No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
On a Consistent Definition of Intensive Use of a Resource
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 May 2017
Extract
It would seem, for the sake of convenience and in the interest of imparting exact information, that the terms used in a discipline should have one and only one meaning. Unfortunately economics terminology is not in such a completely refined state that all terms have unambiguous meanings. In some instances different meanings are attached to the same terms which is a source of confusion. This is especially the case for the term “intensive” use of a resource which frequently has been used to describe the relative abundance of a resource in production. The term has been used inconsistently in two opposing senses when applied to land and labor on the one hand and capital and labor on the other hand. While this may not pose a serious problem for a seasoned scholar who can construe the proper meaning in each context, beginning teachers and students need to be made aware of the inconsistency to avoid confusion and unnecessary debate.
- Type
- Comments and Notes
- Information
- Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , April 1979 , pp. 52 - 53
- Copyright
- Copyright © Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association
Footnotes
The author wishes to thank Dr. Farrell E. Jensen of F.M.C. Inc., for his help in preparing an earlier draft of this paper.
References
Baerwald, Friedrich. History and Structure of Economic Development. Scranton, Pennsylvania: International Textbook Company. 1969.Google Scholar
Raleigh, Barlowe. Land Economics. Englewood. New Jersey. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 3rd Edition, 1978, pp. 155–159.Google Scholar
Burmeister, Edwin and Turnovsky, Stephen J. “Capital Deepening Response in an Economy with Heterogeneous Capital Goods.” The American Economic Review, 62(1972): 842–853.Google Scholar
Chenery, Hollis B. “The Role of Industrialization in Development Programs.” The American Economic Review, 45(1955): 40–57.Google Scholar
Clark, John Bates. The Distribution of Wealth: A Theory of Wages. Interest and Profits. London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1902. pp. 98–99.Google Scholar
Eckaus, R. S. “The Factor Proportions Problem in Underdeveloped Areas.” The American Economic Review, 45(1955): 539–565.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. E. Microeconomic Theory. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin Inc., 3rd Edition, 1972, pp. 150–151.Google Scholar
Gans, Herbert J. “Jobs and Services: Toward a Labor Intensive Economy.” Challenge, July-August, 1977.Google Scholar
Hagen, Everett E. The Economics of Development. Homewood. Illinois: Richard D. Irwin Inc., 1968.Google Scholar
Heady, Earl O. “Agricultural Production Economics in the Future,” Lectures in Agricultural Economics. U.S. Department of Agriculture, p. 162.Google Scholar
Kelley, Allen C. and Williamson, Jeffery G., “Modeling Economic Development and General Equilibrium Histories,” The American Economic Review, 63(1973): 450–458.Google Scholar
Kellman, Mitchell and Perez, Lorenzo L., “Soviet Postwar Economic Growth and Capital-Labor Substitution: Comment,” The American Economic Review, 62(1972): 679–681.Google Scholar
Marshall, Alfred, Principles of Economics, London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, Second Edition, 1891, p. 206.Google Scholar
Marshall, Alfred. Principles of Economics, London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, Sixth Edition, 1910, p. 170.Google Scholar
Meir, Gerald N., “The Problem of Limited Economic Development.” Economia Internazionale, 6(1953) No. 4.Google Scholar
Mingo, John J., “Capital Importation and Sectoral Development: A Model Applied to Postwar Puerto Rico,” The American Economic Review, 64(1974): 273–290.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A., History of Economic Analysis, New York: Oxford University Press, 1954.Google Scholar