Staffing the "Shock Therapy" Program in Russia in 1991

This study examines how the specific principle of personnel selection for the reformist government influenced the development of Russia's "shock therapy" program in 1991. This principle was presented as technocratic, implying that individuals were chosen for managerial positions based on professional merit rather than political affiliation. In reality, the team of reformers was united by the idea of a rapid transition to a market economy, intended to lead the country out of an economic crisis. The research attempts to assess the administrative and managerial consequences of appointing a team of external specialists and the role of their economic views in designing the program of economic transformation. The theoretical framework aims to reveal the advantages and disadvantages of this personnel approach in forming government structures. The study employs formal logic and relies on a set of general scientific (analysis, synthesis) and historical (historical-legal and historical-systemic) methods. Its scholarly novelty is determined by the problem's formulation and the introduction of previously unused sources into academic discourse. An analysis of administrative documents, memoirs, and media materials has revealed significant internal processes and relationships within government structures and the professional community. It is shown that in recruiting personnel for the administrative and intellectual support of the reform, Gaidar could rely only on a relatively small number of research institutes and a narrow group of foreign advisors. The subsequent course of developing and implementing the reforms intensified conflict between the government team and the professional community, leading to the ideological isolation of the reformers. The associated labor shortage necessitated a focus on the most critical aspects of "shock therapy." Efforts to control its implementation were hampered by a lack of administrative-managerial experience, time, attention, and coordination between the government's economic bloc and other state bodies. While the ideological cohesion of the small circle of reformers facilitated the implementation of economic transformations amidst large-scale resistance, it simultaneously hindered the construction of a market economy in its intended form.