tion holder of material resources, though the State 

 Committee for Material and Technical Supply (Gossnab) 

 presides over one of the most extensive and powerful 

 bureaucratic empires in the country. Still, more 

 than 75 percent of the 7000 supply and marketing or- 

 ganizations belongs to various ministries and depart- 

 ments. "Subdividing supply functions," an article in 

 Pravda notes, "has the undesired consequence that 

 each branch of the economy strives to supply 'its 

 own' enterprises first, frequently to the detriment 

 of the state as a whole. "^5 The cumbersome multi- 

 level and multi-agency distribution system gives rise 

 to poor coordination in planning, complicates work, 

 and impedes the solution of even routine matters. 

 Describing the defects of the system, the head manag- 

 er of supplies for the Moscow region observed re- 

 cently: 



The organizational structure of the USSR Gos- 

 snab and its agencies does not yet fully meet 

 the demands of the national economy in as much 

 as the share of material resources sold through 

 this system is low, not over 50 percent. 



The nationwide system has still not become the 

 basic, prevailing system of supply either at 

 the center or in local areas. As a result, 

 production associations, enterprises, construc- 

 tion and research organizations are compelled 

 to use numerous additional channels to find 

 and acquire the materials and equipment they 

 need to fulfill their plans and meet their 

 commitments. 



At present there are no firmly established 

 procedures for planning and distributing the 

 goods on the itemized lists stipulated by the 

 USSR Gosplan and by the state economic plan. 

 Naturally, this makes for considerable du- 

 plication in the work of the USSR Gosplan 

 and Gossnab. ^6 



Largely because of the difficulties in obtaining ma- 

 terials and equipment through Gossnab, R&D facilities 

 and production units continue to bypass the whole ma- 



105 



