ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
18
RURAL ECONOMY IN BUKHARA REGION REFORMS IMPLEMENTED
(1965-1985)
Jurayev Isomiddin Ismoilovich
Teacher of Social Sciences Department at Zarmed University
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15561398
Abstract.
In his discourse entitled "Pressing Challenges of Production,
Industry, and Prospects for Technological Advancement," presented on
September 2-3, 1955, in Tashkent, N.A. Mukhitdinov, a prominent figure within
the government of the Uzbek SSR, examined the themes of specialization and
cooperation. These subjects encapsulated the production dilemmas spanning
from 1950 to 1980. His address emphasizes not the integration of agrarian and
industrial sectors but rather the formation of industrial unions and complexes.
During this period, issues about specialization and cooperation within
Uzbekistan's industrial enterprises had been insufficiently addressed, leading to
a lack of adequate consideration in the formulation of industrial construction
strategies. This negligence is ascribed to a propensity among numerous
organizations to overlook this economic element and the progressive
methodologies of production organization until the last possible moment.
Keywords:
Uzbek SSR, agrarian-industrial complex, specialization and
cooperation, technology, centralization, congress, Central Committee.
Introduction.
The last decade of the past century marked a period of
profound transformation for all nations residing in Uzbekistan. During the years
of the Russian Empire and Soviet governance, the quest for liberation from
autocracy afforded the Uzbek people the opportunity to secure a rightful place
within the global community. Independence fostered possibilities for examining
the past and engaging in a fair assessment. At the same time, the newly
independent Republic of Uzbekistan faces important challenges: on one hand, to
eliminate the long-standing vestiges of a totalitarian regime, and on the other
hand, to address existing issues across all sectors in this new phase of
development by implementing reforms in the social-economic, political, cultural,
and moral-educational spheres.
Literature Review.
One of the urgent themes within the field of historical
studies today is the need to explore the causes behind the economic dependency
of Uzbekistan during the Soviet regime. This includes the structures formulated
by the Communist Party, work methods and forms, and the intricate
interconnections among all republics. Overall, this necessitates a responsible
approach to studying the problems, contradictions, and socioeconomic
development difficulties of that era, ensuring comprehensive coverage of events,
ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
19
adhering to historical accuracy devoid of bias, and fulfilling the tasks of
preserving continuity and integrity in historical narratives.
Analysis and
Discussion of Results.
Transitioning agriculture to an
industrial base necessitates comprehensive mechanization of primary
operations, the centralization of production, and the refinement of
organizational forms. The establishment of complexes capable of centrally
producing finished goods and delivering them to consumers holds significant
importance. The transition to agrarian-industrial unions and complexes from
auxiliary enterprises embodies the objective logic of our construction efforts.
The socio-economic significance of such unions lies not only in augmenting
the productivity and viability of agriculture but also in creating objective
conditions to equalize the living standards of agricultural and industrial
workers. This includes the payment for labor by state industrial enterprises and
agricultural collectives, as well as the provisions for social insurance and
pensions, all of which contribute, albeit modestly, to the rising quality of work
and the skills of employees.
As anticipated during the XXIV Congress of the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union, these unions were expected to become fundamental links in the
framework of social production in the future. However, the newly formed
collaborative structures did not assume the position of the principal elements
within the national agricultural system. Despite the emergence of these unions,
the overall structure of the nation’s economy did not undergo significant
transformation, and a higher phase of agricultural reforms remained uninitiated.
A resolution adopted on May 28, 1976, by the Central Committee of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union emphasized that enhancing agricultural
production through specialization and concentration based on extensive
cooperation is pivotal. The transition of agriculture to a modern industrial
foundation was posited as the primary pathway for the further development of
socialism in the countryside. This indicated a new phase in the practical
implementation of Leninist cooperative planning in the context of advanced
socialism.
As the party and state address the responsibilities of current agrarian
policy, it is crucial to recognize that the core, central component of the agro-
industrial complex is agriculture itself. The fundamental basis for its further
development hinges on the gradual increase of capital investments. Between
1965 and 1980, the amount allocated by the Soviet government to develop this
particular sector was 4.1 times greater than in all previous years, totaling 395.4
ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
20
billion soums, which constituted 80.5 percent of the total capital investment
budget. From this point onward, we will also allocate substantial financial and
material resources to agriculture, continuing to transition the sector onto an
industrial foundation. However, from now on, primary attention will be directed
toward the returns on capital investments, enhancing agricultural productivity,
and deepening interrelations and improvements across all branches of the agro-
industrial complex. These aspects characterize the essential features of agrarian
policy in the 1980s.
In Uzbekistan, the integration of agriculture and industry commenced in
1963, culminating in that year in the establishment of the "Khalqobod" which
combine the vineyard and horticulture sectors. Subsequently, an agrarian-
industrial union named after U. Yusupov was formed. Over the years, the
process of corporatization expanded and deepened significantly. However,
certain issues arose within the system that hindered the development of
associations without addressing those problems. Thus, Uzbekistan's experience
in agricultural and industrial production assists in identifying the barriers that
impinge upon this progress. In particular:
- The inadequacy of the organizational structure of the agricultural
economy;
- The scarcity of material and technical resources;
- The lack of scientifically based development of types of agricultural
production systems and agro-industrial complexes. It is worth noting that
corporatization within the agrarian-industrial framework encompasses both
sectoral issues at the level of agricultural branches and complex problems at the
enterprise level. In the Bukhara region during the 1960s and 1970s, there was
an active development of specialization in agriculture and the integration of
agro-industrial processes, aiming to transform it into a unified agro-industrial
complex. During this period, the CPSU intensified its initiatives to enhance
“scientific strength and a comprehensive approach, significantly increasing
capital investments in agriculture and achieving greater returns from them,
fostering increased productivity and optimizing the management mechanisms in
this sector, as well as improving interrelations across the entire agro-industrial
complex.”
In the preceding phases of agrarian policy, this process had not been
adequately addressed, especially concerning theoretical and ideological
influences. In 1975, despite adverse weather conditions, collective farms
achieved 106% of the state plan for vegetable production, 104% for potato
ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
21
production, and 105% for other crops. The “Uzplodovoshvinprom” entity
produced an average of 227 quintals of vegetables per hectare. In the Tashkent
region, under the leadership of B. Prudnikov's team, an impressive yield of 251
quintals of diverse vegetable products per hectare was achieved on a 27-hectare
field. Similarly, the brigade led by Kambarov in the "Sokh" collective farm
recorded a yield of 223 quintals of potatoes per hectare from 61 hectares of
land.
The Bukhara agro-industrial production association was established in
1976 under the directives of the USSR Council of Ministers and the Ministries of
Fruit and Vegetable Production. At its inception, the Bukhara agro-industrial
production association was affiliated with the Ministry of Fruit and Vegetable
Production. The structure of the Agro-Industrial Complex (AIC) in 1976
included:
- Leadership
- Human Resources Department
- Accounting Division
- Planning Department
- Agriculture
- Crop Production
- Livestock Raising
Despite adhering to the requirements and guidelines set by the state
planning committee regarding the structural arrangement of these departments,
the economic efficiency was notably low. Moreover, the implementation of
decisions made in the field suffered from inadequate oversight. Specifically, in
the specialized “Galosiy” collective farm, the yield of grapes remained consistent
over several years at 128 quintals per hectare, necessitating 1.6 man-days per
quintal of produce. In contrast, the average productivity in the entire Bukhara
region lagged by a factor of 7.4, and costs were 14 times higher in comparison.
The “October 50th Anniversary” collective farm, located in the Romitan
district of Bukhara, was considered a comprehensive livestock complex. Prior to
its establishment, the farm comprised 1,450 heads of cattle rearing, integrating
them with four farms focused on cotton production. Annually, the farm delivered
850 tons of milk and approximately 100 tons of meat to the state. After the
establishment of the complex, the number of cattle was reduced by 100 heads
within two years, yet the state received an additional 388 tons of milk.
Previously, the average yield per milking cow was between 1,500 to 1,600 liters,
but this year it was aimed to achieve a target of 2,180 kg.
ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
22
In the agro-industrial complex, the primary focus was on enhancing breed
structures and improving livestock quality, along with ensuring adequate
nutrition for the animals. According to the project plan, the complex
necessitated the services of 36 personnel. Key roles included an accounting
economist, senior zootechnician, brigade leader, veterinary doctor, technician,
seed specialist, laboratory accountant, and food preparer, all of whom were
considered essential employees of the complex. The latter three positions were
primarily operational in nature. Additionally, the staff would encompass eight
milkers, five livestock caretakers, three tractor drivers, two calf tenders, one
general laborer, and two milk transporters.
A significant issue within the complex was the shortage of qualified
personnel, particularly as engineering services were not included in the
complex's design, which was a rather surprising oversight.
It is imperative to note that in achieving the high-level development of
agriculture, alongside various other factors, significant measures have been
undertaken by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Uzbekistan and
the republican government aimed at implementing the centralization and
specialization of production. In the report delivered by Leonid Ilich Brezhnev at
the XXIV Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, he emphasized
that “in the coming years, the specialization of agricultural production and the
introduction of industrial methods for the cultivation of meat, milk, and other
products will be further developed. This is a natural progression. The discussion
centers on the processes that will define the future of our agriculture.” This
statement serves to substantiate the aforementioned issues.
From March 26 to 27, 1984, the All-Union Economic Congress held in
Moscow particularly addressed the economic matters of the Bukhara region
within the Republic of Uzbekistan, focusing on issues of experimentation and
reconstruction. Additionally, the congress deliberated on the cultivation of
agricultural products within the Bukhara region, the recycling of these products,
and the expansion of the raw material base.
The current level of development of auxiliary enterprises has significantly
increased. The branches of auxiliary enterprises within the collective and state
farms of the republic have shown notable growth during the previous and
ongoing five-year plans. As of the end of 1985, the population of the region
constituted 1.017 million individuals, encompassing 89 diverse nationalities and
ethnic groups. The region consisted of 10 districts, 10 cities of regional
subordination, 3 urban settlements, and 84 village councils. In the Bukhara
ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
23
region, 80 production enterprises were operational. The most severe impact was
felt in the light industry sector, particularly in the cotton processing and food
production domains. In 1985, the total production output reached 422 million
sums. Notably, the Bukhara textile enterprise, classified as a large production
facility, exceeded 172 million sums in product output. The total agricultural
production amounted to 413 million tons. By November 1984, the region had
harvested 384 thousand tons of cotton.
Throughout the entire republic, the average annual growth of national
income diminished, leading to a per capita national income in 1986 that was
seven times less than that of 1965. A significant error in the Bukhara region was
that, despite being recognized as a leading area for agricultural production both
within the republic and across the Soviet Union, the region produced
agricultural products solely based on orders from the central authorities. “In the
years 1985-1986, a marked decrease in cattle breeding was observed in the
districts of Bukhara, Gidjduvan, and Shofirkon. In the districts of Qorako‘l,
Peshku, and Vobkent, certain deficiencies in cattle breeding were not
significantly addressed. From January to August 1985, a total of 9,275 tons of
live-weight cattle were raised in the region's agricultural sectors, which
constituted 62.2% of the annual plan. Furthermore, milk production reached
36,235 tons, representing 68.2% of the target, while egg production amounted
to 38,735 thousand units, equivalent to 75.6% of the planned target. In the
Vobkent district, meat production severely decreased by 30%, in Sverdlov
district by 20%, in Romitan district by 17.5%, and in Bukhara city by 24%. The
structure of the Agricultural-Industrial Complex (AIC) at the grassroots level
determines the conditions and effectiveness of their establishment and
operations, with social issues within towns and rural areas being addressed at
the AIC and associated levels. However, the foundation for addressing these
issues lies in the establishment of the Agricultural-Industrial Complexes and
independent complexes, including cotton-growing complexes. Consequently,
there arose a necessity to develop the fundamental proportions and parameters
of these complexes, along with the parameters for organizational agricultural
structures. As agricultural production intensifies, the principal trends in
specialization have become increasingly apparent. The process of harmonizing
agricultural and industrial outputs has manifested itself in highly specialized
enterprises such as grape and vine cultivation.
Conclusion. Transitioning agriculture to an industrial foundation
necessitated the comprehensive mechanization of primary tasks, along with the
ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
24
centralization of production and the enhancement of its organizational forms.
The establishment of complexes responsible for producing finished products
and delivering them to consumers played a crucial role in this centralization
process. The socio-economic significance of such integrations lies not only in
augmenting the efficiency and productivity of agriculture but also in creating
objective conditions to equalize the living standards of agricultural and
industrial workers: ensuring fair remuneration for the labor of employees at
state industrial and agricultural enterprises and collective farms, improving the
conditions of social insurance and pension provisions, and promoting the
aesthetic aspects of production alongside the professional qualifications of the
workforce. However, despite these advancements, improvements in living and
working conditions did not materialize.
References:
1. Muksimov S. Increasing the production of Karakul products and reducing their
cost. –Tashkent: Uzbekistan, 1969. – P. 265.
2. From the materials of the XXVI Congress of the CPSU, pp. 62-63.
3. Kurbanov F., Niyozov A. Konnimekh (Bukhara region, history of the state
pedigree state farm “Konnimekh”) // Uzbekistan collective and state farms
(Essays) Book 3. Tashkent: Uzbekistan. 1972. – P. 115.
4. The economic policy of the CPSU: A textbook (Abalkin L.I., Belik Yu.A.,
Vladimirov B.G., and others) –T.: Uzbekistan, 1982. – P. 259.
5. National Economy of the USSR. State Sb., Tashkent, Uzbekistan, 1973.
6. Jurayev Isomiddin Ismoilovich, “On the history of specialization of agricultural
branches in Uzbekistan in the 1950s-80s”. Scientific Bulletin of Bukhara State
University, 12/2024. – P. 42- 47.
7. Nasilloyev Sunnat Shavkat oglu. “Problems and solutions of training scientific
personnel through postgraduate studies in agricultural sciences in the Uzbek
SSR (on the example of the 1960s-1970s)”, Scientific Bulletin of Bukhara State
University, 12/2024. – P. 47-51.
