production potential of the state, the government, first of all, solved the problem of full and compulsory employment of the population, and issues of wages, providing the population with housing, consumer goods, and food were excluded from the primary goals of social development. In the extreme conditions of creating new industries in a short period of time (automotive manufacturing, aircraft manufacturing, chemical production, etc.), moving production facilities from the European part of Russia and from Ukraine to the Urals, Siberia, Kazakhstan and Central Asia, directive planning turned out to be the most effective method of economic management . However, emergency measures cannot be applied indefinitely.

Since the mid-50s. government authorities began to name social goals among the state's priorities. Directive planning in the conditions of the scientific and technological revolution has shown its incompatibility with the successful solution of all goals of modern development of society. With each five-year plan, the government abandoned the methods of direct distribution of state orders and tried to introduce commodity-money relations between economic entities (for example, self-financing between state-owned enterprises). Taking into account the requirements of scientific and technological progress (NTP) since the 70s. The country began to develop a Comprehensive Program for Long-Term Socio-Economic Development and a Comprehensive Scientific and Technical Progress Program. More and more, the Government was inclined to expand the use of inter-sectoral balance methods, reduce the number of predetermined indicators and indicators, and develop the independence of enterprises, industries, republics and regions, but still every year the rate of GDP growth decreased.

Since the beginning of the 70s. In the economy of the Soviet Union, certain sectors of the fuel and energy complex - oil and gas production - began to play an increasing role. Thanks to the large foreign exchange resources that the state had as a result of huge oil and gas production in Siberia and their supply abroad, many social issues for the entire Soviet Union were resolved through the import of consumer goods and food with income from the fuel and energy complex. Thanks to this, the country maintained conditional food independence and solved certain problems to improve the life of the population.

Since the mid-80s. The fuel and energy complex began to demand more and more funds to maintain the achieved production levels (approximately 600 million tons of oil per year and about 700 billion cubic meters of gas, 600 million tons of coal). The country lacked an adequate mechanism for introducing the achievements of scientific and technological progress, which at that time in industrial countries began to be increasingly used for the development of industry, agriculture, as well as in everyday life and in human life. The implementation of the achievements of scientific and technological progress in the Soviet Union occurred too slowly, and it can be said that, taken together, this served as the material basis for a change in the general economic formation and the transition to market management methods.

Since 1992, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the country's central government has completely abandoned planning. At that time, the process of denationalization and privatization of state property began, which, together with the liberalization of prices (refusal of national price regulation and the transition to world prices for most goods and tariffs for paid services), free access of economic entities to the foreign economic market, ensure the introduction of a self-regulating economic mechanism. According to the reformers of the early 90s, the market economy being created in Russia needed state intervention in regulating the economy insofar as this was to ensure the creation of a regulatory framework for the functioning of private property and the formation of missing modern sectors of the national economy, for example, monetary , small businesses and some others. It was considered possible to completely abolish planning at the state level and deal primarily with the regulation of financial indicators. This was consistent with the monetarist views that international financial organizations have been introducing into the economies of developing countries over the past twenty years. The 1998 crisis in Russia, in our opinion, allows us to draw a certain line under the development of the country in the 90s. and return to the question of the role and place of planning in the economy.

Apparently, planning is the only management tool that will make it possible to preserve large enterprises, modern production and move to a market economy. If the country continues to refuse planning and rely on self-regulation of the economy, then, at best, an economy with a predominance of small businesses may develop, but then in terms of its scientific and technological level, Russia will become similar to India.

3. Advantages and disadvantages

Advantages of planned farming:

* interconnection in the plans of social and economic aspects of the development of society;

* concentration of forces on execution priority areas activities;

* integrated approach to problem solving;

* taking into account the possibilities of continuous long-term and current planning;

* combinations of sectoral and territorial approaches;

* an attempt to balance the use of labor, material and financial resources;

* a characteristic feature of a planned system is coordination, therefore progressive adaptive mechanisms are used in the planned system;

* to manage the development of an exogenous type, a mechanism for the functioning of the organization is created - a set of adaptive forecasting structures, planning, stimulation

Disadvantages of centralized planning and forecasting:

* poor accounting of natural laws and trends in the development of commodity-money relations;

* increasing the role of the plan as an end in itself of activity according to the principle “plan at any cost”; a kind of fetish of the plan over economic relations;

Lack of room for maneuvering the actions of enterprises in different regions and inflexibility of the situation planning system;

Methodological weakness of planning, does not take into account reserves, initiative, micro-level diversity;

Significant expenditure of effort, time and money on development, coordination, approval, clarification, and maintaining the stability of planned indicators;

insufficient coordination of efforts to develop forecasting;

Significant costs for performing certain types of forecasts;

* fuzzy detection of forecast development targets;

Violation of prospects for the use of retrospective and forecast information;

* the methodology for developing and implementing forecasts is insufficiently developed

Negative consequences of applying directive policies in practice:

a) destruction of competition, creation of conditions for monopolism,

b) lack of production motivation;

c) reduction in production efficiency and quality of goods;

d) the occurrence of a constant commodity shortage;

e) the product of bureaucracy, voluntarism, and corruption.

studfiles.net

Directive planning is... What is directive planning: definition of the concept, features, specificity, effectiveness and application of directive planning

Bookmarked: 0

What is Directive Planning? Description and definition of the concept.

Directive planning is a special process of developing plans, which in turn are communicated by higher management bodies to individual structural units.

Planning can sometimes be seen as a particular form of social work or a specific management function. Such planning can act as an effective tool for the implementation of any government programs. The fundamental objects of this activity on the scale of a single country are the social sphere, as well as the economy.

Directive planning is one of the most common forms of program implementation, which was used mainly in Soviet times.

Let's take a closer look at what directive planning means.

General Information and Objectives

Social economics contains a number of special specific features. It guarantees a special form of management of the narcosis complex. This is called centralized planning. Despite the fact that the Soviet regime is already a thing of the past, at this time this form of management is most often used along with various market mechanisms. Mainly, this is due to the fact that when creating new conditions for the normal functioning of the economic complex, it is very important to accurately predict the prospects for development.

Planning can be considered as a process of special decision-making, which is based on the generalization of initial data.

Such a planning process involves the identification, as well as scientific justification, of various goals, ways, as well as means of achieving them, mainly by giving a comparative assessment of various options and choosing the most optimal one in the conditions of the development that is expected. State planning helps to connect all production factors with each other; in addition, it ensures the maintenance of a level of balance in cost as well as natural material flows. It helps to effectively and efficiently use and distribute available resources so that it is possible to achieve the assigned tasks. The whole essence of the activity comes down not only to the development and delivery of very numerous results to the performers themselves directly, but to set goals for the implementation of the intended development and obtaining the means to achieve them in reality. Depending on the various forms of manifestation, there are: strategic, indicative, and also the form that we are considering - directive planning. In our time and under today's conditions, the first and second of them are considered the most common.

Directive planning system and specifics of directive planning

Such a system involves the development of programs that have the force of legal law, as well as the means and any mechanisms that will be aimed at their implementation. Created specific schemes are required for any execution. At the same time, officials who will be responsible for the entire process must be identified. Many people who belong to the older generation by their age know and remember very well what the State Planning Committee is. The Soviet Union and Eastern European states very often used the scheme we are considering in managing the economic complex. With the help of previously developed programs, the government of each country directly had the right to influence all its aspects and links. The State Planning Committee of the Union was exclusively targeted in nature and was distinguished in its structure by exceptional detail. Among other things, in practice such a plan quite often never went further than what was written on paper, which completely discredited itself.

Directive planning is a certain form of management that presupposes strict adherence to discipline, the bearing of responsibility by enterprises, the management of officials and economic bodies for failure to fulfill the tasks assigned to them.

Directive planning is accompanied by very strict control over output and dispersal of resources. Each individual supplier is ultimately tied to its buyer, and the consumer clearly knows from whom he will receive components, semi-finished goods and raw materials. The Ministry of Economy itself decides how much, how, when to produce and produce, at what price and to whom to sell. The initiative of economic entities is absolutely excluded.

Implementation and structural elements

Directive planning is a form of management. With it, targeted tasks are established, after which the resources that are urgently needed to complete them are distributed. With the monopoly of state property, centralized planning takes over absolutely all spheres of life in any society. The main levers are the following factors:

Capital investment limits;
Budget financing;
Government orders;
Funds of material and technical resources.

During the development of schemes, performers do not act in the main capacity and do not play a major role. Developers of various programs carry out centralized supply, and take on the responsibility of providing material and technical resources, which contributes to good and rapid achievement of indicators. At the same time, very often the development of previously developed programs is not supported by the allocation of the necessary resources. In such cases, the plan, of course, becomes a kind of burden.

With all its diversity, the Ministry of Economic Affairs often uses forms of ownership as components, using previous schemes for management in the public sector and for budget financing. Such elements, in particular, are part of the following programs:

Supply of products to meet federal government needs.
Development of the public sector in economic development.
Adopted programs aimed at financing from the federal budget.

Directive planning can be considered as a method of management that completely excludes the direct impact of the market itself on the economic system. The developed programs are then included at the macro level, and make up almost all microeconomic indicators. At the same time, enterprises do not become autonomous. When making decisions, the assessment of microeconomic points is completely excluded. Here, the place of the market is taken by the plan, prices are replaced by volume, loans are replaced by financing, commodity exchange is replaced by disaggregation and aggregation, supply and demand are replaced by balance. Directive planning should be considered only as an administrative procedure. Its course is not related to the use of price mechanisms.

Management experience and alternative solution

The transition from centralized planning only then to its other forms presupposes the following. Namely, that the conflict of interests between the performers themselves and the developers of any programs will be eliminated. In order to successfully achieve overall goals, schemes do not need to be presented in the form of tasks. Their development should be left to the performers themselves to develop. By the way, the completely unsuccessful experience of past years should not prevent the use of directive production planning to solve national emerging problems. It should also be understood that such a scheme acts in itself as the most alternative to market self-tuning, but it will not be its direct antipode. It is an important tool that is applicable not only to the state itself as a whole, but at the same time to the business sector in this particular case.

Directive planning is applicable in cases where large-scale problems need to be solved. This form of management of the economic complex is a very effective form for the industrialization of a certain country, the creation of defense potential, the structural formation of industrial enterprises and other similar things. However, it is necessary to apply centralized planning in practice in aggravated or most critical cases. For example, in situations where, for example, natural disasters, wars, depressions occur, or in the event of a crisis. The scale, as well as the timing, of directive policy in this situation should be limited.

Nowadays, indicative planning is gaining the most popularity in the world. It acts as a means of implementing the state’s social and economic policies, the main method of influencing the operation of the market regime. Indicative planning for the most part contributes to the most effective solution of a huge variety of problems in different cases. It is used when market mechanisms alone without government intervention are not enough.

Features of the scheme and process content

Recommendative planning is the process of creating a set of indicators with the help of which development, as well as the general state of the economic sector, is characterized. These parameters are fully consistent with state policy and require certain measures of influence of government bodies on processes. Indicators of direct development are indicators that reflect the efficiency, structure, as well as the dynamics of the economic sphere, the state, as well as the nature of the circulation of funds, the securities market, various goods, the quality of life of all citizens, the level of interaction and communication with existing foreign trading partners, etc. similar to this. An internally balanced set of such parameters helps to obtain a quantitative assessment of government activity in the social economic sphere, the implementation of which, in turn, is the focus of government regulation measures.

The whole essence of indicative planning consists mainly in justifying the tasks, ultimate goals, methods, as well as policy directions of a particular state. It acts as an effective form of interaction between absolutely all federal management institutions, and this happens both with each other and with regional offices, and this is carried out in the interests of the development of the economic sector and its individual components. The role of all planning is to directly indicate areas where the state needs to urgently intervene in strictly exceptional cases. The government does not have a direct influence on enterprises, however, some of the largest companies are deeply interested in cooperation with the government, because they are in dire need of high-quality support in attracting foreign investment, promoting certain personal products to world markets, and so on. Indicative plans do not limit business initiative. However, at the same time, they help to outline a single course for the management of various companies, provide complete information to enterprises about potential demand, inform the situation in aggregate industries, the current state of affairs on the labor market, and so on and so forth. Without planning, there is no way to justify certain investments. Developed and formed programs have a very strong impact on government spending. Planning helps to quite organically connect socio-economic concepts, as well as forecasts for the state of the economic sector, a set of regulators, the volume and size of federal capital investments, as well as supplies for government needs, and issues related to the management of state-owned enterprises.

Efficiency, long-term prospects and specificity of strategic programs

Indicative planning is based mainly on priorities, for which incentive mechanisms are created. At the stage when the transition to market relations, it acts as a kind of objective, as well as natural continuation and development of the process that was predicted. This is mainly due to the fact that the latter includes quite a lot of component parts. In addition to the forecast itself, such an analysis process includes government programs, a set of regulators, as well as supplies for government needs, the size of federal capital investments, and so on. In other words, the analysis procedure completely goes beyond the most ordinary prediction of different situations. The effectiveness of such plans can be proven using international practice. They became quite effective in Japan and France. Based on the government sector, they help to speed up the pace of development of the national economy.

Directive, as well as indicative planning, are mainly used for a very short time. All strategic programs are aimed at the very long term. This type of planning involves setting certain goals, their formation, as well as the allocation of funds that are very necessary to achieve them. In this case, the main task is to establish the most correct relationship between these two elements. Strategic goals are primarily concerned with meeting the needs of all people. The formation of different needs is influenced equally by both external and internal factors. In cases where there are limited resources, which is typical for absolutely any country, the choice of main goals is always accompanied by the setting of main priorities.

In the form distinctive features This form of planning should be highlighted:

Formation of goals, which is of decisive importance for the economic complex;
Resource support for the implementation of tasks;
Taking into account the influence of internal and external conditions;
The purpose of strategic programs is to form suitable potential for the upcoming most successful development of the economic complex.

The implementation of programs takes place over different periods of time. It depends on the validity period. They define long-term ones, those designed for 10 years or more, medium-term ones for 5 years and current ones, designed for a year. In practice, all of the above types of plans exist. This, in turn, ensures the continuity of programs to achieve them, and the achievement of goals at different distances in time.

Classification and features of programming

During the transition to market relations, the entire planning process undergoes a variety of changes. Programming can be considered a type of programming; its tasks include providing solutions to major issues that relate to environmental, social, scientific, technical, industrial, and many other problems. This process is urgently needed to create an integrated approach and proper allocation of resources. Programs can be created at very different levels of the hierarchy. At the same time, the developed project absolutely always acts as an address document and has an indicative or directive character.

Depending on the direction of the actions taken, their content and the object of the program, they can be scientific and technical, socio-economic, territorial, organizational and economic, or targeted, emergency and other. Regional and national projects are complex in nature. They influence general economic issues and reflect the preferred options for the development of the socio-economic sphere of any country as a whole, or of a particular region in particular.

Emergency programs, for the most part, are drawn up for a fairly short period of time. They are used in the state in extremely critical situations:

with mass unemployment;
during a crisis;
with dangerous inflation and other aspects.

We briefly examined what directive planning is, its specifics, features, effectiveness and application. Leave your comments or additions to the material.

biznes-prost.ru

Directive planning is the process of developing plans communicated by higher authorities to structural units

Planning can be considered as a special form of social activity or a specific management function. It acts as an effective tool for implementing government programs. The main objects of this activity throughout the country are the social sphere and the economy. Directive planning is one of the forms of program implementation used in Soviet times. Let's take a closer look at it.

General information

The socialist economy has a number of specific features. It is ensured by a special form of management of the national economic complex. It is represented by centralized planning. Despite the fact that the Soviet regime is a thing of the past, nowadays this form of management is often used along with market mechanisms. First of all, this is due to the fact that when creating new conditions for the functioning of the national economic complex, it is necessary to predict development prospects.

Goals

Planning is a decision-making process based on generalization of initial data. It involves the identification and scientific justification of goals, ways and means of achieving them through a comparative assessment of various options and selection of the optimal one in the conditions of expected development. State planning connects all production factors and ensures the maintenance of a balance of cost and natural material flows. It promotes effective and rational use available resources to implement the assigned tasks. The essence of the activity comes down not to the development and delivery of numerous results to the immediate executors, but to the setting of goals for the intended development and the development of means for their actual achievement. Depending on the form of manifestation, strategic, indicative and directive planning are distinguished. In modern conditions, the first and second are considered the most common.

Directive planning system

It involves the development of programs that have the force of legal law, as well as the means and mechanisms for their implementation. The created schemes are mandatory for execution. At the same time, officials responsible for the entire process are determined. Many people of the older generation know very well what the State Planning Committee is. The USSR and Eastern European countries often used the scheme in question in managing the national economic complex. With the help of the developed programs, the government directly influenced all its spheres and links. The USSR State Planning Committee was targeted and distinguished by exceptional detail. Meanwhile, in practice, it quite often remained on paper, which completely discredited itself.

Specifics

Directive planning is a form of management that presupposes strict adherence to discipline, responsibility of enterprises, officials, and economic bodies for failure to fulfill assigned tasks. It is accompanied by strict control of product output and resource allocation. Each supplier is tied to its buyer, and the consumer, in turn, knows from whom he will receive components, semi-finished products, and raw materials. The Ministry of Economy decides how much, how, when to produce, at what cost and to whom to sell. The initiative of economic entities is completely excluded.

Implementation

Directive planning is a form of management in which targeted tasks are established and the resources necessary for their implementation are allocated. Under the monopoly of state property, centralized planning covers all spheres of society. The main levers are:

In the process of developing schemes, performers do not play a major role. Program developers carry out centralized supply and assume responsibility for logistical support for achieving indicators. At the same time, the implementation of the developed programs is often not supported by the allocation of the necessary resources. In such cases, the plan becomes a burden.

Structural elements

Despite all the variety of forms of ownership, the Ministry of Economy often uses components of previous management schemes in the public sector and budget financing. These elements, in particular, are included in the programs:

Supply of products for federal government needs.
Development of the public sector of the economy.
Accepted for funding from the federal budget.

Directive planning is a method of management that completely excludes the influence of the market on the economic system. The programs being developed bring almost all microeconomic indicators to the macro level. At the same time, enterprises do not have autonomy. When making decisions, the assessment of microeconomic points is excluded. The place of the market is taken by the plan, prices - volume, loans - financing, commodity exchange - disaggregation and aggregation, supply and demand - balance. Directive planning is a purely administrative procedure. Its course is not associated with the use of cost mechanisms.

Management experience

The transition from centralized planning to its other forms involves, first of all, the elimination of conflicts of interests between implementers and program developers. To successfully achieve overall goals, schemes should not be presented in the form of tasks. Their development must be entrusted to the direct executors. Meanwhile, the rather unsuccessful experience of previous years should not prevent the use of directive production planning in solving national problems. It should be understood that this scheme, while acting as an alternative to market self-tuning, will not be its antipode. It is an important tool that is used not only by the state in general, but also by business in particular.

Meaning

Directive planning is used in situations where it is necessary to solve global problems. This form of management of the national economic complex is very effective in the industrialization of the country, the formation of defense potential, the structural transformation of industrial enterprises, etc. However, it is advisable to use centralized planning in aggravated, critical situations. For example, in conditions of a natural disaster, war, depression, crisis. The scope and timing of directive policies should be limited.

Alternative solution

Currently, indicative planning is most widespread in the world. It acts as a means of implementing the government’s social and economic policies, the main method of influencing the functioning of the market regime. Indicative planning helps to effectively solve a variety of problems in cases. It is used when market mechanisms alone without government intervention are extremely insufficient.

Features of the scheme

Recommendative (indicative) planning is the process of forming a set of indicators by which the development and general state of the national economic sector is characterized. These parameters correspond to government policy and require certain measures of government influence on processes. Development indicators are indicators that reflect the efficiency, structure and dynamics of the economic sphere, the state and nature of the circulation of finance, the securities and goods markets, the quality of life of citizens, the level of interaction with foreign trading partners, etc. An internally balanced set of these parameters allows us to obtain a quantitative assessment of government activities in the social and economic sphere, the implementation of which is targeted by government regulation measures.

The essence of indicative planning is to substantiate the tasks, goals, methods and directions of state policy. It acts as an effective form of interaction between all federal management institutions both with each other and with regional offices in the interests of the development of the economic sector and its individual components. The role of indicative planning is to directly indicate areas in which the state needs to intervene in strictly defined cases. The government does not directly influence enterprises, however, large companies are interested in cooperation with the government, since they need support in attracting foreign investment, promoting their products to world markets, etc. Indicative plans do not constrain business initiative. At the same time, they make it possible to outline a unified course for managing firms, inform enterprises about potential demand, the situation in related industries, the state of affairs on the labor market, and so on. Without planning, it is impossible to justify an investment. The developed programs have an impact on government spending. Planning allows you to organically combine socio-economic concepts, forecasts of the state of the economic sphere, a set of regulators, the volume of federal capital investments, supplies for government needs, and issues of managing state-owned enterprises.

Efficiency

Indicative planning is based on priorities, according to which incentive mechanisms are formed. At the stage of transition to market relations, it acts as an objective and natural continuation and development of the forecasting process. This is due to the fact that the latter includes quite a lot of components. In addition to the forecast itself, the analysis process includes government programs, a set of regulators, supplies for government needs, the volume of federal capital investments, etc. That is, the analysis procedure goes beyond the usual prediction of situations. The effectiveness of indicative plans has been proven by international practice. Schemes in Japan and France have been particularly effective. Relying on the government sector, they accelerate the pace of development of the national economy.

Long term prospects

Directive and indicative planning are ideally used for a relatively short period of time. Strategic programs are aimed at the long term. This type of planning involves setting specific goals, generating and allocating the funds necessary to achieve them. IN in this case The main task is to establish the correct relationship between the elements. Strategic goals are about meeting people's needs. The formation of needs is influenced by both external and internal factors. With limited resources, which is typical for any country, the selection of key goals is accompanied by prioritization.

Specifics of strategic programs

The distinctive features of this form of planning include:

Formation of goals that are of decisive importance for the national economic complex.
Resource support for the implementation of tasks.
Taking into account the impact of internal and external conditions.

The purpose of strategic programs is to create sufficient potential for the upcoming successful development of the national economic complex. The programs are implemented over different periods of time. Depending on the period of validity, long-term (designed for 10 or more years), medium-term (5 years) and current (annual) schemes are distinguished. In practice, all of the above types of plans are used. This ensures the continuity of programs and the achievement of goals at different distances in time.

Programming Features

In the process of transition to market relations, the planning process undergoes various changes. Its variety is programming, the tasks of which include providing solutions to key issues related to environmental, social, scientific, technical, industry, regional and other problems. This process is necessary to develop an integrated approach and targeted resource allocation. Programs can be created at any level of the hierarchy. At the same time, the developed project always acts as a targeted document of an indicative or directive nature.

Classification

Depending on the direction of action, content and object of the program, it can be scientific and technical, socio-economic, territorial, organizational and economic, targeted, emergency, etc. Regional and national projects are complex. They affect general economic issues and reflect the preferred option for the development of the socio-economic sphere of the state as a whole or its region in particular. Emergency programs are usually designed for a short period of time. They are used in the state in critical situations: mass unemployment, crisis, dangerous inflation, etc. In their implementation, administrative instruments are used quite actively.

fb.ru

About the model of a planned-contractual economy

FELIX KLOTSVOG Doctor of Economic Sciences, Professor, Head of the Laboratory of the Institute of Economic Forecasting of the Russian Academy of Sciences

The planned-directive management system exhausted itself back in the 60s. The market template that developed among the first reformers has no prospects. The future belongs to the planned-contractual system of economic management

In the 20th century productive forces have reached a level where the question of managing them has fully arisen not only within individual enterprises, companies and corporations, but also on a national scale. Indeed, in the conditions of a deep division of labor, a complex industry structure and an extensive system of inter-industry and inter-regional connections, the economies of many countries increasingly turned into a single production and technical complex, the development of which became necessary and possible to carry out on the basis of national interests, in order to most fully meet the needs of all society. This prospect opened up enormous reserves for the development of production and the use of available resources. It made it possible to bring civilization to a qualitatively new level, opening up space for the active creative activity of every person. Of course, this required a qualitatively new type of structure of social relations, overcoming outdated social foundations, views and norms of human behavior.

For the first time, this kind of social system, in our opinion, was created in the Soviet Union. The new type of social relations was a powerful catalyst for the development of productive forces. This allowed historically short terms to bring the USSR in terms of production scale from 5th to 2nd place in the world, to create a qualitatively higher level and way of life for people.

The planned-directive management system is the lowest level of a managed economy

Without touching on the entire formational content of this problem, let us pay attention only to its managerial aspect. Indeed, one of the main factors in the changes that took place in the country was the creation of a managed economy. For the first time in history, society mastered the reproduction process as a whole and began to develop the economy in accordance with its goals and needs, which led to good results.

Of course, speaking about the Soviet economy, it is necessary to critically evaluate the processes taking place in it and professionally understand the nature and mechanisms of its development. Only in this case can one understand why in the 60s - 80s its growth sharply slowed down, acute economic and social disproportions arose, which ultimately led the social system of the USSR to complete destruction. In this regard, first of all, it should be understood that the new social economic system was at the earliest stages of development. The fundamental features of this system were not yet developed, and were often significantly deformed. In particular, planned economic management was carried out in its lowest form - planning and directive form.

The planned-directive form of management at the initial stages of the development of the USSR was adequate to the level and nature of the country's productive forces that existed at that time. Indeed, in conditions of a relatively simple structure of the economy, a simple system of economic relations, and an acute shortage of highly qualified personnel, managing the economy through centralized decision-making and communicating them to enterprises in the form of directive tasks that must be carried out was the only possible and most effective form. This is evidenced by the enormous achievements in the pre-war years, and the exceptional vitality of the economy during the period of severe military trials, and its ability to quickly recover in the first post-war five-year plans.

However, as highly developed productive forces matured in the country, the division of labor deepened, the sectoral structure and intersectoral connections became more complex, and hundreds of thousands of highly qualified specialists were trained, capable of independently making responsible decisions, the planned-directive management system increasingly came into conflict with the achieved level of productive forces, all became more of a hindrance to development. Objectively, it was required to replace it with more modern forms of planned management, providing a combination of targeted development of the reproductive process with broad independence of industries, enterprises, and regions. But for a number of reasons, it was not possible to create such a new system of planned management. Those attempts to reform the planning system that were made in the 60s and subsequent years did not produce results, but only exacerbated the objectively existing contradictions between the interests of individual enterprises and the interests of society as a whole. As a result, the centralized control of the Soviet economy was actually lost.

The planned-directive form of management gradually degenerated into a set of bureaucratic procedures that retained only the appearance of centralized management. In fact, it has lost the ability to ensure the dynamic development of the economy, take into account the diversity of individual and collective needs of society, and maintain the necessary proportionality of the reproduction process. The conservation of obsolete planned and directive forms of management, combined with a number of other strategic mistakes of the Soviet leadership, ultimately led to the collapse of the USSR and its socio-economic system.

What is a market economy

The destruction of the socio-economic system of the Soviet Union took place under the banner of the transition to a market economy. For a certain circle of people, this was only an ideological cover pursuing specific political goals. However, for most, this slogan seemed reasonable and attractive and has not lost its appeal to this day.

Let's try to figure out what a market economy is and whether it can solve the problems facing our country in the future. To do this, first of all, it is necessary to define the concepts of “exchange”, “market”, “market economy”, “commodity-money relations” strictly scientifically, and not journalistically.

Exchange has existed and will exist in any society where there is a division of labor.

The market, or market form of exchange, is just one of the forms of exchange that has certain properties. In a market form of exchange, the producer offering his product for exchange does not know in advance whether it corresponds to existing demand, and learns about this only during the exchange process. The equilibrium between supply and demand in a market form of exchange is established with the help of prices through their directional deviation from the social necessary expenses. Because of this, the market form of exchange has a regulatory effect on production.

A market economy is not any economy where there is a market network, but only an economy where the market is the main, dominant form of exchange and, therefore, the main, automatically operating regulator of production, which has a decisive impact on the structure of production and other aspects of the reproduction process. And in the Soviet economy there was a market. However, in the exchange system it occupied a limited sector and did not influence the reproduction process as a whole. Therefore, it is unlikely that anyone would dare to call the Soviet economy a market economy.

Commodity-money relations, the commodity nature of production, categories such as value, money, price, etc., can exist not only in a market economy, but also in a non-market economy, where non-market forms of exchange dominate, but nevertheless exchange occurs regularly on an equivalent basis in accordance with socially necessary labor costs.

If you agree with this content of these concepts, then a lot falls into place. Indeed, in the first half of the twentieth century. market economies were typical for most developed countries of the world with the exception of the USSR. However, in today's highly developed economy, based on large machine industries, it is increasingly less efficient for producers to work for an unknown consumer without a guarantee of receiving a certain price for their products. Therefore, the market form of exchange began to increasingly give way to a contractual form previously agreed upon for the future, in which the producer and consumer agree in advance and reliably on the scale and conditions of supply of products, as well as on the price level. This was facilitated by strengthening state regulation of the economy, the development of state programming and government orders. Therefore, today the economy of Western Europe, the USA, and Japan is increasingly ceasing to be a market economy and is being transformed into a contract economy. The market economy is becoming a thing of the past, becoming a thing of the past for civilization.

At the same time, in the conditions of the crisis of the Soviet planning-directive management system, along with other stale goods that were not in demand in the Western market, the idea of transition to a primitive market economy was thrown at us as a panacea. The most surprising thing is that not only the average person, dazzled by the abundance of window displays in foreign stores, but also many domestic academic economists took the bait.

As is known, an attempt at historical regression, a return back to the economy of the 19th century, which had exhausted itself throughout the civilized world. had dire consequences for our country. All socio-economic processes are going backwards in our country, like in a bad movie theater when a tipsy projectionist runs the film backwards. Productive forces began to quickly collapse, large enterprises began to fragment, and a landslide deindustrialization of the economy began. The heaviest damage was caused to high-tech, knowledge-intensive industries. The country's economy, open to the world market, is increasingly becoming one-sided in terms of fuel and raw materials. The strictly segmented modern world market does not allow the development of Russian knowledge-intensive and high-tech production. He is interested in Russia only as a supplier of energy and raw materials, a space for locating environmentally “dirty” industries, and a source of cheap and sufficiently qualified labor.

Given the direction of the Russian economy, which is dictated by the world market, up to 2/3 of the Russian population ultimately turns out to be unclaimed. Hence the beginning of the extinction of the Russian population, the steady excess of mortality over the birth rate. The rapid extinction of the country is actively promoted by the ongoing sharp social and property stratification of society, accompanied by the absolute impoverishment of the majority of the population. Compared to 1990, the standard of living of 80% of the population decreased by 2.5-3 times.

The trend towards territorial disintegration of Russia is growing threateningly. The heterogeneity of the economic landscape has sharply increased. Interregional differences in the level of economic development of Russian regions and the standard of living of their population are tens of times. Not only the system of economic ties between Russia and other republics of the USSR has been destroyed, but also the system of intra-Russian interregional ties.

Recently, signs of stabilization have appeared in the Russian economy, and industrial production has begun to increase. However, even government experts are forced to admit that this situation is caused mainly by favorable world market conditions. In general, all the most pressing economic and social problems of the country remain unresolved.

Today at Russian society the understanding has already matured that something wrong is happening. However, faith in the market fetish still remains. The quasi-market modern Russian economy cannot be transformed into an economy similar to developed Western countries, primarily because it did not arise through natural history, as in other countries, but through the violent destruction of a fundamentally more advanced socio-economic system.

Unlike China, which managed to find forms and methods of management adequate to the level of its productive forces and the specific features and conditions of its development, we did not try to understand the real defects of our previous economic system and, having eliminated them, move forward. Instead, we wanted to use other people's ready-made recipes, which set us back a long way. As you know, the first steam locomotives and the first cars moved slower than a horse, often broke down and even exploded. But human genius managed to overcome the defects of early designs and create modern, highly developed technology. After the first failures of managed development, we hastened to abandon it, switching to the nag of a quasi-market economy, and we hope to catch up with the civilized world on it.

Only a complete abandonment of the course of reforms that have not justified themselves and a turn of policy toward the creation of a qualitatively new system of economic relations can ensure the revival of the country and its further economic, social and spiritual progress.

If we talk about the management aspect of the problem, then we should talk about a radical increase in the economic role of the state in order to restore controllability of the reproduction process. This does not at all mean a return to the previous exhausted planned and directive management system. The future system of economic management must differ radically not only from the current one, but from its specific form that previously existed in the USSR.

The essence and main features of the planned-contractual management system

In its most general form, the new management system can be characterized as a planned-contractual or planned-contract system. It assumes a fairly high level of industrial development of the country and the dominant position of large enterprises in its economy. First of all, it can be formed in countries with a high degree of economic self-sufficiency.

The essence of the planning-contractual system is that with it, targeted management of the reproduction process in accordance with the strategic goals and ultimate needs of society is organically combined with the development of direct contractual relations between economic entities, which are built on the basis of a general strategy, but at the same time fill it with specific content taking into account their local interests.

The planned-contractual system differs from the previously existing planning-directive practice primarily in the object of management. If under planned-directive management the object of management was the production and economic activity of enterprises and, therefore, specific intra-industry, intra-regional and intra-production proportions were centrally regulated, then under the planned-contractual form only general economic, inter-industry and inter-regional proportions of the reproduction process remain the object of centralized management. As for private - intra-industry, intra-regional and intra-production proportions, they are formed directly by business entities, their industry and regional associations through the conclusion of direct business agreements between them.

The subject of management is also changing. Under the conditions of a planning-directive system, the main subject of management was the state and, above all, its upper echelons. The remaining links of the economic system, including enterprises, performed only the function of suppliers of information for decision-making and execution of centrally established tasks of the state plan. Under a planned-contractual system, all parts of the economic system, including enterprises, are considered subjects of management. They all participate in decision making according to their level of competence. The equality of different levels of the economic system is ensured by the principle of the priority of the contract over the plan. This means that if there is mutual consent of the interested business entities, their decision is final, even if it diverges from centrally developed indicators. At the same time, in contrast to indicative planning, in the absence of agreement between interested economic entities, decisions established by planning indicators become binding. Such a semi-directive system means real democratization of economic relations in the management process and allows for targeted economic development with broad consideration of the interests of all economic entities.

Under the conditions of planned and contractual management, the system of responsibility changes radically. In planning-directive management, the dominant position was occupied by the vertical responsibility of the economic entity to a higher authority for the implementation of the directive plan issued from above. With plan-contractual responsibility, horizontal responsibility becomes the main one, i.e. responsibility of the manufacturer to the consumer for the full satisfaction of his needs in accordance with the concluded contract.

The planned-contractual management system requires a qualitative transformation of the structure of property relations. Given the unconditional diversity of forms of ownership (national, collective, private, individual) and their full legal equality, the dominant position should be occupied by public property. It should contain the main natural resources of the country, large and medium-sized enterprises of all socially significant sectors of the economy. However, in this case, public property must be fundamentally different from its state form, which existed during Soviet times. The essence of this difference is that if in the USSR public property assumed the concentration in the hands of the state of all basic functions - ownership, disposal and use, then in the future public property these functions should be dispersed among various property subjects. The supreme owner, i.e. The owner of the public domain is the entire society. Dispose of, i.e. society empowers the state formed by it to make strategic decisions regarding the public domain. Consequently, the state is not the owner, but only the manager (manager). Work collectives become the direct users of certain parts of the national heritage (enterprises).

A lease type relationship develops between the state and enterprises. This means that the state transfers the national means of production to the labor collectives of enterprises for use under certain conditions. Under these conditions, enterprises have broad economic independence. Their work collectives become the owners of the created self-supporting income, i.e. gross income minus the cost of consumed material resources and taxes to the state. At the same time, the economic content of taxes changes qualitatively. If now, as in Soviet times, the tax base is the results of production (volume of added value, profit, etc.), then in the new conditions the tax base is the resources transferred for the use of enterprises (fixed assets, natural resources, etc.). p.). All self-supporting income labor collective distributes at its discretion for wages, material incentives, social and production needs. The state does not interfere in the distribution of self-supporting income and cannot regulate it in any way. This mechanism creates an economic interest for enterprises in the most efficient use of production resources.

Let us consider the content of management of individual aspects of the reproduction process under the conditions of a planned-contractual system.

Management of production and distribution of products. The state, based on the set final goals of socio-economic development, determines the need for the production of the most important types of industrial and agricultural products (according to 250-300 consolidated items) and on this basis forms indicators of inter-industry and inter-regional supplies of these products. These indicators are communicated to industry associations, regions and large enterprises as advisory guidelines. Based on these indicators, producers and consumers of products enter into business agreements among themselves, clarifying and adjusting the relevant indicators. With mutual agreement of the supplier and consumer, these indicators can be adjusted to the total value in any direction. However, in the absence of such agreement, the developed indicators become mandatory for both the supplier and the consumer.

Investment management. The state carries out intersectoral and interregional distribution of investment resources generated from the state budget. The funds of the depreciation fund remain at the full disposal of the enterprises. However, they can be used exclusively for the purpose of direct investment in fixed capital. Free balances of depreciation funds are accumulated in banks in special accounts and can also be used by banks exclusively for direct investment in fixed capital. If the enterprise does not have enough of these sources to implement sufficiently effective investment projects, it has the right to receive a loan from a bank or can use part of its self-supporting income for investment needs.

Price regulation. The state sets list prices for main types of products and services. These prices are used for accounting and production planning and costing. However, at the same time, enterprises are given the right, when concluding business contracts, to establish premiums or discounts to the list price within certain limits. These allowances are not included in the cost of production of the consumer enterprise, but are paid from its self-supporting income. In this way, a combination of targeted pricing policy with a flexible commodity-money mechanism is achieved.

Financial regulation. The state accumulates part of the national income in its hands mainly in the form of payments for resources. These funds are used by the state to finance the social sphere, state investment programs, defense and other national needs. Through resource taxation rates, the state regulates the level of self-supporting income of enterprises. At the same time, it does not interfere in the distribution of self-supporting income and, in particular, in the organization of the wage system, which is the competence of labor collectives.

Foreign economic regulation. The state forms quotas for the export and import of the most important types of products as part of the indicators of intersectoral and interregional supplies. These quotas can be adjusted by enterprises if such adjustments do not infringe on the interests of counterparties - other consumers of products and suppliers of resources.

Currency regulation. A state currency monopoly is being introduced, completely eliminating the circulation of foreign currency on the domestic market. This involves 100% sale of foreign exchange earnings from exports to the state and receipt of foreign exchange resources from the state in accordance with import quotas. In addition, additional foreign currency is provided for excess export earnings. A fixed exchange rate is established at the level of purchasing power parities of domestic and foreign currencies.

Innovative regulation. In the most important areas of scientific and technological progress, state scientific and technical programs are being developed, financed from the state budget. In other innovative areas, the state avoids direct intervention, limiting itself only to indirect stimulation of increasing production efficiency through taxation of resources.

Managing regional proportions. In addition to the formation of indicators of interregional supplies of the most important types of products, the state carries out targeted interregional redistributions of national income, designed to ensure a gradual convergence of the levels of economic development of the regions and equalization of the living standards of the population. Such redistribution occurs through the budget system by normatively establishing for each subject of the federation the amount of revenue receipts in the consolidated budget, depending on the resource potential of a particular region. In addition, the amount of regional budget expenditures is calculated according to regulations. The difference between these values determines the balance of relations between federal and regional budgets.

The planning-contractual system presupposes a radical improvement in the methodology of planned management at the national economic level. In contrast to Soviet planning, it is necessary to fundamentally strengthen the holistic national economic approach to the formation of long-term indicators and proportions, and to fully take into account the objective unity of the reproduction process. The development of individual industries, industries, regions is considered as part of the overall strategic plan for the future development of the country's economy. At the same time, goal orientation is enhanced. The development of individual sectors of the economy is subject to the general goals of socio-economic development, the tasks of most fully satisfying the final needs of society.

The most important feature of the methodology of the planning-contractual management system is a more complete consideration of the needs of society and, above all, its final needs. The growth of production is considered not as an end in itself, but as a means of most fully satisfying production and non-production needs, in other words, as a means of solving specific socio-economic problems.

The tool for implementing these main directions for improving the methodology of planned management is the widespread use of modern economic and mathematical methods and models, including national economic intersectoral models. They reflect the process of social reproduction in the context of specific industries and allow us to take into account the interaction of industry and general economic factors, the dependence of the structure of production on the structure of the final needs of society, the influence of scientific and technological progress on the dynamics and structure of the economy.

The planned-contractual management system is not an invented social construction, but an objectively necessary result of the historical development of civilization. At the same time, political, economic and other prerequisites are required for its real formation. Political prerequisites primarily include the creation of a strong democratic state that protects the interests of the entire society, and not its individual layers. Some steps are now being taken in this regard, but they are encountering huge obstacles associated with the existing system of industrial relations. The main economic prerequisite is the formation of a powerful public sector. So far nothing has been done in this direction, although today there is already an urgent need to nationalize the so-called natural monopolies. This could be a good start to further socio-economic changes.

vasilievaa.narod.ru

Fundamental disadvantages of directive planning - p.7

Fundamental Disadvantages of Directive Planning

Let us try to give a theoretical explanation for such a low level of implementation of national economic plans. We believe that the main reason for the low efficiency of planned management and at the same time the main source of most of the shortcomings of our economy is the directive nature of centralized planning. It is the mandatory non-economic need to fulfill production tasks received by the enterprise from higher authorities that is directly responsible for the predominance of extensive development paths, the unsatisfactory pace of scientific and technological progress, the formation of ineffective economic structures and other negative economic and social phenomena.

A characteristic feature of directive centralized planning is (up to unimportant details) the interaction of three types of economic entities: the body that gives the task and controls its implementation, the enterprise (employee, industry, national economy as a whole) - performer and the enterprise (individual, collective) - consumer results. Since the body giving the task, in the overwhelming majority of cases, is not and cannot be a consumer of the product, it is forced to judge its quantity and quality by indirect signs. Indirect signs are inevitably the values of certain sets of indicators. The system of indicators in the directive form of planning necessarily turns into the central point of the entire mechanism of planning and operational management of the national economy. And from this point of view, a situation in which the approval of a system of mandatory economic standards (such as the share of profits allocated to the budget) is at the center of the planning mechanism is unnatural to be considered an element of directive planning (and we will not do this). The economic standard does not prescribe any specific program of production activity for enterprises; it can only (if chosen wisely) stimulate the production of certain products, the effective organization of work, etc.

Let us highlight the main directions in which an attempt to manage the development of a large economic system based on a set of indicators will inevitably transform the entire economic life. Of fundamental importance for understanding the collisions that arise in this case is the significant aggregation of indicators in which the economic center not only plans a certain course of development of production, but also, wanting to fulfill the plan, one way or another tries to control the process of its implementation. Let's try to estimate how many indicators are needed to adequately reflect the real national economic situation. According to the obviously incomplete classifier, approximately 25 million types of products are produced in our country. To each of the 25 million parameters characterizing the production quantity of a fixed product, it is necessary to add characteristics of its quality, places and times of production and consumption, the possibility of transportation and warehousing, the availability and distribution of inventories, etc. The result will be billions of parameters.

Obviously, the center cannot operate with such an information array. In order to carry out day-to-day management, the set of indicators must be visible, in other words, quite small. If we take into account that it is necessary to monitor not only the values of individual indicators, but also the combinations that arise, it would not be an understatement to estimate the information capabilities of the center at 10 thousand indicators. At the same time, it is clear that with such a huge variety of real situations and such a relatively insignificant number of parameters observed “at the top”, many different situations will be reflected in the same set of indicator values, i.e. will not differ “on horseback”. Intuition in this case does not deceive. Moreover, relying on some well-known mathematical theorems and making the most natural assumptions about the properties of the mapping of parameter vectors describing the situation “below” into vectors of indicators considered “above”, it can be proven that “gluing” different real states into one observation will inevitably be occur even if the “top” vector is only one shorter than the “bottom” vector. Consequently, the ambiguity of the display has nothing to do with a specific method of aggregating economic information, with a specific set of indicators, or with the method of processing their values. Since aggregation is necessary for the purposes of economic management, it is necessarily accompanied by this kind of ambiguity. With any system of indicators, any directive task issued by the upper level of management corresponds to huge areas of “indifference”, consisting of states indistinguishable “from above”. A specific state from a given area is selected solely in accordance with the economic interests of lower-level objects.

From these positions, in particular, there is no difference between cost or physical indicators, since when we talk about the production of millions of tons of steel in the national economy, we mean such a variety of its grades that the meter - “ton” inevitably turns into some kind of conditional unit. The physical content in this unit is no more than in rubles, which can also be used to measure a given volume of production. The mere existence of an area of “indifference” does not carry negative consequences, if there is an economic mechanism that promotes the choice of a rational concrete state within it. However, there is no such mechanism in the central planning scheme. The manufacturer is interested in the priority (“at any cost”) achievement of the planned values of indicators, and not in ensuring a rational (in one sense or another) output structure, which completely excludes the consumer as a production regulator at the lower level of management. The management body not only cannot, while remaining within the framework of the approved system of indicators, monitor the rationality of the structure of economic activity, but is also not interested in this, since it itself, as a rule, reports on the same indicators.

A kind of “indicative” economy emerges, in which everyone “works” for “their own” indicator. An important property of such an economy is its very weak controllability. Let us show, for example, that plans, even in the most aggregated indicators, must systematically and grossly not be fulfilled.

Suppose that in some conditional initial period the plans from the point of view of the “top” were carried out with reasonable accuracy by the majority of enterprises. (If such a period has never happened, the situation only gets worse.) During this period, each manufacturer reached some state that was most convenient for itself in its existing area of “indifference.” Let us also draw up some plan for the next period, fully balanced in aggregate indicators1. At the very beginning of this next period, economic entities will have to exchange their products. Since they exchange not aggregated indicators, but real products and services, the unobservable “from above” characteristics of which are determined by the interests of producers and weakly depend on the demands of consumers, then, due to inevitable imbalances, the initial conditions of the next period will be significantly less favorable than those assumed according to plan. This will not allow us to fulfill the next plan with acceptable accuracy, even in aggregated indicators.

The absence of effective self-regulators at the lower level and the directly related constant imbalance in the disaggregated nomenclature lead to another fundamental drawback of strict centralization of management - the weakening of the role of long-term strategic priorities in development. Since there are no ways in the economy to self-liquidate local imbalances, they regularly develop into problems of such a scale that require the direct intervention of the economic center. As a result, the latter begins to perform primarily dispatch functions and is engaged in “patching holes,” losing sight of solving promising issues.

In addition, due to the ambiguity of the indicators, the center has a rather poor idea of the specific situation corresponding to one or another of their values. In addition, the values of the collected indicators available in the center cannot be considered as reliable, since the lack of incentives to obtain intensive plans is also manifested in the low quality of information transmitted to the top. But if the governing body does not have a clear understanding of the real situation developing in the objects under its jurisdiction, then the only realistic planning strategy for it becomes planning from what has been achieved. “Top” puts into the plan of all objects some general (often actually observed) trend in the change of planned indicators, for example, the same growth rate or the same absolute increase. Lacking reliable information and bogged down in routine, the economic center cannot rise above departmental interests and justify the need for a drastic redistribution of resources and a decisive break in emerging trends. The activities of central bodies are dominated by traditional methods of solving traditional problems, which stand out not so much for their national economic significance as for their more complete compliance with the internal structure of the management system. The need to constantly increase the values of one’s indicators simultaneously limits the possibilities for long-term structural maneuver and predetermines the priority of current goals over long-term ones.

Thus, the general orientation towards increasing indicators is further strengthened, which objectively strengthens the basis for an extensive path of economic development. Everyone is interested in quantitative growth, but without fundamental changes in production - on the same technological basis without a fundamental change in the range and the use of resource saving.

Some socio-economic features

"demonstration" economy

In addition to the direct damage caused to economic development by prescriptive planning, the unrealistic claim to effective management economic processes, it also leads to negative consequences of the second order. One of them is the tendency to wash out from key positions people who are able and willing to do the work on the merits, and not bring indicators to a “decent” level. It is characteristic that the successful activities of many talented people and their outstanding achievements are associated with the creation of special conditions for them, the main one of which is liberation from the pressure of indicators. This is how fundamental advances were made in aircraft manufacturing in the 30s, in nuclear technology in the 40s - 50s, in rocket science in the 50s - 60s.

Naturally, the need to invent, design, implement either outside the existing economic mechanism (as in the cases listed above) or in spite of it (as in most others) cannot but slow down and does slow down scientific and technological progress. If some eccentric lone person can still invent in such conditions, then the indicator, managers and entire teams selected and trained by the indicator will stand in the way of implementation. It is no coincidence that so many devices, machines, and technologies invented by us come to us “in foreign packaging.” Fictitious successes in scientific and technical progress are not uncommon, since the indicator encourages “...introducing work for the sake of robots...”1.

Directive planning causes resources to be wasted and destroyed. As is known, the USSR produces almost twice as much steel and cement as the USA, with approximately the same capital construction2. Under the pressure of the indicator, minerals of the “foreign” ministry end up in dumps (and “our own” ones are not completely selected), associated gas burns in flares, gasoline is either poured into a ditch or sold “to the left,” etc.

The “demonstrative” economy makes distortion of information relatively easy: the manufacturer reports, essentially, not to the consumer, but to a “third party,” and not to the product, but to its pale shadow—the number. Distortion of information is often absolutely necessary. Without it, it is impossible to hire a typist in an institution or a loader in a store, pay any reasonable salary to a driver or builder, etc. Without underestimating the estimated cost, not a single construction project can be approved.

Distortion of information leads to the formation of incorrect ideas about the state of the economy and social sphere, which makes regulatory documents created on the basis of these ideas ineffective. Sometimes such documents lead to consequences that are the opposite of those expected.

The indicator, which inevitably arises in the context of directive targeted planning between the manufacturer and the consumer, turns into an irrational problem the assessment of the quality of anything: sausages and televisions, medical care and schooling, scientific works and design solutions. The “exemplary” economic mechanism often punishes rather than rewards high-quality work. Such work in all areas of human activity is associated with asceticism and even sacrifice.

All this negatively affects the moral climate in society.

One of the results of the general orientation towards the indicator is, of course, a faster growth of general macroeconomic cost indicators compared to the actual change in the economic situation in the country. The growth of national income and other cost aggregates, due to hidden increases in prices, additions, production of expensive but not in demand products and similar phenomena, begins to break away from the course of real economic processes and embellishes the actual state of affairs. In particular, analysis of the implementation of the national economic plan in terms of cost indicators consistently records a higher (compared to natural measures) degree of fulfillment of the corresponding tasks. However, the price of this kind of “planning”, as shown above, is too high. In addition, the growing strengthening of natural-cost imbalances in the national economy with this development option inevitably makes it increasingly impossible to achieve planned targets even based on cost indicators alone.

From the above analysis it follows that the rejection of directive planning does not mean, as is sometimes thought, a departure from centrally planned economic management. Quite the contrary, this is the only way to make centralized management effective. And in this regard, there is no alternative to a sharp expansion of economic management methods, the transition to which is not associated with any losses in the sphere of planned development of the national economy. The current system of directive planning copes with its tasks so poorly that the very process of its elimination during a radical reform can become a source of positive changes in the economy and can increase the real controllability of economic development.

At the June (1987) Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee, it was emphasized that the restructuring of the management system as one of the main elements includes: “...a radical restructuring of the centralized management of the economy, increasing its quality level, focusing on the main processes that determine the strategy, quality , the pace and proportions of development of the national economy as a whole, its balance, and at the same time the decisive liberation of the center from interference in the operational activities of lower economic units.”

To date, the details of the economic mechanism based on economic management methods have been theoretically quite well developed1. Today, economic science is faced with the task of working through the problem of consistent implementation of this mechanism into a specific management system of our national economy. In this case, special attention should be paid to the first steps of this process, when elements of the new and old systems will coexist and interact everywhere.

literature

1. Data on plans for the development of the national economy were received:

a) the first five-year plan:

CPSU in resolutions and decisions of congresses and conferences. T. 4. M., 1970.

Five-year plan for the national economic development of the USSR. M., 1929;

b) second five-year plan:

Second Five Year Plan. M., 1934;

c) fourth five-year plan:

Five-year plan for the restoration of the national economy of the USSR for 1946–1950. Simferopol, 1946.

Voznesensky N.A. Five-year plan for the restoration and development of the national economy of the USSR for 1946–1950. M., 1946;

d) 1934–1935

National economic plan for 1935. M., 1935.

The same for 1934. M., 1934;

e) ninth five-year plan:

State five-year plan for the development of the national economy of the USSR 1971–1975. M., 1972.

f) 1977 and 1982:

Anniversary statistical collection. National economy of the USSR (1917–1977).

Same. National economy of the USSR in 1922–1982.

g) sixth, eighth, tenth five-year plans:

Materials of the XX, XXIII, XXV Congresses of the CPSU.

2. Data on the actual development of the national economy were obtained:

a) National Economy of the USSR: Stat. directory. M., 1932.

b) The national economy of the USSR in numbers. M., 1940.

c) National economy of the USSR in 1956: Stat. collection. M., 1957.

d) National Economy of the USSR: Statistical Directory. For 1958, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975, 1977, 1985 and 1982.

P.A. Medvedev

I.V. Neath

Directive plan. L.N. Freinkman

Truth and myth about its effectiveness

Construction newspaper. 1989.

Among the dangerous dogmas that we have inherited from the recent past, a prominent place is occupied by an overestimation of the possibilities of “directive planning”, which does not allow alternatives in building a mechanism for centralized economic management. Is it possible to continue to “ignore” the lesson presented to us by the simplified concept of planned management? The country's development experience has shown that the possibility of national economic planning cannot be considered as an absolute benefit, regardless of the specific forms of its implementation. A plan made up of departmental “pieces” and unable to rise above departmental interests does not lead to the development of the national economic structure, but, on the contrary, to its conservation.

And at the same time in recent years developed capital countries, on the basis of many times criticized market regulators of production and indirect state regulation, managed to move much faster towards solving their economic problems. This is especially evident in such areas of the economy as the introduction of scientific and technological progress, resource conservation, and ecology.

Specialists from the Moscow State University named after M.V. share their thoughts on the nature of planning in a socialist economy today with SG readers. Lomonosov and the Institute of State Supply of the USSR.

Yes. The USSR became in the 30s. first in Europe, second in the world in terms of industrial production. But as for exceeding the targets of the first five-year plans (and they were formed in a directive manner), this is a political myth. For example, data on the level of implementation of the first five-year plan in terms of key economic indicators was largely falsified. The actual level of national income in 1932 was actually lower than officially announced and planned by no less than 14%. But the actual percentage of fulfillment of five-year plan targets would have been even lower if there had not been an unprecedented increase in wholesale prices. This noticeably embellished the true state of affairs. It was not possible to achieve the planned levels of production of a wide range of industrial products.

Of course, the transition to five-year planning was accompanied by an effective concentration of forces in some individual (at that time fundamentally important) areas. Output in newly created industries (for example, automobile and tractor manufacturing) grew at a rate that significantly exceeded the growth rate of any of the traditional products in the period 1922–1929. The production of a number of other new types of mechanical engineering, chemistry, and non-ferrous metallurgy also developed rapidly. However, such results were achieved largely due to a slowdown in growth in the positions of the main product range and a general decrease in the level of business efficiency.

With the transition to the five-year plan, the introduction of directive planning did not at all live up to the hopes placed on it. With its strengthening, the center began to prescribe to the enterprise not only what and how to produce, but also what kind of remuneration was due for fulfilling the instructions. The enterprise staff became a “cog”, completely helpless without the support of the administrative system. After all, all ways to earn a living without the permission of the authorities began to be ruthlessly suppressed.

The forced transition to directive planning resulted in the curtailment of small industry, a decrease in the material interest of workers, and a reduction in the real living standard of the population. The abandonment of economic management methods led to increased costs, unsatisfactory dynamics of labor productivity, and inflation. The “plan at any cost” principle immediately demonstrated its incompatibility with the mindset of quality growth.

We made this excursion into history only in order to draw a conclusion: directive planning has never made it possible to achieve the full-scale implementation of the goals proclaimed for the country. Moreover, it has always impeded rational management and was the main source of most of the shortcomings of our economy.

The fundamental feature of directive planning is that between the producer and the consumer there are always governing bodies that give the task and control its implementation using certain economic indicators. The system of indicators with this type of management inevitably turns into the central element of the entire mechanism of planning and operational management of the national economy.

In such conditions, the manufacturer is interested in achieving the planned indicators at any cost, rather than ensuring a rational structure of product output, which completely excludes the consumer as a production regulator at the lower level of management. The management body not only cannot control the structure of economic activity within the framework of the approved system of indicators, but is also not interested in this, since it usually reports on the same indicators.

It was the mandatory non-economic need to fulfill production targets received by the enterprise from higher authorities that led to the emergence of a “demonstrative” economy, in which everyone works for “their” indicator, for its false authority, without caring about a specific consumer.

The enterprise is ordered to produce so many tons of rolled products, so it produces so many. But no ministry will be able to monitor all specific sizes and brands of rental products. The company will release them based on its own interests, which only by chance may coincide with the requirements for rental by consumers. It is not difficult to prove that such an economy requires structural imbalance and costly production. This means a downward trend in growth rates.

Will the abandonment of directive planning of volumetric production indicators be a complete turn away from centralized planned management of the economy? This possibility frightens today those who hold the helm of centralized economic management. But the fears are in vain. This kind of turn is the only way to make centralized management effective.

An alternative to the existing methods of planned management can only be a management system that provides for the widespread use of indirect methods of financial and economic regulation. Its fundamental difference is that the economic behavior of an enterprise is regulated not by mandatory targets for the volume and structure of products, but by a system of economic standards. The latter do not prescribe any specific production program for the enterprise; they can only (if chosen wisely) stimulate the production of a particular product or the effective organization of work.

The formation and implementation of orders under such a system is the result of mutual economic interest of the planning center and the enterprise. At the same time, the center, relying on the resource potential of the entire national economy, has the opportunity to make its orders more profitable in comparison with the orders of other economic entities, thereby achieving their priority implementation and achieving its goals.

The real advantage of socialism is not at all in drawing up and approving more plans and balances than anyone else in the world. In fact, it manifests itself in the possibility of truly regulating economic development in the interests of the population. But for such regulation to become real, it is necessary to boldly abandon dogmas, use the entire range of macroeconomic management methods, and take into account foreign experience in this area.

However, the experience of using government orders this year indicates that we once again It was not possible to get away from the “food appropriation system” in management. This can be seen in the example of the draft plan for 1989. The stereotype of “indicative” planning turned out to be so tenacious that, despite the sincere desire for radical changes, practical solutions again focus on the traditional and, as experience has shown, dead-end path of cosmetic improvements in the economy.

In conditions of unrelenting and often increasing imbalance in the economy, voices are heard again: are we in too much of a hurry for enterprises to become independent? Proposals are again being made to strengthen the directive principle in our economic life. And some things are even done in practice.

Proponents of centralization have their own logic. Indeed, they argue, directive planning has significant shortcomings. But in extraordinary, crisis situations (and today the economic situation undoubtedly bears the imprint of a crisis), it has saved the country more than once. And therefore, by taking up this article, we want to once again emphasize that such argumentation is based on false premises and incomplete data on the actual achievement of goals planned in the past.

In fact, today's economic difficulties are not due to the fact that we have weakened government control over the behavior of enterprises too much, but to the fact that we are carrying out the reform inconsistently. The old directive relationships are collapsing, but nothing is replacing them. Today, not only is this whole sequence not being implemented, but also the whole sequence has not been thoroughly worked out theoretically practical steps, which will strengthen commodity-money relations and, on their basis, ensure the functionality of economic regulators of production - prices, taxes, loans.

One of the main contradictions of the current period of perestroika is that, despite the impossibility of fundamentally increasing the efficiency of current forms of planning, they cannot be abandoned immediately. With all its shortcomings, directive planning today ensures the maintenance and development of real economic ties in the economic system. Therefore, abandoning ineffective management methods is possible only in conditions where there are other reliable regulators of production activity: properly functioning tax and credit systems, pricing.

The country needs a stable monetary unit that is fully convertible in domestic circulation. Let us recall that in the first years of NEP our economy faced exactly the same problem. For this purpose, in 1922–1924. new money was released into circulation - “red rubles”, exchangeable for gold. Their emission was at first very gradual, since the chervonets were backed by the state's gold reserves and export revenues. Subsequently, the ruble exchange rate was supported by the rapid economic growth of the recovery period. This led to the fact that already at the beginning of 1924, chervonets accounted for 80% of the money supply in circulation.

However, in literal copying of the experience of the 20s. no need. Nowhere in the world today is there a direct exchange of national currencies for gold. Any payments made by businesses go through the bank without taking the form of cash. This makes it possible to reform monetary circulation without issuing new banknotes and coins. To do this, money that has reliable commodity coverage must be kept in banks in special accounts and not mixed with everyone else. Thus, non-cash turnover will be divided, and for the population living on cash, the monetary reform will go unnoticed, which will make it possible to do without the social and economic costs that are usual for such measures.

A specific method for implementing such a reform was proposed by two of the authors of this article together with Professor V. Belkin. It is as follows. First, the new payment procedure applies to enterprises that produce products for the population and for export. At the same time, they are transferred to the second cost accounting model. The money received from the sale of such goods is actually earned: the fact of their final sale confirms their social necessity. Such money is fully backed by goods, so the company can use it painlessly in accordance with any of its needs. Even if all this money is spent on salaries, the situation in the consumer market will not worsen.

The balance of money coming from the population with the mass of goods, the absence of formal restrictions on their use, and the general interest in their acquisition means that they are fully convertible within the country.

We will not go into all the details of a special topic - monetary reform in the country. Let us only emphasize that the financial recovery of the economy is today the highest priority goal for the further development of the reform, the main condition for general economic recovery, which will allow the reform in planning to be fully implemented.

Directive planning took shape and strengthened with the goal and in the conditions of a decisive curtailment of democracy in all aspects of public life, limiting the economic independence of enterprises and the creative activity of their employees. Today we are faced with exactly the opposite tasks. Directive planning is one of the most important obstacles to radical reform. It cannot be bypassed or destroyed overnight. But it can and should be consistently and competently dismantled.

3 For a neat substantiation of this thesis, see: .

1 We leave aside the extremely important and far from indisputable question of the possibility of building a system of local targets rationally coordinated with national economic interests.

2 Lenin V.I. Full collection op. T. 29. P. 187.

1 In order to at least to some extent assess the number of parameters characterizing the state of the national economy, we note that among them (as an insignificant subset) must contain information about the output of each of the 20õ106 products produced in our country.

1 If we take into account that for the normal functioning of the national economy it is extremely important at what time a given amount of the mentioned resource is produced or consumed and at what point in our country, then xi characterizes not only the type and size, but also the time and place of its production and consumption. In this case, the number of fractional data exceeds the number 20õ106 by at least several orders of magnitude.

2 In order to simplify the presentation, here and elsewhere we deliberately omit consideration of the limitations that determine the technological capabilities of enterprises. This does not in any way detract from the generality of our reasoning, since a situation where it is possible to produce only a single type of product of one type and size with all other parameters coinciding with each other is unrealistic. In addition, in this case it makes no sense to talk about management efficiency. In all other cases, the provisions and conclusions given below remain valid even when taking into account technological limitations.

1 These rules vary from department to department and are sometimes so confusing and contradictory that they actually give planners almost complete freedom to evaluate the results obtained.

1 Indicators whose values directly affect the value of S are called fund-forming. To simplify the notation, we assume that these are the first  generalized indicators (  k).

2 We leave aside here, generally speaking, the extremely important question of the relationship between those funds that are accrued and those that can be used.

1 Actually existing regulations allow for different interpretations and do not ensure the implementation of even this principle in practice. However, no one recognizes this situation as normal and everyone shares the point of view on the need to eliminate it.

1 In any case, for enterprises operating under experimental conditions.

1 In practice, the functions Y(x) and S(X) can be no more complex than a superposition of elementary functions.

1 In this context, its property is especially important that the mutual assessment of partners in the technological chain plays a very small role in it. More important is the assessment of the organ superstructure above the technological process.

2 Publications in the wider press show that this option for changing the economic life of the country has its supporters.

1 To be specific, we mean annual planning.

2 It is easy to see that the announced products should make up the lion's share of next year's program.

1 Statistical and substantive considerations prompt us to compare not the series of absolute values of facts and plans, but the series of their relative increases. On the one hand, relative statistical gains are more homogeneous, on the other hand, you can only manage gains over what has been achieved, and not what has been achieved itself.

1 This share, calculated by cost and number of items, is approximately the same.

1 It is not easy to compile a list of real business tasks. One of them is to not noticeably deviate from your usual state or behavior. You cannot deprive a city of electricity for a long time, fail to pay wages to the workers of a large enterprise on time or stop production at it for a long period of time, fail to complete a “piecemeal” task, or violate some important obligations arising from informal connections.

1 Quality can be influenced in a similar way.

1 This refers to the annual planning interval.

1 If a factory has two machines of the same type and each works on average an hour a day, both are considered to be in use.

1 The optimal option was approved, which was then adjusted to increase tasks. We will consider only these two options.

2 Strictly speaking, the levels of plan implementation given here correspond to a five-year plan, which would last 5 years and 3 months: since the business year in 1928 began on October 1, and in 1933 ended on December 31, the data on production increases achieved exactly in 5 years, it is very difficult to obtain. Obviously, an accurate calculation would worsen the result, although not much.

1 1971 was also a good year, when the plan for industry as a whole was fulfilled (the calculation was made for 39 types of products). However, this year the planned target was drawn up very late and was adjusted to the actual results.

Plan basic concepts and norms of civil law Plan worldview and its types

Submitting your good work to the knowledge base is easy. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

1. Directive planning

2. Indicative planning

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

Planning is the most important management function, which, like management, changes in the process of economic development. The centralized system of economic planning corresponds to an adequate system of national economic planning. The transition to a market management concept required a revision of all planning elements.

It should be borne in mind that the economic management system in our country has developed under the influence of a number of specific factors, which include the following: the monopoly of state-owned enterprises, due to the predominance of state ownership; a strict system for establishing economic ties between enterprises; restriction of production and economic independence of business entities; concentration of production, orientation of production specialization towards national economic efficiency; isolation of a single national economic complex. The existing economic system was fully consistent with the mechanism of national economic planning, which was characterized by the following principles: centralization of management of a single national economic complex in one center; dominance of planning over other management functions; strict state control over the production and economic activities of business entities; directiveness of planning decisions, etc.

The main objectives of national economic planning were the following: ensuring progressive proportions in the development of social production, sustainable balanced growth and rational placement of the national economic complex; orientation of all parts of the economy towards achieving high final economic results at the lowest cost; comprehensive development of progressive forms of organization of social production; accelerating the implementation of scientific and technological progress; improved use production assets, material and labor resources, increasing profits and profitability of business entities.

Ensuring the balanced development of a huge and complex economic organism, such as the country's economy, on the basis of a single plan is unthinkable without a centralized distribution of resources. Therefore, in practice, national economic planning was reduced to the distribution of limited resources by ministries and departments, territorial production complexes, construction projects, enterprises and associations. All major fund holders were drawn into the orbit of influence of the central planning body.

However, this approach not only did not lead to a balance between the tasks of the plans for industry, agriculture, construction and trade turnover with the real capabilities of the national economy, but also gave rise to a lot of contradictions, which ultimately led to a discrepancy between the interests of business entities and the goals and objectives of the plans. For this reason, the methodology of centralized national economic planning did not stand the test of time and required a revision of both the principles and the means and methods of practical implementation. Unfortunately, neither in the theoretical nor in the practical aspect has there been any work done to adapt planning to market economic conditions. Planning as a management tool was rejected, which made the economy unmanageable. The entire history of economic development shows that planning is a powerful management tool. In view of the fact that it is important to determine what and how the state should plan, and what should be planned by business entities themselves, it is necessary to consider what kind of planning happens, which is the goal of this work. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to bring and reveal the essence of classifications of planning in economics on various grounds.

1. Directive planning

indicative directive planning

Directive planning is the process of developing plans that have the force of legal law, and a set of measures to ensure their implementation. Directive plans are targeted in nature, mandatory for all performers, and officials are responsible for failure to fulfill planned targets.

The essence of directive planning is that work plans are communicated to business entities from a single planning center, prices are approved, suppliers are assigned and sales are regulated. The implementation of plans is strictly controlled. The objective basis of directive national planning is the functioning of only one owner in the national economy - the state. An important condition for the use of directive planning is the use of methods of coercion and encouragement for the implementation of plans.

In its most complete form, directive planning was used in the former USSR for the direct influence of the central government on all parts of the national economy, in order to achieve the goals set by the general directions of development. The plan prepared by the State Planning Committee was mainly production and technical - macroeconomic indicators were made up of natural indicators, which in turn flowed from production, technological and other plans and acted as their consequence. Accordingly, from the production plan, a product distribution plan was built, which served as the basis for establishing economic relations. Each supplier became attached to his consumer, knowing how much he had to supply him with his products, and vice versa, the consumer knew who supplied him with raw materials, semi-finished products, and components.

The plans were targeted and characterized by excessive detail. Due to these features, they were difficult to implement on a national scale and gradually exhausted themselves.

Three “evils” of the consequences of such planning on a national scale can be identified:

The low efficiency of the public sector in the economy and the encouragement of so-called unprofitable enterprises did not contribute to economic growth.

State guardianship gave rise to dependency and inertia of the population.

Excessive government intervention led to the undermining of the market itself, its natural (inherent in human nature) laws.

Despite the noted shortcomings, elements of directive planning can and should be used in certain conditions not only at the state level, but also in business. However, in each specific case, the scale, objects and areas of application of directive planning must have a scientific basis.

2. Indicative planning

Indicative planning is “a mechanism for coordinating the interests and activities of state and non-state economic management entities, combining its state regulation with market and non-market regulation, based on the development of a system of indicators (indicators) of socio-economic development and including the determination of its national priorities, goal setting, forecasting, budgeting, programming, contracting and other procedures for coordinating decisions at the macro-, meso-, and micro levels, tax and other measures of state support for business entities participating in the implementation of the plan (non-state carriers of economic management are understood as local government institutions, management bodies of corporations, financial and industrial groups and other economic units, self-regulatory organizations of market participants, etc.)"

In a market economy, indicative planning is a method for implementing the state’s socio-economic policy and a tool for influencing the processes of its functioning. Indicative planning is the main method of influencing the functioning of a market economy. It is designed to provide solutions to many issues of socio-economic development, the implementation of which is impossible or difficult only by market methods. This is a form of interaction between all parts of the system of federal government bodies, both among themselves and with regional bodies.

Indicative plans organically and interconnectedly combine the concepts of socio-economic development in a single document; forecasts for the functioning of the economy; government programs; economic regulators.

Indicative planning is a continuation and development of forecasting.

Being the most widespread form of state planning of macroeconomic development throughout the world, indicative planning is a set of processes for forming a system of parameters (indicators) characterizing the state and development of the country's economy, corresponding to state socio-economic policy, as well as the development of a system of measures of state influence on social and economic processes in order to achieve the established level of indicators.

The main function of the indicative plan is to coordinate the actions of equal economic entities. Information, orientation, and stimulation of business entities to fulfill plan tasks in one form or another forms the basis of directive planning.

The main content of indicative planning is to substantiate the goals, objectives, directions and methods of implementing state socio-economic policy and is an effective form of organizing the interaction of all parts of the system of federal government bodies, both among themselves and with regional government bodies. Indicative plans make it possible to organically combine in a single document the concepts of the state’s socio-economic policy, forecasts for the functioning of the economy, government programs, a system of economic regulators, supplies for government needs, the volume of government capital investments, etc.

The indicative plan contains a limited number of mandatory tasks; it is largely of a guiding, recommendatory nature and allows for the solution of many issues of socio-economic development, the implementation of which by purely market methods without government measures is difficult and sometimes impossible.

As indicators of socio-economic development, indicators characterizing the dynamics, structure and efficiency of the economy are used; the state of the financial and credit system and monetary circulation; the state of the commodity and securities market, the foreign exchange market; price movements; employment, living standards of the population, foreign economic relations, etc.

An interconnected and balanced system of indicators is complemented by measures of government influence, including the use of budget funds, depreciation rates, interest on loans, taxes, customs duties, licenses and quotas, government orders, etc.

The activities of enterprises also fit into the indicative planning system, because indicative plans are drawn up to help various business entities navigate when developing their own plans, based on the indicators of the state indicative plan. Indicative planning allows business entities to make independent decisions and act in the best possible way in their own and public interests. This entails one of the main tasks - the creation of organizational and economic conditions for the formation and free functioning of the market for goods, capital, labor in the country, as well as profitable external economic relations.

These include centralized financial and currency funds and loans, tax levers, a depreciation system, customs duties, licenses and quotas, volumes of product supplies for government needs, and determination of the operating conditions of state-owned enterprises.

Thus, the direct involvement of all economic entities in the planning process on the basis of equal interaction government agencies management and all economic entities distinguishes indicative planning from directive planning. Indicative planning is both a means of state regulation of the economy and a means of its self-regulation, correcting both defects of the market mechanism and the shortcomings of direct government intervention in reproductive processes.

In its development, indicative planning went through forms corresponding to various stages of state regulation of the economy. Historically, the first form of indicative planning is opportunistic, which involves increasing the influence of the budget on the rates and proportions of economic growth.

As discussed, the national economic forecast and budget form a single system consisting of forecast and budget indicators, and the implementation of the latter is mandatory. The procedure for developing budget forecast documents ensures their interconnectedness and adequacy to real economic processes; they constitute a macroplan in which budget indicators are of a directive nature, and the rest are of a forecast and informational nature. Thus, indicative and directive planning are not antipodes, and only their scientifically based combination can improve the efficiency of macroeconomic regulation.

3. Budget planning using the normative method

The normative method is one of the ways to justify and develop forecast and planning decisions. It is based on the development and use of a system of norms and standards. The main advantage of the normative method is that through it a connection is established between resources, as well as the final results of production, in the improvement of which society as a whole is interested.

The word “norm” comes from the Latin norma, which means “guiding principle, rule, pattern.” It is understood as a certain value indicating the maximum permissible or average permissible amount of something. In its most general form, a norm is a scientifically based measure of the socially necessary expenditure of a resource to produce a unit of production (performing work or providing a service) of a given quality under the conditions of the planned period.

Norm is a quantitative measure of the cost of living or embodied labor per unit of production, which ultimately reflects the level of development of production. The norm not only reflects this level of development of production, it actively influences it.

Standards are indicators that characterize the relative magnitude or degree of use of tools and objects of labor, their expenditure per unit of area, weight, volume, etc. (for example, material utilization rate, product removal from one square meter of production area, percentage of losses, material utilization rate, standards for metal cutting conditions, etc.). Economic standards reflect social requirements for the results of activities and characterize the required level of use of a resource (its specific consumption) for the final result or regulate relations in the course of distributing the results of activities.

The set of norms and standards used to develop forecasts and plans and evaluate their implementation is called the regulatory framework. Depending on the level of planned regulation (national economy, industry, region, enterprise), the composition and content of the regulatory framework changes.

The system of norms and standards is a set of scientifically based material, labor and financial norms and standards, the procedure and methods for their formation, updating and use in the development of forecasts and plans, as well as the organization of preparation and control of norms and standards at all levels of forecasting and planning work. The purpose of developing a system of norms and standards is to provide a scientific foundation for forecasts and plans, their proportionality and balance, in identifying and taking into account production reserves that contribute to increasing the efficiency of the functioning of an economic entity.

Norms and standards are formed into regulatory frameworks in sectors of the national economy, departments, associations and enterprises. They include specific values of standard indicators that establish the relationship between resource costs and production, performance of work and services, etc.

In the system of norms and standards, the most important subsystems are

Social norms and standards determine the size and structure of social expenditures, as well as procedures for their adjustment (indexation) depending on the rate of inflation and wage growth. They include the following basic norms and standards: standard of living; consumption of certain material goods and services by the population; provision of the population with housing, public utilities and transport services; level of development of healthcare, science, culture, education, trade and public catering, etc.

Financial and economic norms and standards - determine the size of: tax rates (income tax scale); value added tax rates; depreciation rates; norms of required reserves; norms and standards for deductions from profits; refinancing rates; norms of required reserves; loan reserve standards; excise taxes, etc.

Norms and standards for capital investments and the duration of the investment cycle - standards for specific capital investments, efficiency of capital investments; norms and standards for construction duration, construction progress, technological structure of capital investments, design duration, etc.

Norms and standards for the consumption of raw materials, materials, fuel and energy are the norms and standards for the consumption of material resources for main production, repair and maintenance needs, reserves of material resources, consumption of material resources for capital construction, etc.

Norms and standards of labor and wages - include: standard minimum size wages; wage standards in budgetary organizations; standards of time, production, number, service; use of labor resources, etc.

Norms and standards for environmental protection - include norms and standards for air protection, protection and rational use of flora and fauna, water resources, lands; reserves of natural resources, etc.

Benefit standards various categories population and organizations - include rules and regulations that affect their tax obligations, their needs for budget financing (benefits) or the prices of the goods they consume (cross-subsidies and price subsidies), etc.

Standards for providing military personnel and law enforcement officers - include rules and regulations for the provision of premises, ammunition, military equipment and weapons, etc., regulating the activities of the armed forces and law enforcement agencies.

Regulatory methods are the basis for ensuring appropriate international standards level of social development, achieving a balance of production and consumption, searching for reserves for the efficient use of resources, rational production management, scientific organization of labor, etc.

The use of normative methods of state regulation in planning and regulation generates less corruption and voluntarism than with administrative methods, but if used incompetently, they can paralyze economic life. For example, in the second half of the 90s, the use of the refinancing rate as a stabilizer of the ruble exchange rate led to an almost complete cessation of long-term lending to production and an outflow of capital from the real sector into the “pyramid” of public debt. The inflated yield of government bonds has become a factor not only in the uncompetitiveness of investments in the real sector (compared to speculative investments), but also in the rapid increase in government debt.

When preparing and practical use of a system of norms and standards, the following requirements must be taken into account:

Compliance with the methodological unity of the formation of norms and standards for each group at management levels and planning periods;

Ensuring progressiveness of norms and standards;

Validity of norms and standards - technical, economic and social;

systematic updating of norms and standards based on their reflection of changes in technology, improving product quality, improving the organization of production and labor, improving socio-economic conditions and developing market methods of management, etc.

In general, norms and standards are a tool for managing social relations in the process of reproduction. With this approach, the object of management, carried out using norms and regulations, is reproduction, which includes four phases: production, distribution, exchange, consumption. One of the promising tasks of economic reform is to ensure effective management of all phases of the reproduction process with the help of scientifically based norms and standards.

The basic principles on which the system of norms and standards should be used for the purposes of indicative planning:

The principle of progressiveness presupposes the need to take into account in the process of developing norms and standards the achievements of scientific and technological progress, measures to save and rationally use all types of resources, increase the efficiency of social production, etc.

The principle of decentralization presupposes the independence of business entities in determining specific volumes of resource expenditures, output of products, services based on norms and standards defining the distribution of net income, and other standards linking costs and results of economic activity. Business entities develop and implement forecasts and plans for their activities independently, without interference “from above.” At the same time, microplans, in relation to the macroplan, perform an information function. By receiving their plans from business entities, planning authorities expand their information and analytical capabilities, increasing the degree of validity of forecasts and plans at the macro level.

The principle of equilibrium assumes that the arbitrary establishment of standards does not allow for balanced and efficient development of the economy. The unreasonable establishment of strict standards forces economic entities to structure their behavior accordingly - under a strong state, entities, submitting to pressure “from above”, respond with passive behavior, i.e. reduce entrepreneurial activity, export capital abroad, etc. As a result, the country, for no apparent reason, lags behind in competition with other countries in terms of production efficiency. With a weak state, business entities “go into the shadows” - do not pay taxes, non-payments and other forms of failure to fulfill contractual obligations flourish.

Thus, in each specific case it is necessary to establish certain equilibrium values of standards, deviations from which worsen the value of the “target function” of state regulation. For example, when tax rates increase above the equilibrium state, the state loses tax revenues; an increase in refinancing rates scares away investors who do not believe in the state’s ability to service its high-interest debts. It should be known that there are no methods for accurately establishing the values of economic standards, but there are some rational limits within which they should be. For example, there is a “Laffer threshold” for the full income tax rate (30-40%), exceeding which leads to a decrease in tax revenues, etc.

The principle of systematicity assumes that the equilibrium values of some standards depend on the values of others. In accordance with this principle, there are many equilibrium trajectories of economic development that correspond to different systems of norms and standards. At the same time, their selection and justification is a difficult task, because The improvement of some norms and standards is often associated with the deterioration of others. For example, an increase in the rate of economic growth can be achieved by increasing public debt, etc.

The choice and justification of a system of norms and standards should be based on the coordination of the interests of state, economic and other entities. This coordination should be based on the principle of maintaining parity “top-down” and “bottom-up”. This principle of coordination of interests excludes spontaneous (lobbying) character and excludes arbitrariness and corruption in their establishment.

The principle of conditionality. In accordance with this principle, norms and regulations can be divided into unconditional and conditional. Unconditional are norms and standards that are valid for all cases and subjects of a given group, and are formally reflected in legislation. Conditional - these are norms and standards determined by the preliminary fulfillment by business entities of a number of criteria requirements. For example, when new jobs are created, the income tax rate is reduced, etc.

A system of norms and standards is not a once-for-all created and frozen formation. The development of the economic mechanism determines it constant development, i.e. expansion of the composition of norms and standards, improvement of standardization methods.

Thus, the normative method of developing plans combines well with indicative planning, and also acts as a basic tool for fiscal macroplanning, intra-company planning and expands the possibilities of coordinating the actions of government bodies and business entities.

Conclusion

One of the main achievements of human civilization is the systematic development of society. It is planning that makes it possible to clearly organize, comprehensively justify and coordinate the activities of all parts of the economic system of society to achieve the set goal. Planning can be considered as a specific form of social practice of people and as a function of management. It is an effective tool for implementing the economic and social policies of the state. In the former socialist countries, planning - centralized directive - was the main form of economic management.

The socialist system has become history; the science of socialist planning has not stood the test of time. However, the importance of planning in the socio-economic development of countries, aimed at achieving and maintaining high rates of economic growth in order to ensure a high standard of living for the population, is constantly and naturally increasing. In the middle of the 20th century, a system of directive planning in the USSR and a system of indicative planning in developed Western countries were simultaneously formed. It should be noted that initially planning in the West, especially in a number of countries restoring the post-war economy, contained directive elements. At the same time, we can say that, starting from the 1960s, the Soviet economic system “gently” evolved towards indicative planning (Kosygin’s reforms, Gorbachev’s perestroika). With directive centralized planning, the Center performs only the final planning functions: collating and aggregating indicators, drawing up general balance sheets, approving the plan and communicating directive indicators to responsible executors.

Directive planning does not deny the thousand-year experience of individual planning of independent producers of products and services. In the theory and practice of socialist planning, a procedure was developed for coordinating individual plans “from below” with social needs and resources determined “from above”. In practice, not everything worked out as expected in theory. But we can say with all certainty that the Center was not able to ignore planning from below.

Indicative planning is the main working tool for achieving the goals set in the strategic development plan, taking into account the specific economic situation. The indicative forecast plan fills the strategic plan and acts as a practical tool in the development of the economy in the short and medium term. The indicative plan includes a conceptual plan (the concept of socio-economic development); forecast (forecast of socio-economic development); planning and regulatory part (system of economic regulators and state targeted comprehensive programs).

Indicative planning in a regulated market economy is carried out by the state in order to form ideas about the future development and structure of the national economy by solving such problems.

List of sources and literature used

1. G.P. Kapkanshchikov, S.G. Kapkanshchikov. State regulation of the economy. Textbook, Ulyanovsk, 2010.

2. I.N. Myslyaeva. The role of the state in an open economy // Problem analysis and public management design, issue 2, 2010.

3. Indicative planning system. St. Petersburg, 2002/www.refstar.ru.

4. Planned and indicative development/ http://institutiones.com/general/91-2008-06-12-13-11-42.html.

5. N.I. Morozova. Indicative planning: theoretical and practical experience of developed countries / www.uecs.ru/marketinq/item/402-2011-04-25-08-47-52.

6. B.I. Klimenko. Inter-sectoral balances of capitalist countries. M.: Nauka, 2011.

7. Problems of using macroeconomic models in planning. Materials of the Soviet-French symposium. M.: Progress, 2010.

8. Reader on the development of PPP. Financial Academy under the Government of the Russian Federation, M., 2010/ http://partner-fin.ru/u/Hrestomatig_NKO.

9. A.G. Seldner. Partnerships between the state, business and society in a mixed economy. M., LLC "Economic Sciences", 2010.

10. V. Khlynov. National planning of a market economy // World Economy and International Relations, 2010, No. 8.

11. B.N. Kuzyk, V.I. Kushlin, Yu.V. Yakovets. Forecasting, strategic planning and national programming. Textbook, second edition. M., Economics, 2012.

12. I.L. Timonina. Long-term economic strategy / Russian Journal, 2011, No. 2.

13. O.V. Malyarov. Modernization and reform of the economy. Correction of the economic course // Strategy of Russia, No. 5, 2010.

14. O.V. Malyarov. The role of the state in the transition economy // Economic science of modern Russia, No. 2, 2010.

15. V. Mikheev. Evolution of the socio-economic model / Society and Economics, No. 3-4, 2011.

16. A.N. Petrov et al. Indicative planning: theory and ways of improvement. Society "Knowledge", St. Petersburg, 2010.

Posted on Allbest.ru

...

Historical basis for the formation of directive planning

The economy of the newly formed Soviet Union after the overthrow of the monarchy, the First World War, civil war was experiencing a recession. The first priority was to solve the problem of electricity. With the participation of a large number of scientists, qualified personnel, and engineers, the first famous long-term plan was developed, which had no analogues in the world at that time, and was called the “GOERLO Plan.” The objectives of the plan were not only to develop the energy sector, but also to build production facilities and develop productive forces that would fully support this industry.

In 1923, Gosplan (USSR State Planning Commission) was formed. The apparatus was engaged in the development of plans (first one-year, then five-year), studying the national economy, identifying problems and prospects.

Since 1925, annual plans for the development of the national economy - “Control Figures” - began to be formed. Moreover, these figures were prescriptive, that is, they were mandatory for implementation in various sectors of economic activity.

In 1928, an initial five-year plan was created (in total, 13 were created, and 12 were implemented due to the collapse of the USSR).

Note 2

The system was built as follows: the People's Commissariat sent a document in which specific and clear tasks, activities, and “control figures” were developed. Execution is controlled and strictly mandatory. When the responsible executors received the document directly, local commissions of the executive committee were appointed.

Soviet propaganda played a large role in the execution of plans. Propaganda was aimed at industrialization, implementation of plans, national spirit, unity of the people, support for communist ideas.

Directive planning received subsequent development in the preparation of five-year plans - “five-year plans”. In the second plan, the numbers were set taking into account “realism”. From the third plan, the criteria for achieving indicators moved from quantitative to qualitative, and the main item, of course, became the country’s defense sector. The effectiveness of the five-year plans continued until the tenth plan (1976-1980).

Planning principles

This type of planning is based on commitment, centralization, a strong role of the state in all sectors and is often supported by the communist system, socialism at the state level.

Main features:

mandatory performance;
strict control;
responsibility for the execution of key indicators for the period;
carried out centrally (“top-down”);
state ownership of enterprises;
private property is completely denied;
the principles and ideas of a market economy are denied;
regulator - command methods;
is based on increased labor productivity, which manifests itself due to the need to fulfill plans;
preference is given to the development of promising sectors of the national economy;
drawing up control “directive” figures;
The role of the state in the economy and other areas of activity is key.

As well as other works that may interest you
45474.		INFORMATION STORAGE	1.07 MB
	The current driving direction for this operation is the data warehouse database concept. A database can be defined as a collection of interrelated data shared by multiple users and stored with controlled redundancy. A data bank is a system that provides certain services for storing and retrieving data for a certain group of users on a certain topic. Database system is a set of database application software control system...
45475.		PRESENTATION AND USE OF INFORMATION	52.5 KB
	An important feature that must be taken into account when developing and implementing information technologies is a person’s attitude towards information. The main task of the operation of presenting information to the user is to create an effective interface in the human-computer system. In this case, the information is converted into a form that is convenient for the user to understand.
45476.		Basic information technologies MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES	30 KB
	The achieved technological basis is based on the use of the new optical media standard DVD Digitl Verslite Video Disk The use of DVD has made it possible to implement the concept of digital information homogeneity. To solve this problem, audio information compression methods are used. Such significant volumes in the implementation of audio and video sequences determine high requirements for the video memory storage medium and information transfer speed.
45477.		GEOINFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES	27 KB
	Thus, geographic information technologies are intended for the widespread introduction into practice of methods and tools for working with spatiotemporal data presented in the form of a system of electronic maps and subject-oriented environments for processing heterogeneous information for various categories of users. The main areas of GIS use: electronic maps; urban economy; state land cadastre; ecology; remote sensing; economy; special systems for military purposes.
45478.		Information security technology	430.5 KB
	The following main groups of causes of failures and failures in the operation of computer systems are distinguished: violations of the physical and logical integrity of data structures stored in RAM and external memory arising due to aging or premature wear of their media; disturbances arising in the operation of hardware due to their aging or premature wear; violations of the physical and logical integrity of data structures stored in RAM and external memory arising due to incorrect use of computer...
45479.		CASE TECHNOLOGIES	53.5 KB
	The object-oriented approach is based on object decomposition with a description of the behavior of the system in terms of the interaction of objects. For these reasons, the object-oriented approach is currently most widespread. By CSE technology we mean a set of software tools that support the processes of creating and maintaining software, including analysis and formulation of requirements, design, code generation, testing, documentation, quality assurance, configuration management and management...
45480.		TELECOMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY	139.5 KB
	The peculiarity of this class of systems is the decentralization of the architecture of autonomous computing systems and their integration into global computer networks.13 A typical client-server architecture is presented; however, several models are distinguished that differ in the distribution of software components between network computers. Based on the distribution of the listed components between the workstation and the network server, the following client-server architecture models are distinguished: remote data access model; management server model...
45481.		Aspects of informatization of education	43 KB
	Computer programs and training systems, which are: computer textbooks intended for the formation of new knowledge and skills; diagnostic or test systems designed for diagnosing, assessing and testing knowledge of abilities and skills; simulators and simulation programs representing one or another aspect of reality, reflecting its main structural and functional characteristics and intended for the formation of practical skills; laboratory complexes based on...
45482.		IT COMPATED DESIGN	132 KB
	The most complete capabilities of a CAD product at the level of a universal graphics package can be seen in the example of utoCD 2000, a new version of the most popular drawing package in Russia.; the presence of modeling tools that allow you to edit solid objects at the level of edges and faces; the ability to access object properties; the ability to select grouping and filtering of objects by types and properties; availability of technology for creating and editing blocks; the ability to insert hyperlinks into a drawing; switching on...