Soviet perceptions of economic conditions during the period of stagnation: Evidence from two diverse emigrant surveys

Abstract

Soviet reality and emigrant surveys THE SOVIET INTERVIEW PROJECT (SIP) interviewed 2793 former Soviet citizens in the early 1980s who had emigrated to the United States from the mid-1970s to the early 1980s. A second wave of 700 interviews was conducted in the mid-1980s. SIP respondents were from medium to large cities from European republics and hence represent a sample of urban, European residents. Some 86% of SIP respondents were Jewish according to some definition of the term.1 SIP respondents answered questions on their life in the Soviet Union (in the last normal period of life in the Soviet Union) prior to the disruptions caused by the decision to emigrate. The German Soviet Interview Project (GSIP) interviewed 516 former Soviet citizens who had emigrated to the Federal Republic between 1979 and 1983. GSIP respondents also answered questions about their last period of normal life in the Soviet Union prior to the emigration decision. GSIP respondents are of German background who qualified as 'late emigrants' (Spataussiedler) according to Soviet and German definitions. GSIP respondents were from both urban and rural areas, and the majority lived outside the European USSR. The two sets of interviews with former Soviet citizens shed perspective light on living conditions in the Soviet Union. Both surveys focus on life in the Soviet Union and not on the processes of emigration or assimilation. Although the SIP and GSIP surveys were conducted roughly five years apart, modal respondents in both surveys cite 1977-78 as their last period of normal life in the Soviet Union. Hence, the interviews describe life in the Soviet Union as the Brezhnev era was drawing to a close-the period now referred to in the Soviet press as the 'period of stagnation' (period zastoya). The late Brezhnev era provides the essential baseline for understanding the perestroika phenomenon. Presumably, the Soviet leadership had its own perceptions of economic conditions during this period and was becoming increasingly influenced by public concerns about deteriorating economic conditions. Evaluating economic performance during the period of stagnation continues to be difficult because biased performance indicators continued to be generated by the statistical