Participants in labor market experiments are aware that the experiments run for a limited amount of time. Thus behavior during a temporary experiment will be different than if the experimental change in constraints confronting participants were permanent. In evaluating changes in policy, however, the response to permanent changes is of primary interest. The paper analyzes conditions under which permanent responses can be inferred from data on temporary experiments.

Kenneth J. Arrow, Real and Nominal Magnitudes in Economics, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 15, No. 4, Proceedings of 15th Annual Conference of the Western Finance Association, June 19-21, 1980, San Diego, California (Nov., 1980), pp. 773-783

Journal Article On a Theorem of Arrow: Comment Get access Kenneth J. Arrow Kenneth J. Arrow Harvard University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 42, Issue 3, July 1975, Pages 487–488, https://doi.org/10.2307/2296863 Published: 01 July 1975

Journal Article The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing Get access Kenneth J. Arrow Kenneth J. Arrow Stanford Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 29, Issue 3, June 1962, Pages 155–173, https://doi.org/10.2307/2295952 Published: 01 June 1962

Additive Logarithmic Demand Functions and the Slutsky Relations Get access Kenneth J. Arrow Kenneth J. Arrow Stanford, California Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 28, Issue 3, June 1961, Pages 176–181, https://doi.org/10.2307/2295946 Published: 01 June 1961

Journal Article The Use of Unbounded Utility Functions in Expected-Utility Maximization: Response Get access Kenneth J. Arrow Kenneth J. Arrow Harvard University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 88, Issue 1, February 1974, Pages 136–138, https://doi.org/10.2307/1881800 Published: 01 February 1974

I. The formal statement of the model and the analysis of input equality, 410. —H. Output equality, 411. —III. The case of objectively measurable outputs, 413. — IV. Comments, 415.

Frisch's work in all its phases exemplifies the interplay of economic theory, empirical analysis, and statistical method which peculiarly characterizes econometrics. Starting with his earliest papers, theoretical considerations have essentially the role of interpreting data. Repeatedly and in many different contexts, the need for a model, as we would say today, to enable us to learn from observations is stressed. This is particularly true when the exigencies of imperfections in data and theory lead us to statistical analysis and therewith implicitly to the admission of stochastic elements. From his empirical work, Frisch was led to examine the subtleties in the interpretation of statistical relations and the methods of statistical analysis appropriate to theoretical understanding. Such a program has inevitably meant the extensive use of mathematics, which involves two interrelated dangers: cutting the lines of communication with economists who lack mathematical training, and a tendency to value mathematical technique over economically meaningful results. In Frisch's work, the sterile Byzantinism that might be implied by these dangers is completely avoided. At all points, there is an open-minded receptivity to economic ideas derived from all sources, whether or not expressed mathematically, and the focus of all research is the underlying economic issue, not the mathematics used. This does not, however, mean any reluctance to use difficult mathematics when it is necessary to the solution. At all times, the economic problem is the master; the necessary mathematics is neither complicated for reasons of elegance and generality nor skimped for reasons of popularity. The enormous volume and variety of Frisch's work is indicated by the attached bibliography (which has been prepared by Professor Trygve Haavelmo and the University Institute of Economics, University of Oslo). This excludes (with few exceptions) his mimeographed memoranda and lectures, some of which are of the greatest importance. In reviewing his work I have been forced to be selective in a way which undoubtedly reflects my own interests and accidents of reading. No attempt has been made to discuss

IN A TYPICAL Leontief model, there is a unique method of production for each product. Hence, if a given bill of final goods is specified, the output of each industry is uniquely determined, there being no possibilities of substitution. Professor Chenery, in a contribution to a study of the industrial structure of the Italian economy ([1], Chapter II, Section E), has considered a model more general in that each commodity may be either produced domestically by a unique process or imported, which involves a drain on foreign exchange. Some, at least, of the domestic industries operate under capacity limitations. There are then alternative ways of producing a given bill of goods; choice among them is to be made on the basis of minimizing the cost of imports in foreign currency. One would expect that the choice of production and import program would depend upon the relative prices of imports. The procedure actually used by Chenery is, however, independent of these prices. The purpose of the present note is to demonstrate that his procedure is correct under a wide variety of circumstances, i.e., that in spite of the presence of a substitution possibility, the optimal choice is independent of relative prices.