PROJECT EVALUATION 19 extensively and specifically. 6 See among others, "Symposium on the Little-Mirlees Manual'5, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, vol, 34 February 1972; A Rudra, "Use of Shadow Prices in Project Evaluation^, Indian Economic Review, vol VII, April 1972. 7 See J Quirk and R Saposnik, op. cit. 8 See M H Dobb, Welfare Economics and the Economics of Socialism, Cambridge University Press, 1969. 9 P Sraffa, Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities, Cambridge University Press, 1960. It must be carefully noted that the term "distribution" in the Walrasian context refers to initial endowments of individual economic agents, while in the Sraffian framework, it refers to distribution of net product between wages and profits. 10 M H Dobb, Welfare Economics and the Economics of Socialism, op. cit., p 5. 1 * See P A Baran, The Political Economy of Growth, Monthly Review Press, New York 1962; D Felix, "Technological Dualism in Late Industrializers", Journal of Economic History, vol 34, March 1974; and R K Sau, Indian Economic Growth: Constraints and Prospects, Orient Longmans, New Delhi 1973. la In some cases, especially for certain export commodities for LD^s, it may not at all be relevant either in the sense of being infeasible or in the sense of very low marginal export revenue or very high import cost. 18 T Szentes, The Political Economy of Under development, Akademiai Kiado Budapest 1971. 14 See M Barrat-Brown, The Economics of Imperialism, Penguin Books, London 1974 and references cited therin. 15 Ibid', sources cited in ch II. 1 e Cf. W Rodney: "Europe exported to Africa goods which were already being produced and used in Europe itself—Dutch linen, Spanish iron, English pewter, Portuguese wines, French brandy, Venetian glass beads, German muskets etc... Above all European decision-making power was exercised in selecting what Africa should export —in accordance with European needs." Cited in C Y Thomas, Dependence and Transformation, Monthly Review Press, New York 1974. 17 For evidence on this point, see C Y Thomas, op. cit,, and references cited therein, See also H B Chenery, ^Comparative Advantage and Development Policy", American Economic Review vol 5 1, March 1961. 18 See, among others, R K Sau, op. cit. 19 The force of our argument is enhanced when we consider very large projects which essentially introduce a whole new range of outputs to the economy. In this connection the conceptual difficulties associated with the notion of "marginal product'* of labour should be underscored. It also seems most extraordinary to suggest that the agricultural wage rate is a proxy for the "marginal product"of labour in agriculture, when a significant production of agricultural labour is performed under feudal and semi-feudal relations of production. 20 See A Arrighi, "International Corporations, Labour Aristocracies and Economic Development in Tropical Africa", in R I Rhodes (ed.) Imperialism and Underdevelop» ment. Monthly Review Press, New York 1970. 21 See M Kidron, Foreign Investments in India, OUP, 1965, and R K Sau, op. cit. 22 TCAs can also be between state-owned corporations of a developed economy and the LDC, as is usually the case in agreements between LDCs and socialist countries, 28 V N Balasubramanyam, International Transfer of Technology to India, Praeger, New York 1973,p5. 24 Reserve Bank ofIndia, Foreign Collaboration in Indian Industry: A Survey Report, IS 68. 25 Ibid., table 35, p 83. 26 Ibid,, table 19, p 97. 27 See D Felix, op. cit., and R K Sau, op. cit., and references cited therein. 28 D Felix, op. cit. 29 A K Sen, P Dasgupta and S A Marglin, op. cit., p p 257.