JPRS ID: 8870 USSR REPORT ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: JPRS
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3
• Release Decision: RIF
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 42
• Document Creation Date: November 1, 2016
• Sequence Number: 39
• Content Type: REPORTS

APPROVE~ FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-R~P82-00850R000200040039-3
, ~

1? JRNURR'~ 1~88 t FOUO 2f 8Q ) - 1 OF 1
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3

APPR~VED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3
FOR OFF[CIAL USE ONLY
_ JPRS ~/8870
17 J~nuary 1980
. U SS R Re ort
p
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
CFOUO 2/80)
~BIS FOREIGN BROADCAST INFORMATIO~f SERVICE
- FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY -
- I
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3

APPR~VED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3
NOTE
JPRS publications contain information primarily from foreign
newspapers, periodicals and books, but also from news agency
transmissions and broadca~,ts. Materials from foreign-language
sources are translated; those from English-language sources
are trat;scribed or reprinted, with the original phrasing and
- other chsracteristics retained. _
Headlines, editorial reports, and material enclosed in brackets
[J are supplied by JPRS. Processing indicators such as [Text]
or [Excerpt] in the first line of each item, or following the
last line of a brief, indicate how the original information was
processed. Where no processing indicator is given, the infor-
mation was summarized or extracted. -
Unfamiliar names rendered phonetically or transliterated are
enclosed in parentheses. Words or names preceded by a ques-
tion mark a~nd enclosed in parentheses were not clear in the
original but have been supplied as appropriate in context.
- Other unattributed parenthetical notes within the body of an
item originate with the source. Times within items are as
given by source.
TEie contents of this publication in no way represent the poli-
cies, views or attitudes of the U.S. Government.
;~or f:~rther information on report content
call 1703) 351-2938 (economic); 346~3
(political, sociological, military); 2726
(life sciences); 2725 (physical sciences).
COPYRIGHT LAWS AND REGULATIONS GOVERiVING OWNERSHIP OF
_ MATERIALS REPRODUCED HEREIN REQUIRE THAT DISSEMINATION
OF THIS PUBLICATION BE RESTRICTED FOR OFFICIAL USE ODTLY.
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3

APPR~VED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3
FOR OFFIC~AL USE ONLY
JPRS L/8870
17 January 1980
USSR REPORT
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
(FOUO 2/so)
CONTENTS PAGE
Use of Adaptive Econometric Models i.n Comparative Analysis
(Ye. M. Levistkiy; EKONOMETRICHESKOYE MODELIROVANIYE,
- 1979) 1
Economic Factors in Placement of Industrial Production Reviewed
(R.T. Semina, L.I. Tatevosova; IZVESTIYA AKADEMII NAUK SSSR,
SERIYA GEOGRAFICHESKAYA, Sep-Oct 79) 24
~ - a - [III - U5SR - 3 FOUO~
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3

APPR~VED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
USE OF ADAPTIVE ECONOMETRIC MODELS IN COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Novosibirsk EKONOMETRICHESKOYE MODELIR~VANIYE in Russian 1979 pp 128-150
[Article by Ye. M. Levitskiy, candidate of economic sciences, published in =
the series "Problems of Building and Using National Economic Models,"
edited by Ye. M. Levitskiy and Yu. A. Chi~;hov, candidates of economic sci-
ences]
[Text) The intensive development of trade relations of the USSR and other
_ socialist countries with the capitalist countries and the increasingly elab-
orate international division of labor confront economic science with the
= problPm of analyzing the processes of reproduction in capitalist countries,
of forecasting the development of the capitalist economy and of studying
_ problems related to economic competition with the capitalist countries.
Mathematical economic models based on Marxist-Leninist political economy are
an effecti~Te means of analyzing the patterns and mechanism of social repro-
duction and long-range structural shifts and factors determining rates of "
economic growth. The use of mathematical models mak.es the economic analysis -
of the problems of economic competition between the two systems more con-
crete and sound.
~ An attempt is made in tiie present paper to compare levels of economic devel- -
opment of the USSR and United States with respect to various criteria on the
basis of computations run on intersector econometric models of the two c~un-
tries. The problem of making this comparison is very complex and necessi-
tates solving many problems of inethodology, method~ and statistics. The
problem of sector classification is one of the principal ones here if inter-
sector models are to be used as the principal instrument.
The models we uspd each cover 19 sectors. The following were taken as the
-E basis of sector classification: in the model of the USSR--the 104-sector
- classification of the retrospective intersector balance (MOB) for 19661 and
in the model of the United States--the 87-sector classification of the ret-
rospective intersector bal~nce for 1967.2
1
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3

APPR~VED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3
- FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
We will note certain peculiarities of our 19-sactor classification. Since
the ore-extractive industries are not given separa~~?ly in the USSR MOB (the
mining of the ores of ferrous and nonferrous metals has been added to the
sector "Production of Ferrous and Nonferrous Metals"), the respective indus-
tries in the United States balance have also been consolidated and comprise
the sector "Metallurgy." _
Since the petroleum-refining industry is included in the fuel industry in
the USSR sector classification,3 the respective industry in the United
States MOB has also been included in the sector "Fuel Industry." In compar-
ing the gross outputs of the economic sectors of the USSR and the United
States the sectors "Finance" and "Services" are omitted from the sector
"Trade, Finance and Services" of the United States MOB. The remaining sec-
tor "Wholesale and Retail Trade" basfcally corresponds to the sector "Trade,
- Material and Technical Supply, and Procurements" of the USSR MOB.
The peculiarities enumerated above eliminate those discrepancies between -
the intersector ba~ances of the USSR and United States models that have been
present in previous versions.
But our classification of sectors contains a number of discrepancies which
have still not been eliminated znd winich give rise to certain errors. For _
' instance, the sector "Agriculture" in the United States model contains the
subsector "Fish and Fish Products," which in the USSR modea. is included in
"Food Industry." The gross output of the sector "Fish and Fish Products"
(in the USSR) in 1965 was equal to 5.03 billion rubles, which constituted
5.8 percent of the gross output of agriculture and 2 percent of the total
volume of industrial output. Thus the ratio between the USSR and the United
States is in our calculations low in the comparison of agricultural output
and a bit high in the comparison of the output of the food industry and the
entire industrial sector of the two countries. This error has no effect on
the ratio between the USSR and the United States in terms of gross social
product.
Another error is engendered by the discrepancy between the sectors "Trans-
portation" and "Communications" in the intersector balances of the two coun-
_ tries. In the USSR MOB these sector~ include outlays for transportation and
communications insofar as they serve production. Outlays for passenger
transportation and communicattons insofar as they serve the public are in-
cluded in "Social Consumption" (second quadrant of the MOB). There is no
such division in the United States MOB. In 1966 outlays for passenger
transportation and communications insofar as they served the public amounted
to 2.7 billion rubles, and those for transportation and communications inso-
far as they served production amounted to 19.1 billion rubles. Total out-
~ lays amounted to 21.8 billion rubles (4.4 percent of the gross social prod-
uct of the USSR). Outlays for passenger transportation and communications
insofar as they serve the public represent 12.4 percent of this total (0.5
percent of the gross social product).
2
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3

APPR~VED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3
I
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
The third error is related to the discrepancy between the sectors "Electric
Power" and "Fuel Industry" in the USSR and United States models. The prob-
lem here is that the subsector "Gas Supply" is included in the sector "Elec-
tric Power" in the United States MOB, while in the USSR MOB it is included
in "Fuel Industry." That is why in our calculations the ratio of the gross
output of the sector "Fuel Industry" (USSR and United States) is high, and
that of the sector "Electric Power" low. We accordingly consider it more
correct to compare the gross outputs of the group of sectors (fuel industry
and electric power industry) of the two countries. At the same time this
last error does not affect the relation with respect to the total volume of -
industrial ou*_put.
The second stage of preparation for comparison of the two countries in terms
of economic development is conversion of the statistical ix~formation used as -
the basis for constructing the models (retrospective intersector balances of
production and distribution of outputs and dynamic series of indicators of
national accounts) to comparable prices. Selected as the comparable prices
were 1972 prices.
In computing indices of comparable prices (1972 = 1) we used data on whole-
sale price indices of USSR industry including the turnover tax (1949 = 1)
for the following industries:4 electric power, petroleum refining, coal,
ferrous ~aetallurgy, chemical and petrochemical, machinebuilding and metal
manufacturing, timbering and woodworking, fuel and paper, the building mate-
rials industry, light industry, the food industry.
Wholesale price indices of the coal industry were taken for the fuel indus-
try, wholesale price indices of ferrou~ metallurgy were taken for metal- ,
lurgy, and wholesale price indices of the sector "Machinebuilding and Metal -
Manufacturing" were taken for the sectors "Machinebuilding" (not including
transport machinebuilding) and "Transport Machinebuilding." For "Other Man-
ufacturing Industry" we used the general wholesale price index of the entire
industrial sector. This same index was used to convert the gross output of
the sectors "Transportation," "Co~nunications," and "Other Sectors" to 1972
prices.
The gross output of construction consists mainly of the "fixed assets put
into service" which in our statistics is represented in 1969 comparable
prices. The price index for the sector "Construction" was therefore taken
as equal to unity.
The price index for the sector "Agriculture" was obtained as follows. By
comparing the gross output of agriculture in the 1951-1975 period in current
prices and in 1965 prices, we first obtained a price index with respect to
1965, and then we converted the series of indices obtained so that they re- "
lated to 1972.
Price indices were available for converting the intersector balances of the
United States to 1972 prices except for "Agriculture," "Transportation,"
3
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONL,Y
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3

APPR~VED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
"Conanunications," "Trade," and "Other Sectors," for which average price in-
dices for the output of the entire national economy were used.
The sum total of the gross outputs of the sectors in the USSR model which
were converted to 1972 prices on the basis of the "average" indices was
equal to 26.8 billion rubles (1959) and 37.5 billion rubles (1966), whic}~ is
9.4 percent and 8.1 percent, respectively, of the gross social product. In
the United States balances the total of the gross outputs of these sectors
is considerably greater (36.7 percent for the MOB in 1958 and 37.5 percent
for the MOB in 1967).
The result of comparing volumes of adjusted net output from the analytical
balance and from the statistics of national accounts for the respective year -
in new prices might, for example, serve as an objective criterion of the ,
correctness of converting intersector balances to comparable prices. Thus
for the USSR model the difference between the calculated and actual magni- _
tude of adjusted net output in 1972 prices was 12.7 billion rubles (7.7 per-
cent) in 1959 and 2.9 billion rubles (1.2 percent) in 1966. For the United ~
States model this difference was $19.0 billion (3.2 percent) in 1958 and
$5.9 billion (0.7 percent) in 1967. These data indicate sufficient accuracy
of the calculations we made in converting the retrospective intersector bal- -
ances of the USSR and United States from current to comparable (1972) _
prices.
The third stage of preparation for comparing levels of t~.conomic development
of the USSR and the I'nited States should be a computatiou of sector rela-
tionships of tne purchasing power of the dollar and ruble. Solving this -
complicated problem requires the conduct of special research dealing with a
large amount of the necessary information. L~Je did not set ourselves such a
task and used ready data which w~ had at our disposition.5 For a number of _
important indicators the results obtained were close to the data of the USSR
Central Statistical Administration on the ratio between the USSR and the
United States with respect to the production of the most important types of
industrial products and the principal indicators of economic development.6
- For the others there are discrepancies related to differences in the meth-
odology uf the estimates.
1. Materials Intensiveness and Capital Inten~iveness of Output and Labor
Productivity in the USSR Model (1951-1975)
Price changes have a sizable impact on the dynamic behavior of the materials =
intensiveness of ontput in the na.tional economy of the USSR. For instance, '
in comparing output for 1959, 1966 and 1972 in actual and comparable prices,
we observe different tendencies in the variation of that indicator (Table 1).
Materials intensiveness of gross output in actual prices is rising, while in -
comparable 1972 prices it is dropping. Yet the change of the materials in-
tensiveness of production in a sector-by-sector breakdown represents a more
complex pict~:re. When we exa.mine the sequence ~f balance~ in comparable
prices, we can single out four groups of sectors differing from one another
in the character of this indicator's variation.
_ 4
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3

APPR~VED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Table 1. Materials Intensiveness of Production in the Sectors of the USSR
Ec~nomy
In Current Prices In 1972 Prices
Sector 1~59 1966 1972 1959 1966 1972
Agriculture O.:s57 0.298 0.376 0.321 0.292 0.376
Fuel industry 0.338 0.353 0.382 0.263 0.315 0.382
Construction 0.500 0.513 0.506 0.611 0.560 0.506
- Food and tobacco industry 0.598 0.667 0.729 0.820 0.799 0.729
Textile ancY garment industry 0.528 0.610 0.603 0.664 0.685 0.603
, Timbering, woodworking and
furniture industry 0.482 0.499 0.505 0.457 0.523 0.505
Pulp and paper industry 0.606 0.593 0.592 0.632 0.506 0.592
Chemical industry 0.586 0.549 0.543 0.695 0.635 0.543
Leather footwear industry 0.528 0.509 0.484 0.664 0.584 0.484
Building materials industry 0.539 0.467 0.501 0.549 0.476 0.501
Metallurgy 0.617 0.609 0.637 0.626 0.609 0.637
Machinebuilding, not including
transport machinebuilding 0.429 0.499 0.505 0.641 0.590 0.505
Transport machinebuilding 0.490 0.541 0.545 0.764 0.657 0.545
~ Other manufacturing industry 0.336 0.417 0.521 0.423 0.455 0.521
Transportation 0.305 0.209 0.210 0.390 0.231 0.210
_ Communications 0.307 0.171 G.121 0.387 0.176 0.121
Electric power 0.413 0.369 G.436 0.594 0.437 0.436
Trade 0.161 0.146 0.125 0.183 0.159 0.125
Other sectors 0.422 0.238 0.360 0.403 0.239 0.360
Total 0.467 0.479 0.510 0.523 0.518 0.510
The group of sectors for which materials intensiveness is rising consists of
the "Fuel Industry" and "Other Manufacturing Industry." The second group
consists af sectors in which materials intensiveness was first dropping (up
until 1966) and then increased. This group includes the following sectors:
"Agriculture," "Pulp and Paper Industry," "Building Materials Industry,"
"Metallurgy," and "Other Sectors." In two sectors ("Textile and Garment"
and "Timberi_ng, Woodworking and Furniture") materials intensiveness first
increased (up to 1966) and then dropped. And finally, the fourth group of
sectors, which consists of "Construction," "Food and Tobacco," "Chemical,"
"Leather Footwear," "Machinebuilding," "Transportation," "Communications,"
"Electric Power" and "Trade," is distinguished by the fact that materials
intensiveness shows a constant decrease. `
For industry as a whole the fluctuations of this indicator are not great.
In the 1951-1966 period the maierials intensiveness of industrial output
hardly dropped at all, and in the 1966-1975 period it rose 3.4 percent. The
materials intensiveness or agr.icultural production has und~rgone greater
changes. During the first half of the period under review it dropped 10.3
percent, and it increased 31.5 percent over the last 10 years.
5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3

APPR~VED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
In construction the materials intensiveness of output hardly changed at all
in the first 9 years of the base period. A substantial drop began in 1960
and continued until 1971. In the last several years the materials inten-
siveness of the output of construction has stabilized at a level of 0.505,
whi;.h is 21.2 percent lower than the 1959 level. ~
Variation of the materials intensiveness of output reflects ~ne of the as-
pects of the interaction of intensive and extensive components of economic
factors. A relative decrease of materials intensiveness signifies a rise in
the efficiency of utilization of the factors of production. A rise in the
efficiency of utilization of raw materials and supplies occurred over the
last decade of the base period in a majority of the sectors of the economy.
At the same time a drop in the efficiency of utilization of intermediate
products is typical of agriculture, the fuel industry, pulp and paper, the ~
building materials industry, metallurgy, "other" manufacturing industry and
"other" sectors of material production.
The capital intensiveness of output in the USSR national economy varies more i
unambiguously than materials intensiveness. Except for 2 or 3 years when
there were deviations from the general trends, capital intensiveness of out- ~
put has been rising. For instance, in the industrial sector the ratio be- ~
tween the output-capital ratio and the capital-worker ratio has been as fol- ;
lows (relative to adjusted net output in 1972 prices):
Output-Capital Capital-Worker Labor Productivity, !
Ratio, billions Ratio, billions billions of rubles/
of rubles/bil- of rubles/mil- millions of workers
, Year lions of rubles lions of workers (Col 1 x Col 2)
1951 1.52 1.62 2.46 ~
1955 1.21 2.77 3.35
1960 0.97 3.90 3.78
1965 0.81 5.29 4.28
1970 0.72 7.11 5.12
1975 0.55 10.16 6.60
The capital intensiveness of adjusted net output in the USSR industrial sec-
- tor increased 2.3-fold between 1951 and 1975 thanks to the fact that in that
period the volume of adjusted net output grew 5.6-fold, and the volume of
fixed productive capital increased 13.1-fold. But over the last 10 years
the rise in the capital intensiveness of industrial output has slowed down
greatly. Whereas it increased twofold in the 1951-1966 period, in the 1966-
1975 period it increased only 1.14-fold. We will give the ratio between the
output-capital ratio and ~he capital-worker ratio in USSR agriculture (on
the basis of adjusted net output in 1972 prices):
6
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3

APPR~VED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Output-Capital Capital-Worker Labor Productivity,
Ratio, billions Ratio, billions billiona of rubles/
uf rubles/bil- of rubles/mil- millions of workers
Year lions of rubles lions of workers (Col 1 x Col 2)
1951 1.39 0.62 0.86
1955 1.55 0.90 1.39
1960 1.39 1.33 1.85
1965 � 1.09 2.11 2.30
1970 0.80 3.47 2.78
1973 0.65 4.64 3.02
1975 0.42 , 5.51 2.31
Fixed productive capital in agriculture increased 7.7-fold over the base pe-
riod, and the volume of adjusted net output increased 2.3-fold. The capital
intensiveness of adjusted net output of agriculture increased 3.3-fold. It
has experienced a particularly sharp increase over the last 10 years. For
instance, over the 1951-1966 period the capital intensiveness of agricul-
tural output rose 1.3-fold, while over the 1966-1975 period it increased
2.5-fold. In the USSR construction industry we observe the following rela-
tion between the output-capital ratio and the capital-worker ratio (on the
basis of adjusted net output in 1972 price~):
Output-Capital Capital-Worker Labor Productivity,
Ratio, billions Ratio, billions billions of rubles/
of rubles/bil- of rubles/mil- millions of workers
Year lions of rubles lions of workers (Col 1 x Col 2)
1951 2.76 0.47 1.29
1955 2.55 0.68 1.74
1960 2.29 1.01 2.30
1965 1.71 1.56 2,66
1970 1.65 2.15 3.55
1975 1.41 2.84 4.00
The capital intensiveness of the adjusted net output of construction nearly
doubled over the period under review. The increase between 1951 and 1966
was 1.7-fold and between 1966-1975 it was 1.2-fold.
Thus in the industrial sector and the construction sector of the USSR we
note a recent change in the relationship between extensive and intensive
factors of production to the advantage of the latter. In agriculture exten-
_ sive factors of production continue to prevail.
Now let us examine the dynamic behavior of labor productivity in the USSR
_ economy.
The number of employees in the indu~trial sector increased 2.1-fold between
1951 and 1975 and amounted to 33.9 million persons in 1975. Labor
7
~ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3

APPR~VED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
productivity (based on adjusted net output) rose 2.7-fold. Since lataor pro-
_ ductivity can be represented as the product of the output-capital ratio and
the capital-worker ratio, we can clarify the contribution which each of
these factors made to the labor productivity indicator and their dynamic re-
l~tionship. Aa ir~ ~vident from the data given a~ove, ~he "contributi~n" of
the output-capital ratio has been dropping sharply, and the rise of labor
productivity has been occurring mostly thanks to the rise in the capital-
worker ratio.
Labor productivity in agriculture increased 2.5-fold between 1951 and 1973,
while the increase in the volume of adjusted net output was threefold and
the number of employees decreased 15 percent.
Over the first several years of the base period, and also in the years of
large harvests, the output-capital ratio increased in agriculture and con-
siderably exceeded the "contribution" of the capital-worker ~atio to the la-
- bor prodsctivity indicator. For instance, in 1976 the growth rate of labar ~
productivity owing to the output-capital ratio was 77.6 percent, while that
owing to the capital-worker ratio was 22.4 percent; in 1973 (a year of a
large harvest) the respective figures were 62 and 38 percent. But then
about 1959 the output-capital ratio began to drop sharply, and the subse-
quent growth of labor productivity was mainly achieved thanks to the rise of -
the capital-worker ratio.
Labor productivity in the construction industry has been rising steadily,
and in 1975 stood at a level 3.1-fold higher than in 1951. Over that period '
the number of employees increased 2.7-fold, while the volume of adjusted net
output grew 8.5-fold. The value of f ixed productive capital increased 16.7-
fold.
As a consequence of the ~onstant drop in the efficiency of utilization of
capital and the considerable growth in its volume the "contribution" of the ,
output-capital ratio is negative and the growth rate of labor productivity
has been determined over this entire period by the rise in the capital-
worker ratio.
2. Materials Intensiveness, Capital Intensiveness of Output and Labor Pro-
ductivity in the United States Model (195~-1975)
The materials intensiveness of output in the sectors of the United States
economy (Table 2) shows a different variation depending on the price system.
In current prices materials intensiveness dropped from 0.514 in 1958 to
0.489 in 1972. In constant 1972 prices it increased from 0.483 in 1958 to
0.495 in 1967 and then dropped to 0.489 in 1972. For all the sectors in the
- Unl.ted States model (except for "Other") this same pattern took place: ma-
terials intensiveness first increased (until 1967) and then dropped.
The materials intensiveness of industrial output increased 2.8 percent be-
tween 1955 and 1966, but decreased 1.2 percent by 1973. In agriculture it
8
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY .
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02148: CIA-RDP82-00850R040240040039-3
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
rose until approximately 1968 (6 percent), and in subsequent years stayed at
a constant level. The materials intensiveness of output in construction
hardly changed at a~.l over the entire base period (0.570-0.573). Thus in -
the United States economy tY~ere has been a tendency toward a decline or sta-
bilization of the material.s intensiveness of output.
Table 2. Materials Intensiveness of Output in the Sectors of the United
States Economy
_ In Current Prices In 1972 Prices
Sector 1958 1967 1972 1958 1967 1972
Agriculture 0.572 ~.615 0.586 0.554 0.591 0.586
Fuel industry 0.605 0.597 0.569 0.560 0.576 0.569
~onstruction 0.582 0.558 0.572 0.571 0.574 0.572
Food industry 0.715 0.706 0.697 0.644 0.708 0.697 -
Textile and garment indiistry 0.679 0.664 0.663 0.648 0.666 0.663
Timbering, woodworking and
furniture industry 0.628 0.583 0.519 0.519 0.519 0.519
Pulp and paper industry 0.62d 0.607 0.626 0.615 0.628 0.626
Chemical industry 0.581 0.603 0.658 0.637 0.662 0.658
Leather footwear industry 0.585 0.589 0.526 0.485 0.539 0.526
. Building c*~aterials industry 0.479 0.497 0.464 0.433 0.472 0.464 _
Metallurgy 0.624 0.628 0.609 0.568 0.615 0.609
Machinebuildiag, nc~ including
transport machinebuilding 0.558 0.556 0.554 0.518 0.559 0.554
Transport macninebuilding 0.638 0.645 0.645 0.633 0.648 0.645
- Other manufacturing industry 0.563 0.5/+7 0.560 0.544 0.562 0.560 -
Transportation 0.371 0.387 0.381 0.350 0.388 0.381
Communications 0.184 0.213 0.210 0.180 0.218 0.210
Electric power 0.510 0.524 0.513 0.498 0.516 0.513
Trade, finance and services 0.338 0.330 0.327 0.319 0.329 0.327
Other 0.644 0.560 0.554 0.613 0.561 0.554
Total G.514 0.497 0.489 0.483 0.495 0.489
Capital intensiveness of the adjusted net output of the United States in
1973 was at the 1955 level.~ In the interval between these two moments of
time changes in capital intensiveness were cyclical in nature. In years of
crisis capital intensiveness increased t~ 1.6, but in years ~f economic boom
it dropped to 1.4.
Labor productivity in the United States based on adjusted net output iu- -
creased 1.6-fold over this entire period in the industrial sector, 3.1-fold
in agriculture and 1.2-fold in construction. Taken by 5-;~ear periods, the
~ increase of this indicator is characte~ized by the following data (billions -
of dollars/millions of persans in 1972 prices:
9
FOR OFFTCIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/48: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200044439-3
I
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
- Year Industrial Sector ~griculture Construction
, 1955 12.46 4.13 14.70
~ 1960 14.07 5.61 14.73
1965 16.25 7.73 16.54
1970 17.62 10.90 16.12
1975 20.05 12.80 17.05
In industry the size of th.e work force increased 1.2-fold, while the volume
of adjusted net output increased 1.8-fold. In agriculture adjusted net out-
put rose 1.6-fold, and the size of the work force decreased by a factor of
10/19. In construction adjusted net output increased 1.7-fold, while the
size of the work force increased 1.4-fold (1973). The relationship between
the output-capital ratio and the capital-worker ratio has undergone sharp
changes over the base period:
Output-Capital Capital-Worker Labor Productivity,
Ratio, billions Ratio, billions billions of dollars/ ~
of dollars/bil- of dollars/mil- millions of workers
- Year lions of dollars lions of workers (Col 1 x Col 2) ~
- - I
I
1955 1,341 15,013 20,132
1956 1,322 15,241 20,149 ;
Z957 1,297 15,779 20,465 ~
1958 1,259 16,536 20,819 -
1959 1,308 16,556 21,656
1960 1,298 16,793 21,797
- 1961 1,296 17,319 22,445
- 1962 1f340 17,585 23,564
- 1963 1,359 17,928 24,364
1964 1,390 18,152 25,232
1965 1,419 18,610 26,407
. 1966 1,437 19,213 27,608
1967 1,407 19,790 27,845 ~
1968 1,406 20,343 28,603 ~
1969 1,376 20,760 28,566 ~
1970 1,315 21,507 28,281 ! ~
1971 1,313 22,231 29,189 ~
1972 1,346 22,333 30,061
1973 1,367 22,582 30,870
1974 1,287 23,125 29,763 _
1975 1,210 24,349 29,463
In the 1955-1958 period the output-capital ratio dropped in the United -
States economy, and its "contribution" to the growth rate of labor produc-
tivity was negative. Labor productivity at the same time increased because
of the higher capital-worker ratio. In 1959 the output-capital ratio in-
creased, and its "contribution" to the growth rate of labor productivity
stood at 97.2 percent. The share of the capital-worker ratio was 2.8
10
FOR OFFICIAL USE O~ILY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02108: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3
FOR OFFICIAL USE OIJLY
= percent of the growth. In 1960 and 1961 there was another drop of the out-
= put-capital ratio, and the rise of labor productivity was determined solely
' by the rise of the capital-worker ratio. Over the 5 years that followed up
I through 1966 the output-capital ratio again increased, but ~ahen the crisis
i came in 1966 it began a decline up until 1971. A rise of the output-capital
i ratLo wae noted in 1972 and 1973, when the output-capital ratio accounted
; for 84.5 percent and 58.4 percent, respectively, of the growth rate of labor
, productivity. In years of crisis (1974-1975) the output-capital ratio again
experience~? a sharp drop. Thus the dynamic behavior of the relationship be-
! tween the output-capital ratio and the capital-worker ratio in the United
-i States economy is cyclical in nature.
- 3. Comparison of the Economic Development of the ~USSR and the United States
~n the 1955-1975 Period
~ Simulation computations performed on the intersector econometric models of
I the USSR and the Un~.ted States in comparable 1972 prices serve as the bas3s
_ for a comparative analysis of the economic development of the USSR and the
i United States in the 1955-1975 period. The results of the calculations for
~ each model were converted to the monetaYy units of the other country by
means of purchasing power relations between the ruble and dollar by sectors
(Table 3). For a number of reasons the coefficients for convexing one cur-
rency to anothe:r do not coincide.8
i
~
Table 3. Calculation of 1972 Sector Parities on the Basis of 19?~6 Equiva-
~ lent Evaluations
~
Equivalent Eval-
uations (1966)
From
From United ~
j USSR States Value (1966)
Model, Model, Rubles to Dollars
Sector rubles dollars Dollars to Rubles
1 2 3 4 5
I
' Agriculture 1.710 0.906 0.530 1.887
Fuel industry 1.186 1.273 1.073 0.932 �
' Construction 0.960 1.609 1.676 0.597
Food and tobacco industry 0.563 0.581 1.032 0.969
Textile and garment industry 0.626 0.574 0.917 1.091
Timbering, woodworking and furni-
ture industry 0.892 0.686 0.769 1.300
Pulp and paper industry 0.666 0.761 1.314 0.875
Chemical industry 0.748 0.665 0.889 1.125
Leather footwear industry 0.790 0.870 1.101 0.908 _
Building.materials industry 0.974 0.964 0.908 1.010
- Metallurgy 0.688 0.626 0.910 1.099
. 11
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3

APPR~VED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
~ Table 3 (continued)
1 2 3 4 5
Machinebuilding, not including ~
transport machinebuiiding 0.899 0.929 1.033 0.968
Transport machinebuilding 0.763 0.6~~5 0.845 1.183
- Other manufacturing industry 1.059 0.981 0.927 1.Q?9
Transportation 1.150 1.282 1.115 0.897
- Communications 1.205 1.589 1.319 0.758 '
Electric power 1.159 1.487 1.284 0.779
Trade 1.565 1.337 0.854 1.171
Other sectors 1.395 1.381 0.990 1.010 ~
~
Gross social product ;
~
Price Index Value (1972)
(1972 = 1) Rubles to Dollars
Sector Rubles Dollars Dollars to Rubles
~
1 6 7 8 9 ~
Agriculture 0.784 0.847 0.626 2.407
Fuel industry 0.743 0.825 1.301 1.254
Construction 1.000 0.835 2.007 0.597
Food and tobacco industry 1.000 0.838 1.231 0.969 .
Textile and garment industry 0.985 0.881 1.041 1.108 -
Timbering, woodworking and furni-
ture industry 0.928 0.694 1.108 1.401
Pulp and paper industry 0.923 0.871 1.509 0.948
Chemical industry 1.049 0.954 0.932 1.072
Leather footwear industry 0.985 0.787 1.399 0.922 ~
Building materials industry 0.912 0.780 1.164 1.107
Metallurgy 0.836 0.800 1.137 1.314
Machinebuilding,-not including
transport machinebuilding 1.149 0.821 1.258 0.842
Transport machinebuilding 1.149 0.836 1.011 1.029
Other manufacturing industry 0.984 0.853 1.087 1.096
Transportation 0.984 0.835 1.335 0.911
Communications 0.984 0.835 1.580 0.770
Electric power 0.937 0.820 1.566 0.831 _
Trade 1.030 0.835 1.023 1.137
Other sectors 0.984 0.835 1.186 1.026
Gross social product 1.043 0.958
In comparing the gross output in the sectors of the USSR and the United
States and also labor productivity double counting of services in the United
States gross national product was eliminated, and the work force in the ser-
vice sphere was subtracted from the work force in materi~l production of the
United States. In view of the negligible share of "services" in the per-
sonal consumption of the USSR population, we omitted the value of "consumer
12
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3

APPR~VED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3
~
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
services" from the personal consumption of the United States popul~ction in
comparing the final product of the ttao countries.
The elements of the final product were compared by five groups:
' 1) per~onal consumption (in the USSR--net personal consumption not including
depreciation of the housing stock, which is included in the overall indica-
' tor of depreciation; in the United States--personal consumption of the popu-
lation without "consumer services");
~ 2) capital investments (in the USSR--ac~~.:mulation of fixed productive and
nonproductive capital plus depreciation; in the United States--expenditures
for private and public construction; in neither case is the growth of inven-
i tories and reserves included in capital investments);
~
I
j 3) government consumption (in the USSR--social consumption, expenditures for
science and management, other expenditures; in the United States--government
purchases at the federal, state and municipal level, not including outlays
for government construction);
4) exports and
- 5) i~ports.
Comparison of Gross Outputs in Sectors of the USSR and United States Econo-
mies (Tables 4-6).9 The gross social product of the USSR had by 1975 in-
creased 4.4-fold over the 1955 level, while the growth in the United States
over that same period was only 1.8-fold. The result of the faster growth of
that indicator in the USSR was a sizable reduction of the gap between its
- levels in the USSR and the United States. In 1955 the difference in volumes
of the gross product between the USSR and the United States was 77 percent,
but by 1975 it was 43 percent. ~
Key to Tables 4-6:
~ 1. Agriculture 13. Transport machinebuilding
I 2. Fuel industry 14. Other manufacturing industry
' 3. Construction 15. Transportation
, 4. Food and tobacco industry 16. Communications
5. Textile and garment industry 17. Electric power
6. Timbering, woodworking and 18. Trade
furniture industry 19. Other sectors
7. Pulp and paper industry 20. Gross social product
8. Chemical industry 21. Gross industriak output
9. Leather footwear industry
10. Building materials industry
' 11. Metallurgy
12. Machinebuilding, not including
transport machinebuilding ,
13
FOt~ OFFICIAL USE ONLY
I -
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3

APPR~VED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
~
v _
~
~ ~n C c~ r: n Y. ca
- f�~ = I ' �T f~ : 1 C -.~1 ^j ~ ~
`i-1 `'C c ~ ^ ^ )
O 'K J. r~ ~ ~ C J U '
~ I~ C' M C I OC ' ~
fA ~ ~ ^ . C I ~ .
Ci 1J c ^ ^
O cti
�rl J-~ ' ~ : o
rl C/~ ~c I " ci = - ^ -i
~-I ~c r` i ^i `v. : i ~ ~ ~
~ c ^ a i- m
_ � ~ I c - ~i ci r~ ^i
- v1 ~o ' s t i^.
N ~ "
~ ~ ~ ~ :'1 l~ -1 Y
~ _N I ' = C r c"_ ~ 1 . ^ _
W c - -C i:.--;r= 'n - =
j -~.rj-
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ ~C
N ' - ^1 ^ cl
~
~ ~ t~ ~ 'L
, fd '~C c p i~ ir~ _ -r f~ t~
~ f1) ~ t- CG ..^yl [:J .7 :`7 cJ
~ ~ C!
,U ~ ?1 �T ~T t^, .p y O ~ - I l
y,~ I c~ ^i r c- s
1J ~ ~ ~ t~ ^ .^~i i
.r.{ c.
~ 0~ G~ - t!~ ~G ~T u~ ~ ~ ~
N N ~ Q ~q P1 ^ ~
- ~ ~ o aC ~M V; L~ C - C~'.` ~ -
C
RJ ~ ~ C") '"'I ~ \ \ 00 ~T .
~ " W C 4. C 1 ~J M w t,^_
I ~7 :l c:
C!~ c+~
~ - -
- 1~ O ^1 ? c~
Gl I 'O ~ ? c ~ c ci -
~ ~ ~
c~ ~r c a~ 7p r ~
4-I c ~'i v~ ~i o: ^ ~i ri ~i
p r o ~t cc ~ _ ^i
m r.
~ oo r c~ ~ :
O C/~ .J I C l~ . t~ V' ~ ^ ~I I_
U ,.'7~. ~
N oo C oo - ~i t- t-
~ ~ I, r: r o :.o c.
~ t- r, ci
~
{J ~i L ^ G i'~ 40 'D
~ ~ ~1 ~ N C t - C . . .
~ N 1.) C 1
C7 -
~ ~ . . ~ C ~ a m C ~ ~ ~ .
a � ~ ' ' Rt~ ae'~, ~ v~2 ~ xF ~ '
1J u G~ ~ 7 p G~ ~ C~~ ~ ~ p A' ~ c
~ ~ O q A ~ G m ~ . ~ G p, . P. ~
C - ~
C; !X p ~ U C' ~ C"
O X p~ ~j A F~ ~ p � k F t~C H O~
~ c, t1
O O r C G ~ ~ t. X W
S,+ ~ `cgo ~t~u R~~ ~ �r,~ ~,x m~C
~ N u C c ~1 c: LL M ~tl O p~.~i ~ G. a ~ iy
~ u ~ ~K ~c 8~q ~.~~ca ~c ~ir ~9
i!i J E~ V~ F. ~ ~C DC,~
~ r-I N M ~1' U1 ~O I~ ~ ~
y v v v v v v v ~ ~
~
.n
N
Ea
14
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3

APPR~VED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
- ri : i ~ ~n x
- ~ -T _ ~ t- ~ ao r
. . . . ~D ~Y' ~n G
. a~
c~ ~ ~ ' ci :t+ o: -
,n ~ c. - r- ^i ci - x ~ �
- ~ ~J V' 1- .`I
- . , ~ `
_ i.:.._._. ~ :A G :D _ _ cJ
~c~ - ci ^i .T v: r
. , ~ . ~
C") c~j 'D
_ A ~ ' 7. U J~ :r :J
" ^ ~i .1 r~ T ^ c1 ch C c~
t�~ G ~r
~ _ ~r -~.~i ~ -
= c
i . :
a ~ a. C r, y
:V ~7
" .
- -~y- ..j
~ `7 t~ ~
^ ..G 't.~ 'J'. V' h :`t -
" : i tq :S. ~ _ N : p ;p
~ ) ~ T
ir. c~: op ~r �a -
:~i ~ 1 ~r ~j ~ c 1 ~ ? i
- ~ `
- .r r.
- _ - - _ ' c'~ ,i :
i ~ c: ~ s ~
^i ^i ~i o co ? q
: t n = s~ ~ ~ ~ ' O
.`r' i^ t~ ~
- ~y N-'-- ~n
:T
~ :T i x - ~
~r V-i - i : i ~-_i r ~r ~i c~i ~ ~
- ~ i - r- . ^I a O o~ ~
~
' - ` ^ ~ r ::c ci
op ~ ; 'J
c~ ~n ca :C, c~ 41
G ' '
- I . M s ~ ~n_ .T-' ~ =r__
I ^ ~
1`� t.
~ u~ :C O 1~ N Pl ~
~X: iry ~
~ ^ C J ~ . r ' 1 -y :7 1r r" ~
~ - '1 1~ t- ~ ~ N 6'~ Q~
; ~ _ _ ~1.!''~ ~ .r M ~ CJ . ~
~
D ' ' ~ ~ o0 o v? t- O
, I J _ ~ _ ~ C~ CI N
: 1 C
I 'f"I
f . _ ~ ~
I r _ c: c~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ _ - _ x ~ t- c r~-
co y
~
- - o~ ci ~n oo m t~
r~ ~~i ~ = ci ^ r ~ ^1 a . u~ ~ -
" ~l O -
.
b
' Q! ~ 4' Q)
- H in . . . . x s q i-~ U1
a
'~U f ~ . � J . ^ . H E . . . ~ ' ~ i. i, o r~-I ~
,
: . ~ ,a . . . p� ;y K C
7 ~ ~ a~`'. m a c. . a m ~ ~ . . . ~ . b ic K a. i C~1 rl
G.+ q F" ~ y~"' , ~'s1 t0 Cs. . 0. ~ O p C~+" r-I S-1
i'-, 7 ~ r r- o a, m ~ o 0 9 �1 t0
~ � o. . � ~ u a
G B'~ c~�,' aa,� � oa m~~"~c
p ~ G r, ~ p,p vp ~~p t~ .a v O Ci~m~y U1 '~1
U ou H~~~ mr oSZ~ d o, o r�i^e;~ dj
~ ~ x ~ a. a m r, o a:~ A ~
i c ~ E~ V 7 E+ G"'Y7 C] ~rl r~l
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ O r-1 N M ~t U'1 ~ t~ CO O~ O r-1 W O
~ r-I r-I ..el r-I ~-I r-1 r-i ~-1 r-I rl N N
~ v v v v v v v v v v v v
N
H , .k ,'j
15 '
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3

APPR~VED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
~
H
~p I - ~ - ~o r- _ : ~ ~o - .
~ � ^i i r- _ a ~ ~
'd r �
W _ t: i.
~ � i :
O I r_ ~-.i i- -i ci ' �
r :,c
tA .K ^ -
~ ,k _ ~ _ c~ - c ' ~
p p~�~ ~ ~ ~i ci ~ v;
~ ~ i= ~ : : t -
'-1 cn
,i c~ x ~r. ~ x o r r:
.O .T v~ ~ ^i
c. r: TJ
~ ~ : 1 a^. :J :D t -
~ ~
~ ~ I c' - L1 cJ N ~ .~T. :I
0 ,j_'_:1'-__-j~.-_.;~ Y._~
~
p ^ I :*7 ^ 1 :D ~ t~ O O~
v ~ _ ~ ~ ~ n ^.t c-
W _
~ ~ oo v ~ j v
~ J.1 I~ w j'~ c ~ +i v ~ ~
~ y~j ~ ---y) ~ C ~ O ~ _
~ I ~ 7 ~ 00 ~ :rJ t~
c. f~~ �7 ~r; :V ^7
~ v
~ M ~ ~ - ~ r.
~ ~ ^ ri - i ti
~ O I o~i ~D . -y Kj :'1 ^ ~ '
~ ~ W ~
,tJ ch 7~ :rJ :O Pl 00 ~
~ 'n ~ri ~ ~ C+ :'7 ~.^~I M
ci -
_
a.~ _ --,~:-'_~_~ri -=--n.- .
v~i ~ n y T ~ 'an., ~ vi c~ :
~
~ I
~ i � ; � ? ~ ~ r.
1.J c ~ ~o i~ J '~0 `T c~ n
t~ 'L' ~1 ^7
~ ~ ~
Q ,K ~
~ I~ J J r ~T ~
~ - .
~i ~ I ' ' -
~ , `T c 1 Y~ Y :
) t7 I~ ~
U O I ;.y L 1 > -r
~ ~ . _
~ ~ . ^I _ ~r.
~ w ~ ~n ~,c~ n n c j
~ I ^l ~ ~T > >0 ^ ~T I
.^7 ^ 1
~ I
~ ~ . . i . i + . i i i . ~ i .
~ : zmc~ s~ 6 ,
~ �
~-1 t`�- ~ . . ~ . � ~qS � mo j � I
~ � ~ . 3 . 3 . a a ~a. � ~ ~ ~ � = I
~ c = o a 5~ c u~ c ~c ~
N ~ -0 ~ C . ~ q � ~ Q S v ~ ~ ~ v ~ C I
e~: u~F~� ~ t~- '~a~ r~eoX a~i~W a s ~
C7 yJ Y ~ m " ~ O 4F. e~d ~ m~,Nj ai ~ ~ P. 9 a~i a~i C
v ~ C~ ~ ~ C V S~ R L'
~
f v ~D r q ~ c
3 ? C ~
J H U "r~~ ~ ^ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
41 v v ~ v v v v v v '
r--I
.D
~
H
16
' FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3

APPR~VED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
~
- r. ^ ~ c+~ O x :r.
_ ur - r c: r~ o
. r r~ .
' C_ . ~7 nl 7
n - ci _ a.~ c- - t~
. C : i ci - :i
~
ro ~ , r - ~ ~ - ' . ~
_ ~ ~ _ ^ ~r ~
- ir' = ci ct
c:
_ : 1 OC 7 rl. :ry ~ o� O i':~7 O
o: -
._I._ ` 1 ` 1' . ~ ~y C J ~ Q= c=.
^ i c: c i
l c ^ ~l
( cc� c:, ~ - ci _ ;o i- ~7 = cp
i: x;:~ ~ ^
~
.
! - - . _ _ - _ _ - _ _ -
- - - - -M - ~
� h 1 t_ N N _ p~'
~ - ' " ~ . ~ ~ - a:--~-
i-~ u; c. c- c, c=
t r ~i _ m^' c~ ci ~
:1 _ C: tb :D N ~ p-
^ ~ t; Y
- yl 1} .i= ~ V v ~ ~ ' ~ _
1J
---,I " L;
~ _ 1 ~ ~ '1~ C. C ^ I�. rJ ~
C:~ If.
O f^ C: C+ OG C 1
- ~ ~ g ~ ~
~
~ ~
~ _ ~ ~ r
p t- _ ^ rj i.^, ^'i C!? !e` C4 ~
v l - . ~ ~7' N N C7 ~ n r-' _
~
_ " _
" - _ _ - ' -_U~.__ . _ _ "_W__~_ _ _ ` ~
�a ~ ~ " ~ C D -
c t _ r`. ^i . . , . et c
~
_ ~
- ~
~ _ i- ~r v: ae oc a
. Gl
� - - c i _ i co . r~ c~
r:~ ~C ^ ar% 4-1
- - ~ O
t~ _ ~ CJ C.' CJ I~ N
- "t t- ^I - O _ ~ u. ~ .
- ^i , ~ - - ~ U: G ~
. c.
j ~ - _ ~ cc .~00
I'_ ~ - ~ ir _ ~ r~ "=~Y
~l ~ ~
:q ~r
~
I ' C=~ CC O C: ' C"
'7 i.. ^ ' 1 C. C :`J 1-' C. 00 r+
1 ~
C 1
_ ~ _ ~
. ~ . ~ . . . . . ~ . p~ N �
~ . C`.. . ~ . ~ ~ . . . 7 . . A y H ~ Q~
~ ^7 . F~ ^ . . . . F+ � x C+ r-{
~ b I F ' ' ~ ' Z ~ " ~ C F ~ ~ .4J
~ ` ~ . ~ ~ . J F~ ~ . . . ` . r ",~'',i CC, C'� V -
~ ~ r ~ � C _ ~P ^ . . . c- . M ^ ~.~.t' G ~"I I-I
t^� C , H p, C:� ~ . a' C, ~Ci r i- r tl) td
.N r; c, m o~~ ~ . ~o a c G ~ U A' ~
~p ~ y r^~a tx~~' C m ~o.~a o !A ~
U ~ ~ Cl. l:i O ~ O ~ ,~p, F" O Ci ~ :.7 ~ ~ 3-I
~ p u ph� = a~ ~ W q q L~ q r, ~ c~+ G. O K pC ~rl R1
:1. m ~ i:-. G: iA ~'1 O ~ t7 ~7 ~ ~
tn ~ rC R: E-~ U C7 E'+ .x` C'. ~S-I 'd
~ ~ ~ i-. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a O
Gl O r-1 N M ~t ul ~ I~ a0 O~ O r-I
r-I r-1 r-I r-I rl r1 ri e-i r-I r-1 r~ N N
,p v v v v v v v v v u v v
~
H ~
~ l~
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3

APPR~VED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200040039-3
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
i
~ .rtciv = ~n r~~~v_:n a~:~