Abstract
Noncash transactions in the USSR are quite similar to those in the West, with two peculiarities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
The former chairman of the Gosbank board once wrote: “There is no economic difference between the money which is in circulation in the form of currency notes and the money which is in the accounts of enterprises and organizations at Gosbank and other Soviet credit institutions” (Sveshnikov, “Denezhnyy,” 1974, p. 49). As we see, this is not entirely so.
Konnik, Zakonomernosti,1968, p. 17. It is possible that these data are somewhat imprecise—see Shvarts, Beznalichnyy,1963, p. 105. Shvarts gives data on the noncash turnover only for Gosbank and it seems to me that during 1960–66 the share of the noncash turnover should have increased.
Even if we add the turnover tax (which is, for the most part, an indirect tax) to the receipts from the population in 1978, almost 60 percent still remains for all other receipts—see Narkhoz 78,p. 534. However, considering the fact that the budget deficit is included in this amount, perhaps it is worth refining this point of view somewhat.
In 1978 the fee for capital reached 29.6 billion rubles—almost 10 percent of all budget revenues (Narkhoz 78, pp. 533–34).
The money turnover is directly connected with the credit turnover. In issuing credit, the bank is giving enterprises monetary assets, which influences the amount of the noncash and cash turnover. Consequently, bank credit acts as an economic tool for regulating the money turnover, the satiation of the economy with monetary assets and the channels of circulation with cash “ (Rybin and Shrayber, ”Nekotoryye,“ 1977, pp. 62–63 ).
See, for example, Shenger, Ocherki,1961, p. 59. Here the points of view of other authors are set forth, but on p. 60 the author declares that he does not agree with them and with remarkable logic says: “The fact that as a result of the development of credit an enormous saving of real money takes place is unquestionable…. In the socialist economic system of the USSR, owing to its advantages, this saving is achieved to an even greater, to the highest degree.”
Credit replaces direct budget financing, but on the other hand the budget grants funds for increasing credit resources. Here is another example. In Z. Atlas, Denezhnoye,1957, p. 201, it is stated about the 1941–45 war period: “The repayment of prewar credits by enterprises, which had suffered from the effects of the war, was deferred. These credits to a considerable extent were repaid after the war using assets of the state budget.”
Voluyskiy, Svodnyy, 1970, p. 131.
See, for example, Massarygin, Kredilnaya, 1974
See the interest rates for credit, which were in effect in 1955, in Z. Atlas, Denezhnoye, 1957, p. 242, and those now in effect in Lavrushin, Ekonomicheskaya, 1977, p. 64.
In the opinion of many economists and financial experts the extension of credit instead of outright grant financing conforms more to the principles of cost accounting and has a great stimulating role. In itself this is not incorrect. However, in order for this to be truly so, a number of serious changes in the economic system itself are necessary. Of most significance is that the replacement of direct financing by the extension of credit for this purpose should not increase the total amount (volume) of financing and the extension of credit. Meanwhile, these total amounts have increased greatly, and precisely this was the main role of the expansion of credits. It is also difficult to agree with the opinion of many Soviet economists that the extension of credit instead of financing enhances the economic independence of enterprises. In particular it must not be forgotten that the bank uses credit in order to achieve.specific goals which stem from the requirements of the economic policy of the state’’ (Shvarts, “O roli,” 1973, p. 23 ).
The amounts of the credits of both Gosbank and Stroybank (as well as, it seems to me, the credits of Vneshtorgbank to Soviet organizations) are shown here. The data on the credit formation of Gosbank alone are in Levchuk, Ssudnyy, 1971, p. 97, as well as in Pchelin, Gosudarstvennyy, 1976.
See for example, Narkhoz 78, p. 534.
Calculated according to Narkhoz 78, pp. 538 and 521. In Narkhoz 78, p. 522, a slightly different indicator is cited because kolkhozes are not accounted.
Narkhoz 78, p. 522.
Barkovskiy, Organizatsiya,1973, p. 5.
Chernov, “Kadry,” 1977, p. 7.
Barkovskiy, Organizatsiya,1973, p. 6.
Chernov, “Kadry,” 1977, p. 7.
In 1975, 180,900 people worked at Gosbank, excluding cost accounting organizations, tekhnikums, savings banks and Vneshtorgbank, which are subordinated to it (Pchelin, Gosudarstvennyy,1976, p. 29). 1 do not believe that there is even one other bank in the world with a staff of this size.
Mochalov, “O masse,” 1973.
Mochalov, “O priroste,” 1974, p. 33.
Gusakov, Planirovaniye, 1974, p. 151.
Ibid., p. 161.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1981 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers bv, The Hague
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Birman, I. (1981). Noncash Circulation and Bank Credit. In: Secret Incomes of the Soviet State Budget. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9427-3_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9427-3_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8642-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9427-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive