TRIBUTE TRANSFER AND BALANCE OF PAYMENTS 45 the fact that a full one-third of the CEHI is ostensibly devoted to regional economy. The Report of the Land Revenue Commission, Bengal (Floud Commission), finds no mention in the list of official publications, nor does the Report of Royal Commission on Labour. The Report of the Deccan Riots Commission is omitted, as is the report on the indigo disturbances. No matter how 'select' the bibliography is claimed to be, the omission of such basic references cannot but lay the editors open to* the charge of doing a far from competent job. After all, if the CEHI is expected to be read, it will be as a book of reference, not for its far from brilliant analysis. It goes without saying that the bibliography refers neiter to Marx's writings on colonialism, nor to R Paime Dutt's India Today* Soviet scholars of Indian economic history (Levkovsky, Pavlov) are studiously ignored, though A I Ghicherovhas somehow found his way into the section on pre-colonial economy. The total neglect of labour in India is reflected in the absence of any reference to J Kuczynski's monumental study, or to S J Palel's pioneering little book on agricultural labourers. K K Sengupta's study of peasant revolts finds no mention, nor does Sunil Sen's work; there is a remarkable obsence of awareness of regional language works on peasant resistance movements. J M Keynes treatment of the drain of wealth is ignored, as are the books by B N Ganguli and Bipan Chandra, apart from the omission of Theodore Morrison mentioned earlier. The student of Indian economic history should be warned that he will be seriously misled if he expects to find in the volume under review, a representative list of references. While on the subject of editing, mention must be made of the distressing plethora of howlers, albeit mainly of a very minor nature; phrases such as ^absolute share of the market9' or "real wages of factors of production" could surely have been edited out before reaching the stage of cold print. More serious is the incomprehensible statistical exercise carried out by A Heston in his paper on Natural Income, in which he tries to establish that agricultural output grew substantially with rise in cultivated area. He informs us that "we estimated total value of production as a linear function of gross sown acreage for the years 1891-2 to 1899-1900, which was a period with little trend in sown acreage. The corretation {sic) was R2^^^, and the estimated relation is value of output =Rs 11,925 million -j- Rs 143(=fc53) acreage in millions; when the elasticity of output with respect to acreage is calculated at the mean values of both variables, it is 1.62. This suggests that a 10 per cent change in acreage from normal would produce a 16.2 per cent change in output with the range being 9.5 to 22.9 per cent at one standard deviation of the estimated coefficient." (p 433).* First, what point is there trying to explain statistically the variation in output (y) by selecting as the independent variable sown acreage (x), * All page references are to the Orient Longman edition of the Cambridge Economic History of India.