How could communist Romania from the 1950s to the 1980s have improved its economy and gdp? Perhaps becoming one of the largest economies in Eastern europe? (After USSR)
How could communist Romania have enlarged/increased its GDP?
- Thread starter Angel Grace
- Start date
Different leadership at the top. Ceausescu was a dumbass and a dick, even for communist stanards.
Not banning abortion and increasing access to contraception instead is a decent starting point for increasing the population base. Focus a bit more on consumption of goods and don't exceed the demand of things like petroleum. Also, although this was generally a problem with socialist states throughout the world; focus on developing domestic agriculture more than importing food. This happened most noticeably in the USSR after Khrushchev did his whole thing with corn, but it was still a pretty big part into why Romania had so much debt. After all, Sankara was right that "he who feeds you controls you."
I’m not sure how banning abortion and more contraception would grow the population. Romania did the opposite and was known for its population growth.
The options for answering the OP include things like not building huge vanity projects and focusing on development of the countryside to accommodate the growing population. In strategic terms Romania will have to continue to tow the line between the great powers, and maybe it can try to carve out a niche in its region. If the regime is healthy enough to withstand the fall of the Soviet Union it could try and lure investment to develop Romanian industries. With enough economic stability the country could be a destination for Russians and Ukrainians searching for improved economic prospects. Additionally, after the USSR falls, reunion with Moldova would be nearly guaranteed if Romania is rich enough.
Kitiem3000
Donor
Starving orphans who are neglected into a lifetime of severe mental problems don't grow GDP. Birth control makes for a smaller population, but one that is overall more productive and wealthy.
You’re right, but I think the way to achieve the highest GDP is to find a way to give those kids a halfway decent upbringing so they become productive. A countryside with good agricultural reforms could boost productivity and incomes, although the inevitable mechanization may reduce the need for farm labor.
Industries funded with money not spent on huge vanity projects, even if managed by members of the ruling family, will be better than empty buildings, and could absorb a lot of the excess population growth.
Allow (negotiated) workers participation in Gastarbeiter programs in western Europe, do some Socialist market economy like the Chinese,don't barrow/invest like crazy in the oil industry under the assumption that oil prices will remain like in the 1970's oil crisis and you will be able to import cheap middle eastern and Iranian oil.
Kitiem3000
Donor
In the period 1950s-1980s? You might as well say 'just have enormous oil deposits'. Technically correct, functionally impossible.
Well, Romania was already privileged in relations with the West among Eastern Bloc countries, having an association agreement with the EEC and importing technologies from West Germany, Britain and Canada. But there are a lot of factors that despite that, Romania is still among the poorest states in Europe, so here is my take:
- First off, prevent Ceaușescu from going full Juche and promoting national-communism and his personality cult. This the main reason he turned from a committed communist, but relative moderate on foreign policy, to a full-blown Kim Il-Sung ruler, building megalomaniac projects(like the People's House, the second-largest administrative building in the world after the Pentagon, despite the fact 63% of it is not used even today), filling state positions with family members and yes-men party officials and being shunned by the international community, apart from Third World dictators, like Mugabe, Gadaffi and Khomeini.
Let's say Ceaușescu models himself instead after Tito, a fellow committed communist, but otherwise support of a socialist market economy. As such, Ceaușescu allows Romanian state companies to compete against each other and be able to sell their profits or he otherwise he invests the profits in technological R&D, keeping them competitive even after 1989 and with large goodwill and established markets in the West.
- No or limited 1977 Earthquake, which forced large state funds be redirected to reconstruction and further encouraged Ceaușescu to rebuild Romanian cities in his image
- Ceaușescu uses profits from oil refining and sales for reinvestments, not on funding Third World Dictators and as such does not incur massive debts to build large oil refining plants, so the 1980s austerity crisis is averted. He instead focuses on smaller industrial enterprises, using Western technology, and consummer goods productions. Romanian workers frequently travel to the West to leaen new skills and techniques, like OTL Yugoslavs.
Only with these factors, Romania would be one of the if not the wealthiest country in the Eastern Bloc and would have a better economic start then Poland(although if we stick with Ceaușescu, Romania would lack the Solidarnosc-style pro-Western Communist elite and still be stuck with former Communists in high positions) and have the potential to be a regional power in South-Eastern Europe. If there is enough political will, a reunification with Moldova would help this.
- First off, prevent Ceaușescu from going full Juche and promoting national-communism and his personality cult. This the main reason he turned from a committed communist, but relative moderate on foreign policy, to a full-blown Kim Il-Sung ruler, building megalomaniac projects(like the People's House, the second-largest administrative building in the world after the Pentagon, despite the fact 63% of it is not used even today), filling state positions with family members and yes-men party officials and being shunned by the international community, apart from Third World dictators, like Mugabe, Gadaffi and Khomeini.
Let's say Ceaușescu models himself instead after Tito, a fellow committed communist, but otherwise support of a socialist market economy. As such, Ceaușescu allows Romanian state companies to compete against each other and be able to sell their profits or he otherwise he invests the profits in technological R&D, keeping them competitive even after 1989 and with large goodwill and established markets in the West.
- No or limited 1977 Earthquake, which forced large state funds be redirected to reconstruction and further encouraged Ceaușescu to rebuild Romanian cities in his image
- Ceaușescu uses profits from oil refining and sales for reinvestments, not on funding Third World Dictators and as such does not incur massive debts to build large oil refining plants, so the 1980s austerity crisis is averted. He instead focuses on smaller industrial enterprises, using Western technology, and consummer goods productions. Romanian workers frequently travel to the West to leaen new skills and techniques, like OTL Yugoslavs.
Only with these factors, Romania would be one of the if not the wealthiest country in the Eastern Bloc and would have a better economic start then Poland(although if we stick with Ceaușescu, Romania would lack the Solidarnosc-style pro-Western Communist elite and still be stuck with former Communists in high positions) and have the potential to be a regional power in South-Eastern Europe. If there is enough political will, a reunification with Moldova would help this.
What are some of the limits on how far change is allowed to progress before Moscow says 'Хватит значит хватит' (enough is enough)?
Is a variant of Lenin's New Economic Plan too far? What about a small scale of the Kosygin Plan? Could Romania be the first country to implement an Internet/OGAS state computer system?
Is a variant of Lenin's New Economic Plan too far? What about a small scale of the Kosygin Plan? Could Romania be the first country to implement an Internet/OGAS state computer system?