. Economics at a turning point
. Brief characteristics of Kondratiev’s scientific heritage.
Methodological approach to the general theory of economics speakers
. Long wave theory and discussion around it
. Problems of regulation, planning and forecasting

1. Economics is at a turning point

The social breakdown that occurred after the October Revolution affected all spheres of public life, including science. Economic science found itself at the epicenter of radical transformations. The Bolsheviks, who took a class position, proceeded from the need to subordinate economic science to the interests of the proletariat and expected from it recommendations for achieving politically defined goals. Such aspirations were partly based on Marxist political economy, which established the principle of the class approach in science. However, if it was possible to glean from Marx and his followers some, albeit very vague, ideas about the picture of a socialist economy, then the problem of the transition from capitalism to socialism remained, in essence, not even posed. Driven by the harsh economic necessity of the current moment, the Bolsheviks, although they sought to follow Marxism, were forced to experiment in practice and at the same time create theory. This left some room for analysis, especially since we were talking about a new type of economic policy.
Another aspect that determined the specifics of the political economy of this period was some continuation of previous scientific and pedagogical traditions. Despite the fact that many of the economists of that time negatively perceived the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks, they were not only in demand by the Soviet government, but also deliberately cooperated with it. And the point is not only in the pressure of physical necessity - going abroad or abandoning professional activities were possible, but also in the attractiveness for professionals of fundamentally new tasks that arose during the transition to socialism, in the hope of demand for existing knowledge and its use in the interests of the people economy (which was not typical for the previous government). For those who trusted the Bolsheviks at least a little and had sympathy for the socialist idea, cooperation with the new government became possible. And although history has shown the naivety of such hopes, the 20s turned out to be very fruitful for domestic economic science. Example N.D.Kondratieva is one of the most indicative in this regard: a graduate of the St. Petersburg school of political economy, an active political and public figure during the revolution of 1917, he showed himself as a scientist in the 20s. It is difficult to say under what circumstances Kondratiev changed his sharply critical attitude towards the Bolsheviks, which he expressed, for example, in the article "On the Road to Famine". Apparently, a certain role was played by the fact that the Bolsheviks managed to implement some economic measures that the Provisional Government tried, but could not implement, and the socialist views of Kondratieff himself were of great importance. The latter determined not only his political sympathies, but also his position on issues such as the role of the state in the economy, income distribution policies, etc.
Kondratiev entered the history of world economic science as the author of the theory of large cycles of the environment (long waves, Kondratiev cycles), however, his contribution is much greater and extends to the areas of research into economic dynamics, planning and forecasting, economics in transition, agrarian issues and agricultural problems .
N.D. Kondratyev was born in 1892 in the Kostroma province into a poor peasant family. He studied at a parochial school, a teacher's school, and a gardening school; in 1911 he graduated (as an external student) from the Kostroma gymnasium and in the same year he entered the law faculty of Petrograd University. After graduating from university and before the October Revolution, he actively worked in public and government organizations dealing with food supply issues, in the Council of Peasants' Deputies, the League of Agrarian Reforms, and the Main Land Committee. He was elected to the Constituent Assembly from the Kostroma province on the list of the Socialist Revolutionary Party (in this party from 1906 to 1919). He held the post of Comrade Minister of Food in the third and last cabinet of the Provisional Government. After the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly, he retired from political activities and moved to Moscow.
Since 1919, he was a professor at the Petrovskaya (Timiryazevskaya) Agricultural Academy, in 1920 he became the director of the newly created Market Research Institute (full name - Institute for the Study of National Economic Market Situations), and became a member of a number of commissions under the People's Commissariat of Agriculture, the People's Commissariat of Finance, and the State Planning Committee. In August 1922, he was arrested and convicted in the case of the so-called Tactical Center, spent several months in a camp near Moscow, which, however, did not greatly affect his career and did not become an obstacle to a long business trip abroad - to the USA, Great Britain, Canada , Germany, to study the organization of agriculture and agricultural policy, as well as trends in the world market for agricultural products from the point of view of the USSR's prospects on it.
The work of the Market Research Institute headed by Kondratiev was highly appreciated abroad, as evidenced by the reviews of S. Kuznets, W. Mitchell, I. Fisher, J.M. Keynes. Recognition of Kondratiev’s personal contribution was his election as a member of a number of reputable foreign scientific communities, for example, the American Economic Association, the London Statistical and Sociological Society, as well as his participation on the editorial board of a number of economic journals.
In the mid-20s, Kondratiev worked actively in the field of planning and forecasting. He was one of the authors of the draft long-term plan for the development of agriculture and forestry, the so-called “Kondratiev’s agricultural five-year plan”, participated in the discussion of the draft first five-year plan and the entire complex of national economic problems related to the determination of planning targets (the pace of industrialization, proportions of the national economy, price and tax policy, etc.).
In February 1926, at the Institute of Economics, Kondratiev made a report “Large cycles of economic conditions”, in which, summing up many years of research into cyclical processes in the capitalist economy, he expressed the thesis about the existence of long periods of changing economic conditions, thereby laying the foundation for a whole direction of modern economic theory.
Discussions about planning and large cycles inevitably touched upon issues of a political nature, which gave a specific flavor to the nature of the discussion. Therefore, when the political line began to tighten and the NEP began to be rolled back, scientific discussions and discussions of practical issues began to take on the character of party elaborations. In this situation, the position of Kondratiev, who defended a more balanced approach to the issue of the pace and methods of industrialization, who advocated support for the middle peasantry and the development of the market, his theory of large cycles, which, with a certain political engagement, could easily be interpreted as contradicting the Marxist theory of the development of capitalism, as well as his past activities in the bourgeois government - all this was blamed on the scientist and had far-reaching consequences. In May 1928, he was dismissed from his post as director of the Market Research Institute, and in June 1930 he was arrested. At the beginning of 1932 N.D. Kondratiev, together with a number of prominent agricultural specialists (A.V. Chayanov, A.N. Chslintsev, N.P. Makarov, A.G. Doyarenko, etc.) was sentenced in the case of the so-called Labor Peasant Party to 8 years in prison with serving a sentence in the Suzdal political isolation ward.

In the first years of imprisonment, when Kondratiev had the opportunity to obtain some scientific materials and his health allowed, he continued to work quite actively on books on problems of economic dynamics. Since 1935, the regime of detention has become more stringent, and health has noticeably deteriorated. In September 1938, Kondratiev was sentenced to death “for anti-Soviet agitation in prison.” Only in 1963 was this sentence overturned for lack of evidence of a crime, and the 1932 sentence was overturned. I had to wait until 1987.

2. Brief description of Kondratiev’s scientific heritage. Methodological approach to the general theory of economic dynamics

The following areas can be distinguished in Kondratiev’s scientific heritage: economic dynamics, including the theory of large cycles; planning, forecasting, regulation; agricultural issues, including issues related to the agricultural market and agricultural cooperation; historical and economic works, including political speeches.
We will focus on two areas of his research activity related to the development of the theory of statics and dynamics and problems of economic regulation, including issues of planning and forecasting (issues related to agriculture are discussed in Chapters 26-27).
All studies reflect his philosophical position - the conviction in the existence of objective laws in the socio-economic field, the study of which he considered the task of social sciences in general and economic science in particular; only knowledge of these patterns, according to the scientist, could become a reliable basis for regulation, an integral part of which is forecasting.
The desire for a comprehensive study of the objective laws of economic development was reflected in Kondratiev’s approach to the study of problems of economic dynamics. This topic is cross-cutting for the entire legacy of the scientist, which becomes especially clear if you look at this legacy through the prism of the plan developed by the scientist - the project of the general theory of dynamics.
According to this plan, developed by the scientist already during his imprisonment, the general theory of economic dynamics was to consist of the following sections: a general methodological part, trend analysis, the theory of large cycles, the theory of small cycles and crises, the theory of socio-economic genetics, or development.
Of the entire plan, only the part devoted to the trend was realized, which, unfortunately, was lost, and about half of the general methodological work, the manuscript of which was kept by the scientist’s wife and daughter for many years and which was published only in 1991 under the title “Main Problems of Economic Statics and speakers".
In this work, Kondratiev systematized and developed ideas regarding the methodology for studying economic processes, including the content of basic concepts: equilibrium, statics, dynamics, expressed in previous works.
Kondratiev developed these problems during the period when a qualitative leap in the development of the theory of general equilibrium was made in the West: the existence of equilibrium in a Walras-type system was first strictly mathematically proven, new concepts were introduced (intertemporal equilibrium, stationary state), and stability conditions were somewhat formulated (see. Ch. 13). The strengthening of the formally mathematical approach to the analysis of equilibrium has led to the fact that interest in the content of the concepts underlying the theory of equilibrium has noticeably decreased. At the same time, limitations were realized that were associated with the fundamentally static nature of equilibrium theory, the overcoming of which Western scientists associated with the introduction of new concepts, such as intertemporal equilibrium, expectations, uncertainty, etc.
A challenge to the static vision of the economic world was the “General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money” by J. Keynes, in which the central point is the concept of expectations, reflecting the peculiarities of investor behavior in conditions of uncertainty; “The Theory of Economic Development” by J. Schumpeter, in which dynamics were associated with the emergence of something new as a result of human creative activity.
In contrast to these economists, Kondratiev did not abandon the equilibrium approach, but rather tried to demonstrate its cognitive capabilities, primarily associated with the use of a statistical-probabilistic approach to defining basic concepts. The latter fit well into his idea of ​​the main task of economic science, which he defined as the identification of stable patterns in the sphere of economic life. Kondratiev associated the manifestation of stable patterns with the action of the law of large numbers. At the same time, he proceeded from the fact that the probabilistic nature of patterns reflects the objective limitations of human knowledge, which decreases with the accumulation of scientific knowledge.
Like many economists, Kondratiev defined statics and dynamics, contrasting them as theories that study economic phenomena, respectively, as unchanging in time (and then the central concept is “the concept of equilibrium of interconnected elements”) and as “the process of changes in economic elements and their connections." Naturally, the first step in creating a general theory of dynamics was to study the concepts of equilibrium, statics and dynamics and their relationships. This is exactly how the task was posed in Chapter 9 of the book “Main Problems of Economic Statics and Dynamics.” But, unfortunately, neither this chapter nor the work indicated was completed, so not only is there no holistic presentation of Kondratiev’s point of view on this issue, but it is not always possible to speak with confidence about the direction of his alleged reasoning. Kondratieff’s point of view on the problem of equilibrium and statics is more or less clear.
From the very beginning, Kondratiev proposed to consider the concept of equilibrium in relation to an economy of a certain type - an economy of free competition, where independent, rational individuals act, maximizing their objective functions, and which is represented by a set of some “elements of economic life”. The latter include prices, volume of supply/demand, level of income, production, savings and consumption. Depending on which system of elements is considered, the equilibrium of this system is defined as a state when there is no internal tendency to change the corresponding elements. Kondratiev identified two so-called concentrations. One included demand, supply and prices with fixed volumes of supply and demand, the second also included the level of production, costs and income, with fixed volumes of factors. He called the equilibrium related to the first and second concentrations the equilibrium of the first and second order. This classification generally corresponded to the classification of equilibrium within short and long periods proposed by Marshall (see Chapter 17).
Arguing generally in the spirit of Marshall, Kondratiev introduced two significant innovations: he used a statistical-probabilistic approach to defining the concept of equilibrium and recognized the importance of expectations in the process of achieving equilibrium. He abandoned the Walrasian process of determining equilibrium prices, primarily the premise that the auctioneer determines equilibrium prices and communicates them to the exchange participants, thereby placing them in complete knowledge. It was precisely the premise of perfect knowledge of economic entities that, according to Kondratiev, was the weakest side of Walras’s theory of equilibrium. And today this assessment is generally accepted. Finally, Kondratiev approached the question of the stability of equilibrium, and therefore introduced the concept of neutral (in modern terminology, and in Kondratiev - “indifferent”) static equilibrium. The essence of this concept is that if external conditions change, the system will come to a new state of equilibrium, in which it will remain until a new disturbance. Therefore, he understood stability as the ability of the market to find equilibrium: “What is stable is not the equilibrium of the market, but the tendency to find an equilibrium position if the latter is disturbed.” Here he seemed to have taken a step towards comparative statics, but the comparison of equilibrium states does not interest him yet. A meaningful analysis of the problem of sustainability, apparently, was left to the future, alas, not created theory of economic dynamics. And yet, some transition to dynamics has already been outlined.
The process of finding equilibrium in Kondratieff differs from that proposed in Walras’s model on several points: firstly, perfect knowledge of economic entities was not assumed, and therefore, the possibility of concluding transactions at non-equilibrium prices was allowed; secondly, equilibrium - in the form of equilibrium values ​​of prices and quantities - was represented not as the result of calculations by anyone (economic agents do not know these values, and the auctioneer does not exist), but as the average (more precisely, mode) of values ​​that characterize transactions, committed on the market; thirdly, the type of probability distribution of the values ​​of the corresponding variables (or rather, the fact that they are distributed according to a normal law) is determined by the large number of participants, their insignificant economic power and the fact that they act in their own interests. With this approach, the equilibrium of a certain system of elements under certain conditions is “that state of this system that is most probable and, therefore, changes in which are least likely.” This, in fact, is the essence of Kondratiev’s statistical-probabilistic approach.
The methodological significance of this approach is determined by the fact that it revealed Kondratiev’s idea of ​​regularity as a result of the action of the law of large numbers. Within the framework of this approach, the specificity of socio-economic phenomena in comparison with the phenomena of the physical world, and consequently, the characteristics of social knowledge in comparison with natural knowledge, are determined by two circumstances. Firstly, although the researcher of social phenomena deals with a large number of events, it is incomparably smaller than the number of events with which the researcher of natural processes deals. Secondly, the social scientist is deeply “immersed” in the environment under study and is a participant in the processes being studied, while the natural scientist acts as an external observer. Due to these circumstances, Kondratiev emphasized, the social scientist most often perceives phenomena as isolated events, behind which it is difficult for him to see patterns.
Thus, we can say that, from Kondratieff’s point of view, firstly, the essence of scientific knowledge is the establishment of stable patterns; secondly, these patterns inevitably, due to the specifics of human cognitive abilities, have a probabilistic nature; thirdly, due to the nature of social processes, established patterns are less reliable than patterns relating to natural phenomena.
Thus, Kondratiev’s very understanding of the goals of science and its object allows us to conclude that for him the area of ​​scientific knowledge is the area of ​​processes and phenomena to which the concept of probability is applicable. We are therefore talking about the realm of repeatable phenomena. Therefore, it is completely natural for Kondratiev to concentrate attention on cyclical processes in general and long-term ones, due to their less studied nature, in particular.

Kondratiev entered the history of world economic science as the author of the theory of large cycles of the environment (long waves, Kondratiev cycles), however, his contribution is much greater and extends to the areas of research into economic dynamics, planning and forecasting, economics in transition, agrarian issues and agricultural problems .

N.D. Kondratyev was born in 1892 in the Kostroma province into a poor peasant family. He studied at a parochial school, graduated from the Kostroma gymnasium in 1911 and entered the law faculty of Petrograd University. Worked in society. and government organizations involved in food supply issues. In the mid-20s. He worked actively in the field of planning and forecasting. He was one of the authors of the draft long-term plan for the development of agriculture and forestry, the so-called. "Kondratiev's five-year plan." In February 1926, at the Institute of Economics, he made a report “Large cycles of economic conditions,” in which he expressed the thesis about the existence of long periods of changing economic conditions.

In Kondratiev's scientific research, the following areas can be distinguished: economic dynamics, including the theory of large cycles; planning, forecasting, regulation; agricultural issues, including issues related to the agricultural market and cooperation; historical and economic works, including political speeches.

His philosophical position is the belief in the existence of objective laws in the socio-economic field.

The general theory of dynamics should have consisted of the following sections: general methodological part, trend analysis, theory of large cycles, theory of small cycles and crises, theory of socio-economic genetics, or development.

Kondratiev tried to demonstrate the cognitive capabilities of the equilibrium approach, primarily associated with the use of a statistical-probabilistic approach to defining basic concepts. From the very beginning, he proposed to consider the concept of equilibrium in relation to an economy of a certain type - an economy of free competition. He distinguished two so-called concentration One (first-order equilibrium) included demand, supply and prices with the volumes of supply and demand fixed from above, the second (2nd-order equilibrium) also included the level of production, costs and income, with fixed volumes of factors.

Kondratiev introduced two innovations: he used a statistical-probabilistic approach to defining the concept of equilibrium and recognized the importance of expectations in the process of achieving equilibrium. He introduced the concept of neutral (“indifferent”) static equilibrium: in the event of a change in external conditions, the system will come to a new state of equilibrium, in which it will remain until a new disturbance. Stability is the ability of the market to find equilibrium.

The process of finding equilibrium, in contrast to the Walras model: 1) not necessarily perfect knowledge of economic entities; 2) equilibrium was represented by the average (mode) of values ​​that characterize transactions made on the market; 3) the type of probability distribution of the values ​​of the corresponding variables is determined by the large number of participants, their insignificant economic power and the fact that they act in their own interests.

Cycles in the dynamics of the global economy:

Patterns:

1. for two decades before the start of the upward wave, there was a revival in the field of technical inventions, an expansion in the sphere of world relations and changes in gold mining and money circulation;

2. upward phases of large cycles are marked by significant social upheavals in the life of society;

3. the downward phase is associated with long-term depression in agriculture;

4. large cycles influence the average cycles: in the downward phase, the latter are characterized by a longer duration and depth of decline, shortness and weakness of the rise, on the contrary, in the upward phase of the large cycle, the rises of the average cycles are more significant and prolonged, and the declines are short and shallow.

All this led Kondratiev to the belief that there is a high probability of the existence of cycles of economic conditions with a periodicity of 50-60 years.

The upward wave is associated with the renewal and expansion of the stock of capital goods. The excess of demand for capital over its supply determines the change in the direction of the market curve. A depressed state stimulates the search for cheaper production processes and pushes towards technical inventions.

Questions about the scale and methods of regulating the economy, the strategy of the state's economic policy remained the focus of Kondratiev's attention throughout the entire period of his active political and economic activity. He came up with the idea of ​​strengthening the regulatory function of the state and proposed expanding the function of local government bodies, primarily food committees that exercise control over private capital and support cooperation.

The starting point for constructing a plan is supposed to be forecast, foresight, and analysis of objective development trends. Kondratiev considered the goal of planning to be the development of realistic and well-founded plans based on the analysis of objective trends, that is, plans “on which one could rely in managing the national economy” and which are an expression of desired results within the framework of the possible.

Kondratiev proceeded from the fact that the implementation of industrialization presupposes a high rate of accumulation. The source of accumulation in the current conditions is agriculture, which is basically private capitalist.

Among the general economic tasks, Kondratiev named the balance of effective demand and the production of consumer goods.

13. Discussions about national economic planning in the 1920s.

1) Thesis about the need to combine long-term and current planning (G.M. Krzhizhanovsky). Development of a holistic program, including five-year and master plans (10-15 years). Distinction of goals for planning for different periods.

2) In the first half of the 20s - 2 approaches to understanding the role of planning under the NEP:

Kondratiev: the plan is the most accurate forecast of the future movement of the national economy. It’s difficult to make plans because of the devastation, long-term planning can turn into fantasies

Bazarov: give an analysis of the target state to which society should arrive, indicate problems, without reference to a time frame. A combination of teleological (primarily for industry) and genetic (for agriculture) approaches.

A number of Gosplan economists denounced the genetic approach and proclaimed only teleology as a truly socialist approach.

3) Study of market conditions and growth patterns

Bazarov: growth is a decaying curve (decrease in growth rates as devastation is overcome)

Groman: stable ratios of recovery rates and trends in changes in cost proportions.

4) Balance sheet method:

Gosplan: emphasis on formal balance, the implementation of which will lead to the interest of workers in fulfilling the assigned tasks and will cause the emergence of the “creative will of the revolutionary proletariat”

Kondratiev, Makarov, Weinstein: a guide to the most favorable economic conditions for the accumulation and use of capital, the introduction of levers that encourage enterprises to use resources efficiently.

5) Criteria for social and economic progress:

Early projects of the State Planning Committee: maximum growth of productive forces, socialization and well-being of the people

Weinstein: the growth of these parameters may conflict with each other, it is necessary to determine their subordination

Most opponents of the State Planning Committee: the priority of the dynamic development of productive forces

Gosplan: the primary role is socialization

Khudokormov further writes that at the turn of the 20-30s there was a radical change in the economic and political principles of the functioning of society and the establishment of an administrative-command system, then everything about the 30s

“this position is the alpha and omega of German neoliberalism, separating its teaching from the liberal interpretation of the state as a “night watchman”

“It may be objected, of course, that the industrial system is not the whole economy. In addition to the world of General Motors, Standard Oil, Ford Motor, General Electric, United States Steel, Chrysler, Texaco, Gulf, Western Electric and DuPont ", there is also the world of the independent shopkeeper, farmer, shoe repairman, bookmaker, drug dealer, pie peddler, dog prop laundromat and car drapery owner. Here prices are not controlled. Here the supreme power belongs to the consumer. Here monetary motives reign in their pure form. The technology here is simple, and there is no research or development work being done to make it different. There are no government orders here; independence from the state is a real fact here. None of these entrepreneurs are scouring the MIT campus for talent. I acknowledge the existence of this world. And this part of the economy is not without significance. But she is not the subject of this book. Its subject is the world of large corporations."

Identification manifests itself to a greater extent, as the technostructure does not allow secrecy, on which abuses and malfeasance grow (written in Pokidchenko, IMHO nonsense)

Lecture 8 Economic theories of N. D. Kondratyev and A. V. Chayanov 1. Large cycles of economic conditions and the theory of foresight. 2. The concept of national economic planning in Kondratiev’s interpretation. 3. Kondratiev’s views on agrarian issues. 4. The concept of family-labor peasant farming. 5. The theory of peasant cooperation.

Literature: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Kondratiev N. D. The grain market and its regulation during the war and revolution. – M.: Nauka, 1991. – 487 p. Kondratyev N. D. Selected works. – M.: Economics, 1993. – 396 p. Kondratiev N. D. Large cycles of conjuncture and the theory of foresight. – M.: ZAO Publishing House “Economy”, 2002 www. inet-lib. com (electronic library) A short course in cooperation: Reprint reproduction of the 1925 edition / Chayanov A.V. - M.: Cooperative Publishing House, 1989. - 74 p. Chayanov A.V. Selected works / Ed. count ser. : Adamov V.E. et al. - M.: Finance and Statistics, 1991. - 432 p. In search of our path: Russia between Europe and Asia: Reader on the history of Russian social thought of the 19th and 20th centuries. V. : For higher educational institutions / In 2 parts. Comp. Fedorovsky N. G. – M.: Nauka, 1994. – 248 p. Nikulin A. M. Agrarian transformations in the research of Chayanova A. V. // Sociological studies. – 2005. - No. 10. Muravyova L. A. Overcoming the oblivion of time // Finance and credit. – 2003. No. 13

Nikolai Dmitrievich Kondratiev (1892 -1938) N. D. Kondratiev was born in the village of Galuevsky, Kineshma district, Ivanovo. Voznesensk province in a large peasant family. He studied at a parochial school, in 1905 he entered the church-teachers' gymnasium, from where he was expelled in 1906 for unreliability. In 1911 -1914. studied at Petrograd University, where he studied socio-economic sciences, after which he was left at the department of political economy to prepare for a professorship.

Created and headed until 1928 the Market Research Institute. Arrested in 1930 and convicted on charges of creating a non-existent “labour peasant party”, which allegedly fought against collectivization in the USSR. 1930 -1932 – in Butyrka prison. 1932 -1938 in the Suzdal political isolator. On September 17, 1938 he was shot.

The main works of N. D. Kondratiev on the agrarian issue: “The Agrarian Question” (1917) “The world economy and its conditions during and after the war” (1922) “The world grain market and the prospects for our grain exports” (1923 .) “Russian Agriculture in the 20th Century” (1923) “Relative fall in grain prices” “The grain market and its regulation during war and revolution”, etc.

In economic theory of the 1930s. Only cycles lasting 7–11 years were considered. Kondratyev N.D. proved that there are also cycles of economic dynamics lasting 48 -55 years - large cycles.

He studied statistical data from England, Germany, France and the USA for 140 years: production of iron and steel, coal consumption, interest on capital, wages of textile and agricultural workers, acreage of oats, cotton, deposits in savings banks, etc.

Most of the data taken reveals the presence of cyclic waves. The periods of fluctuation of individual data coincide very closely with each other (the divergence of turning points along individual curves exceeds 5 years only in isolated cases). At the same time, data on the consumption of wheat, coffee, sugar, and cotton do not confirm the presence of large cycles.

Four important empirical patterns: 1. Before and at the beginning of the upward wave of each major cycle, profound changes are observed in the conditions of the economic life of society: significant changes in technology, the involvement of new countries in world economic relations, changes in gold production and money circulation.

3. The periods of the downward wave of each large cycle are accompanied by a long and especially sharply identified depression in agriculture 4. During the period of the upward wave of large cycles, average capitalist cycles are characterized by the brevity of depressions and the intensity of upswings; During the downward wave of large cycles, the opposite picture is observed

The beginning of the rise coincides with the moment when the accumulation and accumulation of capital reaches such a tension at which it becomes possible to profitably invest capital in order to create basic productive forces and radically re-equip equipment.

The beginning increase in the pace of economic life, complicated by industrial capitalist cycles of medium duration, causes an intensification of social struggle, the struggle for the market and external conflicts.

In this process, the rate of capital accumulation weakens and the process of dispersion of free capital intensifies. The intensification of these factors causes a change in the pace of economic development and its slowdown. The effect of these factors is stronger in industry, and the turning point usually coincides with the beginning of a long agricultural depression.

The decrease in the pace of economic life determines, on the one hand, an intensification of searches in the field of improving technology, and on the other, the restoration of the process of capital accumulation in the hands of industrial, financial and other groups, largely at the expense of agriculture. All this creates the preconditions for a new rise in the great cycle, and it repeats itself again, albeit at a new stage in the development of productive forces. Thus, one can rather assert the existence of large cycles of economic conditions, rather than talk about their absence.

2. For most of the decade of the 1920s. Kondratiev worked on the problems of national economic planning, drew up the first plans, and set the task of creating a macroeconomic theory of planning and forecasting. The scientist saw the significance of the plan in ensuring a faster, with spontaneous development, rate of growth of the productive forces, as well as a balanced growth of production.

The scientific basis of foresight 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The present and the future grow from the past, the patterns of development of society must be studied for foresight. The forecast has scientific significance - for the sake of it, knowledge is carried out, and the confirmability of forecasts serves as the main criterion for the truth of scientific theories. The problem of forecasting has practical implications. meaning, because ". . . whether a social reform project is being put forward, whether this or that economic policy measure is being proposed, whether this or that plan for regulating the national economy is being constructed. . . Everywhere the question is raised about active intervention in the course of environmental events and the question about foreseeing the course of subsequent events.” The reliability of the forecast depends on the depth of scientific knowledge of reality. Forecasting is the lot of scientists and any administrative intervention is detrimental to the reliability of forecasts.

Cyclical - genetic basis of foresight Kondratiev N.D. identifies three sections of the theory of economics: statics, dynamics and genetics Statics is a necessary, but initial stage of cognition. It identifies and describes the structure, internal and external relationships and proportions of the object being studied in a state of rest or equilibrium without jumps of movement. Dynamics - allows you to identify changes in economic elements, i.e., think about economic life in the process of change. Socio-economic genetics is the highest level of knowledge, revealing the patterns of heredity, variability and selection in the development of society, helping to understand their mechanisms during changing cycles.

The scientific basis for long-term and strategic forecasting was Kondratiev’s doctrine of cyclic dynamics “The Problem of Foresight” (1926), “Plan and Forecast” (1927). N. D. Kondratiev reveals the criteria for the reliability and reliability of the forecast: 1. Foresight of events bearing regular character; 2. Foresight of events that reveal the regular repetition of cycles and crises; 3. Anticipation of general trends in socio-economic dynamics. For the last two types, the cyclic genetic approach is of decisive importance.

Forecast and plan Foresight is necessary for the state's targeted influence on the course of socio-economic development on the basis of long-term (strategic) plans. “The plan is not only foresight, it... . . and program of action; but a plan without any foresight is nothing.” The starting point of the plan is the analysis of objective economic reality and trends in its development and “the construction of a system of measures and means of influencing the state on the course of this spontaneous development in order to direct it along the most desirable course.”

The prospects of the plan are not only a directive, but also a foresight based on knowledge of connections and patterns in the course of reality that were noticed in the study of the past, and above all, dynamic patterns, since only dynamic patterns can indicate the path and forms of transition of events from stages of the present to one or another stage of the future, only dynamic patterns seem to connect the present and the future. Evidence-based plans require a decisive refusal to introduce arbitrary parameters into them. Let them become “poorer and more modest,” but at least more real.

A long-term plan should consist of two main parts: 1. A substantiated and, if possible, quantitatively expressed idea of ​​the probable and desirable prospects for the development of the economy. 2. A system of state activities consistent with these principles, which are aimed at realizing these prospects. Criticizes the USSR State Planning Committee for constructing detailed balance sheets of the entire national economy for the five-year period. He warns against the hypnosis of numbers and the arithmetic of detailed calculations, which replace a deep analysis of possible contradictory trends in future development.

General rule of planning constructions Only those phenomena and processes whose dynamics can be assessed by quantitative indicators are subject to planning, i.e., precise expression for a certain perspective; otherwise, one should limit oneself to only indicating the main trends. The relativity of planning directives “The plans drawn up cannot be understood as a strictly precise, so to speak, “official” directive. They should be understood as a basic guiding directive requiring the practice to be as creative as possible in terms of taking into account the specific conditions of work and obtaining the greatest results."

3. The agrarian question in the works of N. D. Kondratyev An effective agricultural sector is capable of ensuring the growth of the entire economy and becoming a guarantee of the sustainability of the entire national economy. He considered it necessary to provide priority assistance to farms approaching the farm type, capable of ensuring a rapid increase in the production of marketable bread. His program was focused on supporting strong family working farms that could become the basis for economic recovery in the country. The scientist identified three acceptable forms of land use: - personal, - communal, - artel. The choice of form must be made locally.

He sees the solution to the agrarian question in the socialization of the land. In the village there should be equal family-labor use of land and every worker should be provided with land free of charge. Thanks to this, the unemployed part of the working class will be able to go into agriculture and will no longer undermine the position of the rest of the workers with their competition. Socialization will strengthen agricultural production and industry. It will make the people more well-fed, healthier and, therefore, more productive.

At the same time, N.D. Kondratyev is a supporter of the farmer-capitalist path of agricultural development, considering the social differentiation of the peasantry a natural and even positive process. In the wealthiest peasant (farm) households, higher labor productivity, marketability and the degree of capital accumulation are achieved. They intensively generate financial resources that are used by their owners to intensify production. From large farms it is possible, within certain limits, to draw resources both for material assistance to the poorest strata of the village and for the development of industry. As for the poor, they create a reliable base for recruiting agricultural and industrial workers, which is also necessary for the development of the national economy.

Kondratyev N.D. sees the basis of land orders in a combination of three forms of land ownership: 1. State 2. Cooperative 3. Individual peasant. Kondratyev N.D. proved the futility of both large capitalist and small labor peasant farms as such. He saw overcoming the economic limitations of these forms of farming through cooperation. It is cooperation that can and should combine the advantages of small-scale (lack of emphasis on surplus value as the main goal of production) and large-scale (ensuring significant labor productivity with lower specific labor costs and capital intensity, introducing the achievements of scientific and technical progress, etc.) methods of management.

Cooperatives should be formed on the basis of strict voluntariness, if necessary, observe consistency in changing types of cooperation, in which a production cooperative is the final, most developed form of joint farming; its widespread introduction into the economic life of the village must be preceded by the cooperation of peasants in the sphere of circulation.

“The bread market and its regulation during war and revolution” The creation of the army and the disruption of the bread market posed the task of regulating the supply of bread to the army and the population. The focus of this monograph was on the issues of supply and regulation of the grain market in conditions of war and revolutionary transformations of society (the impossibility of its natural functioning).

Tasks of the state to regulate supply: - Procurement of grain; -Price regulation; -Regulation of transportation; -Regulation of distribution and consumption; -Creation of a network of food authorities.

The task of price regulation It was in the immediate interests of the state to delay further rapid price increases. Price regulation during war manifests itself in two main forms: 1. Impact on the market relationship between demand and supply of grain by releasing state or municipal grain reserves onto the market; 2. Establishment of specified prices instead of free prices. Listed prices, by their economic nature, are divided into flat and tax prices.

Fixed prices are set in grain procurement areas. Taxes are set in areas where bread is consumed. Considers a model of a fixed price for bread, in which the degree of administrative intervention is the highest; a model of indirect influence, the essence of which was to guess the “free price”, and a mixed method of pricing, based on a combination of a firm price basis with forecasts of its possible changes.

Correlation of industrial and agricultural prices “We want the pricing policy for agricultural products to be based on the principle that the price should ensure expanded reproduction of agricultural goods.” State price policy in subsequent decades was based on opposite principles and prevented not only expanded, but also simple reproduction in agriculture , as well as modernization.

The task of regulating the transportation, distribution and consumption of products Regulation of transportation is explained by the “increased disruption of transport” Regulation of distribution and consumption: “the difficulty of procuring and transporting products led to their shortage in areas of consumption, and this deficiency required the streamlining of their distribution and rationing of consumption.” Creating a network of food authorities and fulfilling all previous tasks required the state to create an appropriate food organization in Russia.

Methods of state influence on the course of supply: Direct - the state itself, as an economic entity, acquires products and supplies them to the consumer: unification and unification of the procurement apparatus, distribution of supplies among provinces. Indirect - a system of measures whose purpose is to influence the grain market as a condition that determines the immediate course of supply. These include: establishing fixed prices, export bans, and introducing scheduled transportation. Measures of a complex nature to regulate procurement - forced appropriation, state monopoly of grain.

Kondratiev notes a close connection between the first and second groups of methods, leading to the fact that in practice they are difficult to distinguish. Kondratyev N.D. is the first to approach the concept of mixed forms of influence on the economy - from the state, trade and business structures, local authorities (cities and zemstvos), as well as from individual peasant farms. The problem of the grain market is presented as a synthetic problem - many subjects are involved in its resolution, various, often contradictory, methods of regulation are used.

Actively opposes the indiscriminate inclusion of all “strong strata of the village” into the kulaks; an indefinitely broad approach to the kulaks gives rise to a fight against the “strong, developing strata of the village. . . Which alone can be the basis of commercial products."

“Kondratieff’s Agricultural Five-Year Plan” Analysis of past and probable future trends in the development of agriculture, indications of the desired directions of its development and measures, the implementation of which would help bring the probable direction closer to the desired one. Based on the general orientation of the party and the state to accelerate the development of productive forces and create an industrial-agrarian type of economy, the most desirable direction for the development of agriculture was defined as one that “firstly, will possibly fully and quickly provide the raw material base for the development of industry; secondly, it will accelerate the process of accumulation of funds within the country and increase the purchasing power of the population; thirdly, it will increase its tax-paying power. But all this is conceivable only with the expansion of agricultural production, with an increase in its value, with the acceleration of export opportunities.”

4. A.V. Chayanov (1888 -1937) was born in Moscow, graduated from the Petrovsky (Timiryazevsky) Agricultural Academy, where he worked for a long time. In 1908 he published his first scientific work on agricultural cooperation in Italy. In 1918 – Doctor of Science, Professor. In 1919, A. Chayanov created the country's first scientific research institute of agricultural economics. Until 1928, director of this institute. Then he takes an active part in organizing agricultural cooperation in the country, and also works in the highest economic bodies involved in agriculture. 1930 Arrested in the case of the Labor Peasant Party and exiled to Kazakhstan. 1937 repressed again and executed.

“One of the deep and most important phenomena of the era we are experiencing in the history of Russia is the powerful revival of the Russian village, full of youthful energy.” At the center of the study was the task of: 1) clarifying the nature of the working peasant economy, its organizational and economic structure and development paths (in Russia from the general 90% of the masses of peasant farms are pure family farms, while in Western Europe and America there are negligible numbers of them); 2) Cooperation in the agricultural sector. “Organization of Peasant Farming” (1925); “A Short Course in Cooperation” (1925); “Basic ideas and forms of organization of agricultural cooperation” (1927). 3) Organization of agricultural production

Family-labor peasant farming (FPL) 1. Aimed at meeting the needs of the family members themselves. 2. Subsistence farming. People are drawn into the process of market economy through the sale of surplus and better satisfaction of their own needs. 3. Advantages of agricultural labor: the peasant’s attachment to the land, accurate accounting of soil-climatic and weather conditions, detailed knowledge of the characteristics of agricultural labor, etc. 4. Organizational plan and labor-consumer balance - the basis of the organization of agricultural labor

Organizational plan (the peasant’s subjective reflection of the system of goals and means of economic activity) the choice of the direction of the economy, the combination of its various sectors, the linking of labor resources and the main volumes of work, the division of products consumed on their own farm and products sent to the market, the balance of cash receipts and expenses.

Family composition determines the limits of the family’s economic activity “The labor force of a labor economy is entirely determined by the availability of able-bodied family members. Therefore, the highest possible limit to the volume of the economy depends on the size of the work that these labor forces can produce at their greatest use and stress. To the same extent, the lowest volume of the economy is determined by the amount of material goods that are absolutely necessary for the very fact of the existence of the family.”

Labor and consumption balance A peasant, using his own labor and the labor of his family members on his farm, strives not for the maximum of net profit, but for the growth of total gross income, the balance of production and natural factors, the correspondence of production and consumption, the uniform distribution of labor and income throughout the year. Consequently, market criteria for skhkh are not always applicable. Land rent in stkkh loses its unearned character, and takes the form of excess income received by a peasant family due to the benefits of location, increased soil fertility, and other factors.

The concept of the organizational plan and labor-consumer balance allowed Chayanov A.V. to explain a number of paradoxes in the development of peasant farming in Russia: - Flax growing and potato growing - labor-intensive crops gave a small net profit and were not common in enterprise-type farms, while land-poor peasants raised them very widely; - Low level of distribution of high-performance threshers in industrial buildings; - In years of poor harvests, labor supply increased; in years of improved market conditions, it reduced the working time fund.

Fundamentals of the structure and turnover of capital in a family farm: 1. At each given level of technology and the conditions of a given market situation, any agricultural enterprise that has the ability to regulate the area of ​​its land use can increase the productivity of its farm to a known optimal level for this family. 2. Not all industrial enterprises operate at optimal capital intensity. Many of them operate farms with reduced capital availability and receive reduced wages. 3. The processes of capital formation and capital restoration are linked in some equilibrium with other processes of the family economy (labor effort, satisfaction of personal needs, etc.) and depend in their strength on the development of the latter.

Demographic factors of differentiation of stkh: - children grow up to become semi-workers, and then workers - disintegration of the “big family” into a number of small young families Thus, firstly, the dynamics of stkh is wave-like, subject to the process of its growth and disintegration; secondly, property differentiation is not of a social nature.

Criticism of the three-member scheme “kulak - middle peasant - poor peasant” He identified six types of farms: 1. capitalist; 2. semi-labor; 3. prosperous family-labor households; 4. poor family - labor; 5. semi-proletarian; 6. proletarian.

Cooperation is a massive way to increase the efficiency of the agricultural sector. A cooperative is a union of farms, and the farms included in such a union are not destroyed as a result, but still remain small labor farms. An agricultural cooperative is an addition to an independent farm, it serves it, and without such a farm it makes no sense. Operations for processing, storage, marketing of peasant products, purchase and maintenance of equipment, procurement of mineral fertilizers, seeds, breeding, selection work, credit business, i.e. all those operations where large-scale production has an advantage over small ones.

An approach to cooperation from two sides: 1. Organizational form of the economy. Concept of organizational plan and differential optima of enterprise sizes. 2. Social movement – ​​anti-capitalist and anti-bureaucratic orientation. The cooperation gives peasants knowledge about the operation of agricultural machinery, etc., therefore, in addition to trade work, it conducts cultural and educational work in the villages. In cooperation, capital is a servant, not a master.

From the point of view of organization: Only those types of activities whose technical optimum exceeds the capabilities of an individual peasant farm should be transferred to cooperatives. The “splitting off” of operations usually occurs “from the market to the field”: first, the cooperative form extends to 1) operations connecting the economy with the market - cooperatives for purchasing, sales, credit, 2) to the processes of primary processing of raw materials (oil production, vegetable drying, potato peeling partnerships) and 3) production biotechnological (societies for breeding livestock, machinery, reclamation partnerships).

The theory of differential optima of agricultural enterprises The optimum occurs where, “all other things being equal, the cost of the resulting products will be the lowest.” In the agricultural sector of the economy, the optimal size of farms very much depends on natural, climatic, geographical conditions, the biological nature of processes and other features, so taking into account the regional factor is especially necessary here.

Differences between a cooperative and private trade and industrial enterprises: Cooperative production and trade 1. The interests of farms that have united in a union and created a cooperative for themselves come first. Private entrepreneur and merchant 1. The interests of capital invested in production and services come first.

2. The management and management of the affairs of the cooperative is in the hands of the labor farms included in the cooperative. 3. The interests of the peasant are determined not only by obtaining benefits for himself, but also by the demands of spiritual life, 2. The leadership and management of affairs is carried out by representatives of capital who have spent a lot of money. 3. Private interests are determined only by obtaining greater benefits, profits for oneself.

He protested against the trend towards nationalization of cooperatives. The cooperative apparatus is recognized as more advanced in servicing the village than state enterprises, because “... . . cooperation, managed in its smallest bodies by elected representatives of the workers, under the control of the cooperative members who elected it, not bound by administrative orders of the center, flexible in economic work, allowing the most rapid and free manifestation of beneficial local initiative - is the best apparatus where organized local initiative is required, where in each individual case it is necessary to flexibly adapt to local conditions and take into account the smallest features of each place and each month of work.”

Defends the independence of cooperative organizations - “coordination of the interests of cooperation and the state - through a general agreement between government agencies and cooperative centers.” Cooperatives support and develop the peasants' desire for forms of economic self-government (meetings, elections of boards and democratic control over its work, etc.). Cooperation rebuilds isolated individual peasant farms into higher forms of social economy, and this is the main task of building a new village.

The concept of differential optima until the mid-1920s. used by Chayanov to justify “vertical cooperation” (for independent and relatively small peasant farms). From 1928-1930 A. Chayanov’s focus is already on the organization of large and largest agricultural enterprises on state farms (a break with the previous concept of an individual family-labor economy as the basis of the agricultural sector). Under the new political realities, individual peasant farming cannot be preserved; therefore, it justifies the state farm form as the most acceptable from the point of view of introducing mechanization and advanced methods of agricultural science.

Organization of the agricultural sector “Agriculture remained somehow aloof from the conquests of human culture and was carried out almost everywhere in the old fashioned way in thousands and millions of individual small farms, dispersed, not connected by anything with each other and most of them working with very little advanced technology. . . Is it even possible to organize agriculture like industry on the new principles of modern technology and scientific organization? How to introduce these methods and paths into the depths of the village, how to organize the peasantry so that the achievements of science and practice become accessible to them? This question is the most important issue for agriculture!”

In 1917, he put forward a plan for the reconstruction of the agricultural sector (quite radical): - transfer of land into the ownership of the working peasantry and the introduction of labor ownership of land (without the right to buy and sell plots); - transfer of landowners' farms and model estates to the state; - introduction of a single agricultural tax for partial withdrawal of differential rent. Negative attitude towards the Socialist Revolutionary demand for equal distribution of land to peasants, believing that such a land use regime does not correspond to the flexible nature of agricultural land and will require unaffordable costs with multiple land redistributions.

Two promising types of possible development of agriculture: 1. The American farmer path of capitalism in agriculture with the introduction of all kinds of capitalist auxiliary enterprises into the depth of farms 2. “Cooperative collectivization” and the transformation of cooperation into “. . . one of the components of the socialist economic system." Chayanov A.V. recommended the second path as the only possible one in the Soviet countryside to prevent “farmer degeneration” and to gradually involve each of the peasant farms in the general mainstream of the planned economy.

Introduction

Currently, in world economic science, the name of the little-known Russian economist N.D. Kondratiev is associated with such concepts as “Kondratiev long waves” or “Kondratiev large cycles of economic conditions.”

KONDRATIEV NIKOLAY DMITRIEVICH born in 1892 into a peasant family.

He graduated from the Faculty of Law of St. Petersburg University (1915), where his teachers were M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky, A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky, M.M. Kovalevsky, L.I. Petrazhitsky, and was left at the university to prepare for a professorship in the department of political economy and statistics.

In 1917, after the February Revolution, N. D. Kondratiev participated in

preparation of agrarian reform and for a short time was deputy

Minister of Food in the government of A.F. Kerensky.

In 1918 he taught at the Moscow City Shanyavsky University, in 1919-1920 - at the Cooperative Institute, and from 1920 - professor at the Timiryazev Agricultural Academy. In 1920-1928 - director of the Market Research Institute - a research organization on the problems of studying the economic situation in the USSR and other countries, and the methodology of planning the Soviet economy.

N. D. Kondratiev participated in the work on drawing up the first 5-year plan

plan. He believed that plans should be primarily of high quality,

rather than quantitative in nature, be based on rigorous scientific

research and proportionality. He was strongly against

accelerated industrialization by pumping funds from agriculture

farms. In 1920 he was arrested, but given amnesty. In 1922 he was accused of assisting the Social Revolutionaries and was under arrest; was on the list for deportation from the country along with future passengers of the “philosophical ship”, but thanks to the petition of the Bolshevik P.A. Bogdanov was left. In 1924, he was on a scientific trip to the USA, where he received an invitation from his youth friend P.A. Sorokin to teach at the University of Minnesota and stay abroad, but he refused.

In 1930, N. D. Kondratyev was arrested and sentenced to

long term on trumped-up charges of creation and management

the imaginary "labour peasant party", which allegedly fought against

collectivization in the USSR. In 1938 he was convicted again and executed.

N.D. Kondratyev was completely rehabilitated (“due to the lack of composition

crimes") only almost half a century later - in 1987, and his first book

works came to the current generation of economists only in 1989.

Economic views of N.D. Kondratiev

The creative path of N.D. Kondratiev is closely intertwined with the activities of A.V. Chayanov.

However, unlike the latter, Kondratiev is not engaged in

organizational and production problems of peasant farms and

cooperation, but by analyzing the economic situation in which it is necessary

rural producers to act.

N.D. Kondratiev also opposed the concepts of forced industrialization. He proposed directing part of the capital investment to the development of agriculture and the local manufacturing industry. The objectives of industrial development had to be linked with the objectives of the development of the agricultural sector. The lack of such balance can lead to imbalances in the economy and disruption of the industrialization program (the concept of equilibrium development). These studies quickly led Nikolai Kondratiev to the problem

long-term trends in economic development. Having processed using special

mathematical methods, data on changes in a number of important indicators

the state of the economy of England, France, Germany and the USA from the end of the 18th century to

beginning of the 20th century, Kondratiev discovered interesting patterns.

After analyzing them, he formulated the theory of “long waves” of development

market economy, which glorified his name.

This theory proved that countries with market economies in their

development regularly goes through stages of economic boom and bust,

forming standard cycles that repeat every 40–60 years.

Thus, for the first time in world economic science

Kondratiev was able to prove that time is independent and important

economy of any country.

In addition, N.D. Kondratiev’s dynamics of the economy are not changes in the “material relation”, when today one batch of raw materials is processed, tomorrow another, a third, etc. Analysis of dynamics in the economy assumes that it is not the “material nature” of the economy that is being studied, but the volume and organization of production, the nature of consumption and demand, prices, etc.

Wavy or reversible N.D. Kondratiev calls processes in which a phenomenon, changing its state, after some time can return to its original state. The scientist classifies as reversible, for example, the processes of changes in commodity prices, interest on capital, and the share of the unemployed in the working population. Generally speaking, notes N.D. Kondratiev, the process of economic development never occurs more than once at the same level; one can only record the transition from one stage of development to another. In this regard, there are no absolutely irreversible processes in the economy, but we can talk about the relative reversibility of some processes.

Reversible changes in the elements of the economic process and their susceptibility to fluctuations constitute the essence of the laws of cyclical dynamics. Not only economic, but also social and political phenomena are subject to cyclical fluctuations.

It was with N.D. Kondratiev is associated with the statistical identification and theoretical substantiation of long-term cycles - “long waves of the market”, or “large cycles”, or “Kondratiev cycles”, as they were later called in the West.

Such large cycles, according to the Russian scientist, are born after or

together with serious innovations in the economic life of society (the introduction

major inventions and discoveries of scientists, the emergence of new

groups of countries, etc.). In this case, the rise of the wave is usually accompanied by especially

a large number of wars and all kinds of political upheavals, including

revolution. The real material basis of “long waves” is

radical renewal by humanity of those types of production facilities and

equipment that have particularly long service lives (iron

roads, bridges, canals, dams, etc.).

These findings aroused great interest throughout the world: about the work of Nikolai

Dmitrievich Kondratyev was immediately praised by the largest

scholars including Keynes, Schumpeter and others. A different fate awaited the theory

The conviction, born of long research, that economics

develops according to objective laws, played a fatal role in the fate of Nicholas

Kondratieva.

His views and arguments contradicted the theory of the "party approach to

economic planning", which, under the supervision of Stalin, became

dominant in the USSR. Just like A.V. Chayanov, Nikolai did not fit in

Dmitrievich Kondratiev and plans for transformation of agriculture.

The scientist opposed excessive detail, weak validity of plans, and “fetishism of numbers.” Even for state-owned enterprises, the target figures were supposed to be advisory rather than mandatory.

N.D. had a negative attitude. Kondratiev to the idea of ​​directing material resources to support the poorest peasant farms. He believed that it was necessary to strengthen the marketability of the agricultural sector. Assistance must be provided to strong farms that can quickly increase bread production volumes. This was supposed to lead to a massive rise in high-commodity farming.

N.D. Kondratyev advocated free cooperation of peasant farms and warned that the inclusion of all the strong strata of the village in the “kulaks” leads to a struggle with those who alone can be the basis for the production of marketable products. Only when commodity production in rural areas has become stronger can one think about material support for the poorest strata. These ideas N.D. Kondratiev, as well as the ideas of combining the plan and the market, were at odds with the then course of the Communist Party, and therefore were not in demand in practice.

Kondratiev wrote about the greatest economic justification for small-scale farming, which is not associated with the production of surplus value, does not depend on the free labor market, and does not lead to the death of a significant part of fixed capital during the long “dead seasons” from harvest to harvest.

“The industrialization program requires large-scale agricultural machinery as a necessary condition for its reconstruction on the basis of collectivization. - For goodness sake, are we against it? We are “for” advanced technology, for the most advanced technology of capitalist countries, although we are still far from them. But... beware of violating the eternal “law of all laws” - about diminishing soil fertility - it sets a limit to the “profitable” saturation of agriculture with capital, i.e., “implements of production”. Here is a very “scientific” Law of our “scientists” A.V. Chayanov and N.D. Kondratiev about “optimal sizes”. “Intensive, mechanized farming from 5 -6 to 100 ■ acres of land in the hands of an individual user” would be quite suitable. business. Well, as for collectivization, “you understand; nothing can be done with a plan, let the peasants themselves decide. But they are unlikely to need large equipment, because the experience of America, Germany, Denmark says...”, etc. and etc.

This is how the singers of the kulak economy and the ideologists of the capitalist restoration droned everywhere and everywhere they managed to penetrate - in literature, at meetings, in plans.”(Let's complete the defeat of Kondratievism A.A. Sadovsky M. Selkolkhozgiz. 1931)

Kondratieff’s teaching on the role of the state in economic life is very original. He shared Pareto's views on the role of the market in reconciling multiple individual interests. But he did not agree with his strictly individualistic approach. For Kondratiev, man is not a passive material for the manifestation of the market element, but an active being capable of changing the future. The state concentrates the will of the people to

changes. However, not all of his activities are for the good. In this regard, Kondratiev formulates two concepts: probable changes in the economy and desirable changes in the economy. The economic activity of the state is the more favorable the more the desired changes in the economy coincide with its probable changes.

At first glance, it seems that this approach simply disguises the concept

state non-intervention. In fact, Kondratiev does not even allow in his thoughts that the state, since it exists, will play a passive role in the economy.

He only insists that in achieving its goals the state chooses the path closest to real trends in economic development.

Long wave theory

In the early 1920s, Kondratiev launched a broad discussion on the issue of long-term fluctuations under capitalism.

At that time, hopes for a quick revolution were still very strong.

in advanced capitalist countries, and therefore the question of the future

capitalism, about the possibility of its new rise, its achievement of higher

stage of development was extremely relevant.

The discussion began with the work “The World Economy and Its Conjunctures During and After the War,” published in 1922, in which Kondratiev suggested the existence of long waves in the development of capitalism. Despite the negative reaction of the majority of Soviet scientists to this publication, N. D. Kondratiev continued to consistently defend his position in the following works:

"Controversial issues of the world economy and crisis (answer to our critics)" - 1923.

"Great Cycles of Conjuncture" - 1925

“On the issue of large cycles of market conditions” - 1926.

“Large cycles of economic conditions: Reports and their discussion at the Institute of Economics” (together with Oparin D.I.) - 1928.

Kondratieff's research and conclusions were based on empirical analysis

a large number of economic indicators of various countries for quite

long periods of time, covering 100-150 years. These indicators:

price indices, government debt securities, nominal wages,

foreign trade turnover indicators, coal mining, gold production, production

lead, cast iron, etc. Mathematical research methodology,

used by Kondratiev was not without its shortcomings and was subject to

fair criticism from his opponents, but all objections concerned

only the exact periodization of cycles, and not their existence. N. D. Kondratiev

understood the need for a probabilistic approach to research

statistical series of economic indicators. In his article "Big

impossible, but the likelihood of their existence is high. None of the available ones

methods of mathematical statistics cannot sufficiently

probability of confirming the presence of 5-year cycles in the interval 100-150

years, i.e. based on information containing a maximum of 2-3 fluctuations.

However, objecting to the statements of critics that one cannot talk about

"correctness", that is, about the periodicity of large cycles, since they

the duration ranges from 45 to 60 years, Kondratiev rightly objected,

that large cycles from a probabilistic point of view are no less “correct” than

traditional cyclical crises. Since the length of the traditional cyclic

crisis varies from 7 to 11 years, then its deviation from the average

is more than 40%, and such a deviation from the average for a large wave,

the duration of which varies from 45 to 60 years, less than 30%.

Kondratiev also made 4 important observations regarding the nature of these cycles.

Two of them relate to the increasing phases, one to the decreasing stage, and another pattern appears at each of the phases of the cycle.

1) At the origins of the upward phase or at its very beginning,

a profound change in the entire life of capitalist society. These changes

preceded by significant scientific and technical inventions and innovations.

In the upward phase of the first wave, that is, at the end of the 18th century, these were:

the development of the textile industry and iron production, which changed

economic and social conditions of society. Growth in the second wave, that is

in the middle of the 19th century Kondratiev associated with the construction of railways,

which made it possible to develop new territories and transform rural

farming. The rising stage of the third wave at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries,

in his opinion, was caused by the widespread introduction of electricity, radio and

phone. Kondratiev saw prospects for a new rise in the automotive industry

industry.

2) During the periods of the upward wave of each major cycle there are

the largest number of social upheavals (wars and revolutions).

Here is a list of the most important events.

I upward wave: The Great French Revolution, Napoleonic

wars, Russian wars with Turkey, the American War of Independence.

I downward wave: French Revolution of 1830, movement

Chartists in England.

II upward wave: revolutions of 1848-1849. in Europe (France,

Hungary, Germany), Crimean War 1856, Sepoy Mutiny in India 1867-

1869, American Civil War 1861-1865, Wars of Unification

Germany 1865-1871, French Revolution 1871.

II downward wave: the war between Russia and Turkey 1877-1878.

III upward wave: Anglo-Boer War 1899-1902, Russian-

Japanese War of 1904, World War I, revolutions of 1905 and 1917 and

civil war in Russia.

It is clearly seen that the social upheavals of upward waves are much

exceed those of downward waves both in the number of events and (which

more importantly) in terms of the number of victims and destruction.

3) Downward phases have a particularly depressing effect on

agriculture. Low commodity prices during recession boost growth

the relative value of gold, which encourages an increase in its production.

The accumulation of gold helps the economy recover from a protracted crisis.

4) Periodic crises (7-11 year cycle) seem to be strung together

the corresponding phases of the long wave and change their dynamics depending on it - during periods of long recovery, more time is spent on “prosperity”, and during periods of long recession, crisis years become more frequent.

N. D. Kondratiev in his work “Long Waves of the Conjuncture” wrote that

wave-like movements represent a process of deviation from states

equilibrium to which a capitalist economy strives. He puts

the question of the existence of several equilibrium states, and hence the

possibility of several oscillatory movements. Kondratieff suggests

talk not only about crises, but explore the entirety of

wave-like movements under capitalism, that is, to develop a general theory of oscillations.

According to Kondratieff, there are three types of equilibrium states:

1) “First order” equilibrium - between ordinary market demand and

proposal. Deviations from it give rise to short-term fluctuations with a period

3 - 3.5 years, that is, cycles in inventory.

2) “Second order” equilibrium achieved during the formation process

production prices through intersectoral transfer of capital invested

mainly in equipment. Deviations from this equilibrium and its

Kondratiev associates recovery with cycles of medium duration.

3) Equilibrium of the “third order” concerns “basic material

infrastructure facilities, as well as skilled labor,

servicing this technical method of production. Stock of "essential

capital goods" must be in balance with all factors

determining the existing technical method of production, with the existing sectoral structure of production, the existing raw material base and energy sources, prices, employment and social institutions, the state of the monetary system, etc.

From time to time this balance is also disturbed and the need arises

creating a new stock of "basic capital goods" that would

satisfied the emerging new technical mode of production. According to Kondratiev, such a renewal of “basic capital goods”, reflecting the movement of scientific and technological progress, does not occur smoothly, but in pushes and is the material basis of large cycles of the environment.

In foreign literature there is an opinion that in

part concerning the forms of development of scientific and technological progress, the concept

Kondratieva comes close to the innovative theory of long waves,

developed by J. Schumpeter.

Kondratiev did not follow Schumpeter's path, primarily due to his own scientific convictions. Unlike Schumpeter, he sought an explanation for long waves not in the willingness of entrepreneurs to innovate or in transient bursts

entrepreneurial activity, and, above all, in the very foundations

reproductive process.

expanded the material basis of long waves, including in it - through

the need to maintain third-order equilibrium - the entire amount of capital and

labor resources providing this technical technology on a long-term basis

mode of production. Thus, he directly approached the concept

life cycle of a technical production method.

The renewal and expansion of "basic capital goods" occurring during

the upward phase of a long cycle is radically changed and redistributed

productive forces of society. This requires enormous resources in kind and cash. They can only exist if they were accumulated in a previous phase, when more was saved than was invested.

During the recovery phase, the constant rise in prices and wages gave rise to

population tends to spend more; during a recession, on the contrary, they fall

prices and wages. The first leads to the desire to save, and the second leads to

decrease in purchasing power. The accumulation of funds also occurs due to a fall in investments during a general recession, when profits become

low and the risk of bankruptcy increases.

It can be noted that such phenomena took place in the capitalist

economy in the 1980s, when there was an outflow of capital from

production sphere into the sphere of speculative exchange operations.

According to the forecasts of most scientists, the highest point of the rise has been passed

economy in the early 70s. Since the mid-70s, the economy has been in

state of crisis.

Even in our country, despite the fact that it is premature to talk about the capitalist system and taking into account the specifics of the political situation and tax system, one can nevertheless note a similar situation.

Thus, the main elements of the Kondratiev long cycle mechanism are as follows:

1. The capitalist economy is a movement around

several levels of balance. Equilibrium of "basic capital goods"

(production infrastructure plus skilled labor) with

all factors of economic and social life determine a given technical method of production. When this balance is disturbed, the need arises to create a new supply of capital goods.

2. The renewal of “basic capital goods” does not occur smoothly, but

in jerks. Scientific and technical inventions and innovations play a role in this

decisive role.

3. The duration of a long cycle is determined by the average lifespan

production infrastructure structures, which are one of the main elements of capital goods of society.

4. All social processes - wars, revolutions, migrations -

the result of the transformation of the economic mechanism.

5. Replacing “basic capital goods” and exiting a long recession

require the accumulation of resources in kind and cash. When is it

accumulation reaches a sufficient level, the possibility arises

radical investments that take the economy to new heights.

Conclusion

Kondratiev’s greatest scientific merit is that he implemented

an attempt to build a closed socio-economic system that generates these long-term fluctuations within itself.

Abroad, the name of N. D. Kondratiev was never forgotten, and

“Kondratieff waves” became the impetus for the birth of a whole trend in

modern economic science. It is still developing rapidly today, because

sharply accelerated scientific and technological progress began, it seems, to compress

“long waves”, and humanity apparently needs to prepare for serious

fluctuations in economic development.

Theoretical concepts of long waves are important because they provide the necessary

a basis for assessing the state of the economy and predicting its future

condition.

Theory of large cycles N.D. Kondratieff had a profound impact on world economic thought, becoming one of the most important prerequisites for theories of economic development and technological progress.

Theoretical concepts of long waves are important because of what they provide

necessary basis for assessing the state of the economy and forecasting it

future state.

LIST OF REFERENCES USED

Kondratyev N. D., Oparin D. I. Large cycles of market conditions. M., 1928.

A.A. Sadovsky Let’s complete the defeat of the Kondratievism M.Selkolkhozgiz.1931.

Kondratyev N. D. “Problems of economic dynamics”, M., 1989.

Topic: Economic views of A.V. Chayanova, N.D. Kondratieva

Type: Abstract | Size: 35.29K | Downloads: 54 | Added 09.11.09 at 18:20 | Rating: +12 | More Abstracts

University: VZFEI

Year and city: Omsk 2009

Introduction 3

1. A.V. Chayanov as a leading representative of organizational and production direction 4

2. Introduction to the teaching of labor peasant farming by A.V. Chayanov 6

3. Economic views of N.D. Kondratiev 21

4. Long wave theory 26

Conclusion 33

References 35

Introduction.

The material development and state of society, the mentality and social “well-being” of the population in all countries are largely determined by economists, their system of views and, most importantly, their influence on the real economy. It is the culture, innovation and professionalism of economists that ultimately tell us more about a country than current figures. After all, economic indicators and statistics can (and do) change in a short time - due to the rational application of innovative economic theory.

Moreover, the economic success of any country depends on the absence of contradictions between the national traditions of the country and its social and economic practices, since national traditions can either contribute to the economic success of a nation, or - if they are not taken into account - lead to its stagnation.

Russian economic thought is an organic component of the entire history of economic science, including consideration of both the general logic and methodology of the approach to the history of the formation and development of Russian economic thought, as well as the analysis of specific historical stages in its development, and the works of the most prominent Russian scientists.

1. A.V. Chayanov as the leading representative of the organizational and production direction.

The views of such a prominent Russian economist as Alexander Vasilyevich Chayanov (1888-1937) are also of interest. The main range of his scientific interests is the study of processes occurring in the Russian economy, the specifics of socio-economic relations in domestic agriculture. The main subject of the scientist’s research was the family-labor peasant economy. Chayanov proved the inapplicability of the conclusions of classical economic theory to peasant farming, which was characterized by non-capitalist motivation. Extensive research allowed Chayanov to conclude that a peasant farm differs from a farm in the very motive of production: the farmer is guided by the criterion of profitability, and the peasant farm is guided by an organizational and production plan, representing the totality of the cash budget, labor balance over time and across various industries and types of activities, turnover of funds and products. He noted that a peasant family is not interested in the profitability of production, but in the growth of gross income and ensuring equal employment for all family members.
Chayanov formulated a position on the exceptional survival of agriculture, which for a long time is able to withstand such a decrease in prices and an increase in costs that completely destroys profits and part of wages, which is disastrous for entrepreneurs who use hired labor. And precisely because peasant farming does not pursue profit, but cares about maintaining the existence of the farmer himself and his family. Concretizing the thesis about the consumer nature of peasant farms, Chayanov used the theory of marginal utility. He argued that in a peasant economy there is a certain “natural limit” to the increase in production, which occurs at the moment when the burden of the marginal cost of labor will be equal to the subjective assessment of the marginal utility of the amount received. With certain reservations, we can say that the expenditure of one’s own forces goes up to the limit at which the peasant farm receives everything necessary for the existence of its family. Chayanov’s theory of cooperation is also connected with the theory of peasant farming. In his opinion, there are no prerequisites for the development of American-type farms in Russia, despite the fact that large-scale agricultural production has a relative advantage over small-scale agricultural production. Therefore, the optimal solution for our country would be a combination of individual peasant farms with large cooperative-type farms. Chayanov believed that cooperation is capable of connecting various types and forms of activity formed vertically “from field to market.” At the same time, the process of raising plants and animals remains in family production. All other operations, including processing of products, their transportation, sales, lending, and scientific services will be carried out by cooperative organizations. The development of cooperatives, which enter into direct contacts, bypassing capitalistically organized enterprises, weakens the latter. Thus, each new form of cooperation (consumer, production, credit - through cooperative savings bank organizations) undermines some type of capitalist exploitation, replacing it with a “comradely” method of satisfying needs.

2. Introduction to the teaching of labor peasant farming by A.V. Chayanov.

The work of the outstanding Russian agricultural economist A.V. Chayanov is distinguished by its exceptional richness and diversity. There is not a single branch of agrarian economic science where a scientist has not left his mark.

In the logical development of A.V. Chayanov’s theory about labor peasant farming, one can highlight 3 stages:

1. Family farming
2. The agricultural sector as a whole.

A.V. Chayanov worked on these problems all his life, carrying them through all his works.

The origins of family-labor theory.

The most important role in the emergence of new agrarian thinking was played by a radical change in the economic development of agriculture at the beginning of the century, expressed in the crisis of the landlord economy and the rapid development of peasant farms. Both noted trends developed in very contradictory ways. It was they who determined the deepening of the agrarian crisis in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century. Stolypin's agrarian reform did not resolve this crisis, but accelerated its maturation. Ultimately, it was the unresolved problems of peasant farming in the first two decades of the 20th century that gave impetus to the emergence of the theory of family-labor farming.

A.V. Chayanov considered the idea of ​​a family economy, a family economy, to be a fundamental feature of Russian agrarian-economic thought, dating back to Sylvester’s “Domostroi” (16th century). It is in this work that the family is considered as an integral economic organism, in all the richness of its economic, demographic and sociocultural manifestations.

The traditions of the Petrovsky Agricultural Academy had a huge influence on A.V. Chayanov. A favorite student of the famous statistician and agronomist A.F. Fortunatov, he continues the work of his teacher in studying the special motivation of peasant farming, searching for factors in the growth of productivity and profitability of peasant plots, and the principles of zoning of agricultural Russia.

A.V. Chayanov was not a Marxist, but his theory peculiarly echoes the statements of K. Marx about the non-capitalist nature of the peasant economy, about the dual nature of the peasant as owner and worker.

Based on the work of his predecessors and contemporaries, A.V. Chayanov consistently developed the basic principles of labor management, found methods for its optimization, substantiated the theory of organizing peasant farms, and outlined ways to study their differentiation.

Organization of peasant farming.

The current of Russian economic thought “organizational-production direction”, to which A.V. Chayanov belonged, took shape shortly before the First World War of 1914 - 1918. and the topic was caused by profound socio-economic changes that, after the revolution of 1905, emerged in the life of the Russian village.

A change in world market conditions in a direction favorable for agriculture, the formation in Russia thanks to the development of the domestic market industry for agricultural products, the rapid development of market relations and the marketability of peasant farming, the rapid growth of merchant capitalism, the unstoppable growth of the cooperative movement, etc. - all this, appearing imperceptibly in the form of all kinds of “attempts” and “undertakings”, grew more and more quantitatively every year, turned into a mass phenomenon, and by the beginning of the First World War, the Russian village was qualitatively different from the village of the last century.

It goes without saying that later, in the Soviet period of our history, all these processes deepened even more, and the gap between the new and

became much older.

For some reason, it was generally accepted that scientific research work in the “organizational-production” direction was reduced to the construction of a special theory of peasant farming. This is one of the deepest misconceptions. This group, responding to the practical requests of agronomists and cooperators, brought to its assets a wide range of topics it developed: methods of agricultural zoning, the use of railway transportation statistics for commodity characteristics of regions, accounting analysis of peasant farms, methods of budget and questionnaire research, painstaking study of special crops and handicrafts, methods of technical accounting of agricultural production, theory of agricultural cooperation, methods of agronomic assistance to the population.

The doctrine of the organization of peasant farming developed from two streams of research work:

1. The gradual accumulation of enormous empirical material on the organization of peasant farming, obtained partly by processing data from zemstvo and state statistics, and partly through independent, but mainly budgetary, research. A simple generalization of this material led to a number of indisputable empirical conclusions.
2. Establishment, also empirically, of a number of facts and dependencies that did not fit into the framework of the usual understanding of the basics of organizing a private enterprise and required some special interpretation. These special explanations and interpretations, given at first in each specific case separately, introduced into the usual theory so many complicating elements that in the end it turned out to be more convenient to generalize them and construct a special theory of the family labor economy, somewhat different in the nature of its motivation from the enterprise organized in hired labor.

At the forefront of A.V. Chayanov focused on the personal work of the peasant and his family members. Already in 1911 In his work “plot agronomy and the organizational plan of a peasant farm,” he gives a classic definition of the purpose of a peasant farm: “The task of a peasant labor farm is to provide the means of subsistence to the farming family through the fullest use of the means of production and labor at its disposal.”

Analyzing the works of A.V. Chayanov, it should be noted two of his theoretical achievements:

1. Organizational plan idea
2. The concept of labor and consumption balance.

They formed the core of the theory of a non-capitalist enterprise that plans its work in order to satisfy the material and spiritual needs of its members.

Basic principles of organizing a peasant farm:

The size of the farm's territory, as well as the ratio of production factors deployed on it, are not the only possible optimal size and ratio. There are many deviations from these optimal feeds. However, the optimal ratio gives the highest income, and any deviation from it brings the owner a decrease in profit rates. This decrease occurs gradually, which explains the economic possibility of the existence of farms that deviate greatly from the optimal norms in size and in the ratio of factors.

If the organizer does not have enough land, or capital, or labor to develop an enterprise in optimal sizes, the enterprise is built on a smaller scale, in accordance with the factor that is at a minimum. However, no matter what size the economy is built, it always has a proportionality of parts and a certain pattern of their relationship, characteristic of each economic system, determined by technical feasibility and necessity. Any violation of this harmony leads to an inevitable and noticeable decrease in the productivity of labor and capital, since it takes the economy out of the optimal combination of production factors.

When we begin to organize an enterprise on the basis of a labor family economy, we are faced with the fact that one of the factors - labor - turns out to be fixed by its availability in the family. It follows from this that the size of the family determines both the size of the household and the composition of all its components. In addition, it should be noted that very often, due to constant or random reasons, the availability of land or means of production turns out to be lower than the optimum required and is insufficient for the full implementation of the labor of a farming family. Then it is natural that the production element, the availability of which turns out to be below the norm, becomes the determining factor of the agricultural enterprise.

Organizational plan of a peasant farm.

An economic peasant family, when starting to organize production, ultimately strives to satisfy its needs to the fullest extent and ensure, through the process of capital restoration, the further stability of its economy with the least expenditure of energy and with the highest possible payment for each of its units.

Each peasant farm is an integral part of the overall national economic system and is determined by those static and dynamic factors that are characteristic of the current phase of its development. In different regions, the combination of natural and market conditions is extremely diverse, therefore there are many types and types of structure of peasant farms, since the natural and economic differences of the region are complicated for many farms by differences in family composition, land ownership and capital availability. Among these differences, the main one, which determines the entire nature of the structure of the economy, is the degree of connection of this economy with the market, the development of commodity production in it.

The economic family uses all the possibilities available to its forces of its natural-historical position and the market conditions in which it exists.

Having familiarized himself in detail with Russian and German specialized literature, A.V. Chayanov came to the conclusion that the core of a peasant economy is its organizational plan. The organizational plan revealed the internal structure of the economy, the interrelations of various sectors of the economy, the combination of agriculture and crafts, the cash budget, the circulation of funds and products, the distribution of labor costs of a peasant family over time and among various industries and types of activities. It reflected the changes that took place in the peasant economy under the influence of the local market and the general economic situation.

The most important points of this plan were:

1. Labor balance (agriculture - crafts)
2. Balance of means of production (livestock - inventory)
3. Cash budget (income - expenses).

Thanks to its contact with the market, the economy gets the opportunity to eliminate from its organizational plan all those low-income branches of production in which the product is obtained with greater effort than those required to obtain its market equivalent in other, more profitable branches of economic activity.

In organizational terms, only that which either provides high wages or is, for technical reasons, an indispensable element of production remains.

The classic method of drawing up an organizational plan is to establish such a sequence of organizational considerations and calculations in which each subsequent stage of the organization could be built with sufficient completeness on the data and figures obtained as a result of work on the previous stages of the organization.

A.V. Chayanov believed that the peculiarity of the organization of peasant farming lies not in the sequence of reasoning, but in the criteria by which these reasoning are made.

Organizational considerations:

Taking into account the family's labor force and its consumer needs.

The economic family is the initial, initial value for building an economy, the customer to whose requests the economy must respond, and the working apparatus with whose strength it is built. It should be noted that the forms of economy and production created by the family are to a very large extent predetermined by the objective national economic and natural conditions in which the peasant economy exists, but the very volume of economic work and the mechanism for putting the economy together primarily come from the family, taking into account all other elements of the economic situation.

Accounting for land ownership and possible land use.

The organizational plan of an agricultural economy built on hired labor takes the organization of the territory as a defining moment in the structure of the economy. In a family economy, where the given quantity is not the land, but the labor and consumer elements of the family, issues of organizing the territory cannot have such importance.

When starting to organize a farm, it is necessary to take into account the availability of land at the disposal of the farm and its location, soil quality, topography, the presence of absolutely meadow and absolutely pasture spaces, i.e. those that, due to humidity or terrain, cannot be otherwise exploited. In addition, it is necessary to find out the rental opportunities that are available to the farm.

Organization of the territory.

When organizing peasant farms, one almost always had to take into account the extremely poor location of their territory. The reason for this was the communal-equalizing methods of land redistribution with their division of land into wedges of the same quality and the allocation of a strip from each wedge to almost every member of the community.

Labor organization.

Having outlined the organization of agricultural sectors and the needs of on-farm transport, we can summarize all labor costs in a peasant farm and consider its organization.

A peasant family does not make full use of the working time at its disposal, partly due to the seasonality of agricultural work and the forced absence of it during the dead periods of the year, and partly because, having covered its needs with a certain share of labor effort and achieved internal economic equilibrium, the peasant family no longer has incentives to work. Only ¼ of the working days is spent on agriculture, including all haymaking and field work.

Conclusion: in the work of A.V. Chayanov, the structure of the organizational plan acquired a clear form: from choosing the direction of the economy - to planning its individual sectors, to preparing balances of labor and funds. For the first time, the author managed to connect all aspects of on-farm planning of small agricultural enterprises.

Labor and consumption balance.

A.V. Chayanov developed a model of the labor-consumer balance of a peasant farm: “... every labor farm has a natural limit to its production, which is determined by the proportionality of the stress of annual labor with the degree of satisfaction of the needs of the farming family.”

In 1922 - 1925 A.V. Chayanov managed to build a holistic theory of the organization of peasant farming. A.V. Chayanov presents a new theory for the study of peasant farming in a discussion form as a response to critics who used the argument about the rapid disappearance of family-labor farms and the uselessness of the theory associated with them. But this argument was not valid: in 1927 - 1928. labor peasant farms occupied 97.3% of the sown areas, had 90% of the means of production, and only every fifth farm used hired labor

The family-labor economy was considered by A.V. Chayanov not in isolation, but with the help of national economic categories - prices, rent, interest, income, etc. The author was very far from depicting the rosy prospects of an isolated peasant economy. On the contrary, in his works he showed the need for cooperation and its inclusion in the national economy.

A.V. Chayanov dwells in detail on profitability factors peasant farms, which he divides into two groups:

• On-farm
• National economic

The main on-farm factors according to A.V. Chayanov: family labor resources and labor intensity.

A.V. Chayanov substantiated a very important conclusion about the absence of the wage category in a non-capitalist economy and its transformation into the net income (personal budget) of family members. In its embryonic form, the idea of ​​self-supporting income distributed among members of the work collective is expressed here, and the stability and “survival” of such a collective is shown.

The specifics of the peasant economy, deprived of the category of wages, posed the task of “immersing” it in the system of national economic categories. A.V. Chayanov successfully coped with this task, pointing out the transformation of the forms of prices, interest and rent in peasant farming and their impact on the internal structure of the non-capitalist form of production.

Particularly interesting analysis of rent relations: rent, according to the author, lost its exploitative essence in the peasant economy, being expressed there in the form of excess income received by the peasant due to more fertile lands, favorable location in relation to the market, population density, the structure of his income, market prices. A.V. Chayanov here develops the classical theory of rent, highlighting the nature of demand and the level of market prices as rent-generating factors.

It should be noted that A.V. Chayanov’s colleagues were not unanimous on the issue of rent: A.N. Chelintsev denied its existence in peasant farming, and G.A. Studensky identified it with capitalist rent.

A.V. Chayanov feels the dynamics of involving peasant farms in the general turnover. This, according to the author, is a mechanism of “cooperative collectivization”, carried out on a strictly voluntary basis and strictly stimulated by the state.

Differentiation of peasant farms.

The last period of A.V. Chayanov’s creativity covers 1927 - 1930. At this time, the scientist, along with other problems, studied the processes of differentiation of the peasantry.

A.V. Chayanov managed to develop his own approach. Based on the achievements of dynamic censuses and production and demographic analysis of differentiation made by zemstvo statisticians and the organizational and production school, he showed that the differentiation of the peasantry in the 20s was radically different from the pre-revolutionary one. In conditions when large landowner and capitalist farms disappeared, differentiation, according to A.V. Chayanov, arose as a result of the disharmony of two types of farms: natural, accumulated in the most fertile central black earth regions, and simple commodity ones, gravitating towards the markets of seaports, the largest cities and agricultural regions of Turkestan. Rebuilding from subsistence to commodity production, the Russian peasantry experienced agrarian overpopulation, began to migrate, and therefore differentiated. For A.V. Chayanov, stratification acted, therefore, not as a social-class process among the peasantry, but as a splitting off from the main body of family-labor farms of four types of independent enterprises: farming, lending and usury, fishing, and auxiliary.

Here his concepts about the organizational plan of peasant farms and their differential optima were further developed, and most importantly, his view of demographic differentiation, which in 1927 he began to consider only as a background for socio-economic differentiation.

A.V. Chayanov compiled his farm classification from the point of view of their production organization of different social groups:

1. Capitalist farms
2. Semi-labor farms
3. Wealthy family-work households
4. Poor family-work farms
5. Semi-proletarian farms
6. Proletarian farms

The author also put forward a plan for resolving the contradictions of such differentiation: cooperative collectivization of the second to fifth types of farms, with the subsequent economic displacement of the rural proletarian into family-labor farming through a system of cooperative credit.

A.V. Chayanov posed the problem of studying “the process of degeneration of family peasant farming into farming forms.” The greatest attention, as the author believed, should be paid to the process of direct restructuring of working family farms into farms based on the use of hired labor in order to obtain surplus value. Despite the fact that the process of formation of the rural bourgeoisie led to an increase in agricultural production, A.V. Chayanov believed that it “hampers the development of cooperative forms of concentration of agriculture - this is the main channel of our economic policy in agriculture.”

A.V. Chayanov put forward a multifactorial scheme for differentiation of the peasantry according to production and social characteristics, and substantiated the path of cooperative collectivization, which resolved contradictions in the village through peaceful economic methods.

Costs and prices for farm products.

In 1928 - 1929 A.V. Chayanov and his colleagues published works summing up the results of studying the problems of cost and pricing in agriculture. In the understanding of A.V. Chayanov, the main problem was to find internal price basis, which would satisfy two requirements:

1. Would provide a cheap industrial product
2. It would ensure the sustainability of the development of peasant farms supplying these raw materials.

A hypothesis was put forward: to oppose a single price to a certain “single modal control cost”, which determines from the normal values ​​of each element the costs of a set of farms.

Elements of cost according to the Italian double accounting method proposed by A.V. Chayanov, they fell into 3 large groups:

The sum of general and direct expenses indicated the production cost, and adding charges to it gave the technical, national economic and private economic costs, respectively.

The most difficult part was accounting for labor costs. The traditional method of calculating daily and piecework wages was only partly acceptable: hired labor in peasant farming was used in very small amounts, moreover, such an account concealed the influence of the rental factor.

A.V. Chayanov took a different path: as an indicator of wages, he took the peasant’s family budget minus income from crafts. Thus, labor was valued at the cost of reproduction of the peasant's labor force, taking into account the rental component of the cost.

The identified patterns of cost formation made it possible to answer the question about price: what level of cost should the price correspond to? A.V. Chayanov believed that the decree price should be brought to a level that would pay for the costs and capital restoration of the worst-cost farms within the limits of the production volume that produces the socially necessary volume of raw materials.

Capital in the labor economy.

In his work, A.V. Chayanov proved that in a peasant economy, capital does not always play the same role as in a capitalist economy, and its disposal can pursue other goals and occur in other forms. The author justified that:

1. The objects of economic activity and the amount of labor realized in a peasant farm are determined not so much by the size of the capital available to the entrepreneur as by the size of the family and the balance established between the measure of satisfaction of its needs and the measure of the burden of its labor.
2. For a peasant farm, the ratio of the elements of production (land and capital) does not correspond to the capitalistically optimal one, which provides the highest interest on the capital invested in the enterprise.
3. With the same capital, a peasant family, by increasing the labor intensity of the farm, can significantly increase both the volume of the farm and its gross income, at the cost of lowering the payment per unit of labor and accounting net profit.

Labor and capital in a peasant farm form a combination of production factors, which as a result of the production process give gross income. Of this gross income, in order to maintain the economy in the same volume, part of the values ​​must be spent on restoring the advanced capital to the original level and on its expansion with the expansion of the volume of economic activity, the rest is directed to satisfying the usual needs of the family, or, in other words, to the reproduction of labor power.

In a labor economy, the sum of values ​​that serves to restore the workforce is the personal budget of the entrepreneur, determined by the size of the family and the degree to which their needs are satisfied.

Having studied the empirical data, A.V. Chayanov made a number of very important conclusions for agrarian economic thought:

1. In the organizational practice of peasant farming, there is a certain limit to the rational arming of the labor force with means of labor. Any increase in the worker’s armament with capital to this limit helps to increase labor productivity. Having reached the noted limit, the armament reaches its optimum and enables the labor force to develop its production capabilities. In the future, no new increase in the capital intensity of farms will be able to increase labor productivity and change the basic balance of intra-farm factors.
2. At each given level of technology and the conditions of a given market environment, any working family that has the opportunity to regulate the area of ​​its land use can increase the productivity of its labor, increasing the capital intensity of its economy to the optimal level.
3. Not all family farms operate at optimal capital intensity. Many of them operate with reduced capital availability and receive reduced wages.
4. In general, the processes of capital formation and capital restoration are linked in some equilibrium with other processes of the family economy and depend on their development.

3. Economic views of N.D. Kondratiev.

The creative path of N.D. Kondratiev is closely intertwined with the activities of A.V. Chayanov.

However, unlike the latter, Kondratiev is not engaged in

organizational and production problems of peasant farms and cooperation, and an analysis of the economic situation in which rural producers have to operate.

N.D. Kondratiev also opposed the concepts of forced industrialization. He proposed directing part of the capital investment to the development of agriculture and the local manufacturing industry. The objectives of industrial development had to be linked with the objectives of the development of the agricultural sector. The lack of such balance can lead to imbalances in the economy and disruption of the industrialization program (the concept of equilibrium development). These studies quickly brought Nikolai Kondratiev to the problem of long-term trends in economic development. Having processed using special

Using mathematical methods, data on changes in a number of the most important indicators of the state of the economy of England, France, Germany and the USA from the end of the 18th century to the beginning of the 20th century, Kondratiev discovered interesting patterns.

Having analyzed them, he formulated the theory of “long waves” of the development of a market economy, which made his name famous.

This theory proved that countries with market economies in their

development regularly go through stages of economic boom and bust, forming standard cycles that repeat every 40 to 60 years. Thus, for the first time in world economic science

Kondratiev was able to prove that time is an independent and important economic category that must be taken into account when regulating the economy of any country.

In addition, N.D. Kondratiev’s dynamics of the economy are not changes in the “material relation”, when today one batch of raw materials is processed, tomorrow another, a third, etc. Analysis of dynamics in the economy assumes that it is not the “material nature” of the economy that is being studied, but the volume and organization of production, the nature of consumption and demand, prices, etc.

Wavy or reversible N.D. Kondratiev calls processes in which a phenomenon, changing its state, after some time can return to its original state. The scientist classifies as reversible, for example, the processes of changes in commodity prices, interest on capital, and the share of the unemployed in the working population. Generally speaking, notes N.D. Kondratiev, the process of economic development never occurs more than once at the same level; one can only record the transition from one stage of development to another. In this regard, there are no absolutely irreversible processes in the economy, but we can talk about the relative reversibility of some processes.

Reversible changes in the elements of the economic process and their susceptibility to fluctuations constitute the essence of the laws of cyclical dynamics. Not only economic, but also social and political phenomena are subject to cyclical fluctuations.

It was with N.D. Kondratiev is associated with the statistical identification and theoretical justification of long-term cycles - “long waves of the market”, or “large cycles”, or “Kondratiev cycles”, as they were later called in the West.

Such large cycles, according to the Russian scientist, are born after or together with serious innovations in the economic life of society (the introduction of major inventions and discoveries of scientists, the emergence of new groups of countries on the world market, etc.). Moreover, the rise of the wave is usually accompanied by a particularly large number of wars and all kinds of political upheavals, including

revolution. The real material basis of “long waves” is humanity’s radical renewal of those types of production structures and equipment that have especially long service lives (railroads, bridges, canals, dams, etc.).

These findings aroused great interest throughout the world: about the work of Nikolai

Dmitrievich Kondratiev was immediately praised by major scientists, including Keynes, Schumpeter and others. A different fate awaited the theory of “long waves” and its author in Russia itself.

The conviction that the economy develops according to objective laws, born of long research, played a fatal role in the fate of Nikolai Kondratiev.

His views and arguments contradicted the theory of the “party approach to economic planning”, which, under the supervision of Stalin, became dominant in the USSR. Just like A.V. Chayanov, Nikolai Dmitrievich Kondratyev did not fit into the plans for agricultural transformation.

The scientist opposed excessive detail, weak validity of plans, and “fetishism of numbers.” Even for state-owned enterprises, the target figures were supposed to be advisory rather than mandatory.

N.D. had a negative attitude. Kondratiev to the idea of ​​directing material resources to support the poorest peasant farms. He believed that it was necessary to strengthen the marketability of the agricultural sector. Assistance must be provided to strong farms that can quickly increase bread production volumes. This was supposed to lead to a massive rise in high-commodity farming.

N.D. Kondratyev advocated free cooperation of peasant farms and warned that the inclusion of all the strong strata of the village in the “kulaks” leads to a struggle with those who alone can be the basis for the production of marketable products. Only when commodity production in rural areas has become stronger can one think about material support for the poorest strata. These ideas N.D. Kondratiev, as well as the ideas of combining the plan and the market, were at odds with the then course of the Communist Party, and therefore were not in demand in practice.

Kondratiev wrote about the greatest economic justification for small-scale farming, which is not associated with the production of surplus value, does not depend on the free labor market, and does not lead to the death of a significant part of fixed capital during the long “dead seasons” from harvest to harvest.

“The industrialization program requires large-scale machinery for farming as a necessary condition for its reconstruction on the basis of collectivization. - For goodness sake, are we against it? We are “for” advanced technology, for the most advanced technology of capitalist countries, although we are still far from them. But... beware of violating the eternal “law of all laws”—about diminishing soil fertility—it sets a limit to the “profitable” saturation of agriculture with capital, i.e., “implements of production.” Here is a very “scientific” Law of our “scientists” A.V. Chayanov and N.D. Kondratiev about “optimal sizes”. “Intensive, mechanized farming from 5-6 to 100 ■ tens of land area in the hands of an individual user” would be quite suitable. business. Well, as for collectivization, “you understand; nothing can be done with a plan, let the peasants themselves decide. But they are unlikely to need large equipment, because the experience of America, Germany, Denmark says...”, etc. .etc.

This is how the singers of the kulak economy and the ideologists of capitalist restoration droned everywhere and everywhere they managed to penetrate - in literature, at meetings, in plans.

Kondratieff’s teaching on the role of the state in economic life is very original. He shared Pareto's views on the role of the market in reconciling multiple individual interests. But he did not agree with his strictly individualistic approach. For Kondratiev, man is not a passive material for the manifestation of the market element, but an active being capable of changing the future. The state concentrates the will of people for change. However, not all of his activities are for the good. In this regard, Kondratiev formulates two concepts: probable changes in the economy and desirable changes in the economy. The economic activity of the state is the more favorable the more the desired changes in the economy coincide with its probable changes.

At first glance, it seems that this approach simply disguises the concept

state non-intervention. In fact, Kondratiev does not even allow in his thoughts that the state, since it exists, will play a passive role in the economy.

He only insists that in achieving its goals the state chooses the path closest to real trends in economic development.

3. Long wave theory

In the early 1920s, Kondratiev launched a broad discussion on the issue of long-term fluctuations under capitalism.

At that time, hopes for a quick revolution were still very strong.

in advanced capitalist countries, and therefore the question of the future

capitalism, the possibility of its new rise, its achievement of a higher stage of development was extremely relevant.

The discussion began with the work “The World Economy and Its Conjunctures During and After the War,” published in 1922, in which Kondratiev suggested the existence of long waves in the development of capitalism. Despite the negative reaction of the majority of Soviet scientists to this publication, N. D. Kondratiev continued to consistently defend his position in the following works:

"Controversial issues of the world economy and crisis (answer to our critics)" - 1923.

"Great Cycles of Conjuncture" - 1925

"On the issue of large cycles of market conditions" - 1926.

“Large cycles of economic conditions: Reports and their discussion at the Institute of Economics” (together with Oparin D.I.) - 1928.

Kondratieff's research and conclusions were based on empirical analysis of a large number of economic indicators of various countries over fairly long periods of time, covering 100-150 years. These indicators:

price indices,

government bonds,

nominal wages,

foreign trade turnover indicators,

coal mining, gold mining, manufacturing

lead, cast iron, etc.

The mathematical research methodology used by Kondratiev was not without its shortcomings and was subject to fair criticism from his opponents, but all objections concerned only the exact periodization of cycles, and not their existence. N. D. Kondratiev

understood the need for a probabilistic approach to research

statistical series of economic indicators. In his article "Big

cycles of conjuncture" he wrote that the presence of such cycles cannot be considered proven, but the probability of their existence is high. None of the available methods of mathematical statistics can with a sufficient degree of probability confirm the presence of 50-year cycles in the interval of 100-150 years, i.e. . based on information containing a maximum of 2-3 fluctuations, however, objecting to the statements of critics that it is impossible to talk about the “correctness”, that is, about the periodicity of large cycles, since their

the duration ranges from 45 to 60 years, Kondratiev rightly objected,

that large cycles from a probabilistic point of view are no less “correct” than

traditional cyclical crises. Since the length of a traditional cyclical crisis varies from 7 to 11 years, its deviation from the average is more than 40%, and such a deviation from the average for a large wave, the duration of which varies from 45 to 60 years, is less than 30%.

Kondratiev also made 4 important observations regarding the nature of these cycles.

Two of them relate to the increasing phases, one to the decreasing stage, and another pattern appears at each of the phases of the cycle.

1) At the origins of the upward phase or at its very beginning,

a profound change in the entire life of capitalist society. These changes

preceded by significant scientific and technical inventions and innovations.

In the upward phase of the first wave, that is, at the end of the 18th century, these were:

the development of the textile industry and iron production, which changed the economic and social conditions of society. Kondratiev associates growth in the second wave, that is, in the middle of the 19th century, with the construction of railways, which made it possible to develop new territories and transform agriculture. The upward phase of the third wave at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, in his opinion, was caused by the widespread introduction of electricity, radio and telephone. Kondratiev saw prospects for a new rise in the automotive industry.

2) The periods of the upward wave of each major cycle account for the greatest number of social upheavals (wars and revolutions).

Here is a list of the most important events.

I upward wave: The Great French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, the Russian war with Turkey, the American War of Independence.

I downward wave: French Revolution of 1830, movement

Chartists in England.

II upward wave: revolutions of 1848-1849. in Europe (France,

Hungary, Germany), Crimean War 1856, Sepoy Rebellion in India 1867-1869, American Civil War 1861-1865, Wars of German Unification 1865-1871, French Revolution 1871.

II downward wave: the war between Russia and Turkey 1877-1878.

III upward wave: Anglo-Boer War 1899-1902, Russian-

Japanese War of 1904, World War I, revolutions of 1905 and 1917 and

civil war in Russia.

It is clearly seen that the social upheavals of upward waves are much

exceed those of downward waves both in the number of events and (more importantly) in the number of victims and destruction.

3) Downward phases have a particularly depressing effect on

agriculture. Low commodity prices during a recession contribute to an increase in the relative value of gold, which encourages an increase in its production.

The accumulation of gold helps the economy recover from a protracted crisis.

4) Periodic crises (7-11 year cycle) seem to be strung together

the corresponding phases of the long wave and change their dynamics depending on it - during periods of long recovery, more time is spent on “prosperity”, and during periods of long recession, crisis years become more frequent.

N. D. Kondratiev in his work “Long Waves of the Conjuncture” wrote that

wave-like movements represent a process of deviation from the equilibrium states towards which the capitalist economy tends. He raises the question of the existence of several equilibrium states, and hence the possibility of several oscillatory movements. Kondratiev proposes to talk not only about crises, but to study the entire set of wave-like movements under capitalism, that is, to develop a general theory of oscillations.

According to Kondratieff, there are three types of equilibrium states:

1) “First order” equilibrium - between ordinary market demand and

proposal. Deviations from it give rise to short-term fluctuations with a period of 3 - 3.5 years, that is, cycles in inventory.

2) “Second order” equilibrium achieved during the formation process

production prices through intersectoral transfer of capital invested mainly in equipment. Kondratiev associates deviations from this equilibrium and its restoration with cycles of medium duration.

3) Equilibrium of the “third order” concerns “basic material

infrastructure facilities, as well as skilled labor servicing this technical method of production. The stock of “basic capital goods” must be in balance with all the factors that determine the existing technical mode of production, with the existing sectoral structure of production, the existing raw material base and energy sources, prices, employment and social institutions, the state of the monetary system, etc.

Periodically, this balance is also disrupted and the need arises to create a new supply of “basic capital goods” that would satisfy the emerging new technical mode of production. According to Kondratiev, such a renewal of “basic capital goods”, reflecting the movement of scientific and technological progress, does not occur smoothly, but in pushes and is the material basis of large cycles of the environment.

In foreign literature, there is an opinion that in terms of the forms of development of scientific and technological progress, Kondratiev’s concept comes close to the innovative theory of long waves developed by J. Schumpeter.

Kondratiev did not follow Schumpeter's path, primarily due to his own scientific convictions. Unlike Schumpeter, he sought an explanation for long waves not in the readiness of entrepreneurs to innovate or in transient bursts of entrepreneurial activity, but, first of all, in the very foundations of the reproduction process.

expanded the material basis of long waves, including in it - through

the need to maintain a third-order equilibrium - the entire amount of capital and labor resources that provide a given technical method of production on a long-term basis. Thus, he directly approached the concept of the life cycle of a technical mode of production.

The renewal and expansion of “basic capital goods” that occurs during the upward phase of the long cycle radically changes and redistributes the productive forces of society. This requires enormous resources in kind and cash. They can only exist if they were accumulated in a previous phase, when more was saved than was invested.

During the recovery phase, the constant rise in prices and wages gave rise to

The population tends to spend more; during a recession, on the contrary, prices and wages fall. The first leads to a desire to save, and the second leads to a decrease in purchasing power. The accumulation of funds also occurs due to a fall in investments during a general recession, when profits become low and the risk of bankruptcy increases.

It can be noted that such phenomena took place in the capitalist

economy in the 80s, when there was an outflow of capital from

production sphere into the sphere of speculative exchange operations.

According to the forecasts of most scientists, the highest point of the rise has been passed

economy in the early 70s. Since the mid-70s, the economy has been in crisis.

Even in our country, despite the fact that it is premature to talk about the capitalist system and taking into account the specifics of the political situation and tax system, one can nevertheless note a similar situation.

Thus, the main elements of the Kondratiev long cycle mechanism are as follows:

1. The capitalist economy is a movement around

several levels of balance. The balance of “basic capital goods” (production infrastructure plus skilled labor) with all factors of economic and social life determines a given technical mode of production. When this balance is disturbed, the need arises to create a new supply of capital goods.

2. The renewal of “basic capital goods” does not occur smoothly, but

in jerks. Scientific and technical inventions and innovations play a decisive role in this.

3. The duration of the long cycle is determined by the average lifespan of industrial infrastructure structures, which are one of the main elements of capital goods of society.

4. All social processes - wars, revolutions, migrations -

the result of the transformation of the economic mechanism.

5. Replacing “basic capital goods” and exiting a long recession

require the accumulation of resources in kind and cash. When this accumulation reaches a sufficient magnitude, the opportunity arises for radical investments that take the economy to a new upswing.

Conclusion

A difficult fate befell the teachings of Alexander Vasilyevich Chayanov. In the 1920s they were met with hostility by official economic science. At the end of the 1920s, criticism of the theory of family-labor economy gradually grew into a broad political campaign. And a few months after Stalin accused this theory at the All-Union Conference of Marxist Agrarians in December 1929, the scientific activity of A.V. Chayanov ceased.

But the theory continued to live. And in 1988, on the eve of the centenary of the birth of Alexander Vasilyevich Chayanov, new serious publications about his work appeared. Now people have remembered him again, they are returning to the creative heritage of the great scientist, which was lost for many years.

Kondratiev’s greatest scientific merit is that he implemented

an attempt to build a closed socio-economic system that generates these long-term fluctuations within itself.

Abroad, the name of N. D. Kondratiev was never forgotten, and the “Kondratiev waves” became the impetus for the birth of a whole trend in

modern economic science. It is still developing rapidly today, since sharply accelerated scientific and technological progress has begun to compress the “long waves”, and humanity apparently needs to prepare for serious fluctuations in economic development.

Theoretical concepts of long waves are important because they provide the necessary basis for assessing the state of the economy and predicting its future state.

Theory of large cycles N.D. Kondratieff had a profound impact on world economic thought, becoming one of the most important prerequisites for theories of economic development and technological progress.

Theoretical concepts of long waves are important in that they provide the necessary basis for assessing the state of the economy and forecasting it

If, in your opinion, the Abstract is of poor quality, or you have already seen this work, please let us know.