Summarise in not more than 120 words the advantages and disadvantages of the Soviet economic system which are described in the following passage.

Soviet economic growth has clearly been different from that in other modem industrial countries, but this is understandable in view of the particular features and aims of a centrally planned economy, which differs from an economy in which private enterprise is the main or only force at work, and has its own advantages and disadvantages.

An apparent advantage of central planning is that each branch of the economy can be arranged to cater for the needs of other branches depending on it. Wasteful competition such as the duplication of transport services by road and rail can be avoided. Unemployment can be eliminated because work can be provided for everyone even if the result is underemployment, a widespread feature of the U.S.S.R. and East Europe. Soviet economists stress the rational nature of economic planning, and a plan seems so on paper. But it is no secret that to apply the plan in detail over a vast country like the U.S.S.R. is extremely difficult. Bureaucrats abound, bottlenecks occur, factory managers are more concerned about the volume of their own particular production than about its usefulness for other factories or for the consumer. An army of Tolkachi (literally pushers) or 'negotiators' exists to reduce the bottlenecks, settle the conflicts between producers, and make things run more smoothly.

Other disadvantages of central planning in the U.S.S.R. may be noted.

Until recently there has been little concern about production costs either in agriculture or in industry; the aim was to produce everywhere possible, even if output per worker was low. There appeared to be no clear way of knowing which farms or industrial establishments had high production costs (and therefore, theoretically anyway, would, under capitalism, have been pushed out of production). There is now growing interest in this problem. Another danger is for a centrally planned economy to initiate an enormous programme of some kind, only to find at its completion or some way through that it is going to be a failure. This is nicely termed 'campaignology' by A.

Nove. Examples are the plan to plant protective belts of trees to improve climate in areas of steppe and even semi-desert, almost a complete failure, and the drive to make farmers grow more maize everywhere in the U.S.S.R., an absurd idea since most of the arable lands are either too cold or too dry to suit this plant.
J. P. Cole, Geography of World Affairs