insure the integrated planning of science, technol- 

 ogy, and economic growth. In addition, their appli- 

 cation was usually not concerned with the planning 

 and evaluation of production efficiency.' Scientif- 

 ically-based norms are still lacking for financing 

 research and for supplying it with human and material 

 resources. Norms governing the performance of R&D 

 are absent, as are norms regulating the length of 

 projects and their stages. When schedules are in- 

 cluded in planned assignments, they are often fixed 

 arbitrarily without any sufficient basis." Nobel lau- 

 reat and Academician Kantorovich noted in 1976 that 

 "in practice consideration of the time factor is not 

 systematic and is frequently non-existent" in R&D de- 

 cision making. " Yet, without taking time into ac- 

 count, all Soviet science analysts agree, it is vir- 

 tually impossible to evaluate any other indicators, 

 such as the technological novelty or economic advan- 

 tages of an idea. All depend directly on "time," on 

 how rapidly scientific ideas move from the laboratory 

 into use. 



Serious deficiencies also exist in the data base 

 for planning and evaluating R&D. Decision makers are 

 frequently faced with fragmentary and contradictory 

 information. Statistics on expenditures for funda- 

 mental research, for applied research, and for de- 

 velopment are not regularly collected and reported. 

 The absence of standard concepts for various stages 

 and categories of R&D results in unsystematic infor- 

 mation and conflicting calculations. The information 

 gap is particularly glaring with respect to expendi- 

 tures for innovation and the introduction of new 

 technology. Since most R&D units at industrial en- 

 terprises and associations are not formally classi- 

 fied as "scientific institutions," statistics on R&D 

 performed at production establishments are not sys- 

 tematically gathered, nor are they included in "of- 

 ficial" science allocations. The lack of accounting 

 and reporting of these expenditures seriously "ham- 

 pers the objective measurement of inputs on scientif- 

 ic and technical progress," note S. Golosovsky and G. 

 Yeremenko.10 Essentially, the later stages of the 

 research-to-production cycle fall outside — or, more 



90 



