On another level, the relations of science-produc- 

 tion associations with higher ministerial authorities 

 are not uniform and regularized. In some branches 

 there is no permanent body to lead NPOs . Where such 

 organs exist they sometimes fail to take into account 

 the distinct features of individual associations and 

 regard them all as alike. Some ministries and agen- 

 cies approach NPOs as ordinary research institutes or 

 industrial enterprises. The lines of subordination 

 also vary. A few NPOs, such as Soiuznauchplitprom 

 and Mikrobioprom, report directly to the ministry (fre- 

 quently to a deputy minister). The majority, however, 

 operate on a three-link system (NPO — glavk/industrial 

 association — ministry) . They report either to one of 

 the glavki or main administrations in their respec- 

 tive ministry or to an all-union industrial associa- 

 tion. Plastpolimer provides an example of the latter 

 pattern, which will probably become more common as 

 the ministries reorganize and the glavki are liquida- 

 ted or transformed into industrial associations. The 

 majority of NPOs function as the first link of manage- 

 ment. Yet a number of them conduct from 30 to 100 

 percent of all R&D done in the branch. In addition 

 some NPOs are essentially all-union associations. 

 These differences are not reflected in their legal 

 status, however. This causes some specialists to ar- 

 gue that certain NPOs should have additional powers 

 and prerogatives compared to other NP0s.->° 



Internal organizational development has also been 

 marked by problems and diversity. The key issue has 

 been the degree of legal authority to be exercised by 

 the central management or head organization as against 

 that retained by the constituent units. "The criter- 

 ia for establishing a happy median between loose or 

 formal merger and over centralization of decision ma- 

 king are apparently difficult to arrive at," observes 

 Nolting.5° The aim of creating these new complexes, 

 it will be recalled, is to break down structural frag- 

 mentation, to bring the multiple participants in inno- 

 vation into closer association and even under common 

 administration. 



Meanwhile, the evolution of NPOs up to 1976 shows 

 two negative tendencies. On the one hand, integra- 



215 



