245 
concludes that even though the State Committee’s powers were ex- 
panded in 1961, it does not have supreme directive powers in research 
and development. The State Committee, along with other agencies 
conducting scientific research, come under supervision of the Council 
of Ministers.!2° A recent Soviet study of science management also 
downgrades the State Committee’s powers.!® The Council of Ministers 
is identified as the center of the Soviet administrative system, and 
the State Committee for Science and Technology is presented as a 
balancer whose function is to make recommendations rather than 
issue directives. 
The State Committee uses a system of science councils to coordinate 
research across institutional lines. Use of the councils was proposed 
as a decentralization measure by the present Chairman, V. Kirillin, 
in 1959, while he was head of a Secretariat department and cor- 
responding member of the Academy of Sciences. He argued against 
a central control agency for science policy and proposed the establish- 
ment of councils composed of representatives from agencies involved 
in studies for each area of science and technology.!?? Twenty-four 
science councils were established in the 1961 reorganization to work 
in particular problem areas. One of these was specifically concerned 
with ocean issues. The councils are to bring together leading scientists, 
engineers, economists and administrators from various institutions. 
Although their function is purely advisory, they make recommenda- 
tions that are often implemented.!”8 It was estimated that in the early 
1960’s about 7,000 scientists and specialists were involved in council 
activities.'2° This form of centralized oversight is apparently successful 
and in the 1965 reorganization, the number of councils was expanded 
to 33. 
The method of research funding in the Soviet Union is also an 
indicator of the extent of central control over science policy and 
management. Research funding comes from two sources: (1) the cen- 
tral budget and (2) enterprises and economic organizations. The cen- 
tral budget finances work that is theoretical or of importance to 
the entire economy and about 30 percent is allocated for particular 
studies. The State Committee for Science and Technology would 
probably have some input in the decisions made on central budget 
financing of specific research. The remainder of the central budget 
goes to the Ministries and the Academy of Sciences which themselves 
determine research lines. Most of these funds are given as block 
grants to scientific institutes which determine their own research proj- 
ects within broad national and sectoral research guidelines.%° Enter- 
prises and economic organizations provide funds for about half of 
the research costs of most ministry branch institutes.'*! The discretion 
in the use of these funds seems rather broad. 
125 Zaleski, pp. 56-62. The amgibuous division of responsibilities is described in the field of interna- 
tional scientific contacts by Tony Longrigg, “Soviet Science Policy and Foreign Policy,’ Survey 17 
(Autumn, 1971): 30-31. 
26 Organizatsionno-pravovye voprosy, pp. 130, 138-170. 
"7 Graham, “Reorganization of the Academy,” p. 145. 
"28 Graham, “The Development of Science Policy,” p. 38. 
"9U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Government Operations, Staffing Procedures and 
Problems in the Soviet Union. A Study submitted by the Subcommittee on National Security Staffing 
and Operations (88th Cong., Ist sess., 1963, p. 41). 
'89Djermen M. Gvishiani, ‘““Centralized Management of Science: Advantages and Problems,” Im- 
pact 22 (January—June 1972): 197. 
31 A. Ashanina, “Sources of Financing and the Structure of Expenditures of Scientific Research 
Organizations,” Financy SSSR, no. 7, (1970). Trans. in ‘Problems of Economics” 14 (October 
1971). 
