- Ceredigion, Wales, United Kingdom
- Lecturer and author of Economics and Business Studies. Particular interest in the Phillips Curve and its continuing relevance to todays economic and political decisions.edit
In Chapter 1 the basic objectives of government economic policy were outlined as low inflation, full employment, growth, and a favourable balance of payments. Whilst these are generally accepted as the obvious policy objectives, it is not... more
In Chapter 1 the basic objectives of government economic policy were outlined as low inflation, full employment, growth, and a favourable balance of payments. Whilst these are generally accepted as the obvious policy objectives, it is not so immediately obvious how they are going to be tested. How do we known, for example, that we have full employment, or that economic growth is really taking place? Clearly some basis of measurement is required. The same is true of macroeconomic theories in general. If the theories are dealing with aggregates and how they change, then we must be able to measure these aggregates both to allow us to formulate meaningful theories and to test them against reality. Some of the data that we require is provided by what are called the national income statistics. These record not only the aggregated totals but also the parts that go to make them up. They are a record of what has taken place in the national income over a specified period of time, usually one year. They also tell us how much income flows from one sector of the economy to another, from which we will be able to build up a picture of the circular flow of income.
Research Interests:
The reputation of the academic field of Anthropology has for some people been tarnished ever since Franz Boas' letter to The Nation in 1919 in which he claimed that four anthropologists that he could name, but did not, had acted as spies... more
The reputation of the academic field of Anthropology has for some people been tarnished ever since Franz Boas' letter to The Nation in 1919 in which he claimed that four anthropologists that he could name, but did not, had acted as spies for the United States Government, using their field research as a camouflage for what they were really doing. From this specific accusation there has somehow developed an argument that all anthropologists carrying out fieldwork might actually be spies. This general misconception was not helped by the fact that in some cases that was essentially what they were doing, operating under the cover of their fieldwork as government agents. Unfortunately, many genuine researchers carrying out academic study have been tarred with the same brush. This article deals with one such anthropologist who researched during the period of colonial rule and who, it is argued here, was most certainly not a spy. This should also be seen as a defence for the many others whose intentions were simply to carry out academic anthropological fieldwork.
