Heilperin - International Monetary Economics

Embed Size (px)

Text of Heilperin - International Monetary Economics


INTERNATIONAL MONETARY ECONOMICSBy MICHAEL A. HEILPERIN, D.Sc. (Econ.)Assistant Professor at the Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva


A dual supply








y f/ /




/ / / / ....

2 0 ^ 15




'20 '30 '40


1800 '10

1850 '60




1900 '10



General level of prices Relatiue gold supply














INTERNATIONAL MONETARY ECONOMICS of its nourishment. If we assume that food represents a third of social income and that the other two-thirds of this income have grown proportionally to the industrial development, we arrive at an average rate of progress of 32 per cent. If, on the other hand, we give the rates for food and industrial production the same weight in our calculation of the average progress, this average would be 27 per cent. This figure ought to be regarded as the lower limit for our estimate of the world's average economic progress. As it seems necessary to give the industrial production a somewhat higher weight than the agricultural, we stand on fairly solid ground if we reckon with a figure of round 3 per cent as characteristic of the economic development during the period 1850-1910. "This corresponds closely to the result of our inquiry into the world's gold supply. It is possible that the average rate of economic progress for the world as a whole, if it could be calculated exactly, would prove to have been during the period in question, not greater than 28 per cent per year. If the rate was some decimal points higher, this must be explained by a relative economy in the use of gold having been attained, in spite of the growing application of the gold standard, by the use of cheques and other means of making the system of payment more effective."1 I shall discuss the merits of that calculation later; here I want to stress only the rather incidental way in which Cassel treats the consequences of the development of banking facilities and particularly of the spreading use of cheques as means of payment in the period 1850-1910. It is a striking element of Cassel's theories that they underestimate the consequences of this development, which tends to diminish the role of gold in determining prices and, in any case, causes the influence of gold stocks on prices to be more and more indirect.(2)

Having seen the substance of Professor CasseFs theory, let us now examine its validity. Criticisms of that theory fall into one of two categories: they can either admit the founda1

Cassel, 1930, p. 74.



tions of the theory as sound and acceptable and confine themselves to examining Cassel's statistical estimates; or they can challenge the very foundations of Cassel's theory. Most criticisms to which this theory has been subjected belong to the former category, and result in a different estimate of the rate of increase of gold stocks which is considered necessary for maintaining a stable price level. Thus, e.g., Kitchin bases his estimates on monetary gold, not on the total gold stocks; Mlynarski and Wilcoxen introduce into their calculations both gold and silver; and so forth.1 On the other hand, some purely statistical criticisms of Cassel's method have been formulated.2 I shall not discuss these criticisms here, as in my opinion the very basis of Cassel's theory is unacceptable and if this is granted, then for the purpose of this study the details of Cassel's method are not worth examining. Let us note first of all that in 1850 the Sauerbeck index of wholesale prices of Great Britain stood at an exceptionally low level, around which it oscillated from 1848 to 1852 and which was not attained again until 1884. In 1910 the index was rising after a deep depression and the figure for that year is incidental in that movement. Even using Cassel's figures, the price level had reached, in the years 1848-52, its lowest level in the 84 years from the beginning of the century till 1884. The figure for 1910 is less exceptional but hardly very characteristic. Thus the whole reasoning rests on the accidental fact that index figures for two dates 60 years apart1 The reader will find the main criticisms of this group reviewed in the excellent book Is There Enough Gold? by Charles O. Hardy, Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., 1936, pp. 18-32; also in Monetary Policy and Economic Stabilization by Arthur D. Gayer, London, 1935, pp. 54-60. 2 Among the principal statistical criticisms of Cassel's theory one might quote J. T. Phinney, Gold Production and the Price Level: the Cassel Three Per Cent Estimate, Quarterly Journal of Economics, August 1933, pp. 647-79. Professor Cassel answered to some of the main criticism in Quantitative Thinking in Economics, pp. 110-15, but his answer is hardly convincing and conclusive. Phinney's criticism of Cassel's theory deserves much attention; the greatest part of it is, however, open to the same sort of objections, from the point of view of criteria here adopted (See also Appendix), as Cassel's theory itself.



from one another have been almost identical, both figures being rather exceptional. Of course Cassel might just as well end the period chosen for his analysis in 1884 when the index stood at 76, or in 1906 when it was exactly 77 again (while it was 78 in 1910). There is a strong touch of the accidental combined with the arbitrary about the choice of the period under investigation, and yet this choice is the corner-stone of the theory.1 This however is not the fundamental point in my criticism. What is even more open to doubt is the very essence of Professor CassePs contentions, particularly his assumption that index figures for 1850 and for 1910 being equal they mean the same thing. Now is this acceptable? The Sauerbeck index is an unweighted average of prices; such an average is an arithmetic construction without a clear economic meaning and has been often and rightly criticized; as basis for a theory it is inacceptable. But even if it were a more acceptable index, would it be correct to consider that an average of prices quoted at one date is significantly comparable to another average of prices of the same commodities calculated for over half a century later? In the meantime the aggregate of physical production has very considerably changed, commodities have acquired a new significance, new commodities have appeared, technical methods have been improved, standards of living have risen, taste has changed, the structure of production and the structure of prices have undergone many deep changes, and so have the size and the structure of incomes, the structure of monetary systems, of commercial organization and so on. How can one, in face of a world that has profoundly changed, attribute the same significance to two crude price averages and base upon their accidental equality a whole theory of price formation? Indexnumbers of prices can be constructed only in certain circum1 Cf. Phinney, op. cit.; B. Nogaro, La Monnaie et les Phnomnes Montaires Contemporains, Paris, 1935, Part II, chap, iii; Hardy, op. cit. 38


stances, and with great care and numerous limitations, if they are to give a correct picture of economic developments; in fact, in order to be truly significant they must represent changes in the total money-value of certain organically, not arbitrarily, constructed aggregates of goods.1 The Sauerbeck index does not satisfy these conditions and limitations, and I must conclude that the theory we are now discussing is an arithmetic exercise not conducive to acceptable conclusions about the relations between gold stocks and the formation of prices. Even if the index used were perfectly correct and acceptable I should doubt that a comparison between index figures for years far removed from one another is a reasonable procedure. This last point I cannot, of course, prove. I can only appeal to the reader's common sense. The independent computation of the "rate of economic progress" yields no better results as it is entirely based on arbitrary statements. The assumption that "the growth of the iron industry may be regarded as characteristic of the whole industrial development of the world" is one of these statements which are made without any proof or justification. The estimate of the "rate of agricultural development" as being 1 2 per cent per year is acceptable only if we are told how this is computed;2 but it appears from the context that it is pure guesswork. Also the assumption that onethird of the social income is spent on food and two-thirds on all the remaining items of expenditure is quite arbitrary if not supported by statistical evidence. So of all the elements of that calculation only one is acceptable and that is the average growth of the output of pig-ircm; the remaining elements are arbitrary. The principal misconception is however much deeper: to try to represent by a single figure the "rate of1 The reader will find in the Appendix a more detailed discussion of this question. 2 Such a computation could be made by calculating the total value of agricultural production for different years upon the assumption that prices of the base year have been kept constant. This assumption limits, of course, the applicability of such a method.



economic progress" is a hopeless effort.1 The phrase "the rate