Some Major Persisting Problems in Soviet Agriculture

Abstract

Professor Nove's panoramic review of Soviet agricultural developments since 1953 covers all points that should be included in a survey of this kind. His claim that the overall picture is not controversial is on the whole correct, though individual observers are likely to differ in assessing the importance of particular aspects or policies. Before I outline my views, brief comment is in order on two points. Thus, I do not agree with the statement that there was no slharp increase in the volume of grain procurements between the early and the late Khrushchev years. Such an impression is conveyed by annual averages for 1953-58 and 1959-64. But we should keep in mind that the early years included two bumper crops (1956 and 1958), while the later period included only one such crop (1964), which was offset to a large extent by the nearly disastrous harvest of 1963. If all these years are excluded from the comparison, typical average procurements in the early years come to about 36 million tons, while the corresponding figure for 1959-62 is 51 million tons. This is an increase in the general level of procurements of about 41 percent.1 I would also stress that the matter of the MTS reform is best viewed in the general context of other policy measures introduced at about the same time. These included changes in agriculture's terms of trade (to its disadvantage), a cutback in the production and supply of many important types of farm machinery, a slowdown in the rate of extending credits to agriculture, a low rate of increase in the production and shipments of mineral fertilizers, as well as the campaign against the private plot. I have discussed these matters at greater length elsewhere,2 and I still hold the view that all these measures taken together represented a major policy decision, made at the highest level, to reduce the supply of inputs to agriculture and to arrest (at least) the growth of agricultural incomes at a time when a very substantial increase in farm output was planned for 1959-65. The fact that this decision was taken after a period of very satisfactory growth in output in 1953-58 underlines the propen-