rFHIS paper is a summary account of pros ductivity trends since the turn of the century in the American economy, by major segments and industries. Different rates of productivity change in the various industries have significantly altered relative unit costs and prices of products, rates of output, and the distribution of resources by industry. At the national level, productivity growth has been of paramount importance in raising levels of living, in strengthening potential national security, and in the provision for future economic growth. Differences among nations in levels and rates of change in productivity are fundamental measures of comparative economic performance and play a crucial role in the competition among nations and groups of nations. The more we can learn of economic growth generally, and of productivity changes in particular, the better equipped we are to survive the competition and to enjoy continued advances in our planes of living

T HE whole problem of capital requirements in economic growth has received increasing attention in recent years under double impetus of post-Keynesian preoccupation with full employment in more highly developed countries and new interest in theory and strategy of economic development for underdeveloped areas. Growth models such as those of Harrod, Domar, and Fellner explicitly focus on productivity of investment, i.e., productivity of incremental additions to capital stock, as a determinant conditioning full-employment rate of growth.' At same time, most of projections for underdeveloped areas are based on models in which capital-output ratio figures as one of principal growth variables.2 In this context, there have been two schools of thought as to comparative levels of marginal capital-output ratios in developed versus underdeveloped economies. The first school, following good classical doctrine, maintains that on an a priori basis one would expect a comparatively low marginal ratio in underdeveloped countries, where capital is relatively much scarcer than labor. On other hand, second school argues that in early stages of development a large share of investment resources will need to be allocated to social overhead capital, productivity of which is low. Therefore on this account, as well as owing to shifts in industrial structure, while initial marginal capital-output ratio tends to be high, it will decline at more advanced stages of economic growth. For instance, Colin Clark maintains that the figure of capital requirements per unit of output rises . . . in early stages of industrialization, but that later effect of modern technology is to bring this figure down. I With this background in mind, it seemed to us that an investigation of incremental capital-output ratio in Soviet Union might throw some additional light on factors impinging upon problem of capital requirements during periods of rapid growth in early stages of development. The Soviet process of economic growth with its marked emphasis upon development of producers' goods and defense industries has been generally considered a highly capital-intensive one. However, as we will attempt to show, this conclusion seems to be belied by realities of Soviet development experience for economy as a whole, although it does have some validity for industrial sector alone. Specificially, in this paper we propose (i) to develop measurements of aggregate and industrial incremental capital-output ratios in Soviet Union, (2) to indicate some of factors which may account for comparatively low ratios observed, and (3) to point to some of implications of our results for measurements in general

YOU are familiar with those huge ant-heaps that one finds occasionally in the woods: myriads of tiny particles collected and put together with patience and perseverance by a legion of methodic small creatures. Whenever I think of the statistical aspects of the gross product in a detached fashion this image comes to my mind, and the analogy brings out the difficulties which I face in this talk: While the complete ant-heap is truly imposing, it is not easy to say anything of a general nature about the individual particles. Nor do the techniques employed by the builders appear to lend themselves to significant summarization. However, to talk in detail about the particles and the work by which they are put together would not only be an endless affair; it would also be endlessly boring. I shall deal as well as I can with these difficulties, and hope that I shall be able to further your understanding of gross product statistics

M OST writers about the relation of capital to output in American manufacturing have been impressed by the tendency for the ratio to increase with size of firm. They have usually emphasized one explanation, although they have not agreed on the one that should be stressed. It is the purpose of this paper to present evidence not readily available that the tendency may not be as universal as often assumed and that, where it exists, the explanation is likely to differ from one industry to another. The usual analysis of capital ratios for American manufacturing has been based upon the industrial aggregates compiled by the Internal Revenue Service (formerly Bureau) of the Treasury Department.2 Accordingly it has not been possible for the investigator to analyze the capital ratios of each firm in relation to those of other firms with which commonly classified. In contrast, it was possible in the study reported here to examine the behavior of the ratios for each industry, firm by firm.3

Margaret G. Reid, Marilyn Dunsing, Effect of Variability of Incomes on Level of Income-Expenditure Curves of Farm Families, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Feb., 1956), pp. 90-95