Only fleeting attention has been given to the possibility of persistent error or bias in the calculations on which investment, output, and/or pricing decisions were based in the nineteenth century. This is an indirect tribute to the influence of Max Weber and other rationalists who stressed the concept of a rational capitalistic establishment employs capital accounting, that is, an establishment which determines its income yielding power by calculation according to methods of modern bookkeeping and the striking of a balance. 1 Schumpeter's views are even more exalting.

Tax incentives, Investments

Journal Article The Relationship between Output and Employment in British Manufacturing Industries Get access F. P. R. Brechling F. P. R. Brechling National Institute of Economic and Social Research Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 32, Issue 3, July 1965, Pages 187–216, https://doi.org/10.2307/2295824 Published: 01 July 1965

Journal Article Rejoinder Get access Sayre P. Schatz Sayre P. Schatz University of Ibadan Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 79, Issue 2, May 1965, Pages 246–247, https://doi.org/10.2307/1880629 Published: 01 May 1965

McClelland's hypothesis, 234. — Five criticisms of McClelland's hypothesis, 236. — Conclusion, 241.

Journal Article Business Saving and Errors in Variables Get access P. E. Hart P. E. Hart University of Bristol Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 32, Issue 3, July 1965, Pages 225–232, https://doi.org/10.2307/2295826 Published: 01 July 1965

Abstract The article suggests that matching revenue and expense should be defined as assigning revenue earned and expense incurred to the accounting period in which these events occur. The absence of revenue should not be used as justification for capitalizing expenses. Fixed relationships between revenue and expense should not be assumed. Where such a relationship is established by contract, such as on cost-plus contracts, it is acceptable to measure revenue in relation to cost incurred. Cost should be written off over the periods of expected contribution to revenue. It is futile and unnecessary to try to apportion these costs in relation to assumed amounts of periodic revenue. The decision to capitalize expenditures for amortization in future periods should be based on the probability that such costs will produce additional revenue in those periods. Thus, the use of the accrual basis does not and should not include an estimate of the amount of future revenue to be received. In the unusual case where both revenue and expense can be accurately predicted, then and only then should a fixed relationship be used.

Abstract The article presents a comment on the article related to matrix theory and cost allocation by professor Neil Churchill that appeared in the October 1964 issue of the journal "The Accounting Review." Churchill's article provided an expanded version of the cost allocation model and then suggested other applications of linear algebra to cost accounting analysis. This comment will be directed at the Williams-Griffin model. As the article explained, the techniques of linear analysis with a helping hand from computers make the solution of reciprocally related systems quite simple in theory. This phrase, in theory, suggests two lines of thought, neither of which is to be construed as a basic criticism of the Williams-Griffin-Churchill material. The first, very briefly, is that what is in theory so simple still presents problems in practice. A different Net Services model predicates its approach on the assumption that service departments exist only to fulfill needs of operating departments and that their costs to these operating departments can only be determined after they have been charged by other services and credited for work done for other services.