Efficiency of Scientific Research and Productivity of Scientific Labor

Yu. S. Nekhoroshev

The decisions of the XXIII and XXIV Congresses of the CPSU set the task of decisively increasing the effectiveness of the work of scientific institutions. “It is necessary to arrange matters,” said A. N. Kosygin, “so that scientific-research work, first and foremost in the field of natural science and technology, becomes the most productive sphere of social labor”¹.

The problem of increasing the efficiency of scientific research is caused by a whole series of circumstances. First, the share of expenditures on science in the cost of the products of material production is increasing. In the nineteenth century this share was less than 1%; today it is 5–10%². Second, economic growth in the developed countries is at present provided to the extent of \(2/3\) by the use of scientific and technical achievements. Third, in the age of the scientific and technical revolution, the tasks of increasing the productivity of social labor are being solved more and more not at the final stage of production, but at the initial stages, in the process of its scientific preparation.

The tasks of increasing the efficiency of science are posed at various levels and in fairly sharp terms. However, the content of this process has not yet been revealed at any satisfactory level. There is not even unanimity of views regarding the dynamics of efficiency. Some write that the efficiency of science is great and continues to grow rapidly; others say that it is declining.

One may encounter assertions by foreign and Soviet scholars that the efficiency factor of science is small and is unlikely to exceed the efficiency factor of Stephenson’s steam locomotive (Academician Yu. Rabotnov, Literaturnaya gazeta, 1969, no. 6, p. 10). The decline in the efficiency of scientific research is also illustrated by the fact that the number of discoveries and patents for inventions is growing more slowly than the number of scientists and the material expenditures on science. The following example is also cited. In Leningrad, from 1959 to 1965, the number of scientific workers grew 11 times faster than the number of workers employed in production. But whereas in industry the volume of output increased one and a half times, in scientific and design organizations the increase in staff numbers was not accompanied by a noticeable growth in the effectiveness of their labor (Izvestiya, 1966, May 27).

However, the majority of scientists and production organizers recognize science as the most effective sphere of investment. They cite

data on the increase in the value of patents for inventions are used. More specific calculations are made, from which it follows that 1 ruble invested in science yields real savings of from 2 to 100 rubles per year (“Ekonomicheskaya gazeta,” 1967, No. 10 and 1967, No. 30). It also happens that, for advertising purposes, the economic significance of one or another scientific result is deliberately exaggerated. In other cases the savings from science are not calculated or are understated. In both cases the state is deprived of any criteria for assessing the effectiveness of investments in science.

What, then, is the efficiency of science?

It is not easy to answer this question. As yet there is no clear conception of the efficiency of production, although the creation of the theory of efficiency in its modern interpretation may be attributed to the end of the 1940s (S. G. Strumilin, T. S. Khachaturov). Nor has unity of views been achieved on the question of the criterion of the economic efficiency of social production under socialism. The quantity named is the social product, national income, realized output, gross income, net product, minimization of costs, increase in the productivity of living labor, and so on. Even more indicators of efficiency are proposed—the level of production costs, the volume of capital investments, the payback period, capital productivity, the increase in national income, etc. Only through notions of criteria, indicators, and paths of growth can one somehow understand what one or another author means by the efficiency of production.

The situation is still worse with the concept of the efficiency of science. The very posing of the question of independent efficiency in the sphere of science is still disputable. Some believe that there exists and can be measured only the overall economic efficiency of production, which makes use of the achievements of science. Investments in science are associated investments; therefore science cannot have its own efficiency. Others (the author adheres to their point of view) quite rightly maintain that scientific research has an independent economic efficiency. It is independent in the sense that, in principle, it can be singled out (abstracted) and calculated as part of the overall efficiency of production. At the same time it is assumed that applied science produces output that has independent value (both national-economic and cost-accounting value). At the very least, this output can assume some economic (monetary) form. Without this, the economic accounting of scientific institutions is unthinkable. It is inadmissible in any form to counterpose the economic effect of science to the economic efficiency of production. V. I. Lenin advanced the idea of the unity of the economic plan and scientific-technical progress. The essence of this idea is that economic growth is determined by the progress of science, while the progress of science and technology is ensured by production.

There are different points of view regarding the content of the concept of the efficiency of science. V. S. Sominsky, V. V. Novozhilov, and others understand the economic efficiency of science as the ratio (an expression of the interrelation) between expenditures on scientific research and the results obtained (the useful effect).³ Such a conception is too simplified. If expenditures and results are compared with respect to certain specific studies, it will be impossible in general to discern any regularity. A small expenditure may

³ V. S. Sominsky, “Basic Directions for Increasing the Efficiency of the Work of Scientific Institutions,” in Economics and Organization of Science, Moscow, 1969.

give a large effect and vice versa. The magnitude of the useful effect is decisively influenced by processes intermediate between science and production (the scale of implementation). And on the national-economic scale (science as a whole and production) there is no proportional dependence between expenditures and results (F. Engels on Watt’s machine)⁴. Here the relationship is more complex. Investments in science yield not only an economic effect (expenditures on science began to be linked with the volume of production only from the 1920s–1940s), but also a social effect. The difficulty of determining the efficiency of science consists precisely in the fact that it must take into account the result obtained not only through changes in production, but also other factors—the growth of workers’ qualifications, improvement of working conditions, and so forth.

Another point of view on the efficiency of science consists in the assertion that it is “a measure of the capacity of the system of science to attain a given goal in the best possible way” (S. V. Pirogov), or “the degree to which the results of research correspond to the requirements of the assignment” (E. A. Oleinikov, B. N. Volgin). The weakness of this conception lies in the exaggeration of the subjective element. Economic efficiency is an objective economic category. Often, so-called “accidental” discoveries and inventions surpass planned ones many times over in their efficiency.

In our view, the most correct conception of the efficiency of science is given by L. Rzhiga—as the measure to which science satisfies the constantly growing and structurally changing material and cultural needs of society—and by L. Glyazer—as the measure of the impact of scientific research on social progress (Voprosy ekonomiki, 1971, No. 1, p. 74). It is still better to define the efficiency of science (in the broad sense of the word) as the degree of realization of the possibilities inherent in this sphere.

It is not easier to find a quantitative measure of the efficiency of science than in industry. Although in the most general terms its essence is clear: “for each unit of expenditures—labor, material, and financial—to achieve a substantial increase in the volume of production and national income.”⁵ It is especially difficult to determine the efficiency of the activity of an individual enterprise or scientific institution. Under socialism, the result of the activity of any collective is determined not only by its own efforts: the equipment belongs to the state, and losses caused through the fault of another collective are not fully compensated to it. The financing system is such that even fruitless scientific collectives may receive material support for a long time. Nevertheless, indicators have been found and are applied more or less successfully that characterize the activity of an individual collective. The indicators are divided into direct ones (growth of productivity, reduction of capital intensity, reduction of material intensity) and indirect ones, for example profitability. The latter indicator is unimportant for industry. It does not take into account the moment of creating prerequisites for the future accelerated growth of production, which is very important under the conditions of the scientific and technological revolution. In the sphere of science, profitability in general cannot reflect anything and cannot have practical meaning. Even in self-financing scientific institutions, profitability is an artificial quantity (or one expressing savings in expenditures, which is not always justified by the interests of the matter).

As for the productivity of social labor, it expresses the economic efficiency of scientific and technological progress

⁴ K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 1, p. 555.
⁵ Materials of the XXIV Congress of the CPSU. Moscow, 1971, p. 55.

as a whole. The productivity of scientific labor, however, cannot characterize the efficiency of science with any degree of completeness. Here the same difficulty arises as with the cost–result ratio. A high scientific result may be achieved in a collective where there are great reserves of productivity in scientific labor, and vice versa.

And yet the concept of “productivity of scientific labor” has a right to exist. This should be emphasized especially, since such a formulation of the problem is often rejected.

The conviction that part of the sphere of science belongs to material production, that part of scientific research can not only be forecast but also planned, and that the products of science can be used rationally for the public good leaves no doubt as to the legitimacy of the question posed. It is another matter that labor productivity here may have a somewhat different content and entirely different indicators as compared with labor productivity in other branches of material production.

A correct assessment of the labor productivity of scientists makes it possible to take more accurately into account the contribution of each of them to the development of science, which inevitably leads to an increase in the efficiency of scientific research. And this makes it possible, as the scale of scientific research expands, not to increase the number of scientific workers to the same extent. The growth in the number of scientific workers, as studies have shown, often leads to an increase in the cost and duration of work, and to a reduction in the efficiency of work. In the United States, with a smaller total number of scientists than in the USSR, a high level of science is maintained. Academician P. L. Kapitsa even proposes reducing the number of scientists in the USSR by approximately half, while improving their quality, in order to catch up with American scientists in labor productivity. Only in that case would our scientists receive a material base equivalent to the American one. After all, expenditures on science in the United States are greater than ours.³ Such a proposal can hardly be taken seriously. Under the existing organization of scientific labor, such a measure would lead to a reduction in the volume of scientific research, which would cause enormous harm to our country. We must proceed along a different path. While constantly taking care to improve the qualitative composition of scientific personnel and to develop the material and technical base of science, it is necessary to ensure the steady growth of labor productivity in the scientific sphere. To this end, all the levers of economic stimulation and material encouragement must be brought into action.

As in any other field of human activity, labor productivity in the sphere of science can be judged by the output of final products. That is, growth in labor productivity in the most general sense means an increase in the output of products per unit of time. In science, however, determining the output of final products is extremely difficult because of their specific content. Science produces an intermediate social product that has material, but not physical, content. And although this is a non-physical product, it is created by productive labor.

The chief feature of productive labor (regardless of its material form) consists in the more or less direct creation of material (not necessarily physical) goods and the material conditions of cultural life. Under the conditions of a developed social division of labor, use value is created by the collective worker, which represents the joining of individual labor powers into a single labor power. Workers who create a social product are productive. As scientific—

...of technical progress and the development of the specialization of professions forming the collective worker, is expanding. There was a time when the composition of the collective worker could include only those workers who stood closest to the objects of labor and exerted a direct influence on them. “Now, in order to labor productively, there is no need to apply one’s own hands directly; it is enough to be an organ of the collective worker, to perform one of its subfunctions.”⁴

The creation of any new product begins in a research center or a scientific laboratory. The labor of scientific workers (at least a part of it) is transformed into a component part of the collective worker, is materialized in the products of labor, and becomes a source of society’s national income.

However, the labor of scientific workers is a specific kind of productive labor. First of all, only the labor of those scientific workers who directly serve production should be regarded as productive; that is, those who conduct research culminating in inventions, recommendations for the concrete improvement of equipment, technological processes, improvement of the quality of the products manufactured, and so on. This should also include specialists in the design and construction of new machines, mechanisms, etc. At certain stages the labor of these workers may differ little from the labor of engineering and technical personnel in industry. In addition, in the sphere of production research, various devices, instruments, and installations are created. As A. B. Nikolaev writes, in some branches of scientific research (especially aviation and atomic research) this reaches enormous proportions. The boundary between mass material production and experimental production within R&D is being erased.⁵ Among productive workers in R&D one should include only that R&D personnel which ensures the scientific preparation of production, for the latter is a subfunction of the collective worker.

And although scientific work has become a mass productive profession, it differs from other kinds of activity in its goals, the character of its labor operations, the specificity of its labor force, and the particular features of the tools, objects, and products of labor. These distinctive features do not alter the essence of labor productivity in the scientific sphere (the output of final products per unit of time) as an economic category, but they give rise to the specificity of its external manifestation. Determining the dynamics of labor productivity here is even more difficult than, for example, in industry. In industry many different indicators are used, but all of them express the essence insufficiently fully and are suitable only for particular types of production. Physical indicators, as the most precise (the quantity of output per worker), are suitable only for branches producing homogeneous products. Value indicators overstate or understate the real growth of labor productivity. The physical and value indicators used in industry are wholly inapplicable to the sphere of science. They only distort the essence.

Sometimes attempts are made to judge labor productivity by such a physical indicator as the output of printed publications per scientific worker. But printed output, although it enriches society with knowledge, is an incomparable indicator in terms of volume and significance. One cannot place in the same row the publication of an outstanding scientist and the abstracts of a beginning candidate for a dissertation. Nor can the productivity of scientific labor be judged by the quantity

assimilated funds per worker. This indicator can, to some extent, speak to the intensity of labor—and only if it is known how the share of wages in expenditures on science changes. An increase in expenditures per worker may occur because of the rising cost of scientific equipment, price increases, and so on.

With some degree of reliability, the productivity of scientific labor can be measured by the useful working time expended by the scientist. But this indicator, too, is extremely weak. It does not characterize the effectiveness of labor.

The difficulties of measuring labor productivity in the scientific sphere are also connected with the fact that science has different levels of concreteness. Fundamental and applied research cannot be approached with the same measure. And, in general, it is hardly expedient to measure the labor productivity of a theoretical scientist or a scholar in the humanities. Here it is sufficient to know society’s expenditures on this type of activity. Productivity (in the sense of effectiveness) of labor as an economic category is inherent only in that part of scientific activity which ends in a result having independent national-economic significance and capable of independently entering economic circulation (for example, an invention or a development). Only such labor productivity can have some quantitative definiteness. The accuracy of determining labor productivity depends on the accuracy with which the result obtained is evaluated. But even when it is impossible to evaluate scientific output in monetary terms, attempts to determine labor productivity must not be abandoned altogether. It is often sufficient to determine its dynamics, that is, to know the rates of its growth or decline. This is important for developing measures whose purpose is to maximize the increase in the efficiency of expenditures in the scientific sphere. The question of raising the productivity of scientific labor is not a question of its measurement, but above all the problem of choosing such structures, such a division of the stages of research, and such an interconnection of procedures and methods as would make it possible to achieve the intended goal in the shortest possible time.

Socialism creates the most favorable conditions for the steady growth of the productivity of scientific labor. Only socialism creates the unlimited possibility of a rational and perfect organization of science; its very nature requires from the state a policy that is comprehensively conducive to the development of the scientific and technological revolution. The Twenty-Fourth Congress of the CPSU noted with satisfaction that, in a number of important fields, our scientists have won leading positions in the world. Significant scientific results have been achieved in mathematics, physics, chemistry, geology, biology, and space research. The Soviet Union, as a powerful socialist state, occupies a leading position in the developing scientific and technological revolution.

However, it would be an oversimplification to suppose that the socialist system, by itself, automatically ensures advantages in the field of science. It creates the economic and social conditions for the intensification of scientific activity. If until recently science developed predominantly along an extensive path (growth in the number of those employed, growth of capital investments, etc.), conditions have now been created for its intensive development. The main path of intensification is the growth of labor productivity in the scientific sphere. Labor productivity in science is determined first of all by the qualifications of research personnel and by a rational system of their placement and use.

1. Materials of the XXIII Congress of the CPSU. Moscow, 1966, p. 165. ↩

2. G. A. Lakhtin, The Tactics of Science. Novosibirsk, 1969, p. 74. ↩

3. P. L. Kapitsa, Theory, Experiment, Practice. Moscow, 1966, pp. 13, 14. ↩

4. K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 23, p. 517. ↩

5. Organization of Scientific Activity. Moscow, 1968, pp. 317–318. ↩