Liquidity, Financial Ratios, Liquidity-flow index

Journal Article Sceptical Notes on Uzawa's “Optimal Growth in a Two-Sector Model of Capital Accumulation”, and a Precise Characterization of the Optimal Path Get access W. Haque W. Haque University of Toronto Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 37, Issue 3, July 1970, Pages 377–394, https://doi.org/10.2307/2296727 Published: 01 July 1970 Article history Received: 01 May 1967 Revision received: 01 November 1969 Published: 01 July 1970

Journal Article On Existence of Weakly Maximal Programmes in a Multi-Sector Economy Get access W. A. Brock W. A. Brock University of California, Berkeley and University of Rochester Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 37, Issue 2, April 1970, Pages 275–280, https://doi.org/10.2307/2296419 Published: 01 April 1970 Article history Received: 01 July 1968 Accepted: 01 June 1969 Published: 01 April 1970

Journal Article On Optimal Development in a Multi-Sectoral Economy: the Discounted Case Get access W. R. S. Sutherland W. R. S. Sutherland University of Toronto Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 37, Issue 4, October 1970, Pages 585–589, https://doi.org/10.2307/2296487 Published: 01 October 1970 Article history Received: 01 May 1969 Revision received: 01 January 1970 Published: 01 October 1970

I. Introduction, 168. – II. The trend: 1948–1964, 168. — III. Conclusion, 172.

T HIS paper considers the major influences on the level of current expenditures on public primary and secondary education. Its purpose is to clarify their interrelation, directing attention toward those determinants that can be shown to be of major importance overall in both cross section and time series data. There are a number of empirical studies of determinants of public primary and secondary education in the literature. Among the most recent and thorough are those by Hirsch [14], Shapiro [29], Miner [23], Burkhead [7], James [18, 19] and Pryor [26] . There is, however, the lack of a structural theory in all of these studies, and this lack of a sufficiently explicit theoretical framework somewhat limits the capacity to interpret the economic meaning of the statistical results.1 A neat separation of economic and noneconomic factors is hardly possible. But it is possible to distinguish the economic framework of the problem which interrelates influences on the demand for public education, costs of producing it, and tax behavior (via tax handles or other revenue sources). It is also possible to bring to bear on the analysis of resources for education some of the developments in the broader context of public expenditure theory (e.g., Musgrave [25] and others) and the recent developments in consumption theory (e.g., Ando-Modigliani [1], Houthakker [16], and others).2 Although this is not a normative study of efficient allocation (for which see Bowles [4] for example), it can make use of certain advantages offered by education as a case study in public expenditure theory. For most school administrative units are single purpose units making quasi-independent expenditure decisions. Importance also derives from the fact that education is an extremely large industry, engaged in the furthering'of growth through human capital formation, and in the reduction of inequality. Part I considers the demand, production cost, and tax behavior structural equations. Attention is then turned to their joint solution and the reduced form public expenditure functions that are the result. The reduced forms maintain the degree of comparability to other studies that we desire for the large ones have used single equatioii methods (e.g., Miner [23], James [18, 19]) with data for a sample of individual districts. Others have focused on the relation of the aggregate expenditure-income ratio to per capita income (e.g., Musgrave [25], Pryor [26 pp. 182-226].) Part II considers empirical estimates of these reduced forms for cross-section data among states for 1955-1956, the mid-point of the postwar period, and for time series data for 1946-1968.

' . when p 0 (i.e., the elasticity of substitution is less than unity), the isoquants have asymptotes which do not coincide with the axes. The exact formula for the asymptotes is given by K val/p K =

CEVERAL years ago I proposed a theory to explain how the supply in a developing country is determined which allows for factors other than the traditionally assumed control by a central bank [6]. Its validity was tested with an econometric quarterly model for Pakistan, 1953-1961. The passage of time makes it possible to reappraise the model which is the purpose of this paper. With the benefit of hindsight and reflections about economic model building, the reappraisal suggests that what I proposed as a general description of in a developing economy, in fact, more closely resembled a stationary one. Although some differences of opinion exist, economists agree that Pakistan's development during the 1950's was far less dynamic, albeit certainly not nonexistent, than what has since occurred.' My purpose, however, is not to propose a revised theory of how the supply is really determined in a developing economy, but rather to appraise quantitatively the extent to which the model's predictive capacity after 1961 differs from its performance during the original period. Though this is a more modest objective than attempting to reconstruct a theory which would incorporate the important developments of the 1960's, appraising the predictive capacity of econometric models during periods beyond that which was used for the original fitting, is a worthwhile endeavor which economists should more frequently practice. The postwar era has seen a tremendous growth in econometric studies. Generally, they have two features in common. First, although they really belong to the realm of economic history because the objective is to obtain the best fit to explain a set of for some past period, the hope is usually present that the estimated relationships should be useful to understand (i.e., predict) future changes, given a new set of new exogenous conditions. Second, except for narrowly conceived forecasting models which are often revised annually, we rarely have an opportunity to judge whether history repeats itself in the sense that the model's predictive capacity remains high for a new period beyond the time for which the original parameters were estimated.2 As has been suggested elsewhere, the infrequent publication of the predictive performance of econometric models is due to the fact that few investigators are willing to choose a specification on the basis of less than a complete set of the available data [3, p. 11].' Here, I hope to make amends for not having practiced in my original article what is here preached about the testing for predictive performance. My earlier article showed that the predictive performance of the model's structural equations was generally good and, furthermore, the model's capacity to explain the supply was demonstrated to be superior to a simple money multiplier model where certain controllable assets of the central bank were used to predict the supply. One simulation experiment which used the original initial conditions and the values of the exogenous variables produced a new set of predicted values which suggested that the model was quite stable, at least over the 34 quarters between July 1953 and December 1961, for which the parameters were estimated. In this paper I test, during 24 additional quarterly observations for the years 1962

This paper proposes a model that a dealer or investor may employ in determining• The potential investment value of a debt instrument, • The potential gains in net after-tax yield which result from swaps, and• The trade-off, effective, after-tax yield on a municipal vs a taxable corporate bond of the same quality or rating.

I. Empirical observation and hypothesis, 564. — Quantitative analysis, 574. — III. Findings and implications, 579.