Pd Nes) 
exercises influence at several points and is not totally subservient 
to party guidance. Presently there are nearly 100 All Union, Union 
Republic, and Republic Ministries that run the country. The Soviet 
ministries have considerable powers through the control of operations 
that capitalist nations usually leave to private enterprise. The concen- 
tration of power in state ministries has led to the development of 
fiefdoms and the pursuit of self interest. Administrators of the state 
system assume complete responsibility for their sector’s performance, 
and participate in policy decisions. They draft plans and proposals 
for higher level action that incorporate their personal preferences 
and departmental needs. They issue the bulk of regulatory acts which 
may or may not conform to existing laws and edicts.? Representatives 
of these functional institutions have differing objectives and stakes 
in ocean policy. 
The ministries also interact in different phases of the policymaking 
process. The ministries and state agencies are a source of expertise, 
providing valuable technical and analytical information in making deci- 
sions. The appropriate selection of one alternative among several 
choices under conditions of scarcity requires estimates of the existing 
situation and possible results. The analysis of complex variables 
requires ‘“‘scientific’’ evaluation and the contributions by specialist 
from ministries, departments and institutions are frequently noted." 
Information input can be used both in choosing a policy and evaluating 
its performance. The extensive government system employs a variety 
of specialist interests that will promote narrow, self serving goals. 
Information feedback on policy performance can also be distorted 
by agency or ministry bias. The party’s inability to coordinate inputs 
and ‘“‘perform specialist functions’ has decreased its political power 
and increased the power of the state administrative system." 
The tension between centralization and regional or specialist par- 
ticipation has been a theme in Soviet policymaking. The most impor- 
tant foreign and domestic policy questions and crisis issues in any 
country will be decided at the highest levels of political power. Ocean 
issues at times involve important policy questions, and in a number 
of instances, decisions have been made at the top political levels. 
For the most part, however, ocean management and policy have not 
been crisis situations and policy options are defined and decisions 
taken at lower administrative levels. Ocean uses are a high technology 
area and technical questions are approached through normal bu- 
reaucratic channels. These procedural questions, in turn, carry impor- 
tant political and economic implications. 
The responsibility for ocean management and policymaking in the 
Soviet Union is dispersed over a broad Communist Party and govern- 
ment structure. Soviet ocean users account for a large and diverse 
set of interests. In making decisions, extensive information is required 
and a wide variety of considerations must be taken into account. 
These factors, along with the tendency of departmental proliferation 
®*Jerome M. Gilison, “‘British and Soviet Politics: Legitimacy and Convergence” (Baltimore: The 
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972), p. 141. 
°F. Kotov (Deputy Chief of a division of U.S.S.R. Gosplan) and I. Prostiakov (Chief of a U-S.S.R. 
Gosplan division), ‘‘The Participation of Scientific Organizations in the Development of National 
Economic Plans,’ Planovoe Khoziaistvo December 1973: pp. 17-25. 
' David Lane, Politics and Society in the U.S.S.R. (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1970), p. 
224. 
