The role of degradation of economics in the collapse of perestroika
Restructuring has found that the vast majority of Soviet economists say nothing meaningful. As rightly pointed out, Igor Birman, unlike literary economists almost never found in the tables of unpublished works that spoke about their failure as a scientific community. Tuning the economics literature is notable for its critical thrust. When required to justify the conceptual changes in the economic system, revealed the futility of the Soviet economic science, because scientific results requires many years of thinking.
Most loudly declared itself a group of economists, market orientation and strong in criticizing the state of the economy and the weaknesses of the old economic mechanism, but is generally not capable (due to ignorance) to take into account the historical features of Russian economic development and the specific institutional character of the Soviet economy of society, as well as real mechanism for the functioning of a modern market economy. Continuous failures along the way in 1988-1991 he. interpreted not as a fallacy, but as a result of inconsistency in his conduct.
The Soviet political leadership at the final stage of restructuring (1989-1991 gg.) Focussed exclusively on this group of economists. In this case, it was mostly about the status economist and academics, among which only V. Yaremenko had real scientific advances. Really valuable and genuine economic work during this period were published nizkostatutnymi economists, the voice which gosudarctvenno-party bureaucracy, accustomed to rely on scientific nomenclature, do not listen.
Amazingly, the last thing to develop economic market reforms brought scientists institutes studying the world economy had a real idea of the modern market economy. And completely ignored by the opponents of market reforms, which by the end of the restructuring provided the most profound scientific work, astutely predicting adverse economic consequences of forced transition to a market economy and provide alternative economic programs. Have not received the public recognition of the proposal on the evolutionary path of transition with a two-tier economy, again belonging malostatusnym economists (SL Komlev and others).
Thus, at a critical period for the Soviet Union’s economic and political development of the Soviet people had to pay for many years and the degradation of economic science and its flawed organization. No wonder that, finally realizing the weakness of their own economic science (and not being able to assess the surviving elements of its strengths), the Soviet leadership at the end of the restructuring are increasingly beginning to focus on the recommendations of international economic organizations and the expertise of the Western scientific community, poorly understood features of Russian and Soviet economy (Sovietologists to the drafting of these recommendations were not involved).