DISCUSSION

MAHALANOBIS

I am tremendously interested in what I have heard. It is extremely
 exciting to me, if I have understood the general outlook of the
paper. I am not an economist and have a very superficial knowledge
pf marginal analysis and other classical approaches. I should like
‘0 check my impressions by asking some questions to see whether I
nave understood the paper correctly. I am not quite clear about
« equilibrium ». The objective is full employment of labour, capital
and, I take it, also of all natural resources. How would natural
resources come into the picture? I am not quite clear about the
mplication of the word « equilibrium » in this connexion. The
anderdeveloped countries have a problem of growth; the equilibrium
approach appears to me to be essentially static, because if any function
 of time is introduced which in some way can be calculated
or in some way estimated, that is, of absorbing the time-dimension
50 to say, then the approach would still remain static. That is, a
mere formal inclusion of time does not make the system dynamic;
many so-called dynamic models seem to me to be essentially static.
The implication of the word « equilibrium » in this context is not
lear. In any case, Dr. Pasinetti asked whether any one was inteested
 in such questions; I could very clearly and emphatically declare
 that there is one person around this table who is.

10] Pasinetti - pag. 119