Search

SUMMARY This paper touches on three models of growth, viz: the F el'dman (Soviet) model, the H arrod-D omar model and the M ahalanobis (Indian) model. Of these three, the ancestry of the first is maintained in respect of both its contents and historical sequence. It is argued that the Soviet model is superior to the other two models because it recognizes the significance of a number of factors, viz: (a) the pattern of income distribution, (b) increase in the effective utilization of the existing capital stock, (c) distinction between degrees of effective utilization of the old and the new capital stocks, and lastly, (d) consideration of the rate of growth in terms of capital capacity as well as in terms of the absorption of a growing labour supply. In other respects, the model runs more or less parallel to the H arrod-D omar and M ahalanobis models. Some striking similarities between the Soviet and Indian models exist in spite of the differences in economic and political conditions of the two countries. These are: (a) the Marxian setting of two departments of a closed economy, (b) the aim of achieving a high rate of investment by expanding the capital goods sector and (c) a relative neglect of propensity to save as a crucial variable in the process of growth. The affinity between the Indian and the Soviet models is so strong that the former seems to answer the Soviet rather than the Indian conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents three methods for mapping levels of economic development and applies each to the case of India. First, to provide a substantive addition to knowledge about the economic geography of India; second, to demonstrate that even within nations generally recognized simply as "underdeveloped" one can meaningfully map differential sub-levels of development; and third, to stimulate critical discussion of the various methods by which maps of economic development can be made. The chief statistical problem is how best to combine the several series of individual indices into a single set of areal ratings.

This paper attempts to analyse the influence exerted by production relations on the introduction of improved technology into agriculture. Since the argument is set in the specific context of some east Indian villages, it is hoped that such an analysis will help to provide at least part of the explanation for the prevailing backwardness of agriculture in this region. Nevertheless, as the argument is conducted in terms of a highly schematised and hence quite unrealistic model, it deserves to be emphasised that many of the central assumptions of the model are based on data and impressions collected by the present author from 26 villages in West Bengal during 1970. Consequently, the particular assumptions of this model may or may not hold for other regions of India or elsewhere. But the relationship between technology and production relations is of general relevance, notwithstanding the particular context of West Bengal villages. Indeed, this interaction between technology and production relations--in Marxian terminology the interaction between "the forces and the relations of production"--is central to the theory of historical materialism. And, from this point of view, the present study is an attempt to illustrate in a precise form and in a specific context this general idea of Marx. Needless to say, the precision is obtained only at the cost of considerable simplification of Marx's original idea as well as a stark schematisation of the prevailing production relations in agriculture in those east Indian villages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents several abstracts related to Indian economy, published in the January 1963 issue of the journal 'The Indian Economic Journal.' Reflections of the teaching of economics in India; Wieser's theory of the simple economy; Inflation and economic development in India.

The article presents the reply of the author regarding the criticism of his research paper "Ideology and Indian planning," published in the April 1968 issue of "American Journal of Economics and Sociology." According to the author, he was not attempting to trace the history of doctrinaire thought in the Congress Party or in other political parties in India. He was trying to show that an admittedly amorphous intellectual approach to public economic policy has been pervasive in the political leadership for over thirty years, and that it was endemic in the Planning Commission. Regarding comments on the Mahalanobis model, the author says that they are interesting, but he thought that he had said sufficient about the "logical premises" to show that the model was highly unrealistic for India from its inception. Its neglect of some of the vital parameters of a market economy, including the agricultural "surplus," was classic in this type of planning. India will be paying the price for the neglect of agriculture, the one great potential source of saving, for a generation.

The article focuses on the economic policy of Ireland and India in the time of economist John Stuart Mill. The purpose of this article is to compare some of the main aspects of economic policy in Ireland and India in Mill's day, and to consider whether, as he believed, the paternal government of India was more successful than the semi-representative government of Ireland in its handling of the problems involved. At first sight, Ireland and India might seem to afford more grounds for contrast than comparison: but in the nineteenth century the similarity, remarked by Mill, between the economies of the two countries was quite considerable. In each, a growing population strained the resources of a backward agriculture, which was yet the only source of employment for the vast majority. Consequently, those charged with the government of both countries faced similar problems in regard to economic policy, arising eventually from the extreme poverty of the great mass of the people. It hardly needs to be emphasized that the policy-makers of that day did not see the problem of economic development as involving them in a concerted effort to raise levels of real income, as would their counterparts today. Nevertheless, in India certainly its British governors realized their responsibility for the welfare of the people, and recognized its economic dimension.

The article presents information on India's development policies. The First Five Year Plan placed the emphasis on agriculture. The Second Plan, which came into effect in April 1956, seeks to promote an expansion of small-scale village industries for the production of consumer goods. At the same time it calls for a big increase in steel production and engineering capacity. Concern with the problem of unemployment is paramount in current Indian thinking. Professor P. C. Mahalanobis, one of the chief planners, regards this as the most pressing problem. This emphasis may seem surprising, perhaps even incomprehensible, to some economists outside India. What are the facts? There is first a certain amount of open unemployment, mostly in urban centers, which is said to have increased in the years 1952-55 and is estimated at somewhere between five and ten million persons. India has rightly been proud of her success in expanding production since 1951 without any price inflation, at any rate up to the end of 1955. In fact, the general level of prices showed a slightly downward tendency during that period, despite a considerable increase in the money supply. This was possible not only because of the increase in crop yields and production generally, but also because of the progressive extension of the monetary sector of the economy.

The article focuses on planning in free enterprise economies. It discusses planning the foreign sector in Latin America. Both planning and aid are relatively new phenomena for Latin America. Difficulties and false starts could have been expected in the early experimental stages. If these early difficulties are to be overcome, planners must establish a proper balance between direct controls, general policies and market forces in guiding resource allocation. The policy instruments are, in most cases, at hand. The need to use them, if nothing else to correct distortions introduced by misguided previous public policies, is clear in second-best Latin American economies. The point can be generalized to other news and indeed, to other developing countries. Latin American planners would do well to note the Indian experience, where sophisticated planning tools have been in use for nearly two decades and where it cannot be said that planning lacked political support. There are so many areas where better planning is an obvious necessity in Latin America, that it is a great waste to attempt detailed regulation of such matters as import demand, where market forces coupled with general public policies could save a good deal of planners' time as well as improve general economic efficiency.

A list of basic materials associated with economic relations is presented. The references include "Geography of International Trade," "National Economic Policy in an Interdependent World Economy," "India's Trade Relations with Australia," Report on the 1960 World Census of Agriculture," and "Textile Industry in OECD Countries." Descriptions and information of these resources are provided.