Sign-up today to join over 3 million learners already on ALISON:

ALISON: Diploma in Project Management

Questions & Answers about System development life cycle - The System Development Life Cycle Overview

The Question must be about:
- Module: System development life cycle
- Topic: The System Development Life Cycle Overview

Latest Questions

  • Robert Robert Nigeria in project life cycle is there any particular measure applied by project managers?
    2014-09-15 17:09:49

  • phouvong Thammavongsa Lao People's Is there any template of project management on this program?
    2014-09-09 04:09:29

  • Saw Minyau Germany Are there another functions used in Agricultural economic for he systems development life cycle (SDLC) ?
    2014-08-15 20:08:05

    • Yai Deng Yai South Sudan Yes there five systems for any project.
      2014-08-24 20:08:44
  • Samuel Kofi Odoi Ghana The systems development life cycle (SDLC) is a conceptual model used in project management that describes the stages involved in an information system development project, from an initial feasibility study through maintenance of the completed application.
    2014-08-14 20:08:22

    • Yai Deng Yai South Sudan Yes it is true statement.
      2014-08-24 20:08:15
  • Vikram Vasant Rotkar United Kingdom What are the recommended levels of plans?
    2014-07-21 17:07:36

    • Yai Deng Yai South Sudan That they should be relevant and realistic.
      2014-08-24 20:08:01
  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia he principal objective of a feasibility study is to determine whether the system is desirable on the basis of long-term plans, strategic initiatives, and a cost-benefit analysis. System analysis provides a detailed answer to the question, What will the new system do? The next stage, system design, results in an extensive blueprint for how the new system will be organized. During the programming and testing stage, the individual software modules of the system are developed, tested, and integrated into a coherent operational system. Further levels of testing ensure continuing quality control. Installation includes final testing of the system in the work environment and conversion of organizational operations to the new system. The later stages of development include such implementation activities as training users and modifying the organizational processes in which the system will be used. Life-cycle development is frequently faulted for its long development times and voluminous documentation requirements—and, in some instances, for its failure to fulfill the user's requirements at the end of the long development road. Increasingly, life-cycle development has been replaced by a process known as rapid application development. With RAD a preliminary working version of an application, or prototype, is built quickly and inexpensively, albeit imperfectly. This prototype is turned over to the users, their reactions are collected, suggested modifications are incorporated, and successive prototype versions eventually evolve into the complete system. Sometimes RAD and life-cycle development are combined: a prototype is produced to determine user requirements during the initial system analysis stage, after which life-cycle development takes over. After an installed system is handed over to its users and operations personnel, it will almost invariably be modified extensively over its useful life in a process known as system maintenance. For instance, if a large system takes 2 years to develop, it will typically be used and maintained for some 5 to 10 years or even longer. Most maintenance is to adjust the system to the organization's changing needs and to new equipment and system software, but inevitably some maintenance involves correcting design errors and exterminating software “bugs” as they are discovered.
    2014-07-20 18:07:01

  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia he principal objective of a feasibility study is to determine whether the system is desirable on the basis of long-term plans, strategic initiatives, and a cost-benefit analysis. System analysis provides a detailed answer to the question, What will the new system do? The next stage, system design, results in an extensive blueprint for how the new system will be organized. During the programming and testing stage, the individual software modules of the system are developed, tested, and integrated into a coherent operational system. Further levels of testing ensure continuing quality control. Installation includes final testing of the system in the work environment and conversion of organizational operations to the new system. The later stages of development include such implementation activities as training users and modifying the organizational processes in which the system will be used. Life-cycle development is frequently faulted for its long development times and voluminous documentation requirements—and, in some instances, for its failure to fulfill the user's requirements at the end of the long development road. Increasingly, life-cycle development has been replaced by a process known as rapid application development. With RAD a preliminary working version of an application, or prototype, is built quickly and inexpensively, albeit imperfectly. This prototype is turned over to the users, their reactions are collected, suggested modifications are incorporated, and successive prototype versions eventually evolve into the complete system. Sometimes RAD and life-cycle development are combined: a prototype is produced to determine user requirements during the initial system analysis stage, after which life-cycle development takes over. After an installed system is handed over to its users and operations personnel, it will almost invariably be modified extensively over its useful life in a process known as system maintenance. For instance, if a large system takes 2 years to develop, it will typically be used and maintained for some 5 to 10 years or even longer. Most maintenance is to adjust the system to the organization's changing needs and to new equipment and system software, but inevitably some maintenance involves correcting design errors and exterminating software “bugs” as they are discovered.
    2014-07-20 18:07:53

    • Yai Deng Yai South Sudan The same as above.
      2014-08-24 20:08:56
  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia he principal objective of a feasibility study is to determine whether the system is desirable on the basis of long-term plans, strategic initiatives, and a cost-benefit analysis. System analysis provides a detailed answer to the question, What will the new system do? The next stage, system design, results in an extensive blueprint for how the new system will be organized. During the programming and testing stage, the individual software modules of the system are developed, tested, and integrated into a coherent operational system. Further levels of testing ensure continuing quality control. Installation includes final testing of the system in the work environment and conversion of organizational operations to the new system. The later stages of development include such implementation activities as training users and modifying the organizational processes in which the system will be used. Life-cycle development is frequently faulted for its long development times and voluminous documentation requirements—and, in some instances, for its failure to fulfill the user's requirements at the end of the long development road. Increasingly, life-cycle development has been replaced by a process known as rapid application development. With RAD a preliminary working version of an application, or prototype, is built quickly and inexpensively, albeit imperfectly. This prototype is turned over to the users, their reactions are collected, suggested modifications are incorporated, and successive prototype versions eventually evolve into the complete system. Sometimes RAD and life-cycle development are combined: a prototype is produced to determine user requirements during the initial system analysis stage, after which life-cycle development takes over. After an installed system is handed over to its users and operations personnel, it will almost invariably be modified extensively over its useful life in a process known as system maintenance. For instance, if a large system takes 2 years to develop, it will typically be used and maintained for some 5 to 10 years or even longer. Most maintenance is to adjust the system to the organization's changing needs and to new equipment and system software, but inevitably some maintenance involves correcting design errors and exterminating software “bugs” as they are discovered.
    2014-07-20 18:07:37

  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia he principal objective of a feasibility study is to determine whether the system is desirable on the basis of long-term plans, strategic initiatives, and a cost-benefit analysis. System analysis provides a detailed answer to the question, What will the new system do? The next stage, system design, results in an extensive blueprint for how the new system will be organized. During the programming and testing stage, the individual software modules of the system are developed, tested, and integrated into a coherent operational system. Further levels of testing ensure continuing quality control. Installation includes final testing of the system in the work environment and conversion of organizational operations to the new system. The later stages of development include such implementation activities as training users and modifying the organizational processes in which the system will be used. Life-cycle development is frequently faulted for its long development times and voluminous documentation requirements—and, in some instances, for its failure to fulfill the user's requirements at the end of the long development road. Increasingly, life-cycle development has been replaced by a process known as rapid application development. With RAD a preliminary working version of an application, or prototype, is built quickly and inexpensively, albeit imperfectly. This prototype is turned over to the users, their reactions are collected, suggested modifications are incorporated, and successive prototype versions eventually evolve into the complete system. Sometimes RAD and life-cycle development are combined: a prototype is produced to determine user requirements during the initial system analysis stage, after which life-cycle development takes over. After an installed system is handed over to its users and operations personnel, it will almost invariably be modified extensively over its useful life in a process known as system maintenance. For instance, if a large system takes 2 years to develop, it will typically be used and maintained for some 5 to 10 years or even longer. Most maintenance is to adjust the system to the organization's changing needs and to new equipment and system software, but inevitably some maintenance involves correcting design errors and exterminating software “bugs” as they are discovered.
    2014-07-20 18:07:23

  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia he principal objective of a feasibility study is to determine whether the system is desirable on the basis of long-term plans, strategic initiatives, and a cost-benefit analysis. System analysis provides a detailed answer to the question, What will the new system do? The next stage, system design, results in an extensive blueprint for how the new system will be organized. During the programming and testing stage, the individual software modules of the system are developed, tested, and integrated into a coherent operational system. Further levels of testing ensure continuing quality control. Installation includes final testing of the system in the work environment and conversion of organizational operations to the new system. The later stages of development include such implementation activities as training users and modifying the organizational processes in which the system will be used. Life-cycle development is frequently faulted for its long development times and voluminous documentation requirements—and, in some instances, for its failure to fulfill the user's requirements at the end of the long development road. Increasingly, life-cycle development has been replaced by a process known as rapid application development. With RAD a preliminary working version of an application, or prototype, is built quickly and inexpensively, albeit imperfectly. This prototype is turned over to the users, their reactions are collected, suggested modifications are incorporated, and successive prototype versions eventually evolve into the complete system. Sometimes RAD and life-cycle development are combined: a prototype is produced to determine user requirements during the initial system analysis stage, after which life-cycle development takes over. After an installed system is handed over to its users and operations personnel, it will almost invariably be modified extensively over its useful life in a process known as system maintenance. For instance, if a large system takes 2 years to develop, it will typically be used and maintained for some 5 to 10 years or even longer. Most maintenance is to adjust the system to the organization's changing needs and to new equipment and system software, but inevitably some maintenance involves correcting design errors and exterminating software “bugs” as they are discovered.
    2014-07-20 18:07:11

  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia he principal objective of a feasibility study is to determine whether the system is desirable on the basis of long-term plans, strategic initiatives, and a cost-benefit analysis. System analysis provides a detailed answer to the question, What will the new system do? The next stage, system design, results in an extensive blueprint for how the new system will be organized. During the programming and testing stage, the individual software modules of the system are developed, tested, and integrated into a coherent operational system. Further levels of testing ensure continuing quality control. Installation includes final testing of the system in the work environment and conversion of organizational operations to the new system. The later stages of development include such implementation activities as training users and modifying the organizational processes in which the system will be used. Life-cycle development is frequently faulted for its long development times and voluminous documentation requirements—and, in some instances, for its failure to fulfill the user's requirements at the end of the long development road. Increasingly, life-cycle development has been replaced by a process known as rapid application development. With RAD a preliminary working version of an application, or prototype, is built quickly and inexpensively, albeit imperfectly. This prototype is turned over to the users, their reactions are collected, suggested modifications are incorporated, and successive prototype versions eventually evolve into the complete system. Sometimes RAD and life-cycle development are combined: a prototype is produced to determine user requirements during the initial system analysis stage, after which life-cycle development takes over. After an installed system is handed over to its users and operations personnel, it will almost invariably be modified extensively over its useful life in a process known as system maintenance. For instance, if a large system takes 2 years to develop, it will typically be used and maintained for some 5 to 10 years or even longer. Most maintenance is to adjust the system to the organization's changing needs and to new equipment and system software, but inevitably some maintenance involves correcting design errors and exterminating software “bugs” as they are discovered.
    2014-07-20 18:07:00

  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia he principal objective of a feasibility study is to determine whether the system is desirable on the basis of long-term plans, strategic initiatives, and a cost-benefit analysis. System analysis provides a detailed answer to the question, What will the new system do? The next stage, system design, results in an extensive blueprint for how the new system will be organized. During the programming and testing stage, the individual software modules of the system are developed, tested, and integrated into a coherent operational system. Further levels of testing ensure continuing quality control. Installation includes final testing of the system in the work environment and conversion of organizational operations to the new system. The later stages of development include such implementation activities as training users and modifying the organizational processes in which the system will be used. Life-cycle development is frequently faulted for its long development times and voluminous documentation requirements—and, in some instances, for its failure to fulfill the user's requirements at the end of the long development road. Increasingly, life-cycle development has been replaced by a process known as rapid application development. With RAD a preliminary working version of an application, or prototype, is built quickly and inexpensively, albeit imperfectly. This prototype is turned over to the users, their reactions are collected, suggested modifications are incorporated, and successive prototype versions eventually evolve into the complete system. Sometimes RAD and life-cycle development are combined: a prototype is produced to determine user requirements during the initial system analysis stage, after which life-cycle development takes over. After an installed system is handed over to its users and operations personnel, it will almost invariably be modified extensively over its useful life in a process known as system maintenance. For instance, if a large system takes 2 years to develop, it will typically be used and maintained for some 5 to 10 years or even longer. Most maintenance is to adjust the system to the organization's changing needs and to new equipment and system software, but inevitably some maintenance involves correcting design errors and exterminating software “bugs” as they are discovered.
    2014-07-20 18:07:46

  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia he principal objective of a feasibility study is to determine whether the system is desirable on the basis of long-term plans, strategic initiatives, and a cost-benefit analysis. System analysis provides a detailed answer to the question, What will the new system do? The next stage, system design, results in an extensive blueprint for how the new system will be organized. During the programming and testing stage, the individual software modules of the system are developed, tested, and integrated into a coherent operational system. Further levels of testing ensure continuing quality control. Installation includes final testing of the system in the work environment and conversion of organizational operations to the new system. The later stages of development include such implementation activities as training users and modifying the organizational processes in which the system will be used. Life-cycle development is frequently faulted for its long development times and voluminous documentation requirements—and, in some instances, for its failure to fulfill the user's requirements at the end of the long development road. Increasingly, life-cycle development has been replaced by a process known as rapid application development. With RAD a preliminary working version of an application, or prototype, is built quickly and inexpensively, albeit imperfectly. This prototype is turned over to the users, their reactions are collected, suggested modifications are incorporated, and successive prototype versions eventually evolve into the complete system. Sometimes RAD and life-cycle development are combined: a prototype is produced to determine user requirements during the initial system analysis stage, after which life-cycle development takes over. After an installed system is handed over to its users and operations personnel, it will almost invariably be modified extensively over its useful life in a process known as system maintenance. For instance, if a large system takes 2 years to develop, it will typically be used and maintained for some 5 to 10 years or even longer. Most maintenance is to adjust the system to the organization's changing needs and to new equipment and system software, but inevitably some maintenance involves correcting design errors and exterminating software “bugs” as they are discovered.
    2014-07-20 18:07:26

  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia Management Both during and after World War II the United States operated the largest and most advanced logistic system in the world. Its wartime operations stressed speed, volume, and risk-taking more than efficiency and economy. The postwar years, with accelerated technological change, skyrocketing costs, and diminished public interest in defense, brought a revulsion against military prodigality, manifested by calls for reduced defense budgets and a growing demand for more efficient management of the military establishment. This demand culminated in a thorough overhaul of the whole system in the 1960s. One result was the reorganization of logistic activities in the three military services, generally along functional lines, with large logistic commands operating under functional staff supervision. In each service, however, each major weapon system was centrally managed by a separate project officer, and central inventory control was maintained for large commodity groups. In 1961 a new defense supply agency was established to manage on a wholesale basis the procurement, storage, and distribution of common military supplies and the administration of certain common services. The most far-reaching managerial reforms of the period were instituted by the U.S. defense secretary, Robert S. McNamara (1961–68), in the resource allocation process. A unified defense planning–programming–budgeting system provided for five-year projections of force, manpower, and dollar requirements for all defense activities, classified into eight or nine major programs (such as strategic forces) that cut across the lines of traditional service responsibilities. The system was introduced in other federal departments after 1965, and elements of it were adopted by the British and other governments. In 1966 a program was inaugurated to integrate management accounting at the operating level with the programming–budgeting system. At the end of the 1960s a new administration restored some of the initiative in the planning–budgeting–programming cycle to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military services. The reforms of the 1960s exploited the whole range of current managerial methodology. The basic techniques, such as systems and operations analysis, all stressed precise, scientific, usually quantitative formulations of problems and mathematical approaches to rational decision making. Systems analysis, the technique associated with defense planning and programming, was a method of economic and mathematical analysis useful in dealing with complex problems of choice under conditions of uncertainty. The technological foundation of this improved logistic management was the high-speed electronic computer, which was being used chiefly in inventory control; in automated operations at depots, bases, and stations; in transmitting and processing supply data; in personnel administration; and in command-and-control networks.
    2014-07-20 18:07:08

  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia Management Both during and after World War II the United States operated the largest and most advanced logistic system in the world. Its wartime operations stressed speed, volume, and risk-taking more than efficiency and economy. The postwar years, with accelerated technological change, skyrocketing costs, and diminished public interest in defense, brought a revulsion against military prodigality, manifested by calls for reduced defense budgets and a growing demand for more efficient management of the military establishment. This demand culminated in a thorough overhaul of the whole system in the 1960s. One result was the reorganization of logistic activities in the three military services, generally along functional lines, with large logistic commands operating under functional staff supervision. In each service, however, each major weapon system was centrally managed by a separate project officer, and central inventory control was maintained for large commodity groups. In 1961 a new defense supply agency was established to manage on a wholesale basis the procurement, storage, and distribution of common military supplies and the administration of certain common services. The most far-reaching managerial reforms of the period were instituted by the U.S. defense secretary, Robert S. McNamara (1961–68), in the resource allocation process. A unified defense planning–programming–budgeting system provided for five-year projections of force, manpower, and dollar requirements for all defense activities, classified into eight or nine major programs (such as strategic forces) that cut across the lines of traditional service responsibilities. The system was introduced in other federal departments after 1965, and elements of it were adopted by the British and other governments. In 1966 a program was inaugurated to integrate management accounting at the operating level with the programming–budgeting system. At the end of the 1960s a new administration restored some of the initiative in the planning–budgeting–programming cycle to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military services. The reforms of the 1960s exploited the whole range of current managerial methodology. The basic techniques, such as systems and operations analysis, all stressed precise, scientific, usually quantitative formulations of problems and mathematical approaches to rational decision making. Systems analysis, the technique associated with defense planning and programming, was a method of economic and mathematical analysis useful in dealing with complex problems of choice under conditions of uncertainty. The technological foundation of this improved logistic management was the high-speed electronic computer, which was being used chiefly in inventory control; in automated operations at depots, bases, and stations; in transmitting and processing supply data; in personnel administration; and in command-and-control networks.
    2014-07-20 18:07:51

  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia Management Both during and after World War II the United States operated the largest and most advanced logistic system in the world. Its wartime operations stressed speed, volume, and risk-taking more than efficiency and economy. The postwar years, with accelerated technological change, skyrocketing costs, and diminished public interest in defense, brought a revulsion against military prodigality, manifested by calls for reduced defense budgets and a growing demand for more efficient management of the military establishment. This demand culminated in a thorough overhaul of the whole system in the 1960s. One result was the reorganization of logistic activities in the three military services, generally along functional lines, with large logistic commands operating under functional staff supervision. In each service, however, each major weapon system was centrally managed by a separate project officer, and central inventory control was maintained for large commodity groups. In 1961 a new defense supply agency was established to manage on a wholesale basis the procurement, storage, and distribution of common military supplies and the administration of certain common services. The most far-reaching managerial reforms of the period were instituted by the U.S. defense secretary, Robert S. McNamara (1961–68), in the resource allocation process. A unified defense planning–programming–budgeting system provided for five-year projections of force, manpower, and dollar requirements for all defense activities, classified into eight or nine major programs (such as strategic forces) that cut across the lines of traditional service responsibilities. The system was introduced in other federal departments after 1965, and elements of it were adopted by the British and other governments. In 1966 a program was inaugurated to integrate management accounting at the operating level with the programming–budgeting system. At the end of the 1960s a new administration restored some of the initiative in the planning–budgeting–programming cycle to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military services. The reforms of the 1960s exploited the whole range of current managerial methodology. The basic techniques, such as systems and operations analysis, all stressed precise, scientific, usually quantitative formulations of problems and mathematical approaches to rational decision making. Systems analysis, the technique associated with defense planning and programming, was a method of economic and mathematical analysis useful in dealing with complex problems of choice under conditions of uncertainty. The technological foundation of this improved logistic management was the high-speed electronic computer, which was being used chiefly in inventory control; in automated operations at depots, bases, and stations; in transmitting and processing supply data; in personnel administration; and in command-and-control networks.
    2014-07-20 18:07:34

  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia Management Both during and after World War II the United States operated the largest and most advanced logistic system in the world. Its wartime operations stressed speed, volume, and risk-taking more than efficiency and economy. The postwar years, with accelerated technological change, skyrocketing costs, and diminished public interest in defense, brought a revulsion against military prodigality, manifested by calls for reduced defense budgets and a growing demand for more efficient management of the military establishment. This demand culminated in a thorough overhaul of the whole system in the 1960s. One result was the reorganization of logistic activities in the three military services, generally along functional lines, with large logistic commands operating under functional staff supervision. In each service, however, each major weapon system was centrally managed by a separate project officer, and central inventory control was maintained for large commodity groups. In 1961 a new defense supply agency was established to manage on a wholesale basis the procurement, storage, and distribution of common military supplies and the administration of certain common services. The most far-reaching managerial reforms of the period were instituted by the U.S. defense secretary, Robert S. McNamara (1961–68), in the resource allocation process. A unified defense planning–programming–budgeting system provided for five-year projections of force, manpower, and dollar requirements for all defense activities, classified into eight or nine major programs (such as strategic forces) that cut across the lines of traditional service responsibilities. The system was introduced in other federal departments after 1965, and elements of it were adopted by the British and other governments. In 1966 a program was inaugurated to integrate management accounting at the operating level with the programming–budgeting system. At the end of the 1960s a new administration restored some of the initiative in the planning–budgeting–programming cycle to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military services. The reforms of the 1960s exploited the whole range of current managerial methodology. The basic techniques, such as systems and operations analysis, all stressed precise, scientific, usually quantitative formulations of problems and mathematical approaches to rational decision making. Systems analysis, the technique associated with defense planning and programming, was a method of economic and mathematical analysis useful in dealing with complex problems of choice under conditions of uncertainty. The technological foundation of this improved logistic management was the high-speed electronic computer, which was being used chiefly in inventory control; in automated operations at depots, bases, and stations; in transmitting and processing supply data; in personnel administration; and in command-and-control networks.
    2014-07-20 18:07:30

  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia Management Both during and after World War II the United States operated the largest and most advanced logistic system in the world. Its wartime operations stressed speed, volume, and risk-taking more than efficiency and economy. The postwar years, with accelerated technological change, skyrocketing costs, and diminished public interest in defense, brought a revulsion against military prodigality, manifested by calls for reduced defense budgets and a growing demand for more efficient management of the military establishment. This demand culminated in a thorough overhaul of the whole system in the 1960s. One result was the reorganization of logistic activities in the three military services, generally along functional lines, with large logistic commands operating under functional staff supervision. In each service, however, each major weapon system was centrally managed by a separate project officer, and central inventory control was maintained for large commodity groups. In 1961 a new defense supply agency was established to manage on a wholesale basis the procurement, storage, and distribution of common military supplies and the administration of certain common services. The most far-reaching managerial reforms of the period were instituted by the U.S. defense secretary, Robert S. McNamara (1961–68), in the resource allocation process. A unified defense planning–programming–budgeting system provided for five-year projections of force, manpower, and dollar requirements for all defense activities, classified into eight or nine major programs (such as strategic forces) that cut across the lines of traditional service responsibilities. The system was introduced in other federal departments after 1965, and elements of it were adopted by the British and other governments. In 1966 a program was inaugurated to integrate management accounting at the operating level with the programming–budgeting system. At the end of the 1960s a new administration restored some of the initiative in the planning–budgeting–programming cycle to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military services. The reforms of the 1960s exploited the whole range of current managerial methodology. The basic techniques, such as systems and operations analysis, all stressed precise, scientific, usually quantitative formulations of problems and mathematical approaches to rational decision making. Systems analysis, the technique associated with defense planning and programming, was a method of economic and mathematical analysis useful in dealing with complex problems of choice under conditions of uncertainty. The technological foundation of this improved logistic management was the high-speed electronic computer, which was being used chiefly in inventory control; in automated operations at depots, bases, and stations; in transmitting and processing supply data; in personnel administration; and in command-and-control networks.
    2014-07-20 18:07:15

  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia The nature of economic planning Historically, the idea of central economic planning was associated with the criticism of capitalism as a system of anarchy and greed. Marxist critics did not give much thought to how the economy would be run after capitalism had been abolished; most of them professed to see no difficulty in organizing the society that would follow. When in 1917 the new Soviet government found itself the owner of all the means of production, it had no blueprint as to what to do next. The evolution of central economic planning in the Soviet Union was largely a pragmatic affair; methods were tried and discarded, and new ones were introduced. The decision in 1927 to undertake rapid and large-scale industrialization required the centralizing of control, since only the government could undertake the task of marshaling the productive resources of the country to achieve its ambitious aims. In western Europe, economic planning is adapted to a diversified economic structure, a dynamic class of business managers, and a long tradition of political and economic liberty. Consequently, although planning implies an extension of the economic responsibilities and activities of the state, the mainspring of economic growth remains the private sector. Only rarely does the state intervene directly in the affairs of individual firms. Economic planning remains indirect and takes the form of collaboration between the public and the private sectors. Producers and consumers are free to adapt their activities to changes in market conditions and relative prices. In the 1980s there was a general trend for governments to sell state-owned enterprises to the public and to reduce the extent of public regulation of particular sectors, such as air transport.
    2014-07-20 16:07:22

  • Jones Hanungu Munang'andu Zambia The nature of economic planning Historically, the idea of central economic planning was associated with the criticism of capitalism as a system of anarchy and greed. Marxist critics did not give much thought to how the economy would be run after capitalism had been abolished; most of them professed to see no difficulty in organizing the society that would follow. When in 1917 the new Soviet government found itself the owner of all the means of production, it had no blueprint as to what to do next. The evolution of central economic planning in the Soviet Union was largely a pragmatic affair; methods were tried and discarded, and new ones were introduced. The decision in 1927 to undertake rapid and large-scale industrialization required the centralizing of control, since only the government could undertake the task of marshaling the productive resources of the country to achieve its ambitious aims. In western Europe, economic planning is adapted to a diversified economic structure, a dynamic class of business managers, and a long tradition of political and economic liberty. Consequently, although planning implies an extension of the economic responsibilities and activities of the state, the mainspring of economic growth remains the private sector. Only rarely does the state intervene directly in the affairs of individual firms. Economic planning remains indirect and takes the form of collaboration between the public and the private sectors. Producers and consumers are free to adapt their activities to changes in market conditions and relative prices. In the 1980s there was a general trend for governments to sell state-owned enterprises to the public and to reduce the extent of public regulation of particular sectors, such as air transport.
    2014-07-20 16:07:06

Loading Menu