|
|
Hokkaido University Collection of Scholarly and Academic Papers >
Slavic-Eurasian Research Center >
スラヴ研究 = Slavic Studies >
58 >
ソ連構成共和国における第二経済、1969-1988年 : アーカイブ資料に基づく新推計
| Title: | ソ連構成共和国における第二経済、1969-1988年 : アーカイブ資料に基づく新推計 |
| Other Titles: | The Second Economy in the Soviet Republics, 1969-1988 : A New Estimation |
| Authors: | 志田, 仁完1 Browse this author |
| Authors(alt): | Shida, Yoshisada1 |
| Issue Date: | 2011 |
| Publisher: | 北海道大学スラブ研究センター |
| Journal Title: | スラヴ研究 |
| Journal Title(alt): | Slavic Studies |
| Volume: | 58 |
| Start Page: | 123 |
| End Page: | 157 |
| Abstract: | The aims of this study are twofold: (1) one is to estimate the size of the second economy in the Soviet Union as a whole and in each republic from 1969 to 1988, based on household budget surveys which belong to the collection of the Central Statistical Directorate (f. 1562) of the Russian State Archive of Economy, (2) and the other is to compare the results of this estimation among union republics in terms of their size, dynamics, and component structure. Although a number of attempts have been made to estimate the size of the second economy, they have suffered either methodological deficiency or limitations in the scope of time and regions mainly because of data unavailability. Even Kim Byung-Yeon's recent pioneering work on regional variation in informal household economic activities confines its research period to the year of 1989. In order to tackle these unresolved problems, we reconstruct our own statistical database of household incomes, expenditures, and items traded by the republics, using declassified archival materials on household budget surveys. Based on these data, we estimate the size of the second economy with specified structural components. On the income side, the second economy consists of three components, namely, (i) income in kind from private plots, (ii) sales of privately produced goods and services to the state sector, and (iii) the so-called parallel "market," that is, retail turnover outside the state and cooperative sectors. The latter two components are distinguished by the price setting mechanism. While the prices of sales to the state are set and mainly fixed by the state, parallel market prices are assumed to be set according to the demand and supply of the goods. On the expenditure side, the consumption of self-produced goods and the parallel market are two components of the second economy. A structural analysis of the second economy is quite important from the viewpoint of forced savings and repressed inflation. For a comparative analysis of the second economy of the union republics, cluster analysis allows each of them to be classified into one of three groups. The first group consists of Russia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, and Estonia; the second group -- Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, and Moldova; and the third -- Uzbekistan, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kirgizstan, Tajikistan, Armenia, and Turkmenistan. This classification makes variance among groups clearer. The main findings of this study are as follows. First of all, the size of the second economy is unevenly distributed across the republics. The size of the third group, that is, the share of the second economy income out of total household income, is 25.1% on average during the period investigated. This figure is almost twice that of the first group with 14.6%. The second group also holds a substantial size of the second economy with 24.5%. A similar situation can be seen on the expenditure side: the first group holds 16.6% and the third -- 34.2%. Secondly, dynamics among the three groups are different. While the second group shows a drastic decline from 30.0% to 20.2% toward the late Soviet period, this tendency does not appear in the other groups with a 5-percentage-point decline at most. In contrast, the third group shows a decline in the early 1970s from 23.2% to 21.0% and then demonstrates an upward trend to 25.1%, finally showing a diminution to 20.7%. On the expenditure side, while the size of the second group shrinks from 34.0% to 20.5%, the other groups show a more moderate decline. In the third group, the size of the second economy remained at almost the same level throughout the period investigated. Thirdly, it is possible to observe differences in component structure. The share of income in kind occupies the largest portion in the second group with 13.3%, which is larger than that of the parallel market. In the other groups, the relative size of income in kind is either smaller or comparable to that of the parallel market. In the third group, these shares are respectively 8.9% and 11.1%. On the expenditure side, while the size of consumption of the self-produced goods in the second group is comparable to that of the parallel market, the other groups have a self-consumption share half the size of the parallel market. From these findings, the first group including Russia is characterized as republics with a less developed second economy; the second group is distinguished by a self-sufficient natural second economy; and the third, which includes Georgia and Uzbekistan, is identified as having a highly developed second economy with market orientation. |
| Type: | bulletin (article) |
| URI: | http://hdl.handle.net/2115/47611 |
| Appears in Collections: | スラヴ研究 = Slavic Studies > 58
|
|
