Journal Article The Accelerator and Technical Progress Get access A. A. Walters A. A. Walters Birmingham Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 30, Issue 1, February 1963, Pages 1–15, https://doi.org/10.2307/2296025 Published: 01 February 1963

Role of accounting, Productive resources

Статья представляет собой несложный обзор различных подходов к построению производственных функций и обсуждение связанных с этим проблем (агрегирование и т. п.). Функции затрат рассматриваются как заменитель производственной функции, так как первые намного легче оценить на практике. Во второй части статьи автор рассматривает все наиболее значимые попытки статистического исследования произвосдтвенных функций и функций затрат.

1. The theoretical foundations of the aggregate production function give one grounds for doubting whether the concept is at all useful. Nevertheless, the temptation to discuss movements in indices of input and output in terms of such a function is difficult to resist. And there is no doubt that it is useful to rationalize the data along these lines. In his analysis of the aggregate production function in the United States, Solow derived many useful results.1 These findings, however, depended on the assumption of constant returns to scale in the aggregate production function. This assumption simplified the analysis considerably. Solow found the capital coefficient a, in the Cobb-Douglas, from the proportion of income going to capital; then, by subtracting from output per unit of capital (X/K) the product of (1 a) and capital per

The style that is the man, 518. — Before the break, 519. — Life at the top, 520. — The ever after, 521. — Some Robertsonian contributions, 522. —Conclusion, 535.

I. Credit expansion versus monetary expansion in the theory of monetary policy, 486. — II. The balance sheet identity, 489. — III. The credit control identity, 491. — IV. A static credit expansion multiplier, 492. — V. A priori magnitude of the multiplier, 494. — VI. Variability of the security-asset ratio, 496. — VII. A multiplier incorporating portfolio reactions, 496. — VIII. Tentative empirical verification, 498.

Journal Article The Animal Farm: A Mathematical Model for the Discussion of Social Standards for Control of the Environment Get access Harold A. Thomas, Jr. Harold A. Thomas, Jr. Harvard University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 77, Issue 1, February 1963, Pages 143–148, https://doi.org/10.2307/1879377 Published: 01 February 1963

N O general agreement has been reached about principles that should govern cost sharing in international alliances. Burden sharing problems have been discussed in the literature, and I will attempt no review here.1 This paper is addressed to one modest aspect of burden sharing: what is the real cost to the donor of foreign economic aid? It may be useful after all, in discussing each country's aid contributions, to establish an economically meaningful definition of what constitutes aid. The paper discusses briefly the present definitions used by donor nations for valuing economic aid; it then goes on to consider how more appropriate valuation criteria might be established. On the basis of these criteria, I have first computed, within limitations set by existing data, the real cost of U.S. bilateral aid to underdeveloped countries in 1961. By these standards, U.S. foreign aid efforts involved considerably less resource sacrifice than the officially reported totals imply. Second, to illustrate the effect of this definition on the aid figures of other countries, I have computed the real cost of official bilateral and multilateral aid offered in 1962 by seven Western European countries, the United States, and Canada. The results indicate, on the basis of incomplete data, that other countries also tend to overstate the cost of their foreign aid; their relative overstatement frequently exceeds that of the United States. In 1961, the principal donors of aid to underdeveloped countries agreed to hold annual reviews of each other's aid efforts on the basis of an agreed aid definition; these reviews are conducted by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The present DAC system for analyzing members' aid flows defines total official aid as the sum of six elements: (1) contributions to international organizations for development purposes; (2) bilateral grants; (3) bilateral loans repayable in lenders' currency; (4) bilateral loans repayable in borrowers' currency; (5) consolidation credits; (6) transfer of resources through sales for recipients' currency (this consists almost exclusively of U.S. contributions of surplus agricultural commodities under Public Law 480). This classification indicates both an awareness of the fact that various types of aid have different impact on donor and recipient, and an inability to devise a system that could deal systematically with these differences. Thus, for example, DAC realizes that a loan repayable in soft currency is different in effect from one repayable in hard currency, and separate categories are therefore established. However, these and other subtotals are then added together to form a single aid total. Table 1 shows U.S. 1961 aid commitments as computed by this method.