Foust, Clifford M. (1969). Muscovite and Mandarin: Russia’s Trade with China and its Setting, 1725-1805. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Mancall, Mark. (1971). Russia and China: Their Diplomatic Relations to 1728 (Harvard East Asian Series 61). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Miasnikov, Vladimir Stepanovich. (1985). The Ch’ing Empire and the Russian State in the Seventeenth Century, tr. Vic Schneierson. Moscow: Progress.
Michels, Georg B. (1999). At War with the Church: Religious Dissent in Seventeenth-Century Russia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
(1770-1862), Russian foreign minister equivalent, 1814-1856; chancellor, 1845-1856.
A baptized Anglican son of a Catholic West-phalian in Russia’s diplomatic service, a Berlin
1038
gymnasium graduate, and briefly in the Russian navy and army, Karl Nesselrode began his diplomatic career in 1801. Posted in Stuttgart, Berlin, and the Hague and attracted to the conservative equilibrium ideas of Friedrich von Gentz even more than Metternich was, Nesselrode became an advocate of the Third Coalition, yet assisted in the drawing up the Treaty of Tilsit (1807) and served in Paris. He played a major role in the forging of the 1813- 1814 coalitions and the first Treaty of Paris (1814) and became Alexander I’s chief plenipotentiary at Vienna (1814 -1815). Sharing the direction of Russia’s foreign affairs from 1814 to 1822 with the more liberal state secretary for foreign affairs, Ioannes Capodistrias, Nesselrode participated in the Congresses of Aix-la-Chapelle (1818), Laibach (1821), and Verona (1822). His European approach to the Eastern Question won over Alexander and led to the compromises after the Greek Rebellion of 1821.
Nesselrode’s wide knowledge, clarity, complete loyalty to the crown, and earlier briefings of Nicholas I before 1825 led to retention by the latter in 1826. Though Nicholas often directed policy himself, Nesselrode remained the single most influential Russian in external affairs. He shepherded the London Protocol (with Britain, 1826) and the Convention of Akkerman (with Turkey, 1827), convinced Nicholas I to accept the moderate Treaty of Adrianople (with Turkey, 1829), and helped dissuade Nicholas from trying to depose Louis-Philippe of France (1830). Partially behind the defensive Russo-Turkish Treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi (1833), he promoted the Conventions of M?nchen-gr? tz and Berlin (1833), which associated Austria and Prussia with a status quo policy regarding the Ottoman Empire.
Nesselrode subsequently helped prevent rising tensions with Britain from turning violent in 1838 by blocking a scheme to send warships into the Black Sea and removing Russia’s belligerently anti-British envoy to Tehran. Promoting compromises with Britain during the entire Eastern crisis of 1838-1841, Nesselrode blocked support of Serbian independence in 1842-1843 and limited the damage from Nicholas’s indescretions during his 1844 visit to England. Fearful of liberalization in Central Europe, Nesselrode supported the full restoration of monarchial power and the status quo there in 1848 and 1850 against both popular and Prussian expansionist aspirations.
During the Eastern Crisis of 1852-1853, Russia’s nationalists achieved the upper hand. Nesselrode alerted the emperor about the dangers of undue pressure on the Ottomans but abetted the deceptions perpetrated by Russian’s mission in Istanbul and his own ministry’s Asiatic Department. Although he was one of the best “spin doctors” of his era, his eighteenth-century logic, devotion to the 1815 settlement, and impeccable French prose could not prevail over the determination of Nicholas and the nationalists to risk war with Britain and France and have their way with Turkey regarding the Holy Places and Russia’s claimed protectorate over the Ottoman Orthodox. Nor could he convince Austria to back Russia, but in the course of the Crimean War he continuously promoted a compromise and helped convince Alexander II to end hostilities in 1856. See also: ALEXANDER I; CRIMEAN WAR; NICHOLAS I; VIENNA, CONGRESS OF
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Grimsted, Patricia Kennedy. (1969). The Foreign Ministers of Alexander I. Berkeley: University of California Press. Ingle, Harold N. (1976). Nesselrode and the Russian Rapprochement with Britain, 1836-1844. Berkeley: University of California Press. Walker, Charles E. (1973). “The Role of Karl Nesselrode in the Formulation and Implementation of Russian Foreign Policy, 1850-1956.” Ph.D. diss., University of West Virginia, Morgantown.
Net material product (NMP), the approach to national accounts based on Material Product System (MPS), was introduced in the USSR in the 1920s. Harmonized in 1969 by the Statistical Commission of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA), it was adopted by all centrally planned economies.
The central indicator of the (Western) System of National Accounts (SNA) is gross domestic product (GDP), which is a basic measure of a country’s overall economic performance. For planned economies, the role of the main indicator in the MPS is assigned to the net material product.
NMP covers material production (industry, agriculture, construction) and also includes material services that bring material consumer goods
1039
See from producers to consumers (transport and trade) and maintain the capital stock (maintenance and repairs). Nonmaterial services, such as health, education, administration, business, and personal services, are not included in productive activities; therefore, the central indicator NMP encompasses only the total income generated in the material branches, and the distinction is kept between “intermediate” and “final” products and between consumption and accumulation.
The division of services into “material” and “nonmaterial” originates from a theoretical proposition of Karl Marx’s writings. Marx , in the classical tradition of Adam Smith, considered as productive only activities that yield tangible, material goods.
Numerous incidental differences exist between GDP and NMP, including the treatment of business travel expenses, which are intermediate consumption in the SNA but labor compensation, and therefore part of the sectoral NMP, in the MPS. Cultural and welfare services provided by enterprises to employees are also intermediate consumption in the SNA but final consumption in the MPS. Some losses on fixed capital, the borderline between current and capital repair, and other relatively small items are treated differently. SNA has displaced MPS in all transition economies. See also: ECONOMIC GROWTH, SOVIET; MARXISM
BIBLIOGRAPHY
World Bank. (1992). Statistical Handbook: States of the Former USSR. Studies of Economies in Transformation, 3. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. (1993). Historically Planned Economies: A Guide to the Data. Washington, DC: World Bank.
As the civil war wound down in late 1920 and famine caused millions of deaths, peasant rebellions broke out against the compulsory grain procurements (prodrazverstka), which had been extracted by force and had led to reduced plantings. Strikes occurred in Petrograd and elsewhere. Late that winter an uprising occurred at Kronstadt, the naval base near the northern capital. Fearing counterrevolution from within, Vladimir Ilich Lenin accepted a “retreat” at the Tenth Party Congress in March, 1921. Under the New Economic Policy (NEP), Russia would have a mixed economy “seriously and for a long time,” as Lenin said. It would be based on an alliance (smychka) between the workers and the peasants.
Requisitions from the peasantry would be replaced by a tax in kind (prodnalog) based on the rural
