Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Communications

Communications 120 sightful ; for the other countries, the analysis is quite conventional. It is disconcerting, however, to find indices with different base years so that series cannot be easily compared, or to find (p. 239) a calculation of the ratio of total savings (a stock) to total income (a flow) falsely labeled as the average propensity to consume. One can also object to certain interpretations, e.g., the assertion that the Hungarian economic reforms of 1968 (which involved a considerable marketi- zation) were similar to the Liberman proposals (which focused primarily on the bonus system and plan indicators of enterprises and which did not envision great deviation from current Soviet planning and administration practices). The author's analysis of Polish growth of con- sumption and GNP following the fall of Gomulka and the rise of Gierek are controversial and not entirely convincing since competing explanations are not thoroughly disclosed. In addition, many of the empirical conclusions (ch. 11) concern matters which received almost no analysis in the previous chapters. Some readers might also regret that the author did not avail himself more of Western schol- arship on the various East European economies. Use of a recently published full-length mono- graph on public expenditures in Eastern and Western Europe, utilization of estimates of popula- tion and labor force in Eastern Europe by the U.S. Census Bureau, or use of many journal articles on different aspects of the various East European nations under discussion might have led to somewhat different conclusions on some matters. Nevertheless, the author's contention that we have focused our analysis of East European economies too much on production and have neglected consumption too long is, I believe, cor- rect and important. His efforts toward redressing this balance can only be welcomed. Frederic L. Pryor Swarthmore College COMMUNICATIONS In Vol. 2, Part 2 (1975) of East Central- Europe there are misprints in the book reviews of Piotr S. Wandycz and Endre B. Gastony. In the former, on page 184, what should have ap- peared as "Hans Roos" is misspelled "Han Roos." In the middle of the same page, the name "Cialowicz" appears with the letter "z" instead of "a". In the sentence, "For some reason the author makes no distinction between...." the word "diaries" should follow the word "be- tween." In the latter, on page 216, the text should read: "Subsequently Budapest twice attempted, with the support of Poland, to occupy Carpatho-Ukraine, but it succeeded only in March, 1939. The narrative ends there, but it is stressed that because Carpatho-Ukraine was eventually in- cluded in the Soviet Union, the population's 'desire to share the destiny of the Ukrainian nation as a whole became a reality' (p. 389). The book is given a degree of cohesion by its thesis. 'The double standards in application of the principles of national self-determination with regard to the Central European nationalities led to the lack of stability in the area. This, in turn, en- couraged some of the imperialistically-minded nations to utilize the existing situation for their own aggrandizement which resulted in the European crisis of 1938-1939 focused upon Czecho- Slovakia' (p. xi)." . The editor-in-chief regrets these mistakes. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png East Central Europe Brill

Communications

East Central Europe , Volume 3 (1): 120 – Jan 1, 1976

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/communications-tSjBjgFwMf

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 1976 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0094-3037
eISSN
1876-3308
DOI
10.1163/187633076X00108
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

120 sightful ; for the other countries, the analysis is quite conventional. It is disconcerting, however, to find indices with different base years so that series cannot be easily compared, or to find (p. 239) a calculation of the ratio of total savings (a stock) to total income (a flow) falsely labeled as the average propensity to consume. One can also object to certain interpretations, e.g., the assertion that the Hungarian economic reforms of 1968 (which involved a considerable marketi- zation) were similar to the Liberman proposals (which focused primarily on the bonus system and plan indicators of enterprises and which did not envision great deviation from current Soviet planning and administration practices). The author's analysis of Polish growth of con- sumption and GNP following the fall of Gomulka and the rise of Gierek are controversial and not entirely convincing since competing explanations are not thoroughly disclosed. In addition, many of the empirical conclusions (ch. 11) concern matters which received almost no analysis in the previous chapters. Some readers might also regret that the author did not avail himself more of Western schol- arship on the various East European economies. Use of a recently published full-length mono- graph on public expenditures in Eastern and Western Europe, utilization of estimates of popula- tion and labor force in Eastern Europe by the U.S. Census Bureau, or use of many journal articles on different aspects of the various East European nations under discussion might have led to somewhat different conclusions on some matters. Nevertheless, the author's contention that we have focused our analysis of East European economies too much on production and have neglected consumption too long is, I believe, cor- rect and important. His efforts toward redressing this balance can only be welcomed. Frederic L. Pryor Swarthmore College COMMUNICATIONS In Vol. 2, Part 2 (1975) of East Central- Europe there are misprints in the book reviews of Piotr S. Wandycz and Endre B. Gastony. In the former, on page 184, what should have ap- peared as "Hans Roos" is misspelled "Han Roos." In the middle of the same page, the name "Cialowicz" appears with the letter "z" instead of "a". In the sentence, "For some reason the author makes no distinction between...." the word "diaries" should follow the word "be- tween." In the latter, on page 216, the text should read: "Subsequently Budapest twice attempted, with the support of Poland, to occupy Carpatho-Ukraine, but it succeeded only in March, 1939. The narrative ends there, but it is stressed that because Carpatho-Ukraine was eventually in- cluded in the Soviet Union, the population's 'desire to share the destiny of the Ukrainian nation as a whole became a reality' (p. 389). The book is given a degree of cohesion by its thesis. 'The double standards in application of the principles of national self-determination with regard to the Central European nationalities led to the lack of stability in the area. This, in turn, en- couraged some of the imperialistically-minded nations to utilize the existing situation for their own aggrandizement which resulted in the European crisis of 1938-1939 focused upon Czecho- Slovakia' (p. xi)." . The editor-in-chief regrets these mistakes.

Journal

East Central EuropeBrill

Published: Jan 1, 1976

There are no references for this article.