¹ The monthly Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya (MEMO) reflects the broader scope of its publisher, the Institute of World Economy. Unlike Narody Azii i Afriki it deals exclusively with contemporary problems, and it covers the whole world.

² Professor G. V. Efimov of Leningrad University, under whose guidance the revised syllabus was prepared, advocated in the public discussion that teachers occupy themselves more with facts and scientific objectivity than with sweeping generalizations, as only a thorough knowledge of events would lead to an understanding of “key problems” (Narody Azii i Afriki, No. 1 [January 1966], 83)Google Scholar.

³ Goldobin, “Nekotorye voprosy nekapitalisticheskogo puti razvitiya Alzhira i OAR” [Some problems of the noncapitalist path of development of Algeria and the UAR], ibid., No. 5 (October 1966), 49–51; Landa, “Rabochee i krestianskoe samoupravlenie v Alzhire” [Workers' and peasants' self-management in Algeria], ibid., No. 5 (October 1965), 11–12.

⁴ “O kharaktere natsional'no osvoboditel'noi revoliutsii” [Concerning the nature of the national liberation revolution], ibid., No. 6 (December 1966), 3–20.

⁵ Mizan, IX (March-April 1967), 41–42, 48–49.

⁶ Burzhuaznye teorii i problemy ekonomicheskogo razvitiya slaborazvitykh stran [Bourgeois theories and problems of the economic development of the underdeveloped countries] (Moscow 1961), 68–70Google Scholar.

⁷ Ekpnomika stran Afriki [The economy of the African countries] (Moscow 1963)Google Scholar.

⁸ In Gavrilov, N. I., ed., Nezavisimye strany Afriki: efyonomicheskie i sotsial'nye problemy [Independent countries of Africa: economic and social problems] (Moscow 1965), 54–89Google Scholar.

⁹ MEMO, No. 4 (April 1967), 106–27, and No. 5 (May 1967), 93–108. M. Ivanov's “Tendentsii razvitiya ekonomiki Irana” [Tendencies in Iran's economic development], ibid., No. 12 (December 1967), 105–13, is an example of work implicitly acknowledging that there are also nonsocialist methods of development. The article holds that Iran is carrying out serious reforms aimed at changing the economic structure of the country and at overcoming backwardness.

¹⁰ Regionalism is currently much in favor. The African Institute has organized a research group on this question and has published a book on the subject: Korotkova, E. N., Ekonomicheskoe sotrudnichestvo nezavisimykh stran Afriki [Economic cooperation among independent African countries] (Moscow 1966)Google Scholar. In late 1966, the Institute of Geography sponsored a large conference on economic regionalism in the third world, with some thirty institutions participating. See Narody Azii i Afriki, No. 4 (August 1967), 226–28Google Scholar.

¹¹ MEMO, No. 3 (March 1959), 150–52.

¹² M. Maksimov, A. Maslennikov, V. Rastiannikov, “Agrarnyi vopros na Vostoke” [The agrarian problem in the East], ibid., No. 5 (May 1959), 28–41.

¹³ Narody Azii i Afriki, No. 5 (October 1964), 209–22Google Scholar. Since then books have appeared giving dispassionate and detailed descriptions of land reform in various countries without reference to the ideal, Marxist solution. Thus, Demin's, A. I.Sel'sfoe khoziaistvo sovremennogo Irana [Agriculture in contemporary Iran] (Moscow 1967)Google Scholar treats the 1962 reform as a progressive, beneficial measure without going into the question of the “proper” solution.

¹⁴ Slaborazvitye strany v mirovom kapitalisticheskom khoziaistve [Underdeveloped countries in the world capitalist economy] (Moscow 1961), 142–62Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Potekhin, I. I., ed., Agrarnyi vopros i krestianstvo v tropicheskoi Afrike [The agrarian problem and the peasantry in tropical Africa] (Moscow 1964), 266–94Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Ekonomicheskie problemy Gvineiskoi Respubliki [Economic problems of the Guinean Republic] (Moscow 1965), 53–93Google Scholar. Writing in a collective volume—Nekapitalisticheskii put' razvitiya stran Afriki [The noncapitalist path of development in African countries] (Moscow 1967), 324Google Scholar—Yu. G. Spichak stated that the radical African states understood that land reform by itself, no matter how sweeping, could not solve all the agrarian problems, notably the establishment of highly productive farms supplying food and raw materials for the domestic market and for export Like many others he favored reform initially through the gradual and voluntary introduction of marketing cooperatives and government assistance with credit, technical information, and so on.

¹⁷ Narody Azii i Afriki, No. 1 (January 1967), 28–42, 219–23. It is instructive to compare Rastiannikov's 1966 views with those expressed at the 1964 conference on socialism, capitalism, and the developing countries. He was then also interested in releasing the productive forces in agriculture and also favored the small producer. But he justified these opinions in political and not in economic terms: “… In most Asian countries today the development of bourgeois relations among small commodity producers does not broaden the base of the ruling strata of the national bourgeoisie … but narrows it. From the class struggle point of view it means wider opportunity for a broad front of democratic forces capable of isolating and weakening ‘top-level’ capitalists … and creating the opportunity for noncapitalist development” (MEMO, No. 6 [June 1964], 77). An abridged translation of materials on this earlier conference was published as a special issue of the Mizan Newsletter, VI (November 1964).

¹⁸ MEMO, No. 4 (April 1967), 116–17.

¹⁹ Problemy planirovaniya v razvivayushchikhsia stranakh [Problems of planning in the developing countries] (Moscow 1965)Google Scholar.

²⁰ Arabadzhian, A. Z. and Medovoi, A. I., eds., Plany-programmy ekonomicheskogo razvitiya stran Azii [Plans-programs of economic development in Asian countries] (Moscow 1966)Google Scholar.

²¹ MEMO, No. 5 (May 1967), 99. Sobolev pointed out that the NEP period served to restore the Soviet economy. In general, the significance of the early Soviet experience with a mixed economy is being now appreciated as possibly having more relevance for other countries than the subsequent period. The CPSU theses for the fiftieth anniversary of the October Revolution described NEP as an advance on the road to communism with special potentialities for other countries (Pravda, June 25, 1967).

²² “Effektivnost' gosudarstvennogo sektora v osvobodivshikhsia stranakh” [The effectiveness of the state sector in the liberated countries], Planovoe khoziaistvo, No. 9 (September 1966), 86–92Google Scholar.

²³ MEMO, No. 4 (April 1967), 113–15.

²⁴ “Pomoshch'” osvobodivshimsia stranam v politike i strategii imperializma [“Aid” to the liberated countries in the policy and strategy of imperialism] (Moscow 1964)Google Scholar.

²⁵ Budushchee indoneziiskoi nefty [The future of Indonesian oil] (Moscow 1964)Google Scholar.

²⁶ Tiagunenko, V. L., Problemy sovremennykh natsional'noosvoboditel'nykh revoliutsii [Problems of contemporary national liberation revolutions] (Moscow 1966), 67Google Scholar.

²⁷ In Gavrilov, ed., 157.

²⁸ This was done in the opening report by G. P. Kolykhalova at the conference on the role of private investment in former colonies, sponsored by the Institute of the Peoples of Asia. But the moderator insisted in the traditional manner that the West exported capital in order to fight the national liberation movement, not to foster economic development (Narody Azii i Afriki, No. I [January 1964], 223–26). But indirect acknowledgements are frequent enough. For example, it is admitted that, at this stage, developing countries consider the complete elimination of foreign capital harmful to their economic development (Nekapitalisticheskii put razvitiya stran Afriki, 299).

²⁹ “The countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America … have to satisfy a considerable part of their needs through the imperialist countries. Thanks to the support of the socialist countries, they now have the opportunity to act as independent and equal partners in their relations with the imperialist states…. The economically backward countries can now set the conditions and utilize the means thus received to speed up their development” (”Aktual'nye voprosy nekapitalisticheskogo puti razvitiya” [Current problems of noncapitalist development], MEMO, No. 11 [November 1964], 17).

³⁰ Narody Azii i Afriki, No. 5 (October 1966), 229Google Scholar.

³¹ Raspad kolonial'noi sistemy i mirovoe kapitalistichekoe khoziaistvo [The collapse of the colonial system and the world capitalist economy] (Moscow 1966), 447–56Google Scholar.

³² Prokhorov, G. M., ed., Problemy sotrudnichestva sotsialtsticheskikh i razvivayushchikhsia stran [Problems of cooperation between the socialist and the developing countries] (Moscow 1966)Google Scholar.

³³ See especially Zevin, L., “Vzaimnaya vygoda sotrudnichestva sotsialisticheskikh i razvivayushchikhsia stran” [Common benefits in the cooperation between the socialist and the developing countries], Voprosy ekonomiki, No. 2 (February 1965), 72–80Google Scholar.

³⁴ Even though the advantages of the international division of labor were under consideration in the Soviet Union prior to the 1964 U N Conference on Trade and Development, the Soviet position in Geneva did not show it. Foreign Trade Minister Nikolai Patolichev did mention in passing his country's readiness to cooperate and specialize in certain lines of production through the conclusion of long-term agreements and contracts. But his proposal was not mentioned in the Soviet memorandum submitted to the conference, nor was it further elaborated by the Soviet delegation. This vagueness contrasted sharply with the keen interest in and specific proposals for the international division of labor on the part of the Rumanians, Czechs, and Poles.

³⁵ A change of official attitude on this question was heralded at the April 1963 U N Economic and Social Council meeting when the Soviet delegation agreed that high birth rates were an urgent issue for the developing countries and announced that the USSR would be willing to provide technical assistance in the demographic field.

³⁶ See the articles by B. Urlanis and Y. Guzevatyi, Literaturnaya gazeta, November 23 and 30, 1965.

³⁷ Urlanis, B., “Population Growth in the Developing Countries and Its Influence the Economy of the Third World,” International Affairs (Moscow), No. 5 (May 1967), 68–70Google Scholar. Naturally, the issue had been discussed prior to this at specialized meetings dealing exclusively with demographic problems, such as the first all-Union symposium on population held in November 1966. See Voprosy ekonomiki, No. 1 (January 1967), 159–60Google Scholar.

³⁸ Kvasha, A. Ya., “Nekotorye problemy narodonaseleniya stran Azii i Afriki” [Some population problems in countries of Asia and Africa], Narody Azii i Afriki, No. 6 (December 1965), 48–56Google Scholar; Valentei, D., “Vykhod iz prochnogo kruga” [Escape from the vicious circle], Aziya i Africa segodnia, No. 8 (August 1965), 2–4Google Scholar.

³⁹ “Population Problems in Developing Countries”, International Affairs, No. 9 (September 1966), 52–58Google Scholar. A later article of his, “Population and World Politics,” ibid., No. 10 (October 1967), 59–64, discusses with a note of real urgency the threat of population explosion in the third world to domestic and international stability.

⁴⁰ With Avakov, R., “O klassovoi strukture v slaborazvitykh stranakh” [On class structure in the underdeveloped countries], MEMO, No. 4 (April 1962), 68–82Google Scholar.

⁴¹ “Polozhenie rabochego klassa v Azii i Afrike” [The condition of the working class in Asia and Africa], Narody Azii i Afriki, No. 1 (January 1962), 30–48Google Scholar.

⁴² “Rabochii klass osvobodivshikhsia stran” [The working class of the liberated countries], MEMO, No. 12 (December 1965), 75–87Google Scholar, and No. 1 (January 1966), 27–39.

⁴³ See, for example, Yastrebova, I. P., ed., Rabochii klass Afriki [The African working class] (Moscow 1966)Google Scholar. Although it provided much factual information to the contrary, it examined the working classes in Africa in terms of their approximation to Marx's prognostications.

⁴⁴ “Gorodskaya mel'kaya burzhuaziya v razvivayushchikhsia stranakh” [The urban petty bourgeoisie in the developing countries], MEMO, No. 11 (November 1966), 60–71Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ “Tropicheskaya Afrika: o prirode mezhetnicheskikh otnoshenii” [Tropical Africa: on the nature of ethnic relations], ibid., No. 1 (January 1967), 47–51, and No. 2 (February 1967), 41–51.

⁴⁶ Raspad kolonial'noi sistemy, 75–85.

⁴⁷ International Affairs, No. 5 (May 1967), 68Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Pokataeva, With T., “Klassy i klassovaya bor'ba v razvivayushchikhsia stranakh” [Classes and class struggle in the developing countries], MEMO, No. 2 (February 1966), 40Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ “Tropicheskaya Afrika”; and “Sotsial'nye sdvigi v gorodakh tropicheskoi Afriki” [Social mobility in the cities of tropical Africa], MEMO, No. 10 (October 1967), 81Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ “Marksistskaya politicheskaya ckonomiya i razvivayushchiesia strany” [Marxist political economy and the developing countries], ibid., No. 2 (February 1965), 84–90. Among Polish scholars the view that the developing countries represent a new and different set of problems, separate from both capitalism and socialism, is generally accepted. It is interesting to note that the specialized Soviet journals only recently began referring to Polish researches. Some Polish works are being translated. One of them, Kleer's, JerzyAnaliza strukfur spoleczno-ekpnomicznych trzeciego świata [Analysis of die socioeconomic structure of the third world] (Warsaw 1966)Google Scholar—a highly original discussion of new social groups that are without precedent in history—was criticized in a review for not having differentiated between “radical leaders” (in countries like the UAR and Burma) and conservative rulers (as in the Ivory Coast and Thailand) in its analysis of ruling groups (MEMO, No. 1 [January 1967], 146–50Google Scholar).

⁵¹ “Razvivayushchiesia strany i mirovoe khoziaistvo” [Developing countries and the world economy], ibid., No. 6 (June 1967), 70.