The expected behaviour of aggregate corporate saving is an unsettled problem that has received considerably less attention in economic research than personal saving behaviour. In part this has reflected the rather uncertain status of the corporation as a separate behavioural entity in much of economic analysis. Keynes in the General Theory emphasized personal saving behaviour, and in a brief discussion of saving by corporations, governments, and other institutions he suggested rather obscurely that their motives for saving were “largely analogous to, but not identical with, those actuating individuals.’ Keynes's neglect of corporate saving was not new in the development of economic analysis, and H. G. Johnson has argued that it “reflects Marshall's inability to integrate the modern corporation into his system of economic analysis.”

An attempt to sort out some of the significant determinants of corporate saving is particularly important for two broad questions in economics. First, is the cyclical behaviour of corporate saving an important stabilizer? This question involves a study not only of the marginal relationship between changes in planned corporate saving and corporate income but also of the interdependence between planned corporate saving and planned corporate investment. Secondly, does the behaviour of corporate saving in our society adversely affect the allocation of economic resources? This question is important for the position one takes on whether or not government policy should be designed to increase the distribution of corporate income and thus to increase the channelling of new corporate funds through the capital market.

Technological progress and investment are considered generally to be among the crucial determinants of economic growth; both have been prominent accompaniments of experienced growth. It seems likely that they are closely related, and a way of seeing this relationship is desirable. This paper seeks to develop a theoretical framework to help examine their roles in the growth of output, to show how they influence the paths which output and other economic variables trace out through time and to lead towards a more general theory of growth. However, no such general theory is developed. Many factors relevant to the course of economic growth are not considered, especially those concerned with what would happen if the economy moved away from full employment. Consequently, the analysis is not intended to be immediately relevant to actual conditions, but merely to throw some light on the relationships between technological progress and investment.

The analysis is related closely to the work of Nicolas Kaldor. However, the model contains a more flexible treatment of the effects of technological progress and the willingness to invest, in order that we may be better able to examine, in a less rigid framework, the effects of past courses of investment and technological progress on present developments in the economy. The variables of the model consist of a few aggregates expressed in real terms and we shall not be concerned with the method of their measurement.

Most literature on juvenile delinquency describes it as essentially a product of the lower socio-economic classes. While there has been some speculation over the incidence and quality of middle-class delinquency, what evidence exists is largely impressionistic. Nevertheless, the prevailing view is that delinquency among middle-class youth has increased in recent years. The present paper seeks a sociological and theoretical perspective to help account for the dominant forms of juvenile delinquency among middle-class youth. It attempts also to explain the emergence and the particular qualities of middle-class delinquency as a consequence of structural changes taking place in the larger society.

Accounting for middle-class delinquency in North America requires an understanding of the dominant culture of middle-class youth. Structural changes in society over the last half-century have produced opportunities for extensive adolescent peer-group participation and the emergence of a mass youth culture. During the growth of this youth culture, in which the majority of middle-class teenagers participate, there have emerged, jointly, both delinquent and non-delinquent patterns of behaviour. It is the thesis of this paper that the bulk of middle-class delinquency occurs in the course of customary, non-delinquent activities and falls within the limits of adolescent group norms. Moreover the knowledge of both delinquent and non-delinquent patterns in the youth culture is widely shared among middle-class teenagers. Thus, in order to account for middle-class delinquency one need not look for a separate “delinquent subculture.”

In February, 1959, the Minister of Public Works, the Honourable Howard Green, said in the House of Commons that “the government went into the home financing field to such a large extent in the last two years for one reason, to provide employment.” He went on to say that “this was done deliberately as the best means of creating jobs.” The Honourable D. J. Walker, after he took over the Public Works portfolio later that year, presented estimates to the House of the actual labour content of residential construction. On November 22, 1960, he said that “at this time every house that is built gives six months' employment to two men on the job and two men off the job, and also another man who is employed getting the sewers, and so on ready.” A year later, when introducing yet another amendment to the National Housing Act, the Minister stated that “if each new dwelling unit financed under the National Housing Act involves 2½ man years of employment on and off site, the N.H.A. mortgage lending for eight months of this year has contributed to more than 112,000 man-years of employment and of these, direct federal lending has been responsible for 46,000 man-years.” In the light of the statements by two ministers of Public Works, this paper attempts to present more precise estimates of the labour income that is generated by an expenditure for residential construction.

Since the Second World War there has been a growing awareness that labour relations in the construction industry do not lend themselves to legislative frameworks designed to cope with union-management relations in general. In the United States this has given rise to a number of provisions in the federal legislation which have particular reference to the labour problems of the construction industry. Under the Taft-Hartley Act, for example, there was the banning of the closed shop and the prohibition of jurisdictional disputes and certain types of secondary boycotts. More recently, under the Landrum-Griffin Act, unions in the building trades were exempted from some of the restrictions which apply to union-security arrangements and to the employment of secondary boycotts in industry and commerce generally.

That there is also the need for a special legislative approach to the labour relations problems of the construction industry in at least one jurisdiction in Canada has been shown by the work of the Goldenberg Commission in the Province of Ontario. After setting this work in perspective, this article will focus on the implications of the Commission's findings for the applicability of both the Ontario Labour Relations Act and such protective labour statutes as the Industrial Standards Act.

The periodic revision of the weights for an index provides an opportunity to review and modify the concepts and procedures used and also to give information about them. The latest revision of the Canadian Consumer Price Index (CPI) has made some use of this opportunity to change procedures, but the explanation of the index leaves much to be desired. This is unfortunate because the published material describing the procedures used in the construction of the Canadian CPI is very limited. In the Preface of an earlier publication, “a more technical reference paper as well as other explanations of the index” were announced for later release. These explanations have not appeared, and the publication under review, with its extensive quotations from the earlier publication, is not a suitable substitute.

The theory of economic growth is concerned with the behaviour over time of the major economic aggregates—among them consumption and investment, wages and profits. At the present time growth theory is the field of a methodological dispute between the so-called “neo-classical” and “neo-Keynesian” schools of thought. In this paper, in the course of a brief consideration of recent major works in this area, an attempt is made to discover the nature of the disagreement.

Let us begin with Meade's Neo-classical Theory of Economic Growth. In a lucid introductory chapter, the assumptions common to the two sides in the dispute are set forth. We are to consider a closed economy, with no government expenditure or taxation. There are two types of goods: machines and a homogeneous consumption good, each produced by means of machines and labour (and perhaps land). The assumption of competitive conditions throughout the economy is interpreted somewhat differently by different authors. To Mrs. Robinson in her Essays (p. 8), it means that in long-run equilibrium a uniform rate of profit rules in all sectors of the economy. To Meade it means, in addition, that each factor of production receives as payment the value of its marginal product.