摘要:

Study of relationships between outputs, inputs, prices, and final demands in the United States can be strengthened by: (1) eliminating disparities in official measures of output (mainly the Index of Industrial Production and Real Gross National Product), and (2) obtaining agreement on the conceptual framework for studying these relationships.Real Gross Product has provided a consistent framework for study of productivity and prices for the total economy and for broad industry groups, but has not easily permitted the analysis of commodity detail particularly for intermediate commodities. Industrial Production, on the other hand, has considerably extended the detailed analysis of commodity output but has not provided a basis for systematic analysis of productivity and prices within a consistent framework for the total economy.This paper illustrates the effect of some of the disparities between Industrial Production and Gross Product in manufacturing on the analysis of relations between prices and output and prices and productivity. This is done for the 1954–1958 period when benchmark data are available for both measures. Inconsistencies for a number of industries cause difficulties in analyzing the interplay of demand and cost influences on price changes; for example, industries which rise above average in output and below in price in one measure are not the same as those in similar price‐quantity relationships in the other measure.The paper concludes by recommending improvements in data and concept in order to eliminate some of the disparities and to enable analysts to reap the benefits of both types of measures of real out

ISSN:0034-6586    

DOI:10.1111/j.1475-4991.1968.tb00933.x

出版商:Blackwell Publishing Ltd    

年代:1968

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

The system of social accounts described in this article is based on the following five principles:(1) Producers of goods and services are working organizations which represent groups of people or individuals organized for the purpose of earning a living by producing goods and services that satisfy individual or collective needs. Business, government, profit and nonprofit, corporate and unincorporated working organizations are treated in a uniform way.(2) Since the behaviors of the market and non‐market sectors differ considerably, these two sectors are consistently separated throughout the accounting system.(3) There are four basic activities: (a) production, (b) consumption, (c) investment, and (d) income redistribution. These call for four separate accounts: (a) Working Organizations, (b) Households, (c) Community, including government and certain non‐government institutions, and (d) Accumulation. The fifth account, Rest of the World, serves for balancing purposes.(4) The same classifications of transactions are used for activities and institutions, making possible complete matching of social product and financial flows accounts.(5) The system strives to achieve the maximum analytical flexibility. Some of its possibilities are visible from the classification of industries: A. Market (Material) Sector: 1. Agriculture, II. Forestry, III. Mining and Manufacturing, IV. Construction, V. Transportation, VI. Trade and Catering, VII. Handicrafts; B. Non‐Market (Non‐Material) Sector: VIII. Housing and Communal Economy, IX. Education, Culture, and Social Welfare, X. Public Services Social Organizations (Political, Religious, etc.), Finance and Insurance, Public Administration and Judiciary, National Defence. Sector A corresponds to the material definition of social product. Sectors A + B correspond to the SNA definition. Sectors A + B minus Industry × reflects the welfare definition. Further, Industries I‐IV produce goods, V‐VII market services, VIII and IX non‐market services with welfare content, X intermediate nonmarket services, V

ISSN:0034-6586    

DOI:10.1111/j.1475-4991.1968.tb00934.x

出版商:Blackwell Publishing Ltd    

年代:1968

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

The main purpose of the study is to determine the savings potential of urban and rural households in India and in the process determine the possible savings and consumption functions separately for urban and rural areas.Four different possible functions have been used for determining the savings behaviour of the households both at the aggregate level and at the per capita level. The rural households, according to the results, have an extremely low rate of saving with income elasticity of saving of less than unity. For the urban households on the other hand, the income elasticity of saving is high enough to suggest the possibilities of considerably high savings potential.To understand the consumption behaviour of these households, the long‐run and the short‐run marginal propensities to consume and the marginal propensities to consume out of‘permanent’ or ‘normal’ income and ‘transitory’ income have been worked out. For the urban sector none of these give encouraging enough results and the analysis has been extended to examine whether other factors like prices and household assets are of any significance. Whereas for the rural sector, Milton Friedman's theory of ‘permanent’ or ‘normal’ income is somewhat substantiated, other factors like ‘transitory’ income, prices and assets appear to inthence urban consumption behaviour though no single one of them substantially enough. A negligible effect of ‘permanent’ income on urban consumption behaviour is, on the other hand, very clearly suggested by the results.Household consumption and savings have next been projected using the above results to determine the possible levels for the next three years. The results suggest that the rate of domestic savings likely to be achieved by the end of the Third Five Year Plan (1965–66) fal

ISSN:0034-6586    

DOI:10.1111/j.1475-4991.1968.tb00935.x

出版商:Blackwell Publishing Ltd    

年代:1968

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

Because of the recent public concern over the brain drain, this study attempts to measure the U.S. gain of highly skilled manpower. The paper discusses the serious short‐comings of the data on gross immigration of scientists and engineers provided by the U.S. immigration authorities as a measure of true U.S. gains. In a case study of Swedish scientists and engineers it was found, for example, that whereas the U.S. data showed a gain of 106 Swedish scientists and engineers over a number of years, the net figure was only 26 after adjustment for remigration and the application of the proper OECD education criteria.The paper then reports the findings of a statistical study which uses the stock data on U.S. scientists in the National Register of Scientific and Technical Personnel to estimate the number of foreign born in this stock and analyse their characteristics with respect to age, educational attainment, and employment preferences.It was found that nearly 7 percent of all U.S. scientists are of foreign origin (foreign born and foreign secondary education), whereas 11.5 percent of all scientists with a Ph.D. are of foreign origin. The percentage among Ph.D. holders is highest in meteorology (22.3), followed by linguistics (18.7), physics (17.1) and statistics (14.6).The greatest percentage of scientists comes from Canada (10.4 per thousand), followed by Germany (8.3 per thousand) and the United Kingdom (6.7 per thousand). However, after adjustment of these data for the different sizes of the total foreign born population from each country in the U.S., it turns out that by this measure the greatest shares of scientists are supplied by the Japanese, followed by the Austrian‐Swiss, Benelux and Canadians.The analysis of the age composition of all foreign born reveals that in the age groups that were 20–29, 45–54, and 65 and over in 1964 foreigners represent a smaller than average share, probably reflecting war casualties and education completed at a later age. Germans and Austrians are heavily concentrated in the group 55–64 years old in 1964, suggesting that a great share of scientists from these countries may have been victims of a b

ISSN:0034-6586    

DOI:10.1111/j.1475-4991.1968.tb00936.x

出版商:Blackwell Publishing Ltd    

年代:1968

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

This review article initially summarizes some of the highlights of the volumeWhy Growth Rates Differ, including the use of income shares as weights for the various factor inputs and some of the major factual conclusions drawn from the inter‐country comparisons. Some of the main factors in differences in income levels and differences in growth rates are then reviewed.In appraising the contribution of the volume, the monumental task is emphasized. This study illustrates the adaptability of the approach which Denison developed initially inThe Sources of Economic Growth.The volume meets many of the questions and criticisms raised of his earlier study, and should encourage a shift of the discussion from methodology towards the substance of the empirical results.The volume introduces some shifts in emphasis on the importance of different factors in growth. The role of demand variations and the contribution of capital is considered, but the evidence in the volume gives less emphasis on the importance of these factors than earlier work by others in both the United States and Europe. The volume gives some emphasis to shifts out of agriculture and the self‐employed in the high postwar growth in many individual European countries. It considers the effects of reductions in trade barriers, and follows the view of most economists in playing this down. Advances in knowledge are also considered.Those who are interested in questions of economic growth, past and future, and economic policy in this area will find much in this volume for study and reflect

ISSN:0034-6586    

DOI:10.1111/j.1475-4991.1968.tb00937.x

出版商:Blackwell Publishing Ltd    

年代:1968

数据来源: WILEY