Suchergebnisse

It is the intention in this paper to conduct an inquiry into the relations between general equilibrium analysis and public policy by the indirect method of examining the place of such analysis in the solution of a definite economic problem. The problem selected is the possibility of raising wages without raising prices. Traditional partial equilibrium theory made the solution of this problem a fairly simple one, but modern general equilibrium considerations, dynamic qualifications on these, and institutional changes in the organization of business and labour have opened up such areas of indeterminateness in the formation of prices that we may no longer trust the answers given by the simpler generalizations.In the development of ideas during this paper, the term "degree of monopoly" will be employed rather frequently. The term will be used in Professor Lerner's sense of the ratio between the excess of price over marginal cost and price itself. In terms of Figure 1, this is the ratio RP/MP. This definition has limitations but it is retained as the simplest to which analysis may be referred and sufficient for the particular purposes for which it is required here.The idea that the rise of wages in relation to prices may have consequences for the levels of employment and national income is, of course, based upon the Keynesian hypothesis that larger wage incomes in relation to national income as a whole tend to mean a lower level of savings, and the corollary that a lower level of net new investment will be needed to maintain a given level of employment and income where the wage share is higher. There is also some opinion that changes in the degree of monopoly during the business cycle are such as to aggravate the operation of the disequilibrating forces. For example, Dr. M. Kalecki in an article published in Econometrica in April, 1938, suggests that the Keynesian analysis respecting the relation between wages and prices requires emendation and expansion because it appears from his statistical and theoretical analysis that the degree of monopoly increases with recessions of the business cycle and decreases with its upward phase. If this be so, Dr. Kalecki points out that the cyclical redistribution of income carries with it the necessity of attaching a larger quantity of new investment to any given level of national income as the level of national income recedes, though this reasoning is qualified for effects of falling wages on the foreign balance.

In this dissertation I intervene in and challenge already-existing critical studies of Virginia Woolf's The Waves (1931) that focus on ideas of imperialism, empire and subject-making practices in the novel by arguing for a revisionist reading of The Waves as a Bildungsroman. Unlike the Bildungsroman of the eighteenth and nineteenth century, which utilised standard novelistic conventions to explore the relation between form and reality, I contend that The Waves is a thoroughly modernist reinvention of the Bildungsroman form designed to capture a rapidly industrialising and modernising English society. To capture the socio-political unrest in twentieth-century England at this time, Woolf deviates from the convention of a single-protagonist narration, using multiple perspectives to expose the contradictions in processes of self-formation, especially with regard to the relation between the self, nation and national identity. The correspondence between self, nation and national identity is explored through the silent seventh character, Percival, who I argue is characterised as a hero in the medieval romance tradition to expose the romantic and heroic fictional narratives that provided the framework for ideas of empire and imperialism, then at the core of nationhood and national identity in England. Conversely I argue that the character who narrates a third of the novel's narrative, Bernard, provides us with an alternative to empire and imperialism in subject-making practices. I argue that in the final section of The Waves Bernard deviates from the direct-speech narrative of preceding sections of the novel and engages the reader directly. The reader is thus alerted not only to his or her role as a reader, but also to Bernard's overarching role as primary protagonist in the novel. The reader has progressed alongside Bernard through the narrative in keeping with the genre designation of the Bildungsroman which encourages the progression of the reader alongside the progression of the primary protagonist. The reader is further encouraged in his or her progression by an aesthetic education present in the music and poetry that Woolf incorporates not only in the content, but in the very structure of the text. Two of the novel's characters, Louis and Neville, use poetry to locate their subjectivities within larger historical narratives, while Beethoven's String Quartet No. 13 in B♭ major, Opus 130, informs the structure of the text, contributing to the interactive sonic and non-sonic landscape that actively invites the participation of the reader. The reader's participation in the novel is most fully realised when Bernard addresses the reader directly in the final section of The Waves. This interaction explains and thus concretises Woolf's overarching critiques of empire and imperialism in the novel alongside her proposed methods - which directly oppose the ideology of imperialism - for developing a subjectivity formed in relation to the common, and the individual experience of the common as a historically and materially determined phenomenon. The common in this sense is a community of 'common reading subjects', who like Woolf are not formally educated, but develop a subjectivity through reading premised on an equality of intelligence which enables them to engage critically with, order and make sense of the society and politics of their surrounding world. In this way, I show that Woolf challenges the already existing subject-making practices in twentieth-century England by exposing the contradictions - the exclusion of the marginalised, the poor and women - in ideas of Englishness. She proposes an alternative form of subject-making that is as diverse as her reading public and premised on a non-exclusionary acknowledgement of an equality of intelligence that defies class, gender and social boundaries.

Tonight I am going to exercise the prerogative of the President to make an address to a large extent unornamented by the extensive documentation and citations which perhaps too often go by the name of scholarship. My primary theme is our immigration policy. In developing this, I am going to deal mainly with the period from 1896 to 1910, since that is the period over which policy shifted from one at least theoretically laissez-faire to the selective policy inherent in the Immigration Act of 1910. My method will be to consider for a space the characters of two men, to follow that by narrative and analysis respecting the changes which occurred and then to draw together what seem to me to be the morals of the story.When Clifford Sifton took over the Ministry of the Interior in the autumn of 1896, entry to Canada was proscribed to three classes of persons only: the diseased; the criminal or vicious; and those likely to become public charges. Even these might find entry not too difficult if they went the right way about gaining it. The controls exercised under the law by the Minister covered only entries by ocean ports and here the general assumption was that only steerage passengers were immigrants. There was no control over those who entered by railway. Once immigrants coming by steamship had passed inspection and had become "landed immigrants" deportations were administered by the Department of the Interior with the assistance of the Department of Justice and generally on complaint of the municipal authorities. It was only after Clifford Sifton had left the cabinet in early 1905 that a sequence of events occurred forcing a series of restrictive measures which were finally embodied in the Immigration Act of 1910.

This paper has been written with only limited objectives in mind; the subject has too many ramifications throughout the fields of population and economic theory to make possible even rudimentary analysis of all its aspects. The first section will give consideration to the usefulness of optimum theory and general economic theory in the formulation of immigration policies; the second section will give a brief outline of a few of the hypotheses suggested by theory and of some of the quantitative inquiries which would be useful in testing hypotheses. Two great fields of inquiry must for the most part be left out; the systematic discussion of the relations between immigration and emigration and of the relations between population increase and wage theory cannot be undertaken here. Either one of them, attacked singly, would be probably too extensive for a paper of this length. Certain aspects of both will however enter briefly into other phases to be discussed below.

I Have been asked, before introducing the speakers, to take a quarter-hour to pay tribute on behalf of this Association to the memory of the great economist whose life and work are the subjects of this evening's meeting. I propose to use these few minutes to inquire very briefly into the philosophy and characteristics which made Lord Keynes so great a human being, perhaps as nearly a whole person as the twentieth century can show us.In a recent article Mr. Harrod has expressed the conviction that Keynes had a more distinguished mind than Ricardo. There is food for reflection in the fact that Ricardian thought developed along two quite different lines, one through the so-called Manchester School and the other through the Christian Socialists and Karl Marx, and that Keynesian influences are already showing a similar bifurcation. On the one hand, we find developing a stereotype labelled a "Keynesian," presumably preoccupied with unemployment, with a simple philosophy based upon the possibility of management of the economic macrocosm through monetary and fiscal means. On the other hand, we find Marxists claiming Keynes and non-Marxists repudiating him on the ground that the "philosophic implications" of his "doctrines" are Marxist in nature.With respect to the first line of development, it seems to me that Keynes's devotion was to ends rather than to means, that he viewed means always as experimental, and that it is a central conviction in his personal philosophy that we do not know how human beings will react to a change in environment. For that reason, and also because circumstances alter with the passage of time, we must be prepared always to alter economic modes, or even to "reverse a process" which has been initiated. This is not the philosophy of the Keynesian stereotype.