Newfoundland Fisheries Development Committee ReportReview by: Gordon K. GoundreyThe Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science / Revue canadienne d'Economique etde Science politique, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Aug., 1955), pp. 381-383Published by: Wiley on behalf of Canadian Economics AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/138214 .

Accessed: 17/06/2014 18:53

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Wiley and Canadian Economics Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science / Revue canadienne d'Economique et deScience politique.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.40 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 18:53:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

In brief, it is admirable social science. That Glass feels it necessary to warn the reader before launching the discussion is regrettable. It suggests that he has a stultifyingly narrow conception of science, which fails to distinguish between advocating policies and clarifying their implications.

There are only two studies in the report which stand out jarringly. These are the analyses of leadership in voluntary associations. The first, through con- fining itself to the same kind of spare, statistical evidence as the rest of the book, fails to convey much understanding of the associational structure of a town of 15 thousand people, and points once more to the difficulty of correlating local and national studies of social status. The second, breaking from the pattern, relies on impressions derived from interviews and participant observation, or, for the Red Cross, from the Society's publications and an inquiry made by an officer of the Society; unfortunately, it suffers from skimpiness and uncertainty. Both not so much show the relation to oc- cupational prestige of membership and leadership in voluntary organizations as parade limitations of occupation as an index of social status. They refer to the aristocracy, for example, whose status might almost be said to derive from lack of occupation, and they deal, in one instance exclusively, with women, whose status is not of their own making. Since no immodest claims have been made for an occupational index of status, little purpose seems to be served by this procedure. The members of the research group would have been well advised either to tie the material on voluntary associations more closely to the other studies, or to reserve it until it could be lengthened and strengthened and presented independently.

The opportunities that Britain provides for the study of social stratification are obvious. Lewis and Maude seized some of them a few years ago in their sprightly analysis of the English middle classes. It is heartening that so- ciologists are following through with more rigidly empirical work. Social Mobility in Britain is a sound and significant first report; its successors will be welcome.

JEAN BURNET

University of Toronto

Newfoundland Fisheries Development Committee Report. St. John's, New- foundland: The Committee. 1953. Pp. 122, xv, maps.

THE British North America Act placed a responsibility for fisheries on the federal government, and this became a grave responsibility when Newfound- land entered confederation. In January, 1951, an agreement was signed by Canada and Newfoundland, setting up a committee to carry out a detailed investigation of the possibilities of development of the fishing industry in Newfoundland. The problem facing the committee was quite straightforward, but exceedingly difficult to solve. Newfoundland had few other resources to develop: little agricultural land, few known mineral supplies, and a forest industry utilizing the major part of the forest resources of the island. The traditional livelihood, and the largest occupation, fishing, was depressed, and with the exception of war years, had been depressed for a century. The com-

In brief, it is admirable social science. That Glass feels it necessary to warn the reader before launching the discussion is regrettable. It suggests that he has a stultifyingly narrow conception of science, which fails to distinguish between advocating policies and clarifying their implications.

There are only two studies in the report which stand out jarringly. These are the analyses of leadership in voluntary associations. The first, through con- fining itself to the same kind of spare, statistical evidence as the rest of the book, fails to convey much understanding of the associational structure of a town of 15 thousand people, and points once more to the difficulty of correlating local and national studies of social status. The second, breaking from the pattern, relies on impressions derived from interviews and participant observation, or, for the Red Cross, from the Society's publications and an inquiry made by an officer of the Society; unfortunately, it suffers from skimpiness and uncertainty. Both not so much show the relation to oc- cupational prestige of membership and leadership in voluntary organizations as parade limitations of occupation as an index of social status. They refer to the aristocracy, for example, whose status might almost be said to derive from lack of occupation, and they deal, in one instance exclusively, with women, whose status is not of their own making. Since no immodest claims have been made for an occupational index of status, little purpose seems to be served by this procedure. The members of the research group would have been well advised either to tie the material on voluntary associations more closely to the other studies, or to reserve it until it could be lengthened and strengthened and presented independently.

The opportunities that Britain provides for the study of social stratification are obvious. Lewis and Maude seized some of them a few years ago in their sprightly analysis of the English middle classes. It is heartening that so- ciologists are following through with more rigidly empirical work. Social Mobility in Britain is a sound and significant first report; its successors will be welcome.

JEAN BURNET

University of Toronto

Newfoundland Fisheries Development Committee Report. St. John's, New- foundland: The Committee. 1953. Pp. 122, xv, maps.

THE British North America Act placed a responsibility for fisheries on the federal government, and this became a grave responsibility when Newfound- land entered confederation. In January, 1951, an agreement was signed by Canada and Newfoundland, setting up a committee to carry out a detailed investigation of the possibilities of development of the fishing industry in Newfoundland. The problem facing the committee was quite straightforward, but exceedingly difficult to solve. Newfoundland had few other resources to develop: little agricultural land, few known mineral supplies, and a forest industry utilizing the major part of the forest resources of the island. The traditional livelihood, and the largest occupation, fishing, was depressed, and with the exception of war years, had been depressed for a century. The com-

Revietvs of Books Revietvs of Books 381 381

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.40 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 18:53:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

382 The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science

mittee was charged with recommending a programme of development appropriate for combined implementation by the two levels of government and the units of the industry.

After discussing the history and status of the industry in summary fashion, and the techniques of production and marketing in more detail, the com- mittee concluded that an extensive re-orientation of the industry was required. The committee's recommendations dealt with biological and technological research, education, methods of curing, processing, and marketing and the provision of finance capital.

Of particular interest to the readers of the report will be the analysis of the low levels of income of the fishing family (averaging $1,300 per year, of which nearly half comes from other sources); the "great expectations" of mechanization; "the need for intervention by public authority in the field" (p. 75); and the way in which traditional methods and ancient problems have continued to dominate the industry. At the time of the report (and at present) the income from the fisheries is little greater than Family Allowance pay- ments. In an earlier period, as Innis pointed out, the fishermen had been caught between the instabilities resulting from continental fluctuations and the pernicious credit system. The merchants were in the same unenviable position. These problems were still of importance in 1952.

The sale of fish is under "single-desk" selling, through an organization known as N.A.F.E.L. (the Newfoundland Association of Fish Exporters Ltd.). N.A.F.E.L. is composed of a small number of relatively large merchants having monopsonistic control of fish marketing under provincial statute. The main purposes of the association have been to seek markets, to control variations in quality arising from the type of fishing (traps) and the primitive methods of curing, and to release the output over the year to eliminate seasonal fluctuations in price. N.A.F.E.L. is paid a flat 3 per cent of sales. The committee made no analysis of the dangers in the monopsony, but noted that in the absence of a controlling agency, traditional markets would be lost. There is evidence in the report of a fear that salt cod, the traditional mainstay of the industry, is an inferior good, or at least that it has very low price and income elasticities of demand. Relative price decreases and increases in incomes in traditional market areas do not appear to lead to increased exports.

The problem facing the committee was that "the traditional equilibrium of the resource, the industry (including the population dependent on it or in- volved in it) and the market is breaking down . . . as a result of pressures from several directions. The objectives of a development programme should be to establish a new equilibrium on the basis of a fully modernized fishing industry-one that, utilizing the resources to the best advantage and meeting market requirements to the fullest extent, provides the fishing population with a living conforming to the national standard." (p. 24) While one might quarrel with their seemingly naive view of equilibrium, it should be pointed out that the committee recognized that a decline in the fishing population would probably follow the adoption of the programme and that substantial increases in capital were required for mechanization. Recommendations were directed to the broad long-run aims of development as well as to short-run

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.40 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 18:53:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

improvements. The recommendations included government loans to in- dividuals and firms, not only to improve the technology of processing, but also to replace gear and boats with improved types. The committee felt that the cod fisheries would remain the major sector of the industry, supported to a greater extent by herring, redfish, and flat-fish.

Economists will be interested in the extent to which flexibility and adapt- ability are emphasized at each stage of development, and by the evidence adduced to show that the optimum-sized plant is rather small.

One feels that more attention could have been paid to alternative sources of income, and to the dangers of monopsonistic control of output. The amount of work that was required to bring together adequate information on the fisheries is a rather strong indictment of the methods of the Commission Government.

This is an excellent report, in the best traditions of fact-finding and the

using of expert assistance. The staff and members are to be congratulated on the firm foundations of the report. It is a pity that the development has followed so imperfectly the recommendations, though a few remarks by the committee on the dangers inherent in some of their recommendations would have strengthened rather than weakened the report.

GomDON K. GOUNDrEY Memorial University

Elements of Pure Economics, or, The Theory of Social Wealth. By LEON WALRAS. Translated by WILLIAM JAFFE. London: George Allen and Unwin

Ltd., for the American Economic Association and the Royal Economic Society [Toronto: Thomas Nelson & Sons (Canada) Ltd.]. 1954. Pp. 620. $9.00.

A TRANSLATION of Leon Walras' Elements d'economie politique pure is an event of major importance. Perhaps no other name has been more frequently used by English-speaking economists who have not read the original work. Those who were not intimidated by the mathematical symbols soon gave up the struggle with the Walrasian terminology and the increasingly complicated formulation of relationships. Some of my own French-speaking students said that it was impossible to translate certain phrases.

William Jaffe has done the impossible. He has taken a long time in doing it, and has lavished much care, even devotion, on his task. He has gone out of his way to correct misinterpretations by other economists, and has con- sulted men with expert knowledge so that he could explain difficult passages. He even supplies us with the correct pronunciation of the author's name (footnote, p. 5). The translator's notes are very valuable. The significance of Professor Jaffe's accomplishment can be inferred from the fact that this translation is published under the auspices of both the American Economic Association and the Royal Economic Society.

The name Walras has meant "general equilibrium." But with this trans- lation, it should in future mean much more. The book is an example of a scientific approach to the subject. Walras was not recognized by the economists of his own country (France) and spent his teaching years in Switzerland. He had a great struggle to have his ideas considered. He broke

improvements. The recommendations included government loans to in- dividuals and firms, not only to improve the technology of processing, but also to replace gear and boats with improved types. The committee felt that the cod fisheries would remain the major sector of the industry, supported to a greater extent by herring, redfish, and flat-fish.

Economists will be interested in the extent to which flexibility and adapt- ability are emphasized at each stage of development, and by the evidence adduced to show that the optimum-sized plant is rather small.

One feels that more attention could have been paid to alternative sources of income, and to the dangers of monopsonistic control of output. The amount of work that was required to bring together adequate information on the fisheries is a rather strong indictment of the methods of the Commission Government.

This is an excellent report, in the best traditions of fact-finding and the

using of expert assistance. The staff and members are to be congratulated on the firm foundations of the report. It is a pity that the development has followed so imperfectly the recommendations, though a few remarks by the committee on the dangers inherent in some of their recommendations would have strengthened rather than weakened the report.

GomDON K. GOUNDrEY Memorial University

Elements of Pure Economics, or, The Theory of Social Wealth. By LEON WALRAS. Translated by WILLIAM JAFFE. London: George Allen and Unwin

Ltd., for the American Economic Association and the Royal Economic Society [Toronto: Thomas Nelson & Sons (Canada) Ltd.]. 1954. Pp. 620. $9.00.

A TRANSLATION of Leon Walras' Elements d'economie politique pure is an event of major importance. Perhaps no other name has been more frequently used by English-speaking economists who have not read the original work. Those who were not intimidated by the mathematical symbols soon gave up the struggle with the Walrasian terminology and the increasingly complicated formulation of relationships. Some of my own French-speaking students said that it was impossible to translate certain phrases.

William Jaffe has done the impossible. He has taken a long time in doing it, and has lavished much care, even devotion, on his task. He has gone out of his way to correct misinterpretations by other economists, and has con- sulted men with expert knowledge so that he could explain difficult passages. He even supplies us with the correct pronunciation of the author's name (footnote, p. 5). The translator's notes are very valuable. The significance of Professor Jaffe's accomplishment can be inferred from the fact that this translation is published under the auspices of both the American Economic Association and the Royal Economic Society.

The name Walras has meant "general equilibrium." But with this trans- lation, it should in future mean much more. The book is an example of a scientific approach to the subject. Walras was not recognized by the economists of his own country (France) and spent his teaching years in Switzerland. He had a great struggle to have his ideas considered. He broke

Reviews of Books Reviews of Books 383 383

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.40 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 18:53:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions