Implementation of the reform was slow. New associations and agencies were still being established in 1980s, a decade after the reform was initiated. High-standing Soviet officials commented on the problem when the
1979 reform was initiated. Local planners and economists in the 1980s still complained that they had too little power in the daily running of their local economies. Specialised literature proved that the reform's main goal had failed to meet the expected standards.
Failure The reform had the side effect of weakening the powers of regional planners over industrial policy even further. By 1981, roughly half of Soviet industry had been merged into associations with an average of four member enterprises in each association. A problem was that an association usually had its members spread over different
raions,
oblasts, and even republics, which aggravated the State Planning Committee's localisation planning. The newly established associations made the Soviet economic system even more complex. Many associations increased production amongst member enterprises, such as the Gor'kii automobile plant in
Leningrad, which was used as a "model example" by the
Central Committee of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) to demonstrate a good association and a unified
Primary Party Organisation (PPO). The Gor'kii plant did not share the same problems as some other associations, as all its members were located in the same city. The relations between an association and the PPO were much more strained if the association had members over a wide geographic area. The reform had the effect of disrupting the CPSU's traditional allocation of resources between territorial and industrial agencies.
Kommunist, a Soviet newspaper, noted that PPOs that supervised associations with members over a wide geographic area tended to lose touch with the
local party and factory organisations, which prevented them from working effectively. ==See also==