22 FEBRUARY 1946, Page 20

Soviet Economics

The Development of the Soviet Economic System. By Alexander Baykov. (Cambridge University Press. 30s.) THE sheer mass of the literature on the SoViet economic system is perhaps partly to blame for the widespread ignorance of the subject which still exists. Such abundance is apt to be over- whelming. It is hardly conceivable that so many books could have been written about parallel developments since 7917 in other countries—in the United Kingdom for instance. Even allowing for the vast area of the U.S.S.R. and for difficulty of documenting a revolution there still seems to be too much to read and the amount of new information still seems to be small in relation to the mass of books. Consequently the appearance of yet another big volume is liable to discourage the reader. But there are more reasons than one for refusing to be discouraged in this instance. In the first place, Dr. Baykov's book is the fifth of the distinguished series, published under the auspices of the National Institute of Social and Economic Research, which began with Professor Bowley's Studies in the National Income, 1924-1938. In the second place, it is based entirely on original Russian sources and embodies the work of twenty-five years carried out on these documents, first in Prague and later in the University of Birmingham. In the third .place, it is remarkably free from partisan bias either for or against the Soviet regime.

Dr. Baykov's study is in the form of a history. He divides the period 1917-1939 into the usual four stages: (t) Transition and War Communism, 1917-21 ; (2) Restoration and Preparation for Reconstruction, 1921-29 ; (3) Industrialisation and Collectivisation with Rationing, 1924-34 ; and (4) Social and Economic Improvement from 7934 to the outbreak of war. These stages are discussed sep Irately and successively under the sub-headings of industry, agriculture, internal and external trade, public finance and money, 1Lbour and general planning. It is thus possible to get a picture of each phase in turn. Each picture necessarily has a statistical framework, but it is a relief to find that it is as unobstrusive and yet firmly knit as a good framework should be. The ill-digested hotch-potch of figures, relevant and irrelevant, which is such a &stressing feature of so many works on Russia—particularly pro- pagandist works—is not present here. Dr. Baykov does not suffer from the delusion that a column of mixed figures can supply the emotional stimulus of lyric poetry. Figures are a support to the text and a machine is a machine—not a symphony of the proletariat.

Much damage has been done to the study of the economic development of Soviet Russia by the twin assumptions that very

little research material ever came out of the U.S.S.R. and that Russian statistics are unreliable. Dr. Baykov's work will help to correct these assumptions. His list of sources, all of them Russian, is impressive. Moreover, he is convinced that Russian statistica are no worse than those of other countries as an indication of economic trends. • A cynic might take this to be a rather back- handed compliment, but cynicism about statistics is as common as ignorance of them and may perhaps be dispensed with for once. General knowledge about Russia is not so common that any source can be ignored, least of all sources which show every sign of authenticity.

A great deal can be learned from this book and learned rather less painfully than from many earlier works covering the same ground. In particular, the reader is enabled to judge how much of the Russian economic advance between 1917 and 1939 was clear progress and how much was recovery to the position of 7973. Simplification has clearly helped to, made the story readable, but there is no internal evidence that it has lessened its reliability. What the more pertinaceous British students will now seek is an external check. Why are all the sources to which Dr. Baykov had access in Prague not freely available here? Presumably one of the reasons is that they require a knowledge of the Russian language. It is a sobering thought that we shall never have a really reliable knowledge of the U.S.S.R. until we are at least as willing to learn Russian as we are to learn German and French. But perhaps some part of Russia's growing resources may be devoted to meeting us half way, through the translation of at least major works and basic figures into English. Friendship with Russia requires concessions on both sides, and if knowledge does not provide a basis for friendship it is difficult to see what will.

WALTER TAPL1N.