METHODS AND MATERIALS ON THE MEASUREMENT OF INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTIVITY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: R
• Document Page Count: 40
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 8, 1998
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: February 12, 1953
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
BEST COPY
AVAILABLE
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
IMINIONsfasio
swain INFOIOVITIal
rIZIEARC3 Alp
Mr:01008 AND MAUR/ALS CM WE MEASAVHENT
OF TWOJSZVAL MOWTSYTIT
-?3tV,Wtt.
W ftioruary
NOTICE
Yitie riwttz4.-abdd vaAs /Intr. priznetly
for Vac WiA Of 11b9. titioca.6
14ARIVati
5f;
XS DtIVAIMT CONTAINS INFORitteiltZ AVITOCTIV4 flATICMAL
EIT1$1 C TraE c:41Z11131) STATES lel T:29 7S TtE MEA11.01 CY TM
LAW,: TrZLE 10, MC, MS. 193 AND 79&i.j lam
'::Alasici:ssnii REVELATIMINiP1.1VI:t..5 7.0 Airt: MAURER
MEDzo 3 KIM IlEaT.7., '01 X.41
matki. reastx,)-zeme Alatr,c,:t1
C)1114.1v rot iLTamret rmd 2Qporta
Grialle1110.111111,
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
;t.MVIctgn
CONTENTS
1. Statement of the Problem ? 0 .....?.?.?.
(La Stu/nary 00 GO 0000000000000000000000
J.*
Various Concepts of Productivity ? * 0 0 ? * 0 ? 6 4
0
0
0
1
20
Labor Productivity: Limitations of Such Measures ?
*
0
0
I
34
Available Productivity Statistics, Various Countries
4,
Productivity Ratios as Zstimating Devices . . 0 0 0
A
6
0
A
Concepts of Productivity and Methods of Measurement
14 Labor Productivity Ratios: Methods of Measurement and
4.4e3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 000 .0
2* Labor Productivity Ratios: Limitations and Defects
3, Composite Productivity Indexes: Ratios of Aggregate
Outputs Divided by Aogregate Inputs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
40 ?roductionFmctin0 00060000000000400n
50 General interdependence 0ernOncti0 noonn
IV, Available Productivity Statistics, with Special Reference
to international Comparisons 600000604000001
0
10
10
Introduction 0 . 0 . . 0 . 0 0 0 . . 0 0 0 00 0 a 0 0 .
0
10
2,
UK and US Comoarinons: Years 1924-1925 0 . . 0 . 00 1
0
II
:10
Comparison UK, Germany, and US:- Years 1935-1937 0 00 a
0
11
40
Angloa,American Council an Productivity: 1949-1950 0 0 0
o
Aj
50
Russian Productivity: Galenson for Rand CorporatiOn 0
6.
Russian Productivity l Various Sources ono o o 000 o
o
17
70
Productivity in Coal Mining, International Labor Office.
.
19
B.
Changes in Productivity 1935-1938 to Recent Years in
oftoicos Countrior ,.? 0 ., A 4,0 0 a 000 00 0 0 0
o
20
9,
International Productivity Comparison by Colin Clark . .
.
21
10,
Conclusion . . . . , .
400006000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
21.
Vo Selected Bibliography of 3ooks0 Articles. and Other Material
on Industrial Productivity 0 0 0 0 . 0 00 oo o 0 0 o oo 23
1. General and Non.Soviet Sources 0 0 0 ?
2. Paterial in English and 1Ruselar. 0-el the Soviet Aloe , ?
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
NI*S41171'17D
Approved For Re!este 2001/08/14,LP
3 '4-
P79S01046A009100040001-6
ject 103->i)
Wrilap? 1:172.41,04111.7aS12211201.
(JNI- IA-A-Qtmenvilr
Sta:42emegge.PLIAR-Ettafee
The purpose of this stay is to examine the fundamental ooneepe
and the methods of measurement of industrial productivity and to
survey the data that are avoilable on this subject for the USSR and
some other aountrist,
Emma
"WU
jimagtus...cLapkisitjaux.
In general terms, productivity refers to the relationship 'etwee
the outeuts of particular industries or groups of industries and the
corresponding inputs of laber? materials, capital, and other factors .if
production. Frequently, attempts are made to express productivity in
terms of only one of the several essential inputs. In a great majority
of such oases, productivity is measured solely in terns of labor input.
As explained more felly in XII, below, such a measure is defective fer
most purposes and is valid for only very limited uses. In this paper,
three other (and more general) expressions of the relationship between
the output of a produotion process and the corresponding inputs are
discussed. One such method makes use of a weighted composite index oe
several inputs, all relative to a given base year. Such a method bas
some validity for comparing changes over time in a given country bet is
not applicable to international comparisons. A second method, the pr,-
duction function, recognizes the separate influence of all of the
various factors in the production process machinery, resources, etc.,
as well as labor) in a given plant or industry. The technical co-
efficients for each factor of production in that function are, in effect?
productivity ratios. The production function is useful as a guide in
eareftle logical analysis but haa not been extensively developed for
purposes of actual measurement. A third method, the formulation of inter-
industry relationships along the lines of the Leontief input-outpul model
also may be used to reveal prodectivity relationships. These methc>Os
are examined briefly in III p below?
2- 4.14.022r20-1ALAW-....-4=1-4142r2-2L?MLL'uslinttia
The subject of labor productivity, including its measures Ent
particular sectors, an in the fconomy as a whole, is the object a.* ex-
tensive study in several oountrees, particularly in the USSR, the 'IS, and
the Uf. Soviet economists, in view of their Marxist approach, hay,' no
conceptual difficulty in treating output per worker as the only 334Mirioai
output-input relationship. A number of studies, both in Russian ald in
aN7RWTEP.
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
Approved For Release 2001/08/14QAaet.PR79S01046A000100040001-6
e'ileiefe
nelishr describe the variou& rEnlos that can be calculated and deviloP
4recise statistical methods for doing ro. This material is reviewed in
the subsequent sections and Lnnexea of this paper, In a few cases 'studies
made by private and governmerttal agencies in the US and the UK and ey the
Thternational Labor Office recogeize the limitations and defectz of the
labor productivity ratio. Many productivity studies, however, are iefecelea
in the logic of their analyeis, They seldom fully recognise or give proper
weight to the essential nature of production in advanced industrial aooletet
as a joint process involving several factors, Thus the labor produltieity
ratios (for' example groins output per worker) for given industries Ui various
t4ountries which appear to have a clear and definite meaning are in 'Act
Pundementally ambiguaue. For a given industry a relatively higher labor
productivity ratio in one country than in another may be due to an entrinstc
difference in the skill or willingness of workers to produce in the two
eountries? but, and equally likely, it may be due to differences in the use
of capital, skill of management, availability or quality of basic resourceea
and scale of operations or te any one of several different combinateons of
these and other factors,: Also, changes which involve a reduction ii the use
ef materials 'or capital but uhich do not alter the output-labor relationsle:pe
are completely obscured in the corventional labor productivity ratios, The
eonventional ratiost, furthermore, are ratios of totals and give no eadecatior,
of the marginal or incremental values which would be significant in the
eatimation of probable increases in output. Consequently great care! ie
necessary in any use that is made of labor productivity ratios.
plsilabls_produOivitL?.44tisties.?.2ariouseountpes,
The second object of. this study? the exploration of the avellable
eata, has yielded useful information for some countries. Although etated
elmost wholly in terms of lator productivity (thus subject to the lemitationo
endicated above), and more adequate for earlier than for recent years, there
is considerable information on this subject pertaining to a number of enduetx ea
In the US, Germany? the USSR., and the UK and scattered data for same oeher
eonntries
The following exameace illustrate the types of data that aee a11
n name of the studies which compare output per worker in different countree
One of the most extensive efforts of this nature (by Laszlo Rostai ::eor the
PK National Institute of Ecoromic and Social Research, 1948) shows aomparateve
productivity per head in certain manufacturing and mining endustrisa for the
iece. Germany, and the US. Rostas4 detailed tabulations, weightee with Britese:.
aet output and taking physical output per head in manufacturing aed mining
industries in the UK as 100, ahow comparable figures of 107 for Gemany and
238 for the US, for corresponding (not identical) years 1935-1937,,
A report by the Coal Mines Committee of the International 1,abor
Organization published in 1951 undertakes a detailed theoretical aml statietleel
etudy of productivity in coal. mining,: For exemplar in 1969 the out Art of
eoal in tons per man shift (underground and surface workers) is shoal as 1.1h
for England, 0.70 for France, 1?13 for Poland, 1.09 for Czechoslova'aie as
eompared with 4.82 for bituminoue (excluding opencast) and 2.55 for anthracite
eining in the US, A similar ceJearison of Russien and TE orperienor
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: Cli?..-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
leSTRTOTFee
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
ICT1 .13
?
ea an excellent summary of 8oviet productivity statistics by Walter (el. ace
(Rand Corporation P-126). Oalenson estimates that in Russia before the war,
cloal output per man-day was 1912 tons; which he compares with a US figure
of 4.37 tons. On the basis of fragmentary data he obaervele that "coal fields
devastated during the weir bad not recouped their 1940 labor productevity by
the end of 1949, but that the decline may have been offset by a shift of
output to the relatively more productive fields in the Urals and As:_atte
Russia."
Several Russian sources (discussed more fully in TVs below, compare
Labor productivity in selected plants and industries in that country with
similar ratios for the US, England, Germany and give scattered emperisons
with other countries. For several years prior to 19370 productivity in
Russia is compared with that in other countries in the form of data walh
the following: iron smelted per workers square meters of cloth proiuced
per worker, and workers per kilowatt capacity in steam power statices Also
for several years, data are above purporting to indicate the number of man-hs
eequired to produce a wide variety of products such as shoes, lathes, erel
tractors, as well as aircraft, tanks, guns, and other military equipment. Fie'
till other industries, data are available in terms of output per vorker ie
eubles, In most cases such information does not appear to be available foe
years after 1937. In that year Russian sources claim that productivity wal
3.3 times that in 1913. For postwar years the meager reports on Reesiav
productivity are limited largely to rates of change. For 1947 to 14501 Sovie7'
euthorities (rad) report an annual increase of 12 to 15 percent ard. the
attainment by the end of the latter year of a level of productivity 37 percene
above that of 1940. For 1951, &avda claimed an increase of 10 percent over
1950Q
et is general4 recognized that Russian indexes of phyei output
in manufacturing and mining industries (at least those that have teen
lished) have an upward bias arising from the method of their calculatioef
(See Revieae of t:oppomica and_Statistios,s November 1947). A correavondtua
upward bias probably exists in Russian estimates of productivity. Cerecie
Russian- estimates suggest tett productivity in manufacturing and alerting ie
that country in 1937 was 40 percent of that in the US,. This figuru, 11,70Erver:
is too high. Moreover, not entil 1948 did Russia exceed the prewar level
of productivity. Since the latter year, production and productiviee have
eontinued to increase more rapidly in Russia than in the US,.
A, Feedirctility Ratios as Estimattagjadeaa.
Eeonomic intelligence estimates, as is well known, frequeetly met
be based upon scattered bits and pieces of Information. WE may de Are for
example, to determine the emcvne of the output of a particular plait or
industry but may have, or can secure, only such data eat the numb ,r of
workers, the area of factory floor space, electric power consumed, tmEa-
toads of a key material ineue moving to onc or a group of plants,
may be necessary to estimate oueput as best we can from such bits el'
intormation together with known productivity ratios from other pla La In e
eiven country or ratios from eeeets or industries in other countries,
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
UISTRICTED
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
ThIQTI
An examination of individual plants, however, even when ehey art 4.1
i.11 the same country and, superficially, appear quite similar or mem tsenticat
and thus are assumed to have the same productivity characteristics, orten
exhibit wide differences in output,* The marked differences that neer be tonna
An labor productivity ratios in different countries aro examined in this
study. For example, the number of manehours of labor reeeired per 'es000
kilowatt hours of electric power generated in ateam power plants of oomparata
size may be in Russia from five to six times that in the US. Manifeatly any
productivity ratios which are extrapolated from one country to anoteeer should
be corrected for observable differences between the two countries. , Beare at
such specific productivity ratio (in terms of one input only) is weal every
effort should be made to determine not only the relative effectiveness of the
particular input concerned, for example, "skilled labor, but also 7:,ha-, or
other factors such as* (a) the type of plant (extent to which elecaxieal
or mechanical power, improved machinery, automatic controls are useap
(p1) the gree of raw material inputs (e.g., ore of 30%, 40% or 50% dam
aontent etc.); (0) comparability of the product output,
Even with the exercesaof great care, a wide margin of error is lieeLe,
and should be clearly recognized, in an estimates of output based %lean proaue-
tivity ratios. To take an arbitrary but realistic illustrations ee may list
the output of a given plant as 1,000 units whereas all that we may -mow is
that it is probable, in 9 casts out oi 10, that the actual figurt eomeweere
within the range between say 600 and 1,800. The statement of such a range
more complete, more t'accuratefl than a single figure.
view of the widely differing proportions in which laboi
ekilla? machinery, power, and other factors may be used in differel
to produce closely similar products? estimates should be based, if
possible, upon more than a single type of data and single productil
Thus, if output is estimated primarily by meens of the number of we
a labor productivity ratio, an effort should be made to check such
by using floor space, numbcr of facilities (as blast furnaces, pree
raw material inputs, or similar suitabla measures of another major
Is also possible to fill in some difficult gaps using the method ol
industry flows (input-output analysis), Por many basic industries'
final products), the pattern of commodity flows between sectors is
aamparable in two countries than are the productivity ratios such v
product per worker.
Forward projections of output for a given industry or for
ant a whole also are sometime: based upon productivity ratios and eZ,
amounts of a factor of production in a future period such as numbe;
working force or augmented plant facilities. Such an estimate betai
epon one factor of productiou is fundamentally illogical and may ee
incorrect. For example, an estimate based solely upon the number
-11d labor oroduetivity is strictly valid only when the limiting fa
or varee,1
t eountri-e
at all
ity ratio
TIcer Lad
result,
rez,, etc0.1
inter.
(but not
nore nearly
s uaitu
a onAnTry
ciplec;xtd
-a in the
d leiy
.ove to be
,f wlrkeru
tor fls tL
lilxustrations may be founo? both in the inc and in the USF: of plane eeeel
from identical designs and W.th working staffs of approximately the same rArl
and composition whose outeets-ox ieentical products differed by as mwn
20 to 30 percent. Also see Land Corporation, RH 563, Esti'ating dritautfr_suu
oo
nrAgpileyedtfe?Seiefivig 2001/08/14 : CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
-A-
e 91 .017Yt
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
sneer of persons in the working force. ,wen -in the latter case the eulY
productivity ratios available are gross averages and give no indication of
.he actual ratios for increments In production (the latter may be more or
lees than the average). There IA, in fact, no siseAc measure of preductiv
or future economic canability of a country which has general applicability.
Over any appreciable period, say 3 or 4 years, the various factors 1r produci.
ion can to some extent be substituted for one another (for example, more
labor or machinery may be used to save scarce materials, or machine -y may be
permittted to run down in order to save scarce labor) but, what is even more
significant, final products may be substituted for one another..
III. Concepts of Productivity and Methods ofeleaeurement.
Preductivity in its simplest terms is a relationship, a ratio of output
to corresponding inputs, or, the converse, the amount of input per unit of
output. Such a rate my apply to a particular establishment, an ineustry, or
n. entire national economy. It may- deal with a. single input factor or with
aeveral factors of production. There are many different vases in wheat
productivity has been expressed, the most important of which are: eabor
productivity ratios, comparisons or composite indexes of outputs ane inputs
(particularly for agriculture), parameters of the variable factors en 4
production function, and the technical eoefficients in a system of eeneral
Interdependence (explained briefly below),
L. Labor Productivity Ratios: Methedeef Meaeprement and gete,
In the great majority of productivity studies, labor is the only
input considered, The effects of changes resulting from other foe:Acre
(resources, equipment, working capital, management) appear only as "laeor"
productivity. Measures of labor productivity usually take one of t)e
following forma*:
a. Value of output (in constant prices) per unit of labor
input in a given industry or establishments (for example; Annual ovtput of
the "machine building" industry in rubles, at 1926-1927 prices, divided by
the number of workers in that industry.) This method is used extensirele
the USSRq as well as in the He, the DS, and other countries,
*There is an extensive literature on this eubjeot. See bibliography at end
of this report. Some of the principal sources ares L. L. Kukulevice ene
M., A. Rubin,, PlanerovegyeeleAnalle Trudoyekleftheeetelexe 2d editioo,
Moscow 1948.
Methods of Labor Productivity Statlstics? International Labor Organiestion,
Geneva:1W*
Laszlo Rostas, Copmraeive Productivity in British and American Ineestre,
Oecasional Papers VIII, National Institute of economic and Social Releer h,
Cambridge University Press, 1948.
US Bureau of Labor Statistics, eveeeleeof Proceediga
Prp4uTqy1tx, October 1946, Bulletin No,, 91e,
Approved For Release 2001/043/1414WDP79S01046A000100040001-6
Approved For Release 2001/08/14 : CIARIV79S01046A000100040001-6
h, Physical unite of catput nor unit of labor laput: for exaeple
tons of coal per man ehift.
e, "Value added" in a particular industrial process per worker (or
per any other unit of input).
dL Aggregate national product or national income at constant prices
divided by total labor force. The labor figure sometimes is adjusted to allow
for differences between countries or Changes over time in number of workire
hours per day. The productivity measure thus appears as "total real national
oroduct per man-hour" as in Colin Clark, The Conditions of Economic Progreso,
1951 edition, and Xhe !commies of 1960.
e? Labor input per unit of product output: for example, menehoure
per locomotives built. This is the reciprocal of bp above, and is sometimes
designated "unit labor requirements."
Labor productivity ratios are used for many different purpose:: such as:
to indicate changes over time in the productive capability of a couutry or
industry, to compare the "industry efficiency" of different countries, and to
estimate future productive power (using expected labor force as multiplicand
and a forward projection of labor productivity AS the multiplier). They also
are sometimes used for rough estimates of production in individual plants on
the assumption that, for practical purposes, all factors are identical in the
plant for which the estimate is to be made and that from which the ratio was
calculated.. Productivity norme or standards also have been used foe compariseel
with corresponding figures calculated from output of individuals or plants as
a basis for compensation or disciplinary action and az a propaganda measure le
promoting greater effort by workers or by management. Notwithstanding their
extensive use, labor productivity ratios by themselves are very inateevate
veasures for purposes of economic aralysie.
2 ?) 4albor feede4iviq Ratios: Limitations and Defects..
The prinaips2 limitations of indexes of labor productivit) or av e
productivity ratios based upon any single input) are as fellows:
a, Differences ip lebor.ereduptivAtz as eueh 4eelgt_reve41...tne mental causes causes of .t,4,st _difforenc!a which the perport to me euree Hith (or low7
output per man-hour may be due to-li extensive or littleT7;67-chanieal or pow,..t.-
driven equipment or other real capital per worker; (2) adequate (or inadequate)
'working capital including inventory stocks; (3) availability (or lack) of hiee-
grade raw material inputs; (4) sustained demand for product:, of indestry_at
optimum level of output (or frequent fluctuation away from optimum leve1,4
(5) changes in character of aggregate productions shifts from leas to more
productive industries (or oonverse); (6) efficient (or inefficient; manageeee
fd7) advanced (or retarded) level of technical knowledge and extent tf its
Impact on industrial practices; (8) the intrinsic &4U., energy, abithe, ad
A.ilingness to work (Cr the absence of such qualities) of the workers themsele
and other possible causes.
e. Someeeeit reeueiegeler inereaeinglefteeee mu not. eveeebeerefleeeeS
at all in measures of labor productivity. Reductions in raw materiel inputs
faUe to changes In design or processing methods), for example, or reductiona
"TitalA, .MvsfavabekAtamtoOkowttte-Arlihnse4Daiiwolielittbattivet 417-t4turt)
nutputil .*r ratio in any way but may have important effects on productf.ve
!-VP5.!TR(CITF11
Approved For Release 2001/08/144,0: 79S01046A000100040001-6
,Ancienoy.
do y*asures_pgja0or oeoductivetleavauseful in calculatiReefutpee
peedeettre cepaaItaaaely inspfar as the mere total number,in th-Maior force
available to a given industry is the limiting factee.
4, Lalercapscxhictieltzin terms of direotlabordnoj1eeue
t
measure of the total labor required. It takes no account of Suppo
aotivities such as those for maintenance, distributions new construction. etc,
In the Russian statistics, engineering and technical personnel, adminietrative
and clerical personnels service personnel? and apprentices usually ere excluded.
Only the workers participating directly and engaged in physical 'abler are
included. Some attempts have been made (especially by eoonoiloes) to
obviate this defect by an erdeavor to maculate a measure of "total productivIty*
whit* includes hours of work "invested" in factors such as power, materials, end
equipment. As is indicated elsewhere in this papers sueh a method is based
upon a false concept of the economics of production. The contribution of toe
given factor to total output bears no neceasary relation to the numter of
van-days involved in its creatiore
e. The usual productivityratio is peealaean overall lavereee"
poecepteetptalestput divided be :tote: uniteeperelabir?this ratio eae air Ce
at different levels of output. Logicallye a marginal or incremental ratio
ehould be used in any procese of estimatien of incressed production level.
The relation of labor productivity to wage and price pcleay often
appears in discussions of this character, but is not pertinent to the present
inquiry.
g. There are also many statistical limitations such as lack: of corn r.
ability of products, difference in length of work period in different eountrice
(hours per day or week), differences in weights used in aggregation of indesteies
etc0 which are not examined in this paper but must be recognised in any attemeeed
vee of labor productivity stetistios.
3- F9M29,A#7944ctIdOte4Ideersde R41.2121-2S-107.1NOtAkWeRlagedese
-41-4SgEreVe InPuts.
in recent years there has been developed in. the US a oampo3lte measlee
of productivity in terms of several outputs and several input factore, Giri
Barton and others of the US Lenartment of Agriculture who have develeped mas
method have made extensive studies of the relation of :Agricultural preeuetion
various separate inputs and to am aggregate measure of all inputs, The prizleipul
Inputs considered separately aret land used for crops farm labors -Uld farm
power (animal and machine). An index of total physical inputs in ageiculturae
production is derived by aggregating constant dollar costs oft all e7erm labten
eet land rent; maintenance and depreciation Oaf beildingss motor veheelece,
maohinery and equipment); operation of motor vehicles; interest on ievestment
(en machinery, livestock inaludine horses and mules, crops, and vehtites);
rertilizer and lime; and miscellareous operating expenses. In aggrerating theae
-various components there were Leal either (a) physical units (for teounnLe,.
men-hours) multipliee by /935-1939 unit costs or (b) estimated costs en ceireele
dollars deflated by a price index on a 1935.1939 base, The productivity ratio
Approved For Release 2001/08/14 : CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
Gr
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
%LUMP
obtained for a given year by eividing an index of total production by the
oorresponding index of inputs (described above).
4. Production rung:tin,
A more general, and logically more correct, formulation ce: the presses
of production, and the corollary productivity ratio, than either of the two
methods discussed above is the well-known production function of a ft'irm or
industry. With the data at present available, this method is suitable for
practical analysis in only a very fey isolated cases. However, reference le
made to it in this study because of its clear* comprehensive, and logical
formulation of the production process. It is an excellent guide to anelywisR
and its consideration will often prevent serious errors in the etude of the
economics of production.
The production function is a general expression (usually ;tor a fere
or industry) of the various technical possibilities between the numeee of
units of output of a given product and the corresponding quantities of ael
pertinent factor inputs: materials; plant and equipment and workine capital;
power, transportation, and other services; and the various other faetorm) A
determination of the optimum proportions of the factors usually invelvea the
principle of maximization: maximum output from given resources or 7ainimum
inputs for given outputs. This method has important applications to the
analysis of production in authoritarian as well as in free individuelietic
economies. In a given state of technique, relative availability of tto
factors, and period of time in which the inputs are considered to be variaolc
there is a determinate relationship between the various levels of output and
the optimum amount of each factor required.
The most significant *productivity* ratio is the small increment
in production associated with a given small input of each factor taken sepam
ately, There is no assurance that this ratio for any factor will remain
lonstant as production increases, These changes in output associated with
given inputs at various levels can be determined or estimated only ey etede
" the particular industry concerned. Crude labor-productivity ratioe? as
already indicated, assume a constant ratio over the entire range and oomplet, 7
ignore important aspects of production. The "productivity? of any factor mk,
change as a result of a change in the level of output in the relative avatl.
ability of the various factors, and in the intrinsic quality of any of the
factors, or it may change as a result of the introduction of new technical
processes. Wor a more complete discussion of the production function, see
any good treatise on economic analysis).
PVIerig4-IPIer4ePSTAVaPP0
The preceding section has considered productivity as a ctaracteris t.a
of a separate plant or industry. A more complete analysis of productivity
from the point of view of its relation to the economic capability Of .1 counti.':i
.'quires a conaideration of two additional elements: (a) the character of
demand for final end-products and (b) the interrelationships between tac
various industrial sectors of '?hf. entire economy%
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
'eFSTRI:TIP
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
An assessment of the productive capability of an economy can be
made realistic only in berms of the particular purposes (civil and silltery)
which it is expected to serve. In both an authoritarian and in a Ilse enter-
prise economy, such an assessment will depend upon; (a) the structsre of
consumer demand for end.products. (b) the requirements for varions eroducts
by the military and other government agencies. and (c) the requirements for
economic growth (such as additions to productive facilities and other factors
necessary to attain a desired future productive capacity) The essential
difference, in this regard, between a free enterprise and an authoritarian
economy is that the demand requirements of the latter are determined, 3argeLy
or wholly, without regard to consumer preferences. The fundamental nature
of the industrial processes and pattern of commodity flow, however; may be
closely similar in the two countries. In both cases, the demand (requtrevento)
an well as the supply (production) elements are essential to a defirit.ive
assessment of the economic capabilities of a country.
Sioreover, production in a modern industrial economy is ehtracterinee.
by an elaborate division of labor among the various industrial seaters. These
sectors are highly interrelated and interdependent. The dependence, fer
example, of the automobile or munitions industries upon electric energy, steel,
copper, and many other materials and services and the dependence of the lattee
epon fuel, minerals* and other natural resources and upon transportetien to
particular places as well as the dependence of all of these industriee upor
the machinery induetries for maintenance and expansion are simple fte:te of
-common observation. In this process there is some substitutibilitye for
example, if copper is scarce, aluminum can replace it for certain ueee (tf
aluminum is not required for more urgent needs)e This fundamental entereepene-
ence of the various sectors must be recognised in a complete analyst s of any
aational economy.
We are led directly to the conclusion that a definitive /12111.Yeia of
the economic power or efficiency of any national economy must recogrize Its
etructure of demand and the general interdependence of the various !ndustrial
sectors. The most satisfactory method thus far developed for this rpoet
is the Leontief input-output model, It is not necessary, in this paper, to
describe this method in detail. For such a description, reference es mate to
The Structure cf the American leenomg, second revised edition* Oxford. 195j,
by Wassily Leontief or to a briefer statement by Duane Ivens and Marior
Hoffenberg in the Review of Foonceniceseencletkatie. for May 1952.
en some ways this method seems eimple; plain, and obvious where,
,1LIn. fact, it is exceedingly complicated. Only by the most diligent in
persistent effort can it be made to yield useful results. It has been aeleet
auccessitily only to a few countries, the US, the UK, and the Netheriande,
It was tried, as an intelligence project* upon Germany during the second
World Var. A gni,* preliminary analysis for the USSR based primariy upon
data found in the 1941 Plan was made by the Rand Corporation during the
rammer of 1952.
The first stage in such an analysis is the assembly for a glven
yearoof all available data for vech of the various sectors showing, wherever
possible, output totals for the sector and the distribution of output to the
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CK-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
,741qTml??
Approved For Release 2001/08/1fiRfr81B79S01046A000100040001-6
eeveral using sectors. In arriving at the final values, a wide variety of
data may be usedt monetary values, physical quantities, percentage distriew
of products to using industries, breakdown of costs in terms of various intmr:q,
and similar information. Some data of this Character are referred to in the
abstracts from productivity studies in Annex B. In the initial applioation
of this method to the Soviet Union, it may be necessary to start with a prewu;:.
year such as 1935 or 1941 for which considerable information is available on
the distribution of products to industrial uses, etc. Such detailed informaae n
would be of assistance in establishing a system of technical coefficients wiaea
eould be amended as necessary in the light of subsequent changes. 3uch a tele.
at first probably will show more blank spaces than sectors for Waled data preee
to be available (every incomplete cross word puzzle). With the aid of
mpecialists in various industries and their knowledge of product distributioe
and technical coefficients for other countries it should be possible,. by cartetUl
eetimation? to extend considerably, our description of the Soviet economy. Tee
effort involved appears to be warranted by the fact that this in the only foroal
method by which indirect as well as direct requirements attributable to any
eppreciable increase ie any sector (e.g.. in military procurement) an be asroasee
and that no other method 'sada to a complete and consistent evaluation of t..hc
economic capability of a country.
The initial emphasis manifestly is upon securing descriptive data,
directly where possible, otherwise by extrapolation from the experience of other
countries by competent industry specialists, Elaborate algebraic evaalyzie it
not warranted until the most adeouate data possible have been assenialed and it
reasonably accurate description of the Soviet economy provided for 70Me rApAal
period. The nature of the method is such, however, that algebraic anal,ysie
%emu's very powerful for examining the consequences of forward projections c'
major changes in policy or changes in technology in particular sectors
La clearly implied above, the analysis of an economy in terms uf
general interdependence in no sense supplants the most careful and letailed
observation of the various individual producing and consuming sector's,. inclue,eng
their input-output behavior? changes in such. inputs and outputs, thoir teehniftal
eharacteristice and prospects for expansion. The analysis of emu:Clic inter.
4ependence is, in a way, a commation of such individual industry studiee
eM a test of their consistency, each with the others. It brings into conelkie
etion also important factors (such as the secondary effects upon material
eupplying industries and capital goods industries) which are ignorei in the
etudy of isolated induatries. Ont of its most umeful purposes is te assese
the capability of a country to meet the total requirements implied Ln a giver
Alitary policy and program of economic expansion or to evaluate the consecutaer
ofl the economic system of dhangee in policy or in technical progress in
particular sectors. In almost every respect the analysis of sconotte
xer-
dependence and the analysis of particular industries are complementary methati,
4171.41441.12rocip#,1,14t,z ate.4414Pseelfttke4ReciSieRglee,.1.4.,,Ilter.44.44.1.ee,
geor4PAVAP.114.
L. ):ntroductipp.
Tne extensive data on productivity which have been oo1pil3d Ln receee
Jeers are confined largely to particular industries and to single cluntriev,
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: Cif7.RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
eenTaTOTED
Approved For Release 2001/08/14 ? CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
i'F4!TRICVD
? .W ? ft,
.ahere are, however, a few quantitative studies which purport to compare the
productivity in two or more countries* With only a few exceptionssIlese
international comparisons are in terms of output per unit of lam :mput
(mmdber of workers, man:shifters or man-hours). Th a principal exceptl?ons are in
the field of agriculture where comparative outputs per awe or heaters are *Me..
times made.
The defects of labor productivity as a meaningful and sucrate
otatistic have been pointed out elsewhere in this paper (Fart III* Section 2),
International comparisons introduce same further difficulties* such as differ,
enaes in the quality and nature of products in the various eountries and (if
comparisons are made in value terms) suitable exchange rates. These difficult Lee
in moat areas are less serious, however, than the essential ambiguity of the
output labor ratios as a fundamental measure of productive efficieney of a
country. As already observed* direct comparison of physical production of
atrategio items or, much better, physical production in relation to the economic
requirements for the support of a given military or other national policy is 4
far better method in this context than are productivity statistics, and are
likely to be equvlly available,
Z,ebject to these limitations there aapeare in the followini aect ant
of this report a review of the.prinnipal comparisons which have been made be-
tween productivity in various countries in some oases, more extensLve data
are given in Annexes A and B,
9A-241d 114 cmrgx.143pno; Tear 119j,
Relative productivity in the UK and. the DB has been a subjvct of
eensiderable interest for many years. An early study on this subject. by Sir
Alfred Flux appeared in the Auarterl. of .c.for Novainber
This article compared UK. and la production, employment, mechanical Wraepower.
and other statistics for the yearm 1.924 and 1925 respectively* and continued.
the comparison up to the UK census ..for 1930* Flux found that both wegeaper
operative and net output per aereoe in the US were more than double the UK
figures*
The author observed that the phyrioal output in the US was greater
than that in the UK in ruah the same ratio as mechanical power used. (;A:b-
sequent investigations of indielduaI industries have not fully supported the
differences in mechanical power as the sole or major cause of differences ir
Protluotlrity)?
IAaving examined the evidence, the report concludea, It appisrs
..anowdble to escape the evidence of a larger physical output, per person
employed in the US than in UK. an output more than double as great in the
former country as in the latter ,4
3, (,:coiparl.13012 Kt! r_ Germarrcrt
u41 refql. 1M74.917.
The most thorough and detailed comparison of productivity la varioue
industries in two or more onuntaien is that by Dr. Laszlo Rastas for ahe
the US and Germany. Rostano stuaes cover several mining And moknrfatilring
Approved For Release 2001/08/14?-etA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
h,,-.01i1CTkp
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
0-ATctIeTIM
-
ild,ustries as well as agriculture for all three countries. (See L. Hosttu.
bibliogreohy for specific citations). The following is abstracted from a
;onger table in the foopoinApurgAl for April 1943.
Abyrical Output per Head in Certain/
Manufacturing Industries and Namilmg*
(in Eaeh Industry OK taken = 100)
. .
.
Trade
-**
UK
WI
anror
Germany
Mt-
i IT?
".....,
Goal (all countries for 1936)
100
,
143
263
Blast furnaces products
100
115
36.1
smelting and rolling of iron & steel
100
114
ltn8
Gement
100
92
10b
Motor cars
100
98
Rsdio sets
100
70
48:4
Cotton spinning
100
120
Cotton weaving
100
66
130
beet sugar manufacturing
100
34
162
Al industries (many more than shown
above)
Ueighted with British net autnut
100
107
238
Weighted with US net output
100
104
229
7Seleoted ii4ustries from Hostas. qa.ssit.; much flaller'exceipt ia Annex
gestas9 detailed studies yield much the same result as thossof Flux for A Pw
name ten years before. US output oar worker in manufacturing and mining in
1937 was of the order of 2.3 time that in the UK for the nearest comparable
year (1935)
J,n agriculture1 tfte productivity in the US was only slightly higher
:han that in the UK, but in both countries it was higher than in Germany? us
Indicated in the following tahltn,
'7ompsrleon of Productivity Agriculture:
Itt, us Germanytt.!
fl year 14 7 or 1917-1938)
Xet Output
per head
As index numbers based
on !-Jurchasing parity. re..es
Litrv
1.159 HT !...516
104 100
5,7
Above data from L. Hoatas, Comparative Productivity in British an Anerca
j_ndusVpprimeepr,Ralgals3/40004466/14:CIA-RD-P79S01046A000100640001-6
;RiCITP.t
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
9:-8TR1CTID
iiaglexAmEllonAMPAL9a2teigALIEMLINNct,k9.49.149.22.
One of the most recent studies of productivity in the US and the
UK is that during 1949 or 1950 by the various committees of the Ant40-Ameriet,
council on produotivity. Combined labor-management survey teams haste stud1e4
a wide range of different industries in the two countries. Although the
results of these surveys are primarily qualitative, not quentitatiw, in
aaracter? they have, in general, confirmed the calculations of FluA and
Metes for earlier years that output per head in mining and manufaceAring
in the US is approximately twice that in the UK. The following are some of
the principal factors to which the survey teams have attributed the higher
productivity in the US.
(e) Psychological attitudes: 'productivity consoiousnesa" at all
levels; readiness to accept technological and other changes; labor-manage?
went team spirit; individual attitude toward work.
(b) Technological progress: superior arrangement of protewen
and specialization of operations and standardization of products (lune runn
of standard products).
eJ Capital: greater availability of machines and other capita3-
01) Labor' more complete utilization; assign:Dint of dutes
appropriate to skills; simple wage structure but with incentive pr&risione
(reward for productivity).
(e) Management: facilitates oonsumer acceptance of stanciard products
(by advertising); coordinates procesces effectively (procurement, clepsien?
production, salec); has provided flexibility in productive facilitie3?
5, Rmesign PrepoinctiviteGalenson,ferRand Corioretion.
The most concise summary (in English) of Russian productirity
etatistics is a compilation and analysis by Walter Galenson. This naterial
is available in two places: Industrial and Labor Rel ____e Reviet, Cornell
Ueiversity, July 1951, and in Rand Corporation P-124, R sia Labor Productiv4t
ptatiatice. Certain excerpts from the latter (Rand P-12 , unclassi:ied) are
ehown below.
3.
741crla
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
WTWUTA
Pi:b.tr.r.cclugtlY4VAAELIELIghattx
- 1940
Ymiex of Labor Productivity Annual increase In
11120B211AUJINEPC'
Year --
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1915
1936
1.937
A938
1939
1940
z,ourcess 1928-1935s
1.936-1937:
1939
1940
1u0,0
1J3.3
1:b_3
14e
2Y3,9
249,9
2171,0
34)0.0
Tx_70 y SSSR, 1936, pp, 2-3
SSSA.i 4Pit411419111114M-BER21, /9390 10, 15
50tpialistitatgh2leStrqt.2111,11a9-12V-14-M
1931-19:45, p. 38
A444117P144ukfMg../PAro---4.1.t2A?Delit.LIZZLIda
Probl!anA00 4PStio. 1940, p. 8
511, Turetski, Proievoditelnost =OA, 1947,
nth oiertainfstated? reservations, the trend of labor tro4acti71-*4
'iiRussian industry is shown it the above table on the basie of direct Rusetun
ntatemants. These figures have been computed itdeper4ent4 for tte years
t!hien the underlying data were available, with the following resu3te:
Tear
Am3rage Number of
Exoloyed Workers
fThoubandal
Value of
Product kin Annual Output
Millions of per Worker
1,c)2,p2. Rubleal itskaLttlegl
-k9,28
2580*.
0,818
6X84
4668,v
E78
?899
19.33
4576.4?
590934
81%6
934
4949,0)
?s,,t0b,47
906
t935
?S.61t
5 -,800
10521
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-R1DP79S01046A000100040001-6
1.1,,STitiqrn
LficAc.xor
i-roductLiriQ
..4921300:
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
-STRIVIV
.-5oureest (0 Trud v SSSR. 1936. p. 93. The 1928 figure in this stave*
Wan adjusted by subtracting the number of apprenticse. as
given in TENCLUMEL, 1930, p. 12.
(0) /reeleyeSSSIRe 1935, p.
(c) TruiLee??40e 1936, p. 91
"The computed data consistently indicate a somewhat lower produetie ty
increase than that claimed by the Russians? the differences varying between
6 end 12 percent for individual years. The mource of the divergence is not
elem., for the computations were based upon the aeries which it wawa(' have
appeared logical for the Russians to have used, and upon the conoept explioity
indicated in the Russian sources, However, the magnitude of the differences !,K
eertainly not sufficiently great to impugn the internal consistency of the
Russian data, or to warrant dismissal of the Russian productivity dste as
meaningless, itrther analysis may well reveal that the origin of the discrepnoy
lies in differences in the particular output and employment series teed in the
vespective calculations LI
4Even allowing for the eeveral reservations indicated above, the
productivity gains claimed by the Russians for the period 1928 to 1546 are hAel
Indeed. The increase in output per worker in American manufacturing rose by
only 11.2 percent during the entire period 1928 to 1939, a/ and this in preciA,ly
,he average eenual gain indieated by the Russian statistics for the same peried,
Vowever, the Russian product,1.vity *lain is not thereby rendered absurd, for le
is quite apparent that their 1928 productivity base was extremely low, en 19,
by which time their productivity index based upon 1928, had risen to 2500 thu
Russians themselves conceded that labor productivity in Soviet industry had.
attained only 40 percent the United states leve1.2/ Intuitively, as well as
on the basis of comparison that may be made for individual industries, the Ruesian
"concessions" would seem quite bleb particularly when it is recallei that BrIeesh
manehour productivity during the period 1935-1939 has been estimated st about
36 percent of the American level, 4/
"Wartime and nostwar productivity trends in the USSR cannot be tinku
to the pre-war data because of the absence of a common base? The waT,tima
productivity experience can be estimated as follows:
iear
1941
1942
1943
1945
of Labor
--0411,Ytivity
(194t=10(11__
'!00
Annual Increase
in Productivity
In this respect, see ?x4V sasft7-133-67;73-6-47,--Er-otzre-3? which
suggests that a more incfisi4; -employment category was used in th.?
RUSSiati computation than in the computation shown in the text.
Lao/Mass GosmasativeProductiyityin,British_sad_Amexls_an_Indust37,
I. I. Kuxminov, Stakknolplcove Dvizhenive, Plosoow, 1940, p. 189.
L, Rostaa, cit., p. 27
Approved For Release 2001/08/14 : CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
-11-154MP
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
r'.;ources: 1941-1943: Yozneseneki, gp. p. p0 113.
k945 Turetski, op. t., p. 49
'The rreat productivity increase in 1942 compared with 1441 was
undoubtedly due to the low level of 1941 productivity occasioned tor the disruption
or production attendant upon the German invasion. For the four war yeara. tLf.
average productivity increase per year was 9 percent.
"For the first three years of the Fourth Five Year Plan, the folice1ng
labor productivity experience i$ claimed:
j-946
1947
:,948
ildcr of Gabor
Pr,x)dvotivity
10C
113
130
urees: 1947: Pravda. Amax"- le, 1948
948, Pravda. January 20, 1949
Annual Increase
in Productivity
-(DaTeMt).
13
15
?A is stated that in 1948, labor productivity in industry exfteded
the prewar (presumably 1940) level, implying that during the years 1941 te 17,
labor productivity was sdbetentially below 1940."
risen of Calculated and Direct Russian Statements
of Annual Output per vorker in Coal Mining
.(123-I9,7
(.'
ted Output
corker
;1140rio...TqnP)
(2)
Stated Outret
per Workier
SOOACkc.I9PE)
.928 144
1929 156
1-930 170
t931 172
;.932 170
33 188 189
227 221',
0335 260 25?
.9 36 306
'337
t916 126
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: q14k-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
TRIgikp
Ilavon with the substantial productivity gains allegedly sehievee
Russian coal mining during the first three five year plans, output par yore
remained far behind the TO level, The Russians have stated that ottent
per worker in Runsian coal mining in 1936 was 38 percent the 1929 IS level
Output per man-shift in US bituminous coal mining in 1938 have 1A-sY1
estimated at 437 tons, FOr the USSR, annual output per worker in 1938 wee
326 tons, and the number of dap: worked per year in the vicinity of 290?
yielding 1.12 tons per day. On the basie of these data, Russian coal product-
ivity would seem to have been only 26 percent of the current U8 level in 193,
Whichever of the figures, 38 percent and 26 percent, more nearly represented
the actual circumstances, the general conclusion regarding relative pre-war
productivity is clear,
There are not sufficient data to permit the formulation of definiee
eonclusione on the ?our:* of labor productivity since 1940, It is poasible
only to record a few impreweionn, and to wait until the release of cdeitiona
information by the Russians pertits further analysis."
"1:t seam reasonable to conclude that the coal basins which ?urd eeee
oecupied during the war had not recouped their 1940 productivity he the gni
cye 1949".
"The total industry productivity figures released sinee tb
the war are as follows:
Increase an nroductivity from:
Second qearter 1947 to second quarter 1948 - 11 pereemt,
Third quarter 1947 to third quarter 1948 - 10 peroerie
First quarter 1948 to first quarter 1949 - 11 percerle
Seoone quarter 1948 to second quarter 1949 - 13 percente
Third eeartee 1948 to third quarter 1949 14 peecert,
"There is also a reference to a six percent productivity incresee
during 1.948, which does not seen to square with the 1948 data zwd iately
ns well as the statement that "the growth or labor productivity ,..int.11/
still lags behind the prewar levelef
6, Pity R7oduct4vitys 'Tarim!" ?s4re?,lp
Russian literature on productivity and related subjecte coetaine
extended discussions of theory, methods of calculating indexes of reeductivi
eonditione which affect labor productivity, and calculation of productivity I?eeee
eworker performance requirementee The statistical materials are sheen meet
rrequenely in term of relative changes from one period to another% smh 44 :r
igtade,1111:41,4SWg. 1940 (op. Bibliography 2) which reports, tem xal
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: ClIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
4.3.THAIIPD
Approved For Release 2001/08/14 : CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
11'?TR,1074
that annual production per industrial worker in 1937 averaged 3.3 times act
1913 figure, while hourly production was 4,5 times that figure; ant thLA
during the second five year plan, annual production per worker roe( 82
percent; also that the greatest increase occurred in ferrous metallurs th,
1937 figure being 226.3 percent of the 1932 figure. The same source also
reports such data as: the value of average annual production per bJorker in
1934 (in 1926-1927 prices) was 1.700 rubles in lumbering, 2,344 rubles in
coal mining, 7,220 rubles in ferrous metallurgy, and 13,180 rubles 113 the
food industry.
A few direct oomparisons of Russian data with those for other countriem
such as the followins are found in the Russian literature. Vladimirov
9?Wv Bibliography 2) estimates that in 1937 an average of 756 tont of iroc
was smelted pfr worker in the USSR, 548 in England, 505 in German:4 and 4621:4
in the US., He also refers to t production of 8,200 square meters cr elotb
;or worker in the cotton industry in the USSR in 1937 as compared with 1E000
in the US in 1929,,
itlfs h:i.naw (op,. cit. hibliogranhy 2), in addition to statistics showine
,zhanges from year to year in Russia, gives the following data for esa and
Iron production per worker f.n thv USSR and other countries,
!;:luntfa
OSSR
England
tvrence
Belgium
timed Per Worker
12ti9 1931 19/4 1935 1936 1037
149 174 189 224 257 306 315
264 275 272 287 299 309 314
203t/ 184 196 212 215 210 195
156 197 188 210 216 230 238
171;Oteli?
berandarie
61-mattx
Germany
Fngland
Belgium
6molted Per Worker
Tpna_per Tear_
12241921 122(.1 1217
370 486 640 756
530 590 543
455 464 530 513
not knolork-------- A
+ay..
4,211 ):23.2 VAR 19..12
205 240 265
400 612 474 461
356 366 3A5 410
470 525
Re also states that the annual output of steel per worker in DSSR rlset frcul
ro tons in 1934 to 460 tons in 1937 compared 1444k his estimate of .406 tono,
In German7 in the latter year,. Kuz"minov3s book contains productivttv ftgurd,
I:or a mzsber of other industries and some individual plants with glanparnive
rigures for other countries in a few cases. Two such examrlem relat,e to tileg.fl
power stations and "machine buildine factories. He states that th7i wcrear-el
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
q.YSTRUTOZ
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
number of persona employed in Soviet steam power stations eer thou:land kilauts
of capacity is 6 times that in comparable stations in the 4S. Als0 the ',Kale:len
Machine Building rectory," 0ormash Trust, employed 1,695 blue and White-collar
workers in 1936 while the Syron-Jackson "Machine Building Factory" in the ur;
of similar capacity, employed only 622.
temchenko (gap At., Bibliography 2) and Begidzhonov (sze. SW. Biblio-
graphy 2) glee more recent statistics on production of but not comparable
in detail with those in the above-mentioned sources. Begidzhonov else etatee
that the campaign for a rapid increase in labor productivity ezibraCes all
Soviet industry, all branches of production, and that labor productivity ie
1950 was scheduled to exceed the prewar level by 36 percent in indUetry (1aaea,
featuring and mining) exd 40 percent in construction.
Meal:ma (se. cite. Bibliography 2) Shows changes in output 4e eoekee
u considerable number of industries. Be also gives for several years
to 1937) the number of maiehours required to produce a large number of
preducte such as pig iron,- textiles shoes, lathes, and tractors aS well as tc
bend specific types of aircraft, tanks, guns and other military wOlomentl,
Other interesting materials in Maslova are a breakdown of oasts in earions
7ears (materials, administrative coat, amortization, and wages, the latter
mhowing marked increases in "profits" of state emterprises). This Onblicatice
1.3 reviewed in some detail in Annex B.
'7,
maggatal_lptv gtrAlf.
k recent study by the Coal Mines Committee of the Inter to Litve
Organization gives comparative data on productivity in coal mining ior several
countries. For example, in 1940, the output of coal In tons per mae-shift
(underground and surface workers) as shown en the 1951 Report of that Commiete
was as follows:
...or- +-row Sear xe
Aft ? 4,4-
1K
1,18
eeetern Germany
1.05
Saar
0,84
Feance
0.70
Poland (1940
1.33
Belgium
0.64
Netherlands
1.41
Czechoslovakia (1ee8)
1.09
Canada (underground)
2.44
US (194 )
eltuminous 4-82
--240Z
Tand tanadian data are frem nenarate i'ablet. Data shown above ,to
Include men cast mining.
9-
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
!ff.S.T4::CT.AD
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
1EUWZR
an 'aaa.e8?..la..tr_qd.,_mtlarittx_191HY41LULRtatutIasa,JALYsxi9uo.
19adritt.
Index Numbers shoving the changes over time in the rate Of outent
per worker have been made for many countries. Such indexes are not comparable
between countries except as to relative rates of change. An ..illuitration
of compilation of this oharacter is sbewn below for several European countrie
Changes tn the Level of Output per ./
Nan in Industry in Selected Countries
(Index =misers for each lountry based on 1)35-19384CMW
?1-45:11
1242
120
A90
??????1.111111...1111air
Austria (c)
47
65
1.?6,
Belgium (c)
st
85
91
Czechoslovakia (e)
89
100
1102
Denmark
90
95
97
Vinland
93
102
107
France
04
95
102
Germany - West. zone
39
52
'72
Ireland
102
ill
Italy
88
92
98
Netherlands
72
77
RI
Norway :
88
91
94
Poland (I)
87
99
104S
Sweden
110
lit
11.8
UK
106
113
118
Total of Countries Listed:
Tnoluding Germany (1)
79
88
Excluding Germany
93
100
r.Ocsattlapei..0.?. ? Cr. 41.01.= -4431w
(A) From the EgmalaAlurm_ar Onmatl tp 190 published by the Unt..d
Economic Commissien for Eurcoe, Geneva, 1950.
(See Annex A for tore compleee tables.)
(b) The index numbers for each ,ountry are the ratio of the index tf industrt t
production and the index ex, employment in manufacturing industries men- e
ad gas, water ard electricity supply. For those countries ii which theee
have been territorial ehar,es.. productivity in the postwar tetritory SeA
been related to 1918 prode:tivity in the prewar area. The totals for a_
aountries listed, however, have beer adjusted to constant (poitwer)
territories for all yeaxe,
(c) 1937e, 100. The base of tee index of production for Celgium-iS 1936.
W.) 193ft 100.
Is) Western zones only.
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
ST! ICTED
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
AESTIMIL
109414,14,2Pur.titi-V-SZINITAIMAY.S92411..D34/46.
The most extensive cospilatione of statistics showing international
comparison:if, of output per worker are thoee compiled by Colin Clark particularly
in histh.e.Cn_q_el.W2pLitrj4gmla2.4atesua, 1951 edition p and lagagLaC
12(46 London, 1943.
The followine is abstracted from a table compiled by Mr. Clark, and
yrinted seperately showing estimates for some years 1800 to 1947 for some
forty couneries.
Levels of Real National Product per Man-boir
(in International Units)
----1tM 1222 111.--rre-W-m-Mr. 0
tis
0,44
0.442
epaia
0,24
UK
0.22ei 0.10
France
0.10 0.19
Germany
0.26
USSR
0.15
Japan
0.03
Australia
0 I
.....,
ei 1860.
W 1921.
/ 1945.
.4./ 1947.
0.55 0.1 0.77 0.72 1.00
0.27 0.31 0.35 0.37 0.31
0.37 0.51 0.51 0.57
0.24 0.31 0.32 0.34
0.31 0.34 038 0.47
0.17 0.109e/ 0.15 0,12 0.14
0.05 0?06 tx14, o15 0.1?
_944.92_22.41_214__M82161
04.40
Gobi
0,21
0.49
0,14
0.1.8
0
.41
An international unit as defined by Clark is tee amount of gods and
services purchased by one dollar in the OS in bass period 1925-1934L Compereete
figures for other countries are obtained by translating reel nationia income
per man-hour (Ltg.2., Corrected for price changes) into US dollars. (larks
figures are highly regarded in many circles. They involve, however, major
statistical difficulties and discrepancies, such as differences in 11c scope
and aoA)rege of national intone statistics for various countries (eig? a
larger part of econoaloActivity is in money terms in the US than ii Russia
or japan). They also involve discrepancies between the relative 2.41 purchaatu
power of money and the *Maul etehange.ratee, Consequently, tigu4ee for th
various years in any Em_solnita are likely to be =itch more reliabli than
country to country comparisons. It is recommended that the Clarkilafiguree
tor the latter '(country to Country) be used only after confirmationor
correction folloving a careful examination of the basic data in each ea
10. gfelq111Piell
The above examples indicate the types and range or productivity
otatistice that are available for &number of countries. In some iriltancsa
these productivity ratios ma 7 prove to be the only data available on vny
aspect of production for an industry in a particular country. In snlla eseet,
for vent of anything else, it may be tempting to use them in one way or ano0w.
Approved For Release 2001/08/14-41A-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
RESTRICTED
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
D
as a means of estimating production, as a means of estimating future changes
in production, or as a direct means of comparing productive efficiency in
two or more countries. or the first two possible uses, employment statistice
also will be requiree. In many situations suitable employment data will prow
to be quite as difficult to secure or to estimate as data on production itzeTT-,
Since the oroductivity ratio is fundamentally anbiguous? we recommend in eon-
elusion, that great care be exercised in any use that is made of mph statlsts
and that research effort be concentrated to the fullest extent possible on
direct estimates of actual production.
-ATRIPM
Approved For Release 2001/08/14 CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
RIOTED
V, Selected BibliccraAy of PooksArtind Other -ateriaI Oa
naariial Productivity
The followinc list oe roferunces includes the matcrials ,:hittl have Wer.
examined in connection uith this study. It is fairly extensive 'OA does not
purport to be complete. The listinc eelow consists of ti,ie parts:; (1) Gencral
and Von-Soviet sources and (2) Material in _nclish and Russian languaces or
the Soviet Bloc:
1. General and Non-Soviet Sources,
.A.22,Le-American Council on ProdacIly.A.V Team Reports
Anglo-Americen Council on i'roductivity? ranort of the Seseion:
'November 19481 London, 1940.
Ruilding Productivity Team, .Building, London and Eel! Yell, Lay 190.
Cotton. VoavinG Productivity Tema, Cotton. Weayinf., Londai and New Yerkt.
Jun 1950.
Cotton Yarn Dotitlint; Productivity Team, Cotton Yarn Doul.. 1.=, on
and New York, lAy 19500
Diesel Locomotive Productivity Team, Diesel Locemotivea, London u.
Uea York, Lev 1950.
Electric :Zeter Control and Small Airbreak Switch Gear Rroductivilt
Teau, Electric tater Control Gear and Small kirbreak 2tcbgear,4
-
London inS hew York. Sep 195.6.
Fertilizer Prod,ttivity Team, ,papEphoshate and Cossidyer.tilpers?
London and New York, Jul 1950.
Grey Iron Founding Productivity leamo Ore; Iron FoundiC. London
and Nuw York, Sep 1950.
Internal Combustion '3acine Productivity Team, Internal_ ombustior
,aEines? London and New York, Jun 1950.
Lauer:anent Accounting Productivity Team, Lanagement Accountinsk
London and New York? Lev 1950.
Later4.als Eon. ling ProUuttivity Team, waterials Lanai in Incultrz
Lomon and New ?ork. :ay 1950
-envs and Youthss 2actory Tailored Clothing P..-cductivite Team, Lei's
YLothin'c, London iiaV
Approved For Release 2001/08/14stp1elar79S01046A000100040001-6
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
R. STRICTO
Packaninn Productivity Team, Pac:.scinc, London and now York, Sep 1950.
Pressed Petal Proc:uctivity Team, Pressed Letal London tnn Dew York,
Jul 1950,
Rayon Weaving Productivity Teem, Rvon IeavinC, London;.nd Kow York,
Dec 1949.
Steel Founding Productivity Team, Steel Foundinr1?, Loreer? Sop 195:)
Simplification Team, 1T24:fication in industiz, Lon.:.an tnd Lew Yerk,
Oct 1949.
Simplification Toann SiElification in British Industm, London and
.parmageor*noratanw* 4r.
Nell :ark, AUC 1950.
Barger, H. and Inndsberg, H. LI American Agriculture 1499-1939,
'4udy..) Ontauti zL2lcvmont and Uational tLareau of
Economic LosearCh? VOW York, MI:
Barger, Harold and Schurz, Sam, The Induetrios 1499..1939,
A-StAa_Putett .40yma4s anSW uc /a -17aWirof
Econoni c Rescarch. Lew7--"orl's 19449
Barger, Harold and Schurz., Sam, The Trans ortation Industries
1946, A Study of Ontput, en 2 and kroducLvtt1ational
Bureau of Economic Research, Dew ork1-17510
Barna, To, "Note an the Productivity of Labour: Its Concept and
reasuroment," Bulletin-of the akford University Institute of
Statistics, Vof."lJ ro. ja"1-914, PIZT03;a67-7
Barton, Glen T., "Relation of Arriculture to Inputs," Review of
Economics and Statistics Vol. 30, LAY 1948, pp. 117-1767------
-
British Trade Union Officials' Team, Trade Unions and Productivitv.
British Trades Union Congress, London, ipsdr.
Clague? E., Productivit&EMplgment? and Living Standards, Conferonno
on Productiiiti, Milwaukee, 4-7,TinTIM9.
Clark, Colin, The Economics of 1960, gadmillan and Compaly. Ltd,,
London, 1943.
N
Cohen, Jerome rot JIpants Econ. in 'Car and Reconstruction,
University of Miruiesot,a Press ` weaPBTI17271WW6477115K,
(This source contains a-few statistics comparing productivity in
specific industries in Japan, Cerinanxt and the US durimorld
!War II.)
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
RESTRICTED
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
RESTRICTED
,Ammor ,..ealmwww.mw,41,0*
Daniel, Arnold, "Regional Differences in Productivity in European
?kgriculture," neview of reonomic Studies Vol. XII, 19R-h5?
pp.
Dewhurst, J. Frederick and Associates, America's flee& and
Pesources, The Twentieth Century Fund, Vre1717;1471=7"---
Arak*Mbo.i..a
Evans, Duane, "Percent Productivity Trends and Their ImPlications",
Journal of thcjarkan VtatiagoaLAssociationx Vol. XLII, Jun 19E7.
Evans, Duane and Ciegel 18J "The neaning of Productivity Indexes",
Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. X(XVII,
Fabricant, Solomon, Emismatly____i Manufact n
(inelysis of its lelation to the Volume of Production, Untion
eau o .conceiro7Teeear ern/ ra-r?rj.,c,
Fabricant, Soloman, "Of Productivity Statistics An AdmoditicW
rIeview of Tconomits and Statistics, Uov 190.,
Fabricant, Solomon, The Outnut of lanulactur , Industrte 092-
1937, National Dureau of rconamic .esearch? 19 .
Fabricant, Solomon, The 7.e1ation 71etween Factory rmploynent and
')utput Occasional Vi3.5FriTitrirriiialurc& ci. com c c;Trilit
Tarrl 1
Flux, L,, "Industrial Productivity in Great Britain and the
United Ctates0" The Quarter Journal of reonemics, VoL 1,7114
Uo. 1, Uov 1933, P.
Fourastie, J., "Bien des facteurs de la productivite :swricaine
sent a notre portee," Le 71onde, '30 Apr 1950
Fourastie, te ir du XXI!Igigs211.1. Presses tniversitaLrea
de France, Paris. 191, .
Oody, C.O., "Productivity Charges since 1939," 1:124..t.tor leviri=4
Dee 19116 0
Goad, Jacob_t1_0(:)andducivito In the tp_q and Gas
Utilities 1899-1 _jA ?gearirdr-171M"
Hansen, U. E., Productivity on the Increase Survey of Dusiness
Practices, Ihat i..ua o erence ioard, Tiew Yor. Jun T91&
Incorporated Federated Associations of Boot and shoe lanifactvrs
of Great Britain and Ireland, The Boot and Shoe Indust le ort
by Denton and Ir.,_aglium21...J.LJEL., a pr
1145:
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIAIRIp79S01046A000100040001-6
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
00011.....101.10????101.011.10?04111,0
Ingham, 0.? t:nelo-,'.merican Productivity," InAistry, y 1950,
pi 219221..
219-221,
International Labour lrganizution, Jethods of Labour Productivity
ftatistics? internationa Labour orrice, Genera, f91, 92-5
rrhTerFart contains a section on proaems in the international
measurement of productivity.)
International Labour Organizaton? Productivity in 'Alfal Mines,
International Labour Office, Geneva, Tsy
Jerome, H., Ilechanizalluairind, National Dureau of Econoom
Research, 1931 -
Jewess, J., "Is Britain's Industry Inefficient??" The anehestcr
School, Vol. XIV No. 1 Jan 1946.
La Journee d la ronderie la roductivite Or aniettil.
Chatleville, L'Usine Nouvelle, No. 1 Mgr 19 0, pp. 3-7
Nardi, Yoshio, "Industrial 71ecovery In Japan; Its Caws and
social Fffects," international Labour levies,? Vol xm, uo., 1,
Jan 1937, pp. 31.527?(ig?marvecona------fris indices of workers'
productivity in manufacturing ind:stries in Japan, rrace,
Germany, Great Dritain, and the United Ctates, 1928-1916),
Lorwin? Lewis and Blair, John, Tochnolo
Number 22$ Temporary National
ono
in ar Eco
a,
as agton, :191'
Iiarioi1esoo 1hai1, "Arbeitsproduktivitat und 4*.usenhande1?"
NtalItellaftliches volt, vol. 420 No. 1, pp, 13-0.
-ills, rrederick f%jo "Living Costs, Price, and Productivity," 11-4
neview of...22.miaunraztaati_dia, vol. XXX, no. 1, Fe h 190, ---
5":"W
Production
Pa.* IA 7utposei .m hod and ommanamof Findin ationi esetro
Project, Vorks Progress Administration, 1939, Chapter 2
12EPrt of the Cotto _Zildjat...-jaram to the trnieSte.SAULebrz
J !'tationery :Ince, London, 19 1.
-rodu
ti
ort of The D cctqr natal Asian 71er,ional Conf rent
1 Internationa Labor Office, Geneva, 19
:lootas, L., p.....sum.ati-TProductivity in Dritish and merican
National Institute of iconomic and Socialesearch? Camtridge UniTersil
Press, 19/43.,
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RI*79S01046A000100040001-6
?i
4
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
70StLUS LO, "Industrxal Production, :roductiviy? and
Distribution in Dritain? lemony, and the United ntate4,'
Tconomic Journal, Ira, LIII, Apr 190, pp.
lostas, L., "International Comparisons of Productivity,"
International Ubourl:ellob Vol. LVIII, No. 3, Sep 191,810
PP.73:75g77--
Rastas, L., Proittlmala,...al es and Distribution inTelqskta
Dratt_pdustalsa, National Institute of Economic and racial
Icsearch? Cambridre University Press, 1018,
Rothbart? E., "Causes of superior rfficiency of USA Industrr
as Compared with British Industry," Economic Journal, V01? Vat
Uor, 223, Sep 1946, pp 382.-390.
Schwartz?, G. L., "Increased Output Per Head in Industryim the
USA and UK011 Economic Journal, Vol. =XIX, No. 153, !ler 1929,
pp,, 58-62,
Celekman? 11. X. and r,K., "Productivity and Labour 2clations,"
larvard pusinessarlaw, Vol. YX7:-I0 no, 3, :ley 19L9, PP. 373-
:392,
aerels I:, H., "The Concept of 2roduetive DV:nal
thP-4,merican Statistical Association, Vol. Exix.
Snow, rnest C., "The international Comparison of IndustriP,
Output," IsTal_StatisAisittLatur_eml? Part I, Vol. 1079
19)14, pp. 1-55.
Sous Le Sinne Du 7caltgal (report on a visit to the S by
French C.G.T--Force 7Yuvriere Trade Unionists), Force lurviere,
20 Sep 1950,
Tenor, Limitations of the Existine ProductivitL)eaeuree
and the Need for New Audieti Conference on productivity,
Tlashim.tons 19Z,
Teper, L,, "This Ain7 railed -roductivity," The AmplzicC
Federationist? Nov
Tree Thion Coaqress? Trade nions and luctivitz,
United Nations, re0Y1Oittie Commission for :nrope. Economic etin
for rurre, Seconr: Quarter, 190, pp, 31-35,
United Nations, Tannemie remission for !ale and the Tar Fast,
Economic f.-urvey of .."zin anl. the Far 7:est in 2.21.9 take rueeess,
Few York, 19bs pp
Approved For Release 2001/08/14 : gtit-ARDP79S01046A000100040001-6
aLSTIZICTLD
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
US Bureau of 7,4bor Statiutieb* ct vit
"tooted LIut
reb 19 2-4
t Labor oat
rhea
'Ilureau of Ltbor Statistics, roqctitY c.nd n. Iast
in Ce cote' Lndustri su; :_lmeor71117ed
Zlaq 9i5
1J0 nureen of' tabor Ctatistics0
1....ttile_10.st lot Iele a '1
uct vit am; Un t
tries 1 1
xtr.2E1.
.c 1917
US Mare= of Labor Ftatiatics, Productivity in LaLtstAktre
vit Acc 0 rlataal
and French -.m&factuirvsiatto 29 ty - 10
US Dnreau or Labor ttatistics, or ourcea. o. rouct
tio,'ashington, Jun 1919.
US 3ureau of Labor ttatiatics* alcsAga.:AlemnsmaLgro-
Ouctivitx, 'ashinrton, )ct 1914.
US Dureau or Labor titatisticr, Cymmary of Proc tjas
Conference on It2ductivitY. 28-.2? Oct 194& nu etin 913.
US Bureau of Labor Itatistics, our of 1:ork and N.t.1216,?
nulletin 7:o. 917, "eshingtan, 191.8.
US 17ationc1 Industrial Conference Doards Asesix_AL
Productivitz, lab 19h6.
US "brim Pro7resa Administration, Production -tarvt
Protitictiv.ly Attnufec
TERRI: E.; flegea* * Pat onal _e larch
Project, :ay 1519.
"eintraub, David, NC:ome leasurea of Changinp Labor rro iu 6iv
nxIct T:beir uses in Deonomie Lnalyais,? Journal oC the 4 1
Statistical Lasoeictlaa, Vol, 33, 'Jo. 201, a7,* 1936, P 13,1
T;!reintraub? 0,, and Posner, 14 L., 1OC nt and_,.ncress
Productivitg, -orks Iroress Administretion . Technical "tesourct::
Committee, ar 1937,
lalson? racts ell .7ancies on Produetivit he Ec(comie
Society of Australia and :iev Zeeland, 191!7.
Wright, C. D., :!an0 and Lachiue L boor US Denartmeot v;
13th Annual aeportg 9
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA4422:79S01046A000100040001-6
"1ST:: .CTLD
1909-19h5? Dec 190.
US Bureau of Labor ClAtiatica,
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
kit
?Atbui-, :kusurt ant o; Aecilnolalc:1 7'actors, in Labor
.'roductivity.," 4ourttrik .a2r1enn
jun1939.
vaieco PA, "TA -lesion .-...nttrproleseionnelle de ,roductizite:
O7Cnux Itatc-Unis." T.DIgsts_avalle, -O. 28, 13 Jul 195.1
2, 7:aterial_kjaelis'l ant.,:mf111.92AajDarktLaas,
laterial in Flalet -
Ialcnson? !.!alter, "ussion Labor Productivity ::tatisticS,"
.Industri= Iubor -'elations v1.ew0 Vo1 0 10 h, J01 19510
L.197
Gerschenkron :Auscander? "The soviet Indices of Tndustrial Pro-
ductioni," "4view of Feonomic :7tatistios4 7:ov 19li7g 0?, 217,
.:sterlal in Tussian -
arsohit.ow,r,???????marn..A.....
Akademtyn ilauk C:.7.70 Institut 7konomiki0 7ko 'z Cots jlsticleL
Proilyspemasti? ':oscowl 19/00 59e pp, (LC G2L.
Contontss
1 ?
:Ttarres of development of socialist industrY,
2.. Production pro-ram of socialist industry, Volumerate,
and factors affecting incroase of industrial nrodUction,
ructare of industrial production and relation of branches
of industry. Industry and other branches of thS national
economy, - 4rponization and methods of plannino a-roductl,
progr7m for industry
Development of the technical foundations of
industry,
Comentration? specialization, cooperat on.,
311 socialized industry.
5, Distribution of ',..'oviet incluetry.
Canital buildinr, in Coviet industry.
Basic funds in socialist industry.
Productive capcity pnd its utilization-
7,
sociall7ed
and cd-Ntdm
Approved For Release 2001/08/14:,91kRO179S01046A000100040001-6
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
- r
Utilization and saving of circulating orodui ion
funds in industry.
10. Labor productivity am' uages in S,viet induttrv,
11. Cost and quality of oroduction.
12, Finanne in socialist indvstry.
13, Organization or mmgclent and nlonninq in tocialist
induotry
Comprehens..:va analysis or f:oviet roduction
and productivity. Contains statistics for qsny
subjects discussed. Sonsidereole datt are SvaLlab1e
In excerpts from this volume in .".nnes t.
ITademiya Uauk Inftitut rkonomiki? Proizvidtell ti Trudl
Promyshlonoosti SCat? (iosplanizdat, ':oscort, 1940, I IT"
Contents: D. L. larkut. 'Inexhaustible reserves for increasing leloo
productivity, -- P. A. Ehromov, Labor productivity in Soviet ladustsv
and in capitalist countrien, L? Arakelyan? Labor szolduotbsitv
in Covict ferrous Netalurry. -- S. I, Shulikina? Labor rsof'netivil,r
In Coviet iron mining, -- P. 1.). Luz', Labor productivity in tbo
".:oviet cool industry. N, Nikoloyevskiy, Labor prodvi_vity
in the Coviet petroleum industry. K. I. Klimenko, Lexs. oroduotty
in the Coviet macbine.buildino and metallurgical in'ustry, A, '1
:ats? Labor productivit.y in the looviet basic chemical indtstry, --
A, Khromov? Labor -roductivity in the Soviet cotton in'ustry.,
V, Otatskiy? Labor productivity in the boviet sugar inionts7,
Comment: Useful. Contoins statistics of actu,s1 produc-,ion ant
7TSIVEtivity.
Arakslian, A., U ravlenie Sotsialisticheskoi Pro hl_ennosti odminis-
tration of Coeia1irTh us ..1 ?scow, 0 -7.515.71M1
Content: The first 75 pages are an attack on t' :e iimericail and .
SirrU;Opean system or industrialization, and a praise or the
system existing in the satellite countries,
The second C: :ter discusses the historical deal opment
of forms of alministration in the USM industry,
The third chooter describes the usual basic nr
of the organization of anninistrLtion or socialist in,lustiy
Jusaager? choice of cadres, and personnel, control, "Khozmscict",
otc)? The rest of the book .pp, 13!/ throw,h 251) discussct t' c
organization structure of government and cooperrtive Indust, in
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIVDP79S01046A000100040001-6
"
mtnr?riuso
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
Trn
the liCaln, the problems in organization of industry duriag and.
after the war, and the role of party and trade union oraanizationa
in the administration of induetrial production.
In the entire book, there were on15)' two points at which
something else than theory was discussed namely (1) on page 1901
"The specific weight of the Eastern regions of the roviet
Union will increase":
Percentave of Total Production in
_
r4.ster.11-2=1,916
Cast Iron
1414
295
Steel
345
53.5
Rolled !Jetta.
3/45
51;
and (2) an page 198: 5 of specialists with a higher elacation
used on Jauuary 1 in 1946; in industrial ministries 01 depart-
ments: 25.65 directly on production; 23.15 - plant adlinistrctinn:
51.35 in middle and higher links of administration.
Begidahanov? 11? IgtEgahaskoa.aaarmir
norm, Uoscow. 1950. L4 ppTtC T58.1129
Contents: Increased labor rrodtetivity is a law of smaalist
economics. -- Probleam concerning tecnical norms in 'Soviet
inaustry0 voductive operations and t:leir structurel --
Technical norms and nethode of setting them. -- Techninal and
economic indices of utilization of equipment and constatotion
or materials Oettina labor norms and their role in socialist
competition
iVecen e0 es iva
Comment: Good for terminoloey rspecially aool for a sindy
of norms.
Berri. L., 0 etsializatsJxa iautummakl_z_ixamnpalstf, n384
Aaseowly 19L60 37 pan, Akademiya flank F.csn, Institut rkonomiki.
tic 335.1330.,
Cnntents: Development of specialization and cooperotion in.0ovi
industry. -- eopecialization and cooperation as a method of
mobilizing industry, -- &necinlization and cooperation, n social&o'
Industry durina the rathcrland 7:ar. -- Some problems it the fleAn
of specialization and coopervAon in the postwar period,
Comment:.
Contains nroduction figures for indiridani plant n an
FirEjiati. Book diecnsses advisabillty of limitii sasortnent
In individual il'actoriee.
Approved For Release 2001/08/14 : RA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
AtS111.1:ap , ?
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
Demshenkos 7.;ariya Sarronovnri Putt 2. .her2 2roizvodite
v Cotsialistiche4.717ronvasagolis Joscows 1 50 pp,
000.****.???? vonoo*
2.911....V.al; Importance of steadily increLsinz labor producivity in
socirlist economics, -- Wortant methods of increasin,-
productivity. -- Indices of labor .roductivity, 14:marl a new
increase fn labor roductivity.
.9.mentt Useful for theory to; lior froductivity and of ind
Brmakovs B.F., 2alltm,j12011:11.4.1vAti Tokhn
published by the tanistryofthe7iver Fleet, floscow? l9.. i LC T
Fa).
Contents:
ie Labor rroductivity,
2, Technical norms. :roductive operations enr.! their component3
parts. -- Technical time-nom and output norm" -nalysis oi
working time, -- :;ethods of setting nor:as, -- lJorma in iffect la
entervises under the Ainistry of the :liver aeet. ?r:-Iudying
working time by obsbrvation.. ?hotogralT of the world 'r' dry,
Analysis of -hotocraphic observation, Jormal balance of rorhia
time
Organization of labor and wages. Division of labors asstgnme
of workers, and brigadee, Iforking instructions, -- atganization
installation, and operation of the Elop. -- Filling the working df,
tabor discipline. . Safety. - Analys:s of wages and level of labor
productivity, - Analysis of utilization of workers, epa7.ificatient
Collective arreements. -- Preparation of personnel Ikw lethods
of labor in river transport, -- Terminology,
Comment: Theoretical and highly technical; contains *any
TfTgarite for computing various factors, Contains no actual
st,atf_sties,
Gurin, L? E,, !loam) ani ate Zarobot Plat na llashinostroite4!
nyk=2 pre....sta,yatittay.h, 70$ 00ifs 9 0., 27 PP. LC aw
Coptentsc.
L.Socialist principle of iistribution accriv)ing to sA) ; -rob t-e
of organization of waces in socialized industry,
Tilcgulation of wnr7es and the wage-scale system,
3. forms 0:7 mapms zind ware systems,
4, Calculatio of the necessary mare funds arid re7131aions
wages,.
Approved For Release 2001/08/14 : CIA-RDMS01046A000100040001-6
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
5, Analysis of disburselent of funds and structure of vages
'Neasures for imProvinr: tc utilizatf.on or funds and -A.:lc-Li:cal
organization of ws-es.
PsperCices: 15 laws concornic warms.
Content : Df no direct vnlue for a stidy of -roductdvity.
2,na1ysis of the relation between labor 7,roductivi and
wager. (pp, 233-239)0
Kantor, L, ed. Vimitrizavode raschet,a,
Gosplanizdat? 7oscow? 9 O. TA 1 3.113 0
Gontents: Includes a discussion (page 16) of the need fpr
inclusive clear expression of arose and commodity goods
production in trrms of labor output, physics/ units, ana
value,
Comment: Naterial seems to be directed towards
setting up of efficient cost-accountin7 systems.
"Enkulevich, I, L., and rtubin, 71:. A., P1 irovani Inali 'allamahh.
Pokazateley, 2d ed., 7oscow, 1918. (LC 7D > K
Contqnts:
Part I: Planning Labor Indices
?art II Analysis of Labor Indices
1, Analysis of workers 4 labor productivity,
2. Analysis of expenditure of wage fund,
Comment: One of the most useful sources? frlm the
theoretical point of view. Does not contail
statistics of actual productivity or ,roduction,
151?71inci74 /. L., El4P-Waakag-2Y10.2.4EtrAIRE142-04W41-
oorevpovan1yp, Akademiya nauk SSSR, Institut rkonomiki? Noscbw, 194)-
219 pp.1121 T58?K88)?
Contents: Capitalist and socialist labr coopertion,-- the
niTErn?ov movement and avercJ7c soviet labor roductivity,
Comment: Concerned chiefly witli the .Ltakhanov move lent,
Op, ArA97 give considerable useful data on produetivAy,
Approved For Release 2001/08/14affilialik$01046A000100040001-6
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
RESTRICTED
:71aslova, WS. Pro Li lliatati da oa
:boom:* 19h9. Akademiya Houk SSFO.? Institut Ekonomiki. LC ..1) 57413).
q.9.P.I21141:
Pyanmics of labor productivity in Soviet industry. labor
productivity durinn I. --During the revolution 117
period. .- During the ttalin Five-Year Plans. During7.7orll
a"ar II and the pcstwar Stalin Five-.Year Plan.
2. r!asic factors in the growth of labor pro'uctivity in Soviet
induotry Iew techniques mechanizai.ion of lci)or, auto:OE:tic
equipment, .- .the standard of livina of workers.
Increasina of workers' qualifications. Irganizationaf
production and labor. -- Socialist priociale of pay accOrding
to labor, -- Socialist competition and the itakhanov maasment,
Comment: Contains goods statistics for 1913 and Subsequent
years. .r valuable source. Chows changes in output per aforker
in various industries in considerable detail. lan-hourt required
in various years (1913.-1937) to produce various products, lathes,
tractors, pig iron, textiles, shoes and many otaer prodUcts Alsa
gives man-hours required to build types of aircraft, talt:s, guno
and ot'aer military equipment.
notkin? A. I., ZEgavo_gatylanaya ProammalltmLnlInnpstl,lbscow, 19
Vsesayuznyy Save, Uauohnykh Inihenerno-Tekhnicheskikh Obshestv. (LC
HD 2326.116).
Co ents: Volume of industrial aroduction, lates of Einerease
and factors affecting incrcase in Soviet induatrial oroduction,. --
Structure of industrial -roduction. Securing a producition
program. .aa, indices of the .2rogrnm of industrial oroduction.,
flubinahteyn M0 I. ed., VoRroszaggnizateM 1 Ratslonalizataiy Paola
Proizvodstva vo 7ttroq: 'ioscowl 1933. 11Tpp. (LC IC 337
Contents: Ingr. "). Saaoakirealy? rocialistic organization ani
rationalization of production, rngr. P. P. 2ayngluz oid
Urt I. rtanishevskiys 2,roblams of organization and rationalization
of nroduction in heavy industraa rngr, V. S? Lunar, IrobAamu
of new buildinn. F Levinson and No. Ctroganovs Dispatchinaa
Engr. V. V. apiridonov? Planned plant repair,. Lngr. n. G
Delyaey, !:ethode of rationalizing production in light iniustry.
Engr, Ya? 2. Feygin. Organization and rationalization of oroluat:
in the food industry. Engr. A, .A Voronets. Organisation and
rationalization of production in the wood industry. P. 4, .7.'unnnnov.
Problems of technical norms in state collective-farm production
Engr- A. 1. Sizov, Intraplant planning.
Approved For Release 2001/08/14 ? qIA-KE79S01046A000100040001-6
RldivRivia
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
RISTRICTED
Stefanov, D.9 t ando_ivfth,Pler.,a,s of the
1939 111;IIM7nr7
Sateatsa:
1, rirst part: theory and quotations.
2. Second part: A few statistics - machine corstructions will
increase 229 from 1937 to 1942, volume of all. industry trill
increase 1924:, in the same period.
3. (Page 21) Volume of industrial ..,roduction of the Sotriet
Union in 1936 increased 7.3 times in comparisonwith 19*,
(1509 times in Mite nussial 18,6 times in Georgia, 95 Ulles
in Kirgiz SSR, 116 times in the Tadzhik sm.).
(Page 22) Output of agriculture increased 3.7 times
to 1939. In 1938, there were 483,500 tractors, 153,500
195,800 hauling machines. 80,000 agronomists, etc.
Volume of capital investment for 3rd 54'ear Plan: 191
roubles,
from 1526
cimbines 9
(Page 24) General increase in the capacity of electric con-
struction for the 3rd 5-Year Plan must be: 9 million kilewatts?
(Page 25) Production in tie chemical industry must ke 2...4
times greater in 1942 than in 1937. . 13.15 new synthetic
rubber plants, 16 tire plants, etc.
(Pam 27) 11400 kilometers of reilways.
(Page 29-32) Discussion of the necessity to use local ern leV.
Tsentralgileye Upravlenlye L:arodno-Khozysystvennogo Ucheta Govpiana
qotsfAlipatimisat_gtrpite'petvo SCSR1 Uoscow 1936. CV UA 1/05
.2nd f:iet Slavic rloonT.
A large volume of tables giving official Soviet economic 3tatist ea
for 1933 and 1934 and some earlier years,
Contents:
Summary: (Includes tables such as the following) Basic indices
the socialist development of the ussag Comparison of ind*trial :Are
agricultural -roductions Rate of growth of the main brnnflten of 11W
economy; Average annual employment of blue nnd workcrs
by braneh5 Capital investment in the socialist economy; i.verage
output ,.icr lv_irker in large scale industry; Shifts in the utructure
of large-scale industry; Concentration of over-time in b eecongm
in 1933, and other tables, some of which go bask to 1913
-
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
1i;'11.2/TCTED
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
Industry: (includes tigeles such as following) Productioa of
large-scale industry; Basic indices of large-scale indue:ry;
Output of important Industrie' products; Average output ner
eorker; Classification of large-scale and smell-scale infustrv
by number of workere in 1933; Gross production of large.eecele
industry in 1934; Basic indices of large-scale industry 'tn
1937:e
Similar detailed tabulations under the followine general headeneat
Agriculturei Construction; Transportation nnd Communicattene;
Labor; PopulatrIon; Heath; Culture; Distribution (tradel. Finance;
Foreign Trade.
C9Tmq41 Valuable source of Soviet Economic Ctatistins
Similar volumes were eublished in 1931i and 1935, A less oomnlete
report wae published in 1939 (bears some title as above !ant
19.733-1938n) CLC UL 1432,138)6 English translation., publLished
in :Toscow 1936, available in CIA Libraryn
Ttentralvnoe Upravlenlye Narodno-Khozyeystvennogo Ucheta Goan:lane IS
Trud v SEM. (193h god)e Aoscow, 1935.
Contents consists wholly of tables of Soviet labor statieties
Comment: Invaluable for actual figures.
Turetskiy, 8, HO, lroievoqitelinost;' Trude. I Snizherly.t.:?ebes111nalt2
vUovoy_aatiletke,, *a:meow:Mr Tard-rjr?tirjr
Contents Increasing labor productivity, lowering costs., and
A717117t accumulation., - Improving the quality indices n
-socialized industry during I:orld L'ar 1I? increasing socitlist
accumulation and lowering eonte durin- the new (i.e- pos4wrr'
rtalin rive-Year nen, - Increasing labor eroductivity d. ring
t.e new rive-Year :gen, .6 Tmerovine the utilization of mitcrial
resources as a faetor in lowering costs.,. - neduction of
administrative ex-enses and elimination or unnroductive con-
sumption and wastes, . Lowering costs, accelfrating the rroductiln
processes, and increasing V,0 nrofits of socialist industrit,
Cowen:LI Practically dl figures are given an n t ItarrPo;
Approved For Release 2001/08/14 i,:eiiliEttiF7iS01046A000100040001-6
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: CIA-RDP79S01046A000100040001-6
Vasilgsv, P., Engr. Rem., Ekonomika Or anizatsiya Trude po
evodbrobat hc e o Pro
:Ioscow? 1932. 20/.1 pp, Ir 711 /4 9 V3
jaggeotet, Problems and Factors in Labor ?roductivity,
Planning and Principles of Labor )rganization, Planninr
and 3rgenizat:on of Uorking Time. .- Analysis and prganization
of 7ages. Calculation and Analysis of Labor .1roductiiity
Neasurement and calculation of intensiveness and oroductivAy
of labor. -- Practical methods of calculating labor oroductivit.
Calculation of roduction out ut. Valve method. -- Physical
-
unit method, -- Accounting-unit method. -- Norm-time method ---
Selection mcthod. Aethods of calculation of the dynamics of
labor oroductivitp by groups. -- Calculation of labor productivit7!
in lumberin-,, -- Principles of "aanning Labor productivity and
wages (lelative growth of labor productivity and wages). --
Economr in respect to wages. -- Plan for enterprises which
fulfill the labor*.oroductivity plan. -- Calculation of indices
for the growth of labor productivity. Indices in terms
working hours, Calculation by value indicators. Calculation
of-wale-increase indicators.
tgencies responsible for labor organization and raanagem?t, t)eir
structure and function.
Comment: Contains much useful material on theory. ,Uso
considerable Useful data on composition of labor force:,
women in industry, employment by industry in consideralle
detail for 1933 and 19344
Vladimirov, I?, Proisvoditeltno Rabotats vse.liglatsdao nbsoow 1940-
47 pp, (Lc TM
Comment: Contains good statistics on productivity, Chola; labor
reiaMients for comparable facilities in nussia and the :inited
states; blast furnaces, open hearths, Complete steel miX-s,3
power plants coal mines and other industrial units, Wo some
political oxflortation to work in three shifts,
Zillnergleyt? P. L., frolzvoditellinostg Trupla, yZamennouole
2...rslaulaemosti, Kharksi717557767 657-11C HD 9 JR 3
Contents Discusses increase in coal production in the 1)onets
rf9q:1928)s rate of mechanization of the mines andcateCories of
worker a?
Comment: Contains tables givinp; productivity of NTii0US
classes of workers? Period covered not very useful or
present purposes4
Approved For Release 2001/08/14: driRDP79S01046A000100040001-6
'MT:1CM)