Kosygin’s Reform in the Context of Reforms and Revolutions of the 19th – 21st Centuries

Abstract

The sixtieth anniversary of the Kosygin reform that was carried out from 1965 to 1972 has been the occasion for theoretical accounts of the characteristic patterns of Russian socio-economic reforms and revolutions from the nineteenth to the twenty-first century and also for comparisons with the way other countries have managed catch-up development and how their traditional and innovative institutions have interacted. The Kosygin reform attempted to improve the Soviet planned economy by introducing elements of market competition into it. Sociologist Charles Tilly’s definition of revolution as a socio-political event that changes the “rules of the game” provides a guide for distinguishing such events along а continuum that ranges from ordinary reforms to major revolutions. The many instances of both circumstances in Russia during the last two hundred years is a manifestation of the typical groping ahead by institutions in countries undergoing catch-up development. The political elites of these countries have tried to replace revolutions with intensive and radical reforms (“revolutions from above”) in order to “catch up and overtake” while avoiding “great upheavals.” Although radical reforms may have certain shortcomings that are integral to them, such as fostering a dichotomy between a weak populace and a strong state, they may still have revolutionary outcomes and provide solutions for the problems of national modernization. The first shortcoming of the Kosygin reform from this point of view is that it was not (or could not be) clearly perceived even by its advocates as a far-reaching way to modify the Soviet Union’s model of national development from a totally planned economy dominated by institutions that had consolidated power and ownership to a mixed economy with substantial private property. The second and even more important shortcoming was a reluctance to garner social support from potential entrepreneurs. Inattention to this social dimension of reform meant that the implementation of any new ideas was relinquished to the existing state apparatus, whose interests contrasted sharply with them. In the absence of “pressure from below,” reform could have only limited results that did not materially change the course of development.