The publication of Lester G. Telser's 1964 paper [52] was the starting point for much of the recent literature on advertising and competition. The major finding of that paper was that there is little empirical support for an inverse association between advertising and competition, despite some plausible theorizing to the contrary This review does not deal with the question of whether advertising is excessive, nor with the related issues of the welfare economics of advertising or product differentiation. Rather, it focuses on those papers which examine the impact of advertising on barriers to entry and on the extent of price competition. Advertising expenditures are designed to influence consumer demand for the firm's products. They may affect both direct and cross-elasticities of demand. Those who argue that advertising may limit competition maintain that the relevant demand curves[1] are more inelastic and that cross-elasticities are lower as a result, while those who dispute this contention suggest that advertising has no such influence or even that it leads to more elastic demands and higher cross-elasticities. Much controversy has therefore turned on the direction of the effects of advertising on demand elasticities. [Авторский текст]

Otto Eckstein, Thomas A. Wilson; The Determination of Money Wages in American Industry: Reply, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 81, Issue 4, 1 No

Issues in wage determination, 379. — Hypothesis 1 (institutional): wage rates are set by a bargaining process, 381. — Hypothesis 2 (economic): both product and labor market factors influence wage determination, 381. — Hypothesis 3 (economic): two variables, profit and unemployment rates, are sufficient to explain most of the variation in the rate of increase of wage rates, 383. — Hypothesis 4 (institutional): wage determination in a group of heavy industries is interdependent, 384. — Hypothesis 5 (institutional): wages are determined in wage rounds, 386. — The central result on wages: wage determination in the key group, 388. — Some supporting evidence: time series for individual industries within the key group, 390. — The significance of other variables — productivity, 392; consumer prices, 392. — Wage determination outside the key group, 394. — Results of cross-section analysis, 397. — Reconciliation of time series and cross-section results, 401. — Relation to previous empirical results, 402. — Is there a Phillips curve for the United States? 406. — Extrapolation of the central result, 406. — Summary and concluding comment, 408. — Appendix I. The derivation of the central result, 409. — Appendix II. The construction of unemployment estimates for two-digit industries, 413.

IN recent years the behavior of productivity has received increasing theoretical and empirical attention. Two basic approaches have been developed. The first focuses upon the long-run trend in output per man-hour and examines the sources of that trend. The second focuses upon the short-run or cyclical behavior of productivity. The purpose of this paper is to explain the characteristic behavior of output per man-hour over the business cycle and to identify changes in the cyclical response mechanism. An explanation of cyclical changes in productivity is essential for an analysis of unit labor costs, and is therefore a necessary ingredient in an explanation of the price level and its movements. It is also a necessary precondition to understanding the longer-run trends; cyclical fluctuations in output per man-hour are large, and the trends based on capital and technology cannot be seen until the short-run variations have been removed.

Lester D. Taylor, Thomas A. Wilson, Three-Pass Least Squares: A Method for Estimating Models with a Lagged Dependent Variable, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 46, No. 4 (Nov., 1964), pp. 329-346