PROCEEDINGS OF THE TOMSK POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
awarded the Order of the October Revolution and the Order of the Red Banner of Labor
named after S. M. Kirov

Vol. 273 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 1973

SCIENCE AS A FIELD OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

AND A SUBJECT OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Yu. S. Nekhoroshev

The problems of the relationship between economics and science, between science and production, have acquired primary theoretical and practical importance in view of the fact that the rapid development of all branches of science has begun to exert a profound influence on our entire civilization.

In the USSR a developed socialist society has been built. In practical terms, the problem of creating the material and technical base of communism is being solved on the basis of an organic combination of the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution with the advantages of the socialist planned system of economic management.

For many years there has been a lively discussion about the essence of the process of uniting science with production. It has proved even more difficult to establish the true relationship between science and economics, to answer the question of the extent to which science is a field of economic activity and, as such, has the right to economic analysis. In order to form a more or less correct idea of these problems, it is apparently necessary to clarify such concepts as economics, economic activity, material production, productive forces, science, scientific activity, scientific research, and others.

“Economics is a complex and dynamic organism, whose development by itself constantly gives rise to new problems.”¹ The very word “economics” in modern usage is polysemous. This term represents a certain abstraction, in the words of Academician N. N. Fedorenko, “a convenient form of thought.” Earlier it was said: “Economics is what economists are engaged in.” Now this definition is not suitable even as a joke. Economic questions are dealt with by workers of the most diverse professions.² They even write about the “economics of a good mood,” reasonably assuming that with a good mood one works better (Pravda, 1969, October 26).

In Marxist scientific literature the word economics is most often used as the totality of production relations, but no less often—as socially useful activity in creating material values (things and material services), and also as the national economy of a country or even of the world (world economy), as a total—

¹ L. I. Brezhnev. Lenin’s Cause Lives and Triumphs. Politizdat, 1970, p. 26.
² N. N. Fedorenko. On the Development of a System of Optimal Functioning of the Economy. Moscow, 1968, p. 22.

…a totality of branches and spheres of production. The term “economics” designates a number of scientific disciplines.

Since it is important for us to determine the place of science in people’s economic activity, we should dwell on the concept of “economics” as the production of material goods. In the strict sense of the word, these categories cannot be identified with one another. The former reflects the organic interconnection of certain productive forces and the corresponding type of production relations. The production of material values, as a process of adapting nature to human needs, is a technological process.

However, economics, if considered as a sphere of activity, includes the sphere of material production and part of the sphere of services. In characterizing the former, one must take into account a set of features, the most important of which are the following: 1) the material character of the product created, 2) its reproducibility. That is, it is necessary to include here those areas of human activity where an aggregate social product increasing in value is created. Economics as a sphere of activity also includes that part of the service sphere which provides useful actions of a special use value (transport). Another part of services, mainly of a nonmaterial (spiritual) character, relates chiefly to culture (therefore one speaks of the economics and culture of a given society). Science as a sphere of human activity provides services that are both material and spiritual. One part of it may be assigned to economics, the other to culture. But even that part of science which relates to economics creates services of a special kind. If the labor expended in the sphere of ordinary services lacks the property of being preserved and accumulated, scientific labor possesses these qualities, though in a specific form.

It should be noted that in developed countries most types of economic activity are directed toward the service sphere. In any case, in the United States more than half of the self-employed population works in this sphere, and almost 50% of the gross national product is created there.^3

Under the conditions of the scientific and technological revolution, scientific labor is, to an ever more significant extent, converging with material production, being drawn into the domain of economics, and becoming productive. In other words, the connection between science and production is becoming functional. Scientific labor, although indirectly, participates in the creation of material values. This labor is based on the same productive forces that constitute the material basis for every other form of productive labor in the given society and at the given time. It is true that labor expenditures in the sphere of science become economically significant only when they are realized in material production. It is no accident that the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Soviet Government constantly direct the collectives of scientific institutions toward increasing labor efficiency and toward closer integration with production.

The term “economics” is applicable not only to production, but also to consumption as one of the spheres of social reproduction. Society must be able rationally to consume both the material values created by social labor and those given by nature. This problem is no less important than increasing the efficiency of production. The sphere of science absorbs considerable human and enormous material resources. And in this sense it is a sphere of economic activity.

^3 Ya. Khavinson, The Year 2000 and Some Prophets. Moscow: ME i MO, 1969, p. 116.

What, then, is science? There is no single interpretation of the term “science” in the world. The divergence between this term in the Anglo-American conception and the meaning it has acquired in the countries of continental Europe is especially clear. In Europe, “science” is understood as a synonym for the word “knowledge.” In some countries science is regarded as a synonym for “culture” (especially in Holland). In England and the United States this term is used in a considerably narrower, practical sense. It does not include the social sciences or the humanities. There are countries where, alongside a broad understanding of science, a more pragmatic approach has also been adopted, in connection with the growing costliness and scale of research.^4

Under such conditions it is difficult, and even impossible, to give science an exhaustive or even sufficiently complete definition, especially if one takes into account its international character. John Bernal believes that no definition of science can be given. One can speak only of an extensive and detailed description of the main aspects of its manifestation. “It is easy to define science as that which scientists do.”^5 It is still easier to define science as “the sum of general statements about a certain number of natural events that can be confirmed by practice” (J. B. S. Haldane), or as “a form of moral satisfaction” (Sing).^6 Nevertheless, many researchers are attempting to give this sphere of human activity a more or less substantive definition.

An attempt is also being made by Soviet scholars to define science. G. M. Dobrov believes that science is a complex dynamic information system created by human beings for the collection, analysis, and processing of information with the aim of obtaining new truths and new practical applications.^7 Professor A. A. Zvorykin regards this definition as a major achievement of science and technology.^8 However, the weakness of definitions of this kind lies in the fact that they do a poor job of distinguishing science from all spheres, objects, and phenomena of the material world. After all, not only science but also the human being himself may be called a cybernetic, dynamic, informational, and so forth system. Moreover, the uncritical transfer by some Soviet researchers of concepts and ideas developed by foreign scholars of science is hardly justified.

Although, undoubtedly, there are certain features on the basis of which people have distinguished and continue to distinguish science from other social institutions. Apparently, it is impossible to construct a single, universally acceptable, once-and-for-all established definition that would give any reasonably complete idea of all the properties, connections, and relations inherent in science.

The diversity in definitions has an objective basis. Science is so complex and dynamic that each subsequent researcher is compelled to supplement his predecessor, to point to some new feature that he has discovered in science. V. I. Lenin wrote that “human concepts are not immobile, but are eternally in motion, pass into one another, flow into one another; without this they do not reflect living life...,” and further: “...the art of operating with concepts is not innate, but is the result of the 2,000-year development of natural science and philosophy.”^9 In the variability of the concept “science” is reflected

^4 A. King, “Science Is International,” in Science of Science, collection of articles, Progress, Moscow, 1966, pp. 147–148.
^5 J. Bernal, Science in the History of Society, Moscow, Foreign Literature Publishing House, 1956, p. 19.
^6 Science of Science, collection of articles, 1966, pp. 178, 267.
^7 G. D. Dobrov, Science of Science, 1966, pp. 24–25.
^8 “Ways to Increase the Efficiency of Scientific Labor,” Part 1, Novosibirsk, 1966, p. 25.
^9 V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 29, pp. 226–227, 236.

the dialectic of the objective world, the rapid development of all elements of production, and the unlimited possibilities for the material embodiment of scientific and technical progress.

Underestimating the ambiguity of words in general, and of scientific terms in particular, often leads to undesirable consequences. On the other hand, an incorrect interpretation of scientific categories and an unjustified identification of terms may lead to confusion in theory and harm the practice of socialist management. In order to avoid gross errors of one kind or another, when one wants to invest the term science with some quite definite content, its main aspects are enumerated.

When science is spoken of as a source of technical and economic progress, what is meant first of all is a special activity aimed at the practical transformation of the world. This does not mean that the role of science in broadening people’s horizons, or its general educational and philosophical significance, is thereby diminished. The point is only that science is increasingly becoming not only a theoretical (spiritual, intellectual) but also a practical wealth of society, playing an enormous role in transforming society’s material base.

It is precisely to this side of science that capitalism has assigned the significance of a serious practical force. Approximately 90% of the expenditures allocated to science go toward carrying out research that directly serves production¹. Science is now used as the most powerful weapon in competitive struggle. Owing to insufficient attention to science over the past 50 years, in the United States 66 of the 100 corporations that were once the largest have left the scene².

Capital investments in science are compared with investments in industry and construction. Moreover, the relative magnitude of investments in science is growing faster than traditional capital investments. If investments in the national economy of the United States increased 2.2 times from 1953 to 1966, then in science they increased 4.5 times³. The budget of the U.S. research industry exceeds the entire state budget of France⁴. This means that capital has subordinated yet another sphere of social life to its domination and has transferred into the sphere of science all the contradictions of capitalist production.

One must not identify the economic nature of science and of capital, nor regard them as competing forces. The assertion by the French demographer A. Sauvy that under contemporary conditions the main factor in the development of progress is not capital but people’s knowledge is unfounded⁵. It should not be forgotten that knowledge can produce an economic effect only when capital and qualified labor power capable of applying it are added to it. Capital appropriates the fruits of scientific progress free of charge, just as it appropriates the labor of others free of charge. K. Marx emphasized that science, as large-scale industry develops, becomes the most important condition for increasing labor productivity and, consequently, for the growth of relative surplus value; it becomes a necessary driving force of large-scale capitalist production. Capital in the sphere of science has its own particular features. First, its monopolization is higher here. In 1961, the largest 300 companies accounted for 91% of the funds spent on scientific research and development. Second—

… Third, the exploitation of workers in science has a specific character and is mediated by patent relations. The result of exploitation appears in the form of the difference between the costs of carrying out an invention or development and the increase in profit obtained through their use. Fourth, the labor force of the sphere of research and development can be paid out of surplus value, since the actual realization of scientific achievements is stretched out over time. Fifth, although in this sphere the technical composition of capital is lower than in industry (in the United States in 1966, respectively, 1,800 and 2,701 dollars per employed person), the share of wages in total costs is relatively high.^15

Science has become a practical force, and therefore it has separated out into a special sphere of human activity. Adam Smith already noted: “With the progress of society, science, or speculation, becomes, like every other employment, the principal or sole trade and occupation of a particular class of citizens.”^16 Now science has become an entire social institution with its own material base, a definite structure of institutions, a system for training personnel and for their specialization, an information service, cooperation, and so on. In the words of P. N. Demichev, Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, science in many of its branches has turned into a special kind of industrial production.^17 And the labor of scientists has turned into a variety of industrial labor, with the mass character typical of it and the subordination of large collectives to a single goal. Like industry, science has acquired its own infrastructure.

As such, science expresses the process of extra-factory preparation of production: it creatively develops new ideas, introduces the results obtained into practice, and trains new personnel. It has become, as it were, the starting point of industrial and agricultural production. Studies conducted in various countries have shown that up to 50% of the increase in national income at the present time comes from the introduction of the achievements of science and technology. Examples of new branches of industry whose development is conditioned by the realization of the results of scientific research include the production of nylon, synthetic leather, plastics, computers, atomic energy, the production of lasers, and solid-state electronic circuits.^18

Science separated out into an independent branch of activity for the following reasons. First, researchers increasingly began to penetrate into the deep secrets of the structure of matter, the properties of materials, and so forth. This lengthened scientific inquiry. A scientific discovery, before it is applied in production, passes through lengthy stages of theoretical development and experimental verification in laboratories. Second, expenditures increase significantly both on science itself and on introducing scientific results into production. This circumstance requires additional scientific research, special equipment, materials, qualified personnel, and so on.

Science as a branch of the economy differs substantially from industry. Its distinctive features consist, at least, in the following: 1) the impossibility of determining in advance with precision the final result and the time costs required to achieve it; the impossibility of predicting the degree and depth of the influence of one or another scientific achievement on society and on the development of science; chance has played and continues to play a rather important role in the history of science; 2) the high proportion of unfinished—

^15 A. Nikolaev, The Socio-Economic Essence of Scientific Research. ME i MO, 1967, no. 12, pp. 45–46.

^16 Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Moscow, 1962, p. 25.

^17 Pravda, 1966, May 29.

^18 Economics of Industry, 1964, ref. 8E6.

production in the form of exploratory work; 3) the novelty of the final product of science is the chief criterion of its value. The profitability of scientific production is determined not by seriality, but precisely by substantial novelty. Repeatability devalues scientific output. Such criteria of production efficiency as profit and profitability can be used in the sphere of science only at particular stages. And here they are less reliable indicators than in industry.

Science also cannot be identified with the productive forces, although K. Marx did characterize science as a universal productive force and compared it with the forces of nature.^19 Penetrating into them, science occupies a special place there. It strengthens the traditional components of the productive forces and creates new instruments of human mastery over nature. The development of science itself in each individual country depends first of all on the general level of development and the volume of the productive forces. Science, being part of social practice, like the productive forces, is influenced by production relations. The development of science is hindered by those production relations that fetter the course of historical development, and is accelerated when more progressive production relations are established. It is production relations that determine the economic conditions, boundaries, and incentives for the application of scientific and technical achievements in production. The study and proper use of feedbacks between science and the economy now has primary practical significance in light of the economic reform being implemented. The latter is intended to create more favorable economic conditions for accelerating the pace at which science is realized in material production.

There is no clear distinction among such concepts as “science,” “scientific activity,” and “scientific research.” Most often they are used as synonyms. There are attempts to define, more or less clearly, only the products of science: a scientific discovery, an invention, a scientific development, and so on. It is advisable to use the word “science” when speaking of a sphere of human activity, a system of knowledge, and scientific institutions. “Scientific activity” and “scientific research” are better applied in the sense of the method by which new knowledge is created, new facts are obtained, and theories are constructed.

A scientific problem is distinguished from scientific research. The former is understood as a question whose specificity consists in the fact that the answer to it is not contained in the knowledge accumulated by society and cannot be obtained by transforming this knowledge through known (old) methods.^20 There are studies that examine in detail the difference between science and common sense.^21

Thus, society has accumulated a sufficient number of features that allow it to distinguish such a complex conglomerate, called science, from other social systems. However, for a more precise definition of science as a field of economic activity, an analysis of its internal structure is needed.

A unified branch of science actually exists in the form of relatively separate parts, subordinated in their development to the needs of production and to the internal logic of science. Each of its constituent parts occupies its own place in the economy and in the system of productive forces.

Modern science is a system of an enormous number of organically intertwined directions that study the most diverse—

^19 K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 26, part I, p. 398.
^20 E. Zharikov, “The Scientific Problem and Its Place in Cognition,” Political Self-Education, 1967, no. 7, p. 82.
^21 A. I. Rakitov, Anatomy of Scientific Knowledge, Moscow, 1969.

…in character and scale. It comprises more than 2,800 scientific disciplines,^22 each occupying its place in the classification of sciences.

The classification adopted in the methodological work of the CMEA countries, including the USSR, distinguishes three groups of research: fundamental, applied, and development work.^23

This classification undoubtedly has a certain meaning, but it is of little use for solving the task at hand—an analysis of the economic aspects of the development of science. In this respect the classification proposed by Professor V. N. Stoletov is more interesting.^24 For centuries mankind has tried to unite science and production, science and economics. From the standpoint of this task, it is convenient to divide the sciences into: 1) natural, 2) technical, 3) technological, and 4) economic. The natural sciences are the same as the fundamental sciences. The technical sciences investigate ways of practically controlling the processes by which matter is transformed. They make it possible substantially to improve or to create fundamentally new machines, apparatuses, and technological processes. At the same time, the research must be carried out in a form acceptable for use in industry. In the USSR, more than 45% of all scientific workers are engaged in the technical sciences. “Socialism is inconceivable without… technology built according to the latest word of modern science…”^25 The technological sciences resolve the question of which of the known technical paths may be used under specific conditions. They elaborate the principles for selecting technical means (machines, devices, instruments, etc.), choosing forms of raw materials, materials, and sources of energy, in order to ensure the given productivity of labor and of production management. The technological system that has been found and the chosen system of organization and management are assessed in terms of the economic efficiency of production. Thus the technological sciences inevitably include many elements of the economic sciences and form a transition to economics. Economics acts as the judge of all creative developments.

Now many economists have begun to analyze the economic nature of scientific research. The latter is viewed as the product of a distinctive kind of production—the production of knowledge. This branch of activity is becoming economized, which is expressed in attempts to introduce economic calculation at various stages of scientific research (that is, the principle of comparing the value of the expected result with the anticipated costs), and in the endeavor to determine its direct influence on production. The reason for the “economization” of the scientific sphere lies in the fact that the transformation of science into a direct productive force is, in essence, an economic process. And most of the problems confronting society in connection with this are solved mainly by economic methods. In general, however, the economics of scientific research has not yet gone beyond the bounds of abstract generalizations and narrow economic calculations.

As P. Auger noted, most countries still devote considerably more attention to counting the number of chickens at their disposal, the egg-laying capacity of hens, and the prices of eggs than to counting the number of researchers and engineers, the output they produce, and the expenditures on them.^26

^22 V. V. Kosolapov, Information-Logical Analysis of Scientific Research. Kiev, 1968, p. 22.

^23 Ekonomika promyshlennosti [Economics of Industry], 1968, ref. 10E1.

^24 V. N. Stoletov, “Education and Time,” Komsomolskaya Pravda, 1967, December 13.

^25 V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 36, p. 300.

^26 P. Auger, “Contemporary Trends in Scientific Research,” in The Effectiveness of Scientific Research: Collection of Articles, Progress, 1968, p. 54.

In our country, “the economics of science” as a phrase still seems unusual. This is due to the fact, as L. I. Tulchinsky writes, that for a long time the generally accepted and firmly rooted point of view was that economics is a concept belonging to the sphere of material production, which is represented by industry, agriculture, construction, and so on. And the word “economics” was supposedly applicable only to branches connected with the manufacture of material products, commodities. Meanwhile, there are a number of branches of the economy that produce not goods but services (transport, communications), where the legitimacy of the concepts “transport economics” and “communications economics” raises no objections⁶. But from the end of the 1950s and especially in the 1960s, the economics of science became almost the most fashionable topic in economic works. True, on the other hand, this newly born discipline, which had not yet even defined its subject, was immediately reproached for an impermissible lag. It was said that expenditures, rather than the effect obtained, still serve as the measure of the volume of production and labor productivity in the sphere of science⁷. No less surprising is the dissatisfaction expressed by S. Pirogov in the pages of the journal Voprosy ekonomiki over the fact that much is being written on the economics of science. The great demand for works in this section gives many people the desire to write, and this leads to a large number of unsuccessful methodologies and highly dubious practical recommendations⁸.

In reality, the desire to write is caused by an objective need for the economics of scientific research, because this sphere of activity has many specific features that distinguish it from the production and application of industrial and agricultural output. And shallow theoretical constructions, unsuccessful methodologies and recommendations also stem from the difficulty of economic analysis in the sphere of science. It has somehow happened that many who are connected with this sphere began to consider themselves specialists also in the field of economics, although in most cases they proceeded from their own, generally limited, experience. Meanwhile, for the economic substantiation of some specific solution to a scientific problem, it is necessary to conduct an independent study requiring no lesser knowledge, talent, and material costs.

There is still no unified opinion on the subject of the economics of science in the world literature⁹. For example, among Americans there are no developed definitions on this matter, owing to the pragmatic orientation of most works. Nevertheless, one may understand, as G. Eremenko believes, that the economics of research and development studies economic, value relations (relations concerning the production of informational values), through which a choice is made: what to produce, how to produce, and how to reward the participants in the process¹⁰.

There is no single view of the subject of the economics of science in Soviet economic literature either, although in 1969 a new specialty—“Economics of Research and Development”—was included in the nomenclature of economic specialties. Professor V. Sominsky was the first to attempt to formulate his thoughts on this matter. He believes that the subject of the economics of science is a special form of social production—the production

of scientific knowledge, the object being a special kind of labor activity: scientific research and experimental-design developments carried out in various organizational forms.”¹¹ He rightly revealed the shortcomings of a purely value-based assessment of the activity of scientific institutions. But A. Nikolaev, V. Zhamin, S. Pirogov, and many others did not agree with his conception of the subject matter of the economics of science.

A. Nikolaev believes that the economics of science should answer the question: are economic laws internal laws of the sphere of scientific research, or do we encounter in this area only their indirect influence?¹² Apparently, in his view, the subject of this science is the operation of economic laws in the sphere of scientific activity. Of primary importance is that aspect of it which is connected not with production, but with the implementation of the knowledge obtained. V. Pavliuchenko and S. Pirogov do not consider such an emphasis legitimate. The economics of science must investigate the economic problems of both the production and the implementation of scientific knowledge.¹³ Professor V. A. Zhamin defines the economics of science as a branch economic discipline whose object of study lies in the borderline areas of the productive and nonproductive spheres of the national economy.¹⁴ Such a conception of the subject of the scientific discipline is distinguished not only by a lack of concreteness, but also by vagueness. V. Buzuev defines the subject of the economics of science in a form poor in content (“it studies the concrete manifestations of economic laws in the sphere of scientific creativity”), although he also lists a number of concrete tasks facing it.¹⁵

There is also another group of definitions. L. M. Gatovskii reduces the essence of the economics of science to the study of factors that increase the production-economic results of scientific research;¹⁶ V. V. Kosolapov—to shortening the path of scientific achievements from research laboratories to production shops.¹⁷

All these definitions were worth citing not in order to emphasize their contradictions, as is done by authors who try to give their own “only correct” definition of the economics of science. In our view, the issue here is not so much the inconsistency and incorrectness of judgments as the lack of coordination in terminology and the absence of unity in the assessment of factual material (when one and the same factual material is used both to affirm and to refute some regularity in science). It would be useful to bring the various definitions of the economics of science into a system and compare it with the system of economic sciences. Such a comparison will not lead to yet another formulation of a definition of the subject of the economics of science, but it may provide a relatively complete conception of it, as well as of the aims and tasks of this new economic discipline.

The methodological basis of the economics of science, naturally, is Marxist-Leninist materialist dialectics. On its basis, various methods of a concrete approach to

the problems under study: historical, cybernetic, sociological, informational, logical, etc.^39 If the economics of science is assigned to special or sectoral economic disciplines (which raises objections, since science permeates all spheres of human activity),^40 then its methodological basis is first and foremost also political economy. The latter equips the economics of science with the method of applying dialectical and historical materialism to the study of economic processes. In any case, the connection of this new discipline with political economy is expressed in the fact that its development rests on knowledge of economic laws. On the other hand, in political economy, problems have become topical that study dependencies both within the sphere of science and those connected with the influence of science on the entire socialist economy. The problems listed above are, to a significant extent, also politico-economic. Therefore it could be argued that the economics of science is not so much a sectoral or special economics (although it does possess features of these), as a new section of political economy (or a part that has branched off from it).

There is a point of view that there exists only one economic science—political economy—and that sectoral economies are its organic parts. They have no methodological grounds for claiming separation into a distinct branch of economic science. In order to separate out, one must have one’s own subject, while special and sectoral economies study the same thing as political economy—socialist production relations. Such a view is conservative. It does not reflect the process of differentiation of the economic sciences, which is an inevitable consequence of the specialization of productive (labor) activity. Although all economic sciences have a common subject (production relations), each of them studies some one aspect of it. In this sense, the economics of science, by analogy with labor economics, should be classified not among sectoral, but among special economic disciplines. Special economic sciences study separate essential features or aspects of socialist production relations in a more concrete theoretical and historical aspect.^41 In light of what has been set forth, the subject of the economics of science may be considered to be the circle of economic relations: 1) connected with the production of scientific output, which has the specific character of social utility; 2) uniting the production sphere and the sphere of science through distinctive social forms.

If political economy, as the science of the social process of material production (including scientific production), encompasses all its aspects and reveals the objective categories and laws inherent in it as a single connected system of social-production relations, then the economics of science examines the specificity of the operation of economic laws under the concrete conditions of the sphere of science and in the sphere of the assimilation of scientific achievements.

Consequently, the same problems may be studied both by political economy and by the economics of science, but only at different levels

^39 This is the subject of V. V. Kosolapov’s monograph, Informational-Logical Analysis of Scientific Research. Kiev, 1968.

^40 S. Pirogov, “On Certain Aspects of the Subject of the Economics of Science.” Moscow, 1968, p. 3.

^41 K. V. Ostrovityanov, Political Economy of Socialism, Social and Sectoral Economies. The System of Economic Sciences. Moscow, 1968, p. 21; the author classifies economic sciences into general (political economy, history of the national economy), special (labor economics, finance, etc.), and sectoral (economics of industry, construction, transport, etc.).

concretization. For example, distribution according to labor, the law of value, the categories of cost accounting (economic calculation), etc., take on different forms of manifestation in industry and in the sphere of science. Naturally, alongside the features of the general regularities, the economics of science must investigate the economic regularities inherent only in the sphere of science.

It should be especially emphasized that not everything in science can be the subject of economic analysis. And, all the more, not all expenditures in the scientific sphere need to be studied with a view to establishing their economic efficiency. The point is not that methods for assessing the efficiency of scientists’ labor in rubles prove inadequate, but that not all the fruits of scientific inquiry are intended to be used for the purpose of deriving income. Under capitalism, there prevails a monopoly not only over the means of production, but also over scientific institutions. The monopolists view science primarily from commercial positions. For the progress of society, however, its contribution to the development of a worldview is no less important. Scientific knowledge brings enlightenment, frees man from prejudices, and develops his consciousness.

Since under socialism there is cost accounting of labor expenditures, the most varied products, even those created at the expense of public consumption funds, acquire a value assessment.

Expenditures on science, in a significant part, are “pure” costs; however, “wastefulness itself may prove advantageous from a psychological and social point of view.”^42

But not always to demand a return in rubles does not mean not to count costs and not to take their efficiency into account in general. In this respect, V. I. Lenin’s appeal to the comrades who worked at the Hydrotorf is characteristic: “Thanks to my assistance, you have now obtained what is necessary for your work... Take the strictest care: 1) not to do anything in vain, ...4) to pay the most careful attention to ensuring that accountability is maintained in the expenditure of the sums allotted to you.”^43

Under socialism, however, a significant part of economic ties falls outside the sphere of equivalent relations. Individual elements of the aggregate social product lose their commodity features. This is especially characteristic of products created by theoretical science. Their production is paid for out of public consumption funds.

The scientific policy of the state—that is, purposeful activity for the accelerated development of science and the maximum use of its achievements—depends on the degree of efficiency of scientific research. In particular, this determines the size of allocations for science. The amount of capital investment in one or another branch of the economy is determined by the tasks that are being solved in the planning period. It is expedient to transfer an additional share of funds from the economic sphere to the sphere of science only when it has been proven that additional investments in science are more advantageous than allocations for expanding capacity in the corresponding branches of the economy at the present technical level. This alone already requires the ability to determine the economic efficiency of scientific research and speaks to the enormous practical significance of the problem.

It was precisely the social needs for increasing the efficiency of scientific research that brought the economics of science to life; it is gradually finding its feet and has already begun to issue concrete recommendations for the rational conduct of the economy in the scientific sphere.

^42 F. Machlup. The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United States. Moscow, 1966, p. 38.
^43 V. I. Lenin. Collected Works, vol. 54, pp. 196–197.

1. “Ekonomika promyshlennosti,” 1965, ref. 3E1. ↩

2. “Voprosy ekonomiki,” 1968, No. 9, p. 61. ↩

3. Ibid., p. 65. ↩

4. “Ekonomika promyshlennosti,” 1967, ref. 2E1. ↩

5. “Literaturnaya gazeta,” 1969, No. 2, p. 13. ↩

6. L. I. Tulchinsky, Financial Problems of Professional Education in the USSR. “Finansy,” 1968, pp. 11–12. ↩

7. “Ekonomicheskaya gazeta,” 1970, No. 20, p. 6. ↩

8. “Voprosy ekonomiki,” 1970, No. 6, p. 107. ↩

9. Incidentally, the same may be said of mathematics, which has always been considered a model of precision and rigor. ↩

10. G. Eremenko. On the Experience of Economic Analysis of Research and Development in the USA. Moscow, 1968, p. 3. ↩

11. V. Sominskii. Economics of scientific research. Ekonomicheskaia gazeta, 1967, No. 10, p. 7. ↩

12. A. Nikolaev. Science in the system of social relations. Ekonomicheskaia gazeta, 1967, No. 15, p. 17. ↩

13. V. Pavliuchenko, S. Pirogov. Proportions of development. Ekonomicheskaia gazeta, 1967, No. 41, p. 20. ↩

14. V. Zhamin. On the subject of the economics of science. Ekonomicheskaia gazeta, 1968, No. 4, p. 17. ↩

15. V. Buzuev. Economics of science. Politicheskoe samoobrazovanie, 1967, No. 7, p. 130. ↩

16. L. M. Gatovskii. On research into the economics of scientific and technical progress. In: The System of Economic Sciences, “Nauka,” 1968, p. 139. ↩

17. V. V. Kosolapov. Information-logical analysis of scientific research. Kiev, 1968, pp. 8, 139. ↩