command economy research paper

Command Economy

Reference work entry
First Online: 01 January 2018
pp 1828–1843
Cite this reference work entry

Richard E. Ericson 1

132 Accesses

1 Citations

The concept of a ‘command economy’, a construct in the theory of comparative economic systems, is defined, and its origins, characteristics, and consequences for any society in which it is implemented are explored. The impossibility of the absolute centralization which it requires generates compromises with the market forces it aspires to replace, fostering a symbiotic marketized ‘second economy’ which systematically undermines its foundations. Hence, although initially appearing to be a true alternative to the market economy, a command economy, most nearly realized in the Soviet Union (1930–87), proved to be ultimately non-viable, collapsing under reforms attempting to make it competitive with market systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime
Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Durable hardcover edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Centralized Economics, the Market and Their “Contributions”

Ideological myths of modern economic theory and reality

Introduction to the Palgrave Handbook of Comparative Economics

Bibliography.

Aslund, A. 1995. How Russia became a market economy . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Google Scholar

Berliner, J. 1957. Factory and manager in the USSR . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Book Google Scholar

Bornstein, M., ed. 1973. Plan and market . New Haven: Yale University Press.

Eckstein, A., ed. 1971. Comparison of economic systems: Theoretical and methodological approaches . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ericson, R. 1983. A difficulty with the ‘command’ allocation mechanism. Journal of Economic Theory 31: 1–26.

Article Google Scholar

Ericson, R. 1991. The classical Soviet-type economy: Nature of the system and implications for reform. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5 (4): 11–27.

Ericson, R. 2005. Command vs. shadow: The conflicted soul of the Soviet economy. Comparative Economic Systems 47 (4): 1–27.

Freris, A. 1984. The Soviet industrial enterprise . New York: St Martin’s Press.

Garvy, G. 1977. Money, financial flows and credit in the Soviet Union . New York: Ballinger Publishing Company.

Granick, D. 1954. Management of the industrial firm in the USSR . New York: Columbia University Press.

Grossman, G. 1962. The structure and organization of the Soviet economy. Slavic Review 21: 203–222.

Grossman, G. 1963. Notes for a theory of the command economy. Soviet Studies 15 (2): 101–123.

Grossman, G. 1966. Gold and the sword: Money in the Soviet command economy. In Industrialization in two systems , ed. H. Rosovsky. New York: Wiley.

Grossman, G. 1977. The ‘second economy’ of the USSR. Problems of Communism 26 (5): 25–40.

Grossman, G. 2000. Central planning and transition in the American desert: Latter-day saints in present day sight. Available as a preprocessed paper at http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~grossman/mormons.pdf . Accessed 23 June 2006.

Higgs, R. 1992. Wartime prosperity? A reassessment of the U.S. economy in the 1940s. Journal of Economic History 52: 41–60.

Kontorovich, V. 1988. Lessons of the 1965 Soviet economic reform. Soviet Studies 40: 308–316.

La Lone, M., and D. La Lone. 1987. The Inka state in the southern highlands: State administration and production enclaves. Ethnohistory 34: 47–62.

Nove, A. 1977. The Soviet economic system . London: Allen and Unwin.

Powell, R. 1977. Plan execution and the workability of soviet planning. Journal of Comparative Economics 1: 57–76.

Raupach, H. 1966. Zur Entstehung des Begriffes Zentralverwaltungs-wirtschaft. Jahrbuch für Sozialwissenschaft 17 (1): 86–101.

Schroeder, G. 1979. The Soviet economy on a treadmill of reforms. In Soviet economy in a time of change , ed. Joint Economic Committee, US Congress, vol. 1. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Wiles, P. 1962. The political economy of communism . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Zaleski, E. 1968. Stalinist planning for economic development . Durham: Duke University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

http://link.springer.com/referencework/10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5

Richard E. Ericson

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Ericson, R.E. (2018). Command Economy. In: The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_170

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_170

Published : 15 February 2018

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, London

Print ISBN : 978-1-349-95188-8

Online ISBN : 978-1-349-95189-5

eBook Packages : Economics and Finance Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Economics CAGE Research Centre

Foundations of the soviet command economy, 1917 to 1941.

283/2016 Mark Harrison

In a command economy, centralized political priorities take precedence over market equilibrium, and government purchases cannot be refused. This chapter describes the antecedents, origins, evolution, and outcomes of the Soviet command economy from the Bolshevik Revolution to World War II. The Soviet command economy was built in two phases, 1917 to 1920, and 1928 onward, with a ‘breathing space’ between. The present account gives prominence to features of a command economy that, while missing from the first phase, were developed during the breathing space, and then helped to ensure the relative success of the second phase. These were features that assured secrecy, security, and the selection of economic officials for competence and party loyalty. Like any economy in the international system, the command economy had a comparative advantage: the production of economic and military power.

Economic History

The Cambridge History of Communism

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781316137024.017

Share Publication

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Download Free PDF

THE PRIVATIZED-COMMAND ECONOMY: The financial sector's 'free-market' veil over a paradoxical form of command economy

Command economies are defined as those in which resources and goods are distributed by a central planning government and industry is largely publicly owned. However, in this modern era of mixed economies, new definitions for economy typologies are needed. I propose the theory that the United States is now the leading command economy in the world. I propose this based on a simple adaptation of a command economy's definition. By shifting the power from what is traditionally the centralized government to the hegemonic American private sector, the United States can be categorically defined as a command economy. A history of America's shift to the financial sector's usurpation of authority is most abundantly clear when beginning with the Reagan administration. Reagan's policies tear down a multitude of walls (no pun intended) necessary for the financial sector to rise. This, however, is only half of the story. The more intriguing aspect of this scenario is the government attempt to essentially mask this shift toward command economy standards by labeling it as a 'truer' free market system than we have seen in the past. Keynesian economics advocates government spending to stimulate and support the economy. During the Great Depression, the government entered the war against Nazi Germany, resulting in the shipment of millions of young men overseas and the surge in demand for production of military materials. This essentially saved the economy, which was only failing because of the shortsightedness of financial institutions in the first place. Since the Great Depression, government spending in every major economic downturn has primarily gone to failing financial institutions. The Reagan presidency should be (and often is) remembered for opening of the floodgates for the financial sector to assume control over the nation via the nation's economic system. By providing amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants, supporting immense globalization policies which lead to downturns in major American industries with the simultaneous international expansion of firms, and deregulating the financial sector (as well as bailing large institutions out), president Reagan initiated the transformation of the American capitalist structure into a mutated version of what he

Related papers

Think Tank, IBEW Local 3, and Joint Industry Board of Electrical Industry, NYC, 2017

Income inequality in America has reached an unprecedented, historic level, and American workers are experiencing an uncertain and worrisome future. The gap between the rich and poor is now at an all-time high, and the middle class is collapsing to the verge of extinction. Working men and women have witnessed their wages fall rapidly and savings wither away. Productivity has reached a pinnacle, but workers are unable to share in the prosperity they have toiled to create. A tiny 0.1% of the American population now has over 90% of the country’s wealth, which we have not seen since before World War II. Faced with high costs for education, health care, food, insurance, and necessary expenses, plus a multitude of loans and a weak economy plagued with low-skilled and low-wage jobs, America’s working people are now greatly suffering. The American Dream of home ownership, good wages, and leisure has rapidly become unsustainable; in fact, experts say the American Dream has ceased to exist. A variety of factors have contributed to this downward spiral, and this paper analyzes some critically important ones: (a) the effects of a trickle-down economic policy vis-à-vis the New Deal–inspired bubble-up system; (b) the global aggression of a neoliberal economic program put forth by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and their sponsor countries; (c) domestic politics and tax structures in America that create ever-widening wage and wealth discrepancies; and (d) a relentless onslaught against the working class and especially against organized labor by pro-1% politicians, conservative think tanks, anti-union groups and personalities, and big media owned by corporate America. Our hope is that American workers, with a clear understanding of some of the most important factors leading to this historic extreme in income and wealth inequality, will be able to see through the lies, propaganda, and illusions created by the elite ruling class and find solidarity across race, gender, immigration status, and other walls that the people in power have built and perpetuated to keep working people divided.

Abstract: It requires several hundred pages to address the complex subject of challenges to American democracy in the post-Cold War era of a global multi-polar economic and political power structure. In this brief essay, I identify only a few of the current challenges to American democracy that appear permanent fixtures of society in the early 21st century. The objective is to provide but a sample of some issues, regardless of how the corporate media, government, and presidential candidates wish to define challenges to democracy.

In this article, we examine the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) as an example of a unique node within larger policy networks composed of new policy entrepreneurs (e.g., venture philanthropists, think tanks, private "edubusinesses" and their lobbyists, advocacy organizations, and social entrepreneurs). These new policy networks, through an array of new modalities of governance and political and discursive strategies, have come to exert an impressive level of influence on public policy in the last 30 years in the United States. We describe and analyze several model education bills that ALEC has promoted and describe the political and discursive strategies ALEC employs. We found that these strategies, which are employed by corporate leaders and largely Republican legislators, are aimed at a strategic alliance of neoliberal, neoconservative, libertarian, and liberal constituencies with the goal of privatizing and marketizing public education.

Abstract Neoliberal economic policies and its radical conception of society have been a great benefit to economic and political elites but undermined that standard of living of the middle, working-class, and the poor. Neoliberalism, I will be argued undermines democracy and civil society because it prioritizes the free market over all of social life. Neoliberalism recasts the entire social and political field accordance the image of the market. It reconfigures critical institutions to service the needs of the markets. However, neither the neoliberalism economic agenda nor it cultural dominance could have succeeded without the aid and support of the neoliberal state. One of the primary ways the state supports neoliberalism is that it actively works to create markets and protect them from alternative discourses while helping to shape society into the image of the market. Neoliberalism has not only captured our political system, sat the national agenda, but is also what sociologist Loic Wacquant call a new mode of governance. Entailing a shift from the welfare to a carceral state that is less concerned with hyper-incarceration than it is with precarious sectors of marginal populations working outside of the markets brought in-line to become self-regulating, self-responsibilized neoliberal subjects. Finally, I will argue that the hollowing out of democracy has had the effect of unleashing illiberal forces both in the mature democracies of the U.S. and Europe that will have far-reaching consequences for both.

Over the last decade, the term "oligarchy" has emerged in scholarly and popular commentary as a name for the United States' political regime. Although this claim is meant to mobilize its addressees, I argue that it neglects the broader neoliberal social settlement within which wealth-based domination occurs. Drawing on Gramscian political theory and analyses of neoliberal culture, I show that today's hegemonic configuration includes a distinctive form of common sense which minimizes the degree to which "rule by the rich" can register as a scandal. The universalization of market values helps validate inequality and erodes the distinction between economy and polity-twin developments that dampen the critical charge the "oligarchy" label tries to carry.

Over the past three decades, income inequality has dramatically increased in the United States such that the gap between the 1% of the population and the rest of society has become a yawning chasm. The conditions that made for this economic inequality precipitated the Great Recession of 2008. What are the usual explanations for this inequality and which one is the most plausible? What are the dimensions of this enormous gap and what are its consequences on the institutions of society and on the lives of the 99%? In particular, what impact does this big gap in inequality have on democracy? Political power profoundly shapes and directs economic outcomes at the same time that gross economic inequalities unalterably debilitate democratic politics.

Modern civilization and its progress under capitalism are now measured largely but not exclusively by stock market indicators and the wealth index of corporations and millionaires that mainstream media celebrates. All other issues are peripheral and only significant if they enhance or diminish corporate wealth. This includes the political, social, environmental issues that may either entail greater profit opportunities or instability and lower profits. This “corporate measure” of the social contract in modern society is to the exclusion of the misery index in what Frantz Fanon once called “The Wretched of the Earth”, referring to the colonial conditions of Africa, but also conditions that capitalism universally creates and perpetuates as it always has since its nascent phase in the 15th century when European colonialism and the transatlantic slave trade began. This popular acceptance of the corporate measure of the social contract and a successful civilization based on linear econometric progress of corporations is a sharp deviation from the humanist values of the Renaissance, the Scientific Revolution, and Enlightenment in Western Civilization rooted in creativity, intellectual achievements in everything from the arts to natural sciences, and to the welfare of humanity as a whole.

Prosthesis, 2020

The IIS University Journal of Arts (ISSN 2319-5339)., 2023

academia, 2024

Teologia w Polsce, 2023

Oikos Nomos: Jurnal Kajian Ekonomi dan Bisnis, 2024

Aquatic Botany, 2008

Tellus, 2020

Lumina, 2020

2008 4th International Conference on Emerging Technologies, 2008

Chinese Journal of Mathematics, 2014

Atención Primaria, 2010

Science Advances, 2020

Military Medicine, 2019

2011 IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics, 2011