Incentives in Communist Agriculture: The Hungarian Models

Slavic Review ◽  
1968 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fred E. Dohrs

One of the greatest failures of Communist systems everywhere has been in agricultural productivity. In the Soviet Union some thirty-five years of collectivized agriculture have brought but modest increases in yields and gross production of many crops and livestock; growth of agricultural output per capita since even before the Revolution has been even less impressive. Among the Communist countries of Eastern Europe, although collectivization is much more recent, the pattern has been much the same; yields remain low, and gross production as well as per capita increases has been small.Although some areas of Eastern Europe and large parts of the USSR can be classified as physically marginal for agriculture, the low levels of agricultural productivity are primarily attributable to defective organization and operation. There have been years when crop failure in this or that area was the direct result of drought, flood, or other natural cause, but these catastrophes cannot be blamed for the low yields which characterize the longer run. The major obstacles to production gains lie within the collectivized system.

Author(s):  
Olga Nicoara ◽  
Peter Boettke

Following the collapse of communism in central and eastern Europe (1989) and the Soviet Union (1991), the field of comparative political economy has undergone multiple stocktakings and revisions. In the former communist countries, Marxist economics was abandoned in favor of neoclassical economics, which dominated the profession in the West. But was neoclassical theory equipped to suggest adequate institutional arrangements in support of the transformations to capitalism in the former centrally planned economies of central and eastern Europe (C and EE) and the former Soviet Union (FSU)? What have economists working in the field of comparative political economy learned from the collapse of communism and the experience of transition so far? This chapter surveys the thoughts of leading transition scholars and assesses the new lessons learned in comparative transitional political economy.


1966 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-240
Author(s):  
Ansu K. Datta

This year the World Congress was attended by large delegations from Eastern Europe, and 88 from the Soviet Union alone. Some of these could speak English and French, and could thus exchange experiences and opinions outside the conference rooms. The new interest of Communist countries in the International Sociological Association and its activities was appropriately reflected in the election of a Polish sociologist as President of the next World Congress.


2011 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 41-60
Author(s):  
Robert Bailey ◽  
Cristina Albu

This discussion took place on April 21, 2010 in the Humanities Center at the University of Pittsburgh. Over the course of two hours, we, Robert Bailey and Cristina Albu, posed to Boris Groys and Petre Petrov a series of questions about temporality and visual culture in the Soviet Union, contemporary Russia, and other formerly communist countries in Eastern Europe. Our hope was to identify the paradoxical instances when multiple temporalities coexist or compete for control of time, or where different forces impose their respective narratives, chronologies, or histories on the same moments and events. We are grateful to Professors Groys and Petrov for their careful and considered answers to our questions. Thanks are also due to Professors Jonathan Arac and Todd Reeser at the Humanities Center for facilitating the discussion, as well as to Contemporaneity editors Heidi Cook, Amy Cymbala, and Rachel Miller for their help with transcription.


1990 ◽  
Vol 263 (3) ◽  
pp. 120-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
William U. Chandler ◽  
Alexei A. Makarov ◽  
Zhou Dadi

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document