Genetic-Teleological Planning
유전적-목적론적 계획 방법론
A planning methodology debate within Soviet Gosplan, 1926–1928. The genetic approach (Bazarov, Groman, Kondratiev) held that plans must proceed from objective analysis of existing economic trends; the teleological approach (Strumilin, Kuibyshev, Krzhizhanovsky) argued that plans should actively prescribe future structural transformation and production targets. The debate ended in the administrative rout of the geneticists and criminal convictions for many of them, while teleological planning became the basis of Soviet directive planning.
In depth
The Two Methodologies
The genetic method derives plan targets from market demand and supply, extrapolating existing statistical trends. The teleological method sets politically determined goals first and reshapes productive capacity to meet them. The former is indicative rather than directive in character; the latter became the foundation of directive planning.
The Political Outcome of the Debate
Stalin initially supported Bukharin's position, but after Trotsky's exclusion from the Party Central Committee in late 1927 he changed sides, which brought a decisive victory for the teleological school. The controversy did not stay academic: as forced grain procurement began in 1928, administrative pressure on the geneticists intensified in parallel, and Groman actively objected to the requisitions. The debate ended in the administrative rout of the geneticists and criminal convictions for many of them. Groman was arrested in 1930, sentenced to ten years at his 1931 trial, and died in custody; Kondratiev was executed in 1938; Bazarov was arrested in 1930 and sentenced to five years.
Methodological Legacy
The teleological approach became the methodological foundation of the Soviet directive planned economy alongside the first five-year plan. The genetic problematic fed into postwar Western discussion of indicative planning, and Bazarov's models of economic recovery remained the first use of a chemical analogy to model business cycles.
Related people
Sources
- Wikipedia (EN) The choice of a specific implementation of central planning was vigorously discussed in 1926–1928. Proponents of the genetic approach (Vladimir Bazarov, Vladimir Groman, Nikolai Kondratiev) believed that the plan should be based on objective regularities of economic development; proponents of the teleological approach (Gleb Krzhizhanovsky, Valerian Kuybyshev, Stanislav Strumilin) believed that the plan should transform the economy and proceed from future structural changes.
- encyclopedia.com Teleological planning refers to national economic planning that is directive in character; genetical planning is indicative in character, in which plan targets are influenced by market forces. The teleological school was represented by Strumilin, Pytatakov, Kuibyshev, and Feldman; the geneticists by Kondratiev, Bazarov, and Groman.
- journals.openedition.org Bazarov defined genetic planning as a planning methodology based on the extrapolation of existing economic trends; by contrast, teleological planning was based on setting targets from above. Bazarov argued for a dialectical synthesis of the two approaches.
- Wikipedia (EN)
- encyclopedia.com
- kyrgsoc.org
- journals.openedition.org