A Comparison of the US and Soviet Industrial Bases
CIA HISTORICAL REVIEW PROGRAM RELEASE IN
Tho publication i> prepared for thr use ol US (iovnnmenl ofliclab. and the format, co-erase, and conuni arc deugned to meet their iptciheuiientenU. US Government ulTVuU nuy obtain additional COpm ol ihu docamenl directly or throughckanart (ton the Central IcieCiteticc Agency
RoQcjesten outwde UM US Gornmcot nuy ooUaa tahactIA pubiKitacu iiantir to that one bnnternet to.
OCEXlchant* and Gift Di>Bioa library off ontren WaahlnilML
I reaavlcal Inrorntalion Seniee
32S5 Purl RoyalSvruaffWU, VA UUI
Rcc jcuci ovtude Ibe US Goartaaec. aa niemtednrnce naai pari haw uvcJK pabncaiaaaNane* copy or micmTorrn from:
Serrice
libraryrns
1 eebnieal Inlor-arinn Str-tti
ad Royal RoadUI**aa*ucalT IS OntoSOi
Comment! and quanta on thu piper may br directed io ihe DOCfcX Proiccl at Ihe abme addicu or byH or fl* NTIS Office o( Cuiionvtr Servicei al the above addrrn ce by phone. hblxMaMi ares liable lo (he public irom ihe Central Intelligence AceiiCy
A Comparison of the US and Soviet Industrial Bases
A Comparison of the US and Soviet Industrial Bases
Using statistics on production, employment, and investment, this Reference Aid portrays broadly the relative sizes of the Soviet and US industrial bases. It is not designed to measure living standards, overall economic strength, or the progress of Soviet economic reforms. To enhance the usefulness of this paperesearch tool, material on the geographic layout and regional character of Soviel industrial production has been included. The datafor thehe latestserveasis for illustrative comparisons between the fundamental productive bases of the two countries.
t May im
Contents
Page
Note
Product Quality S
Gap in Technology
Ahead
Individual Industries
Power
Building and Metalworking
Products
f * l"Ti
10
ruction Mjteruii Soft Goods
Foods
Regional Perspective ol Soviet Industry
V
A Comparison of tbe US and Soviet Industrial Bases
The industrial base of any countrya reflection, among other things, of national priorities, available resources, and the means by which the economy is organized nnd administered. The basic fentures of tbe US and Soviet economica market economyentrally administered economy,account foe many of the quantitative, qualitative, and structural differences between the industrial bases of tbe two countries. At tbe same time, the industries of tbe two countries exhibit similarities Each country must grapple with weaknesses unique to iu economic system. Highly centralized planning of economicin the USSR has created massive waste and product shortages. The Soviet economy, however, has been protected from the disruptions of business cycles to which the US market-oriented economy is susceptible
The current shape of Soviet industry has its roots in the Stalm era. In, the Soviet leader imposed an ambitious program toapital base strong' ly oriented toward heavy industry, forsaking the country's traditional reliance on agriculture. Hisconlinued on this path,rowth policy based on massive inputs of labor und capital resources. Although tnetTicient. this policy worked wdl lor many years and propelled the USSRiajor world power. Unlike US industry, which has always operated under the ebb and flow of markets and through the profit motive and tbe satisfaction of consumer den nl. the Soviet industrial base has reliedystem of planners', rather thansovereignty.
Inputs
Labor. Operating under an economic system lhat has as one of its philosophical underpinnings theof fall employment, the USSR relies on an indasuial labor force twice as large as lhat of the United State* US industry has made more extensive use of labor-savinc technologies, including, in recent
Figure I
USSR-US: Trends In Industrial0 So
0
years, automation. Engineers and technical specialists makearger share of the Soviet work force, but complaints about poor training and lack ofskilb are legion. Al tbe other end of the spectrum. Soviel industrial enlerprisesreater share of low-skilled manual workers. The USSR falls behind the United States in terms of laboroutput per worker in the Soviet Union is roughly half that in the Uniled States.
Comparint Soviet and VS Imdmtry
ease some of ihe siottstleol challenges inherent in any study thai attempts lo compare two countries
wilh fm%9mentally different economic bases, theinistries for their equivalents) responsible for Soviet industry have been equaled to their VS counterparts using US Standard Industrial Classification (SfC) codesuide. Individual sets of Soviel products were paired with their closest SIC equivalents. For example.acilitate comparison of the US and Soviet chemical industries, tht generic Sovietof -chemicals andas matched with US industries whose SIC codes correspond lo products that would reasonably be expected to fall into the same Soviet category: chemicals and allied products, petroleum and coal products, rubber and plastic products, and chemical and fertiliser mineral mining
The data prettnled here are compiledariety of sources, including official US statistics.mi official Soviet publications. The USSR, however, does not publish production Statistics on some important commodities (nonferrous metals, for example, for which comparable US data are available Moreover, reports and publications of the USSR Stole Committee for Statistics-which are used as major sources- occasionally do not report ouipul data for months or years, leaving wide gaps in produclion series For thete reasons, the comparison
of Soviet and US industry Is limited to thoseproducts where reasonably complete anddata are available and deemed reliable.
' SS Uaiwtf SW (SIC
pmtr
xtraction II JI
ir'.'.
meialt indutlnt, (Ml
buttonsmelai)
lrctriial) (JS)
Imllrkm and electronic rouip-
ment (St)
Tiamportailoiduti
m
ChrmicnlVpt.rocktmteati Che-Ural, and allied) PetroUmm and ton!nd) CaaMH and
f-ss'ta
and,
Purmrurr and Alumnndd*cii lit)
Imi ii da
mtmng il4.
turpi IH)
Softmil product!
Apporrl and Other MXUlf product,
Ml
tmtlkfr and tootherlll
and kindred produci,
Tobano manufacture! Ill)
the, total employment in Soviet industry grewillion persons, orercent. In the same time period, the US industrial work force fell byseche Soviet labor force in industry continued to grow, but the rate of growth has slowed employment rose an average oferceni annually. compared with growihercent per year in, because of an overall slowing of population growth. In contrail, the relative stability of US industrial employment- with tbe nccrxioa of
recession-induced downturns in thend earlylargely the result of structural shifts in the US economy, away from basic industries toward the service sectors, and continued long-term growth of Tabor productivity.
Although the USSR employs more workers in its industries lhan doe* tbe Unitedhe share of toul entpEcryrncni in many branches of industry is
strikingly similar. The percentage of the labor force, for example, in the machine-building and mclalwork-ing branch, Ihc largest industrial employer In both tbe United States and the USSR, is almostercent in both countrtcs (te*ndeed, the share of the indusrml Work force engaged in machinery produc- -tkxi rose by about tbe same amount in both countries0he proponion of workers involved in producing processed foods is also roughly similar. The number of workers engaged In theof basic industrial materials (metals,wood products, and construction materials) in the Uniled Stales and the USSR remained relatively constantall in tbe share of US employment in both tbe soft goods and metalsin the same periodore rapidshift than in the Soviet Union. This shift resulted from market factors affecting metals, such as the increased availability of substitute materials, and from the search by textile and clothing manufacturers for cheaper offshore labor.
Capital. The stock of productive capital In both countries is huge. But Moscow's practice of holding equipment retirementsinimum and prolonging tbe life of machinery through repeated extensive repairs has saddled the countryelatively obsolete and technically backward base of plant and equipment, especially when compared with lhat of the Uniled Slates. Plagued by frequent equipmentthe USSR has been unable lo keep pace with gains in capital productivity in the United States.
Figure 3
USSR-US: Trends in Industrial
0
rowth of Soviel capital investment has generally outstripped that of the Uniled States in mosi*atThct ofnnual infusions of new
tuiareaooa'if filiate eatateta -aaacaiaary aad pcaSaciaaa Im'iiti ari otteti otnew ptoarcu aad continuing, and cceiptatiag aiming eaiea la ihe USSR, lamlmeni incladei oullaji for comlruciion -cel. including aticmbly at aliuctural element* ot'building, outlay for intuiting equipment and (or Ihe drilling of ciploraiury and ptoduriiig oil and natural gai welli. outlays Tor equipment whether iniuiiing installation or not. outlay*cquire production tooli and nguipmeal for maintenance and upkeep. Oallayt to" mixi work ia ibe project planning Mage, and rebc.Bvitiit I* mdaitry. It caiivdoi capend.turei for (oTfcukatd major ^capital) repair of baUdogt aadaefeacks,aad oebar Saad atacu I- lhe
I, triad Suuta. knna. camalncluded ia Ik* drranlica oTw data ihowatrtcily comparable
Morewtr. We-tem obaenerthal official So*ti imeumciu data Are inflated.(lie fact lhal Iheypublished in
l^irinlhitifc' pncei
capiul to Soviet industry doubled1hile those in the United States grew by about SO percent (secoviet investment also grew steadily throughout this period, whereas US industrial investment felliods of recession
As with emp*o> merit, tbe distributioo of investment within individual branches of industry showsBoth Ihc USSR and the United Slates allocatedercent of their total industrial investment to machine building5 (secheof investment allocated to the production of fuels
Soviet Dtfcr.seecond Economy?
USSR has consistentlyigh priority to normal defense, and this has fueled theme world's largest military-industrial base. Soviel defense indusiries have never operated in isolation They have always depended on civilian industries for the supply of industrial materials and componenti and, in turn, have manufactured large Quantities af civilian goods. The defense industries, however, have been granted privileges that havethem toarge share of thebest designers, engineers, skilled workers, raw materials, and machinery. Consequently, they are at Ihe forefront of Soviel technology and industrial prowess.
The defense industries have accumulated theseover the course of more than SO years In. Moscow created Ihe Vc^rnDO-promyvhlcnriiyailitary-Industrial Commission orlo oversee and support lhe defense-industrialand the organisation still operates today.dosen designers were given extraordinary powers to acquire whatever was needed to develop and produce weapon systems. Over time the VPK has established what has been described in the Soviet press as "pyramids" of captive laboratories, design bureaus, and plants, which tn some cases reach all the way down to raw material producers. Defense-industrial ministers can pay higher wages and
salaries than their civilian counterparts, can rely on state budget grams for most af iheir investment needs, and can use weapon programo get first crack al supplies of materials and components. Nevertheless, the defense Indusiriesoor record of transferring technology among themselves, much less lo civilian industry.
The Soviet leadership Is now looking more lo the defense sector to improve the tot of the consumer In8 the principal civilian machine-building ministry responsible for making machinery for the produciion of consumer goods was disbanded, and its assets were transferred to ihe defense sector. More recently, defense industrial ministries have been given additional tasks for producing consumer goods and food-processing machinery (including equipment for lhe dairyhe leadership, however, has not disbanded Ihe "pyramids" or lhe privileges thai support them.
Il is unclear how quickly the defense industries will be able lo adapt to the new regime, to finance iheir operations from their own sales as required by the new reform measures, and to deal with customers that need simple, reliable, and low-east equipmeni and products Ii also remains to be seen howthe military customer will be content to wait In line behind the milkmaid
crcenl in both countries0ercent in the Soviet Union andercen! in tbe United Stateseflecting increaseddevelopment, and production costs for fossil fuels. These increasing shares came largely at the expense of the basic materials industries. The share of total investment going to the electric power industry in the United States is twice as large as theshare in tbe Soviet Union, partly becauseore cc*nprehen>ive regulatory andenvironment.
Output
Industrial productionajor component ofeconomic output in both countries. Industry's share of gross national product is slightly larger inercentn the same year, industrial facilities accounted for roughly one-fourth of all the goods and services produced in the Unitedommitment to extensively develop basic
Figure 5
USSR-US: Trends in Industrial
TaMel
USSR-US: Average Annual Rate of Growth of Output, by Branch of
USSH US
Mutin-
power
1
and
products
materials
1
3
xk
'
Soviel meaiotet of aiirciale growth arc believed by Weitern observer* to contain an upward bids became of increaied double Counting mer time ond disguised inlbtran. Although CIA accepts Soviet dau for physical output o( various commodities, Ihe aggregate mcasu'es shown for induitryhate and thoie for individual blanches were denied lynthelically. The Bronte, rates are formed by combining lhe value of ouipulample of products for each industrialalue-sddoJ weights.
Ferrous mclals only.
Jndustry, alongmaller initial base, hasled the USSR, through most of tbe postwar period, to obtain growth rates tn industrial production higher than those in the United Stales (see figure, for example, only the US wood products and processed foods industries pasted average annual growth higher than the comparable industries in lhe USSR (see
The Sovietraditional emphasis on quantity overpolicy lhat goes bach: to the earliest days of lhe Sovietits huge wealth of
natural resources have enabled it to outproduce the United Stales in many basic products, including steel, oil. naturalfertiliaers, lumber, and eeroeat. US industry produces more of the advanced industrial products such as plastics and chemical fibers, while Ihc USSR has concentrated on basic materials and producer durables, such as machine tools. The United States alsouch more consumer-orientedstructure. For example, it produces nearly six times as many automobiles as the Soviet Union (sec tablelthough ihe USSR outproduces the United States in such items as footwear and cotton textiles, lhe quality of Soviet products is usually lower.
Table 2
USSR-US: Production of Major Industrial Products
Avenge Annual Rale ot
70S
Electricity (billion gross kllowaii-hows)
SI 7
)
1*7
Natural gas (billion cubic meters)
Coal (milium All metric row)
Iron ore (million metric Idiul
344
Crude Heel fwfflfcM metric!
Aluminum HanwuM merit rcuj
mioenobilea (thousands)
tlecule teneratcis ftnt/iVwr Aj/ouum;
Tcleviiion aoli /millions!
(ihotsandsi
fedilJKrs (milium metric Iota)
i-'ili'.'il't'iV njiyi
IIJ1
621
II-
1 '
US
J.6SJ
9
.
19
M
15
'.ii
11
J.B
3X
6
1.6
2%
OJ
Including naiural gal liquids.
Boll^mttries rank high on lhe list of major world producers of industrial products. Either the United States or the Soviet Union ranks first in output of electricity, oil. natural gas, aluminum, mineralsulfuric acid, synthetic rubber, arid lumber (sec0oth countries experienced shifts in their respective world positions in productionumber of industrial commodities. The USSR improved its position in output of oil and gas. whereas the United States dropped in world rank. During the same period, the Soviet Union held on to first place in production of tractors, iron ore, and lumber v. hile US industry lost ground in produciion of machine tools, tractors, and automobiles.
Industrial Product Quality
We haveass of seals of quality, but we siill
nomake more tractors than all
ihe leading capitalist countries, bul siill do not have
manufacture more footwear than ihey
do. even when calculateder capita basis, but we cannot meet the the demand {for quality products!.
Wkolay Ryzhkov8
Tahiti
USSR-US: WorU Rank in Ouipul of Major Industrial Products
Table 4
USSR-US: Composition of Merchandise6
volume of Output.
Although the USSR holds the lead in physical output .of many key industrial commodities, its goods have oeen judged by both Western and Soviet observers to be inferior to those produced in the Untied States. The absence of diteel product testing and sidc-by-side comparisons make it difficulteasure this "quality gap" with any precision. Proxy data, however,that differences in reliability and durability of goods from (he two countries arc large The metals industries, for example, cannot produce enough high-quality dnll pipe and Urge-diameter pipe for the oil and gas industries.esult, the USSR must import better materials from the West. Soviet leader
Gorbachev has admitted lhat onlyercent of Soviel machinery meets world (including US) standards
Deficiencies in the design and usefulness of Soviet industrial products, when compared with ihoscin the United Slates and elsewhere in the West, stemumber of factors:
worker training and lax labor discipline.
Low-quality raw materials and manufacturing equipmeni.
tmphasis on quantitative plans.
ol competition among industrial enterprises.
Reliance on standardizationurrogate for quality.
Ineffective quality oversight
ontiruhg lag in produaion technology has hurt productivity and product quality in thea fact that has kepi Soviet commercial goods from gaining much of an edge in Western markets. While manufactured products make up more than three fourths of US eiports. only about one-third of the USSR's sales abroad (including those to other Communist countries) arc manufactured goods, and energy makes up mote lhan SO percent of Moscow's exports (see
As Ihe USSR attempts to become increasinglyin the international marketplace and strivesexports of manufactured goods, theof high-quality production will grow.consumer is the final arbiter of quality injudges in Soviet civilian indus-
try arc not normally the end users of the products they inspect. In an effort to raise the quality of Soviet products, Moscowigh-profile campaign innown as stale acceptance or gospriyemka, the new systemtaff of inspectors, independent of industrial enterprises, at individual plants lo ensure that products meet stringent qualitytate acceptance initially caused anin Soviet industry and has brought only minor improvements in product quality.
The Gapthnology
Our tndutiry. which should be ihe basisocialism and SoVel power, is extremely backward technically.
losif Stalin Novfmba
Rather than preserve our technological backwardness for many years, we would do better to pass through ihe pains af developing new equipment now.
Mikhail Gorbachev
i New TWIta* for Our CoaMiy
Ik* World, IWT
Soviet industry remains behind lhat of the United States both tn the use of advanced manufacturing technologies and in the application of more bnsic techniques routinely used in the West to save money,t1 IT" nnd energy. Since its formation, the USSR has been trying to overcome its technological backwardness, bul it has. for the most part, failed to caich up with achievements io the West. Evenelectronic devices that US and other Western consumers have taken for granted for many years calculators, portable stereos, and personal computers, foravailable only in extremely limited quantities in the Soviet Union.
' In the detent Induitries. mililary teproentstiici bridge Ihc gap between producer andider jnipWirmto. however, ihc nation at Male Committee lorot coniumer. rxablnlic the iiandaidi bv whxh iiupeclori jodac
The technological gup relative to the Uniled States and the rest of the developed West is large and in some industries is growing:
Although the USSR pioneered tbe process ofcasting of steel,mall share of Soviet steel is continuously cast.
The USSR is the world's second-largest producer of machine loots, but the Soviet mix of machine tool output is heavily skewed toward simpler, lesstools
Tbe Soviet cement industry is trying to increase use of the more efficient "dry process" for making cement, but forhc share of total cement produced using this process remained constant.
The Soviet lag in advanced industrial such as microprocessors, computercontrolled machine tools, and flexiblefrom organizational barriers to scientific research, the low priorityindustrial innovation, bureaucratic rruullo-cation of resources,umbersomeprocess (see figureccording to Olcg Baklanov. party secretary responsible for theindustries, "insufficient attention to lheof capital investments and lack of the requisite economic enterprise and scientific boldness are slowing down work to eliminate the lag behind the world technicalhb lag is reflected In tbe Soviets' own statistics, whichigher use of labor- and material-intensive productionthan in the United States, and in the very low rates of Soviet capital renewal.
Other elements of the USSR's lag with respect to the United States hove far-reaching consequences for the performance of Soviet industry over the long term. For example, computers and microektf rootcs are critical to advances In productivity and product Quality Ir ihe United States tbey are widely applied in automotive, machine tool, and weaponsand hnvc led to substantial savings in labor and
Figure 6
Soviet Las Key5
Approximate length of US lend lit yean
maleri.il inputs, as well as inventory costs. The lackrogress in these areas in (he USSR has retarded similar savings and, moreover, prevented advances in related fields Progress inorfeeds the development of advanced machine tools, robotics, industrial process control,and computers.
Challtngev Ahead
Growing competition (rom newly industrializedand the economic giants of Japan and Western Europe and even more rapid technological advances promise to radically alter the shape and focus of industrial production in ihc United States and ihc USSR. Gorbachev, in particular, recognized the
coming threat to the USSR's status as an economic power He hasold economicand industrial modernization program aimed at improvements in economic management, technology development, and qualitative performance Theeffort includes an evolving market-like approach to dealing with the country's traditional barnon to increased efficiency and productivity as well as innovation
The Soviet leader hopes to revamp tbe entireproduction chain through the massive introduction of new machinery, the rapid retirement of oldand Ihe transfer of high-duality resources from the defense industries. He is depending heavily on major improvements in the machine-buildingthose in the defense-industrialincrease production of consumer foods and has directed labor resources and increased funding to machine building, Conversely, US industrial advances have depended much less on leadership initiatives and morea rkel-driven competitive environment that guides manufacturing decisions and encourages innovation and technological change.
Several years into it* program, the Soviet leadership has seen little progress. Ill-defined legislation.by ministries, and piecemeal implementation of reform measures arc creating disruptions. The pace of modernization has fallen short of plannedEfforts to raise the quality and technotOf ical level of Soviet industrial products have remained stalled, nndxport portfolio continues to tilt toward raw materials.
The USSR is likely to face more daunting obstacles before the end of the century
Even more rapid retirement rates will still leave the countryarge core of aged equipmcni In lhe industrial heartland of the Urals and the Ukraine which accounts forercent of total industrialof the industrial machinery dates from World War II.
Incentives to promote real quality and technological changes remain weak, selling up roadblocks to ihc efforts of innovative managers.
. 1
Burdensome systemica* the slow application of research and development and the waste and Inefficiency inherententrally planned economy- have yet to be fully addressed in Soviet reform efforts.
How^iffch improvement tbe USSR can generate in its industrial base and how long it can sustain tbe gains is very much an open question. It also remains problematic whether Gorbachev and hisare often chasing movingclose theand quality gap with the Uniled States by the
Machine Building and Metal working
Keyefense
Soft Gtiods
Processed Foods
USSR:6 ",
| USSR-US:
0
Hfiriir Hlartt
Appendix
A Regional Perspective of Soviet Industry
most of theofor heavy industrial plants are located in the European part of the Russian Republic (RSFSR) and the Ukraine, other Soviet republics are important centers for particular industries (seehe Soviet State Committee for Statistics published the following summary of Indus-trial activity in each af theepublics
The RSFSR produces the majority of the products of tbe machine-building tnd chemical industries. More than four-fifths of the country's turbines, generators, and petroleum equipment and two-thirds of the forge-pressing machinery and chemical equipment arein the republic. The republic's enterprises make half of all Soviet metal-cutting machine tools and are the largest producers of agricultural equipment. All of the grain-harvesting combines andercent of the tractors are manufactured there. The republic's chemical industry produces aboutercent of the nation's mineral fertilizers and chemical fibers. Tbe fuel and energy complei: of the RSFSR provides more thanercent of the USSR's crude oil, almost three-fourths of iu natural gas, andercent of iu electricity.
The Ukrainian SSR is the USSR's most important fuel-metallurgicalizable share of thecoal and nearly half of the iron ore is mined here. More than one-third of all Soviet rolled steel products are produced in the republic. The Ukraine isarge center for the machine-building and chemical/petrochemical industries. It produceshalf of the country's metallurgical equipment and electric power transformers, all of the sugar-beet-harvesting machines anduge amount of metal-cutting machine tools and tractors, as well as other electrical and transport equipment
Important centers for the machine tool, automotive, tractor, and electronics industries arc located in the Betorussian SSR. Bclorussia produces every eighth tractor made in the USSR, every eighth metal-cutting
machine tool, andercent of the silage- and fodder-harvesting combines. Half of all the country's potassium fertilizers arc produced there. Tbe output of consumer goods is growing; every fourthand every sixth color television set isin the republic.
The Uzbek SSR isajor center for the ferrous and nonferrous metals, energy, and cheaiscai/petrochemical industries Machine building and tractor production have begun, and almost all types of machinery for cultivating and harvesting cotton are produced in tbe republic. Machinery for cotton-cleaning planu and spinning factories as well as excavation, chemical, hoisting, and traiuroon equipment are also made there. The light (soft goods) and food industries have also greatly developed.
The Kaiakh SSR ha* rich reserves of naturalonarge industrial base has been created. The republic now produces more products than all of prerevolutionary Russia. Kazakhstan is one of the country's major centers of Heel production, and the republic occupies third place in the mining of coat New oil- and gas-producing regions on thePeninsula are being developed.
The Georgian SSRodern multiscctoralbase, which includes Jet tous metallurgy, varices machine-building sectors, chemicals andcement, and textiles. More thanercent of tbeanganese ore is produced in Georgia.
Today the Azerbaijan SSR has not only oil and gas but also ferrous und nonferrous metallurgy, chemical and petrochemical, petroleum machine building,instrument-making, ond light and food industries
Figure 7
Soviet Republics
ii
li-id,-
hlaijciyjici of growth of industrial production have occurred tn ilie Lithuanian SSR. In five days, the industries of Lithuania produce as many products as were madelte republic in the entire year0 Machne funding has undergonerii'e the chemical/petrochemical, wood-prucessirii; itnO taper, peat, and light and food industries.
The MnUimiivt SSR i< row oie o( the COunlry**ccrics of :hc food-processing industry.iliiic pLicc iii-iong nil the republics in ill,ir
the manufacture of granulated sucar and vegetable oils.
E!cciric;ii .if.fi it uns porta tion equipment arcpredicts Of the Latvian SSR.verylt tram cm .tnd every .ccond milking machine bore ihe mark of Uiv.ci planW. The production of consumer giiodseveloping rapidly: Ihc republic's enter-pnw prf>3Miv every fiflti radio receiver, every sec-rid .noped. aril every ei^htii washing machine.
In the Ki'ghii SSR oil, natural gas, and coal arccted ferrous metals, instruments, clecuic motors, and ttwial-cutting machine tools areThe republic also makes machinery for
Table 5
USSR: Largest Producers of Major Industrial6
kraine|
ffisfe)
. Turkmeni/a
Oude(SWh.
_
Elccme
Mttalaixking machine tools.
kraine
f.|Jl%j
kraine (li%l
)
Min-.iI. Itcicrimii
UktBineQ*it>
% I
Commercial
RSFSR
Rein (creed concrete products . Ukraine (I
KarakhUan1
,
.
)
livestock raising and fodder production andcement and precast ferroconcrete products. The light and food industries have also undergone great development.
The Tajik SSR has many sectors of industry, but the most important is electricity generation. The republic is second only to the RSFSR in its reserves of hydroelectric power. Tajikistan now produces as much electricity as was produced by all the country's power plants
The Armenian SSRenter for such machine-building industries as electrical, instrument-making, electronics, automotive, and machine tools. Theand petrochemical industries are also highly developed. Armenia is also an important area for the tight and food industries.
In the Turkmen SSR the petroleum refining,natural gas, ccmenl, glass, and food industries have been recently developed. The republicizable share of the nation's natural gas, sulfur, and cotton fibers.
Important centers of the electrical equipment andetrochemical industries are located in the Estonian SSR. The republic also produces oil shale, and the pulp and paper, soft goods, andindustries are developing.
Hut ite Siatii
Sources
Major data sources for thb publication include: Central
DI Reference Aidandbook of Economic
US Department of the Interior. Mineralsolume I. Washington: US
Uniled Nations. Department of Internationaland Social Affairs. Statistical Yearbook, New York: United Nations, (annual).
United Nations, Department of Internationaland Social Affairs, Industrial StatisticsNew York: United Nations, (annual)
United States
US Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Survey of Current Business (monthly).
US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Businessashington: US Government Printing Office,
US Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the Unitedashington: US Government Printing
US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Fixed Reproducible Tangible Wealth in the United, Washington: US Government Priming Office,
USSR
DI Reference Aidirectory of Soviet Officials: National Organizations.
Narodnoye khozyaystvo SSSR zaet, Moscow:
Narodnoye khozyaystvooscow:
SSR, Moscow:
Kapltal'noye stroitel'stvo SSSR. Moscow;
Atlas- Osnovnyye Napravleniyaotsialnogo RazviUyavtnadtsatoy Pyati-letke. Moscow:
Atlas: Osnovnyye Napravleniyaotsialnogo RazviUyadinnadtsatoy Pyati-letke, Moscow: Main Administration of Geodesy and
All photographs (with the exception of those of the industrial ministers) arc from Soviet Export, the Soviet foreign trade bimonthly magazine.
ttnent Blank
Original document.
Comment about this article, ask questions, or add new information about this topic: