How Successful Were The Russian Governments In Promoting Economic Change And Modernisation Between 1881 and 1904? When Alexander III came into power, he made sure that industrialization was at the forefront of his plans. So under Vyshnedgradsky and Witte, various measures were imposed to help kick start industrialization, which led to significant economic change The improved transport system, which resulted from government investment in infrastructure like the railways, helped to vastly improve Russia’s economic situation. This is evident through the clear positive correlation between railway improvements and increases in Russia’s industrial output. The length of railway tracks in Russia increased form 31219 miles in 1891 to 58392 miles by 1904.
He also increased industrial and agricultural production with his policy of collectivization. He carried out purges or the harsh movements against his enemies to make sure he kept total control of the U.S.S.R. Stalin made several changes in the Soviet Union. He did this by modernizing the economy by setting up the Five-Year Plan. In document 1, Stalin's speech uses nationalistic pride to motivate the people. Stalin was trying to push the people so they can be an advanced country.
On the other hand, the growth in population compared with national output shows less production per head, and therefore less efficient production. His policies did little for agriculture considering 80% of the population were rural peasants. It is thought he focused too much on heavy industry, neglecting others like light engineering. Finally, Russia became overly dependent on foreign loans (never good if a financial crisis were to occur and foreign loans have to be repaid). Tariffs making goods scarce and heavy taxation meant prices for Russian consumers increased, whilst their wages stayed low.
Stalin’s economic strategies led to the successful growth of industrialism and modernisation of the USSR. This began with the end of the NEP and Stalin’s creation of collectivisation. Stalin’s desire to modernise agriculture led him to collectivise the farms, amalgamating them and putting them under state control. This did lead to more efficient farming and increased production[4]. 90% of farmland was collectivised by 1937 and production was 80% higher in 1940 than it was in 1913.
Henry Ford put Winslow’s ideas to good use, creating the assembly line to mass produce his Model T car. Since production costs decreased, Ford was able to pay his workers enough so that they could afford their own Model T. Ford’s workers were the first to be paid a sufficient amount (Danzer 333). America, the land of opportunities, quickly became a melting pot of cultures due to its many prospects. People from all countries “melted” together in one big community. Immigrants, especially Jews, gathered in the United
However the failures of collectivisation may contradict the theory of Stalin’s economic policy being a success; whereby this is in relation to how collectivisation resulted in both economic failure and human cost. In terms of economic failure collectivisation resulted in a great harvest drops dramatically in the early of 1930s and also a huge decline in Russia’s animal population furthermore in reference to human cost collectivisation had resulted in seven million deaths due to famine and ten million peasants being reposed which often resulted in much of the effected being sent to prison camps. This concludes that Stalin’s economic policy was not a great success in relation to collectivisation. In
It is apparent that he achieved this as 50% of peasants owned their own land by 1915 due to the introduction of the Peasant Land Bank on 15th November 1906. Also, agricultural output rose by 20 million tonnes between the years 1906-1913 meaning that Stolypin’s agricultural policies made a significant difference. Therefore, this suggests that Russia had moved in the direction of economic reform as this is all evidence towards an improvement in Russian economy between the years 1906 and 1914. Stolypin directly targeted the economy as a way to improve the Tsarist position as he believed that a more stable peasantry would lead to a more stable Russia. Consequently, it is accurate to say that Russia had moved in a large way towards economic reform in the years 1906-1914.
There were economic factors that led to collectivisation. The autumn of 1926 saw a record grain harvests for the USSR, however, the harvests of 1927, 1928 and 1929 were all poorer due to the peasants keeping hold of the grain. This decrease in production forced the price of agricultural products up. Consequently, the standard of living amongst urban worked declined. The decrease in agricultural production also affected the soviet government.
Much like Tsarist reforming leaders, Witte and Alexander II, a poor economic situation also significantly influenced Lenin’s reforms, showing a nuanced continuity between factors influencing reforms in the Tsarist and Communist state. The peasants were at first discontented by the reform, for” a tax of 10% was imposed upon the harvest” (Acton), leading to crop prices temporarily rising, causing a famine reminiscent of the Tsarist age, indicating little change. However a year later the grain harvest increased by 19 million tonnes, this proved to be significant as the impacts of the NEP allowed Russian society to become more self-sufficient, without the need for imports. The reform was also significant, as it encouraged the growth of a bourgeoisie in the form of NEP men; older Bolsheviks viewed them as a threat to the socialist government, yet they accepted that a middle class was a necessary step towards complete socialism. The view that Lenin’s reforms were significant, therefore is credible, for despite gaining a government that had been ravaged by two wars, and rapid inflation, after about eight years Lenin’s NEP encouraged great economic growth, thus consolidating the position of the Bolshevik government in Russian society based upon Lenin’s work as a reforming
When Queen Elizabeth took the throne in 1558, it is estimated that there were more sheep than humans in England. Unsurprisingly, given the number of sheep in England, the new industry transformed country’s economy. The people saw it beneficial to process wool and spin it into thread. This job was assigned to women, but men still contributed to the sheep business by mowing and plowing fields. By the late 1500s, England experienced a momentous expansion in the cloth-manufacturing business.