Abstract:  The object of this research is the 1957 Soviet administrative-economic reform, while the subject is the prerequisites for the development and implementation of this reform. The goal consists in determination and analysis of the prerequisites for the development and implementation of 1957 Soviet administrative-economic reform. The article examines the activity of the Soviet government and party in the 1950s; identifies the economic and political prerequisites that influenced the course of events. The reform was aimed at weakening the central authority, downsizing of ministries, simplification of the centralized planned system of economic management, and establishment of the new industrial management branches – councils of the national economy of administrative economic districts. The research is based on the principle of historicism, employs the historical-genetic, functional, and formal-legal methods. The chronological framework stretch from 1953 to 1957. The administrative-economic reform is conditioned by the economic and political prerequisites. The authors note the industrial slowdown, as well as the crisis of the state plan system. The political crisis that unfolded in the USSR in 1950s had most considerable impact upon the reform. The reform was of uninstitutionalized nature, and served as the mechanism for strengthening the party authorities. 

Abstract: The object of this research is the administrative-economic reform conducted in the Soviet Union in 1957. The subject of this research is the legal acts of the Councils of National Economy. The author meticulously examines the order of passing legal acts by the Councils of National Economy, as well as their policy-making activity. The article provides the analysis of law and draft bills of government authorities of USSR and RSFSR, as well as legal acts of the Councils of National Economy. Classification of the latter by the content and nature of the contained administrative requirements is conducted. In conclusion, it is established that the crucial questions of competency of the Council were usually resolved collectively; however, there was not clear demarcation between the rights of the chair of the Councils of National Economy and the Councils itself. Gaps in policy-making activity with regards to the order of issuance of acts led to unnatural increase in the already significant amount of such acts, which did not make any essential contributions to the work of institutions and enterprises subordinate to the Council of National Economy.