The Soviet Concept of the Territorial-Production Complex

Abstract

In a society with virtually all phases of the economy subject to planning an interest in regional economic planning almost inevitably arises. Such an interest has been evident in the USSR since the early 1920s, although not always to the same degree. Out of this interest evolved the notion of the economic complex, broadly conceived as a regional grouping of integrated economic activities. Inasmuch as these complexes were frequently thought of as geographic entities, the expression “territorial-production complex” (territorial'no-proizvodstvennyi kompleks), as well as some essentially synonymous terms, came into use. Interpretations vary somewhat, but, to judge from the frequency of reference to the concept in the professional journals of the geographers, economists, and planners, the idea seems to be a basic one among those concerned with regional planning.

Discussing the Concepts of Cluster and Industrial District

“…Industrial districts (Becattini 1990), new industrial spaces (Scott 1988), territorial production complexes (Lonsdale 1965), neo-Marshallian nodes (Amin and Thrift 1992), regional innovation milieu (Aydalot 1986), network regions (Martin and Sunley 2003: 8), and learning regions (Florida 1995) are some of the terms that have been suggested (Martin andSunley 2003 suggested these examples: Scott 1988;Amin and Thrift 1992;Harrison 1992;Harrison et al, 1996;Scott 1998;Markusen 1996;Asheim 2000). However, the most popular of them are industrial district (Becattini 1990) and cluster (Porter 1990), notions that are the focus of this paper.…”

Competing institutional logics in Soviet industrial location policy

“…GOELRO was strongly associated with regional logic and was considered a means of increasing economic and political interrelatedness and connections between regions while retaining administrative control in the hands of central leadership. Consequent mutual dependence and regional specialization was supposed to benefit industrial growth, integrate interregional planning and boost equality between regions (Saushkin 1962, 29-30;Lonsdale 1965).…”

“…At the turn of the 1930s, regionally equality in location policy was also seen as a way to increase the self-sufficiency and interconnectedness of regions (Lonsdale 1965;Mellor 1982;Shaw 1991). The concept of self-sufficiency also drew support from local needs.…”

“…Combinations of the military and economic logics existed within the military-industrial complex, where production efficiency was beneficial from an economic and military perspective (Barber et al 1999). The promotion of regional self-sufficiency and interconnections, especially in locating industries to eastern regions satisfied the needs of both regional and military logics (Lonsdale 1965;Mellor 1982;Shaw 1991). In turn, a synthesis of economic and regional logics led to the formation and regionally balanced distribution of territorial-production complexes (TPC) (Kolosovskiy 1969;Lavrishchev 1969) First, the most important implication is that the competition of institutional logics and the shifting status of dominance created strategic discontinuities and disruptions to economic geographical planning.…”

A continuity of ideas? salme nõmmik, edgar kant and the development of economic geography in soviet estonia

“…Yet, whereas Hartshorne met no obstacles in introducing Hettner's conceptions in American society, the circumstances were very different in the Soviet Union. Several overviews, memoirs and investigations in Russian and English have been published about the development of economic geography 1 in the Soviet Union (Kolosovskiy 1951;Nõmmik 1962;Saushkin 1962Saushkin , 1973Lonsdale 1965;Hooson 1959Hooson , 1968Baranskiy 2001). In 1930, the free discussion about the ways of developing Soviet economic geography was abruptly ended by the so-called Leningrad academic verdict, as a result of which hundreds of scientific researchers were shot or deported to Siberia.…”