Korelsky, V. F. Fish, fishermen and fish industry in Russia / V. F. Korelsky. - Bremen : Krebs, [1993?]-.

“fist” of the administrator general raised sincerely (and lowered) “in the interests” of the whole personnel plays the role of a peculiar “economic instrument.” Possessing all the information necessary, he can better determine the “zone” of the short-lived transient effect. This means that it is “objectively” needed. This system is attractive since it is customary, its distributive activity is simple, and it is hard to part with it. It should be noted that when the general scheme of administration of the fish industry was introduced, Minrybkhoz, which was then organizing production associations, reorganized 52 independent enterprises into structural units in the guise of or for the concentration of the production. This was nothing but the preparation, with one’s own hands, of an explosive situation in the system. The matter is that there is a limit to the amalgamation of enterprises into larger production units when a number of very significant foreign relations are turned into intrabranch ones. The situation becomes dangerous when an enterprise passes to a complete cost accounting whereas the system of economic ties between the enterprises is not changed. Being ignorant of the principal difference between the two indicated methods of management, the administration does not hurry to create a new economic environment explaining all the difficulties that “suddenly” arise by the inexpediency of the independence of the enterprises in the framework of their specific production process, standing up for the return to the traditional relations verified by their long functioning. This happened in the association “Sevryba”, which, for a long time, refused to create conditions for the activity of enterprises on the gratis basis, referring to a number of contradictions, which could not be resolved without an administrative mediator; in particular, such problems as the distribution and realization of quotas, arrangement of fleets, distribution of transporting means. It is known from international practice that a time comes when even the wisest administrator at the top of the pyramid of power loses control over the economic, technological and social situation, cannot respond in good time to the changes going on inside and outside the excessively large firm with a centralized control. As to the administrators of other ranks, they are tied by a high degree of centralization of the decision making. In such cases, it is necessary to carry out a reasonable decentralization of the authority and of the functions, a well-timed reorganization of production relations, the formation of new organizational structures and economic controls so that at every level the authority and the responsibilities correspond to the controlled object and the consequences of the decisions taken are envisaged. This is a continuous process of an evolution and alteration of the control systems of the firms. In this model, the upper levels of control reduce the functions of the operational control, and a part of the functions of the strategic planning departments pass to the level of the enterprise. In our country, the situation is aggravated by the hypertrophically developed sectoral system of control often identified with strengthening of the centralized basis of control and planning* We have As concerns the method of economic planning in Russia, it can be characterized by the saying about a talking horse; namely, “one is surprised not by what it talks about but by the fact that it can talk." Leontiev V., Economic Essay ( theory, investigations, facts and politics), 1990. Moscow, Politizdat, p. 218. 3 8