32 SOCIAL SCIENTIST
announced that from 1 April 1964 the principles of the new system would be tried out on an experimental basis in a number of enterprises.3 Cooperative farms in four districts also adopted the new system of management and planning. At the end of 1965 it was reported that 33 5 per cent of the industrial labour force was employed in enterprises which had adopted the new system and that 44 per cent of gross industrial output was being produced in enterprises which had adopted the new system. It was also reported that gross industrial output had increased by 156 per cent in the first six months of 1965 in enterprises which had adopted the new system^ while it had increased only by 11.5 per cent in enterprises which had not adopted the new system.4
Although the new system was tried out on an experimental basis, there was no blueprint for reform per se until the theses of the Politbureau of the Bulgarian Communist Party Central Committee entitled "Principles of the New System of Planning and Management of the National Economy" were published in December 1965.5 The theses were officially adopted by the April 1966 Plenum of the Bulgarian Communist Party.6 It was somewhat curious that Bulgaria should, at that particular phase other development, decide to reform her system of planning and management. Since the Bulgarian economy was still relatively underdeveloped, the high rates of accumulation had led to fairly high rates of growth. Unlike German Democratic Republic (GDR) and Czechoslovakia, which pioneered the reform movement, Bulgaria's relatively underdeveloped economy had still not faced the fetters imposed by the Stalinist system of planning.7 Such problems had been faced by GDR and Czechoslovakia, and to a lesser extent, by Poland and Hungary. Yugoslavia's economy was still relatively underdeveloped, but the Yugoslav reforms were motivated more by ideological reasons than by purely economic ones. That a reform should have been undertaken in Bulgaria must have been an explicit recognition of the fact that despite her fairly high rates of growth, chronic weaknesses had started to develop in the economy. The emphasis on heavy industry had led to a failure in other sectors, particularly agriculture. No accurate costing and pricing procedures were being followed and the quality of goods produced was gradually deteriorating.
The theses attempted to reduce excessive centralism and decentralize the system of management. More scope for independent activity was to be given to individual enterprises and the economy was to be made more market-oriented. Economists like Georgi Petrov and Nicole Popov argued for a market reform similar to the Hungarian, or to the original Czech one.8 The theses featured considerable decentralization of economic decision-making, with more responsibility being granted to associations, trusts and individual enterprises. The pattern was similar to the GDR, Czech, Polish and Soviet reforms. Economic associations or trusts, which were intermediary bodies between the central planning body and individual enterprises, would determine the degree of autonomy that individual enterprises would have. Associations and individual enterprises would