Command centralized economy. Economic system. Types of economic systems Centralized economy as a type of economic system

Managed centrally by state bodies, on the basis of directive plans and programs, direct subordination of lower bodies to higher ones, with state ownership.

Economics and law: dictionary-reference book. - M.: University and school. L. P. Kurakov, V. L. Kurakov, A. L. Kurakov. 2004 .

See what "CENTRALIZED ECONOMY" is in other dictionaries:

An economy managed in a centralized manner by government bodies on the basis of directive plans and programs, direct subordination of lower bodies to higher ones, and state ownership of the means of production. Raizberg B.A.,... ... Economic dictionary

centralized economy- an economy managed in a centralized manner by government bodies on the basis of directive plans and programs, direct subordination of lower bodies to higher ones, state ownership of the means of production... Dictionary of economic terms

- (free market economy) An economy in which the vast majority of economic activity is organized on the basis of free market relations, meaning that the parties independently, without any instructions from the center, choose how much to buy... ... Economic dictionary

A form of economic organization in which material resources are publicly owned and distributed by the government. The government obliges individuals and businesses to act in accordance with centralized... ... Financial Dictionary

Economic history. Before the arrival of Europeans, Australia's economy was based on hunting and gathering. This was done by the aborigines, whose numbers are estimated differently from 300 thousand to 1.2 million people. The first English convicts... ... Collier's Encyclopedia

market economy- - market economy A market capitalist economy is the direct opposite of the socialist system of centralized planning and economic management.... ... Technical Translator's Guide

Potentially, Angola is one of the richest countries in Africa with vast territories occupied by fertile lands, rich hydropower resources, oil reserves, diamonds and other minerals. However, as a result of the civil war... ... Collier's Encyclopedia

Market economy- (market economy) – Market capitalist economy is the direct opposite of the socialist system of centralized planning and economic management. Let's make a reservation that this is only in theory. In fact, as a centralized... ... Economic-mathematical dictionary

- (English: Economic system) the totality of all economic processes occurring in society on the basis of the property relations and economic mechanism that have developed in it. In any economic system, the primary role is played by... ... Wikipedia

- (Marx) Karl, full name Karl Heinrich (1818 1883) German. philosopher, sociologist and economist, one of the most profound critics of capitalism and founders of modern socialism. M.’s creativity had a serious impact on social thought and social... Philosophical Encyclopedia

A planned economy is a system of government in which there is a centralized distribution of all material resources owned by the state. The state acts as a regulator of prices, investments, and economic development. Natural and productive resources cannot be privately owned.

A planned economy has a hierarchical structure. Authorities act as the central link of management and control.

Planned economic development, according to the size of the state’s participation in it, is divided into two types:

1. Team.
2. Democratic.

The command model of economic development implies strict government control over all economic resources. Prohibition of private ownership of production facilities. Mandatory implementation of centralized plans is implied. Direct managers of production facilities do not have the right to make strategic decisions on the development of enterprises. Consumers have no product choice. This contributes to a constant shortage of certain products or services. This kind of government structure existed in the USSR until 1991.

In a democratic planned economy, the basis is state ownership, but private ownership of material goods is possible. Central planning concerns only government organizations. Examples of this type of economic development are Germany and France.

Planned and market economies are two links in the same chain of development of the macroeconomic process. They should not be considered separately; they must complement and support each other for the effective economic development of the state.

Disadvantages of a planned economy

• Lack of competition. This causes stagnation in production and a slowdown in economic growth.
• Lack of local governance. The presence of a rigid centralized system. This does not allow us to quickly solve problems on the ground.
• Low system mobility, which does not allow you to quickly respond to changing needs for a particular product. The impossibility of the participation of the head of the enterprise in planning, development, and the range of products. In this regard, there are no in-demand goods on the market, while there is an excessive supply of other goods.
• Due to the low market assortment, the population accumulates significant funds in their hands. The ability to spend only half of your income, whereas in a market economy this figure reaches 90%.
• Concentration of power in the hands of a few people, which leads to authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
• Imperfect labor relations. Due to the level of wages, there is no motivation for high production rates. Lack of freedom of creativity and entrepreneurial activity. There is no incentive to introduce new technologies.
• Planning focuses on artificial growth of the economy, and not on increasing its efficiency. Rigid pricing system. In connection with this, mismanagement and irrational use of resources are growing.

The negative aspects of the command-administrative system lead to a slowdown in the rate of economic development, stagnation of production, and a political crisis. Social production becomes ineffective, unable to respond to changes in external needs. Although, an economy based on a plan, taking into account sectoral and territorial characteristics, with a combination of centralized management and economic independence, ensures economic unity, rational location of production, and efficient use of material and labor resources.

economic system, traditional economics, centralized economy, market economy, mixed economy

So, as we have already found out, humanity constantly has to bring its limitless desires and limited capabilities into line.

Moreover, if in a subsistence economy people can live independently of each other, then with the division of labor and specialization an exchange of products is necessary. No one would specialize in, say, making suits or writing books if he did not hope to exchange his suits and books for food, clothing and other goods and services that satisfy his needs. The more developed the division of labor, the greater the dependence between producers and the greater the need to coordinate their activities. Such coordination must be carried out by the economic system - a certain way of organizing economic life.

What issues does the economic system solve?

Every economic system must address the following issues:

1. WHAT TO PRODUCE? What needs are considered the most important and how to distribute rare resources between the production of various goods and services?
2. HOW TO PRODUCE? Having solved the first question, you should choose a production technology - determine in what combination the factors of production will be used. If technology in a given society is not sufficiently developed, technologies are selected that require a relatively large contribution of labor (labor intensity) and a small capital contribution (capital intensity). In the course of technological progress, the labor intensity of production decreases, and capital intensity, as a rule, increases. An economic system must choose a production method that allows it to obtain the greatest possible return from available resources.
3. FOR WHOM TO PRODUCE? Let us assume that the economic system has identified the necessary products, allocated production resources, selected the best technologies, and produced finished products. How to distribute them? In what proportion should I exchange?

One way or another, all these issues must be resolved. However, different economic systems solve them differently. The main types of economic systems include traditional, centralized (command) And market economy.

Traditional economics

For most of human history, questions of WHAT, HOW and FOR WHOM to produce were decided in accordance with traditions and customs (“the way they used to be”). Currently, such an economic system has been preserved in its pure form among some tribes of Central Africa, South and Southeast Asia, and the Amazon Valley.

In a traditional economy, customs fix not only the set of goods produced, but also the distribution of activities. In India, for example, people were divided into castes of priests, warriors, artisans and servants. No one could choose a profession according to their wishes; a person necessarily inherited his father’s craft. Thus, the distribution of the most important resources at that time - labor - was dictated by unbreakable centuries-old traditions.

The same can be said about the choice of goods and technologies produced. The same products were produced from generation to generation, and the production methods remained the same as they were hundreds of years ago. On the one hand, this allowed hereditary artisans to achieve the highest level of skill, on the other hand, nothing new was invented or produced. Technical progress and increased production efficiency were impossible because each artisan copied the work techniques of his teachers. It was strictly forbidden to make any improvements; every little detail in the production process was enshrined in special rules, which means that labor productivity remained at the same level for centuries.

Issues of distribution and exchange of products (FOR WHOM to produce?) in the traditional economy were also resolved according to customs. It was determined what part of the harvest should be given to the feudal lord, the king, and the church. Otherwise, agriculture, in which the vast majority of people worked in the traditional economy, as a rule, remained subsistence, which means that there were no problems with the distribution of the product - it was consumed by the producers themselves. As for artisans, they most often produced their products to order and knew their buyer in advance. A small part of the products reached the market, but even there the time-honored rules of trade applied, and prices changed infrequently.

In general, the traditional economy has some attractive features - it ensures the stability of society and its complete predictability, good quality and sometimes even high quality of goods produced, the variety of which, however, is very limited.

On the other hand, the traditional economy is defenseless against any external changes, such as climate change or external attack. Old traditions do not correspond to new conditions, and the formation of new ones takes centuries. A striking example: the traditional pastoralism of the inhabitants of North Africa led to the disappearance of vegetation and the formation of the Sahara Desert. Apparently, with a more flexible economic system, this process could, if not be completely prevented, then at least significantly slowed down.

And, of course, a huge drawback of the traditional economy is its inability to self-improvement and progress. The population in such an economy should satisfy only the minimum of constant basic needs and not strive for more.

Centralized (command) economy

In this economic system, decisions about WHAT, HOW and FOR WHOM to produce are made from a single center, which is usually the head of state. A command economy existed in a relatively pure form, for example, in the state of the ancient Incas. Many centuries later, a similar economic system developed in the Soviet Union and other countries that, under the influence of the USSR, followed the “socialist path.” Currently, command economies can only be found in Cuba and North Korea.

In a centralized economy, all material resources and products of production usually belong to the state. As for the workers, they are subordinate to a government official, who is subordinate to a more important official, and so on along the administrative ladder up to the supreme ruler, no matter what he is called: pharaoh, emperor or general secretary of the ruling party.

Coordination of economic activity in a centralized economy occurs through plans, which is why such an economy is also called a planned economy. The planning process goes something like this. At the very top of the government pyramid, it is determined how much of a given product, say cars, should be produced throughout the country in a year. Then a special planning body (in the USSR it was the State Planning Committee) calculates how much steel, plastics, rubber and other resources will be needed to produce all the planned cars. The next stage is calculating the needs for electricity, coal, oil and other raw materials for the production of these resources.

This procedure is repeated with each type of product. Then it is calculated how much, say, steel must be produced to produce all products, and this figure is reported to the Ministry of Ferrous Metallurgy. The same thing happens with all other resources. Then the planning process descends from the State Planning Committee to the line ministries. Suppose the Ministry of Ferrous Metallurgy receives a task to produce a certain amount of cast iron, steel, and rolled products of various types per year. The ministry, in turn, sets out production targets for all factories subordinate to it, indicating how much of which product each factory should supply in each quarter of the next year. The plant director distributes his plan among workshops, the workshop among sections, and so on, right down to the steel worker himself.

The advantage of a planned economy is the ability to quickly concentrate all of society’s resources on the “direction of the main attack.” This is very important during wars, major natural disasters, and also allows you to move forward in your chosen field.

That is why, for example, the Soviet Union managed to quickly implement a space exploration program. However, at the same time, other sectors of the economy always fall into disrepair (in the USSR - light industry and agriculture), from where funds are taken for the development of the main sectors.

The complex mechanism of a centralized economy requires a huge number of managers, planning, calculating and checking officials to operate. In order to encourage subordinates to carry out plans and orders, the boss must have real power over them, secured by the power of the entire state. All this is very expensive. But the main difficulty of centralized production planning is determining how many units of each product society needs. In the modern economy, the number of types of products produced is measured in hundreds of thousands. Even the most powerful supercomputer will not be able to calculate the required volume of their production - after all, for this you need to know the tastes and needs of many millions of people. Therefore, in real life, the calculation of the plan under such an economic system occurs like this: all industrial and agricultural enterprises existing in the country report to the top how much they could produce next year (for this, a little more is added to last year’s production volume, say 2%). These figures are summed up and, with minor amendments, a plan is drawn up, which is then returned to the same enterprises. It is clear that the accuracy and validity of such a plan leaves much to be desired.

Production technology is also determined by the state, because in a centralized system it owns all buildings, structures, machines, resources, etc. Since the official managing the economy is not personally interested in the results of its work, he is unlikely to make great efforts to ensure that the method of production is the most effective.

All products produced in a centralized economic system become the property of the state and are redistributed by it in accordance with the plan. The approximate nature of the plans can create considerable difficulties during distribution for both enterprises and ordinary consumers. In a centralized economy, even in the most prosperous period, there is always a shortage of some goods and an excess of others. In an effort to improve matters, the state changes plans, but since it is unclear by what exact amount adjustments need to be made, then where there was a deficit, a surplus arises, and vice versa.

Another important disadvantage of a centralized economy is the lack of sufficient incentives to produce. The fact is that the producer’s income in this economic system does not directly depend on how much and what kind of products he produced. The amount of income received is primarily determined by the place a person occupies in the management pyramid: the least goes to an ordinary employee, the most goes to the main boss. Under these conditions, people can be encouraged to work with greater productivity only through non-economic means: either by threatening punishment, or by instilling enthusiasm, for example, based on faith in a bright future. Both of these methods were used in the Soviet Union.

The strengths of a centralized economy are felt when it is small in size, when the center has the opportunity to directly control everything that happens in the economy. Strictly speaking, any firm is a small centralized economic system. If the farm becomes too large, obtaining accurate information and control becomes more difficult, the need for a large bureaucratic management apparatus arises, and the disadvantages of central planning begin to outweigh the advantages.

Market system

In a market economic system, people operate who are free from the power of tradition and are not subordinate to a single center. Each of them decides for himself what to produce, how and in what quantities, based on one single goal - personal interest, increasing their own wealth and well-being.

In conditions of division of labor and personal freedom, producers are connected with each other through the exchange of products - goods. Only by exchanging his goods can the manufacturer receive everything he needs to satisfy his needs. The interdependence of people in a market economy is very great. But unlike a craftsman working to order, a manufacturer in a market economy often produces his goods for a buyer unknown to him in advance. Unlike a centralized one, a market economy does not guarantee everyone that they will always be able to exchange their product for others. The downside of freedom of choice is risk and complete personal responsibility.

So, the exchange of goods plays a key role in a market economy. But exchanging goods for goods is not so easy. This requires the consent of both product owners. It is quite likely that, say, a shoemaker is ready to exchange boots for pies, but the pie maker would like to receive something else for his goods. In order to satisfy everyone, a long chain of exchanges would have to be started.

The only way out is to agree that any one product will be accepted by all sellers without exception. This product is called money. Without money, a market economy cannot operate successfully.

Sale of a commodity is its exchange for money, and purchase- exchange of money for goods.

An economic system that unites free people connected by buying and selling relationships is called market. The word “market” in all languages ​​originally meant the place where people trade. Such markets began to emerge from time immemorial, because even in those times when subsistence farming dominated, some goods: salt, iron, spices, jewelry were brought from other places and sold in markets by merchants. However, in those days, the lives of most residents were not constantly connected with the market.

At the end of the 18th - mid-19th centuries. In Western European countries, the industrial revolution occurred, as a result of which most goods began to be produced not by hand, but by machine. The number of goods increased sharply, and they began to be sold in markets. Moreover, buying and selling covered not only products, but also factors of production. Machinery and equipment, as well as land plots that previously belonged to feudal lords and could only be inherited, became the subject of trade. The labor of workers who could freely dispose of it, unlike serfs, guild artisans and their apprentices, also began to be bought and sold. This is how they arose capital markets, land And labor. The social system in which the market system dominates the economy is called “capitalism”.

In a market economy, the factors of production and its result - the product - belong not to the community, as in a traditional economy, and not to the state, as in a centralized economy, but to private individuals. Therefore, the problem of incentives for production in a market economy does not arise. Each manufacturer chooses the most profitable product for itself and produces as much of it as possible in order to get as much money as possible. The production technology is also selected, if possible, the most efficient one, in which the ratio of results to costs is the greatest. Therefore, a market economy favors technological progress, which results in the creation of new, more productive technologies.

Perhaps the most difficult question is about the distribution of products. How does a market economic system manage to bring order to this company of selfish people who do whatever they want? After all, here the provision of the population with necessary goods, as well as the fairness of distribution and exchange, are not guaranteed either by custom or by a plan supported by the power of the state.

This question was answered by the famous English economist and philosopher Adam Smith in his book “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” (1776), which for brevity begins simply with “The Wealth of Nations.”

Historical experience has shown the advantage of a market economy over the other two economic systems. It solves the problem of incentives for economic activity in the simplest way, has the ability to relatively quickly adapt to unexpected changes, and is conducive to technical progress. Of course, a market economy is not ideal. It may be characterized by strong income inequality, since the state does not interfere in their distribution (in a traditional and centralized economy, the income gap between the “bosses” and ordinary workers is very large, but the workers themselves are in approximately equal positions), periodic economic downturns, unemployment and other problems. But we can call the market economy the least bad of the existing economic systems.

In subsequent chapters we will look in more detail at how these problems are solved and how the market economic system works.

Mixed economy

Until now we have been talking about economic systems in their pure form. However, as a rule, the real economy of any country is not purely market, purely centralized or purely traditional. Elements of different economic systems are combined in a special way in each country. Elements of all three types of economic systems can be found in developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. In developed countries, we are faced with a combination of market and centralized economies with the dominance of the first of them. This combination is called a mixed economy. The mixed economy is designed to use the strengths and overcome the disadvantages of market and centralized economies. For example, even in one of the most market economies in the world - the American one - the state actively intervenes in the process of product distribution and centrally issues food coupons to the poor. At the same time, in such a centralized economy as the Soviet one, even during the years of Stalinism, elements of a market economy were allowed, for example, food and clothing markets, where citizens could try to buy what they did not receive from the state. However, the difference between an economy dominated by central planning and an economy dominated by the market is enormous. It was felt by the population of our country, where a long and painful transition from a planned to a market economy is taking place.

Summary

The economic system brings into conformity the unlimited needs and limited capabilities of members of society. Each economic system solves three most important questions: WHAT, HOW and FOR WHOM to produce.

The following main types of economic systems are distinguished: traditional, centralized (command) and market. In a traditional economy, the problems of WHAT, HOW and FOR WHOM to produce are solved on the basis of customs and traditions, in a centralized economy - with the help of a plan established by the state, and in a market economy - on the basis of the goals and interests of free producers who produce the most profitable products for themselves.

In the real economy of each specific country, the main types of economic systems are combined, forming a mixed economy with the predominance of one or another system.

From the history of economic thought

Adam Smith (1723-1790)

Adam Smith was born in the Scottish town of Kirkcaldy and studied at the universities of Glasgow and Oxford. Smith then moved to Edinburgh, where he lectured on English literature and rhetoric. The success of these lectures created his name in scientific circles, so at the age of 28 he was invited to the University of Glasgow as a professor, and then headed the department of moral philosophy there (today we would call it the department of social sciences). Smith's first book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), is devoted to the problems of ethics - the science of morality, the rules of human behavior. Already in this book, Smith tried to solve the problem of coordinating the interests of different people. He noted that this coordination can be carried out through the human feeling of sympathy. Smith understood by this the fact that, when evaluating his actions, a person can take the point of view of another person.

It seemed that after the publication of the book, the life of its author would be limited to university science, especially since Smith had a very calm and reserved character. However, in 1764 everything changed: Smith left the department and went to France as tutor and educator of the young English Duke of Buccleuch. In Europe, he traveled a lot and met with the most famous scientists of his time - Voltaire, Quesnay, Turgot and others. There he began writing his most famous work, The Wealth of Nations. Smith's subsequent life was uneventful: he held the honorary position of Commissioner of Customs for Scotland and engaged in research and journalism with great energy.

In The Wealth of Nations, Smith discovered another way to coordinate personal interests, based not on sympathy, but on a market economy subject to free competition (competition) of market participants.

The main conclusion of Smith's book: a market economy based on free competition can exist on its own. State intervention is more likely to harm it than to help it. Smith argued that in a market system, each person, pursuing personal gain, chooses the occupation that pays best and produces the goods that have the highest price. Thanks to this, each person individually (which means the whole society as a whole) achieves the best result for himself, and society’s resources are distributed most efficiently. In addition, since many people begin to produce the most profitable products at once, competition arises between them and the price of the product eventually decreases, which is also beneficial to society. As Smith puts it, the “invisible hand” pushes selfish people towards the public good.

But for this it is necessary that each person can freely engage in the business that he considers the most profitable. No one should (as in a traditional or centralized economy) limit his choices, tell him what he should and should not do.

Direct government intervention is more likely to harm than to help a market economy - this was Smith's conclusion that most impressed his contemporaries. The fact is that at that time, economic thought was dominated by the so-called “mercantilists” - supporters of active state regulation of all aspects of economic life and especially foreign trade.

With Smith’s “Wealth of Nations,” independent economic science begins—previously, economic knowledge belonged to the subject of moral philosophy.

CENTRALIZED ECONOMIC SYSTEM

Centralized economic system

At the same time, centralized economic systems have their ADVANTAGES. They (with skillful leadership) can be more sustainable and give people greater confidence in the future. They ensure a more equal distribution of vital goods in society and the minimum necessary for everyone. Planned management of all labor resources makes it possible to avoid unemployment in society (although this is achieved, as a rule, by artificially restraining the growth of labor productivity where two or more people could work). The state paternalism characteristic of these systems (all-encompassing guardianship of the people by the state) is especially convenient for the lack of initiative, uncreative part of society, which prefers, although modest and unfree, a quiet existence without special worries. That is why such systems are very tenacious. Nevertheless, all effective modern economies operate on market principles.

What is a centralized economic system? Name its pros and cons.

Centralized economic system, its main features and main “pros” and “cons”.

Development and implementation of a program for qualification, training and retraining of teaching staff of the Faculty of Economics of NSU in the field of economic education in combination with the creation of a center for active teaching methods. It is expected to develop educational and methodological manuals for the following sections: economic order, economic legislation, transformation of a centrally planned economic system, macroeconomic factors of the national economy, economic policy as a tool of economic stabilization,

Currently, France is solving important problems at the national level with the aim of developing and commercializing modern technology in such areas as communications, nuclear and other types of energy. In its active attitude to the problems of economic growth and renewal, France differs from other countries in Western Europe, in which signs of economic stagnation are noticeable. France, a country with a highly centralized political system, is characterized by the leading role of the state in scientific and technological development. The French government is vigorously pursuing a nuclear multiplier reactor program and has recently been developing a plan for the use of microprocessors in telephone communications that has attracted worldwide interest. France also pays great attention to the Japanese experience.

The centralized planned economic system led to the extensive use of natural and human resources and to a continuous decline in the rate of economic growth.

Economic and administrative-legal methods of management function on a single methodological basis, since they serve as an expression of society’s conscious use of objective economic laws and pursue common economic goals. Economic methods are most effective when they are implemented within a centrally controlled system, since they require administrative regulation. In addition, the better developed economic methods, the less managerial activity is required.

The elimination of the planned centralized system led to the disappearance of previous organizational forms of management in construction. The pre-reform system of financing capital investments has disappeared, which was the result of fundamental changes in both the political and economic systems of Russia.

The five-year period (1992-1997) was a time of adaptation to the market not only of tax legal relations, but also of the entire Russian system of commodity-money relations. During this period, the need to provide reliable information to all economic counterparties, including Russia’s foreign partners, sharply increased. In this regard, large-scale scientific and methodological work was launched to create the Concept of Accounting in the Market Economy of Russia (hereinafter referred to as the Concept). The creation of new conceptual foundations of accounting is an extremely complex problem, since its solution lies in the radical transformation of the entire regulatory and methodological base of accounting and reporting, which has served the needs of a centralized economy for more than 70 years, into a system that ensures the interests of not only individual owners, but also the state as a personified entity. producer of public services and goods. The concept is designed to ensure the integrated interests of internal and external users at the level of the domestic economy, as well as to promote the expansion of the scope of Russian participation in the international market of goods, labor and capital. Despite the fact that undertaken in 1996-1997. The efforts of the Russian Government to reorient the accounting system to the needs of the market significantly changed the principles of building its basic foundations; they did not bring it into compliance with the requirements of world standards of a market economy in a too short time. Therefore, the accounting system is experiencing, like any other economic system, all the difficulties of the transition period to the market and the associated miscalculations and shortcomings of reforming its methodological and methodological foundations. This is especially evident in the system of economic relations between owners and the state.

The formation of a centrally planned economic system in Russia was due to the transition to a new socio-economic formation and the need to bring the country's economy out of the collapse in which it found itself as a result of the world and civil war. The initial period of formation of the new state system was characterized by a complete breakdown of finances and monetary circulation, and the naturalization of all economic relations. In the management of the national economy it is widely used

The economy in the countries of the Ancient East reached its heights under centralized control. The Greeks did not have a single economic organism, just as there was no single Hellas (the self-name of Greece) and a single people. There were separate policies, each with its own closed financial and economic system. They either fought among themselves or entered into alliances. But trade and then monetary ties remained and broke the vicious circle of isolation. One can state an obvious weakening of the interest of the ancient Greeks in comparison, for example, with the Egyptians, in the practical side of management and the sad fact for accountants is the lack of enthusiastic worship of them, admiration for their activities, a decrease in the popularity and prestige of the accounting profession.

In an economy operating on the basis of the division of labor, state regulation of multilateral interests is required in order to avoid violent resolution of social conflicts. Coordination and consideration of the interests of producers and consumers and related regulation is necessary for every economy based on the social division of labor, be it a market economy or a centralized one. Therefore, the interests of producers and consumers can be defined as independent interests, independent of the type of economic system.

In the present century, the centralized system of banking business has begun to be considered not only as a common phenomenon, but even as one of the prerequisites for achieving the highest levels of economic development. Belief in the desirability of central banks became widespread. Recently, there has been a desire to strengthen the spheres of control through the establishment of international banking institutions, as well as through international cooperation between already existing central banks of different countries. However, there is a lack of any systematic research into the reasons for the supposed superiority of the centralized banking system over its alternatives.

After 1875, all countries that already had a centralized banking system by that time made a choice in its favor, no longer debating the feasibility of such a step. The topic of practical choice between this system and its free alternative has not been touched upon since then. Moreover, the declared superiority of the centralized system has become mere dogma without any clear understanding of the nature of its advantages. However, among the major economic powers there was still one that still did not have a centralized banking organization, and that power was the United States of America. The purpose of this chapter is to examine some of the reasons that ultimately led to the introduction of a centralized banking system in this country in 1913.

In countries with a nationalized economy, shadow processes that arise when the volume of demand exceeds the volume of supply of a similarly limited (for example, planned) quantity of goods and the resulting competition among buyers may have additional specifics. In addition to the cases already considered, as well as various monetary and non-monetary “surcharges” to the official price Pg (for example, bribes or counter-services from the buyer to the seller) to a level equal or equivalent to Pq, tendencies of the manufacturer to “justify” before the governing authorities may appear and often do form. his desired increase in price to Pq through a real or imaginary increase in costs, which can also be depicted on the same graph (Fig. 3.16) by the same shift of the supply curve S to position ST. In this case, we get a very clear image of the action of the notorious “cost mechanism”. In countries with a centralized, state-owned economic system, another result of the state’s influence on the volume of goods offered on the market is also possible, when the quantity of goods QK planned and produced according to such a plan exceeds the equilibrium quantity Q (Fig. 3.17). P I S

The economic basis of the analyzed economic system is directive planning. The one and all determining center, the sole possessor of the ultimate truth, materializes its political will in the form of economic plans. The economy is dominated by public or state ownership. An absolutely centralized economic plan has a breakdown of directives by region, industry, and individual producer, including agriculture. An indispensable element of the system is the administrative collectivization of agriculture, which results in the expropriation of private labor property, the forced unification of private commodity producers into collective and state farms, tightly controlled by a centralized state that has completely monopolized the economy and power. The plan task, presented in the form of a mandatory directive, is communicated to each planning subject.

The transition from the system of centralized planning in its extreme absolutized form to another, viable economic system is an objective necessity in order to overcome the contradictions discussed above, which over time made the failed system practically incapable. The way out of this situation lies in this case in the transition to a market system. Naturally, such a transition should take a long period of time, its duration is determined by the choice of the market system model, and also depends on the depth of the ongoing crisis of the transition economy in post-socialist conditions, within which the transformation of the previous economic system takes place. Hence the complexity of the problem of choosing a model for the future national economic system.

The concept of a social market economy is based on the fact that private economy in its pure form (without government intervention) is just as inevitably fraught with inefficient functioning of the economy, not to mention social injustice. The main idea of ​​a social market economy is the following. The principle of market freedom must be interconnected with the maintenance of social harmony. Economic regulation and coordination of activities must occur primarily through markets. However, the state is obliged to intervene with certain corrective measures as soon as there is a danger that the development of market processes will lead to socially undesirable and unfair results. So, the social market economy is, in fact, an intermediate concept between purely market and centrally regulated economic systems. The market economy here acts as the supporting support of the entire economic order. However, it is not left to its own devices, but is consciously regulated by the state. This is how a socially controlled market mechanism arises.

Power is capable of creating an object of consent within the organization, which manifests itself mainly in the ability to make a choice instead of... . Here we are talking about the fundamental characteristics of economic organization (from a self-governing cooperative to a tightly centralized bureaucratic system). A hierarchical organization is a multi-level structure consisting of interconnected subsystems, the elements of which have the right to make decisions. The organization's hierarchy determines the order of subordination of subsystems and elements in the organization's management system, the distribution of management functions and responsibilities. The life activity of such a structure is carried out through information exchange between subsystems and elements both vertically and horizontally. The process of mutual exchange of information vertically and horizontally of the hierarchy forms direct and feedback in the management system. The concepts of degree of freedom (i.e., a subordinate element of the structure is free in its decisions within the framework of the tasks and restrictions assigned to it from above) and direct and feedback are fundamental in the theory of organizational management, since their content determines the essence and quality of management.

Ring transportation is used to serve points connected by the sequential transfer of goods from one to another, with the obligatory return of transport to the starting point. This transportation system is very effective, as evidenced by the experience of the Avtomoskvich association. Here, as a result of the introduction of a centralized ring system of in-plant transportation, the efficiency of transport use increased by 2.5 times, and the cost of transporting goods decreased by 1.8 times. At the same time, the number of workers involved in these operations decreased. Similarly, at the Taganrog Combine Harvester Plant, as a result of the transition to ring routes, 65 auxiliary workers, 20 units of trackless transport were released, and an annual economic effect of 48 thousand rubles was obtained.

At the same time, the experience of a state-planned centralized economy has highlighted the fundamental intractability of the problem of balance within this system. Proof of this is, firstly, a significant lag in the level of well-being compared to countries of a market economy; secondly, the deformation of its structure towards industries that produce intermediate rather than final products (heavier structure); thirdly, the presence of sharp changes in technical and technological equipment of various industries and individual enterprises. This state of the economy becomes natural and manifests itself in chronic shortages, a slowdown in economic growth, and a decrease in efficiency. In this sense, the crisis of the economic system, being institutional in nature, is at the same time difficult to predict in terms of possible results. systems of optimal planning models or market mechanisms.

The essence of this system is state monopoly, that is, the all-powerful state (through its powerful bureaucratic apparatus) absolutely dominates the economy. Government officials from the center command all economic resources and unanimously decide what, how, for whom and how much to produce, and most importantly, how to distribute what is produced. Therefore, such a system based on coercion is often called a command, order, distribution economy. Characterizing it, we highlight the following main features.

Table 1. Characteristics of a centralized economy

Firstly, state ownership of the means of production reigns supreme in the economy. Land, plants, factories, transport, trade and other enterprises - everything belongs to the state. The property of individual citizens is usually limited to personal property and small household plots.

Secondly, all production, exchange and distribution of products are carried out according to state plans, which determine thousands of complex relationships in the national economy. Errors inevitable in such comprehensive planning give rise to numerous inconsistencies, failures and deficits in the economy. And a huge bureaucratic apparatus works to draw up and ensure the implementation of such detailed plans.

At the same time, thirdly, instead of economic levers stimulating production (attractive taxes, orders, loans), purely administrative management methods are used (dictation of the bureaucracy, orders, control, punishment, encouragement). And the main goal of enterprises is not working for the consumer, but fulfilling the plan (no matter how unreasonable it may be).

Fourthly, the financial dictatorship of the state also works to strictly centralize the economy. The lion's share of all funds of economic entities is centrally redistributed through the state budget. High taxes and contributions flow into a single center in huge financial flows, on which officials then arbitrarily allocate budgetary allocations to those who, from their point of view, need it.

Prices, salaries, investments, profits and losses - everything is “scheduled” in advance and guaranteed by the state at a planned level. Therefore, the financial situation of producers practically does not depend on their initiative, creativity, labor results and consumer reaction. Moreover, initiative is even punishable: “independent activity” and “unaccounted for” innovation (even if very effective) can knock an enterprise out of its planned rut, worsen its financial position and lead to the replacement of the director.

The disadvantages of total centralization can be seen in the example of the former USSR. The main one is the unsatisfactory performance of state property. It was poorly used and was taken apart; The equipment had not been updated for decades, resource productivity was low, and costs were high. The public sector was dominated by mismanagement, irresponsibility and passivity of workers, and indifference to any innovations.

At the same time, state-monopoly systems have their advantages. Subject to skillful, unselfish and non-anti-people leadership, they can be more stable and give people greater confidence in the future; ensure a more equal distribution of life goods in society and the minimum necessary for everyone. Planned management of all labor resources makes it possible to avoid open unemployment in society (although, as a rule, this is achieved by artificially restraining the growth of labor productivity: where one person could work, two or more people work).

The state paternalism characteristic of these systems (all-encompassing guardianship of the people by the state) is especially convenient for the dependent and passive part of society. They prefer, although modest and not free, a quiet existence without any special worries, believing that it is the state that must “feed the people.”

That's why such systems are tenacious: they have many fans. And yet, “management” alone cannot feed anyone. First you need to produce what you can dispose of. Therefore, all modern economies aimed at efficient production operate not on administrative-command principles, but on market principles.