A recent study by Larner [11] concluded that the managerial revolution analyzed earlier by Berle and Means [4] was close to completion because a large percentage of the nation's 200 largest nonfinancial corporations was controlled by nonowner managers. This finding makes more significant any substantial differences in financial performance that may exist between owner-controlled and manager-controlled firms, and it increases the potential impact of numerous related theories; for example, see Berle [3], Donaldson [5], Gordon [6, 7 ], Mason [14], Monsen and Downs [16], Williamson [21], and others.

J. W. Elliott, H. L. Uphoff, Predicting the Near Term Profit and Loss Statement with an Econometric Model: A Feasibility Study, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Autumn, 1972), pp. 259-274

T HE geographic extent of the market has long been recognized as an important element of industry structure. For lack of systematic and direct measures, however, previous studies have relied either on rough classifications of geographical market size (local, regional or national) (Comanor and Wilson, 1967, p. 433; Kaysen and Turner, 1959, appendixes, pp. 283-285; Stigler, 1963, pp. 265-269 and 56-57) or on output dispersion indexes such as the number of states needed to account for 75 per cent of total shipments (Collins and Preston, 1968, 1969; Fuchs, 1962). This paper develops an alternative index of market size based on the Census of Transportation. Some attempts are made to evaluate various measures of market extent by comparisons with indexes of output dispersion and with an element of transport cost. It ends with a brief summary of the geographic market sizes of United States manufacturing industries.

S. W. Black, H. H. Kelejian; The Formulation of the Dependent Variable in the Wage Equation1, The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 39, Issue 1, 1 January 1972

Journal Article A Model of Economic Growth with Induced Bias in Technical Progress Get access Winston W. Chang Winston W. Chang State University of New York at Buffalo Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 39, Issue 2, April 1972, Pages 205–212, https://doi.org/10.2307/2296872 Published: 01 April 1972

Abstract Reviews the book "Survey of Published Accounts 1969-1970."

Abstract This article presents information on socio-economic accounting. Several possible dimensions of socio-economic accounting have been suggested, including national income accounting, evaluation of social programs, the role of accounting in economic development and efforts to develop an index of social progress. This paper explores yet another dimension of socio-economic accounting-the recognition and measurement of external diseconomies, or social costs and the resulting implications for the accounting profession. The most complex and controversial, link in the assessment process is the determination of the social costs-monetizing the external diseconomies. Accountants are likely to resist involvement in such efforts because of the uncertainty involved, but such resistance is not justified. Cost determination is more the forte of accountants than of engineers and economists. Assuming that actual social cost estimation will be done by public agencies at some level of government, it then seems not unlikely that the accounting profession will be called upon to attest to such estimates.

Abstract Reviews the book "Introduction to Accounting: Economic Measurement for Decisions," by William J. Bruns.

Abstract This article presents an analysis of Accounting Principles Board Statement 4. The statement attempts to provide a structure that can be used in approaching some of the vexing practical problems that have been plaguing the profession in recent years. The objectives set forth in the statement are interesting, aspire to completeness and could lead to considerable change in financial accounting in the future. And the description of present generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) is the first description of our present situation that is both systematic and authoritative. Because of these and other features and because it is ambitious in scope theorist should find much in Statement to analyze and discuss. The developmental purpose is to pro vide a basis for guiding the future development of financial accounting. The statement has implicit purposes as well as explicit ones. It sets out a frame work that the Board wants to test in the marketplace of ideas. The statement also sets out a tentative list of objectives of financial accounting that needs testing and development in the crucible of heated discussion. Finally, the statement serves the important function of calling the Board it- self back to a more fundamental approach.