# Viktor Novozhilov: views on planning and what we take from them — Open Planning > Independently of Kantorovich, Novozhilov arrived at the same conclusion: the cost of a product cannot be measured only by what has been spent on it — one must also take… Источник / Source: https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/novozhilov Язык / Language: en Обновлено / Updated: 2026-09-15 --- History of planning · Balances and optimal planning # Viktor Valentinovich Novozhilov 1892–1970 · Economist and statistician, author of the theory of differential costs and of the norm of effectiveness of capital investment, winner of the Lenin Prize in 1965 Independently of Kantorovich, Novozhilov arrived at the same conclusion: the cost of a product cannot be measured only by what has been spent on it — one must also take into account what the rest of the economy is deprived of. His concepts of differential costs, feedback costs and the norm of effectiveness of capital investment explain why the sum of individual savings does not add up to savings for the country, and why a single uniform standard was inconvenient for the ministries. _Autobiography of V. V. Novozhilov; quoted in: V. V. Okrepilov. The Creative Partnership of L. V. Kantorovich and V. V. Novozhilov… (Tvorcheskoe sodruzhestvo L. V. Kantorovicha i V. V. Novozhilova…) // Ekonomika i upravlenie. 2012. No. 2 (76) (translated by gosplan2.ru)_ Founders - [Gleb Krzhizhanovsky](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/krzhizhanovsky) - [Stanislav Strumilin](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/strumilin) - [Vladimir Bazarov and Vladimir Groman](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/bazarov-groman) - [Nikolai Kondratiev](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/kondratiev) Industrialisation - [Yevgeni Preobrazhensky](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/preobrazhensky) - [Nikolai Bukharin](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/bukharin) - [Nikolai Voznesensky](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/voznesensky) Balances and optimal planning - [Wassily Leontief](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/leontief) - [Leonid Kantorovich](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/kantorovich) - [Viktor Novozhilov](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/novozhilov) - [Vasily Nemchinov](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/nemchinov) - [Nikolai Fedorenko](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/fedorenko) Cybernetics and reforms - [Viktor Glushkov](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/glushkov) - [Evsei Liberman](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/liberman) - [Stafford Beer](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/beer) - [Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/cockshott) Critics - [Ludwig von Mises](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/mises) - [Friedrich Hayek](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/hayek) - [Oskar Lange](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/lange) - [János Kornai](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/kornai) The administrative market - [Vitaly Naishul](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/naishul) - [Simon Kordonsky](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/kordonsky) ## Who he is and his times Viktor Valentinovich Novozhilov was born in 1892 in Kharkov and died on 15 August 1970 in Leningrad. He graduated from the Faculty of Law of St. Vladimir University in Kiev in 1915; in other words, he came to economics not from mathematics, like Kantorovich, but from law and statistics. In 1919–1923 he worked as a statistician in the People's Commissariat of Finance of the Ukrainian SSR, in the Don-Kuban Water Transport Administration and on the board of the October Railway. From 1922, for almost three decades, he was associated with the Leningrad Polytechnic Institute, where from 1938 to 1951 he headed the Department of the Economics of Mechanical Engineering. A distinctive feature of his career was constant work with designers. In the 1920s and 1930s Novozhilov advised design institutes, above all GIPROMEZ, which designed metallurgical plants, and saw from the inside a question that Soviet theory avoided: how to choose between variants of a project if one is cheaper to build and the other cheaper to operate. According to Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, in 1933–1934 he studied national economic standards in energy and economic calculations and was one of the first to apply an economic-mathematical model to find an optimal solution. The era imposed strict limits. The political economy of socialism assumed that under socialism there is no interest on capital, and so the very idea of a norm of return on investment looked bourgeois. Meanwhile, design practice required variants to be compared, and effectiveness calculations were in fact carried out in design organizations; later, as Kantorovich writes, it was precisely their authors whom people tried to “unmask”. The war found Novozhilov in Pyatigorsk. According to his handwritten autobiography, during the occupation he signed up as a violinist in the orchestra of the city theatre so as not to work in industry, refused, despite threats, to go on tour to Germany, and after the liberation of the city in 1943 worked in the technical consulting bureau of the Pyatigorsk city planning commission. ## Main ideas Novozhilov's central problem was the measurement of costs and results. Already in his 1939 article Methods of Comparing the National Economic Effectiveness of Plan and Project Variants (Metody soizmereniya narodnokhozyaystvennoy effektivnosti planovykh i proektnykh variantov), published in the proceedings of the Leningrad Industrial Institute, he made the case for a norm of effectiveness of capital investment. The norm of effectiveness is the minimum return that an investment must yield in order to justify diverting funds from other possible uses. In essence it is the price of capital and of time, expressed in planning terms: a variant with expensive construction and cheap operation pays off only if the savings recoup the investment faster than the norm requires. Kantorovich later wrote that as early as 1939 Novozhilov had given a profound justification of this norm and of the principles for calculating it. Novozhilov's main theoretical concept is differential costs. Conventional accounting reckoned the cost of a product as the sum of what was spent on producing it. Novozhilov showed that this is not enough: if a scarce resource goes into one product, it cannot be used for another, and the economy suffers losses where the resource has been taken from. He called these losses feedback costs. Differential costs are the sum of direct costs and feedback costs. The Great Russian Encyclopedia notes that this concept allowed him to formulate rigorously the idea that individual cost minima are incompatible: if every enterprise minimizes its own costs without considering what its decisions cost others, the sum does not give a minimum for the economy as a whole. The practical conclusion is the concept of an optimal plan for the national economy, that is, a plan that delivers a given volume of output with the minimum total expenditure of labour. To find such a plan, limited resources must be taken into account through standards of their effectiveness — in effect, through scarcity prices. In meaning, differential costs are close to Kantorovich's objectively determined valuations (shadow prices): the two men arrived at this idea independently and almost simultaneously, in 1939–1941. The difference lies in interpretation. As V. V. Okrepilov presents it, Novozhilov, like Nemchinov, interpreted the valuations as a special transformed form of value expressed in differential labour costs, whereas Kantorovich interpreted them as resolving multipliers reflecting the scarcity of resources. His subsequent works develop a single idea. The article Methods of Finding the Minimum of Costs in a Socialist Economy (Metody nakhozhdeniya minimuma zatrat v sotsialisticheskom khozyaystve), prepared during the war years, came out in 1946. His summary work, Measuring Costs and Their Results in a Socialist Economy (Izmerenie zatrat i ikh rezul'tatov v sotsialisticheskom khozyaystve), appeared in 1959 in the first volume of the collection The Application of Mathematics in Economic Research (Primenenie matematiki v ekonomicheskikh issledovaniyakh), edited by V. S. Nemchinov. The monograph Problems of Cost-Benefit Analysis in Optimal Planning (Problemy izmereniya zatrat i rezul'tatov pri optimal'nom planirovanii) came out in 1967 and was translated abroad. The thread running through them all is to connect the enterprise's economic accounting (khozraschyot), that is, its operation on a self-financing basis, with the interest of the economy as a whole through correctly measured costs. ## What became of the ideas in practice The path of these ideas into practice was difficult. In an unpublished draft article from the early 1960s, kept in the St. Petersburg branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences and quoted by Okrepilov, Kantorovich writes that in 1949–1950 the journal Voprosy Ekonomiki launched a campaign to “unmask” advocates of calculating the effectiveness of capital investment — both theorists and employees of design organizations. As a result, according to Kantorovich, Novozhilov had to leave his post at the Polytechnic Institute. From 1951 to 1966 he headed the Department of Statistics at the Leningrad Institute of Engineering and Economics. The Thaw brought the subject back but did not remove the resistance. In the same draft Kantorovich cites two episodes from 1960. In the book Money in Socialist Society (Den'gi v sotsialisticheskom obshchestve) the economist Kronrod called Novozhilov an ideologist of the NEPman bourgeoisie. In elections to the Academy of Sciences, held, according to Kantorovich, without discussion, Novozhilov received zero votes. This is the testimony of an ally, not an official record, but it conveys the atmosphere: the mathematical school was recognized in words, while its leading economist was kept out of the academic hierarchy that distributed influence. The Order of Lenin in 1961 and the Lenin Prize in 1965 raised Novozhilov's standing but did not give him a place in the system of planning decisions. Practical application proceeded through regional and sectoral channels. In 1963–1965 Novozhilov directed the research work of the computing centre of the Leningrad Economic Council (sovnarkhoz), and in 1966 he founded the Laboratory of Systems of Economic Valuations in the Leningrad branch of the Central Economic Mathematical Institute (TsEMI) of the USSR Academy of Sciences. According to Okrepilov, it tackled problems of pricing in the flour-milling industry and of planning loading and unloading operations in river transport. These were calculations at the level of a sector or a city, not a restructuring of all-Union planning. It is also telling that in April 1960 Novozhilov, together with Kantorovich, took part in preparing the first all-Union conference on the application of mathematical methods and computer technology in economics and planning: the scientific community recognized the field earlier than the planning bodies agreed to change their procedures to accommodate it. The informational and institutional reasons are especially clear here. The norm of effectiveness and differential costs make sense only when they are uniform for the whole economy: the same charge for capital and for a scarce resource for all ministries. But a single standard deprived the ministries of their main instrument — the ability to secure investment in their own projects without comparison with those of others. D. V. Didenko shows that in late Soviet planning the ministries, as representatives of producers, pushed for higher capital investment and lower plan targets. A calculation that makes visible the price of every rouble of investment directly limited this bargaining, while the data for such a calculation — actual costs and capacities — were held by those very ministries. There was also a political boundary. In Okrepilov's assessment, Novozhilov's ideas about combining the plan with economic accounting became part of the theoretical basis of the 1965 reform. However, as V. S. Balakin and his co-authors note, by the 24th Congress of the CPSU in 1971 the official line once again emphasized the leading and determining role of directive planning. Economic evaluation of variants remained a permissible method of analysis, but did not become a rule that those who controlled resources were obliged to follow. ## What worked and what did not What worked was the acceptance of the question itself. The idea that investments must be compared with time and forgone opportunities taken into account ceased to be regarded as heresy after the 1950s, and Soviet design practice came to rely on effectiveness calculations. Novozhilov took part in creating the first educational and research base for economic-mathematical calculations in the USSR at Leningrad University: together with Kantorovich he secured the opening in 1959 of the so-called sixth year of study and became the scientific director of a self-financing laboratory of economic-mathematical methods. From 1966 his Leningrad Laboratory of Systems of Economic Valuations continued this work within the structure of TsEMI. What did not work was turning the norm of effectiveness and differential costs into a binding system of prices and standards. That would have required the charge for a resource to be the same for everyone, cost data to be available not only to the ministry submitting the request, and the result of the calculation to carry weight in the allocation of investment. None of these three conditions was met. As a result, the effectiveness calculation often served to justify a decision that had already been made rather than as a way of choosing it; this is the usual fate of a methodology applied by the same party that has an interest in the result. The approach also had internal limitations. The effort to fit differential costs into the labour theory of value made the theory politically acceptable but conceptually muddled it: one and the same quantity had to be both a measure of social labour and a scarcity price. In addition, like Kantorovich's model, Novozhilov's construction assumes known technologies and a volume of output set from outside; that is, it answers the question “how” to produce, not “what”. ## Debate and criticism Orthodox criticism targeted the ideological weak point. The norm of effectiveness of capital investment looked like interest on capital, and feedback costs like an admission that the value of a resource depends on its scarcity and not only on labour. Hence the campaign of 1949–1950 and the label “ideologist of the NEPman bourgeoisie” in 1960. Novozhilov's supporters replied that what was at issue was not private interest but a planning standard, without which a socialist economy is forced to make decisions blindly. The Western analysis was different. R. Campbell, in his 1961 article Marx, Kantorovich and Novozhilov: Stoimost' Versus Reality, argued that the concepts of both Soviet authors in fact depart from Marx's theory of value, however they themselves formulated it. A. A. Belykh objects that Marx's concept of value was never completed and, on the scale of the economy as a whole, comes close to the ideas of the mathematical economists. This debate matters not only to historians: it shows that terms invented for the sake of political acceptability make it harder to verify what exactly is being measured. Within the school, Novozhilov conducted a subtle debate with Kantorovich about the criterion of optimality. Kantorovich started from a given product mix and sought maximum output; Novozhilov started from a given volume and sought the minimum total expenditure of labour. Mathematically these formulations are related, but economically they differ: for Novozhilov the measure is labour costs, for Kantorovich it is the structure of the constraints itself. Their joint work from the late 1950s shows that the disagreement did not stand in the way of a common cause. From the standpoint of critics of centralized calculation, Novozhilov's theory has the same weakness as the whole school: differential costs are computed by the planning body, while the enterprise has no incentive to disclose its real costs and reserves. Novozhilov looked for an answer in combining the plan with economic accounting, that is, in making the enterprise itself gain from decisions that benefit the economy. But as long as prices and standards were set from above and cost data remained with the ministries, this answer depended on the very institutions that had an interest in distorting information. ## Legacy today In his 1975 Nobel lecture, Kantorovich named among the first attempts to apply mathematics in the Soviet economy L. P. Yushkov's attempt to determine the norm of effectiveness of capital investment, which, in his words, was profoundly developed in the works of Novozhilov. In 1966 in Leningrad Novozhilov founded a laboratory that continued his programme; his selected works were published later. In 2006 the St. Petersburg Scientific Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Government of St. Petersburg established the V. V. Novozhilov Prize for outstanding achievements in the social sciences; it has been awarded since 2007. The idea of feedback costs today sounds like the familiar notion of opportunity costs, and the norm of effectiveness like the discount rate in the appraisal of investment projects. But Novozhilov has something that usually gets lost in textbooks: the idea that individual minima are incompatible. It applies directly to any system of indicators for those who carry out work: if every contractor is paid for reducing its own costs, the overall result may get worse at the expense of those onto whom these costs are shifted. Novozhilov was also highly regarded by his colleagues. In an unpublished draft from the early 1960s, Kantorovich called him the greatest Soviet scholar in the field of economics and the first economist who, as early as 1940, appreciated the significance of the newly discovered linear programming and was the first to apply it. Nemchinov, in an article on the use of mathematical methods in economic work, wrote that Novozhilov had published the first works on optimal programming in 1939, 1941 and 1946, and that the pre-war works of Kantorovich and Novozhilov had in a certain sense anticipated both input-output analysis and linear programming, which are usually regarded as achievements of foreign science. Both assessments are known from Okrepilov's article. A view independent of the school is offered by Campbell's 1961 article, whose very title places Novozhilov on a par with Kantorovich. For the history of planning, Novozhilov is important as an example of a scholar who knew the inner workings of project design and understood that the main difficulty is not the formula but a standard that is the same for everyone, and access to data. His fate also shows the price of honest calculation in a system where calculation limited other people's power over resources. ## What open planning takes - +A single public rate for comparing investments. The norm of effectiveness, or discount rate, is fixed in the version of the methodology and is the same for all contractors and projects, and a change to it does not apply retroactively. This fits into the reproducible calculation layer and into the rule that rules are not changed retroactively. - +Accounting for feedback costs in the appraisal of projects. When a project takes a scarce resource — connection capacity, water, land, a budget limit — the methodology takes into account the losses of those from whom the resource is taken. This fits into the reproducible calculation layer and into digital twins of territories, where such losses can be calculated from open data. - +Vector indicators instead of an individual cost minimum. The lesson of the incompatibility of individual minima: a contractor's indicators are not reduced to cutting its own costs but include the consequences for related parties and the territory. This fits into the execution circuit, into contracts with vector indicators and a deposit. - +A methodology is judged on its merits, not by the status of its author. There is no need to repeat the story of zero votes and labels: the version of the methodology is published, an outsider can recalculate and challenge it, and disputes are settled by calculation and measurement. ## What we do not repeat - −We do not call the rate by other names for the sake of acceptability. The attempt to fit the norm of effectiveness and scarcity prices into the labour theory of value made the theory acceptable but hard to verify. We call a rate a rate and a charge for a resource a charge. - −We do not leave the effectiveness calculation to the applicant. When an agency calculates the effectiveness of its own project, the calculation turns into a justification of the decision. Under the separation rule, the calculation is carried out or checked by someone who does not receive the resource. - −We do not reduce everything to a single measure of cost. For Novozhilov the measure was labour costs; our model has no single measure of value, and metrics are not used in care, education, medicine, culture and science. ## Links between ideas Whom the author argued with, whose ideas they developed, whom they answered and whose fate they shared. All links are on the shared graph. [Graph of ideas](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/graph) - [Leonid Kantorovich](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/kantorovich)Parallel path ←Independently and almost simultaneously, in 1939–1941, they arrived at scarcity prices: resource valuations and differential costs. - [Leonid Kantorovich](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/kantorovich)Debate and criticism →A dispute within the school: Novozhilov read the valuations as a transformed form of value, Kantorovich as resolving multipliers. - [Leonid Kantorovich](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/kantorovich)Practice and institutions ←Together they secured the opening of the sixth year at Leningrad State University in 1959 and prepared the 1960 conference on mathematical methods. - [Vasily Nemchinov](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/nemchinov)Practice and institutions →In 1959 Nemchinov published Novozhilov’s main work and called him one of the pioneers of optimal programming. - [Nikolai Fedorenko](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/fedorenko)Develops ideas →From Novozhilov SOFE inherited its attention to measuring costs. - [Wassily Leontief](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/leontief)Parallel path ←In Nemchinov’s assessment, the pre-war works of Novozhilov and Kantorovich in a certain sense anticipated inter-branch analysis. - [Evsei Liberman](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/liberman)Develops ideas →According to Okrepilov, Novozhilov’s ideas on combining plan and self-financing formed part of the basis of the 1965 reform. ## Timeline - 1892Born in Kharkov - 1915Graduated from the Faculty of Law of Kiev University - 1922Began working at the Leningrad Polytechnic Institute - 1939Article Methods of Comparing the National Economic Effectiveness of Plan and Project Variants (Metody soizmereniya narodnokhozyaystvennoy effektivnosti planovykh i proektnykh variantov) - 1946Article Methods of Finding the Minimum of Costs in a Socialist Economy (Metody nakhozhdeniya minimuma zatrat v sotsialisticheskom khozyaystve) - 1949Start of the campaign in Voprosy Ekonomiki against advocates of calculating the effectiveness of capital investment - 1959Measuring Costs and Their Results in a Socialist Economy (Izmerenie zatrat i ikh rezul'tatov v sotsialisticheskom khozyaystve) - 1965Lenin Prize, together with L. V. Kantorovich and V. S. Nemchinov - 1967Monograph Problems of Cost-Benefit Analysis in Optimal Planning (Problemy izmereniya zatrat i rezul'tatov pri optimal'nom planirovanii) - 1970Died on 15 August in Leningrad ## Key works - 1939 Methods of Comparing the National Economic Effectiveness of Plan and Project Variants (Metody soizmereniya narodnokhozyaystvennoy effektivnosti planovykh i proektnykh variantov) - 1946 Methods of Finding the Minimum of Costs in a Socialist Economy (Metody nakhozhdeniya minimuma zatrat v sotsialisticheskom khozyaystve) - 1959 Measuring Costs and Their Results in a Socialist Economy (Izmerenie zatrat i ikh rezul'tatov v sotsialisticheskom khozyaystve) - 1967 Problems of Cost-Benefit Analysis in Optimal Planning (Problemy izmereniya zatrat i rezul'tatov pri optimal'nom planirovanii) ## Sources - Большая российская энциклопедия. [Новожилов Виктор Валентинович](https://bigenc.ru/c/novozhilov-viktor-valentinovich-5cf4c0). без даты - Большая российская энциклопедия. [Новожилов В. В. Проблемы измерения затрат и результатов при оптимальном планировании. Москва, 1967](https://bigenc.ru/b/problemy-izmereniia-zatrat-51cb62). без даты - Окрепилов В. В.. [Творческое содружество Л. В. Канторовича и В. В. Новожилова по формированию экономико-математического направления в отечественной науке и практике](https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/tvorcheskoe-sodruzhestvo-l-v-kantorovicha-i-v-v-novozhilova-po-formirovaniyu-ekonomiko-matematicheskogo-napravleniya-v-otechestvennoy/pdf). 2012 - Институт промышленного менеджмента, экономики и торговли СПбПУ. [Новожилов Виктор Валентинович](https://imet.spbstu.ru/novozghilov_viktor_valentinovich/). без даты - Белых А. А.. [Экономические идеи Л. В. Канторовича и их восприятие в СССР и на Западе](https://jet-russia.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/6-Belykh.pdf). 2024 - Campbell R. W.. [Marx, Kantorovich and Novozhilov: Stoimost' Versus Reality](https://doi.org/10.2307/3000504). 1961 - Диденко Д. В.. [Изменение качества планирования экономики в позднем СССР: технологическая и институциональная динамика](https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/izmenenie-kachestva-planirovaniya-ekonomiki-v-pozdnem-sssr-tehnologicheskaya-i-institutsionalnaya-dinamika). 2021 - Балакин В. С., Балакина Л. П., Палечкин Н. П.. [Из истории научных идей: академик В. С. Немчинов и проблема применения математических методов в экономических исследованиях и планировании](https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/iz-istorii-nauchnyh-idey-akademik-v-s-nemchinov-i-problema-primeneniya-matematicheskih-metodov-v-ekonomicheskih-issledovaniyah-i). 2012 - Википедия. [Новожилов, Виктор Валентинович](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Новожилов,_Виктор_Валентинович). без даты Prepared from open sources. Dates, titles and quotations were checked against the source list at the bottom of the page; where sources disagree, the text says so. Contents - [Who he is and his times](#context) - [Main ideas](#ideas) - [What became of the ideas in practice](#gosplan) - [What worked and what did not](#worked) - [Debate and criticism](#critique) - [Legacy today](#legacy) - [What open planning takes](#take) - [What we do not repeat](#avoid) - [Links between ideas](#links) - [Timeline](#timeline) - [Sources](#sources) All profiles Founders - [Gleb Krzhizhanovsky](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/krzhizhanovsky) - [Stanislav Strumilin](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/strumilin) - [Vladimir Bazarov and Vladimir Groman](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/bazarov-groman) - [Nikolai Kondratiev](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/kondratiev) Industrialisation - [Yevgeni Preobrazhensky](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/preobrazhensky) - [Nikolai Bukharin](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/bukharin) - [Nikolai Voznesensky](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/voznesensky) Balances and optimal planning - [Wassily Leontief](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/leontief) - [Leonid Kantorovich](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/kantorovich) - [Viktor Novozhilov](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/novozhilov) - [Vasily Nemchinov](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/nemchinov) - [Nikolai Fedorenko](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/fedorenko) Cybernetics and reforms - [Viktor Glushkov](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/glushkov) - [Evsei Liberman](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/liberman) - [Stafford Beer](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/beer) - [Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/cockshott) Critics - [Ludwig von Mises](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/mises) - [Friedrich Hayek](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/hayek) - [Oskar Lange](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/lange) - [János Kornai](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/kornai) The administrative market - [Vitaly Naishul](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/naishul) - [Simon Kordonsky](https://gosplan2.ru/en/history/kordonsky) ## Related profiles Leonid Kantorovich 1912–1986 · Mathematician, creator of linear programming and of the theory of objectively determined valuations, winner of the 1975 Nobel Prize in Economics Vasily Nemchinov 1894–1964 · Statistician and economist, Academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences, founder of the first laboratory of economic-mathematical methods and initiator of the Central Economic Mathematical Institute (TsEMI), author of the idea of a self-financing (khozraschyot) system of planning Nikolai Fedorenko 1917–2006 · Economist, member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, first director of the Central Economic Mathematical Institute (1963–1985), head of the development of the System of Optimal Functioning of the Economy (SOFE) Evsei Liberman 1897–1981 · Economist, professor at Kharkiv University, author of the article “Plan, Profit, Bonus” (1962), whose ideas formed the basis of the 1965 economic reform Stanislav Strumilin 1877–1974 · Economist and statistician, one of the authors of the first five-year plan, founder of labour economics and time-budget research in the USSR, member of the USSR Academy of Sciences