This paper examines the magnitude of direct transfers between the former Soviet Union central buget and individual republics. It shows that Kazakhstan and Central Asian republics were primary recipients of large net transfers of funds from the Soviet central budget amounting in some cases to about ten percent of their GNP. On the contrary, Russia was the single largest net donor of funds to the Soviet central budget through more transfers paid to the union budget than received from it, both in rouble terms and as a share of the GNP.
With the dissolution of the central budget in November 1991, these transfers were discontinued. This has caused a dent in fiscal budgets and a large negative income shock in recipient republics. To some extent, external saving is suggested as the way to ease up the burden of the loss of income induced by the collapse of the fiscal system and the system of direct transfers within the former Soviet Union.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Bahry, D. (1987),Outside Moscow: Power, Politics and Budgetary Policy in the Soviet Republics, Columbia University Press, New York.
Bond, A.R., Belkindas, M.V., and Treyvish, A.I. (1991), ‘Economic development trends in the USSR 1970–1988: Part II, Consumption, investment, and income redistribution,’Soviet Geography 32 (1), pp. 705–731.
Fischer, S. (1992), ‘Russia and the Soviet Union then and now’, NBERWorking Paper, No. 4077, May.
Frantseva, I.S., (1992), ‘The difficult path to self-identity: disintegration of the Union and inter-republican relations’,Studies on Soviet Economic Development 3 (1), pp. 17–22.
Goskomstat SSSR: Information-Publication Center, (1990), Osnovnyje Pokazateli Balansa Norodnovo Khaziajstva SSSR i Sojuznych Respublik (Basic Indicators of the USSR and Soviet Republic Balances).
Goskomstat SSSR: Information-Publication Center, (1991), Finansy SSSR (1989–1990), Statisticzeskij Sbornik (USSR Finances (1989–1990), The Statistical Digest).
Granberg, A.G. (1990), ‘The economic mechanism of inter-republic and inter-regional relations’,Problems of Economics 33 (3), pp. 77–93.
Handelsblatt, Zahlenspielereien zu Lasten des Südens. 21 October 1992.
Heleniak, T. (1992), ‘Soviet and post-Soviet statistical publications during the fourth quarter of 1991’,Post-Soviet Geography 33 (2), pp. 100–113.
International Monetary Fund, The World Bank, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 1991,A Study of the Soviet Economy. Volume 1, OECD Publication Service, Paris.
McAuley, A. (1992), ‘The Central Asian economy in comparative perspective’, in: Ellman, M. and Kontorovich, V. (eds.),The Disintegration of the Soviet Economic System, Routledge, London, pp. 137–156.
Narzikulov, R. (1993), ‘The Central Asian republics’, in: Williamson, J. (ed.),Economic Consequences of Soviet Disintegration, Institute for International Economics, Washington, D.C., pp. 429–453.
Odling-Smee, J. (ed.), (1992), International Monetary Fund: Economic Review: Armenia, April, IMF, Washington, D.C.
Orlowski, L.T. (1993), ‘Indirect transfers in trade among former Soviet Union republics: sources, patterns and policy responses in the post-Soviet period’,Europe-Asia Studies 45 (6), 1001–1024.
Orlowski, L.T. (1994), ‘The disintegration of the ruble zone: driving forces and proposals for policy change’, Aussenwirtschaft 49 (1), pp. 101–129.
Seliverstov, V.E. (1992), ‘Integration links between the Union republics and their analysis on the basis of balances between regions and sectors’,Matekon 28 (3), pp. 50–63.
Treml, V.G. (1989), ‘The most recent input-output table: a milestone in Soviet statistics’,Soviet Economy 5 (4), 341–359.
World Bank:World Development Report 1992. Washington, D.C.
About this article
Cite this article
Orlowski, L.T. Direct transfers between the former Soviet Union central budget and the republics: Past evidence and current implications. Econ Plann 28, 59–73 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01267749