The results of many researches were far not always perceived economic practice. Above all things it was characteristic for recommendations on complex to regional development. Revivifying and were alien the laws of functioning of the command centralized economy, interests of which presented not Government or Gosplan, but of a particular branch departments (ministries), growings into giant government monopolies with a vertical management even. Efforts of on the search of acceptable combination of of a particular branch and territorial management could be crowned success, even if it was succeeded to avoid errors and they would operate more purposefully and organized.

Certainly, were participating not only to achievements but also to the errors in placing of productive forces. Their certain circles supported socially and ecologically imperfect ideas of gigantomania in industrial building, narrow specialization of economy of regions, transferrings of considerable the masses of population to the regions with the difficult conditions of life. Possibilities of the centralized planning were accented in harm of economic independence of regions and enterprises.

In 20th went by possibilities of new economic policy (new economic policy), and in the second halves of 60th not too actively instrumental in translation of economic reform on a regional level. However basic negative moments in placing of productive forces, regional development in the USSR were investigation of not so much erroneous scientific recommendations, how many their systematic ignoring. On the whole of model regional researches in the USSR conformed to the requirements of broadening economy on the stage of industrialization with predominance of extensive factors of growth.

In soviet as compared to western regional science insufficient specific gravity was made by problems: social, demographic, ecological, ethnic relations, development of infrastructure and sphere of services, informative environment, distribution of innovations. And however in 70—80th in the structure of soviet positive changes accumulated gradually: the study of social and ecological aspects broadened considerably, and also economic mechanisms of regional development of relations.

In conclusion of review of basic directions of domestic researches on a regional economy (to the modern period) will make an effort answer a question: it is possible to confront the theoretical level of western and soviet schools of regional economy? This question on principle is insoluble because of absence of obvious criteria for such comparison. But we can fully confidently to establish substantial distinctions in hikes to the construction of theory and in its setting.

At first, unlike traditions of western theories of placing and spatial organization economies, the moments of which are abstract situations, axioms, simple mathematical models, soviet school was in a greater degree oriented on generalization empiricists and decision of tasks, put practice.

Secondly, if western theories attract attention to the step rational conduct of economic subjects (housekeepings and firms) in economic space, then soviet theories were exceptionally normative, I.e. searched the decision of questions: where in behalf of single pertaining to national economy complex it is necessary to place new productions; where it is needed to move a population; what new regions must be mastered? Sure, soviet regional school was oriented to more scale problems, than prevailing part of of the West. It ensues from high-quality distinctions of western and soviet theories, that a decisive estimation can not be conducted out of historical context.