and carried out surveying; they oversaw vodka and salt farming contracts and
custom houses; they keptfinancial audits; they managed state lands, supervised
mines and factories, and litigated on behalf of the state infinancial matters.
Respecting the reform’s separation of judicial from other arms of government,
the Treasury Office had no judicial authority but referred disputes to the gubernia
board or to the courts.
At the gubernia level Treasury Chambers were headed by a vice-governor
appointed by the empress,five other appointed officials withfiscal knowledge,
and a staff offinancial clerks. At the district level the treasurer was appointed by the
procurator-general and a board of assistants, all generally from the local gentry but
selected from experienced, qualified officials. With more specialized officials, these
administrative changes improved tax collection, audit of resources, and the empire’s
overall ability to budget. Paul I maintained this general structure, adding a few
institutions of empire-wide policy making and execution, such as restoring the
College of Manufacturing abolished by Catherine II.
INDUSTRY, MANUFACTURING, AND EXPORT
In confronting the challenge of paying for all its commitments, Russia relied on a
variety of forms of taxation, monopolies, loans, and currency manipulation. At the
same time, trade was the ultimate goal of eighteenth-century European rulers, and
their ministers worked to encourage domestic production and trade. Mercantilism
by and large shaped policy towards growing the economy and population, winning
a favorable balance of trade by developing productive resources, simplifying the
national economy, and protecting native industry. Arcadius Kahan, however,
pointed out that Russia’s ability to implement mercantilist ideas was hampered
by its history and social structure. The success of mercantilist policies in Europe
depended upon a robust level of economic development, including a relatively
commercialized agricultural sector, well-developed money market, industrial skills
and organization, access to resources as in a colonial empire and the transport
facilities (merchant marine) to move them, and a well-organized bureaucratic
apparatus. Russia spent much of the second half of the eighteenth century
working on these structural building blocks; it suffered in particular from lack
of a free market in labor and available capital. So, in Kahan’s phrase, it followed
a “proto-mercantilist”policy, pragmatically asserting state control and direct
investment in some cases, opening access to the market, and working through
merchants and the market when possible. In the crucial mining and iron
industries, for example, the majority of factories and mines began as state
owned and operated; the state developed crucial roads and waterway networks.
In other industries, the state supported private industry and the market. Robert
Jones points out, for example, that the state was deeply interested in maintaining
a stable grain supply for St. Petersburg and around the realm, but it worked to
create that supply without taking the grain trade under direct control of the state
(other than maintaining reserves).
318 The Russian Empire 1450– 1801