 |
|
|
 bash_m_ak | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Читая блоги, создается ощущение, что ненавистники РИ, наконец нашли новую икону - Роберта Алена с его "Farm to Factory". Параллельно в который раз всплыл Мэддисон. И теперь утверждения что Россия в 20м веке обречена была быть Индией, а не Японией пошло кочевать по широким просторам интернета. Так что и я, пожалуй, тоже напишу про GDP. Если речь заходит про сопоставления GDP, то у большинства сразу, уже в виде рефлекса, возникает имя - Ангус Мэддисон - заслуженый и известный человек. Единственное, при оперировании его данными надо понимать - как они получились. Мэддисон физически не мог исследовать каждую страну, поэтому пользовался теми или иными индексами от исследователей занимавшихся экономикой той или иной страны. В связи с этим иногда могут возникать казусы. Смотрим - чем же воспользовался Мэддисон для описания дореволюционной России.  А воспользовался он Голдсмитом - тем самым Голдсмитом, который недооценил промышленный рост на 30% (5.1% вместо 6.5), а данные которого по сельскому хозяйству имеют еще меньшее отношение к реальности. Кроме того, у Мэддисона в его данных для РИ приводятся только 3 года - 1870, 1900, 1913. 1870 можно сразу забыть за полной недостоверностью и остается всего ничего - две даты с не самым простым отрезком между ними. Тогда, как ответ на вопрос - а чем же пользоваться, появляется еще одно имя - Грегори, человек очень бережно относящийся к РИ. Можно бы ожидать, что у него будут намного более высокие данные, даже завышенные по сравнению с реальностью... не тут то было. Для начала, Грегори совершает довольно типичную ошибку - берет завышенные данные по населению от ЦСУ, а не УГВИ или более поздних исследователей. Потом берет для коррекции урожая зерновых 7% - ни 10% Флькуса, ни 15 Давыдова(?), ни 19 Госплана, а всего лишь 7. С данными по животноводству, Грегори тоже ничего сделать не может - они полностью вратые, как в абсолютных величинах (что установила перепись 1916), так и в динамике и, видимо, все еще ждут своего исследователя. Еще пара имен, на которые, бывает, ссылаются в разрезе GDP - это Байрох и Броадбери (у них, кстати, тоже с численностью населения не лады). Привелкательность их в том, что они альтернативно оценили GDP, причем в отличае от Мэддисона, в границах РИ, а Броадбери так и в тех же единицах что и Мэддисон. И, если собрать всех этих авторов вместе, то получится следующая картинка  Для Грегори и Байроха/Броадбери я поправил численность. Байрох отнормирован на 1913г Броадбери. Грегои на 1900г от Мэддисона. Кроме того приведены Япония и Индия из Мэддисона. А так же США в виде индекса 1885=РИ1885. Что видно из этой картинки - во всех индексах мы очень похожи на Японию, но развивались, повидимому, чуть быстрее. И даже проигранная нами Русско-Японская война и последовавшая за ней революция, никак Японии не помогли. А учитывая разницу в размерах и населении - это очень сильный результат. Также видно, что "где мы, а где Индия" - и близко нет ничего похожего, ни в величине, ни в динамике. Правда, в интернете ходит критика данных Мэддисона по Индии, но я в ней не разбирался. Что надо, для улучшения данных по РИ: обязательны новые более полные исследования животноводства - более-менее нормальные данные есть для 1916. При некоторых допущениях, их можно дотянуть до 1913, все что раньше - чистое фентези, а до 1885 - "легенды и мифы Древней Греции". В еще большей степени это касается птицеводства, производства яиц, добычи даров леса... Без этого, особенно без первого пункта, уточнить GDP не представляется возможным. При сравнениях с другими, в особенности развитыми странами, надо иметь ввиду разное соотношение промышленности и сельского хозяйства: повсеместно, промышленность развивалась быстрее сельхоза, поэтому имея более быстрый рост и промышленности, и сельского хозяйства по сравнению с США мы в росте GDP отличаемся от них не значительно (хотя как посмотреть и на что нормировать :) ).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>А Вы не знаете, как Мэддисон рассчитал население? У него общая численность населения СССР в 1932-1934 гг. растет.
Нет, не знаю. И пока вы не сказали, я даже не обращал на это внимание. Вообще по данному периоду он ссылается на
Richard Harris Moorsteen, Raymond P. Powell The Soviet capital stock, 1928-1962 может оттуда?
>ЕМНИП, Давыдов не вводил 15% поправку, он за то, что точно вообще невозможно подсчитать)
Тля, откуда же мне запомнились эти 15%. И вот постоянно так - помню что читал, а где - не помню :(
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did Maddison realy dont use Gregory?
I thaught I once read that he used Gregory for agriculture and Goldsmith for industry..... (that Gregory also used back then)...I guess I was wrong.
Well it seems Gregorys data are very close to Goldsmiths and show a stronger growth between 1890 and 1904 and slower growth 1904-1913....
Well about industrial growth...If Bokarev wins the debate (which is far from certain now), we will end up with a growth rate of 5,1% or something very close to it (but with a far larger manufacturing base), since Goldsmith only accsepted the craft registered by the 1908 census.
So yes I guess if we include an increas in cattle, grain and manufacture that were missed by statistics, we may well bring GDP on something around 1700 for the whole empire and 1900-2000 for European Russia (which would confirm the opinion of some historians that it was more or less developed on the Spanish level)....
As for India....1990 it had a lower per capita GDP then 1913 Russia.....I personaly cant see ANYTHING this countrys have in comon, exept that they are bouth located on planet Earth and populated by human beings (and were most likly the only countrys were per hectar harvests declined between 1913 and 1953....) India isnt even a natural grain exporter (it was more or less forced into this situation and was very bad at it)...
Most of Allens arguments (the Railway argument is just crap, especialy since he calculates growth between 1913 and 1989(!!!!), when railways have for 2 decades lost their unique economic position) are based on Strumilins calculations, which are problematic themselvs (as Mironov has shown), but there is still one "unbeateble" argument
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The "unbeateble" argument is: Russia was a monoculture and would fall with the grain prices......
And: Russias industry was in truth just like soviet industry: junk for the inner market that it couldnt sell and that would collapse when the toll bariers fall (as the soviet industry did after 1991)
And: Argentine had it all...it had an educated, literate population, a civil society and one of the highest standarts of living in the world, and IT STILL HAD "THE DECLINE" (the term that is used by economists and historians for Argentines economic and social development especialy for the time after Perons first rule) So RUSSIA WAS BOUND TO BE WORSE!
First...to say that "THE DECLINE" was only the product of falling grain prices would be (to take an example from Russian history) just as moronic as to argue that the Russian empire collapsed because of an English conspiracy or because it, at the beginning of 1917, was physicly unabele to have its army just sit in the trenches and wage a passive war, since all its men were dead and it had to recruit 16 year old (who in the end did make the revolution)....
Historians study "the decline" very intensivly and there are dozens of reasons named for it, most economic historians are of the opinion that Argentine could very well have remained a part of the first world, would another economic policy been followed. Thus to argue that Argentine declined and thus Russia would have declined too is 1.ignoring the vast differences between the 2 countrys and 2.Ignoring the complexity of the decline in Argentine itself, that was by far not preordained....
The monoculture argument: Agricultural wares consisted around 60% of Russias export, grain consisted 35%....
There were more then enough countrys back then whous export mostly consisted of agrian goods and who sucsessfully developed afterward, also the USSR never overcame the problem of an economy that is dependant on rescourse export, instead of grain it started to export oil, wood and ore, even if all failed, Russia could have "switched" to Oil from grain around 1960....
About tarifs: Most now industrial countrys developed their industrial base under tarifs....of course there were countrys whous industrialisation failed and it became clear after it came into contact with the world market (post-peronian Argentine or the USSR). While I dont know that much about the quality of Russian industry (only that its goods were of a far higher quality then that produced during the NEP and even more so then thous produced during the 30s), output per worker in the industrial sector grew far faster in Russia then later under Stalin, which speaks about a steady qualitative inprovement of Russias industry..... We know that the USSRs industrialisation (outside of the military sector), was a failure and that the deindustrialisation of the 1990 (as well as the fact that industrial wares made up only a tiny part of the USSRs export) was only a natural follow-up of a failed industrialisation laid bare before the world market.... I doubt a capitalist Russia could have done much worse then that...it could on the other hand have done much better and create a real industry (and not a thousand factorys that spit out worthless junk and who all go bankrupt once foreign wares apear on the market, since people prefer wares to junk)....
Edited at 2012-01-24 12:28 pm (UTC)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just to have it here Il put GDP per capita growth of Paul Bairoch between 1890 and 1913 here too:
Europe growth:
1.Sweden: 91%
2.Russia: 79,1%
3.Denmark: 71,7%
4.Norway: 43,2%
5.Belgium: 41,9%
6.Italy: 41,8%
7.Finland: 41,3%
8.Germany: 38,4%
9.Austro-Hungary: 37,9%
10.Europe: 37.6%
11.Switzerland: 36,7%
12.Romania: 36,6%
13.France: 33,7%
14.Netherland: 28,6%
15.UK: 22,9%
16.Serbia: 18,3%
17.Spain: 14,3%
18.Greece: 11%
19.Portugal: 8,1%
20.Bulgaria: 0,52%
Ok...the difference with Maddison is striking for some countrys (less so for Russia), Im no economist, but some of Bairochs numbers seem strange (the huge industrial growth for Russia under Nicolas 1 for example)
Interesting that despite the decline of 1870-1890, Russia still caught on with Europe. While 1860 Russia was only 57,4% of Europes averege, 1913, it was allready 61% While the difference with Western Europe was allmost the same, Russias GDP per capita was 46,3% 1860, 42,5% 1900 and 48% 1913.....
From bouth Maddison and Bairoch one can clearly see that the abolition of serfdom and other reforms of Alexandr 2 didnt create the right conditions for economic growth (4,7% growth between 1830 and 1860 and 2,2% growth between 1860 and 1890)....only Wyshnegradskiys and especialy Wittes reforms, created the right conditions for rapid growth....still around 1913 there were major burocratic and social obstecles for maximaly efficient growth (corrupt burocracy which put obstecles in the way of privat enterprise, lack of education and the "obshina" are the biggest)....Once this obstecles would be removed, growth opught to be bigger and as we can see after 1906, laws began to slowly loosen controll over cooperatives and joint-stock companys, education was put on a wholy new level and the "obshina" succsessfully fought by the Stolypin reform.
Around 1925 the rests of the patriarchal and merkantilist system that hindered growth were bound to disapear.....And as Prof.Gregory wrote, growth would have acsellerated then.
Edited at 2012-01-25 09:24 pm (UTC)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Вы данные, судя по всему, взяли из Вики. Я не уверен что per capita данные там из Байроха, а не собственоручно посчитанные кем-то другим, делением GDP на население, потому что, например, для России там с населением получается байда: 116.4 млн в 1890, вместо 117.8 и 160.8 в 1913, вместо 163 (164.4). Со Швецией еще страннее: до 1905 года Норвегия была частью Швеции, а в таблице это никак не отражено, а учитывая, что GDP per capita из той же таблицы у Норвегии в 1890 в 1.5 раза больше, чем в Швеции, а к 1913 Норвегия тю-тю, то в естественных Шведских границах у удельного GDP должено быть 15% падение в районе 1905, а его нет, ну и по численности Швеция идет в ее сегодняшних границах.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh and one last thing about Allens predictions....
Allen argues that a "capitalist Russia" would have had its neck broken by the great depression and the sinking grain prices caused by it.....
Well one has to ask one thing here: What are the possible alternative historical ways were a capitalist Russia could have existed and could there have been a great depression in them?
I can imagine 4 possible ways of historical development from 1914 on, in which a capitalist Russia could exist:
1.There is no WW1
2.Russia wins WW1
3.Russia makes seperate peace with Germany somwere between 1915 and 1917
4.Whites win the civil war
I think that the posibility of a world economy developing as it did in reality (with a great depression), would only be very high in variant 4....
A great depression in the way it hapened in reality couldnt be possible in variant 1, since the GD was to a large extent caused by the economic developments and restructurings during WW1, how the world economy would have developed without WW1 is anyonse guess....
In case of variant 3, Germany most likly dosnt lose WW1 (and maybe even wins it), how a German dominated Europe (and maybe more) would develop economicly is anyonce guess....
What would hapen in case of Variant 2 is even more difficult to predict....Russia would get large reperations from the cenral powers and a share of the loot (clearly east-anatolia, Galicia and some parts of the German eastern territorys (West-Prussia, Posen and Memel, maybe more, maybe Constantinopel with surrounding areas)...Since it would automaticly become the only great power left in the Balkans (as the real 20s show neither the UK nor France had the power or the will to dominate the Balkans when there wernt any great powers left in the region (Germany, A-H and Russia broke and the USSR wasnt a candidate for alliances among the new mosaic of eastern-european states)), this and its allready large influence among the Orthodox/Slavic peoples of the Balkans would let Russia dominate them.... Thus if we speak about variant 2, we are not longer talking about the Russian empire of 1913 with its economic posibilitis and rescourses, but about a new kind of empire with new posibilitys and vastly enlarged rescourses.....
How this "Monstrum" would have developed is anyonse guess....It may have just imploded on overextension, its messed up war economy and demobilisation, or it may have had a post war boom using conquered rescourses, Reperation money and the new Balkan market (after all the USSR had its greatest growth in the post WW2 ere, when it used exactly this rescourses).
In such a case its neither predicteble if a GD would have hapened, nor how it wuld affect Russia......
Thus Allens arguments (with all their other problems), only have validity for variant 4 and are most likly invalid for the other 3 variants.......
On the other hand: even with variant 4 its by far not clear if the White government would have persued the same economic policy that the emperial government persued between 1888 and 1913.... Thus even this arguement is weak.....
Allen writes that the Tzarist governments economic policy wouldnt have let Russias growth continue through the GD, but as we can see, most likly, there would have been 1.no GD or 2.no Tzarist government to percieve a "wrong economic policy"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
From: roditel |
Date:
February 1st, 2012 09:00 am (UTC)
|
| (Link) |
|
|
К вашим абсолютно уместным размышлениям по поводу Мэддисона - я бы прибавил два еще более общий вопрос.
Вычисления Мэддисона в конце концов направлены на доказательство большей эффективности не просто западных стран
(и примкнувшей к ним Японии), а части западных стран с определенной моделью экономики (США, Англия, Франция, Германия). Их отличает примат промышленного сектора над аграрным, значительная роль финансового капитала, высокую товарность продуктов и услуг, низкую долю труда внутри домохозяйств и т.д. Он производит вычисления ВВП по определенной методике, вычисляет подушевой ВВП, строит динамику и доказывает, что данная модель капитализма "выигрывает".
Но дело в том, что сама методика рассчета ВВП такова, что благоприятствует именно такого рода экономикам.
Так например, если значительная доля продуктов и услуг не попадает на рынок в качестве товаров (например, зерно не поступает в продажу, а потребляется внутри домохозяйства, родители сами воспитывают своих детей, а не отдают их в детские сады и школы и т.д.) то в данной экономике ВВП будет меньше.
То есть СССР заставив всех женщин через месяц после родов выходить на работу и фактически приравняв домохозяек к тунеядкам сразу увеличил ВВП процентов на 10.
Отсюда сразу возникает недооценка доли сельского хозяйства и животноводства, услуг в РИ и т.д.
Но самое забавное даже не это.
Выведение показателя "ВВП на душу населения" как основного сразу ставит в невыгодное положение страны с хорошим демографическим ростом.
То есть уже в саму методику закладывается "мальтузианская" схема.
Тогда как еще Адам Смит считал важнейшим критерием хорошего состояния экономики наряду с ростом национального дохода рост населения, то теперь основным показателем становиться величина обратно пропорциональная населению. То есть опять же СССР легализовав аборты достигло резкого роста ВВП на душу населения. То что теперь это оборачивается кризисом (бешеный рост числа пенсионеров на число работающих) не учитывается.
Совсем другая картина была бы, если бы мы считали основным критерием "ВВП на число домохозяйств"...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well since this post is about R.Allens work I decided to make another counterargument but this time not so much against Allens theorys about Russias development but rather against Allens argument that command-administrative economy (plan economy) is the best way for a 3rd world state to "catch up" with the 1st world..... This theory is rather old and was very popular among left-wing scientists in the 60s and 70s. Now after most of the comunist world either collapsed or comitted treason aginst "THE (one and true) teachings" few scientists follow this ideas any more....thus Allens try to save plan economy from historic oblivion is realy a "voice in the Wilderness" (P.Gregorys phrase) and may be the last serious scientific try to rescue a model that led to horrible human suffering and very little resoults.....
In short, Allens argumentat is the following: He takes an European country (Russia) under socialism and compares it with Latin America (strongly generalizing it as failed in modernisation (even if varios countrys there grew faster then the USSR)), and concludes that since USSRs GDP per capita grew faster then Latin Americas communism is better then capitalism.....(why he didnt compare East Germany (GDR) with Zaire is anyones guess). Still one could argue that Latin america is a very different area then Europe, its located in a different zone, has a strongly different economy and is populated by people with a different culture and view of the world..... Thus to test the efficiency of Communism vs Capitalism one cant compare India with the USSR or Maos China with the UK but one has to compare similar with similar.....How can Communism help a country with SPECIFIC economic chalenges created by a SPECIFIC envirement and a SPECIFIC population.... Of course if there wouldnt have been any Latin american communist states we would be at a disadvanage here....but thankfully there was one that existed for quiet a long time....it was Cuba, only on its (and not Russias) example can one see if Communism was sucsessfull in a specific Latin american enviroment....could it solve the many problems that a Latin American economy faces on its way to modernisation? Or did it only make them stronger.....
Allen likes to use GDP numbers to proove his case thus I will also mostly operate with them....
Cuba 1958: 2363 1990: 2957 Growth: 25%
Meanwhile the rest of Latin America grew 66,2% at the same time.....
Before Castro though Cuba was one of the fastest growing economys of Latin America
Cuba: 1939 (1940 was anomaly low): 1411 1958: 2363 Growth: 67,5%
Rest of Latin America grew 57,6% at this time....
But of course rapid growth wasnt the only thing that Castro promised to the Cubans....besides of a rapid jump into the first world he also promised:
1. Independance from shugar export
2. Independance from any foreign economys (self suficiency)
But in truth not only did sugar remain the main export article (and its purcheses for far above market prices by the USSR cruicial for Cubas stability.... And when it comes to self suficiensy....
when the USA created it embargo on Cuban trade Cubas economy didnt collapse at all (even if it took time to establish similar amount of trade with the USSR)...Cubas agriculture was still self suficiant enough to feed (even if poorly) the Cuban population....when on the other hand the USSR collapsed......it turned out that Cubas economy was faaaar more dependent on the USSR then it ever was on the USA...all the economy collapsed turning Cuba into the most massive and cheapest brothel in the world (at least pre 1959 Havanna wasnt cheap....) and around 20008 Cubas economy from 1958 has grown faaaar slower then that of the rest of Latin america, being even beaten by Argentine..... If we assume (and there are good reasons for it) that the collaps of the commie block was economicly preordained by plan economy itself then the consequences of the collaps can (at least partly) be allso be taken as proof for the inferiority of plan economy.....
Thus: Cuba grew between 1958 and 2008: 59,3%
Latin America: 2,28 times
Argentine: 93%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not fully on the topic but still important in the GDP context is the percentege of the world economy that was filled by the Russian/soviet/postsoviet economy (to compensate for Galicia, Bukovina, Kaliningrad, Buchara, Khiva and co I will use Russian Empire with Poland)
1870: 8,6%
1913: 9,7%
1940: 9,33%
1953: 9,16%
1960: 10%
1970: 9,82%
1980: 8,58%
1990: 7,32
2000: 3,51%
2008: 4,4%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now the same for the USA
1870: 8,86%
1913: 18,29%
1940: 20,6%
1953: 27,4%
1960: 24,27%
1970: 22,4%
1980: 21,12%
1990: 21,39%
2000: 21,9%
2008: 18,6%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
