The objects of the paper are, first, to analyse the theory of surrogate production function as developed by Prof. Samuelson from a standpoint of more general interindustrial relationships and, second, to introduce the factors of neutral technical progress into the model and examine their character.
Let A=the liquid capital coefficient matrix which is assumed indecomposable and l=the labor coefficient positive vector. Our main results are as follows.
Theorem (1): For the capital intensity of labor to be uniform in all lines of industry, it is necessary and sufficient that l is the left hand Frobenius vector of A.
Theorem (2): For the relative prices of capital goods to remain constant in spite of changes in the rate of profit, it is necessary and sufficient that the capital intensity of labor is uniform in all lines of industry.
Theorem (3): Let the grand-factor-price-frontier be composed of various techniques of production the capital intensity of labor of which is uniform in all lines of industry respectively. Then it is necessary and sufficient for the technical progress to be neutral in the sense of both Harrod and Hicks that the surrogate production function is described by the Cobb-Douglasian type.

View full abstract

The history of economics of Japan is, for the most part, the history of the introduction of Western economics. Marginalism was also introduced at the beginning of this century and it has been developed recently to the internationally high level. Especially it is no exaggeration to say that Nakayama's effort of the introduction and settlement of Marginalism in Japan was most conspicuos.
Nakayama was the student of Fukuda in the Tokyo Commercial University and wrote the first article of Marginalism in 1922, in which he appreciated Wairas as the most eminent Marginalist. Then he became fully convinced that the analytical approach of Lausanne School was more valid than those of the other schools of Marginalism. Later on he developed his theory on the basis of the general equilibrium theory. In 1927 he went to Germany to study at the University of Bonn. He reaffirmed his convictions about the Walrasian system when he attended the seminar of J. A. Schumpeter. After his return to Japan he efforted to introduce and elavulate this theoretical system. Especially his "Junsui Keizaigaku" (Pure Economics), in which he followed closely the Schumpeterian theoretical system and efforted to criticize it, became so popular that I can say that through this book the predominance of the analytical approach of the Lausanne School became fixed in the world of Marginal economics.
Finally it must be noticed that Nakayama contributed not only to the development of pure theory but also to the construction of the analytical tool for the real economy and to the decision-making of the economic policy in the post-war period of Japan.

View full abstract

This investigation uses the Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) data to examine changes in income distribution in Japan between 1963 and 1971. Although the data on income is available only for the households of employees in which no member is engaged in agriculture, thereby limiting our ability to generalize about all of Japanese society, the emphasis is on developing a methodology which can be used in analyzing income distribution in general.
As the title suggests, the author emphasizes the fact that income inequality is more than a simple size distribution among abstracted individuals or households arrayed according to income. Income differentials and inequality reflect differences in the way in which individuals are situated in a number of dimensions which the author lables as social subsystems. Using the FIES data, Gini concentration coefficients are calculated from the figures for average income and the sample distribution for nine groupings based upon Japan's geographic regions, five city-size groupings, four occupational groupings, ten age groupings, nine firm-size groupings, and ten industrial classifications. The coefficient for the first two subsystems (sets of categories) drops remarkably during the nine years considered, whereas the coefficient is rather stable for the other four subsystems. Although the FIES data does not give intra-subgroup size distributions (for calculating within variance), the marked drop in the Gini coefficient for the distributions among city-size groups and geographic regions (between variance) would seem to have been caused by (1) population mobility to the urban areas, (2) the increased amount of commuting to and from work in the large urban areas in terms of both volume and distance, and (3) the spread of large industrial complexes to rural areas.
Attention is then directed to the impact of secondary household income on the original distribution among household heads alone. It is suggested that this type of latitudinal mobility is considerable as differences in work force participation and the earning capacity of secondary earners contributes significantly to a narrowing of income differentials among households.
Finally, the author looks at longitudinal mobility over time in terms of changes in the average income first of households arranged into income groupings, and then of each subgrouping in each of the six subsystems. In the first case mobility would seem to be significant. In the latter case, the figures do not take into account the movement of households from one classification to another. Therefore, mobility would seem to be less, but nevertheless is positively correlated with greater equality as the time period for measuring income is extended.
In conclusion, this essay argues that it is important to (1) decompose income distributions into their various subsystem components, (2) consider the impact of secondary income on the original distribution among household heads alone, and (3) examine the extent to which mobility in terms of income exists over time.

View full abstract