Economic development in Latin America has been explained largely in terms of the Economic Commission for Latin America school (ECLA) dominated by Raúl Prebisch. According to this school, “outward orientation” of the periphery, was the key characteristic of Latin America before 1930. The growth pattern was determined by the fortunes of the export sector (including the terms of trade) and its linkages with the developed Center. Since 1930, the massive import substitution policies undertaken by the periphery has led to a new phase of “inward orientation” where the strategic role of promoting growth has been played by the linkage-rich industry. Both growth and inflation have been explained in terms of the institutionalist “structuralist” school which has emphasized bottlenecks related to the land tenure system, market imperfections and deficiencies (both domestic and external), and to a lesser degree to the savings patterns of people (where the demonstration effect, income distribution and the taxation system play pivotal roles).
As is widely recognized both in the literature and by the practitioners, the treatment of financial intermediaries has been one of the most controversial issues in national accounting. This has been so largely because no one up to now has been able to define the output of banks and other financial intermediaries. In the present paper, a theory of services in general and of financial services in particular is used to demonstrate that financial intermediaries produce at least six commodity type services. Furthermore, it is argued that in order to solve the banking imputation problem it is necessary to separate the theory of interest rates from the theory of financial services and examine the interdependence between them. The gross interest rate must be unbundled because it contains three distinct components. These are, first, the pure interest rate, which reflects payment for a factor‐type service; second, payments for six commodity‐type services, which reflect the output of financial intermediaries; and, third, payments for unilateral transfers. The new unbundled approach is contrasted to the old bundle approach used and/or advocated by standard economic theory, the SNA, Sunga and the Ruggleses. Furthermore, it is recommended that payments for the pure interest rate be considered as part of income of the paying enterprise or sector while payments for financial services by enterprises to other enterprises should be considered as intermediate purchases.
Few economic relationships have been as scrutinized as that between SNA measures of national product, investment and consumption, and welfare. The present paper contrasts SNA economic production and welfare to total production and welfare within the Walrasian framework of usefulness and costliness. An evaluation of deductions and additions to the SNA made by Nordhaus‐Tobin, Zolotas, Richard and Nancy Ruggles, Kendrick, Eisner and Jorgenson‐Fraumeni, in their research on extended product and income accounts and improved indicators of welfare reveals numerous unresolved analytical and measurement issues; and reaffirms the usefulness of the SNA as a fundamental, initial, welfare indicator.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.