The research of Western radio audiences in the Soviet Union was carried out by the department of Soviet Area Audience and Opinion Research, which was in charge of the RFE/RL; however, factual surveys were conducted by independent research institutes, which ensured that the results were neutral and no prejudices with regard to a particular broadcaster were present. The key indices to be measured were the size of the audience that listened to Western radio broadcasts as well as the listeners’ behavioral patterns. Making use of these parameters, the authorities of these radios were able to modify the character of radio programming, to design the content of the information provided, and to observe the potential influence of radio broadcasts in the context of ideological opposition. It is important to stress that based on the methodology and the amount of information available at that time, individual persons’ surveys conducted by Radio Liberty audience and the opinion research department were not adequate to what is considered, in the contemporary sense, proper public opinion research.

We provide the first thick description of the counter-intelligence function in a command economy of the Soviet type. Based on documentation from Soviet Lithuania, the paper considers the KGB (secret police) as a market regulator, commissioned to prevent the disclosure of secret government business and forestall the disruption of government plans. Where market regulation in open societies is commonly intended to improve market transparency, competition, and fair treatment of consumers and employees, KGB regulation was designed to enforce secrecy, monopoly, and discrimination. One consequence of KGB regulation of the labour market may have been adverse selection for talent. We argue that the Soviet economy was designed to minimize the costs. Zhuravlev, and the referees for advice and comments; Adam Brzezinski and Dimitri Migrow for assistance; the University of Warwick's ESRC Centre on Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy, Vilnius University's Faculty of History, and the Hoover Institution for research support; the Hoover Institution for its generous hospitality and support of the annual Hoover Institution Workshop on Totalitarian Regimes; and the staff of the Hoover Archive for their expertise and boundless patience.