Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Journal home page:
https://inscience.uz/index.php/socinov/index
The economic landscape of post-war Uzbek SSR:
development trends and challenges
Kamola ORZIEVA
1
Bukhara State University, Bukhara, Uzbekistan
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received January 2025
Received in revised form
15 January 2025
Accepted 25 February 2025
Available online
25 March 2025
The article analyses the economic processes that took place
in the Uzbek SSR in the years following World War II.
It examines the republic's role within the Soviet Union, the
limitations of economic planning, and the impact of state-
controlled industrial and agricultural sectors on economic
development. The research is based on historical documents,
statistical data, and previous scholarly works, using
comparative analysis to reveal the complexity of economic
processes. This article aims to provide an in-depth study and
evaluation of the post-war recovery phase of the Uzbek SSR
economy.
2181-
1415/©
2025 in Science LLC.
https://doi.org/10.47689/2181-1415-vol6-iss2/S-pp
This is an open access article under the Attribution 4.0 International
(CC BY 4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.ru)
Keywords:
economic recovery,
heavy industry,
central planning,
agrarian sector,
production,
local industry.
Urushdan keyingi O‘zbekiston SSR iqtisodiy manzarasi:
rivojlanish yo‘nalishlari va qiyinchiliklar
ANNOTATSIYA
Kalit so‘zlar
:
iqtisodiy tiklanish,
og‘ir sanoat,
markaziy rejalashtirish,
agrar sektor,
ishlab chiqarish,
mahalliy sanoat.
Maqolada ikkinchi jahon urushidan keyingi yillardagi
O‘zbekiston SSR iqtisodiyotida yuz bergan jarayonlar tahlil
qilingan. Respublikaning Sovet Ittifoqi tarkibidagi roli, iqtisodiy
rejalashtirishdagi cheklovlar, davlat nazorati ostidagi sanoat va
qishloq x
o‘jaligi tarmoqlari faoliyatining iqtisodiy taraqqiyotga
ta’siri masalalariga ham e’tibor qaratilgan. Tadqiqot tarixiy
hujjatlar, statistik ma’lumotlar va ilgari olib borilgan ilmiy
ishlarga asoslanib iqtisodiy jarayonlarning murakkabligini
ochib beradi. U
shbu maqola O‘zbekiston SSR iqtisodiyotining
urushdan keyingi tiklanish bosqichini chuqur o‘rganish va
baholashga qaratilgan.
1
PhD student, Bukhara State University, Bukhara, Uzbekistan. E-mail: k.s.orzieva@buxdu.uz
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Special Issue
–
02 (2025) / ISSN 2181-1415
40
Экономический ландшафт Узбекской ССР после войны:
тенденции развития и трудности
АННОТАЦИЯ
Ключевые слова:
экономическое
восстановление,
тяжелая промышленность,
централизованное
планирование,
аграрный сектор,
производство,
местная промышленность.
В статье анализируются процессы, происходившие в
экономике Узбекской ССР в послевоенные годы. Особое
внимание уделено роли республики в составе Советского
Союза, ограничениям в экономическом планировании,
влиянию
деятельности
промышленных
и
сельскохозяйственных
отраслей,
находившихся
под
государственным контролем, на экономическое развитие.
Исследование основано на исторических документах,
статистических данных и ранее проведённых научных
работах, а также с помощью сравнительного анализа
раскрывает сложность экономических процессов. Данная
статья направлена на глубокое изучение и оценку этапа
послевоенного
восстановления экономики Узбекской ССР.
INTRODUCTION
The Soviet Union’s economic system underwent substantial changes following
World War II. The reconstruction of infrastructure, agriculture, and industry was the
state’s primary concern as a result of the war’s devastation. The planned economic
model, which was implemented under Stalin’s leadership, prioritized the development of
heavy industry, with agriculture serving as a source of funding for this industrialization
[1]. The economy of the Uzbek SSR was also directly affected by this process. The Soviet
Union’s industrial development strategy was further bolstered by the extensive supply of
munitions and materials that were available during the war [2]. Nevertheless, the
economic recovery process was not transparent. The government concealed significant
issues in the agricultural and industrial sectors that were the consequence of
industrialization and repressive policies during Stalin’s era, and economic realities were
kept secret [3]. A fundamental factor in the preservation of economic stability and the
promotion of industrial development was agriculture, which was regarded as one of the
important sectors of the Soviet economy. As a result, political leaders implemented
rigorous oversight of this sector [4].
The Uzbek SSR also became a strategically significant element of Soviet agriculture.
The republic was compelled to adhere to centrally determined production quotas
through coerced labor and was subjected to economic exploitation as one of the primary
cotton-
producing regions. The Soviet government’s implementation of reforms to
develop agriculture, particularly by expanding the irrigation system, was accompanied by
a variety of economic challenges [5]. The emergence of a new economic paradigm was
facilitated by the introduction of agricultural reforms in Central Asia, particularly in
Uzbekistan, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union [6]. The challenges and
consequences of this process were underscored by the economic policies that were
implemented in the agricultural and industrial sectors of the Uzbek SSR. The republic’s
economy was centrally influenced by agricultural policy [7], agrarian development issues
[8], and the advancement of the irrigation system [5.1] during the post-war years.
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Special Issue
–
02 (2025) / ISSN 2181-1415
41
The cotton monoculture policy directly affected the expansion of agriculture and
light industry by increasing the irrigated land area yearly [9]. In the food sector,
problems concerning the processing of agricultural goods and satisfying the demand of
the population remained urgent ones [10]. Furthermore, stressing regionalization, the
Soviet economic policy connected the republic’s economy with that of the larger Soviet
Union, a process whose effects were seen for many years [11]. This paper tries to
examine the post-war economic advancements in the Uzbek SSR overall, the effects of the
Soviet economic model on industry and agriculture, and the results of these economic
changes.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND METHODOLOGY
The evolution of the Uzbek SSR’
s economy, its primary tendencies, and its
outcomes has been seen differently in several eras. In the soviet era, scientific
publications, and economic development policies were mostly addressed using a Marxist-
Leninist perspective. Research of the soviet economic model by Yu. Volkov, G.N. Skopsov,
S. Braginskiy, K.N. Bedrinsev, and I. Ivatov found it to be flawless and assessed
industrialization projects and economic reforms favorably. These studies did not,
however, fully examine the flaws of the central planning system, especially the
agricultural crisis and industry inefficiency. An objective and analytical approach to
researching Uzbekistan’s economic past developed over years of independence. Scholars
have reevaluated the soviet period economic reform outcomes and investigated closely
how they affected Uzbekistan’s economy. Scholars include K.
Usmonov, K. Yuldoshev,
V. Abdurahmonov, A. Razzoqov, and M. Muxammadjonov, who have investigated the
social and economic effects of the post-war recovery process and given insightful analysis
of the outcomes of industrial development programs.
In international literature, Soviet Union economic policy has usually been studied
from a critical point of view. Scholars including J. William, A. Alan, A. Brown, and
T. Naylor have concentrated on the centralizing of the soviet economic model,
bureaucratic issues, and features impeding creative development. This paper evaluates
the results of several research methods from different eras by use of the historical
comparative analysis methodology. Official records, statistical data, and academic studies
on Uzbek SSR economic progress comprise main sources. Analyzes of industrial
production volumes, agricultural output growth rates, and statistical data on post-war
economic recovery also helped to evaluate markers of economic growth.
RESULTS
According to the research results, the post-war rebuilding phase brought notable
changes in the Uzbek SSR’s economy. First, post
-war economic strategy started to mostly
focus on the rehabilitation and growth of industry. Especially, the capacity of cotton-
processing industries and light industry grew. Under the framework of the central
planning system, this process was executed with the union level distribution of
production resources. Second, agricultural reforms accomplished some degree of success
despite difficulties. The volume of governmental procurement of agricultural products
rose as the collective farming system got established. But this arrangement reduced farm
laborers’ economic in
dependence and caused output efficiency to drop.
Thirdly, social issues persisted. Wages stayed low, and problems with food
supplies were somewhat common. Although the trend of urbanization picked up speed in
the years following the war, issues involving population migration remained
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Special Issue
–
02 (2025) / ISSN 2181-1415
42
unaddressed. One of the main challenges facing industrial growth turned out to be labor
shortages. The centralized planning approach helped Uzbekistan’s economy to be rebuilt
generally. While expansion in industry and agriculture yielded favorable outcomes, the
limitations of the administrative-command system persisted in impeding the sustained
development of the nation.
DISCUSSION
One of the main goals of the post-war economic reconstruction and peaceful
development plan of the Soviet Union was to guarantee social well-being, recovery, and
economic stability. One of the main components of this strategy was cutting military
industry resources [12]. The military sector developed uniquely during the conflict;
hence it became essential to use these sectors for civilian needs. Normal labor conditions
were restored in factories and military businesses were allocated chores linked to the
manufacturing of building materials. Based on the infrastructure of the nation, the Soviet
Union effectively pursued post-war economic recovery and stabilization by lowering
military industrial expenditures, supporting peaceful construction operations, and
applying policies required for steady economic development. This approach thus called
for efficient use of financial resources.
1. Post-war economic recovery.
1.1.
The Soviet Union’s industry was mostly driven for military purposes
throughout the war years; numerous businesses were set aside just for the
manufacturing of military products. The State Defense Committee resolved on May 26,
1945, “On measures for the reconstruction of industry in connection with the reduction
of arms production.” This choice sought to solve the main economic problems the nation
was facing following war termination [13]. Adapting the national economy to peacetime
conditions became an urgent chore once the war ended. Based on the resolution,
industrial businesses were scheduled to move to the manufacturing of civilian goods and
arms production was lowered. Restructuring industrial facilities, changing production
objectives, and promoting the growth of civilian economic sectors constituted part of this
process. Restoring war-torn cities and economic areas, satisfying population social
requirements, and reordering the nat
ion’s economic growth along new lines were the
main goals of these changes. As a result, alongside heavy industry, sectors including light
industry, construction materials manufacture, energy, and transportation also started to
grow. Adoption of these resolutions signaled a turning point in the post-war economic
strategy of the Soviet Union, therefore laying the groundwork for the recovery and later
expansion of its industrial sector.
1.2.
Uzbekistan’s economy remained fragile in the post
-war period, characterized
by debilitated infrastructure and reduced production capacities. The forced labor of
women and children was used to offset the paucity of labor resources, particularly in
agriculture. The concept of “over
-
fulfilling and surpassing planned targets”
was also
frequently enforced through force and close state supervision, resulting in official reports
that were not always accurate. The resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union
Communist Party (Bolsheviks), titled “On measures for the developm
ent of agriculture in
the post-
war period,” emphasized the sector’s systemic deficiencies. The harsh working
conditions that producers endured, insufficient technical support, and low production
efficiency were among the primary issues. Resolutions regarding agricultural
development were enacted at the February plenary of the Central Committee of the
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Special Issue
–
02 (2025) / ISSN 2181-1415
43
All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks). The objective of these decisions was to enhance
the intensity of the intended objectives; however, they neglected to account for the
economic challenges and local conditions. These objectives were frequently associated
with initiatives to fortify the kolkhoz system, supply raw materials to industry, and
enhance food security, in addition to the implementation of more stringent regulations
for employees and the increased participation of individuals in the production process.
These issues were duly discussed during the first session of the second convocation of
the Supreme Soviet of the Uzbek SSR. Nevertheless, the process was primarily concerned
with the approval and reinforcement of central government directives, with local
requirements and challenges being regarded as secondary concerns. The economic
results of 1946 did not suggest the implementation of significant agricultural reforms;
rather, they were indicative of the accomplishments that were achieved through enforced
labor obligations. In the collective (kolkhoz) and state (sovkhoz) farm systems, producers
were not financially motivated to implement technological advancements that would
have enhanced planned productivity. Consequently, productivity was primarily sustained
through diligent effort. One of the primary goals of the 1946
–
1950 five-year plans was to
enhance the quality of life by increasing the availability of consumer products and
improving the material well-being of the population. To accomplish this objective, the
state sought to increase the turnover of government and cooperative trade by 28% in
comparison to 1940 levels [13.1].
2.
The Budget’s Contribut
ion to Economic Recovery.
2.1.
The post-war recovery program was instrumental in the restoration of
Uzbekistan’s economy and agriculture, it was also burdened by challenges such as forced
labor, resource shortages, and the pressure to achieve excessively high production
targets. The state budget of 307.7 billion rubles, which was approved during the 11th
session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, was a critical indicator of economic
transformation following the conflict. In comparison to 1944, budget revenues increased
by 37.3 billion rubles (13.9%), while expenditures increased by 42.3 billion rubles
(16.1%), indicating a shift in economic policy [14].
On the one hand, this expansion can be regarded as the commencement of the
transition from a military-economic system that was in place during the war to a
construction-oriented economy that was in place during the peacetime. Conversely, the
expansion of state resources was directly associated with initiatives that were designed
to enhance and restore the economic potential of the USSR. Following the conclusion of
the conflict, the restoration of industry, the development of infrastructure, and the
fulfillment of the social needs of the populace became urgent issues.
Although the 1945 budget of the Uzbekistan SSR reflected the planned
socioeconomic principles of economic development, it is crucial to recognize the intricacy
of the actual economic conditions during this period. It is important to note that the
51.1% increase in the budget can be interpreted as evidence of economic development;
however, it was also accompanied by substantial structural challenges and constraints in
resource allocation [14.1]. Nevertheless, inflation and increased government spending
may have contributed to this growth. Production was predominantly focused on military
requirements during the war years, resulting in a significant decline in civilian economic
sectors. Consequently, the 1945 budget adjustments, which were designed to revitalize
the industry and implement new economic programs, encountered a multitude of
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Special Issue
–
02 (2025) / ISSN 2181-1415
44
obstacles. The government’s endeavors to enhance the quality of life of the populace are
evidenced by the 43.1% increase in expenditure on social and cultural sectors and the
78.7% increase in funds allocated to the national economy, which underscores the
emphasis on industrial reconstruction.
2.2.
The 1945 budget of the Uzbek SSR encapsulated the major objectives of state
economic policy, the strategies for mobilizing financial resources, and the public’s
reaction to economic hardships. The state economy was in command, as evidenced by the
budget’s structure and the policy of centralizing economic resources by increasing taxes
on individual and business entities. In comparison to 1944, the Uzbek SSR’s revenue
objective for 1945 was 6.68 billion rubles, which represents a rise from 6.4 billion rubles.
This growth suggests that economic activity has expanded in general, despite the
persistent obstacles. The government anticipated that state enterprises and
organizations would contribute 54% of this sum, underscoring its dependence on state-
owned industries to preserve budgetary stability. This strategy was designed to balance
the budget by increasing production volumes, maintaining profitability levels, and
transferring the economic burden to enterprises. Turnover tax revenues increased from
16.5% to 17.2% during this period, while state bond contributions increased from 15%
to 50%. The Soviet government’s increased efforts to mobilize financial resources
through coerced public contributions are reflected in the sharp rise in state bond
revenues, which further underscores the centralized control over economic resources
[14.2]. This demonstrates the fortification of a state-bond-based financial system, in
which both individuals and enterprises were constrained to contribute through
mandatory bond purchases. The intricacies of the post-war economic recovery process
are reflected in this budget structure.
On the one hand, the reallocation of industrial and economic resources was
implemented through a centralized planned economy, which guaranteed state control
over production and distribution. Conversely, the rise in tax revenues and bond
contributions imposed an additional financial burden on private households and
workers. The true distribution and efficiency of these funds remained a topic of debate,
even though a substantial portion of the budget was allocated to support industrial and
social programs. The overall impact of soviet post-war economic policies continues to be
a critical point of discussion in the evaluation of the extent to which these allocations
effectively addressed economic challenges and enhanced living conditions.
3. Cotton Monoculture and Forced Cotton Production.
3.1.
The economic reconstruction of Uzbekistan following World War II was a
critical objective. Nevertheless, Uzbekistan’s economy was predominantly agrarian
within the Soviet economic model. The economy was heavily reliant on agriculture and
industrial development was slow as a consequence of the centralized planning system,
which prioritized union-wide economic interests over local needs. The intensification of
cotton monoculture was a result of the growing demand for cotton production, which
resulted in the overexploitation of land resources and irrigation systems. This excessive
dependence on cotton farming resulted in the acceleration of environmental crises,
including the eventual Aral Sea calamity, and disrupted the ecological equilibrium. It is
crucial to acknowledge that the economic development of Uzbekistan during this period
was influenced by Soviet central planning policies. Moscow’s directives were the primary
determinant of the 1945 state budget and the obligations placed on cotton production,
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Special Issue
–
02 (2025) / ISSN 2181-1415
45
rather than local economic require
ments. As a result, the Uzbek SSR’s economic strategy
was modified to accommodate the Soviet Union’s requirements, rather than promoting
equitable local development. This impeded Uzbekistan’s economic independence and
restricted industrial development. The heavy industry was the primary sector during the
post-war recovery.
In August 1945, the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR and the Central
Committee of the Communist Party (VKP(b)) were tasked with the development of the
fourth five-year plan to revitalize the national economy. The Supreme Soviet of the USSR
subsequently approved the law “On the five
-year plan for the restoration and
development of the national economy of the USSR for 1946-
1950” on March 18, 1946.
The primary objectives of this strategy were the restoration of war-damaged regions and
the development of heavy industry. Nevertheless, these endeavors were unsuccessful, as
the central government continued to prioritize agriculture
–
particularly cotton
production
–
over local industrialization, resulting in a slow pace of industrial
development in Uzbekistan [12.1]. This economic strategy did not aid in the
diversification of Uzbekistan’s industry; rather, it served to bolster the republic’s reliance
on agriculture, notably cotton production.
3.2.
In 1946, Uzbekistan implemented extensive strategies to develop the cotton
sector. Nevertheless, systemic issues persisted. These results were the result of labor
exploitation, forced labor policies, and inefficient resource allocation, even though the
state exceeded its production targets by delivering 104.1% of the planned cotton. The
cotton sector faced heightened challenges as policies were solely focused on increasing
production volume, disregarding long-term sustainability and economic diversification.
In its resolution “On measures for the development of agriculture in the post
-war
period,” the Central Committee of the Communist Party (VKP(b)) recognized the
existence of systemic deficiencies in the agricultural sector.
The government’s quotas, coerc
ed labor, and excessive emphasis on cotton
production hindered Uzbekistan’s ability to establish a more self
-sufficient and balanced
economy. This resulted in a significant reliance on agriculture and a delayed pace of
industrial development in the republic. A scarcity of technical resources, inadequate
production efficiency, and unfavorable working conditions for producers were among the
primary concerns. The post-war recovery program was officially authorized on February
9, 1946, as part of the five-year plan. The economic burden of Uzbekistan within the
soviet system was further exacerbated by the plan’s emphasis on the expansion of cotton
production and the revitalization of agriculture.
The government increased its efforts to increase output to meet state production
targets. However, these accomplishments were frequently employed as a political
propaganda tool rather than as a reflection of genuine economic progress. It was
anticipated that cotton production would resume at pre-war levels in 1947, with
1.5 million tons of cotton to be delivered to the state, as per the plan. However, the
demand for increased cotton yields was not adequately supported by investments in
agricultural infrastructure. This resulted in the continued exploitation of workers and the
wastage of resources, further increasing Uzbekistan’s dependence on a single
-crop
economy that was strictly regulated by the central government [15]. For the Uzbek
people, the post-war era was difficult and full of challenges; nonetheless, their tenacity
and hard work were seen as absolutely vital for economic recovery. Designed on the five-
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Special Issue
–
02 (2025) / ISSN 2181-1415
46
year plan, the strategy sought general economic recovery and focused especially on the
growth of industry and agriculture at the republican level. Under the program
’s structure,
agricultural output was expected to climb by 27% globally and by 52% in Uzbekistan
while industrial output was supposed to rise by 48% all around, reaching 89% in
Uzbekistan. These numbers accurately capture the strategic ideas of that era as precisely
defined and strongly ingrained [13.2].
4. Industry and manufacturing
.
4.1.
Uzbekistan experienced a notable phase of industrial development during the
years of war. The industry’s composition changed significantly, which resulted in the rise
of fresh manufacturing sectors. Especially, the sectors of manufacturing and aviation
grew, the petroleum industry developed, and the power station capacity grew. The main
cause of the increase in industrial output was the production of guns and other military
supplies. The fast industrial growth during the war raised Uzbekistan’s strategic
significance. Still, economic changes and difficulties accompanied this process.
The general increase of the nation’s industry resulted from the reorientation of the
economy, the development of new industrial sectors, and the enlargement of current
ones. Strengthening the energy infrastructure was crucial to ensure that economic
development would keep on and that every industry sector would keep growing. Power
station construction including Farhad, Low Buzsuv, Ak-Kavak, and others was
accelerated to support industrial development and economic stability [14.3]. Moreover,
building medium-sized and small hydroelectric power plants was enlarged to guarantee
the effective utilization of current hydro resources. The central soviet government kept
careful observation over all these procedures. Rising oil extraction volumes were among
the most important accomplishments throughout the war years. New oil fields like
Polvontosh and Southern Olamushuk highlighted encouraging signs for the sector. While
exploratory efforts were stepped up in areas including Nayman, Namangan, to support
local interests and needs, economic development was promoted by these activities.
Furthermore, lacking in development was the coal sector.
Designed to yearly extract 1.5 million tons of coal, the open-pit mine built in the
Angren field began in 1946, the daily coal extraction target was established at 1,000 tons;
later on in the second part of the year, it was raised to 2,000 tons daily.
The “Voroshilovneft” trust exceeded its oil output obj
ective in 1944 with 92.6%. But by
early 1945, this number had declined to 84.9%, a reflection of some of the difficulties
sustaining output levels throughout the post-war transition era.
The basis for Uzbekistan’s industrial future is set by the metallurgi
cal sector.
We found sites of iron, aluminum, copper, tungsten, molybdenum, and other metals.
While first design work started for the development of an aluminum mill in Bekobod,
plans were developed to establish a plant manufacturing aluminum alloy in Chirchik.
The fast expansion of the Almalyk Copper Combine helped to raise the gold and copper
production capacity. Previously serving military demands, industrial companies were
also turned into producing basic goods for peacetime. Meeting the demands of the
population depends on the expansion of these industries. To more meet the needs of the
time, the textile, sewing, footwear, and food sectors changed their production plans.
Specifically, footwear manufacturers intended to provide 2 million pairs of shoes
for the population in 1946; their goal was to raise output to 6 million pairs in the next
2-3 years. At the Tashkent Footwear Factory, the hot vulcanization technique greatly
sped up the shoe manufacturing process, hence improving production efficiency.
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Special Issue
–
02 (2025) / ISSN 2181-1415
47
With this revolutionary technology, 60,000 pairs of shoes were supposed to be produced
in 1946. Still, such ideas were not enough to cause a notable economic change. Labor
productivity and industrial efficiency grew slowly, and usually the system stayed mostly
dependent on hand labor. These sectors were under tight government control even when
the light and food sectors grew to satisfy the need of the population. Product diversity
stayed restricted, and problems in the textile and footwear sectors continued.
The centralized supply system of the Soviet Union meant that population needs and
desires were not satisfied. For example, local industrial output doubled and a half time in
1944 compared to past years, but the intended production targets for that year fell short
[14.4]. This predicament was mostly caused by discrepancies in economic planning and
the main distribution of resources to the military sector. The demand from the labor and
the general people expanded greatly when the war ended and the time of calm
development took place. Local businesses had to change their emphasis from military
manufacture to serving civilian demands.
CONCLUSION
The findings of this study indicate that the economy of the Uzbek SSR underwent
significant transformations during the post-war recovery period. While the centralized
planning policies implemented by the Soviet government contributed positively to
industrial development, economic and social problems were not eliminated. Several key
conclusions have been drawn from this research:
–
Although industrial sectors were restored and production volumes increased
significantly, the limitations of the centralized management system slowed the
development process.
–
Agriculture remained under the influence of compulsory planning, leading to
persistent structural inefficiencies that hindered productivity growth.
–
Socio-economic challenges, including food supply shortages, low wages, and
issues related to urbanization, continued to obstruct the economic recovery process.
These findings help to better understand how the economy of the Uzbek SSR
developed within the framework of the Soviet economic model. The study contributes to
the comprehension of historical processes and allows for an assessment of the long-term
consequences of post-war economic reforms.
REFERENCES:
1.
Mooney, P. J. (1982).
The Soviet superpower: The Soviet Union 1945
–
80.
Heinemann Education.
2.
Marshall, A. W., & Shulsky, A. N. (2018). Assessing sustainability of command
economies and totalitarian regimes: The Soviet case.
Orbis, 62
(2), 275-292.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orbis.2018.02.011
3.
Ofer, G. (1988).
Soviet economic growth: 1928
–
1985.
Center for the Study of
Soviet International Behavior.
4.
Laird, R. D., & Laird, B. A. (1990). Glasnost, perestroika, and Gorbachev's rural
policies: The built-in contradictions of Soviet socialism.
Studies in Comparative
Communism, 23
(2), 115-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-3592(90)90034-J
5.
Komilov, O. (2023).
Irrigation-melioration works in Uzbekistan (1950
–
1990).
Society and Innovations, 4(3), 1
–
10. https://doi.org/10.47689/2181-1415-vol4-iss3-
pp1-10
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Special Issue
–
02 (2025) / ISSN 2181-1415
48
6.
Raab, C., & Spies, M. (2023). Characterizing cropland fragmentation in post-
Soviet Central Asia, using Landsat remote-sensing time series data.
Applied Geography,
157,
102968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2023.102968
7.
Komilov, O. (2024).
Mastering of virgin lands in Uzbekistan (as an example of
Surkhan-Sherabad deserts, 1950
–
1980).
Society and Innovations, 5(S2), 125
–
129.
https://doi.org/10.47689/2181-1415-vol5-iss2/S-pp125-129
8.
Yusupov, A. (2021).
About agrarian building victims or political departments
under
the
MTS.
Society
and
Innovations,
5
(Special
Issue),
162
–
165.
https://inscience.uz/index.php/socinov/index
9.
Turgunov, A. (2023).
Irrigation and land reclamation works in the Andijan region
(1941
–
1990).
Society and Innovations, 4
(S11), 177
–
182. https://doi.org/10.47689/2181-
1415-vol4-iss11/S-pp177-182
10.
Mamatkulov, B. (2024).
Development of light industry networks in Kashkadarya
and Surkhandarya regions, processes of personnel formation (1925
–
1950).
Society and
Innovations, 5
(5), 211
–
218. https://doi.org/10.47689/2181-1415-vol5-iss5-pp211-218
11.
Kholmanova, F. (2024).
Issues of processing agricultural raw materials in food
industry
networks.
Society
and
Innovations,
5
(S3),
193
–
199.
https://doi.org/10.47689/2181-1415-vol5-iss3/S-pp193-199
12.
Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). (1979).
CPSU reference book
(4th
ed., revised and supplemented). Tashkent: Uzbekistan.
13.
Uzbekistan Communist. (1967, January).
Uzbekistan Communist Journal, 1
, 65.
14.
Supreme Soviet of the Uzbek SSR. (1946).
Seventh session of the Supreme Soviet
of the Uzbek SSR: Stenographic report (June 5-6, 1945).
Tashkent: Publishing House of the
Supreme Soviet of the Uzbek SSR, p. 5.
15.
Supreme Soviet of the Uzbek SSR. (1947).
First session of the Supreme Soviet of
the Uzbek SSR: Stenographic report (March 13-18, 1947).
Tashkent: Publishing House of
the Supreme Soviet of the Uzbek SSR, p. 4.
