WI Russia follows a sane economic policy after the breakup of the Soviet Union?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_post-Soviet_Russia#Shock_therapy

Exactly what it says on the tin. WI Russia follows a sane economic policy after the breakup of the Soviet Union? Suppose that idiot Yegor Gaidar who was Yeltsin's deputy prime minister dies in infancy and Yeltsin gets a competent or at least semi-competent advisor on economic issues who doesn't go ahead with that moronic 'shock therapy' thing and instead follows a Deng Xiaoping-style path of steady reform to maintain a sense of stability instead of causing the collapse of a large number of formerly state-run industries. If Yeltsin is in the way, say he conveniently dies of a heart attack in 1992 or something. With as sane and good economic policies as possible (taking into consideration Russia's vast problems in the period 1989-1991), what would Russia be like today?
 

Lokari

Banned
or at least semi-competent advisor on economic issues who doesn't go ahead with that moronic 'shock therapy' thing and instead follows a Deng Xiaoping-style path of steady reform to maintain a sense of stability instead of causing the collapse of a large number of formerly state-run industries.
Was the the reason for Russian problems ? The Visegrad countries followed ruthless liberalisation programs and shock therapies, and didn't suffer as Russia did.
Not that I deny, that perhaps Chinese way would be better.
 
It might work on a small scale, but Russia had regions where one state enterprise employed just about everybody and if that goes bankrupt...

Also, Russia had a large arms industry that employed 1:5 people of the entire work force IIRC and when the government let it go and there was no more demand for weapons from the Russian army, that industry took a beating.
 
Was the the reason for Russian problems ? The Visegrad countries followed ruthless liberalisation programs and shock therapies, and didn't suffer as Russia did.
Not that I deny, that perhaps Chinese way would be better.
Indeed. The Russians tried capitalism - but only half-heartedly and without legal support, etc.

If they had actually DONE shock therapy as the Poles did (e.g.), things would have been even tougher for a while, but turned out better in the long run, quite possibly.

Going China's route is probably not possible without a PoD quite a bit before the breakup, I think. Keeping firm political control while (slowly) allowing economic freedom did work (economically) in China's case, but I don't see that happening after the Soviet government starts falling....
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_post-Soviet_Russia#Shock_therapy

Exactly what it says on the tin. WI Russia follows a sane economic policy after the breakup of the Soviet Union? Suppose that idiot Yegor Gaidar who was Yeltsin's deputy prime minister dies in infancy and Yeltsin gets a competent or at least semi-competent advisor on economic issues who doesn't go ahead with that moronic 'shock therapy' thing and instead follows a Deng Xiaoping-style path of steady reform to maintain a sense of stability instead of causing the collapse of a large number of formerly state-run industries. If Yeltsin is in the way, say he conveniently dies of a heart attack in 1992 or something.

Have an actual democracy for a starter, not a plutocracy that proclaimed itself democratic but was a dictatorshipe of the mafias.
The something may includes neutrons sweeping through the duma and the kremlin.

Indeed. The Russians tried capitalism - but only half-heartedly and without legal support, etc.

On the contrary, it was anything but "half-hearted", the "legal" system was essential in keep opportunities away from anyone not part of the regime.
There was 7 times more bureaucrats in the 2004 Russian "federation" than in the 1984 Russian SSR.
 
Last edited:
Best bet might be to avoid the August Coup, which gave Yeltsin carte blanche. Let Gorby go through with the Reformed Union. The USSR is doomed but a few more years of gradualism might see a less extreme rise of the oligarchs.

Strictly speaking Yeltsin illegally dismantled the Soviet Union through a secret treaty with Belarus, without the Duma's consent. He pulled Russia out which makes the Union effectively moot and helped the chaos of the fall spread.

Such a step down might also see the 'Stans remain in the Federation, something that was quite a popular idea I believe and would soften the problem of 'all eggs in one basket' that messed up successor economies where the Xer SSR would be the sole supplier of tractors etc.

An interesting idea Gorby had was to put a land tax into the constitution, ending land speculation. Such laws have only been really done in urban areas like Hong Kong and Pittsburgh, I think some Australian states do it too. Hardly halts oligarch control but certainly dents their specualting powers, and gives about as solid a revenue base as you can get.
 

Old Airman

Banned
Suppose that idiot Yegor Gaidar who was Yeltsin's deputy prime minister dies in infancy and Yeltsin gets a competent or at least semi-competent advisor on economic issues who doesn't go ahead with that moronic 'shock therapy' thing and instead follows a Deng Xiaoping-style path of steady reform to maintain a sense of stability instead of causing the collapse of a large number of formerly state-run industries.
Basically there're three, I dunno, "trends" in post-communist transformation. Building framework of market economy, hasty liberalization and keeping state control over most of existing industrial sector with simultaneous liberty for new/small business. Depending on how those threads interact with each over, you can get either Latvia (framework 1st, liberalization and everything else next) or Ukraine (a lot of liberalization without framework building) or Belarus (state control 1st, with slow framework building and either slower liberalization). Looking at your original statement, I tend to believe that you essentially proposing to "pull Lukashenko" in Russia. Well, if Maddison is to be believed, it would mean a lot less painful nineties in Russia (Russian GDP per capita bottomed in 1998 at 80% of pre-breakup and didn't reach pre-breakup values until 200-freaking-6; Belarus, not having luxury of Russian resource padding, bottomed in 1995 at about 65% and reached 1990 values in 2002).
On the flip side, I have to add that Gaidar's program was among saner ones, if offerings of liberal economists are considered. Yavlinsky offered completely dismantle safety net and privatize 100% of state-owned assets in 500 days. Considering that majority of Russian population (unlike Balts and Ukrainians) live in pretty harsh climate, we could have been witnessing some truly remarkable events. Just remember that, if you turn hydro and heating off (because of non-payments, as laid off folks couldn't pay their utility bills) in Kiev or even seaside Tallinn in the middle of the winter, you get a mighty outbreak of cold and flu and not much else. Do the same thing in relatively mild Volgograd, and you can collect frozen bodies next morning (I don't even want to think about folks from Norilsk in this scenario).
the "legal" system was essential in keep opportunities away from anyone not part of the regime.
There was 7 times more bureaucrats in the 2004 Russian "federation" than in the 1984 Russian SSR.
You're talking about 2000-present, and OP's question was about 1990-1995, when it was not the case.
I wonder how strong such a country would be, economically and otherwise.
We can use the Belarus here for estimate (it would not be 100% correct but would land in the ballpark). It's 2008 GDP per capita is, roughly, 1.75 of it's 1990 (peak Soviet year) level. Doing same excercise with Soviet 1990 GDP per capita, we have number well above OTL Poland (but still below in terms of growth 2008 to 1990) and slightly below OTL Czech (above in terms of growth 2008 to 1990). The country's GDP would be (roughly) 1.5 times of OTL combined GDP of post-Soviet states, or slightly above of combined German nd French GDP.
 
Top