Journal Article A Note on the Accelerator and Constant Growth Get access A. Kervyn A. Kervyn Geneva Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 22, Issue 1, 1954, Pages 61–66, https://doi.org/10.2307/2296225 Published: 01 January 1954

Journal Article Investment, Uncertainty and Expectations Get access R. A. D. Egerton R. A. D. Egerton Belfast Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 22, Issue 2, 1954, Pages 143–150, https://doi.org/10.2307/2296288 Published: 01 January 1954

THERE have now been two post-Stalin budgets, which in structure and presentation differ so appreciably from their predecessors as to cause acute confusion in the minds of many commentators. The differences have not been explicitly stated in Soviet sources, but can be deduced from them, though the evidence is insufficient for an arithmetically precise account of what has occurred. The objects of the present paper are, first, to examine the budgets for the light they shed on the development of the Soviet economy in the last two years, and, second, to explain as far as possible the changes since Stalin's death in the structure of the budget itself. Obviously, these two aims overlap, since a change in the definition of a budgetary heading affects any conclusions one can draw about or from its magnitude. The I953, and still more the I954, budget sessions of the Supreme Soviet are simultaneously informative and acutely frustrating; there is a substantial volume of new data, but some information is missing, and comparison with previous years is rendered difficult by complex and inadequately explained changes in structure and definition. One new feature is that the Soviet leaders have spoken in the budget debates and in the course of their speeches have given useful economic, political, and information. Under Stalin, the speech of the unchanging Minister of Finance, Zverev, was followed by routine speeches of little interest by persons of medium or lowly rank, while the top party leadership remained in the special seats reserved for them on the platform and said nothing. Malenkov broke with precedent when he addressed the I953 budget session; he spoke again in I954, as did such major personalities as Khrushchev, Kaganovich, and Mikoyan. Since men of this stature, whose speeches were to be reprinted in millions of copies, could not confine themselves merely to repeating the points already made by the relatively less important Zverev, this in itself ensured that the session would be more informative than had been the case under Stalin. Unfortunately, the increasing political importance of the budget session has led to a noticeable decline in what might perhaps be called statistical integrity; before I953, while certain data were from time to time suppressed, the budget figures always appeared to be reasonably reliable; it will be shown that in I953-54 there has been a marked increase in propaganda-statistics. Table i compares the results of the I952 budget, the last of the Stalin era, with the original estimates and provisional results for I953, and with the estimates for I954. Unfortunately, a complete set of comparable figures for all items cannot be reconstructed from official sources, and in certain cases it has been necessary to make deductions from indirect data, of varying degrees of accuracy; these are explained in the notes to the table. One is immediately struck by the very large increase in the unspecified items of both revenue and expenditure from their I952 levels. This reflects the changes in presentation to which reference has already been made; the analysis of the details of these changes will be left to one side for the present, though it must be stressed that they are of quite vital importance to a proper understanding of the budget as a whole. Revenue from turnover tax shows a downward trend, although both the production of taxable commodities and retail trade turnover are rapidly rising. The volume of turnover of state and cooperative trade in I953 was stated to be 2I per cent above that of I952; it is planned to rise by I5 per cent in I954 and reach a level 75 per cent above that of I950. The fall in turnover tax yield is, of course, due to the cuts in retail prices and increases in prices paid by the state to agricultural producers. The I954 estimated yield is below that of I950. Retail prices, according to Mikoyan, are only 25 per cent below I950 levels. In comparing the relative changes in trade turnover and prices, some commentators find it hard to see why turnover tax revenue should be fall-

THE purpose of this paper is to consider the probable increase in the volume of Soviet investment since I940, while subjecting to critical analysis such official figures as exist, as well as the attempts made outside Russia to throw light on this problem-the calculations of the Economic Commission for Europe 1 and of Dr. Naum Jasny.2 It goes without saying that the most we can expect from calculations of this kind is rough orders of magnitude. Apart from the many statistical doubts and uncertainties which we will encounter, investment covers a great variety of activities (from the Volga-Don canal to central heating installations, from turbo-generators to tractors), and both volume and price indexes naturally depend in part on the base-year weights chosen. However, we do know that the bulk of investment expenditure over 6o per cent in I940 8 and in the plan for I946-50 4 went for construction and installation. While it is true that there may have been relative shifts in the costs of different kinds of construction, which would affect the indexes to some extent, there is no reason to suppose that there was any substantial change in the dominant share of construction in total investment expenditure. Before tackling the question in detail, it is important to be clear about the meaning of the term investment. It is used to render the Russian words kapitalnye vlozhenia,5 which in principle means gross investment in fixed capital.6 Investment may be financed in the following ways: (a) by allocations from the state budget; (b) from resources (e.g., profits or a portion of the amortization fund) accumulated by state enterprises in the course of their operations; (c) from accumulations made outside the state-owned sector, above all by the collective farms (kolkhozy); (d) by loans granted by state credit institutions to, for instance, the kolkhozy, or to individuals (e.g., for housebuilding). Year by year, the Minister of Finance (Zverev) in his budget speech gives a figure to represent investment in the national economy, that is, covering items (a) and (b) of the above list. Unfortunately, it is not always clear just exactly what is included. In some years (consistently since I950, occasionally before that date) he specifically included in his investment figure the growth in the stocks of building organizations.7 Down to I946 inclusive, he made a distinction between centralized and investments (the former were centrally planned, the latter were smaller-scale investment projects in the state sector of the economy). After I 947 the figures he gave related to investment without any adjective, and the evidence suggests that those included decentralized investment from I949, or possibly from I948. (In I95I the category of

A. David Redding, Comparison of Volume and Distribution of Non-Agricultural Employment in the U.S.S.R., 1928-1955, with the U.S., 1870-1952, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Nov., 1954), pp. 444-450

Классическая работа лаурета Нобелевской премии по экономике Пола Самуэльсона, заложившая основу современной теории общественных благ. В статье формулируются условия выбора оптимального объема предоставления общественного блага, ныне присутствующие в любом учебнике микроэкономики и экономики общественного сектора.

TEN YEARS have passed since publication of Haavelmo's first article on simultaneous-equations approach.' These years have produced an abundance of theoretical literature and have greatly increased capital requirements of those who would engage in measurement of economic relationships. Measurement without theory has (quite properly) been drummed out of journals. However, measurement with theory has been painfully slow come forward. This may be due in part a sort of natural selection, in that those who have been most forehanded in acquiring new methodology have (with few exceptions) been chiefly interested in methodology per se. For them personally, empirical applications of new may be even less inviting than research using simpler methods. For, paraphrase Haavelmo,2 economists will have revise their ideas as to not only the level of statistical theory and technique but also the amount of tedious work that will be required, even for modest projects of research. There is no point in lamenting division of interest between methodologists and applied workers. But it appears that burden of testing new econometric tools under operating conditions must be taken up by latter group. Specific cases of breakdown or evidence of poor design may then direct attention of methodologists toward improving their product or modifying their claims for it. My own experience suggests that advertising has been much too derogatory of a long-established competitor. During past few years my work in United States Department of Agriculture has involved a considerable amount of statistical demand analysis. The object of this work has almost invariably been obtain numerical results which made sense in terms of commodities and classes of economic agents involved -that is, results of structural significance. In all but a few cases I have used singleequation methods for estimating desired coefficients. I accept proposition that many economic phenomena must be explained in terms of two or more simultaneous relationships. However, single-equation methods appear be both practically and theoretically appropriate for estimating many structural relationships in field of food and agriculture. The first section of this paper is an appraisal of applicability of single-equation methods statistical demand analysis for farm products. The second section deals with an older and simpler problem in structural analysis. This is adjustment of least-squares results for effects of measurement errors in independent or predetermined variables, object being obtain best estimates of coefficients of reversible (hence, structural) demand functions. The common element in two sections is emphasis upon estimation of coefficients or parameters of reversible demand relations. The usefulness of single-equation methods for predicting future values of a variable (given unchanged structure) has not been disputed by proponents of simultaneous-equations approach. Their applicability structural analysis has, I believe, been underestimated during past decade, and some reaffirmation of their value in this area is needed.