From Imperial to Soviet Siberia—The Continuity and Innovations of the Economic Development of the Far East

Abstract

The first third of the twentieth century is a particular epoch in the history of the development of the Far East of Russia. It is the time of military conflicts and the time of intensive development and close attention to the region of the Russian government authorities, but also the time of independence and state sovereignty. The second half of the XIX century was held for the Far East guided by military and agricultural colonization. At the beginning of the twentieth century, industrial development was added to these types of colonization: Trans-Siberian Railway construction, despite the fear of neighbors, was subordinated mainly to economic tasks. In the development of transport, the practical means were the cooperation of the private sector with the state (government-subsidized regular shipping voyages along the Amur basin rivers, the construction of individual sections of the Amur railway, and so on). The state played the first part in such cooperation. The factors hindering the region’ transport development were the lack of central planning and insufficient material support for the road industry. These restrictions were partially overcome after the end of the civil war in 1922. After the civil war, centralized planning and management began to be introduced into the practice of economy. However, the civil war caused significant material damage to transport and industry, which reinforced the importance of the state as an administrative power and an economic agent. The prerequisites for the development of free commerce on the Pacific outskirts of Russia always faced the importance of a military presence for the state. Military-political interest attracted state funds for the region’s development, but the same interest forced the state to distrust foreign labor (and there was always the luck of Russian workers in the Far East), to disbelieve principles of free trade and land tenure. Thus, despite the differences in the pre-revolutionary and post-revolutionary regimes, solving the same tasks in similar conditions dictated similar development methods: the more significant role of the state, centralized management, and reliance on internal resources. In Soviet time, this trend intensified under the pressure of an unfavorable international situation.