In the Soviet Union, the most important currency was not the ruble but the favor you could call in.
The Russian word blat (блат) describes a system of informal exchange in which personal connections, not money, secured access to goods, services, and opportunities.1 Under the Soviet planned economy, chronic shortages of consumer goods made official channels unreliable. Citizens who needed meat, medicine, a place in a hospital, or an apartment turned to their networks.
Alena Ledeneva, a scholar at University College London, published the definitive study in 1998, Russia's Economy of Favours, describing blat as "an exchange of 'favours of access' in conditions of shortages and a state system of privileges."2
The word originally carried criminal connotations. Blatnoy meant someone with the right paperwork or connections, initially in the underworld of imperial Russia.3 By the early Soviet period, it had broadened to describe any use of personal relationships to bypass official procedures. The idiom po blatu, meaning "through connections," was widely spoken but banned from official discourse. It appeared in no edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia.4
Joseph Berliner, one of the first Western scholars to study Soviet industry, observed that without access to oral testimony, researchers might never have guessed the importance of blat.5
Blat operated through reciprocity, captured in the Russian phrase ty mne, ya tebe, "you for me, I for you." A doctor who could arrange a hospital bed for a friend's relative expected that the favor would be returned in kind, eventually, through some other channel. Enterprises employed dedicated tolkachs, or "pushers," whose entire job was to use their networks to secure materials that the central plan had failed to deliver.6
After the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, the shortages that had sustained blat were replaced by a new scarcity: money. The networks survived, but the currency of exchange shifted from favors to cash and influence. Ledeneva documented this transformation as evidence that informal systems do not disappear when formal systems change; they adapt.7