Documents / FOIA release

USSR: Measures of Economic Growth and Development, 1950-80

Central Intelligence Agency · 1982-12-08 · 399 pages · text from the file's own layer

This Joint Committee Print, dated December 8, 1982, gathers studies that the Central Intelligence Agency's Directorate of Intelligence prepared for the Joint Economic Committee of the US Congress. It gives estimates of Soviet gross national product for 1950 to 1980, with indexes of industrial production, agricultural production and consumption, and explains the methods and data behind them. The foreword says official Soviet statistics inflate growth and that the CIA measures offer a more accurate picture. The document contains no UFO material.

  • p. 26 …the shifting of industrial produc- tion toward Siberia, which leads to longer shipping distances to reach…
  • p. 51 …may cost much more to construct in Siberia than in the Ukraine because of greater transportation…
  • p. 268 …European Russia, Ukraine, the “Volga Valley,” Western Siberia and Altay kray, and Northern and Central Kazakhstan…
  • p. 306 …Kok- chetav and Northern Kazakhstan are equated with Omsk in Western Siberia; all other Kazakhstan ob…
Approved for Release: 2019/07/19 C05210421
should be weighted appropriately. The Soviet Union
attempts to capture this effect in the construction
sector by allowing price supplements for work done
during the winter. No adjustments are made in this
study.
Price Discrimination, Quality Changes, and Unique
Products. According to one of the conditions of the
AFCS, product prices must be uniform within a
market area. This condition is violated frequently in
the Soviet Union, especially in energy pricing. Some
sectors pay preferential prices, receive higher quality
products for the same price, or enjoy special delivery
privileges. To the extent that differential prices are
included in the input-output data, the factor-cost
prices are inaccurate. Changes in the degree of dis-
crimination will also affect the indexes.
The problem of quality change is pervasive in index
computations. The basic question is how much of the
change in the price of a product actually reflects a
change in the quantity of the services provided by the
product. The answer is not always clear. The problem
is particularly severe in the Soviet case, because we
rarely can observe products over time on a scale
sufficient to assess quality changes and because a
common method of raising prices in the Soviet Union
is to make a cosmetic change in the product and call it
a new product. The quality problem mainly affects
our index of industrial production, which frequently
relies on physical output data covering fairly broad
product categories. The lack of adjustments for quali-
ty changes probably understates real quantity
changes." '
Many investment goods are produced as unique prod-
ucts or in very small batches. Most construction
projects and as much as one-third of producer dura-
bles constitute unique products. A variety of tech-
niques have been devised to measure the real cost of
unique products: summing input costs; using hedonic
indexes; using a related, standard product as an
analog; and computing the cost as a sum of standard
components. The construction index used here, for
example, is a material-input index rather than an
output index. Although we suspect that our index of
" See Comparing Planned and Actual Growth, Central Intelligence
Agency, Washington, D.C., for a discussion of this problem.
investment in producer durables (based on official
values in so-called constant estimate prices) overstates
growth, we lack the data to use an alternative
approach.
Problems of Measuring the Real Growth of Value
Added
The discussion to this point has centered on the
problems of any constant-price activity index. The
construction of indexes of value added in economic
sectors poses additional problems. Value added cannot
be measured directly in constant prices because
changes in depreciation, profits, and social insurance
do not lend themselves to separation into price and
quantity changes. Therefore, value added is computed
as a residual—the difference between gross output
and current material inputs. This procedure makes
value added especially subject to measurement error.
Specialists generally agree that the preferred ap-
proach to measure real changes in value added is the
so-called double deflation method. If Q(_i,t) is the gross
output of sector j in year t, q(i,j,t) is the current input
of type i used by sector j in year t, n is the number of
sectors, and p(j,t) is the price of the good or service
produced by sector j in year t, then value added in
sector j in year t is:
n
D(J'J)Q(JlI) _ Z P(i,1)q(i,i.I)-
i=l
The value added in base-year prices (year 0) is then
computed as the difference between the deflated
values of both terms, or:
n
V(.i,t) = t>(.i.0)Q(i,i) -‘ Z t>(i,9)q(i,j,t)-
i=1
The virtue of this approach is that it preserves
consistency between the end-use and sector-of-origin
accounts. If the sales of all sectors are properly
deflated, then the sum of deliveries to end-use compo-
nents of GNP in base-year prices will equal the sum
of deflated value added by sectors of origin.
44
Approved for Release: 2019/07/19 C05210421

Not linked to a story yet.

About this file

FOIA release, from the cia-readingroom collection. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is above. 399 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.