BSU bulletin. Humanities Research of Inner Asia
Bibliographic description:
A PERIOD OF STAGNATION OR DYNAMIC DEVELOPMENT: BURYATIA AND ITS AUTHORITIES IN THE 1970-S // BSU bulletin. Humanities Research of Inner Asia. - 2017. №4. . - С. 85-92.
Title:
A PERIOD OF STAGNATION OR DYNAMIC DEVELOPMENT: BURYATIA AND ITS AUTHORITIES IN THE 1970-S
Financing:
Codes:
Annotation:
The subject of research is the analysis of the economic and structural changes in the
country and the Autonomous Republic in the period under review, using a systematic,
comparative approaches, institutional research method. Carrying out economic reforms,
public authorities and management of the USSR and the Buryat Autonomous Soviet socialist
Republic launched an active and purposeful work on implementing them, conducting
effective personnel policy. In the period under review represented a fruitful
stage of the Soviet state, filled with meaningful and effective political and economic
events and processes. The sequence of transformations of power structures reflect General
regularities of development of the state in view of the resurgence of centralized
management. Recovery sectoral management approaches significantly adjusted the role
of regional authorities in the decision-making system, increased their influence in matters
of forecasting and planning economic and social development of territories. With
the increase in economic and socio-cultural development has brought increasing demands
on the management level. With the adjustment of the tasks and functions of the
state in different historical periods on the basis of accepted constitutional rules and
changing the content of the activity of state institutions, work style, specify the functions,
powers, developed updated approaches of management. Thanks to the creative
work of the authorities of the Buryat Autonomous Soviet socialist Republic on improvement
of state institutions of the Autonomous Republic, the rapid rise of the productive
forces greatly increased the economic potential of the region and the degree of its
integration into the economic complex of the country. Accelerated investment growth of
UK-repeal material-technical base of the industry contributed to the industrialization and
intensification of agriculture, increase of technical equipment of capital construction, to
improve the transportation system. However, one of the main reasons for the failure of
the economic reforms was that it had been blocked by the forces of bureaucratic conservatism.
Positive changes in the country from the authorities was not supported by
changes in political, social and cultural spheres. The ongoing process of democratization
of society was not completed, did not go deep, and in the 1970s, years actually stopped. The democratic tendency was weakened, and conservatism has been further strengthened.
Significantly increased the contradictions in economic and social spheres.
country and the Autonomous Republic in the period under review, using a systematic,
comparative approaches, institutional research method. Carrying out economic reforms,
public authorities and management of the USSR and the Buryat Autonomous Soviet socialist
Republic launched an active and purposeful work on implementing them, conducting
effective personnel policy. In the period under review represented a fruitful
stage of the Soviet state, filled with meaningful and effective political and economic
events and processes. The sequence of transformations of power structures reflect General
regularities of development of the state in view of the resurgence of centralized
management. Recovery sectoral management approaches significantly adjusted the role
of regional authorities in the decision-making system, increased their influence in matters
of forecasting and planning economic and social development of territories. With
the increase in economic and socio-cultural development has brought increasing demands
on the management level. With the adjustment of the tasks and functions of the
state in different historical periods on the basis of accepted constitutional rules and
changing the content of the activity of state institutions, work style, specify the functions,
powers, developed updated approaches of management. Thanks to the creative
work of the authorities of the Buryat Autonomous Soviet socialist Republic on improvement
of state institutions of the Autonomous Republic, the rapid rise of the productive
forces greatly increased the economic potential of the region and the degree of its
integration into the economic complex of the country. Accelerated investment growth of
UK-repeal material-technical base of the industry contributed to the industrialization and
intensification of agriculture, increase of technical equipment of capital construction, to
improve the transportation system. However, one of the main reasons for the failure of
the economic reforms was that it had been blocked by the forces of bureaucratic conservatism.
Positive changes in the country from the authorities was not supported by
changes in political, social and cultural spheres. The ongoing process of democratization
of society was not completed, did not go deep, and in the 1970s, years actually stopped. The democratic tendency was weakened, and conservatism has been further strengthened.
Significantly increased the contradictions in economic and social spheres.
Keywords:
party and state authorities of Buryatia, political decisions and structures of the Executive power, the economic and social development of the region, businesses.
List of references:
1. GARB. F. P-1. Op. 1. D. 9093. L. 42.
2. F. R-475. Op. 1. D. 3929. L. 1.
3. Deputaty Verkhovnogo Soveta BASSR. Vos'moi sozyv. 1971 g. – Ulan-Ude: Verkhovnyi Sovet
BASSR, 1980. C. 3–5.
4. GARB. F. P-1. Op. 1. D. 7427. L. 1–42.
5. F. P-1. Op. 1 D. 7439. L. 126–131.
6. F. P-1. Op. 1. D. 7443. L. 11.
7. Khaitun S.D. Nomenklatura protiv Rossii. Evolyutsionnyi tupik. –Moskva: Knizhnyi dom «LIBROKOM
», 2014. – S. 315. Vadim Andreevich Medvedev – chlen Politbyuro TsK KPSS (1988 – 1990),
sekretar' TsK KPSS (1986 – 1990). Chlen-korrespondent AN SSSR.
8. Korzhikhina T.P. Istoriya i sovremennaya organizatsiya gosudarstvennykh uchrezhdenii SSSR.
1917 – 1972. – Moskva: RGGU, 1994. – S. 251.
9. GARB. F. P-1. Op. 1. D. 7612. L. 83–84.
10. F. P-1. Op. 1. D. 6. L. 6.
11. Pravda Buryatii. – 1974. – 19 iyunya.
12. F. R-475. Op. 1. D. 6823. L. 28–29, D. 8906. L. 2–3; F. P-1. Op. 1. D. 6424. L. 46, D. 7525. L.
95–97, D. 7826. L. 110–113, D. 7827. L. 29; R-248. Op. 1. D. 8906. L. 5–7, D. 9677. L. 4–5.
13. Kudrov V.M. Krakh sovetskoi modeli ekonomiki. – Moskva, 2000. – S. 67.
14. GARB. F. P-1. Op. 1. D. 9077. L. 6.
15. F. R-2238. Op. 1. D. 4. L. 34.
16. F. P-1. Op. 1. D. 9036. L. 42.
17. F. P-1. Op. 1. D. 9077. L. 258–259.
18. Tam zhe. L. 37.
2. F. R-475. Op. 1. D. 3929. L. 1.
3. Deputaty Verkhovnogo Soveta BASSR. Vos'moi sozyv. 1971 g. – Ulan-Ude: Verkhovnyi Sovet
BASSR, 1980. C. 3–5.
4. GARB. F. P-1. Op. 1. D. 7427. L. 1–42.
5. F. P-1. Op. 1 D. 7439. L. 126–131.
6. F. P-1. Op. 1. D. 7443. L. 11.
7. Khaitun S.D. Nomenklatura protiv Rossii. Evolyutsionnyi tupik. –Moskva: Knizhnyi dom «LIBROKOM
», 2014. – S. 315. Vadim Andreevich Medvedev – chlen Politbyuro TsK KPSS (1988 – 1990),
sekretar' TsK KPSS (1986 – 1990). Chlen-korrespondent AN SSSR.
8. Korzhikhina T.P. Istoriya i sovremennaya organizatsiya gosudarstvennykh uchrezhdenii SSSR.
1917 – 1972. – Moskva: RGGU, 1994. – S. 251.
9. GARB. F. P-1. Op. 1. D. 7612. L. 83–84.
10. F. P-1. Op. 1. D. 6. L. 6.
11. Pravda Buryatii. – 1974. – 19 iyunya.
12. F. R-475. Op. 1. D. 6823. L. 28–29, D. 8906. L. 2–3; F. P-1. Op. 1. D. 6424. L. 46, D. 7525. L.
95–97, D. 7826. L. 110–113, D. 7827. L. 29; R-248. Op. 1. D. 8906. L. 5–7, D. 9677. L. 4–5.
13. Kudrov V.M. Krakh sovetskoi modeli ekonomiki. – Moskva, 2000. – S. 67.
14. GARB. F. P-1. Op. 1. D. 9077. L. 6.
15. F. R-2238. Op. 1. D. 4. L. 34.
16. F. P-1. Op. 1. D. 9036. L. 42.
17. F. P-1. Op. 1. D. 9077. L. 258–259.
18. Tam zhe. L. 37.
Article.pdf