SEMAINE D'ÉTUDE SUR LE ROLE DE L’ANALYSE ECONOMETRIQUE ETC. 
103 
that is, what is likely to happen as long as the same historical regime 
continues. On the other hand, we can use the word « target » in 
the sense of purposive selection of something which is desired to be 
achieved. The two words « target » and « projection », before a 
clear distinction was made, led to much confusion in India. This 
is the type of terminology I had in mind; I do not know whether 
Professor KooPMANS will have any objection to that. 
KOOPMANS 
[ think, as Prof. MAHALANOBIS notes, that « macro » and « mi- 
cro » economics, is a fine example of the natural selection of terms 
that I have referred to. This terminology, originally coined, | 
believe, by Prof. FriscH in the ’30s, caught on and is now part 
of the language. I think the example of « East » and « West » as 
a terminology in model construction of the world economy is an 
example of the thing I am afraid of; the content of « East » is chang- 
ing before our eyes; the content of « West » will as well be changing 
sooner or later. If we set up standard terms for parts of the world 
which we wish to distinguish, terms which in some way get a stamp 
of approval from a terminology creating committee, we may actually 
inhibit thought and analvsis. 
PASINETTI 
I should like to make simply a short remark. There is a distinc- 
tion which I thought emerged quite clearly both from Prof. FriscH’s 
paper and from Prof. STONE’s paper, but which has been left into 
the shadow in the discussion so far. The distinction is between those 
relations which in an economic system are so fundamental as to be 
independent of the institutional set-up that society has chosen to 
adopt and those relations which are specific to a particular institu- 
tional set-up. For example Prof. LEONTIEF’s input-output inter 
industry system is independent of institutions: it is a kind of ana 
‘11 Stone - pag. 101