Hi guys!
I've been trying to do an elementary study of some of the socialist countries of the 20th century, but I'm having a tough time grasping how the Yugoslavian economy functioned. I've heard that it wasn't centrally planned like the Soviet Union and depended more on self-management by the workers, but I haven't gotten a clear view of what that really means. So I've got a few questions:
Were all companies formed as co-ops with the workers directly owning the business, or was the state involved in ownership? Or maybe both?
Was employment 'guaranteed' like it was in the Soviet Union?
To what degree was the profit motive at play for individual workers and for co-ops/businesses?
How did foreign businesses interact with this economic model? I've heard that Yugoslavia was one of the few socialist countries where western goods could be attained, but surely these western companies didn't follow the Yugoslav economic structure of self management?
In general, how much of a hand did the state have in the production of goods? How much interference could the average business expect? As a follow up/clarification, what was the general relationship between the state and a business?
Now that I think about it, I've also got some political questions:
How was dissent handled? I've heard that during the Stalinist times in the Soviet Union that dissent was...frowned upon rather dramatically. Was it the same in Yugoslavia at any point?
Was Tito's rule ever challenged? How popular was he with the people? I've heard him referred to as one of the most 'benevolent' dictators.
Follow up: Was there any semblance of free elections in Yugoslavia during this time period?
I've read this thread on some of these topics - it felt like a good starter, but I was hoping to clarify some more stuff.
Thanks a million guys!
Note: Sorry for any lack of clarity or typos - I wrote this with a heavy dose of jet lag and sleep debt.
All large companies were state owned, and for the larger part of Yugoslavia existance the private owned businesswas forbidden. Smaller businesses, such as small produce shops, farms and similar were almost always functioning as a part of larger construct.
Before 1974, Tito's rule was much harder and only after country was reorganized internally did the business practices change in any signifcant way allowing people more private owned shops and small busniess. The whole industrial sector was, however, in the hands of state, and there was no way of any international stake in the state-owned companies.
The workers were directly involved in the company/enterprise being organized in Radnički savjet (Worker's counsil) whose representatives informed the management of the workers opinions. Management propagated the idea further to the top. Or, at least that was what was supposed to happen. My elders say that the system worked in actuality, and workers got all of their reasonable demands fulfilled. That's anecdotal, so take it with a grain of salt, as I have not lived through any working age in that country).
After Tito's death, private owned business rules laxed, and busniess generally started booming in the '80s, and in some regions mean income was on a similar level to that of Central Europe towards the end of the '80s.
Pretty much. As you can see from the linked constitution and social changes document. This resulted in overemployment, where (anecdotally) some say that the ration of workforce to required workforce was 3:1. I'll try and find something appropriate to back this up. But it is a fact that overemployment existed.
Because the companies owned the appartments which they would "give" to their employees, which could directly influence people's standards, it is not only money and profit that drove people. As money alone did not neccesarily increase your living standard, the motivation was also in these "perks" that promoted and valued workers got (better appartments, company car, more paid vacation, etc).
Because the workspace was overemployed there was a lot of free time for workers to maintain their private affairs (having private farms for non-commercial use) or do some work "on the side". (e.g. A workers in company for painting steel also painted peoples appartments and houses on the side, without taxation of that income, or reporting it in any way). This was not something that was frowned upon, unless it directly used company's resources for that.
As I understand it, patriotism was one of larger factors in worker motivation. But overemployment generally helped as people did not have to work as hard as in highly optimized work environment.
Basically, untill the '80s all the interaction was done through domestic companies, which would be the only ones that were able to import strictly controlled quantities for strictly controlled shops. Although you could not buy things domestically, nothing stopped you from travelling and bringing stuff with you. Which resulted in a pretty big gray market (but not that big) with western products. Jeans, western music wer eobtainable and from '70s onward were not forbidden in that soviet sense.
A good overview of gross domestic product of yugoslavia in 1981.
State controlled everything. It was not completely uncommon that state takes profits of one company and uses it for payment of workers in other companies. After 1974. constitution where self management was emphasized, this mostly stopped and such problems were dealt with by producing cash money, which oftentimes had quite an impact in destabilization of economy and currency.
Even I remember state owned stores which still existed in the late '80s (althoug were on their way out) where you could by flour, sugar, all the basic necessities. But that was it. There was no two types of flour. Only one producer, the local one (still, because everything is state owned, that's of no isse that there is no competition).
With the rise of Ante Markovic Yugoslavia has seen a short period of huge economic growths, when business mostly had their hands free to deal and commerce with the world.
As I said before, Titos' rule in earlier days, from WW2 to the '70s was much harder, and opponents were removed swiftly, often even brutally. People had a saying "the dark swallowed you". But because the system started functioning, people gained more freedoms and general opposition was quite lowered from '70s onwards, the dissent was ever smaller. It's quite hard to give a definitive answer to this as it could be argued that the lack of dissent was due to efficacy of handling it, but simply from impressions of people living and working in the system, I highly doubt it was any more significant. But bear no doubt, the system did not tolerate any strong political opposition, and practically all the nationalistic leaders from Yugoslaw wars were at one time political prisoners of Tito's regime.
Yes. They usually ended on Goli otok. No one successfully challenged him, though.
It is also true that he was a benevolent dictator, as far as dictators go. People really (and I mean really) liked him. People had high hopes and expectations. Standards of food production, material production, work safety and other were quite high, and oftentimes simply copied from Swedish SIS or German DIN standards, which resulted in high quality products and work environment. Worker was celebrated and mostly cared for.
I am not sure, but I do not think so.
I will try to find more sources, it's quite hard to find translatable pages for most of this stuff. I have some books, but there were never any english translation, nor can I find any offcial link to most of them. As I have only access to the library I inherited from my grandfather, I am unfamiliar with any more modern books on the subjects at hand.
Edit: Formatting.
Unfortunately I don't have my books right here so I can't be comprehensive as I'd like but I'll take one or two questions.
Was Tito's rule ever challenged? How popular was he with the people? I've heard him referred to as one of the most 'benevolent' dictators.
Yugoslavia was socialist and promoted self-management but never stopped being in an internal political and economical conflict. Tito was very popular and only hardline nationalists questioned his rule, but a few various wings formed in Yugoslav politics, most notably concerning dissent, economic questions, devolution of power to the republics, commerce and foreign policy.
There was a wide public compromise but the liberal option prevailed most of the time since Yugoslavia reformed its economy more than once, republics got broad rights in the 1974 constitution and the country remained open to the east and west, balancing between the powers.
How was dissent handled? I've heard that during the Stalinist times in the Soviet Union that dissent was...frowned upon rather dramatically. Was it the same in Yugoslavia at any point?
Oh yes. The 1948 Tito-Stalin split was used for internal purges and a joke or inappropriate radio station would earn you a one way ticket to an island labor prison camp.
Later dissent was handled swiftly and calmly in case of nationalists, but liberals and artist had more freedom so pop culture flourished and things like the Praxis school and magazine were unprecedented in the East at that time. The 1971 student protests were suppressed by force but a lot of its ideas stayed and got recognized a few years later with the new constitution. Similar protests happened in Kosovo, where they were connected to the bad economic situation and low autonomy.
Source: