Charles P. Kindleberger

Discussion of the Paper by Mr Shonfield

Professor Wallich said the paper began with sceptical observations about the efficiency of regional blocs, but did not conclude that no further attempts should be made to set them up. Instead, Mr Shonfield suggested where regional groups could make a contribution.

Discussion of the Paper by Professor Pinto Barbosa

Professor Wallich said he found that the paper by Professor Pinto Barbosa bore on the hypothesis that a country’s system of preferences depended on its historical experiences. Portugal’s experience was one of monetary, political and economic instability. Recently, Portugal had succeeded in the sense of having a high degree of monetary and political stability, though perhaps at the expense of the rate of growth. Recently, perhaps Portugal’s policies had been too conservative because it was too bent on stable development and stable money. Germany’s preferences came from analogous historical experience. Perhaps what happened in Germany explained the present conditions in the world rather more than what happened in Portugal. Again, one had an experience of inflation and of violent dictatorship, which coloured what many Germans thought about stability and inflation.

Discussion of the Paper by Professor Kindleberger

Professor Sohmert said that in the first part of his paper Professor Kindle- berger held that arguments for ‘cosmopolitan’ policy solutions were economic; arguments against were mostly political. Many countries and their inhabitants had different preferences. There was a case for allowing them to pursue these to some extent, even if this led to non-optimal results in purely economic terms.

Discussion of the Paper by Professor Eastman

Professor Scott said that much of the basic research on Canada’s international position had been done by Professor Eastman. His first theme in this paper was that Canada’s was a very open economy, so that comparative advantage and factor supply position were important. Both present comparative advantages and the tariff policies of other countries led to highly capital-intensive activities, to a heavy draft on Canada’s domestic savings and to big foreign investment — especially from the United States.

Discussion of the Paper by Professor Wallich

Professor Robinson, in the chair, said that during the first four sessions of the Round Table it was intended to find possible areas of conflict between the interests of North America and of Europe. It was necessary to get the interests of each area clear, as seen by its inhabitants. Professor Wallich would talk about the interests of the United States. Professor Robinson said that, as Chairman of the Programme Committee, he had deliberately asked another American participant to comment on this paper in order to try to make it as clear as possible what were the interests of the United States. The same would be done in the following session for Canada, and later papers and their discussions would deal similarly with the areas of Europe.

Discussion of the Papers by Professors Ashton, Campbell and Fauvel

Professor Robinson introduced the discussion. He said that in a previous session we had looked at possible conflicts in international monetary policy. The programme committee had tried to identify three other sensitive areas: agriculture, industry, and migration and movement. The Round Table would begin by looking at agriculture with three very complementary papers.

Discussion of the Paper by Mr Maddison

Professor Rasmussen introduced the paper. He noted that the papers at the Round Table ranged, in terms of length, from 9 to 125 pages — the shortest, Mr Maddison’s paper, even having 3 of its 9 pages made up of tables. In the lottery organised by the Programme Chairman, Professor Robinson, it appeared on the surface that he had gained. More profound judgement, however, might show that he was in a difficult position because of the range of problems by Mr Maddison. The paper was an iceberg — the overwhelming part of the substance being below the water. Consider the table of contents one might construct out of Mr Maddison’s paper: (1) ‘Trends in International Trade in the Post-war Period in Historical Perspective’ — pp. 163–5; (2) ‘Measures of the Gain from Trade’ — pp. 165–7 a conference in its own — and worth organising); (3) ‘Present Trends in Policy’ — pp. 167–70; (4) ‘Capital Flows’ — p. 170; (5) ‘Conclusion’ — p. 171.

Discussion of the Paper by Professor Plotnikov

Professor Khachaturov said there were two parts to the paper. The first looked at co-operation in Eastern Europe; the second at co-operation between Eastern and Western Europe and the United States. Professor Plotnikov explained that in relations between socialist countries the C.M.E.A. played a decisive part.

Discussion of the Papers by Professors Houssiaux and Dunning

Professor Izzo opened the discussion. He said that Professor Houssiaux had tried to outline the main characteristics of industrial policy in Europe and com- pare them with those in the United States; he then considered the integration of the industrial policies of the European countries; finally, he examined the possi- bility of conflicts on industrial policy between Europe and America and argued for the co-ordination of industrial policy in Europe and the United States.

Discussion of the Paper by M. Albert

Professor Houssiaux identified a number of issues raised in the paper. First, there was the existence of comparative advantages between North America and Europe. Were these evolving before the Common Market came into existence and if so, in what sense? M. Albert had showed the way in which wage costs moved and how the structure of trade altered.