Knowledge that Transforms

IF economists could measure the need for reserves, they might be able to agree on the right way to reform the international monetary system. Most of the economists who propose drastic reform do so because they anticipate a shortage of reserves; some even believe that the shortage is upon us. Those who advocate more gradual change believe that reserves are adequate now and for the next several years; some even believe that reserves are excessive. Unfortunately, there is no way to measure the adequacy of reservesnot even to make historical comparisons. Scitovsky's comments illustrate several of the problems involved in appraising the global stock of reserves:

Wassily Leontief, Alison Morgan, Karen Polenske, David Simpson, Edward Tower, The Economic Impact--Industrial and Regional--Of An Arms Cut, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 47, No. 3 (Aug., 1965), pp. 217-241

ENVIIRONMENTAL health services, especially refuse collection and sewage disposal, though relatively small in terms of outlays compared to other urban government services, have played a major role in the rapid urbanization of society. They have helped to eliminate the frightful dangers to health that can threaten densely populated communities and decimate their populations. Economists who are concerned with planning the provision and financing of urban government services might find the analysis of refuse collection useful from a methodological point of view. Their interests tend to focus on issues of scale economies, break-even points, the cost of differential service levels, the determination of user charges, etc. In addition, projections of service needs and costs occupy their attention. Inquiries into these matters require information on government service demand and cost functions which are unusually difficult to determine because of the economist's inability to find readily quantifiable output units and quality characteristics. However, as will be shown below, refuse collection cost analysis, in this respect, poses less difficulty than any other local government service, except perhaps water supply. In much of the world, refuse collection services are mainly provided by governments, although this need not be the only method.' Indubitably, these services do not constitute pure public goods; only to a limited extent do they fulfill either social or merit wants.2 Or, to put it differently, while pure public goods have very many major indirect or neighborhood effects, in the case of refuse collection such effects are relatively minor. Residential refuse collection (and disposal) service involves the regularly scheduled pickup, collection and disposition by a sanitary agency of solid waste materials resulting from the operation and maintenance of households; its main components are garbage, ashes and rubbish.3 It is useful to distinguish between residential refuse collection on the one hand and industrial refuse collection on the other. The two usually are carried out separately and the latter takes place virtually on a daily basis. Unlike residences, commercial and industrial establishments vary greatly in the amount of refuse they produce, and many large industrial firms provide their own collection and sometimes even disposal service. In the following pages, an ideal residential refuse collection cost model will be presented. Because of data difficulties and the marginal importance of some variables, this model will next be simplified and implemented in relation to a case study. Finally some conclusions are pre-

DURING World War II, shipbuilding output per man-hour evidenced a remarkable improvement. Between December 1941 and December 1944, man-hours required to produce a Liberty vessel, an emergency type developed for mass production, fell from an index value of 100 (December 1941 100) to 45, an increase in output per man-hour of 122 per cent, or an average annual increase of about 40 per cent.' Compared to the long-run improvement in man-hour productivity elsewhere in the United States economy the shipbuilding experience is impressive. Over the period 1909 to 1961, annual growth in output per man-hour, averaged over the entire economy, was 2.4 per cent.2 Even during a subperiod of rapid improvement, 1919-1929, and in a sector where improvement was most conspicuous, manufacturing, the average annual rate was only 5.6 per cent. In light of these figures, an explanation of the World War II shipbuilding productivity experience would be desirable, not only for its own sake but because it would shed light on secular forces constantly operating in the United States economy. An explanation is provided in this note with particular emphasis placed on the role of organizational and individual learning resulting from accumulated production experience.3 The extreme and unusual shipbuilding conditions that prevailed during World War II were conducive to extensive learning. New products were adopted, mass production techniques were introduced, labor inexperienced at shipbuilding was recruited, and the direction of production was placed in the hands of eminently successful managers who were, however, inexperienced at shipbuilding. This combination of unique events represents an extreme instance, which will facilitate the isolation of learning or adaptation effects from other effects, if learning is quantitatively important.

John Lintner, The Valuation of Risk Assets and the Selection of Risky Investments in Stock Portfolios and Capital Budgets, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 47, No. 1 (Feb., 1965), pp. 13-37

Journal Article Interest Rates, Forced Saving, and Prices in the Long Run Get access Jürg Niehans Jürg Niehans University of Zurich Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 32, Issue 4, October 1965, Pages 327–338, https://doi.org/10.2307/2295839 Published: 01 October 1965

Journal Article Business Saving and Errors in Variables Get access P. E. Hart P. E. Hart University of Bristol Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 32, Issue 3, July 1965, Pages 225–232, https://doi.org/10.2307/2295826 Published: 01 July 1965

Journal Article Capital Longevity and Economic Growth Get access S. K. Bhattacharyya S. K. Bhattacharyya London School of Economics and Calcutta University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 32, Issue 1, January 1965, Pages 39–46, https://doi.org/10.2307/2296329 Published: 01 January 1965