http://www.jstor.org United States
Author(s): Homi Katrak
Source: Economica, New Series, Vol. 36, No. 144, (Nov., 1969), pp. 389-399
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The London School of Economics and Political Science and The Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related
Disciplines
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2552378 Accessed: 12/06/2008 23:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We enable the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
An Empirical Test of Comparative Cost Theories:
Japan, Peru, the United Kingdom and the United States'
By HoMI KATRAK
I. INTRODUCTION
During the past decade, international trade theorists have become increasingly concerned with the fact that the Ricardian and Heckscher- Ohlin theories do not seem to provide a satisfactory explanation of the commodity and geographical patterns of international trade. Several theorists, including Kenen [12], Posner [16], Vernon [20] and Johnson [9], being aware of the shortcomings of these two theories and of the need for a more constructive theoretical approach, have proposed interesting hypotheses which depart in lesser or greater degree from the framework of the older theories and which allow for a more sophisti- cated view of the process of production and of technological change.
An important reason for the dissatisfaction with the Ricardian and Heckscher-Ohlin hypotheses is to be found in their poor performance in empirical studies-witness Leontief's statistical analysis of the factor content of United States foreign trade [14], and also Bhagwati's critical examination [4] of the MacDougall type of tests of the Ricardian hypothesis ([15], [2], [17]). These results compare distressingly with those obtained by proponents of the more modern theories. For in- stance, Kenen's hypothesis that investment in human capital as well as in tangible capital influences trade patterns has been checked first by some rough calculations undertaken by himself [12] and more successfully in a detailed investigation by Keesing [11], who used a measure of the labour skill mix in different industries as indicative of the differences in investment in human capital. At the same time Huf- bauer [8] has shown that the pattern of international trade in synthetic materials provides some support for Posner's view [16] that a techno- logical innovation in a particular country may create a comparative advantage in that country, but that that advantage may be reduced or even eliminated if the location of production is transferred to other countries. (The conditions under which the location of production may be transferred to foreign markets have been discussed by Vernon [20]
and the problem has recently been developed more fully by Johnson [9].)
I I am grateful to Mr. M. D. Steuer for many helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
References in square brackets are listed on pp. 398-9, below.
389
Although the Keesing and Hufbauer tests help towards an under- standing of the pattern of international trade, it seems worthwhile investigating an important and hitherto neglected aspect of the Ricar- dian and factor-proportions theories, namely, whether international differences in comparative costs can be explained in terms of the causal factors stressed in these two theories.
An empirical analysis in terms of comparative costs may be interesting for two reasons. First, a verification of the Heckscher-Ohlin theory in terms of comparative costs would help to substantiate Travis' conten- tion [18] that Leontief's results reflect the fact that nominal tariff rates in the United States are relatively higher for relatively labour-intensive imports, and that this feature has the effect of biassing the import mix towards products that are intensive in capital and in natural resources.
The second reason for undertaking a test in terms of comparative costs is that it enables us to examine the interaction between the forces em- phasized by the Ricardian theory on the one hand, and those of the Heckscher-Ohlin theory on the other, and to see whether these forces complement or offset each other. Since the Ricardian theory em- phasizes international differences in production functions and abstracts from international differences in relative factor costs, and since the Heckscher-Ohlin theory makes precisely the opposite assumptions,' we may expect that the empirical validity of the one theory may be affected by the forces emphasized by the other. To investigate this possi- bility we can test each theory (independently of the other), and then attempt a test in terms of the two theories together. As is seen below, much is gained when the two theories are made to join forces. Ideally one would like to see whether this joining of forces helps to explain the structure of the foreign trade of countries as well as the international differences in comparative costs. However, for reasons explained below, it is not possible (or at best extremely difficult) to analyse the pattern of foreign trade in terms of the combined effect of the causal factors, emphasized in the two theories; nonetheless, it is hoped that the tests undertaken in terms of comparative costs may help towards an analysis of foreign trade flows.
Our tests involve certain problems which we discuss in Section II together with the data used in these tests; Section III describes the tests of the two theories when each is considered independently of the other, while Section IV is concerned with testing the theories in combination.
Section V discusses the implications of our results in relation to the re- sults of other studies.
II. A PROBLEM IN TESTING COMPARATIVE COST THEORIES
Before proceeding, we consider a problem that arises from the nature of the predictions made by the two theories.2 Both theories attempt to
1 This contrasting nature of the two theories is to be found in Bhagwati ([4], pp. 172-3).
2 J am grateful to M. D. Steuer for discussion of this point.
explain the pattern of comparative costs in the "pre-trade" situation, and the problem arises from the fact that we have no data relating to that situation. Once countries begin to trade, the differences in com- parative costs are reduced, although, owing to impediments to trade such as tariffs, transport costs and imperfect knowledge on the part of traders, they are not eliminated completely; hence we observe diff- erences in costs between any two countries even though they may be trading with each other. The differences in costs we observe may not be of the same magnitude as the differences that may have existed in the pre-trade situation. But we may use the former in our tests in lieu of the latter on the assumption that the observed pattern of costs is the same as the pre-trade pattern; e.g. if we find that commodity X is relatively cheaper in country A, and Yis relatively cheaper in B, we test the theories on the assumption that X would have been cheaper in A in the pre- trade situation.
The tests are undertaken for three pairs of countries: (i) Japan and the United States, (ii) Peru and the United States, and (iii) the United Kingdom and the United States. (These will be referred to as the J, P and U cases respectively.) Although the choice of countries is deter- mined by the availability of the relevant data, the coverage is interesting since the countries involved are at different levels of economic develop- ment, have different relative factor prices, and, due to differences in their geographical location, are likely to have different endowments of particular natural resources. Thus our tests include cases of factor- intensity reversals and of international differences in production func- tions, thereby allowing for cases where both theories may be refuted.
Details of the commodities included and the sources of the data used are shown in the Appendix, below.
III. A TEST OF THE Two THEORIES
The well-known Heckscher-Ohlin prediction for the two-commodity, two-factor, two-country case is that the relatively labour-intensive commodity is comparatively cheaper in the country with the relatively lower cost of labour. This has been generalized for the multi-commodity case by Jones [10], who has shown that under the Heckscher-Ohlin assumptions the ranking of commodities by their factor intensities is the same as their ranking by their comparative costs, i.e. the Heckscher- Ohlin-Jones prediction is that Japanese relative costs (measured as the cost of the commodity in Japan divided by the cost in the United States) will be lowest in the most labour-intensive commodity and highest in the most capital-intensive commodity. We may test this prediction for any number of commodities by calculating a rank correlation coefficient between the Japanese relative costs of each commodity and the cor- responding capital/labour ratios; the rank correlation coefficient ex- pected on the above reasoning is unity. A similar test can be applied for the P and U cases. Since the ranking of commodities by their factor
intensities may differ between the two countries (in each of the J, P and U cases), we have calculated two rank correlation coefficients for each case. The theory may be considered as "not refuted" only if significant coefficients are obtained with the factor intensity data of both the countries involved in each comparison. The results shown in columns (1) and (2) of Table 1 provide little support for the theory. The reasons for these poor results are examined below.
In order to test the Ricardian hypothesis we ignore the influence of factor intensities and factor costs and focus on inter-country diff- erences in production functions. Our procedure is derived from a sug- gestion of Bhagwati, namely, "if the technology in activity i could be characterized by Qi = Al Qi(Ki; Li) for country i and by Qi = Ai" Qi(Ki;
Li) for country ii so that the only difference between the two countries' production functions for an identical activity is a multiplicative scalar (All/Al in this case), then the Ricardian testable hypothesis could be con- strued to mean that
AI'/Ai > Al'/Ai i=1,2, ...m i=m+1,...n
where commodities i= 1, 2, . . . m, are country ii's exports and com- modities i=m+ 1, . . . n are its imports".' Adapting this suggestion to a test in terms of comparative costs, we may expect that country ii's relative costs are highest (lowest) in the activity where the multiplicative scalar is lowest (highest).
We can test the theory in this way with the help of the estimates pub- lished by Arrow et al. [1] and Clague [6]. In a study of fourteen com- parable industries in Japan and the United States, Arrow et al. find that the production functions in the two countries differ only by a scalar factor and that the magnitude of these scalar differences varies from industry to industry; similar results are reported by Clague in his com- parison of eleven industries in Peru and the United States. We reproduce their results in column (4) of the Appendix table. The interpretation of these data is as follows: for example, the entry of 0 13 for Agriculture in the Japanese/ United States comparison means that, if relative factor costs were the same in the United States and Japan, the input of each factor (i.e. capital and labour) in United States Agriculture would be only 13 per cent. of the input of each factor in Agriculture in Japan.
The lower this ratio, the greater is the relative efficiency of the United States, and on Ricardian reasoning the higher would be Japanese relative costs. In our multi-commodity case the theory is "not refuted" if we obtain a rank correlation of about -1*0 between the relative efficiency ratios and the corresponding cost ratios. The test undertaken for the J and P cases yields widely divergent results. These are shown in column (3) of Table 1. For the limited coverage involved in this test we cannot claim much empirical validity for the Ricardian theory.
1 Bhagwati, [4], p. 161; italics in original.
TABLE 1
RANK CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS: COMPARATIVE COST RATIOS RANKED WITH CAPITAL/LABOUR RATIOS AND SCALAR DIFFERENCES IN PRODUCTION
FUNCTIONS
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Japan and US
14 observations 0 38 -0-14 -0 09 0 64 0 46 (0-1) (>0-1) (>0-1) (0-01) (0-05)
10 observations* 0-86 0-86
(0 003) (0 003) Peru and US
11 observations 0 04 -0 07 - 0 63 0 86 0 85 (>0 1) (>0 1) (>0 02) (<0 005) (<0 005) UK and US
19 observations 0 56 -0 04 (0-01) (>0-1)
Column (1): Cost ratios and capital/labour ratios of the US.
(2): ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, other country.
(3): ,, ,, ,, inter-country differences in production functions.
(4): Same as (1), but with cost ratios adjusted for inter-country differences in production functions.
(5): Same as (2), but with cost ratio adjusted as above.
Figures in parenthesis show the probability of obtaining the correlation co- efficients by chance.
* These ten observations exclude the four industries (Agriculture, Coal Mining, Chemicals, Petroleum Products) that have markedly different factor intensity ranking between Japan and the United States.
IV. THE INTERACTION OF THE Two THEORIES
Having found that neither theory provides a satisfactory explanation of comparative costs, we proceed to an examination of our results.
In particular we examine whether our results reflect the interaction of the forces emphasized by the two theories. A clue is provided by Arrow et al. in their comparison of production functions in Japan and the United States: they find "some slight indication ... that the American advantage in efficiency tends to be least in the capital-intensive indus- tries ([1], p. 247). On the basis of this observation we may hazard a guess that the "explanation" of the poor results reported in the pre- ceding section lies in a tendency for the Ricardian forces to offset those emphasized by Heckscher-Ohlin.
The interesting question is whether this "explanation" can be sub- stantiated empirically. Since we know (from Arrow et al.) the magnitude of the scalar differences between production functions in Japan and the United States, we can estimate what comparative costs between this pair of countries would be if their production functions were identical; i.e.
comparative costs can be adjusted to "neutralize" the influence of differences in production functions. Now if our explanation of our results is on the right lines, we should expect that these adjusted cost ratios would be explained in terms of the forces emphasized by the factor- proportions theory. A similar test can be undertaken for the Peru/United States comparison with the help of Clague's data.
The procedure may be explained by considering, say, the Iron and Steel industry in the Japan/United States comparison. The data in the Appendix table show that the ratio of Japanese to United States costs is 0-98, while the scalar difference in production function is 09.
We therefore estimate that, if production functions for this activity were identical in the two countries, the ratio of Japanese/United States costs would fall to 09 of the actual cost ratio, i.e. the cost ratio would fall to 0-88.
The relative costs for all industries (in the J and P cases) were ad- justed for the efficiency differences and these adjusted cost ratios were then ranked with the corresponding capital/labour ratios.' The rank correlation coefficients obtained are shown in columns (4) and (5) of Table 1. The coefficients for the Peruvian case now rise to 0O85 and 086. The coefficients for the Japanese case also show improvements on the initial results but are still rather disappointing, with values of 064 and 0A46. However, the different magnitudes of these two coefficients suggest differences in the factor intensity ranking of commodities as between Japan and the United States. We therefore excluded four in- dustries whose ranking differed most as between the two countries, and calculated rank coefficients for the remaining ten observations.
Each of the two coefficients becomes 086.
The interpretation of these results is problematical since the number of observations involved in each correlation is rather limited. With this reservation in mind, the results nevertheless suggest that we can obtain a satisfactory explanation of comparative costs when the two theories are made to join forces, and that the results are particularly favourable in cases where factor-intensity reversals do not take place. The reason why neither theory yields satisfactory results when considered by itself seems to be largely due to the tendency of the causal factors stressed by the two theories to operate in opposite directions and thereby to offset each other.
Assuming that the results obtained for the above two pairs of coun- tries are also valid for other cases, we may examine the implications of our results and relate these to the results of some other studies. But before doing so, two further observations on the nature of our tests are worth making. First, we have tested the Ricardian theory in terms of the inter-country differences in production functions whereas previous tests 'It is likely that if production functions were identical in these countries the relative factor costs would not remain at their present levels, and this in turn would affect the cost ratios of commodities. But changes in relative factor costs would not affect the validity of our test if the cost of labour relative to that of capital remained higher in the United States than in the other countries in the comparisons.
of that theory have been in terms of the labour productivity ratios ([2], [15], [17]). Our reason for preferring the former method is that the interpretation of any empirical relationship involving labour productivity ratios is not unambiguous. It is true that in the original Ricardian formulation in terms of a single-factor model, inter-country differences in productivity ratios can arise only if production functions differ between the two countries. But in the situations with which we are concerned capital as well as labour is used as an input, so that the labour productivity ratios will reflect capital/labour ratios (which in turn may reflect factor costs) as well as the differences in production functions;
in such situations an empirical relationship between cost ratios and labour productivity ratios is not of much importance. As Bhagwati says, "the reliance of the prediction on labour productivity unaccom- panied by any explanation of why the labour productivity is what it is, and how therefore it may be expected to change, restricts the utility of the prediction" ([4], p. 172).
The second observation is that our empirical tests have involved the calculation of rank correlations only. We have not tried to investigate a linear relationship because neither theory makes any prediction about the magnitude of a country's comparative advantage in particular com- modities.
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The main finding of the tests discussed in this paper is that com- parative costs can be explained in terms of the combined influence of the causal factors stressed in the Ricardian and Heckscher-Ohlin theories-even though neither theory gives satisfactory results when considered independently of the other. Since interest in theories of comparative costs arises, at least in some part, from interest in their predictions about the pattern of international trade, it would be in- teresting to extend the analysis of this paper to an analysis of foreign trade patterns. Unfortunately, such an exercise would be much more difficult. It is easy to adjust comparative cost ratios for inter-country differences in production functions; but a corresponding adjustment of the ratios of two countries' exports of comparable commodities-or of products of comparable industries-would require detailed knowledge of the cross-elasticities of the various commodities in particular geo- graphical markets. The present lack of such data would seem to pre- clude such an exercise.
Notwithstanding this limitation of our analysis, the results obtained seem to have some implications for Leontief's analysis of the factor content of United States foreign trade and for Kenen's hypothesis concerning the role of human capital.
First, we may consider Travis' argument [18] that Leontief's results reflect the relatively high nominal tariffs on United States imports of labour-intensive products. In this paper we have used cost data rather
than trade data, and have not undertaken a direct test of the Travis hypothesis; nonetheless, our results are of some relevance here since we have found that the failure of the Heckscher-Ohlin theory to explain comparative costs arises largely because of the influence of inter-country differences in production functions and because of the absence of a unique factor-intensity ranking of commodities. These results would suggest that Leontief's findings may also be attributable to the non- fulfilment of the above two assumptions of the Heckscher-Ohlin model.
Pending a more direct test of the effects of tariffs on comparative costs and on patterns of international trade, we may consider the Travis hypothesis as "not proven". It is worth noting that Travis' contention has also been questioned by Basevi, who finds little relationship between the labour intensity of the production process and the effective rates of protection in the United States ([3]; also Travis [19]).
The other implication of our tests concerns the role of investment in human capital. Kenen [13] has shown that under certain assumptions the international differences in production functions can be attributed to the role of capital invested in skills. By drawing on Kenen's sugges- tion, we may interpret our empirical results as showing that compara- tive costs are determined in terms of the inputs of labour and tangible capital, and of the efficiency-increasing effects of capital invested in skills. When considered from this point of view, our results show some similarity with those of Keesing [11], who finds that foreign trade patterns can be explained in terms of the differences in the labour- skill mix employed in different industries. This raises the interesting question-not explored here-whether Keesing's results could be further improved by introducing inter-industry differences in inputs of tangible capital.
Our results are obtained from tests undertaken for only two pairs of countries. Further tests involving a wider coverage would help to show whether the results have a more general validity.
University of Surrey.
APPENDIX TABLE
COMPARATIVE COST RATIOS, CAPITAL/LABOUR RATIOS AND SCALAR DIFFERENCES IN PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Japanl United States
Agriculture 1P68 19 51 0 37 0-13 0-22
Coal Mining 0 84 4 87 0 53 0 14 0 12
Metal Mining 0 84 13 34 0 57 0 32 0 27
Non-metallic Mining 0 95 10 37 0 78 0 56 0 53
Processed Foods 1 95 5 11 0 37 0 25 0 38
Textiles 0 48 2-76 0 34 0 44 0-21
Leather Products 0-41 1 01 0.19 042 0-17
Paper 086 731 053 032 027
Chemicals 0 92 8-32 1P13 0 35 0 32
Petroleum Products 1P86 38-18 0 36 1P25 2-29
Coal Products 0 54 35-85 1.90 095 0 51
Non-metallic Mineral
Products 1P21 5 95 0 41 0-17 0 21
Iron and Steel 0 98 8 60 0.99 0 90 0 88
Non-ferrous Metals 1P65 11-45 1P15 0 69 1P13 Perul United States
Shirts 77 29 1 04 1 81 40 70 31 46
Shoes 62 53 2 63 2-10 54-41 34 02
Hosiery 87 53 428 403 29 63 25 94
Leather Tanning 129-52 6 92 3 47 33-10 42-87 Cotton Textiles 169 65 8 65 4-15 27 66 46 93 Glass Containers 122 64 9 85 7 15 34-36 42-14
Tyres 77 56 15-94 11 82 56 90 44-13
Raw Sugar 82 65 21P09 23 11 80 52 66 55
Chemicals 47 51 23 35 14-89 97-92 46-52
Wheat Flour 74-90 24 50 17-54 73-78 54 43
Cement 93-94 93-33 20 38 85 52 80 34
United Kingdom/United (1) (2) (3)
States
Food Manufacturing 0 57 4 35 2 22
Beverage Industries 0 81 7 69 2 78
Tobacco Manufactures 1*05 8 33 3-23
Textiles 0 80 3-85 1-79
Clothing and Footwear 0 55 2 56 1 45
Lumber and Furniture 0 92 4 00 1 43
Paper and Products 1 06 6-67 1P72
Printing and Publishing 0 73 5 00 2 00
Leather and Products 0 73 3 85 2-38
Rubber Products 0 67 5 00 204
Chemicals 2 55 8-33 2 44
Non-metallic Mineral
Products 0 66 4 76 1P92
Basic Metals 0-79 5-56 2 08
Metal Products 0 70 5-00 1P75
4
TABLE-continued
(1) (2) (3)
Machinery (excl. Elect.) 0 92 5 56 1P75
Electrical Machinery 0 79 5 26 1 66
Automobiles, Trucks and
Tractors 1P13 7T69 1P69
Other Transport Equip- 0-62 4-35 2-00
ment
Miscellaneous Industries 070 4 76 1 64
Notes
For the Japanesel United States comparison:
Column (1) Unit costs in Japan relative to units costs in the United States.
(2) Capitalllabour ratios in the United States, $1,000 per man year.
(3) ,, , , ,,Japan,,, ,
(4) Scalar differences in production functions.
(5) Estimated cost ratios if production functions were identical between countries, i.e. column (4) multiplied by column (1).
The notes for the Peruvian comparison are the same, mutatis mutandis, as the above. For the United Kingdom comparison columns (2) and (3) are output/labour ratios for the United States and the United Kingdom respectively; these are used in lieu of the capital/labour ratios (data for which are not available) since under the Heckscher-Ohlin assumptions the ranking of industries by capital/labour ratios is the same as the ranking by outputllabour ratios.
Sources: For the Japanese comparison, column (1) is value added per $ output taken from Chenery and Watanabe ([7], pp. 508-10 and 517-19); columns (2), (3) and (4) are from Arrow et al. ([1], Table 5, p. 240 and Table 7, p. 242). Data for the Peruvian and the United Kingdom comparisons are from Clague ([6], Table 1, p. 489, and Table 2, p. 492) and from Bombach and Paige ([5], Table 9, p. 33), respectively.
REFERENCES
[1] Arrow, K., et al., "Capital-Labour Substitution and Economic Efficiency", Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 43 (1961).
[2] Balassa, B., "An Empirical Demonstration of Classical Comparative Cost Theory", Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 45 (1963).
[3] Basevi, G., "The US Tariff Structure: Estimates of Effective Rates of Pro- tection of US Industries and Industrial Labour", Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 48 (1966).
[4] Bhagwati, J., "The Pure Theory of International Trade", in Surveys of Economic Theory, vol. 2, 1965.
[5] Bombach, G. and D. Paige, A Comparison of National Output and Pro- ductivity of the United Kingdom and the United States, OEEC, Paris, 1959.
[6] Clague, C., "An International Comparison of Industrial Efficiency: Peru and the United States", Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 49 (1967).
[7] Chenery, H. B. and T. Watanabe, "International Comparisons of the Structure of Production", Econometrica, vol. 26 (1958).
[81 Hufbauer, G. C., Synthetic Materials and the Theory of International Trade, 1965.
[9] Johnson, H. G., Comparative Cost and Commercial Policy Theory for a Developing World Economy, Stockholm, 1968.
Jones, R., "Factor Proportions and the Heckscher-Ohlin Theorem", Review of Economic Studies, vol. XXIV (1956-57).
[11] Keesing, D. B., "Labor Skills and International Trade: Evaluating Many Trade Flows with a Single Measuring Device", Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 47 (1965).
[12] Kenen, P. B., "Nature, Capital and Trade", Journal of Political Economy, vol. LXXIII, (1965).
[13] , "Efficiency Differences and Factor Intensities in the CES Production Function: An Interpretation", Journal of Political Economy, vol. 74 (1966).
[14] Leontief, W. W., "Domestic Production and Foreign Trade: The American Capital Position Re-examined", Economica Internazionale, vol. 7 (1954).
[15] MacDougall, G. D., "British and American Exports: A Study Suggested by The Theory of Comparative Costs, Part I", Economic Journal, vol. LXI (1951).
[16] Posner, M. V., "International Trade and Technical Change", Oxford Eco- nomic Papers, vol. 13 (1961).
[17] Stern, R., "British and American Productivity and Comparative Costs in International Trade", Oxford Economic Papers, vol. 14 (1962).
[18] Travis, W. P., The Theory of Trade and Protection, Cambridge, Mass., 1964.
[19] , "The Effective Rate of Protection and the Question of Labor Protec- tion in the United States", Journal of Political Economy, vol. 76 (1968).
[20] Vernon, R., "International Investment and International Trade in the Product Cycle", Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. LXXX (1966).
