Showing papers on "New Economic Policy published in 1989"

Malaysia’s New Economic Policy and ‘National Unity

Abstract: Malaysia’s New Economic Policy (NEP) was announced in 1970 as part of a package of measures introduced after the political crisis of May 1969. It sought to ‘eradicate poverty’ and ‘restructure society to eliminate the identification of race with economic function’ in order to create the conditions for national unity. Since then, poverty in Malaysia has gone down tremendously as in neighbouring Thailand and Indonesia, which did not have comparable commitments to poverty reduction, but also experienced rapid economic growth and structural transformation. Not surprisingly, the NEP has been principally associated with ‘restructuring’, i.e. efforts to reduce inter-ethnic economic disparities between Bumiputera indigenes and the non-Bumiputera, especially between ethnic Malays and Chinese. Hence, ‘restructuring’ has come to be associated with ‘positive discrimination’ or ‘affirmative action’ on behalf of the mainly Malay Bumiputeras. Such state interventions have resulted in significantly greater Bumiputera wealth ownership, business participation, education opportunities, public sector employment and promotion, as well as representation among professionals and managers/administrators.

Privatization in Malaysia Restructuring or Efficiency

Abstract: This paper discusses the major issues confronting privatization in Malaysia. These include the difficulties encountered in the attainment of the efficiency objective; the conflict between the desire to raise revenue to reduce the fiscal burden of the government and the underpricing of shares; opposition from trade unions; and finally, the conflict between the efficiency objective of privatization and the restructuring objective of Malaysia's New Economic Policy. This discussion is preceeded by a description of the changing economic role of the government and the reasons for the change.

Between Right and Left: G. Ia. Sokolnikov and the Development of the Soviet State, 1921-1929

Abstract: On 26 November 1921, Lenin sent a note to Viacheslav M. Molotov, for transmission to the Politburo, requesting that it appoint Gregorii lakovlevich Sokolnikov a member of the Board of the People's Commissariat of Finance (PCF). The next day the Politburo approved this suggestion. Nikolai Krestinskii, the Left Communist who had served as people's commissar of finance since July 1918 and who oversaw the virtual dismantling of that ministry, had become the Soviet diplomatic representative in Germany. Although he would formally hold the title of people's commissar of finance until December 1922, Krestinskii had ceased to play a role in the PCF a year earlier. Sokolnikov quickly took over the ministry, especially after he became deputy commissar in January, at which time Lenin wrote Sokolnikov saying that he was "actually in charge of the most important people's commissariat." Thus, although Sokolnikov officially became people's commissar of finance only in December 1922, he was de facto, if not de jure, in control from the beginning of 1922.1 Although Lenin might have called the PCF the most important ministry to boost Sokolnikov's morale, his statement probably reflected a belief that it was a key commissariat whose success was essential to the economic restoration goals of the New Economic Policy (NEP), which had been introduced several months earlier. In addition, the commissariat was important because it would play a key role in overcoming the hostility of Communists who saw the economic policies of war communism as the key to the future and who viewed NEP and potential fiscal reforms as a giant retreat. The NEP concessions also drew scorn in the west as proof that a socialist economy was unworkable. Sokolnikov was young, thirty-three years old, but such youth was not unusual for Bolshevik leaders in those years. More significantly, he had played an important role in Bolshevik party politics and post-1917 state activities. He had joined the Bolsheviks as a seventeen-year old in 1905, had served time in prison and exile, had lived abroad from 1909 to 1917 as a sometimes recalcitrant Bolshevik, and was an internationalist during World War I. Abroad, he had earned degrees in economics and law at the Sorbonne. Returning to Russia with Lenin in the sealed boxcar, Sokolnikov was a leftist throughout 1917, serving first on the Moscow Oblast Bureau and then, after the Sixth Congress in August, as a member of the party's Central Committee, primarily as an editor of leading party publications, including Pravda. After the revolution he served on the peace delegation and was the Bolshevik signer of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Both before and after that he served in the Supreme Economic Council, where he directed the nationalization of the banking industry. From mid-1918 he served on the

Soviet Schools: Policy Pursues Practice, 1921–1928

Abstract: Many Bolsheviks heralded the October Revolution of 1917 as the beginning of a new era in history; by 1921, however, much of this optimism had disappeared. Civil war, peasant rebellion, empty factories, closed schools, strikes in the industrial establishments that had survived, and the Kronstadt Revolt made many party members weary and cynical. A few, however, stubbornly adhered to an untarnished vision of a grand future. They could be found especially among those officials responsible for primary and secondary schools at the Commissariat of Enlightenment (Narkompros). Anatolii V. Lunacharskii, commissar of enlightenment from 1917 to 1929; Nadezhda K. Krupskaia, his chief assistant for school policy; and their colleagues still believed that they possessed the means to reshape not only the schools but also human behavior and society. While the party engineered a calculated retreat with the New Economic Policy (NEP) and the state slashed the educational budget, Narkompros remained determined to challenge the present and storm the future. It did so by launching a program of sweeping changes in the content and methods of school instruction. With a faith it hoped was infectious, Narkompros assumed that teachers would follow its lead. It would not be so simple. This article examines the interrelationship that subsequently developed between the commissariat's policy above and classroom practice below in the primary and secondary schools of Soviet Russia from 1921 to 1928. Policy and practice jostled and conflicted with each other in a complex and often intriguing way. As an essential ingredient in this complicated process, teachers, simply put, did not perform as expected. Supported by the parents of the children they taught, the nation's instructors rejected Moscow's directives and the commanding ideology behind them. Devising at first a curriculum to fit a philosophy and a vision, Narkompros would not be bullied by the facts. Beginning in the mid-i1920s, however, it cast aside some of its ideological and pedagogical scruples and accommodated reality. This process was painful for all concerned, above and below. Yet it demonstrated how in revolutionary Russia visionary theoreticians within the walls of the Kremlin and practitioners within the walls of the schoolhouse could find some common ground. In the realm of education, then, whether viewed from the perspective of the Commissariat of Enlightenment, top down, or from the perspective of teachers, bottom up, the NEP period gave birth to a settlement that had potential for success in the future. Unfortunately for both parties concerned, additional factors that were part of the larger socioeconomic and political landscape, always present and threatening, rudely intervened to destroy the compromise between Narkompros and the nation's instructors.

Area Handbook Series: Soviet Union: A Country Study

Abstract: : This book deals with the union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). It describes and analyzes its political, economic social, and national security systems and institutions, and examines the interrelationships of those systems and the ways they are shaped by cultural factors. It is written by a multidisciplinary team of social scientists. The authors seek to provide a basic understanding of the observed society, striving for a dynamic rather than a static portrayal. Particular attention is devoted to the people who make up the society, their origin, dominant beliefs and values, their common interests and the issues on which they are divided, the nature and extent of their involvement with national institutions, and their attitudes toward each other and toward their social system and political order. Partial contents include- early history; last years of Tsardom; revolutions and civil war; new economic policy; industrialization and collectivization; reconstruction and cold war; physical environment and population (climate, topography, natural resources), nationalities and religions; social structure; education, health, social welfare; The Communist Party; government structure and functions; mass media and the arts; foreign policy; development of Soviet industries; industrial resources; industrial organization; machine building and metal working; metallurgy; chemicals; fuels (oil, natural gas, coal, uranium); agriculture; policy and administration; land use; transportation and communications; international trade, military doctrine, arms control, military strategy, political alliances and economics.

The New Economic Policy and the Alternatives to Stalinism

Abstract: The Bolshevik revolution of October–November 1917 was followed by a bitter Civil War. Between 1918 and 1920, in a desperate struggle, the Soviet government succeeded in defeating the numerous White armies and their foreign supporters.