The Influence of the Soviet Economic System on Technological Performance

  • Philip Hanson
Part of the Studies in Soviet History and Society book series (SSHS)


The proposition that the Soviet economic system is the source of major constraints on Soviet technological performance is not the sort of proposition that lends itself to rigorous hypothesis-testing. Even comparisons of substantial numbers of different nations with differing economic systems are unhelpful so long as national ‘technological performance’ itself eludes reliable measurement. And other influences — cultural, historical and political (e.g., limited contacts with advanced capitalist countries), and those stemming from policies rather than system, — are also of a scarcely quantifiable kind. Moreover, the Soviet system is not without certain built-in advantages, compared with a capitalistic market economy, when it comes to innovation.


Capital Stock Central Authority Investment Spending Soviet Economic Soviet System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    E. Neuberger and W. Duffy, Comparative Economic Systems: A Decision-Making Approach (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1976).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    F.A. von Hayek, ‘The Use of Knowledge in Society’, American Economic Review, vol. 35, no. 4 (September 1945), pp. 519–30.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Zaleski, J.P. Kozlowski, H. Weinert, R.W. Davies, M.J. Berry and R. Amann, Science Policy in the USSR (Paris: OECD, 1969);Google Scholar
  4. 3.
    J.M. Cooper, ‘Research, Development and Innovation in the Soviet Union’ in Z.M. Fallenbuchl (ed.), Economic Development in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, vol. 1 (N.Y. Praeger, 1975), pp. 139–96;Google Scholar
  5. 3.
    Louvan E. Nolting, The Planning of Research, Development and Innovation in the USSR, Washington: US Department of Commerce, Foreign Economic Report no. 14, July 1978.Google Scholar
  6. 5.
    J. Jewkes, R. Sawers and D. Stillerman, The Sources of Invention, 2nd edn (London: Macmillan 1969), pp. 66–7, judged somewhat over half of the 72 major twentieth-century inventions they studied to be classifiable as ‘individual inventions’. Small firms and individuals appear to be much less important, on the whole, in the subsequent stage of commercialisation (‘innovation’). Nevertheless, one inference from the Jewkes study seems to be that any reduction in the scope for individuals and small firms to initiate research and experimental development will tend, other things equal, to retard technological change.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Slama and H. Vogel, ‘Technology Advances in CMEA countries: an Assessment’, in NATO Economic Directorate, East—West Technological Cooperation (Brussels: NATO, 1978), pp. 197–241. And in chemistry, in citations studies:Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    R. Amann, in Amann, Cooper and Davies, The Technological Level of Soviet Industry (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977), pp. 288–96 and 320–8.Google Scholar
  9. 8.
    J. Berliner, The Innovation Decision in Soviet Industry (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1978), Chapter 1.Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    J. Langrish, M. Gibbons, W.G. Evans, F.R. Jevons, Wealth from Knowledge (London: Macmillan, 1972).Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    G. Gvishiani (Deputy Chairman of the USSR State Committee for Science and Technology), ‘The USSR’s Experience in East—West Cooperation’, in C.T. Saunders (ed.), Industrial Policies and Technology Transfers between East and West (Vienna and New York: Springer Verlag, 1977) pp. 209–10, at p. 209. The SCST’s supervisory competence appears to extend to part of both budgetary and non-budgetary expenditure reported under the leading ‘science’. It appears to exclude most ‘innovation’ spending and all military R and D. See Nolting, The Structure and Functions of the USSR State Committee for Science and Technology, US Dept. of Commerce Foreign Economic Report No. 16 (November 1979), pp. 2–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 14.
    Alice C. Gorlin, ‘Industrial Reorganisation: The Associations’, in US Congress JEC, Soviet Economy in a New Perspective (Washington, US Government Printing Office, 1976), pp. 162–89.Google Scholar
  13. 15.
    V. Pokrovsky (a SCST section head), ‘Razobshchennye chasti kompleksa’, Ekonomicheskaya gazeta, 1978, no. 43, p. 13. There were over 150 of these associations at this time, according to the article.Google Scholar
  14. 18.
    P.A. Zdorov, ‘Bol’shoe budushchee plazmy’, Ekonomicheskaya gazeta, 1979, no. 2, p. 7).Google Scholar
  15. 20.
    J. Wilizynski, Technology in Comecon (London: Macmillan, 1974), p. 92. Wilczynski says his informants believed there might be some 15,000 people in this category, not all of them scientists or technologists.Google Scholar
  16. 23.
    E. Mindeli, ‘Optimal’nyi variant’, Sotsialisticheskaya industriya, 19 February 1978, p. 2. Its truth certainly transcends national boundaries; the thrust of our argument here is that it is likely to apply more widely in the Soviet Union than under capitalism to what is planned to be mission-oriented research.Google Scholar
  17. 29.
    various ‘Novye offitsial’nye materialy’ (’New official materials’) on this subject in Ekonomicheskaya gazera, 1976, no. 50, pp. 11–14; 1978, no. 10, P. 16, and 1979, no. 2, p. 15.Google Scholar
  18. 30.
    K. Poznanski and S. Krajewski, ‘Innovations stimuli and restraints’, mimeo, 1978. The study was carried out in 1976–7 and many of the supply shortages apparently arose from the special circumstances of major import cuts.Google Scholar
  19. 34.
    A. Mal’tsev, ‘Prikazy i otkazy’, Sotsialisticheskaya industriya, 7 May 1977, p. 2.Google Scholar
  20. 35.
    M. Troitskii, ‘Na novom etape’, Novyi mir, 1975, no. 1, pp. 169–80Google Scholar
  21. 35.
    A. Viktorov, ‘Avtogigant na Kame — reshayushchii period’, Ekonomicheskaya gazeta, 1977, no. 40, pp. 13–14, and interviews with Western machinery suppliers.Google Scholar
  22. 38.
    S. Kuznets, ‘A Comparative Appraisal’ in A. Bergson and S. Kuznets (eds), Soviet Economic Growth (Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1963), pp. 333–83, at p. 355.Google Scholar
  23. 39.
    P.R. Gregory and R.C. Stuart, Soviet Economic Structure and Performance (New York: Harper and Row, 1974), pp. 214–28.Google Scholar
  24. 41.
    N.N. Baryshnikov, P.A. Chekhovskoi, E.A. Organesyan, B.I. Lavrovskii, V.M. Masakov, ‘Mezhotrastevoi balans v planirovanii proizvodstvennykh moshchnostei’, EKO, 1977, no. 2, pp. 31–9. The authors cite a number of percentages of output increases in 1971–5 that came from capacities introduced before 1971, for a wide range of branches. These ranged from 35 to 97 per cent and were mostly in the 40–60 per cent range. The authors argue that these figures indicate ‘assimilation’ (osvoenie) times (from start-up of production to rated-capacity operation) that are systematically understated in the planning process.Google Scholar
  25. 42.
    V.S. Sominskii, ‘Normativnye osnovy planirovaniya: novye zadachi’, EKO, 1978, no. 6, pp. 93–110, at p. 98.Google Scholar
  26. 43.
    A. Yakovlev (a Minstroi planner), ‘Pochemu narushaetsya ritm’, Ekonomicheskaya gazeta, 1979, no. 6, p. 9.Google Scholar
  27. 45.
    V. Krasovskii, ‘Politika kapital’nykh vlozhenii v period razvitogo sotsializma’, Voprosy ekonomiki, 1978, no. 4, pp. 21–33.Google Scholar
  28. 48.
    N. Igoshin, Pravda, 4 May 1972.Google Scholar
  29. 49.
    D. Valovoi, ‘Sovershenstvuya khozyaistvennyi mekhanizm’, Pravda, 11 November 1977, p. 2.Google Scholar
  30. 50.
    S.H. Cohn, ‘Deficiencies in Soviet Investment Policies and the Technological Imperative’, in US Congress JEC, Soviet Economy in a New Perspective (Washington: US Government Printing Office, 1976), pp. 447–80.Google Scholar
  31. 51.
    A. Tsygichko, ‘Zamena sredstv truda v promyshlennosti SSSR i S.Sh.A’, Voprosy ekonomiki, 1972, no. 10, pp. 26–38.Google Scholar
  32. 51.
    G. Fink and J. Slama, ‘Le problème du renouvellement du capitale fixe dans quelques pays socialistes’, revue d’études comparatives est—ouest, vol. 7, no. 4, (December 1976), pp. 113–39. Cohn, however, finds evidence for relatively long actual working life of machinery in Soviet industry (‘Soviet Replacement Investment: a Rising Policy Imperative, US Congress JEC, Soviet Economy in a time of Change (Washington: US GPO, 1979), pp. 230–46.Google Scholar
  33. 52.
    A.S. Becker, ‘The Price Level of Soviet Machinery in the 1960s’, Soviet Studies, vol xxvi, no. 3, (July 1974), pp. 363–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 52.
    S.A. Kheinman, ‘Mashinostroenie: perspektivy i rezervy’, EKO, 1974, no. 6, pp. 37–62.Google Scholar
  35. 55.
    J.A. Martens and J.P. Young, ‘Soviet Implementation of Domestic Inventions: First Results’ in US Congress JEC, op. cit. (1979), pp. 472–510.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Philip Hanson 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip Hanson
    • 1
  1. 1.University of BirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations