新亚美尼亚国家面临的经济挑战

Q2 Social Sciences Demokratizatsiya Pub Date : 2006-03-01 DOI:10.3200/DEMO.14.2.193-222
Armand Sarian
{"title":"新亚美尼亚国家面临的经济挑战","authors":"Armand Sarian","doi":"10.3200/DEMO.14.2.193-222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The process of the political and economic transition of Armenia toward independence has similarities with the other republics of the former Soviet Union. Contextual specificities, on the other hand, are less known, because they are largely determined by an individual republic's transition toward civil society and a market-based economy.In the case of Armenia, this contextual specifity is Nagorno-Karabakh, which was, as of March 1988, at the center of a political movement initiated by a group of intellectuals meeting within the Karabakh Committee. In the context of perestroika and glasnost, these intellectuals supported the efforts of their Karabakh compatriots to correct the injustice committed by Stalin in 1922 that consigned the Armenian area of Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan.This ended on September 21, 1991, with the proclamation of Armenia's independence based on a general referendum. The new leaders were not members of the old nomenklatura, and they quickly appeared to be proponents of democracy and a market-based economy. Independence, and the hope it inspired, made people optimistic that a new class of leaders would arise from the groups of intellectuals and former dissidents. The euphoria that gripped Armenia was reminiscent of what was happening in Central Europe, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Lithuania.Harsh economic realities that threatened the sovereignty of the young republic quickly constrained political independence. The country had to contend with the problem of how to make itself economically viable. The still-significant consequences of the earthquake in December 1988 and the economic blockade by Azerbaijan and Turkey exacerbated economic difficulties. This new political reality, which also applied to the other republics in the region, shed a new light on the geopolitical, economic, and strategic realities. It was under these conditions that Armenia began its difficult transition to a market-based economy.Armenia's MetamorphosisDuring the Soviet period, Armenia acquired the enviable reputation of being a successful, industrial republic with a diversified economy that specialized in technological research, especially research related to the military-industrial complex. In the 1980s, the number of graduates from higher learning institutions was one of the highest in the Soviet Union. Despite being deprived of natural resources, save for important copper, bauxite, molybdenum, and some gold deposits, the country succeeded in becoming a manufacturing and technological center. The manufacturing material arrived from outside Armenia and the products were then shipped to central planning bodies in charge of distribution. Given the significant contribution of industry to the net material product,! and an economy highly integrated into the Soviet system of production distribution, economic interdependence became excessive. This helps explain the domino effect that took place after the collapse of the Soviet Union.Industrial development in Armenia dates back to the second half of the nineteenth century, with the construction of three Transcaucasian railways: BakuTbilisi (1883), Tbilisi-Aleksandrapol (Leninakan during the Soviet period, currently named Gyumri, 1902), and Aleksandrapol-Yerevan (1902). The tsar was interested in exploiting three principal resources in the region: oil in Baku, manganese in Tchiatourinski (Georgia), and copper in Zangezur (Armenia). Because of the Russian Empire's financial situation, foreign capital was needed to exploit these resources. The French took over the copper mines. French and Russian companies controlled the production of wine and cognac.The first phase of Armenia's development took place from 1920 to 1940, with the nationalization of companies and resources under the Soviet regime, \"the electrification of the Russias,\" and the development of infrastructures, primarily transportation and, finally, heavy industry. After World War II, from 1946 to 1960, the machine-tool industry was introduced; it developed three times faster than the other industrial branches. …","PeriodicalId":39667,"journal":{"name":"Demokratizatsiya","volume":"42 1","pages":"193-222"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Economic Challenges Faced by the New Armenian State\",\"authors\":\"Armand Sarian\",\"doi\":\"10.3200/DEMO.14.2.193-222\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The process of the political and economic transition of Armenia toward independence has similarities with the other republics of the former Soviet Union. Contextual specificities, on the other hand, are less known, because they are largely determined by an individual republic's transition toward civil society and a market-based economy.In the case of Armenia, this contextual specifity is Nagorno-Karabakh, which was, as of March 1988, at the center of a political movement initiated by a group of intellectuals meeting within the Karabakh Committee. In the context of perestroika and glasnost, these intellectuals supported the efforts of their Karabakh compatriots to correct the injustice committed by Stalin in 1922 that consigned the Armenian area of Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan.This ended on September 21, 1991, with the proclamation of Armenia's independence based on a general referendum. The new leaders were not members of the old nomenklatura, and they quickly appeared to be proponents of democracy and a market-based economy. Independence, and the hope it inspired, made people optimistic that a new class of leaders would arise from the groups of intellectuals and former dissidents. The euphoria that gripped Armenia was reminiscent of what was happening in Central Europe, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Lithuania.Harsh economic realities that threatened the sovereignty of the young republic quickly constrained political independence. The country had to contend with the problem of how to make itself economically viable. The still-significant consequences of the earthquake in December 1988 and the economic blockade by Azerbaijan and Turkey exacerbated economic difficulties. This new political reality, which also applied to the other republics in the region, shed a new light on the geopolitical, economic, and strategic realities. It was under these conditions that Armenia began its difficult transition to a market-based economy.Armenia's MetamorphosisDuring the Soviet period, Armenia acquired the enviable reputation of being a successful, industrial republic with a diversified economy that specialized in technological research, especially research related to the military-industrial complex. In the 1980s, the number of graduates from higher learning institutions was one of the highest in the Soviet Union. Despite being deprived of natural resources, save for important copper, bauxite, molybdenum, and some gold deposits, the country succeeded in becoming a manufacturing and technological center. The manufacturing material arrived from outside Armenia and the products were then shipped to central planning bodies in charge of distribution. Given the significant contribution of industry to the net material product,! and an economy highly integrated into the Soviet system of production distribution, economic interdependence became excessive. This helps explain the domino effect that took place after the collapse of the Soviet Union.Industrial development in Armenia dates back to the second half of the nineteenth century, with the construction of three Transcaucasian railways: BakuTbilisi (1883), Tbilisi-Aleksandrapol (Leninakan during the Soviet period, currently named Gyumri, 1902), and Aleksandrapol-Yerevan (1902). The tsar was interested in exploiting three principal resources in the region: oil in Baku, manganese in Tchiatourinski (Georgia), and copper in Zangezur (Armenia). Because of the Russian Empire's financial situation, foreign capital was needed to exploit these resources. The French took over the copper mines. French and Russian companies controlled the production of wine and cognac.The first phase of Armenia's development took place from 1920 to 1940, with the nationalization of companies and resources under the Soviet regime, \\\"the electrification of the Russias,\\\" and the development of infrastructures, primarily transportation and, finally, heavy industry. After World War II, from 1946 to 1960, the machine-tool industry was introduced; it developed three times faster than the other industrial branches. …\",\"PeriodicalId\":39667,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Demokratizatsiya\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"193-222\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Demokratizatsiya\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3200/DEMO.14.2.193-222\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Demokratizatsiya","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3200/DEMO.14.2.193-222","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

亚美尼亚走向独立的政治和经济过渡过程与前苏联其他加盟共和国有相似之处。另一方面,环境特殊性则鲜为人知,因为它们在很大程度上取决于单个共和国向公民社会和市场经济的过渡。就亚美尼亚而言,这种具体情况是纳戈尔诺-卡拉巴赫,到1988年3月为止,它是卡拉巴赫委员会内一群知识分子发起的政治运动的中心。在改革和开放的背景下,这些知识分子支持卡拉巴赫同胞的努力,以纠正斯大林在1922年犯下的不公正行为,将亚美尼亚的纳戈尔诺-卡拉巴赫地区移交给阿塞拜疆。1991年9月21日,在全民公决的基础上,亚美尼亚宣布独立。新领导人不是旧权贵阶层的成员,他们很快就成为民主和市场经济的支持者。独立及其所激发的希望,使人们乐观地认为,一个新的领导阶层将从知识分子和以前的持不同政见者群体中产生。笼罩亚美尼亚的狂喜让人想起中欧、波兰、捷克斯洛伐克和立陶宛发生的事情。严峻的经济现实威胁着这个年轻共和国的主权,很快限制了它的政治独立。这个国家必须解决如何使自己在经济上可行的问题。1988年12月地震造成的仍然严重的后果以及阿塞拜疆和土耳其的经济封锁加剧了经济困难。这种新的政治现实也适用于该地区的其他共和国,使人们对地缘政治、经济和战略现实有了新的认识。正是在这些条件下,亚美尼亚开始了向市场经济的艰难过渡。在苏联时期,亚美尼亚获得了令人羡慕的声誉,成为一个成功的工业共和国,拥有多元化的经济,专门从事技术研究,特别是与军工联合体有关的研究。在20世纪80年代,从高等院校毕业的人数是苏联最高的之一。尽管被剥夺了自然资源,除了重要的铜、铝土矿、钼和一些金矿外,该国成功地成为一个制造业和技术中心。制造材料从亚美尼亚境外运抵,产品随后运往负责分销的中央计划机构。鉴于工业对净物质产品的重大贡献,!经济高度融入苏联的生产分配体系,经济相互依赖变得过度。这有助于解释苏联解体后出现的多米诺骨牌效应。亚美尼亚的工业发展可以追溯到19世纪下半叶,修建了三条外高加索铁路:巴库比利斯(1883年)、第比利斯-亚历山德拉波尔(苏联时期的列宁纳坎,1902年命名为Gyumri)和亚历山德拉波尔-埃里温(1902年)。沙皇有意开发该地区的三种主要资源:巴库的石油、格鲁吉亚的齐亚图尔斯基的锰和亚美尼亚的赞格祖尔的铜。由于俄罗斯帝国的财政状况,需要外国资本来开发这些资源。法国人接管了铜矿。法国和俄罗斯的公司控制了葡萄酒和干邑的生产。亚美尼亚发展的第一阶段发生在1920年至1940年,苏维埃政权将公司和资源国有化,“俄罗斯人的电气化”,基础设施的发展,主要是交通,最后是重工业。第二次世界大战后,从1946年到1960年,引进了机床工业;它的发展速度是其他工业部门的三倍。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Economic Challenges Faced by the New Armenian State
The process of the political and economic transition of Armenia toward independence has similarities with the other republics of the former Soviet Union. Contextual specificities, on the other hand, are less known, because they are largely determined by an individual republic's transition toward civil society and a market-based economy.In the case of Armenia, this contextual specifity is Nagorno-Karabakh, which was, as of March 1988, at the center of a political movement initiated by a group of intellectuals meeting within the Karabakh Committee. In the context of perestroika and glasnost, these intellectuals supported the efforts of their Karabakh compatriots to correct the injustice committed by Stalin in 1922 that consigned the Armenian area of Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan.This ended on September 21, 1991, with the proclamation of Armenia's independence based on a general referendum. The new leaders were not members of the old nomenklatura, and they quickly appeared to be proponents of democracy and a market-based economy. Independence, and the hope it inspired, made people optimistic that a new class of leaders would arise from the groups of intellectuals and former dissidents. The euphoria that gripped Armenia was reminiscent of what was happening in Central Europe, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Lithuania.Harsh economic realities that threatened the sovereignty of the young republic quickly constrained political independence. The country had to contend with the problem of how to make itself economically viable. The still-significant consequences of the earthquake in December 1988 and the economic blockade by Azerbaijan and Turkey exacerbated economic difficulties. This new political reality, which also applied to the other republics in the region, shed a new light on the geopolitical, economic, and strategic realities. It was under these conditions that Armenia began its difficult transition to a market-based economy.Armenia's MetamorphosisDuring the Soviet period, Armenia acquired the enviable reputation of being a successful, industrial republic with a diversified economy that specialized in technological research, especially research related to the military-industrial complex. In the 1980s, the number of graduates from higher learning institutions was one of the highest in the Soviet Union. Despite being deprived of natural resources, save for important copper, bauxite, molybdenum, and some gold deposits, the country succeeded in becoming a manufacturing and technological center. The manufacturing material arrived from outside Armenia and the products were then shipped to central planning bodies in charge of distribution. Given the significant contribution of industry to the net material product,! and an economy highly integrated into the Soviet system of production distribution, economic interdependence became excessive. This helps explain the domino effect that took place after the collapse of the Soviet Union.Industrial development in Armenia dates back to the second half of the nineteenth century, with the construction of three Transcaucasian railways: BakuTbilisi (1883), Tbilisi-Aleksandrapol (Leninakan during the Soviet period, currently named Gyumri, 1902), and Aleksandrapol-Yerevan (1902). The tsar was interested in exploiting three principal resources in the region: oil in Baku, manganese in Tchiatourinski (Georgia), and copper in Zangezur (Armenia). Because of the Russian Empire's financial situation, foreign capital was needed to exploit these resources. The French took over the copper mines. French and Russian companies controlled the production of wine and cognac.The first phase of Armenia's development took place from 1920 to 1940, with the nationalization of companies and resources under the Soviet regime, "the electrification of the Russias," and the development of infrastructures, primarily transportation and, finally, heavy industry. After World War II, from 1946 to 1960, the machine-tool industry was introduced; it developed three times faster than the other industrial branches. …
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Demokratizatsiya
Demokratizatsiya Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Occupying a unique niche among literary journals, ANQ is filled with short, incisive research-based articles about the literature of the English-speaking world and the language of literature. Contributors unravel obscure allusions, explain sources and analogues, and supply variant manuscript readings. Also included are Old English word studies, textual emendations, and rare correspondence from neglected archives. The journal is an essential source for professors and students, as well as archivists, bibliographers, biographers, editors, lexicographers, and textual scholars. With subjects from Chaucer and Milton to Fitzgerald and Welty, ANQ delves into the heart of literature.
期刊最新文献
Authoritarian Modernization in Russia The Rise and Decline of Electoral Authoritarianism in Russia Struggling for Citizenship: Civic participation and the State in Russia Meddling with Justice: Competitive Politics, Impunity, and Distrusted Courts in Post-Orange Ukraine The Molotov-Ribbentrop Commission and Claims of Post-Soviet Secessionist Territories to Sovereignty
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1