e decrease of ef f lc i ency rto~u i i: r•s frcrr another factor. That Is why these proportional indicators of cannot be used eiiher to determine changes of efficiency of production or to select the mu~t ver i ,,nf, efficiency aggresated p r t f "-! '" b i '·' Correct determination of economic efficiency of social production can be done only on the basts of taking account of combined Impact exerted by all economic growth factors. This brings a problem of commensurabll tty In a general !zing Indicator of diverse trends characterizing separate although closely Inter­related aspects of economic dynamics. The lnteru.U gf rolsln~1l~eoc~ of oiJJ.SlC.l.al~d.u-'tio.D ~~~-1h•~~_gi~Qre.e(abora1•~_m§1DQ~~~9s~r•m~ni_Qt.prQ~ uct!on cojt m~~i~~ble to cQm~A£~-±b•_Q~i~_n~~hJ.•~ A.U.i.IJ.¥PJU._.Qf cost byt w jtb th§l.CJ.Um YOIU· And there exists such method of brlnlng separate criteria to a single generalizing Indicator. For example, for this purpose one may use a national economy production function which relates the volume of national Income (Y) to the volume of labour resources (L) and pro~uctive f~nds (f). Y = Y(L -,F ,t) (1) t t t On the basis of differentiation and local linear homogeneity It follows from (1) that there Is a relationship between the national income increr:•&nt ~Y) C:uri/'l~ e shu·i ptrfod cf time <.at> and the Increments of productive funds(&F) and number of workers (L) for the same period: (2) In optimal planning theory valueslYhF and,YM. are determined efficiency normatlves of uti I lzatlon of the productive funds <EN> 410' and labour resources CF ). Consequently, L •. •Y • E ,F + E .&1. +'IY/;Jt (3) N L Each of the afore-said normative shows by how mney untts will grow the national Income resulting from a unit Increment of the corresponding resource whlfe the volume of the other resources ~Ill remain unchanged. 