Journal Article Savings in a State with a Stationary Population: Comment Get access H. W. Arndt H. W. Arndt University of Sydney Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 62, Issue 4, August 1948, Pages 623–628, https://doi.org/10.2307/1881770 Published: 01 August 1948

Introduction: The freedom-control problem involves, beyond economic science, all social science and philosophy; criteria for judging books reviewed, 641. — I. Ordeal by Planning, by John Jewkes, 645. — II. Economic Policy for a Free Society, by Henry Simons, 650. — III. Alternative to Serfdom, by J. M. Clark, 656. — IV. Democracy and Progress, by David McCord Wright, 662.

A Supplementary Bibliography on Monopolistic Competition Edward H. Chamberlin Edward H. Chamberlin Harvard University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 62, Issue 4, August 1948, Pages 629–638, https://doi.org/10.2307/1881771 Published: 01 August 1948

The problem, 229. — Plant and envelope curves: plant average cost, 230; average cost, 231; the envelope, 234. — Divisibility and economies of scale: reasons for successively lower minima, 235; the imperfect divisibility analysis, 236; the “mathematics” of divisibility, 238; divisibility and efficiency, 239; capital equipment, 243. — Proportionality and diseconomies of scale: importance of the problem, 246; the unnecessary search for a fixed factor, 247; reasons for higher plant curves, 248; no “most efficient proportion,” 249. — Constant proportions and homogeneity: the curve of constant proportions, 250; the problem of distribution, 252. — Summary: proportions and size, 255. — Appendix: the indifference curve analysis, 257.

i. in his recent book Keynesian Revolution, a significant contribution to current literature, Lawrence Klein says (p. 91 ) that there are two Keyneses in the matter of the savingsinvestment equation. This statement has frequently been made before and while much has been written about it, perhaps something useful can still be added. In Klein's exposition, savings and investment as observables are always equal, being the point of intersection of the schedules of savings and investment. There is, of course, as Klein points out, no inconsistency between (i) the definition which makes actual or observable savings and investment always equal, and (2) the concept of savings and investment as intersecting schedules. Nevertheless the question remains whether these schedules are to be regarded as (a) very short run schedules which might at times shift about violently and capriciously in response to temporary conditions, or (b) longerrun schedules determined by fairly stable factors involving the behavior pattern of a community with respect to the ratio of savings to income at different income levels. 2. A related, but distinct, terminological matter should be mentioned. While the Keynesian theory of income determination can indeed be formulated in terms of savings and investment schedules, I am increasingly convinced that the presentation as given in the General Theory is more useful. In the General Theory, Keynes, in fact, did not explicitly work with savings and investment schedules,' even though it is perfectly true that his analysis can be put in these terms. General Theory, however, makes (i) actual investment and (2) the consumption function, the determinants of income. The propensity to consume and the rate of new investment determine between them the volume of employment. . (General Theory

ESPITE the time that has elapsed since the appearance of Professor Schultz's Agriculture in an Unstable Economy,1 and the critical comment that it has already evoked,2 there seem to be good reasons for re-examining that work now. The book is probably the most widely read study of the basic economic problems relating to American agriculture that has appeared since the war. It can be fairly confidently forecast that the continuing improvement of European agriculture will be accompanied by a renewed consideration of agricultural problems and that Schultz's book will be significant in the formulation of policies directed toward their solution la It seems justifiable, therefore, to review once more, and in a different way, certain aspects of Schultz's work. Early in the book Schultz makes the useful and clarifying distinction between long and short run agricultural problems. In his words: