Socio-economic management during World War I and revolution

Abstract

The article reviewed some aspects of management of the Russian economy during the First World War. Based on the analysis of executive legislation published in the ‘Collection of Laws and Orders of Government’ between 1914 and 1917, the author reveals Tsarist administration’s measures of targeted social assistance for the population and support for stability of the financial system. Special attention is focused on the problem of the payment of benefits, pensions and allowances to men-at-arms and their families. The author shed light on the scale of the governmental agencies’ actions and main results of activities in the social sphere. This article also analyzes a number of measures taken in the regulation of the financial system: bill moratorium, promotion of credit institutions, concessional lending of enterprises, currency circulation and banknote printing policy, flotation of internal and external loans. The analysis of regulatory legal acts led the author to conclude that the measures of social and financial policy adopted by the government were logically interconnected. It is shown that Russia adhered to the rules for financing military expenditures accepted by all European countries. Drawing on the works of pre-revolutionary and modern Russian researchers, the author considers that the deterioration of the overall socio-economic situation in the country, rampant inflation and the disorder of currency circulation occurred in the year 1916. At the same time, Russia came closest to financial collapse in a short period of time under the power of the liberal Provisional Government, which, nevertheless, in many matters adhered to the policy of the overthrown regime. This applies in particular to the problem of the currency issue that took place in 1917, when the printing presses were fully operational. The main conclusion of the author comes down to the fact that the Russian government, when it came to regulating the economy, generally coped well with its duties. However, it failed to establish a public dialogue in the country and prevent discontent among the revolutionary-minded sections of society. Refs 29. Table 1.