• Was the provision of full employment the main reason for social stability in the USSR
during the years 1953-1985?
Plan: the provision of full employment was not the main reason for social stability, It was the
provision of social welfare which markedly improved the life of soviet citizens
Points: for , against (policy, against (housing)
Between the years 1953-85, the provision of full employment was not the main reason for social
stability in the USSR. In order to de ne social policy as the main cause for a ‘stable’ society, it
would have to have made the most signi cant impact on improving the lives of soviet citizens.
Therefore, the argument that social provisions were the main reason for social stability is a stronger
one then for full employment, as full employment is not a guarantee of social stability as it does not
necessarily indicate an overall more content and thus stable population - for example, under Stalin
there was full employment but not stability due to poor living and working conditions.
Consequently, the provision of full employment was not the main reason for social stability in the
years 1953-85.
It could be argued that the provision of full employment was the main reason for social stability in
the USSR during the years 1953-85. This was as the provision, which continued from after the war,
led to the overall bene t of wage increases for the population, with wages for soviets rising an
estimated 50% between 1967-77. This meant that citizens had more savings , which they could
spend on the greater availability of consumer goods that were been produced under Khrushchev and
Brezhnev’s iconic plans, which moved the economy away from heavy industry. Furthermore, full
employment helped stability as the overall population gained economic bene ts, with relatively low
pay differentials between the worst and best paid - it was less than half of the gap between rich and
poor in the US. Full employment also contributed to social stability as it guaranteed job security, as
well as a minimum wage introduced in 1965 and the number of paid holidays being increased whilst
the working week was shortened in1957. This overall led to more satisfaction and a higher standard
of living, whilst the fact that the state was most peoples employer and the party’s nomenklatura
system was responsible for promotion led to loyalty from workers to the party, thus encouraging
cohesion and stability. This can be shown with the fact party membership increased from 6.9
million to 17 million in the years 1953–80. Therefore, it could be argued that the provision of full
employment was the main reason for social stability as it increased the money in peoples pocket,
gave more job bene ts and encouraged loyalty to the party. However, I disagree that it was the main
reason for stability. Tis was as, although the provision of full employment provided an element of
stability it was not as important as social provisions, as ultimately they provided the tangible change
in peoples lives, making the most signi cant impact and thus are the ‘main’ reason. For example,
there was full employment in Novocherkassk and Temirtau, yet the increase in food prices and poor
working/housing conditions respectively led to serious unrest and rebellions in which dozens died.
Therefore, it can be seen that the main reason for stability was not full employment, but social
provisions which had a visible effect on people’s lives.
Social provision as the main reason for social stability can be seen by the improvements to welfare
and housing made between 1953-85, which had a stabilising effect by overall improving living
standards and quality of life for citizens - therefore leading to contentment and stability. Between
1950 and 1980, state welfare spending increased vefold. In 1961, new social bene ts such as free
lunches, public transport as well as full pension and healthcare for farmers were introduced and
under Brezhnev, health and pension budgets increased by 4-5% a year, and subsidised holidays and
rent as well as practically free utilities were introduced. From 195—65, the pension budget
quadrupled and the increase in healthcare led to overall improved health of the population - the
death rate and infant mortality rate both dropped. Increased investment in agriculture meant that the
fi fi fi fifi fi fi fi
, countryside, which had usually been starved of investment, received funding to build schools,
housing and health services and by the mid 1970s, the wages of rural workers were only 10% less
then urban counterparts. By 1980, 85% of families had a TV and 70% had a phone, and the ‘social
contract’, in which the people traded limited democratic freedom for subsidies and an improving
standard of living, led to increase in stability as soviet citizens had improving lives and access to a
range of welfare provisions, meaning that social stability through contentment and increased living
standards were the main reason for social stability in the USSR 1953-85.
Furthermore, the provision of full employment was not the main reason for social stability in the
USSR from 1953-85, as social provision in the form of improved housing had a more signi cant
impact on improving the life of the soviet people, and therefore overall contentment and stability.
Pre-1953, although there was full employment, people were living in kommunalkas - tiny, cramped
apartments where one family would often have to share a single room, which could be as small as 4
metres square. Naturally, this undermined stability as the housing crisis after WWII became
profound. Khrushchev sought to solve this by investing in new materials and research into housing,
and creating a new, cheap method of building housing. The ‘khrushchyovka’ housing were low-cost
and allowed families to have an entire apartment rather then being forced to live in as single room
or dormitory. They were ten times bigger than previous housing and although arguably were
nished to a low standard , with complaints about citizens having to do the nishing such as
plastering, themselves, they nevertheless improved the living standard of citizens. This further
proves the point that the provision of full employment was not the main reason for social stability,
as social provisions and investment in provisions to improve living standards such as welfare and
housing, were the mai reason in improving overall standards of living and therefore social stability
as a whole.
fi
fi fi
during the years 1953-1985?
Plan: the provision of full employment was not the main reason for social stability, It was the
provision of social welfare which markedly improved the life of soviet citizens
Points: for , against (policy, against (housing)
Between the years 1953-85, the provision of full employment was not the main reason for social
stability in the USSR. In order to de ne social policy as the main cause for a ‘stable’ society, it
would have to have made the most signi cant impact on improving the lives of soviet citizens.
Therefore, the argument that social provisions were the main reason for social stability is a stronger
one then for full employment, as full employment is not a guarantee of social stability as it does not
necessarily indicate an overall more content and thus stable population - for example, under Stalin
there was full employment but not stability due to poor living and working conditions.
Consequently, the provision of full employment was not the main reason for social stability in the
years 1953-85.
It could be argued that the provision of full employment was the main reason for social stability in
the USSR during the years 1953-85. This was as the provision, which continued from after the war,
led to the overall bene t of wage increases for the population, with wages for soviets rising an
estimated 50% between 1967-77. This meant that citizens had more savings , which they could
spend on the greater availability of consumer goods that were been produced under Khrushchev and
Brezhnev’s iconic plans, which moved the economy away from heavy industry. Furthermore, full
employment helped stability as the overall population gained economic bene ts, with relatively low
pay differentials between the worst and best paid - it was less than half of the gap between rich and
poor in the US. Full employment also contributed to social stability as it guaranteed job security, as
well as a minimum wage introduced in 1965 and the number of paid holidays being increased whilst
the working week was shortened in1957. This overall led to more satisfaction and a higher standard
of living, whilst the fact that the state was most peoples employer and the party’s nomenklatura
system was responsible for promotion led to loyalty from workers to the party, thus encouraging
cohesion and stability. This can be shown with the fact party membership increased from 6.9
million to 17 million in the years 1953–80. Therefore, it could be argued that the provision of full
employment was the main reason for social stability as it increased the money in peoples pocket,
gave more job bene ts and encouraged loyalty to the party. However, I disagree that it was the main
reason for stability. Tis was as, although the provision of full employment provided an element of
stability it was not as important as social provisions, as ultimately they provided the tangible change
in peoples lives, making the most signi cant impact and thus are the ‘main’ reason. For example,
there was full employment in Novocherkassk and Temirtau, yet the increase in food prices and poor
working/housing conditions respectively led to serious unrest and rebellions in which dozens died.
Therefore, it can be seen that the main reason for stability was not full employment, but social
provisions which had a visible effect on people’s lives.
Social provision as the main reason for social stability can be seen by the improvements to welfare
and housing made between 1953-85, which had a stabilising effect by overall improving living
standards and quality of life for citizens - therefore leading to contentment and stability. Between
1950 and 1980, state welfare spending increased vefold. In 1961, new social bene ts such as free
lunches, public transport as well as full pension and healthcare for farmers were introduced and
under Brezhnev, health and pension budgets increased by 4-5% a year, and subsidised holidays and
rent as well as practically free utilities were introduced. From 195—65, the pension budget
quadrupled and the increase in healthcare led to overall improved health of the population - the
death rate and infant mortality rate both dropped. Increased investment in agriculture meant that the
fi fi fi fifi fi fi fi
, countryside, which had usually been starved of investment, received funding to build schools,
housing and health services and by the mid 1970s, the wages of rural workers were only 10% less
then urban counterparts. By 1980, 85% of families had a TV and 70% had a phone, and the ‘social
contract’, in which the people traded limited democratic freedom for subsidies and an improving
standard of living, led to increase in stability as soviet citizens had improving lives and access to a
range of welfare provisions, meaning that social stability through contentment and increased living
standards were the main reason for social stability in the USSR 1953-85.
Furthermore, the provision of full employment was not the main reason for social stability in the
USSR from 1953-85, as social provision in the form of improved housing had a more signi cant
impact on improving the life of the soviet people, and therefore overall contentment and stability.
Pre-1953, although there was full employment, people were living in kommunalkas - tiny, cramped
apartments where one family would often have to share a single room, which could be as small as 4
metres square. Naturally, this undermined stability as the housing crisis after WWII became
profound. Khrushchev sought to solve this by investing in new materials and research into housing,
and creating a new, cheap method of building housing. The ‘khrushchyovka’ housing were low-cost
and allowed families to have an entire apartment rather then being forced to live in as single room
or dormitory. They were ten times bigger than previous housing and although arguably were
nished to a low standard , with complaints about citizens having to do the nishing such as
plastering, themselves, they nevertheless improved the living standard of citizens. This further
proves the point that the provision of full employment was not the main reason for social stability,
as social provisions and investment in provisions to improve living standards such as welfare and
housing, were the mai reason in improving overall standards of living and therefore social stability
as a whole.
fi
fi fi
