Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Characteristics of the concept

Before moving on to the details surrounding such a phenomenon as shock therapy in Russia in 1992, let's find out in more detail what this term means.

Shock therapy is based on a set of comprehensive measures that are designed to facilitate a rapid recovery of the state from the crisis. But, unfortunately, these measures do not always give the effect that is expected from them, and in some cases, if used incorrectly, they can even worsen the situation.

A typical set of measures during shock therapy includes:

reduction in the amount of money in circulation;
instant application of free pricing;
adoption of a deficit-free budget;
significant reduction in inflation;
privatization of some state enterprises.

Shock therapy in Russia (1992) was far from the only example of the implementation of such a tool in world history. This set of measures was used in various countries of the world both earlier and later.

Post-war Germany and modern Poland are some of the most famous examples of successful application of the method. But in countries and Latin America(Bolivia, Chile, Peru, Argentina, Venezuela) shock therapy did not have such an unambiguous success, although, without a doubt, in most cases it contributed to the emergence of positive economic processes. Quite successfully, measures similar to those we are considering were taken at one time in the UK, New Zealand, Israel and other countries.

The main advantages of the shock therapy method are its universalism and relatively high speed obtaining the required result. The negative ones, first of all, include quite high risks and a decline in the standard of living of the population in the short term.

Previous Events

Now let's find out what events in economic and political life forced the government to use such a tool as shock therapy in Russia (1992).

The end of the 80s - the beginning of the 90s was marked by such a global event as the collapse of Soviet Union. This phenomenon was provoked by a number of factors of both a political and economic nature.

One of the main prerequisites for the collapse of the USSR was the ineffectiveness of the existing economic model, which was based on command and control. Need for change Soviet authority realized in the mid-80s. To this end, a set of economic and political reforms, known as “perestroika,” was carried out, which was aimed at democratizing society and introducing elements of market mechanisms in the economy. But these reforms were half-hearted and could not solve the accumulated problems, but only worsened the situation.

After the collapse of the USSR economic situation in Russia began to worsen even more, which was also facilitated by the severance of ties between the former Soviet republics. Some experts, such as the Deputy Prime Minister for economic policy Yegor Gaidar believed that Russia was on the verge of famine due to interruptions in food supplies.

The government headed by Boris Yeltsin understood that the country immediately needed fundamental economic reforms, and half-measures would not help in the current state of affairs. Only by taking drastic measures can the economy improve. Shock therapy in Russia in 1992 became precisely the tool that was designed to bring the state out of the crisis.

First steps

The first step from which shock therapy began to be implemented in Russia (1992) was the liberalization of prices. This implied the formation of the cost of goods and services using market mechanisms. The complexity of the situation was that until then it was used government regulation when setting prices for the vast majority of types of products, so the sharp transition to free pricing turned out to be quite a strong shock for the economy of the entire country.

Discussions about the possibility of introducing free prices began at the end of the USSR, in the late 80s, but serious steps in this direction never came. The situation was further complicated by the fact that the question arose about the very possibility of forming free prices in the conditions of the economic model that existed in Russia at that time.

Nevertheless, in December 1991, the RSFSR Government adopted a decree on price liberalization, which came into force at the beginning of January 1992. This was largely a forced step, since the introduction of this measure was initially planned for mid-1992. But problems with food supplies, which threatened famine, forced a rush to make a decision. Thus, a set of measures was launched that became known as shock therapy in Russia (1992).

The problem with shortages of food and other goods was overcome, but the introduction of free pricing gave rise to hyperinflation, which led to a significant reduction real income population and even impoverishment of some sections of society.

Changes in foreign trade

Price liberalization was far from the only innovation of that time. At the same time, liberalization was carried out foreign trade. The imbalance of prices in the domestic and foreign markets has led to the fact that organizations engaged in foreign trade began to receive excess profits. It was profitable not to invest money in production, but to resell raw materials. This led to an increase in corruption and the concentration of significant capital in the hands of individuals, who were later called oligarchs.

Rising inflation, rampant banditry and corruption created the feeling that shock therapy in Russia (1992) was a path to the abyss.

Gaidar government

The main driving force behind the reforms was the young politician Yegor Gaidar, who alternately held the positions of Deputy Prime Minister for economic issues, Minister of Finance and First Deputy Prime Minister. Since June 1992, due to the fact that the President of Russia could not also combine the post of head of government, Yegor Gaidar was appointed acting head of government. official. The cabinet of ministers included such reformers as Vladimir Shumeiko, Alexander Shokhin, Andrei Nechaev, Grigory Khizha, Anatoly Chubais, Pyotr Aven and others.

This was a government whose tasks included carrying out the most important economic reforms for Russia.

Key government steps

Let's take a look at the main steps that the Russian government of that time took to carry out reforms. In addition to the liberalization of prices and foreign trade, this includes the transition from state order to the introduction of market principles economic relations, formation tax service, ensuring the convertibility of the ruble, guaranteeing free trade, reducing budget expenses, introducing a taxation system and much more.

We can say that at this time the main starting points for the development of the modern economy were formed.

Privatization

One of the main principles of the shock therapy method is the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Although it began en masse only in 1993, after his resignation, it was his cabinet that laid the foundations for this important event and outlined the main steps to achieve the goal.

The law on privatization was adopted in the summer of 1991, but only at the beginning of the next year the methodology for carrying out this process began to be developed. The first cases of privatization of state property date back to the summer of 1992. It gained the widest momentum in At that time, the head of the State Property Committee was Anatoly Chubais, therefore it is with his name that privatization is associated, and primarily its negative consequences. Why?

The peculiarity of Russian privatization was that all citizens of the country could take part in it, who were given a special type of valuable papers- privatization checks, or vouchers. It was assumed that any citizen would be able to buy out part of the enterprise, which was subject to removal from state ownership.

Privatization of state property was an integral part of the mechanism by which shock therapy was carried out in Russia (1992). The result was quite ambiguous. On the one hand, the state managed to get rid of the majority of unprofitable enterprises, thereby freeing up budget money for other purposes, but at the same time, a number of organizations were sold for next to nothing, which, with skillful management, could bring considerable profit. Most of these enterprises were concentrated in the hands of a small group of oligarchs.

Resignation of the Gaidar government

As reforms were carried out, inflation did not slow down, and the real standard of living of citizens invariably fell. This led to the Gaidar government increasingly losing popularity among the country's population.

There were many opponents of Gaidar’s policies among the political elite. This led to the fact that in December 1992 the Congress of People's Deputies actually expressed no confidence in the head of government. President Boris Yeltsin was forced to dismiss him from all his posts, and he was appointed Chairman of the Council of Ministers

I would like to note the following: although E. Gaidar was able to realize not all of his plans, but the general course for development market economy in the state they were assigned.

Results of shock therapy

The use of such an economic mechanism as shock therapy in Russia (1992) had rather ambiguous results for the country. The pros and cons in the short term clearly indicated the predominance of negative consequences.

Among the main negative phenomena, it is necessary to highlight a significant increase in inflationary processes bordering on hyperinflation, a rapid decline in real incomes of citizens and impoverishment of the population, an increase in the gap between different layers of society, a drop in investment, a reduction in GDP and industrial production.

At the same time, many experts believe that it was thanks to the use of the shock therapy method that Russia managed to avoid a terrible famine.

Reasons for failure

The relative failure of shock therapy in Russia is explained by the fact that not all elements of the classical scheme were exactly followed. For example, the shock therapy method implies a reduction in the level of inflation, but in the Russian Federation, on the contrary, it has reached unprecedented levels.

A significant role in the failure was also played by the fact that, due to the resignation of the Gaidar government, many reforms were not completed as quickly as possible, as required by the shock therapy strategy.

Consequences

But did shock therapy completely fail in Russia (1992)? The long-term consequences of these reforms still had a number of positive aspects. The foundation of a market mechanism was laid, which, although it did not begin to function as efficiently as possible, made it possible to break with the old command-administrative methods of management, which had long since become obsolete.

In addition, such a negative phenomenon as a shortage of goods was almost completely overcome, and by the beginning of 1998, the inflation rate had decreased significantly, which made it possible to redenominate the ruble.

Many experts believe that it was the timely implementation of shock therapy, even if not in its classical form, that made it possible to preserve the country’s economy and created the preconditions for its growth at the beginning of the 21st century.

A quarter of a century ago, they tried to transfer the Soviet economy to a market economy. This was one of the largest economic reforms in history. The dispute about its results and the methods used by the reformers has not stopped to this day. Lenta.ru recalls how “shock therapy” was carried out and what it led to. The first part of the material is available at.

Polish sample

The Chinese model of development was rejected - the example of “brothers forever” did not inspire Soviet leaders. Where closer to Russia there was a model transition economy, sold in Eastern European countries. Moscow looked especially closely at Poland. There was no longer any gap in mentality here. The Slavic state, which for a long time was in the same economic and military bloc with the USSR, is an ideal role model.

“Then reforms were carried out in Poland. In the fall, the communists liberalized prices and transferred power to the government of Tadeusz Mazowiecki and Leszek Balcerowicz (Prime Minister of Poland and head of the Ministry of Finance, respectively - approx. "Tapes.ru"). The concept of “shock therapy” arose precisely at that time - this is what Balcerowicz’s reforms were called. After the liberalization of prices, they took the most stringent measures to achieve financial stabilization. We decided that we needed something like this,” says Evgeniy Yasin.

Indeed, Poland managed to pull off an economic miracle in less than five minutes. Reforms started on January 1, 1990, and within two years the country switched to a market economy.

Shock therapy worked in Poland. In 1990, GDP fell by 11 percent, in 1991 by 7 percent. And already in 1992, the economy began to grow and by the mid-1990s it was leading the region in this indicator. The reforms turned out to be so effective that even now Poland stands out among its neighbors (this is the only country V Eastern Europe, which managed to avoid a recession during the financial crisis of the late 2000s).

At a steep peak

Acting according to the Polish scenario, January 2, 1992 Russian government announced the end of price regulation and free trade. Within a few days, the shelves were filled with goods. But this is where the similarity between the reforms in Poland and Russia ended - then, as they say, “something went wrong.”

In Poland, prices rose 3-4 times within a year after liberalization. In Russia, such a leap occurred simultaneously. And then inflation did not stop, quickly acquiring the prefix “hyper”. Financial system rapidly dollarized. Despite the growth money supply, barter schemes have become widespread.

The next stage is privatization, which began back in 1991, but really took off a couple of years later. In theory, every Russian citizen received the right to public property through the issue of vouchers. But most of the potential “people's investors” quickly sold their privatization checks. And as it later turned out, this was almost the optimal solution - many of those who tried to invest vouchers in something ended up getting nothing at all. Almost all the “fat” pieces of state property went to people close to the authorities through loans-for-shares auctions. This is how Russian oligarchs appeared.

As a result, the Russian economy found itself in a protracted peak. It was possible to return to sluggish growth only in the second half of the 90s, but literally immediately there was a “control shot” in the form of the 1998 default. Only a year later, recovery growth and a gradual rise from the bottom began.

Why did this happen? Many believe that the concept of shock therapy was fundamentally wrong and was not suitable for Russia.

"Immediate entry option" foreign money and with subsequent modernization, which is good for small economies, is not suitable for the large industrial economy that Russia was, very complex, with a large military-industrial complex. It’s like throwing a cart down a mountain instead of carefully lowering it,” says Yakov Mirkin.

In the early nineties American economist Jeffrey Sachs advised first Poland and then Russia on reforms. And if the expert speaks of the Polish stage of his activity as a great success, then he qualifies the work in Russia as a failure, explaining this by the fact that most of his recommendations fell on deaf ears of Russian reformers.

American indifference

Sachs writes that, unlike Poland, Russia did not take measures to contain the money supply. On the contrary, it grew by leaps and bounds, which provoked hyperinflation. Russia's neighbors are largely to blame for this. former USSR, who had the right to issue rubles for another year. It is not difficult to guess that they used this right to the maximum.

The American specialist emphasizes the poor competence in economic matters of most Russian officials and experts of that time, pointing out direct dishonesty. In particular, he accused Rosimushchestvo adviser on privatization Andrei Shleifer (also a US citizen) of having a material interest in the implementation state assets. By the way, in 2005, American justice forced Shleifer to pay a fine of two million dollars, ruling that he had no right to do business in Russia. In addition, Sachs considers the idea of privatizing mining to be extremely unsuccessful, something he objected to throughout his entire period of work in Moscow.

But still, Sachs places the main blame for the failure of Russian reforms on external players, primarily on the leadership of the United States and the IMF. Poland, according to him, in 1990 received all possible concessions and preferences from the international community. Yes, its colossal external debt($30 billion) was written off by half. And literally right there Warsaw was provided with new stabilization loans on very generous terms. All this helped ensure the influx of private investment into the country and lay the foundation for future development.

Nothing similar was done in relation to Russia. Debts were collected down to the last penny (and, moreover, the G7 countries threatened to stop all humanitarian aid at the slightest delay in payments), and if financial support was provided, it was on completely market terms. Sachs explains this by the position of the United States, which essentially imposed its reluctance to help Russia on the IMF. The fund itself did not really analyze the events in the Russian Federation.

As for America, in 1992 the administration of President George H. W. Bush did not even want to talk about providing support to Moscow because of the pre-election vicissitudes. The cabinet of Bill Clinton that replaced it was not interested in Russia at all, perceiving it as a weak, defeated enemy. The people who were appointed by Clinton to positions related to Russia did not understand economics at all. Russia had to survive solely on its own efforts and modest resources, and reforms here brought a completely different result than in Eastern Europe.

“At that time there was a high point of good relations with the West, but there was no massive flow of investment that would integrate the economy. There were objective reasons for this. At this time, West Germany had to “digest” the GDR, and the EU was engaged in integration former countries socialist camp. And besides, Russia continued to remain closer to the “strangers” in the “friend or foe” identification system. Its risks have always been assessed as prohibitive. And we were not ready for such integration as for Eastern Europe, when, say, banking systems became the property of foreigners,” explains Yakov Mirkin.

Despite severe criticism (both from within and from outside) of the reform course implemented in Russia, many believe that in the end everything was done correctly. “I cannot allow myself to say that we followed the only correct path. But I have no doubt at all that we generally did everything right and, most importantly, achieved success,” emphasized Evgeniy Yasin.

The cost of the reforms carried out by Gaidar and his followers turned out to be high for Russia. Largely because the reformers did not take into account the real situation in the country’s economy, preferring to act according to the principle “to the ground, and then...”, says Ruslan Grinberg.

“Yegor Timurovich is a tragic figure. He was a decent man, a man of ideas, unfortunately too ideological. In the bird language of science, this is called the ontologization of theoretical schemes, when a person puts fashionable doctrines into practice without any hesitation. Just like the Bolsheviks in 1917 introduced a doctrine that was supposed to lead everyone to happiness through repression and famine. Then they preached wild equality without freedom, and in the 90s they preached wild freedom without any equality. And it couldn’t end differently than it ended now,” he concludes.

1) Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….3

2) What is “shock therapy”? ……………………………………………….5

3) “Shock therapy” in Russia……………………………………………………7

4) Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………13

5) Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………14

Introduction

Shock therapy - existed in the 60-90s. XX century economic theory, as well as a set of radical economic reforms based on this theory. These reforms, as the postulates of “shock therapy” declare, “...are aimed at improving the state’s economy and bringing it out of the crisis.” Such reforms include immediate price liberalization, monetary contraction, and privatization of unprofitable state-owned enterprises. In the vast majority of cases, the use of “shock therapy” led to catastrophic consequences, including coups d’etat. Currently, this theory, as having proven complete failure, is not considered by serious economists.

Almost all countries of the socialist camp were faced with the problem of the financial crisis of late socialism, the need to remove the monetary overhang accumulated under socialism and a noticeable jump in inflation at the beginning of the market transition. In this regard, they are usually divided into a set of those states that were able to oppose financial crisis tight monetary policy and in a short time bring inflation down to moderate values (Poland), and those where monetary policy was soft, the growth rate of the nominal money supply was subject to sharp fluctuations, and the period of high inflation is long (Russia). With a certain degree of convention, the economic policy pursued in the first group of countries is called monetarist, in the second - populist.
Russia differs significantly from other post-communist countries in that it has overcome a socio-economic system that was once generated by their own characteristics and development contradictions, and not imposed from the outside.
Russia's path out of the communist system will remain the subject of theoretical debate and political battles for a long time to come. What predetermined the very inevitability of a sharp break with the communist past? What were the mistakes and achievements along the way? What dangers were avoided and, on the contrary, why did much of what happened happen?

Answering these questions is not easy due to their extreme politicization. Of the numerous economic policy options, only one is implemented in practice, and supporters of all the remaining unrealized alternatives become participants in heated discussions that “another would be better.” This interesting issue has been discussed in the domestic economic literature for several years now. However, it seems to me that it is necessary to reveal the reasons precisely this development events.

What is “shock therapy”?

Shock therapy − economic theory that existed in the 60-90s of the 20th century; a set of radical measures aimed at improving the economy, disrupting the usual course of economic relations, phenomena and accompanied by a number of negative consequences: rising prices, inflation, falling employment, etc.

The theory of shock therapy has neoclassical (marginalist) origins. According to this doctrine economic activity is successfully carried out in the presence of a “perfect” environment in the country, associated with the conditions of a free market economy in its ideal textbook model. According to theorists who adhere to this concept, the creation of a free market economy is the result of: financial stabilization and price liberalization; accelerated privatization; open internal market. It is assumed that failure to fulfill at least one of the three conditions leads to deformation of the economic behavior of economic entities. Hence the proof of the need to accelerate (“big blow”, “shock”) the transition to a market economy.

Central idea shock therapy - to create market conditions under which economic entities pursuing their own economic interests will ensure effective economic growth and the realization of national economic interests.

As Russian reality has shown, the methods of market transformations proposed by the theorists of shock therapy turned out to be, firstly, inadequate to the object of transformation, and secondly, they did not take into account the complexity of socio-economic transformations and the consequences they caused, as well as the incomparability of shock therapy measures in their meaning. Thus, macroeconomic stabilization and privatization were classified as priority measures, the problems of savings and investment were in the background, they were supposed to be solved after the economy had transitioned to the desired final state; it was not expected that the place of absent market economic entities would be taken by criminal elements, etc.

"Shock therapy" in Russia.

The Government of the Russian Federation, of all possible options who chose the option of “shock therapy” was confident of success, hoping to literally within a matter of weeks achieve equilibrium in the consumer market, achieve financial stabilization in the country in a few weeks, give scope for self-regulation of the market, or thus contain the decline in production and lay the impulse for its rise.

The “shock therapy” was planned to be carried out according to the following scenario:

Stage I scenario

1. Freedom to increase prices - price liberalization.

2. Removal of control over the growth of enterprise income from price increases.

3. Removal of restrictions on wage growth in manufacturing sectors, trade and banking.

4. Loss of control over state property and the transfer of cash savings into the consumption fund.

5. Limitation of investment demand and destruction of investment demand.

6. Under-accrual of 1.5 trillion. rub. sinking fund and overestimation of enterprise profits.

7. Switching investment resources to the consumer market and purchasing currency notes.

8. Artificial creation of a payment crisis, which caused a sharp increase in the decline in production and a suspension of payments in the budget.

9. Loss of tax revenue of 40-50% of the tax base (estimated by government departments).

10. Switching the policy of high interest rates on bank capital to usurious and speculative operations and exchange purchases of currency.

11. Emission 1.5 trillion. substitutes for money - vouchers.

12. Failure to close Russian market and internal money turnover from the ruble intervention of other countries.

13. Inability to stop the flight of debt capital abroad.

Stage II of the scenario

1. Cutting back budget expenditures in their real terms.

2. "Freezing" wages employees of public sector industries.

3. “Compression” of the money supply.

4. Inflation interest rate- “expensive loan.”

5. The oppression of indirect and direct taxes.

6. “Help” from the West and the IMF.

However, attempts to artificially speed up processes and jump over inevitable transition steps turned out to be unrealistic, bordering on adventurousness and disastrous for society.

The elimination of restrictions on wages and the increase in funds allocated for consumption on December 1, 1991 led to a rapid increase in wages, both in the public and alternative sectors of the economy, while the increase in funds for wages was largely attributed to production costs and was expressed in rising prices. This actually led to the launch of Russian economy spiral "wages - costs - prices". In the subsequent period (1991-1993), the nature of inflation changed significantly. If before 1991 the decisive factor in the development of the inflation process was the accumulation of forced deferred demand and price increases played a much smaller role, then later the depreciation of the money supply acquired expression through a rapid increase in prices.

The measures taken by the government turned out to be insufficient to overcome inflation, since they did not stop the further decline in production.

"Shock therapy" in 1992 pursued not so much the goal of overcoming economic crisis, as many as political tasks: the approval of a new regime and the final dismantling of the administrative-command system of the national economy. From this point of view, such a policy is this moment was mostly justified. But shock monetarism has shown its limitations and inability to solve long-term and global problems facing Russia.

In general, “shock therapy” manifested itself in the form socio-economic effects:

¨ curtailment of investment processes, suspension of the reproduction of fixed assets, destruction of the construction and scientific-technical complexes;

¨ fall in production volumes and, consequently, supply consumer goods, which led to a disruption of market equilibrium: fewer and fewer goods are produced, prices rise;

¨ the mysterious disproportion that arose between the consumer price index (an increase of 26 times) and the cash income population (growth of only 7.5 times);

¨ “Russian competition”, expressed in producers curtailing production and raising prices.

“Shock therapy” in Russia was not accompanied by any positive results, because the problem of saturation of markets in the conditions of a rapid and sustained decline in production and mass export of goods was never resolved. Some mitigation of the deficit for certain groups of goods was associated only with the achievement of a price level for them that turns these goods completely inaccessible to the bulk of the population (and thereby causes a sharp reduction in their consumption and production). But liberalization caused a high rise in prices, reaching the level of hyperinflation.

Shock therapy stages. Shock therapy (medicine). Russian scenario of “shock therapy”