Introduction, 52. — I. The CPCS model of growth, 54. — II. Growth in the labor-surplus type of underdeveloped economy, 60. — III. Revision of the consumption standard, 62. — IV. The long-run growth target, 65. — V. The average propensity to save and the dynamic production efficiency, 68. — VI. Growth under imperfect knowledge, 70.

Let Y=(Y 1 ,Y 2 , .Yn) -0 be an income distribution pattern ton-"income receiving units" which may be n-persons, n-farnilies, n-states of the same country or n-countries.Abstractly, a fiscal program is a course of action, undertaken by social conseasus, under which portions of the incomes of certain receiving units are transferred to other receiving units to render the income distribution more equitable.The most familiar example of such a fiscal program is the collection of taxes from individuals (or individual families) with the revenue being paid out as.welfare payments by the government.As another example, the Federal government may collect taxes from the states only to give some of the revenue back to the states under a "revenue sharing" program.An international consortium or the World Bank may work out a formula under which contributions will be solicited from the wealthy countries or "donors" to provide foreign aid or make concessionary loans to the poor countries.This paper is concerned with the principles governing the design of such equity oriented fiscal programs.The first general principle concerns the "rationality" of the fiscal program.Suppose the income level of "i" is higher that that of "j".On the one hand, a principle of "minimally progressive" suggests that, in case "i" and "j" are taxpayers, "i" should pay no less taxes than "j" and, in case "i" and "j" are recipients of welfare payments "i" should receive no more than "j".On the other hand, a principle of "incentive perservation" suggests that the disposable income of "i" should be no less than that of "j"--i.e. the fiscal program clearly should not reverse their relative income ranks in order to preserve the incentive for the individuals .,. ..

T HE study of the credit system is, traditionally, an important part of economic discipline. It is the purpose of this paper to introduce a new method, the method of the linear graph, for the study of this time-honored subject. Ostensibly, the contribution of this paper is pedagogical. However, this method enables us to identify and classify all transactions from properly constructed economic models of credit structures. Since all the operations of a credit system are formed of transactions, it is hoped that an axiomatic approach, which is conspicuous by its absence in the study of money and banking, can be initiated through this approach. In order to do this, certain elementary mathematical concepts of the linear graph must be introduced. For this reason, we shall proceed informally and omit all proofs in our presentation. However, the applicability of the mathematical theory of linear graph to the study of money and banking problems is by no mean limited to the elementary mathematical knowledge contained in the text. It is hoped that the method initiated in this paper can be further developed to yield more fruitful results in economic analysis. This is illustrated in the appendix by some examples of economic analysis using non-trivial theorems of linear graph. The text of this paper, however, can be read by readers with no mathematical background in linear graph theory.

Is one distribution (of income, consumption, or some other economic variable) among families or individuals more or less equal in relative terms than another? Despite the seeming straightforwardness of this question, there has been and continues to be considerable debate over how to go about finding the answer. There are two points of contention. One is the issue of cardinality vs. ordinality. Practitioners of the cardinal approach compare distributions by means of summary measures such as a Gini coefficient, variance of logarithms, and the like. For purposes of ranking the relative inequality of two distributions, the cardinality of the usual measures is not only a source of controversy, but it is also redundant. Accordingly, some researchers prefer an ordinal approach, adopting Lorenz domination as their criterion. The difficulty with the Lorenz criterion is its incompleteness, affording rankings of only some pairs of distributions but not others. Current practice in choosing between a cardinal or an ordinal approach is now roughly as follows: Check for Lorenz domination in the hope of making an unambiguous comparison; if Lorenz domination fails, calculate one or more cardinal measures. This raises the second contentious issue: which of the many cardinal measures in existence should one adopt? The properties of existing measures have been discussed extensively in several recent papers. Typically, these studies have started with the measures and then examined their properties. In this paper, we reverse the direction of inquiry. Our approach is to start by specifying as axioms a relatively small number of properties which we believe a ?good? index of inequality should have and then examining whether the Lorenz criterion and the various cardinal measures now in use satisfy those properties. The key issue is the reasonableness of the postulated properties. Work to date has shown the barrenness of the Pareto criterion. Only recently have researchers begun to develop an alternative axiomatic structure. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to such a development.

IT is generally believed that foreign capital inflows play a strategic role in promoting progress toward self-sustained growth in developing countries. Yet the relationship between the two has received little rigorous analysis in the voluminous literature on economic development. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 enunciated the criterion of as a condition for United States foreign aid,' but the appealing self-help shibboleth has not been given analytical content. However, in a pioneering effort, Professor Rosenstein-Rodan recently raised some of the important analytical questions associated with the self-help notion:

The analysis of economic phenomena at the wholistic (aggregative) level 11l8intains a long tradition that assumes the neoclassical production function Q-f(K,L) (i.e., output as a function of capital and labor) satisfies the condition of constant returns to scale.The assumed absence of any (dis-)economies of scale renders the production function useless, when the scale effect is as pronounced as is typically found at the less aggregative levels of individual firm or industry analvsis.. .The purpose of this paper is to deduce new classes of production functions that are not limited to the constant returns to scale characteristic.Hore specifically, the scale effect is described by an arbitrary function of one of the factors of production, capital in this paper.This class of production functions exhibi-ts scale sensitivity with respect to capital (SSWK).The paper shows how different fmidlies of production functions can be derived from two basic .. building blocks," a :wage share function and a scale functitm.The Cobb-])ouglas, CES and VES production fmu:tions are special cases.~e Cobb-Douglas and CES functions can be expanded to incorporate non-constant returns to scale.A smnple of firms from Taiwan is used to test among various derived functional specifications.An interesting diversity of preferred specifications was found among three industries.

I. Introduction, 17. — II. Growth and income distribution, 18. — III. Application to Taiwan, 24. — IV. Impact of growth on FID: qualitative and quantitative aspects, 27. — V. Concluding remarks, 36. — Appendix, 38.