Editor's Introduction

Abstract

If there is any single problem that has dominated Soviet efforts at economic and political reform, it is surely the problem of transforming the traditional system of property ownership. The opening selection in our current issue ("You Can't Outsmart Life: A Discussion of the Proposed Law on Property in the USSR") reflects the widespread recognition among Soviet economists and legal scholars that basic property reform is essential, and also provides some interesting data on popular attitudes toward different forms of property ownership. Most of the discussants appear to accept the need for the "destatization" (razgosudarstvlenie) of property and the legitimacy of "pluralist" forms of property ownership. But "destatization" obviously does not mean that private property will become the dominant form of ownership. Various forms of "collective" or "social" property will continue to play the leading role in the economy. Although private property will apparently remain a subordinate element in a reformed economy, some of the discussants go out of their way to stress the virtues of particular forms of such property (see, in particular, the remarks of M. Bronshtein and V. Shkredov). It is also worth noting that not all the discussants accept the concept of the "destatization" of property. For B. Rakitskii the problem is not so much the state's excessive role as its undemocratic nature. Thus "democratization" rather than "destatization" should be the guiding principle in property reform. Of special interest are V. Rutgaizer's remarks reporting the results of a public opinion survey in which respondents were asked what kind of enterprises they would prefer to be associated with in the future. The largest proportion (29 percent) favored joint-venture enterprises. Rutgaizer found especially worrisome the fact that 15 percent reported that they did not want to work anywhere—a sign of lack of confidence in overcoming alienation from property in any of its projected forms.