The Broadcasting Board of Governors

The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) provides news to millions of listeners around the world. The BBG is funded by Congress and this year the Obama administration requested $720 million for the agency. The BBG’s mission is “to inform, engage, and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy.” According to the BBG’s website, its programming is heard by 187 million people a week.

BBG’s work is often described as “international civilian broadcasting;” this means that its programming is spoken, geared towards a foreign audience, and isn’t produced by the military. Their work is also referred to as “public diplomacy.” Public diplomacy refers to the interaction with the citizens of a country instead of working exclusively with a country’s leaders. Another common kind of public diplomacy is university study abroad programs.

I have spent much time consuming news produced by news agencies that are geared toward foreign audiences and funded by governments. I will discuss English language news organizations that are funded by foreign governments in a later post. I have come to the conclusion that international civilian broadcasting serves two primary functions.

1)    To spread goodwill toward the country that is funding the news by producing content that the listeners enjoy. I have witnessed this myself by seeing the reactions of my friends who enjoy RT and Al Jazeera English.

2)    To bring a perspective on the news that is missing from the broadcast area. The perspective could be missing due to censorship or because the view is not discussed by the domestic broadcasters.   

The BBG oversees five news organizations: Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, Voice of America, Radio and TV Marti, and the Middle East Broadcasting network.

Radio Free Europe

Radio Free Europe’s mission is to “promote democratic values and institutions by reporting the news in countries where a free press is banned by the government or not fully established. Our journalists provide what many people cannot get locally: uncensored news, responsible discussion, and open debate.”

Radio Free Europe broadcasts in 28 languages and 21 countries in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucuses. RFE’s website provides news in English on the countries in their broadcast area. They also have great content-specific blogs. These include Power Vertical and Persian Letters. Power Vertical focuses on the politics of Russia and its author, Brian Whitmore, produces a weekly audio podcast with Kirill Kobren, the managing editor of Radio Free Europe’s Russian Service.

Persian Letters is a brilliant blog about Iran written by Golnaz Esfandiari, who was born in Tehran. Earlier this month she discussed how Iran’s Supreme Leader’s religious decree against anti-filtering software, which Iranians use to access censored websites, was blocked because it contained the word “anti-filtering.” In order to access the decree online, Iranians would have had to use anti-filtering software. She concludes the post, “Just another day in the Islamic Republic.”

Back in September 2011 she discussed an NBC News report that was painted a very positive picture of Ahmadinejad. The segment described his daily routine and failed to confront him with any challenging questions about the policies of the Iranian government. NBC’s report is a good example of a common pitfall reporters face when covering when foreign leaders: if the journalist conducting the interview doesn’t have a good enough background on the country and the leader being interviewed, it can often result in uncritical praise and promotion.

Radio Free Asia

Radio Free Asia broadcasts in 9 languages and 6 countries throughout East and Southeast Asia. RFA’s English-language website produces news on the countries in its broadcast area daily. Like all of BBG’s English language websites, RFA devotes much of its coverage to human rights issues.

Aung San Suu Kyi, the head of Burma’s democracy movement, thanked RFA and similar services for providing news to Burma that she couldn’t have received otherwise.

“When RFA’s Burmese Language program began in 1996 I had little idea what a vital role it would play in my daily life. During my last term of house arrest from 2003 to 2010, RFA not only kept me in touch with news, views, and information from all over the world, it made sure I was constantly aware of events, thoughts, and personalities relevant to the movement for democracy in Burma. This is the particular invaluable contribution that a station like RFA, dedicated to the strengthening of democratic values and freedoms all over the world, has to make.

“As I congratulate the RFA Burmese language service on 15 years of excellent contribution to the cause of democracy and freedom, I would also like to thank the staff of the RFA for making it possible for me to roam the globe at a time I was confined to a very small place on this earth. I hope that RFA will continue to make its contribution to a freer, more democratically aware world and I hope very much that the day won’t be far off when RFA will join us in celebrating the dawn of democracy in Burma.”  

Voice of America

Voice of America broadcasts in 47 languages all over the globe. Like RFE and RFA, VOA has an English-language website that covers world news on a daily basis. Because VOA broadcasts in English, they have an impressive array of English-language audio and visual podcasts. VOA covers Africa with a depth that is difficult to find elsewhere.

TV and Radio Marti

TV and Radio Marti broadcast in Spanish to Cuba. Marti’s website is in Spanish and the organization doesn’t produce any English-language content. Marti is important because, as Human Rights Watch points out, the Cuban government controls all media outlets in Cuba.

Middle East Broadcasting Network

The Middle East Broadcasting Network (MBN) produces Alhurra television and Radio Sawa. The MBN broadcasts in Arabic to the Middle East. The websites for all MBN organizations are in Arabic. There is an Al Hurra channel that broadcasts region-wide and one that broadcasts exclusively to Iraq.

I support the BBG because the agency brings valuable information to people around the world who often do not have the ability to access it any other way. BBG’s work also produces goodwill toward the US by listeners who enjoy its programming. I believe that providing news to people in closed societies is an appropriate use of taxpayer money. The BBG is a valuable resource to those in the US who read their English-language websites as well.

h/t Think Progress

The Greatest SNL Political Skits from the Past Four Years

Saturday Night Live’s political skits are often feats of comedic genius. These are my favorite SNL political skits.

In the first skit, SNL’s Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton address the role of sexism in the 2008 Presidential campaign. The portrayal of both politicians is hilarious.

Contrary to popular perception (including until fairly recently my own) Sarah Palin never actually said, “I can see Russia from my house.” What she actually said was, “You can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.” Tina Fey’s spoof on the comment stuck.

The second skit is my favorite. Sarah Palin (the real one, not the visually identical Tina Fey) joined Seth Meyers and Amy Poehler on Weedend Update. The heavily-pregnant Amy Poehler performs the Sarah Palin Rap that is full of references to several notable comments Palin made on the campaign trail. It mentions her use of Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers to attack Obama, her involvement in the “Bridge to Nowhere” scandal, and the inane discussion of “Joe the Plummer” which consumed the coverage of the presidential election for a few days in 2008. (Too be clear I describe the Joe the Plumber discussion as inane because I find the phrase gimmicky and annoying; the discussion of the effect of competing tax policies is substantive and important.)

The third skit is from this election cycle. The SNL Fox News Undeclared Presidential Candidates Debate spoofed Sarah Pain, Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachmann, and Jimmy McMillan. The debate was based on the first Republican Presidential Debate of the 2012 cycle which I profiled back in May 2011. The video has several jokes involving Obama’s order to send Seal Team 6 to kill Osama Bin Laden which had occurred shortly before the skit was written.

The fourth skit was inspired by Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage. It features SNL’s George Bush comforting SNL’s Joe Biden who is depressed that President Obama is getting all of the credit for endorsing gay marriage, even though he had done so first.

I look forward to another election season filled with SNL political skits.

--Jason Beets

Tax Masters Declares Bankruptcy

On March 16, Tax Masters declared bankruptcy. Later that month, a Texas jury found Tax Masters guilty of 110,383 violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The company and its CEO Patrick Cox were ordered to pay the defendants, their deceived customers, $113,099,820 for the money they gave to the company and $1,045,998 for the defendants’ legal fees. This comes to a total of over $195 million.

As ABC News reported in April of last year, Tax Masters repeatedly lied to their customers. They promised that they could reduce your debt to the IRS to “pennies on the dollar,” and that they were “97% successful.” Neither claim was true. They took money from people they did not help. While their offices filled with cases that went unnegotiated, their clients’ debt grew from penalties and interest.

Tax Masters owes a substantial amount of money to several companies that will likely not be paid as a result of its bankruptcy. Below are some of the companies that Tax Masters owes money to and the amount of money they will now likely be without.

CNN                                                                          $2,600,000

Maxximedia (Houston advertising firm)                $1,326,676
Fox News                                                                  $938,414
American Express                                                    $679,497
Westwood One                                                        $676,000
History Channel                                                       $653,820
MSNBC                                                                      $259,441
Yahoo                                                                        $196,475
The Weather Channel                                              $172,233
The Discovery Channel                                             $136,850
ESPN                                                                           $94,265

For almost a year after ABC’s investigative report, CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC each profited from allowing Tax Masters to lie to their viewers hundreds of times. These news organizations allowed a fraudulent company to lure their viewers into a situation that could cause them real economic hardship. A company’s responsibility doesn’t end at the door of its business office. They transferred their credibility to a liar and in so doing committed a serious breach of journalistic ethics.

h/t Mediaite

Free Pussy Riot

Pussy Riot is a female punk rock band that has preformed songs critical of the Russian President Vladimir Putin. Its members are anonymous and they perform wearing brightly colored cloth masks.  

On February 21, Pussy Riot preformed an unauthorized “punk prayer” at Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow.

According to freepussyriot.org, these are the lyrics of the “punk prayer.”


[ Virgin Mary, Mother of God, put Putin away

Put Putin away, put Putin away

(end chorus)

…

Black robe, golden epaulettes

All parishioners crawl to bow

The phantom of liberty is in heaven

Gay-pride sent to Siberia in chains

The head of the KGB, their chief saint,

Leads protesters to prison under escort

In order not to offend His Holiness

Women must give birth and love

Shit, shit, the Lord’s shit!

Shit, shit, the Lord’s shit!

(Chorus)

Virgin Mary, Mother of God, become a feminist

Become a feminist, become a feminist

(end chorus)

The Church’s praise of rotten dictators

The cross-bearer procession of black limousines

A teacher-preacher will meet you at school

Go to class-bring him money!

Patriarch Gundyaev believes in Putin

Bitch, better believe in God instead

The belt of the Virgin can’t replace mass-meetings

Mary, mother of God, is with us in protest!

(Chorus)

Virgin Mary, Mother of God, put Putin away

Put Putin away, put Putin away

(end chorus) ]

On March 4, the date of the Russian Presidential Election, two suspected members of Pussy Riot, Maria Alyhokina and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, were arrested. Both women are mothers with a young child at home.

On March 15, a third suspected member of Pussy Riot, Ekaterina Samutsevic, was arrested. The three women have been charged with “hooliganism,” which is an actual crime in Russia, and could face up to 7 years in prison if convicted. A judge has ruled that the three must remain in prison until their trial. The judge extended their pre-trial detention through June 24.

Reactions to the case from the Orthodox community in Russia have been mixed. A senior Orthodox Cleric said that the performers, “have declared war on Orthodox people and there will be a war” and that, “if the blasphemers are not punished, God will punish them in eternity and here through people.” Some orthodox priests have presented a letter that they say they were ordered to circulate calling for the members of Pussy Riot to be punished as severely as possible. Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, denies this. Members of the Orthodox Church have circulated another letter asking the Patriarch to, “maintain a Christian attitude” and calls for all charges against the women to be dropped. The Patriarch hasn’t been persuaded by this attempt. He said that during Pussy Riot’s performance, “the devil laughed at us.” He criticized those who, “justify and downplay this sacrilege.” He went on to say that, “My heart breaks from bitterness that amongst these people there are those who call themselves Orthodox.”

Amnesty International, a British human rights organization, has classified the women as “prisoners of conscience” and has called for their release.

I agree. While Pussy Riot’s choice to perform their protest at an Orthodox church was undoubtedly offensive to many Russians and unlikely to bring others to their cause, Pussy Riot’s act of civil disobedience should not be punished with jail time. The three suspected members of Pussy Riot should be immediately released. Their disruption was a minor one and deserves to be treated as such.

h/t Power Vertical at Radio Free Europe

 

 

 

UPDATE (8/17/12): On August 17, three members of Pussy Riot (Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Marina Alyokhina, and Yekaterina Samutsevich) were sentenced to 2 years in prison. The amount of time the women have been in prison prior to their trial counts towards their sentence. Thus Maria and Nadezhda have 18 and a half months remaining in their sentence. Ekaterina has 19 months remaining. Reaction to the sentence in Russia is mixed.

This punishment is greatly disproportionate to the crime. It is an ominous symbol that dissent will not be tolerated in Putin’s Russia.

UPDATE (11/18/12): On October 10, Yekaterina Samutsevich was released from prison on appeal. She received a suspended sentence because she had been prevented from participating in the performance by church security guards. She has served 7 months in prison. The other two members of Pussy Riot have 1 year and 4 ½ months remaining in their sentences.

Activists are in Trouble in Bahrain

The situation for human rights defenders in Bahrain continues to deteriorate.

Abdulhadi Alkhawaja, a former president of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR), had his 100^th day of hunger strike yesterday. He was arrested in April 2011. In June 2011 he was sentenced by a military court to life in prison for “organizing and managing a terrorist group.” The conviction was clearly illegitimate and has been roundly condemned by human rights groups.  He began his hunger strike on February 8, 2012. His daughter, Maryam Alkhawaja, said on twitter that her father is only consuming liquids. He has been detained for over a year.   

In late April, the government announced that it would retry Abdulhadi and 20 other human rights activists in civilian courts. No date has yet been set for the retrial.

On April 21, Zaineb Alkhawaja protested her father’s imprisonment by sitting in the middle of a highway in Bahrain. She was arrested on the same day. She has been charged with illegal gathering, obstructing traffic, assaulting an officer, and swearing at an officer.

Nabeel Rajab is the current president of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR). He was arrested on May 5^th after his return from Beirut, Lebanon. He is charged with “participating in an illegal assembly and inciting others to join.”

Maryam Alkhawaja is the head of the International Office of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights which is based in Copenhagen, Denmark. She is the Acting President of the BCHR and will remain so as long as Nabeel Rajab remains in jail. She is very active on twitter.

On May 11, the Obama administration announced another round of arms sales to Bahrain.

Post Script: Democracy Now! has done an excellent job covering the Arab Spring in Bahrain. Amy Goodman received the “Truthdigger of the Week” award from truthdig.org for her coverage of Bahrain. Here are some of the segments she has done on Bahrain in the past two months.

April 2: joined by Zaineb Alkhawaja and Nabeel Rajab

April 6: joined by May Ying Welsh, the director of AJE’s award-winning documentary “Bahrain: Shouting in the Dark” and a former employee of Democracy Now!

April 30: joined by Maryam Alkhawaja and Joe Stork, a director at Human Rights Watch

May 8: joined by Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch

May 15: joined by Nabeel Hameed, a Bahraini doctor who expects to be tried soon after his return to Bahrain

Julian Assange now has his own show on Russia Today. It is called Julian Calendar: The World Tomarrow. So far, I have been very impressed. Here is the episode where Assange interviews Nabeel Rajab and Alaa Abdul Fattah about the Arab Spring.

UPDATE (06/04/2012): On May 28, Abdulhadi al-Khawaja ended his hunger strike. It lasted a total of 110 days. His told his family that his hunger strike was successful in drawing the world’s attention to human rights violations in Bahrain. Abdulhadi is still in prison and awaits a retrial in a civilian court on the charges of “organizing and managing a terrorist group.”

Also on May 28, Nabeel Rajab was released from prison. He still faces the charges of “participating in an illegal gathering and calling others to join,” “disturbing public order,” and “insulting a national institution.”

Zainab Al-Khawaja was released on May 29. She still faces the charges of “illegal assembly, assaulting a police officer and inciting hatred against the regime” and “obstructing traffic.”

Democracy Now! interviewed Nabeel Rajab and Zainab Al-Khawaja after their release from prison.

Progress in Solar Energy:

Research Produces First Solar Cell with a Biological Component

Research currently underway at Kansas State University has produced the first solar cell with a biological component.

Ayomi Perera is a doctoral student in Chemistry at Kansas State. She has built a solar cell that incorporates the protein MspA with the help of her research advisor Stefan Bossmann. Solar panels are made of multiple solar cells.

“Essentially what we have is a glass surface which is coated by Titanium dioxide nanoparticles and onto this surface we had absorbed a protein dye complex. The protein is a channel forming protein extracted from a bacteria called Microbacterium Smegmatis and the dye is a new type of ruthenium Phenanthroline based compound which we have synthesized in our labs,” Ayomi said.

The advantage of using a protein in the solar cell design is that proteins are biodegradable.

“It’s sushi yeah, with algae, but you cannot eat a pocket calculator right? That’s… No really. Basically proteins consist of carbon and hydrogen and nitrogen and there are means to safely degrade them and to turn them into methane or something and you cannot do this with conventional technology,” Bossmann said.

The research has shown that the protein has remained intact throughout testing. MspA is a very sturdy molecule.

“Hooves or horns are better structures—they are very sturdy proteins. Fingernails, things you can scratch people with, and so these structures are really really resistant and therefore we use this kind of material. Of course MspA is only 10x10 nanometers in size so these are very small better bells but you have the same stability like in stable organic structures,” Bossmann said.

The solar cell is a modified Graetzel cell, which is also known as a dye-sensitized solar cell. In Gratzel cells, titanium dioxide is coated with a dye and placed in a solution containing iodide ions. Once sunlight hits the dye, electrons jump from an orbit closer to their nucleus to an orbit where they are be transferred to titanium dioxide. The electrons move from one molecule of titanium dioxide to the next until they jump onto a metal rod submerged in the solution. The electons travel up the rod and through a wire to recharge a battery or power a light. The electrons travel back through a wire to another metal rod submerged in the solution. They then move onto iodide ions which in turn transfer them back to the dye.

In order to incorporate the protein into the design, Ayomi used a less toxic dye. It is also more friendly to living organisms.

“When we developed the cell one of the things that we looked into is to produce a dye which is more compatible with our biodegradable material. We have a dye with a high amount of positive charges which is quite water soluble. It’s something that can be considered greener than the existing technologies which are much more hydrophobic,” Ayomi said.

Solar panels require energy to be produced, most of the time this energy comes from pollution-producing fossil fuels. This means that solar panels must operate for a period of time before they can compensate for the fossil fuel use that produced them. One of the advantages of Graetzel cells is that this period of time is shorter than for traditional solar cells.

“The advantage of the cells that we are doing is that a Graetzel cell needs about a year to produce the energy you need to make it. A normal cell needs two to five years. It’s much harder to produce semiconductors than to produce these Graetzel cells and with the protein which can be grown in bacteria or algae we hope to minimize the energy we need to produce the cell meaning we are earlier in the green,” Bossmann said.

Bossmann also says that solar panels produced from the experimental solar cell likely will not have a higher conversion efficiency than traditional solar panels but will likely produce more net electricity during their lifetime than traditional solar panels.

Currently the solar cell is in the experimental phase and is not yet commercially viable. Ayomi is working on ways to make the cell more efficient. She is also developing a technique to grow the bacteria in a low cost growth medium which would make the cell significantly less expensive to produce.

One of the advantages of their modified Graetzel cell is that the materials needed to produce it are more widely available.

“We have a situation where materials to form high-tech electronics are where and only certain countries like Canada or China or South Africa have the means to find that in the soil. So we try to grow components for electronics which you can grow in a bacterium or an algae so basically in a bucket full of water and some nutrient which makes it available. It’s at some point a question whether everybody has a chance and access to this materials which will become a very very rare commodity and there we see a chance to allow a broad access and especially here in the plain states where we have tones of sun. Definitely the possibility to produce something like that here. It’s an agricultural product if you want so,” Bossmann said.   

That also means that this research has the potential to create jobs in Kansas.

“With such a technology we have much better chance to create jobs over here. Jobs for solar cells will be created in 10 years where you have access to the materials and that won’t be in the U.S. because geologically the US hasn’t. If we can grow proteins which fulfill functions in solar cells then we do have access,” Bossmann said.

The solar cell’s incorporation of a biological component achieves one innovation that was portrayed in the science fiction series Star Trek.

“I mean this is only half serious but watching Star Trek in the 90s the Voyager has some biological components for basically firing of the ship that’s after a 1992 science paper I was on as a post doc. So what we’re doing here basically is a further development with a much more stable organic conductor. The electron jumps to residues on the protein which are designed to host it and then it jumps from place to place and again so bridge the distance between dye and electrode,” Bossmann said.

The research is funded by an Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) grant from the National Science Foundation which is funded by Congress.

Ayomi supports renewable energy because fossil fuels are a finite supply and contribute to environmental pollution.

“The consequences of burning fossil fuels are more and more evident: the environmental pollution, the greenhouse effect—global warming and all that. So it’s really crucial that we have an alternate source or sources of energy to compensate for this loss, both in the availability of fuels and in destruction of the environment,” Ayomi said.

Bossmann supports funding for scientific research.

“You have to create a green culture in terms of renewable energy in Kansas and that’s the seed funding. What we do need is a structure where we have support from the state to spin out companies who then sell the stuff. It is important to invest in research infrastructure because you have to conduct your experiments. It’s easy, sometimes not, but usually it is to come up with ideas on paper but you do have to have hard facts to measure this, we are scientists here, not selling off ideas. People ask us what’s the conversion efficiency of your solar cell and of course we should be able to answer that precisely.   And there we would be further along if we would have better investment climate in Kansas,” Bossmann said.

In February Ayomi was named a winner at the Capitol Research Summit in Topeka.

“This summit was an opportunity for students from different universities to go to the capitol building and interact with legislators and present their research. I think it is a tremendous opportunity for graduate student to directly convey to the people who have a hand in funding this research to convey their goals and make them realize the importance of this research. It goes both ways. Even the legislators I mean… they may hear about this research from a 3^rd party but it’s really important to hear it from the scientists actually doing the work so that both parties are informed well,” Ayomi said.

Ayomi received a $500 scholarship from KansasBio for her research. She will discuss the progress of her research with KansasBio in May.

“I enjoy working in this project a lot. I like presenting it and talking about it simply because it’s a very crucial aspect you know alternative energy and it’s important that we do research on it and it’s important we inform people from various fields about the importance of it,” Ayomi said.

After receiving her PhD, Ayomi plans to become a post doctoral fellow in England to increase her knowledge in Chemistry before pursuing a career in alternative energy and biomolecular research. She currently plans to present her thesis in August.

--Jason Beets

h/t Kansas State University News and Editorial Services

The Failure of Perestroika:

Alternative paths for Russia’s transition to a market economy

[The following post is a version of a paper I wrote for my class “Politics of Russia and the Former Soviet Union” at Kansas State University. I chose the topic of economic reform under Gorbachev and to a lesser extent Yeltsin because I was interested in the realities and causes of greater consumer shortages under Gorbachev and the hyperinflation and the economic social tragedy of Russia under Yeltsin. I learned a lot from the course and my research. I hope you learn something from my research as well.]  

 I Introduction

Gorbachev entered the Secretary-Generalship with grand promises to improve the Soviet economy through Perestroika. However, his economic policies caused more frequent shortages of consumer goods, inflation, and a continued decline in Soviet GNP. Gorbachev broke down the system of central planning before the conditions of a market were established. His failure to pursue genuine agricultural reform resulted in a missed opportunity to increase productivity and the food supply. The defeat of plans to gradually bring prices to market levels and reduce food subsidies lead to ballooning deficits and uncontrollable inflation. Russia’s transition to a market economy is a tale of missed opportunities and failed policies. The pain experienced by Russians at the end of the 1980s and throughout the 1990s was avoidable, and would not have occurred if policy makers pursued a different path to capitalism.  

II Prior to Gorbachev

The totalitarian nature of the Soviet economy was established under Stalin. Peasants were forced to work on state-run collective farms (Dziewanowski 174). Those who refused were either killed or sent to Siberia to die of starvation and cold. Simultaneously, workers and some peasants were drafted to expand Soviet industry (Dziewanowski 178). The results of these policies included a dramatic drop in agricultural output and tens of millions of deaths.

These campaigns were coordinated in the first Five-year plan that laid out in great detail every aspect of the Soviet economy, including the precise quantity of each good that was to be produced (Dziewanowski 173). No private enterprise was permitted. Every economic interaction made between suppliers was determined by the state.

Despite the unparalleled human cost, Stalin’s forced industrialization of the Soviet Union significantly expanded the Soviet economy. Abram Bergson, a former dean of Soviet studies at Harvard University, estimated that Soviet Gross National Product (GNP) increased by 5.5 percent from 1928-1937 (Bleaney 22). The growth rate of Soviet GNP declined steadily after 1950. According to western estimates, there was no real growth in Soviet GNP from 1980-1985 (Hammer 287) (Bleaney 22). In addition, the Soviet economy lagged far behind the west in technological innovation (Hammer 278).

One of the major problems in the Soviet economic system was the regular shortages of consumer goods that resulted from price controls. The government sets the prices for all products. Often, the price of a product was set below the level of demand for the product. This meant that producers would not have enough money to produce the amount of goods desired at the set price. This resulted in consumer shortages where people could not obtain the products they desired (Lavigne 54). This was an inherent aspect of the Soviet economy throughout its existence.

III Gorbachev

Mikhail Gorbachev became the General-Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1985 after the death of Konstantin Chernenko. Gorbachev never had a clear plan on how to achieve economic reform (Hammer 282). Gorbachev hoped to make the Soviet economy more productive, increase the rate of Soviet growth, and improve the quality of products produced (Hammer 283). However, these were goals, not specific policy proposals. Gorbachev enacted a policy of Glasnost, where citizens could freely discuss and publish articles addressing the problems facing the Soviet Union and possible solutions. He hoped that this would bring to light some of the solutions that would fix the Soviet economy (Hammer 287). When one set of economic reforms would not bring sufficient progress, Gorbachev would try others (Hammer 283).

Perestroika began in 1985 with minor reforms that had been used by other Soviet leaders; Gorbachev placed a heavy tax on alcohol, tightened discipline, and increased investment in heavy industry (Hough 107).

In 1986 and early 1987 Gorbachev enacted larger reforms that left the larger structure of the Soviet economy in place but also allowed for a level free enterprise that had not been seen since Lenin’s New Economic Policy. The formation of small cooperatives that were not dominated by the government was legalized (Hough 109). Part-time private economic activity by individuals, and in some cases full-time economic activity, was allowed (Hough 109).  Agroindustrial enterprises were given the option of selling output that was greater than planned levels (Hough 109). In regards to foreign economic interaction, many industries and large enterprises were given the ability to engage in foreign trade outside the monopoly of the Ministry of Foreign Trade and foreigners were allowed to invest in the Soviet Union and own property in the form of joint ventures (Hough 109). 

In 1986, Gorbachev enacted The Decree on Agricultural Management which encouraged the adoption of the “contract system” for agriculture (Bleaney 26). Under the contract system, collective farms would sub-contract to a family or small group that would pay for inputs and sell their output back to the collective farm at a specified price (Bleaney 26). This was meant to increase competition and agricultural productivity. The degree did not require collective farms to implement such a policy, it merely encouraged them to do so, and as a result few did (Bleaney 26).

Market reforms in a command economy are much easier to implement and more likely to succeed in the agricultural sector than in the industrial sector. Industry relies upon a complex set of supplier-producer relationships where in agriculture workers are at the beginning and end of their supply chain. Traditional agriculture is preformed in small groups as opposed to factories which rely on large numbers of workers. The success or failure of the work of a small group more closely depends upon and is better understood by individuals working in that group. Thus these agricultural groups thrive under competition easier than larger operations. Command economies that take the route show that it is effective. China’s transition to a market economy was comparatively smooth; they began their reforms by dismantling collective farms and returning agriculture to private enterprise (Bleaney 27). Hungary effectively encouraged extensive sub-contracting in agriculture and its farms fared well (Bleaney 27). Gorbachev did not take this path. He focused his attention on industry and only enacted minor changes in agriculture. As a result the Soviet transition was more difficult than in places that began with agricultural reform.

The Law on State Enterprise, passed in 1987, laid out the principal of “self-financing.” Under this policy enterprises and industrial associations were given increased autonomy to make business decisions (Bleaney 27). Enterprises were expected to self-finance and become profitable (Keller). The government still determined a limited proportion of output based on state orders, the tax rate on the association’s profits, and how employee’s pay would be influenced by profitability (Bleaney 27). The government was also still responsible for the pricing and allocating raw materials (Keller).

This system lead to the breakdown in traditional supplier-producer relationships. In the past, when a factory did not have enough supplies it would contact the central planners (Burawoy 377). Under the system of “self-financing,” enterprises were largely expected to sort those problems out among themselves (Burawoy 377). The prices of many goods remained set by the government (Burawoy 378). Thus the traditional problem of price-control induced shortages remained while the lack of supplier-producer coordination only increased the frequency of consumer shortages. The government even had to reintroduce the wartime policy of rationing to cope with the shortages (Russian History: Glasnost and Perestroika Times). Prime Minister Ryzhkov explained the problem facing producers and consumers under self-financing quite well. “Perestroika has wrecked established structures, both state and party ones, but nothing effective has so far been created in exchange. This has directly affected the economy where there is neither a plan nor a market” (Bleaney 35). If prices had been gradually raised to close to market values before the system of central planning was destroyed these shortages could have been greatly reduced.

Another difficult problem in the Soviet economy was the issue of food subsidies. The government spent money in order to increase the availability of food at a price below market value. This could be seen quite clearly with respect to bread prices. Over the years, the government increased the price it paid farmers for grain while it kept bread prices as they were. The situation became so irrational that it was cheaper for peasants to feed their pigs with the bread they brought from the store than the grain they grew themselves (Hough 113).

Throughout Gorbachev’s rule food subsidies placed an increasing burden on the deficit and thus lead to inflationary pressures (Hough 114). When governments spend more money than they take in from taxes they have to borrow money to make up the difference. This added money enters the economy and often causes the value of the currency to drop in a process known as inflation. In 1989 Prime Minister Ryzhkov admitted that the deficit was as great as 10 percent of gross national product (Bleaney 29). This lead lenders to question whether the Soviet Union would be able to pay its debts in the future (Hough 114). The decline of the growth rate continued under Gorbachev to the point that it became negative. In December 1990 Ryzhkov admitted that Soviet GNP had declined by 3 percent during the year (Bleaney 21).

Another problem facing economic reform was the issue of price controls. Because prices were set below market value, producers did not have enough money to make the amount of goods demanded at the set price. The result was price-induced shortages that have always been a part of the Soviet economy. Because Soviet consumers could not find the products they wished to buy, they were forced to put the money into savings (Bleaney 29). This meant that if prices were allowed to immedietly transition to their market values, the shortages would cease and all of those involuntary savings would rush into the economy (Bleaney 29). That would result in uncontrollable hyperinflation (Bleaney 29). That is why it was necessary to raise prices gradually to their market levels. This would prevent the inflation from occurring at such a high level.

When the issue of price increases came up for discussion in 1987 and 1988 those who would become known as the “radical economists” opposed any incremental increase in prices (Hough 116). They wanted prices to be immediately allowed to go to their market level. As the political climate would not allow this to happen in 1987 or 1988 they were, in effect, opposing any increase in prices at all (Hough 117). Other Soviet economists at the time advocated for gradual price increases (Hough 117).

In 1990 Ryzhkov presented a plan to the Supreme Soviet that included price increases and a reduction in food subsidies (Bleaney 29). Such policies, while necessary, were unpopular among the masses (Hough 112-113). The Supreme Soviet rejected the plan and told Ryzhkov to come back with another plan in September (Hough 359). Gorbachev responded to the proposal by saying that, “it was absurd to begin economic reform with price increases.” He said this even though he chaired both the presidential council and the federation council, both of which had approved that Ryzhkov present his plan, the increases in food prices included, before the Supreme Soviet (Hough 358). Yeltsin criticized the plan as an, “antipeople’s policy Russia should not adopt” (Hough 359). No price increases were to be adopted before the collapse of the Soviet Union.  

IV Yeltsin

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Yeltsin adopted a policy of “shock therapy” and chose many of the “radical economists” as his advisors. In January 1992 Yeltsin lifted all price controls and allowed prices to immediately rise to their market values (Satter 46). The result was predictable. People took the money they had in savings as a result of decades of shortages and the value of the ruble plummeted dramatically. The hyperinflation was uncontrollable. Prices rose by 245 percent in that month alone (Curtis). In 1992 retail prices rose by 2,520 percent; In 1993 prices rose by 840 percent; In 1994 prices rose by 224 percent (Curtis). After only three months of shock therapy 99 percent of the money held by Russian citizens in bank accounts had disappeared (Satter 47). All of this was approved by the same Yeltsin who had derided Ryzhkov’s proposal of gradual price increases as an “anti-people’s policy.”

During shock therapy Yeltsin’s government also liberalized foreign trade and removed import barriers (Satter 38). They also compressed the money supply in a hopeless attempt at combating the hyperinflation created by their irresponsible immediate freeing of prices (Satter 38).

V Conclusion

Gorbachev promised to improve the functioning of the Soviet economy through Perestroika. Specifically he promised that he would increase the rate of growth of the Soviet economy. During his tenure the rate continued to decline and even became negative. Gorbachev was willing to make promises that he could not keep and had no clear plan on how to attain at the time me made them.

The radical economists opposed incremental price increases in an attempt to achieve an immediate transfer to market determined prices. They did this even though such a policy was politically impossible when the discussion of price increases first came up. They sacrificed pragmatism for idealism, an idealism that would result in catastrophic failure.

Both Yeltsin and Gorbachev opposed Ryzhov’s 1990 policy that would have gradually raise prices and decreased food subsidies. Gorbachev did this even though he had approved that Ryzhov present his policy to the Supreme Soviet in the first place. Yeltsin opposed Ryzhov’s plan for the pain it would cause the people even though the plan he would later implement was much more radical and more painful for the people. Both were willing to modify their positions for political gain. This also meant that even though the Soviet Union was not a democracy in 1990, public opinion still had an effect on public policy.

The failure of the Soviet political elite to first focus on the reform of agriculture shows that the Soviet political class fails to consider the examples of other countries in their creation of policy.

The public’s response to these problems was not uniquely Russian. People everywhere disapprove of the increases of prices, whether they are as a result of markets or central planning. The frustration that results from the inability to obtain consumer products and the loss of one’s life savings as a result of hyperinflation are also universal.

Gorbachev’s policies of Perestroika lead to increased consumer shortages, inflationary pressures, increasing deficits, and a continued decrease in Soviet GNP. These were not the inevitable result of the breakdown of the command economy and the transition to capitalism; they were the result of the manner which Soviet and Russian leaders chose to do so.


--Jason Beets

Works Cited

Bleaney, Michael. "Economy: Economic Reform." The Impact of Gorbachev. Ed. D. W. Spring. New York: Pinter Publisher, 1991. 21-36. Print.

Curtis, Glenn. Russia: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1996. Web. <http://countrystudies.us/russia/57.htm>.

Dziewanowski, M. K. Russia in the Twentieth Century. Upper Saddle River: Prentice

            Hall, 2003. Print.

Hammer, Darrell P. The USSR: The Politics of Oligarchy. Bolder: Westview Press, 1990.Print.

Hough, Jerry. Democratization and Revolution in the USSR, 1985-1991. Washington     D.C.:   Brookings Institution Press, 1997. Print.

Keller, Bill. "For Grim Soviet Consumers, The New Year of Discontent." New York Times. 1 January 1989. Web. 3 May 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/01/world/for-grim-soviet-consumers-the-new-year-of-discontent.html>.

Lavigne, Marie. "Problems facing the Soviet Economy." The Gorbachv Era. Ed. Alexander Dallin and Ed. Condoleezza Rice. Stanford: Stanford Alumni Association, 1986. 42-59. Print.

"Russian History: Glasnost and Perestroika Times." Russiapedia. 2011. Web. 3 May       2012. <http://russiapedia.rt.com/russian-history/perestroika/>.

Satter, David. Darkness at Dawn: The Rise of the Russian Criminal State. New Haven:   Yale University Press, 2003. Print.