Transition to a Market Economy (Edexcel A-Level History): Revision Notes
Transition to a Market Economy
Background: Economic crisis and political consequences
By the end of the 1980s, Gorbachev's economic reforms had clearly failed to revive the Soviet economy. The Twelfth Five-Year Plan (1986–1990) revealed alarming statistics: official government figures showed that GDP had contracted by four per cent during this period, making it the worst economic performance in Soviet history. Historians suggest the actual decline was likely even worse than these official figures indicated.
Facing mounting economic pressure, Gorbachev took a significant step in April 1990 by removing government subsidies on basic goods, hoping this would reduce state spending and stabilise the economy. However, this decision backfired spectacularly as prices surged dramatically.
Price Increases Following Subsidy Removal (January to April 1990):
The impact on basic goods was devastating for ordinary citizens:
- Beef: Jumped from 2 roubles per kilogram to 7 roubles (250% increase)
- Butter: More than doubled from 3.50 to 8.80 roubles per kilogram (151% increase)
- Rye bread: Quadrupled from 0.12 to 0.48 roubles per loaf (300% increase)
These rapid price increases created severe political problems for Gorbachev's government. Public support for the Communist leader plummeted from 52 per cent in December 1989 to just 21 per cent by November 1990. Worker discontent manifested in a dramatic rise in industrial action: whilst only 260 enterprises experienced strikes in 1990, this figure exploded to 1,755 by 1991. The economic chaos also fuelled nationalist movements across the Soviet Union, with various republics increasingly demanding independence.
Gorbachev's acceptance of market reform
The deepening economic crisis, combined with Gorbachev's growing belief that market economies were more effective than centrally planned systems, led him to accept a radical conclusion: the Soviet Union needed to abandon its traditional command economy entirely and transition to a full market economy. This meant moving away from central planning where the state controlled prices, production, and distribution, towards a system where supply and demand determined these factors.
A market economy represents a fundamental shift from the Soviet command economy system. Instead of government planners deciding what to produce, how much to produce, and at what price, these decisions would be made by individual businesses responding to consumer demand and market forces.
However, this transition posed enormous challenges. Gorbachev faced strong resistance from hardliners within the Communist Party—conservative communists who opposed fundamental economic change and wanted to preserve the traditional Soviet system. This opposition would significantly constrain his ability to implement reform.
The 500 Day Programme
To manage the expected difficulties of transitioning to a market economy, Gorbachev collaborated with Boris Yeltsin (then leader of the Russian Republic) to commission a detailed reform plan. Two Soviet economists, Stanislav Shatalin and Grigorri Iavlinskii, were tasked with creating this blueprint.
The result was the ambitious 500 Day Programme, published in August 1990. This radical plan proposed:
- Widespread privatisation of state-owned enterprises (transferring government-owned businesses to private ownership)
- Complete marketisation of the economy (introducing market principles throughout)
- Achieving this transformation in less than two years
Initially, Gorbachev supported these proposals. However, he quickly retreated under intense pressure from senior hardline communists who viewed such rapid change as dangerous. Whilst Gorbachev remained verbally committed to economic transformation, he was persuaded that reforms should proceed at a much slower pace to avoid disruption.
The Fatal Flaw: Gorbachev's Indecision
This indecision proved fatal. During 1991, radical economic reforms continued sporadically, but the government never adopted a coherent, unified plan. This was largely because Gorbachev refused to act decisively, caught between his desire for reform and his fear of alienating conservative Party members.
Reform and collapse, 1991
Despite the failure to adopt the 500 Day Programme, some significant reforms were implemented during 1991:
January 1991: The Supreme Soviet (Soviet parliament) introduced private property rights. This was a revolutionary change, allowing Soviet citizens to own land and factories for the first time since the 1920s. Under Lenin, private ownership had been largely eliminated, so this represented a fundamental break with communist principles.
April 1991: A new law permitted citizens to trade stocks and shares (financial instruments representing ownership in companies). This reform aimed to revitalise the economy by introducing market forces and allowing capital investment.
However, these reforms failed to halt economic decline. The situation actually worsened during 1991:
Production Declines in 1991:
Key industrial sectors experienced severe contraction:
- Oil production: fell by 9 per cent
- Steel production: dropped by 12 per cent
- Tractor production: decreased by 12 per cent
An official government report grimly concluded that the Soviet economy had moved "beyond crisis to catastrophe."
By summer 1991, both the Soviet Government and the various republican governments were effectively bankrupt—they lacked the economic resources to govern effectively. Although Yeltsin announced a programme of full marketisation in October 1991, implementing such reforms had become nearly impossible due to the complete breakdown of economic and political authority.
Historical interpretation: Martin McCauley's analysis
Historian Martin McCauley offers important insights into why economic reform failed and contributed to the Soviet Union's collapse. His interpretation focuses on several key arguments:
Three major economic problems
McCauley identifies three fundamental challenges facing Soviet leaders by the mid-1970s:
1. Consumer goods shortage: The government struggled to increase the supply of consumer products to match public expectations. The Soviet economy had been geared towards military production since the 1920s, creating what McCauley calls the military-industrial complex—a system focused on war preparation rather than civilian needs.
2. Technological backwardness: Whilst the military and nuclear sectors were advanced, the Soviet Union neglected crucial technologies like electronics, lasers, and especially computers. The country was slow to embrace the computer revolution that was transforming Western economies.
3. Low labour productivity: The civilian economy suffered from poor discipline, widespread drunkenness, theft, and general inefficiency among workers.
Gorbachev's limited economic understanding
A Critical Weakness: Lack of Economic Expertise
McCauley argues that a crucial factor in the failure of reform was that Gorbachev fundamentally did not understand how the Soviet planned economy functioned. His advisers were overconfident, and their reform proposals often produced the opposite of intended effects.
Gorbachev's initial policy, uskorenie (acceleration), aimed to rapidly expand machine-building industry to produce more consumer goods. However, Gorbachev had a limited grasp of economics and left crucial questions—such as where investment money would come from—to the Ministry of Finance. This created conflict with Gosplan (the State Planning Committee), which preferred direct investment in consumer goods rather than machinery. This disagreement set a problematic pattern: Gorbachev rarely agreed with Gosplan throughout his leadership.
When uskorenie disappointed, Gorbachev announced perestroika (restructuring). Despite touring the country promoting this policy with great enthusiasm, Gorbachev struggled to define exactly what perestroika meant when questioned by factory workers. Crucially, for those favouring market solutions, perestroika initially avoided the most important issue: price reform.
The Law on State Enterprise: A destructive reform
The 1987 Law on State Enterprise was, according to McCauley, "probably the most destructive of all the economic reforms." This law required enterprises to become self-financing before price reform had been implemented—described as "putting the cart before the horse."
Co-operatives and leasing
The first genuine moves towards a market economy came in 1988 with laws permitting co-operatives (businesses owned by groups of individuals) and leasing (allowing workers to rent parts of their enterprises and sell goods at market prices rather than state-controlled prices). Whilst these allowed more market activity, they created new problems:
- Consumers complained about high prices and profiteering
- Co-op tea shops were used to evade Gorbachev's vodka ban (selling vodka in teapots instead of tea)
- The vodka ban itself created a massive hole in state revenues, as alcohol sales had been a major source of government income
- The government simply printed more money to cover the shortfall, leading to inflation
Political versus economic causes
McCauley's Key Argument: Political Failure, Not Economic
McCauley's most significant argument is that the failure of economic reform had fundamentally political causes, not purely economic ones. He points out that China and Vietnam successfully transitioned from command to market economies whilst maintaining Communist Party control. The key difference was that Gorbachev removed the ideological and political pillars on which the Soviet Union was built, causing "the whole edifice" to collapse.
Gorbachev concluded that the Party apparatus (the network of Communist Party officials) was the main obstacle to perestroika's success. He used glasnost (openness) to pressure Party officials from below, allowing citizens to criticise local Party leaders. In 1988, he took the dramatic step of removing the Party apparatus from controlling the industrial economy. By the end of 1989, this had resulted in the Party and government losing control entirely.
The 500 Day Programme and open conflict
When the 500 Day Programme was proposed in 1990, it proved too radical for Gorbachev, but Yeltsin declared in October 1990 that the Russian Federation would implement it anyway. This marked the end of co-operation between Gorbachev and Yeltsin on reform. McCauley argues that from this point, it became "open warfare" between the Soviet Union (led by Gorbachev) and the Russian Federation (led by Yeltsin). Other Soviet republics followed suit, claiming sovereignty and declaring they would only implement Soviet laws that benefited them.
The Impossible Dream
McCauley's "astonishing conclusion" is that Gorbachev and his advisers believed they could graft market economy reforms onto a command economy and achieve "the best of both worlds"—a magical mix of capitalist and socialist policies. This proved impossible because loose monetary policy (printing money) and fiscal policy (taxation) inevitably led to high inflation, making financial reforms in 1990–1991 ineffective.
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
-
Gorbachev's economic reforms by 1990 had led to the worst economic performance in Soviet history, with GDP shrinking by 4% between 1986 and 1990.
-
The removal of government subsidies in April 1990 caused dramatic price increases, with some basic goods tripling or quadrupling in price within months, leading to a collapse in public support for Gorbachev.
-
The 500 Day Programme (August 1990) proposed radical privatisation and marketisation within two years, but Gorbachev retreated under pressure from hardliners, and never adopted a coherent reform plan.
-
Despite some reforms in 1991 (private property in January, stocks and shares in April), the economy continued to collapse, and by summer 1991 the government was effectively bankrupt.
-
Historian Martin McCauley argues that economic reform failed for political reasons: Gorbachev didn't understand how the Soviet economy worked, and crucially, he removed the ideological and political foundations of the Soviet system itself, causing the entire structure to collapse—unlike China and Vietnam, which reformed economically whilst maintaining Communist Party control.