AMPHLETS pose bibliographical problems. The system of scholarly production and consumption is geared easily and smoothly to books and articles, but pamphlets fall between. for example, are reviewed, and articles may be the subject of published comment, reply, rejoinder, final comment and the like. Pamphlets live on after their appearance mainly in footnote citation-which the scholarly apparatus has yet to measure and weigh. An occasional professional periodical like the Economic Journal will list pamphlets by title under Recent Periodicals and Books, and even include a sentence or two of description in 6-point type. Paul Einzig reviewed essays by A. K. Swoboda and F. H. Klopstock on Euro-dollars (Nos. 64 and 65 in Essays) in the Economic Journal for March 1969. But this is rare. For the most part pamphlets are left to drop into the pool of scholarship and swim by themselves if they can. To repair a little of this neglect, this review article addresses the Princeton Essays (plus Studies, Special Papers and Reprints) in International Finance, not to call attention to them, since they are well known, but to celebrate the appearance of the 75th Essay in a series going back to 1943, and perhaps the 40th or 41st in the last 8Jl years under the brilliant editorship of Professor Fritz Machlup. There is far too much to talk about in 3,000 words or less-changing the gold price, seigniorage in international asset creation, crawling pegs, bands, forward exchange, foreign aid, liquidity and the rest. If one went back to the 1950s, one would find more trade, and somewhat less finance, but oil, merchant-marine policies, international cost-sharing and agriculture price policy. There are too many memorable essays; to cite only a few is invidious but inescapable. This exercise is accordingly addressed mainly to bibliographical or bibliophilic issues raised by the series, and only tangentially to substance. Pamphlets are expensive for librarians. They must be accessioned (should the phrase be acceded to?) and catalogued at an average cost of several dollars an item, much higher a rate per page of scholarship than books, because of the lumpiness of the process. This is because they are not indexed with joumal articles. In a curriculum vitae pamphlets belong under articles, in the library apparatus under books. But not all retrieval apparatus will cope with pamphlets on the same basis as books: the AEA Periodical Index will do well to include the standard series of pamphlets, such as the Essays, Studies, Special Papers in its special volume for lost literature-an index of articles in Festschriften, symposia, conference proceedings. The library problem aside, what of the scholar? Should he file his Essays alphabeti cally by author in the vertical files housing reprints in his outer office, or shelve them in the inner sanctum with books? A survey

Journal Article Flexibility of Demand in International Trade Theory Get access Charles P. Kindleberger Charles P. Kindleberger New York, N. Y. Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 51, Issue 2, February 1937, Pages 352–361, https://doi.org/10.2307/1882093 Published: 01 February 1937

THE long-run development of the terms of trade is a recurrent subject for economic analysis in which a succession of theories has been put forward.' It was once believed that the terms of trade would inevitably turn in favor of primary products and against manufactures because the extractive industries were subject to diminishing returns, manufacturing to decreasing costs. This view gave way to another, that world investment moved in large cycles, and that the terms of trade favored primary products when investment expanded, manufacturing when contraction set in. A third hypothesis suggests that productivity increases about equally in primary products and manufactures, but that with the growing real income it brings, Engel's law leads to smaller increases in demand for agricultural products than for manufactures and services, so the terms of trade will favor the latter. Lately the same shift of the terms of trade against countries producing primary products has been discerned by Singer2 and Prebisch 3 but attributed to monopolistic practices on the part of industrial countries. The most recent discussion bearing on the subject was initiated by Hicks,4 who suggested that the terms of trade are affected by differences in the rate of productivity increase between the leading industrial country and all other countries. The leader's terms of trade will turn in its favor or against it depending on whether its innovations are import biased or export biased. Hicks considered that British innovation in the nineteenth century was export biased, but that United States innovation currently tends to be import biased. His theorem has been criticized 5 mainly in relation to the equilibrium mechanism in the balance of payments, with only limited attention to the factual connection between innovation and the terms of trade, though attempts have been made to forecast the terms of trade between manufactures and primary products for I960, and once for I975.6 My contention is that few generalizations on the terms of trade between world manufactures and world primary products are valid but that they tend to turn against underdeveloped and in favor of developed countries.