Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search


Revving the Soviet economic engine. The Soviets' failure to make enough machines has had a profound effect on their economy. The solution is to increase imports from the West.

By Boris RumerSpecial to The Christian Science Monitor / October 7, 1985



Cambridge, Mass.

As Moscow tries to complete a final draft of the 1986-1990 five-year plan, Mikhail Gorbachev is seeking a compromise. The Soviet leader is trying to liberalize somewhat the way the economy is run (a necessary prerequisite to reviving it). But he is determined to preserve the power of the party bureaucracy and its ability to control all aspects of the economic system.

Skip to next paragraph

These two objectives appear to be mutually exclusive. In the words of an old Russian saying, Mr. Gorbachev wants an arrangement in which ``the wolves are fed, but the lambs are left unharmed.'' Four months remain before the 27th Communist Party Congress is scheduled to adopt the plan.

Judging by the leader's own declarations, the plan will include technological modernization and the restructuring of industry.

In June, Gorbachev said that machine building ``plays the decisive role'' in reorganizing economic policies. He recommended a doubling of capital investments in that area. The decline in the production of machinery equipment is one of the chief problems in the Soviet economy today. It is a decline without parallel in Soviet economic history.

The recent promotion of Nikolai Ryzhkov to the post of prime minister is evidence of Gorbachev's determination to modernize and restructure industry. Among the highest-ranking Soviet leaders, Mr. Ryzhkov's knowledge of the real state of the nation's economy is unsurpassed.

His appointment is significant. For the first time in Soviet history, a pure technocrat has been elevated to the position of premier. He is a specialist in the field of machine building, an advocate of introducing the most advanced methods of technology, and the author of a weighty tome which deals with the introduction of these new methods.

It is Ryzhkov who will have to handle behind-the-scenes policy debates in Moscow that are no less dramatic than are those that have taken place in Washington as the fiscal 1986 budget has been hammered out.

Soviet machine building has become less and less capable of satisfying the essential demands of the economy. As Anatoly Alexandrov, the president of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, has acknowledged, domestic producers can supply only one-third of the demand for apparatus and high-tech equipment.

Not a single branch of machine building satisfies present-day needs. One example: production of machinery for the automobile industry is declining, despite rising demand for automotive products.

The beginning of the 1980s was marked by a drop in the production of turbines, locomotives, gas- and oil-drilling equipment, diesels, electrical motors, metal-cutting machines, transportation and construction equipment, and in other important areas of machine building as well.

The decline was not only quantitative, but also qualitative. The number of new models of machines and equipment was reduced, and the share of new products in machine building declined.

If machine-building production is to satisfy real demand quantitatively and qualitatively, investment in this sector must be sharply increased.

The need for such a change is, without question, bound to become more urgent in the coming years. According to the calculations made by Abel Aganbegian, one of the leading economists in the Soviet Union, there will be zero growth in the labor force in the second half of the 1980s, and the tempo of investment growth -- now an abysmal 1 percent to 2 percent a year -- will be halved.

In the first half of the 1980s, the growth rates for the production of fuel and raw materials are just half that of the previous five-year period, and there is no reason to anticipate that things will be any better in the next five-year plan.

Indeed, for the first time in Soviet history, a five-year plan is being prepared amid severe limitations in capital, labor, and natural resources.

The planners' efforts are directed toward discovering a way to accelerate technological progress, but that presupposes the infusion of capital into machine-construction in general and in advanced technology in particular.

Under current conditions, such investment is possible only if made at the expense of other sectors of the economy. A whole series of prominent experts, including Vadim Kirichenko, the director of the research institute for Gosplan, has argued that investment priorities must be altered in favor of machine building, and have even hinted that one must tolerate short-term losses for this purpose. Yet they fail to indicate which economic sector must bear the burden of this sacrifice.