EXCESO OE Co P1 RA DONAR CPR UPR RP
TEDIAS SOBRE ECONOh4IA DE PUERTO RICO
Serie de Conferencias y Foros:
Número 8
EQUITY AND EFFICIENCY CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING HIGHER EDUCATION IN PUERTO RICO
Dra. Irma G. Tirado de Alonso Catedrática Asocia'i, U.P.R., Rio Piedras
UNIYERSIQAD DE PUERTO RICO FACULTA1 DE CIENCIAS SOCIALES DEPARTAMENTO DE ECONOMIA RIO PIEDRAS, PUERTO RICO
\
J
EXCESO DE COPIA PARA DONAR CPR UPR RP
UNIVERSIDAD DE PUERTO RICO Facultad de Ciencias Sociales Departamento de Economía Río Piedras, Puerto Rico
EQUITY AND EFFICIENCY CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING HIGHER EDUCATION IN PUERTO RICO
Dra. Irma G. Tirado de Alonso
SERIE DE CONFERENCIAS Y FOROS: NU4ERO 8
Unidad de Investigaciones Económicas
Angel L. Ruíz Director
Miguel A. Ramírez Pérez Coordinador de Publicaciones Ad Honorem
Diciembre 1977
AL CONCLUI'^ ESTAS PUBLICACIONES
Con esta publicación, que es una de diéz que salen con fecha de diciembre de 1977, concluye asta humilde aportación para estimular la investigación econó-
al juzgarse por nuestras proyecciones
r
mica que iniciamos hace poco más de dos años.
Es una conclusión muy temprana
por el momentum desarrollado en la demanda
por, y en contribuciones para, nuestras publicaciones.
Sólo la convicción de
estar realizando una labor necesaria había evitado una conclusión más temprana. Pero llega el momento en que surten su impacto negativo el capricho y la arbitrariedad en decisiones adminístrativas de la alta jerarquía de este Recinto Universitario--de cuyas decisiones no podemos enjuiciar motivaciones ni propssitos--y la convicción del deber extraordinario en nuestra labor tiene que ceder ante la cuestión de principios. Al momento de concluir procede hacer reconocimiento a quienes han colaborado en nuestros esfterzos.
Er.. términos generales, reconocemos la colaboración
de los directores de unidades que nos permitieron acceso al equipo, facilidades y personal.
Sobresalen el Centro de Investigaciones Sociales, el extinto Centro
de Investigaciones Pedagógicas, el Instituto de Caribe y el Instituto de Relaciones del Trabajo, la Oficina de Planificación y Desarrollo de este Recinto y los Centros de Oficinistas del Coieio de Ciencias Sociales, de Planifícación y de la Escuela de Administración Pública.
de la Escuela
En particular, reco-
nocemos la gran labor de nuestra secretaria, milagros Pagán de Medina
y el
extraordinario y multifacético trabajo de Diego Martinez Luján y Rafael Collazo Fred, quienes en un momento u otro contaron con la ayuda de un grupo nutrido de estudiantes del Programa de Estudio y Trabajo.
Entre éstos y otros colaboradores
--mayormente personal secretarial-- están Aida Luz Fulero, Ivonne de Jesús Algarín, Carmen Ana Domínguez, Rita Fontánez, Carmen r1. Delgado Castrillo
y
z
Rosa A. Alvarado Vázquez; Eduardo Colunge Guerrero, ilyrna Serrano Casanovas, :iavirdia Vélez Vélez, Luz Iíagali Orellana Reyes, Daniel Peralta Rivera, Eduardo Pacheco Alejandro, José L. Ruiz Febres, Livia Curet, "_liriam Candelaria Ramos, iigdalia Rivera Avilés y Pedro I. Torres Amador.
Un reconocimiento especial
procede para Rafael Rivera ;.:osa, ilustrador de la Revista de Ciencias Sociales. También reconocemos el enorme estímulo que siempre dieron a estas publicaciones el doctor Angel Luis Ruíz, Director de la Unidad de Investigaciones Económicas, la doctora Irma G. Tirado de Alonso, ex-directora de nuestro Departamento de Economía, y otros compañeros claustrales.
Por último, reconocemos el entu-
siasmo y esfuerzos de cada uno de los autores--profesores, conferenciantes, servidores público,
estudiantes graduados--que aportaron sus trabajos para
publicación.
II.A. .P. Diciembre 1977
NOTA El ensayo presente resume una conferencia bajo el mismo titulo que la autora dictó en la Universidad Internacional de Florida el 11 de mayo de 1977. La doctora Irma Tirado de Alonso es Profesora Asociada Visitante en el Departamento de Economía en la Universidad Internacional de Florida. Está en uso de licencia de nuestro Departamento de Economía en el Recinto Universitario de Río Piedras, del cual fue su directora por tres años hasta el pasado mes de agosto.
UNIVERSIDAD DE PUERTO RICO FacultG:l de Ciencias Sociales Departamento d Economía R: o Piedras, Pu arto Rico
EQUITY AND EFFICIENCY CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING HIGHER EDUCATION IN PUERTO RICO Irma G. Tirado de Alonso
INTRODUCTION The purpose of this paper is to show that there are inequities and inefficiencies in the present state of provision and financing of higher education in Puerto Rico. It will sustain that by certain changes in the financing of education some results could be obtained :o improve both equity and efficiency. The Government of Puerto Rico has been c'eveting for many years around 30 percent of its general budget to the fina:.ng of education. In 1976-77 that budget financed 90 percent of primary and secondary education and 4S percent of higher education. This latter percentage ias ailoted to the University of Puerto Rico, which is a p lic institution, Incidentally, this allotment to the University of Puerto Rico represented a growing budget for higher education in the f e of relative loss in enrollment by the State University ir: terms of total enrollment in higher education in the Commonwealth in a seven year span. Out of a total enrollment of 64,449 in 1970-71, the University of Puerto Rico enrolled 66.0 percent.
BY
1976-76 total enrollment i.ncrea-ed to 111,311 while the State University's
2 share declined to 45.1 per cent of the total. This implies that enrollment at private institutior increased at the rate of 177 percent
almost a tripli-
cation of the 1970-71 level. Meanwhile, the absolute increase in enrollment at the State University was a mere 11.8 percent. In short, private institutions are now providing a greater quantity of the higher education. The latter is more expensive than public educationl' and presumably of a lower quality than that provided at the State University.Y What can be inferred from these data? This paper is divided into three parts. In the first part we will be dealing with efficiency considerations. The second part deals with equity considerations and the third with a proposal to explore new ways of financing higher education in Puerto Rico. There is a statistical appendix which includes all relevant data. I. EFFICIEi'CY CONSIDERATIONS The, rationale for the public provision of education is based on the common principles of externalities, social cohesion andimperfections in thé market, among others. The first argument is that the society benefits from the education acquired by its citizen and.that these benefit. not only accrue. to the edúcated but to the society as well. It is argued that if the citizens are left to choose,. their education would be less Than desirable, and therefore the governniant
principle of "merit goods". This principle is considered to be very
important,
should intervene so as to guarantee a desirable minimum. This is the 1thm
but there, is no strong evidence that backs this argument and possibly it is
l'Average annual tuition at private universities in Puerto Rico is four to five times higher than at the State University. - This is as it can be inferred fron the minimum standards required of the` college entrance examination results.
3 not as important as it has come to be believed. The method used .to estimate this value is the difference between the social and the private rates of return of the education. These rates have been calculated for a vast number of countries, showing very high as well as very low rates which indicate the need
to these rates is the calculation of the foregone earnings of students,
as
for some progress in this area (Blaug, 1976). The interesting matter related they
constitute a very important part of costs.,/ With respect to social cohesion, its achievement is believed to be easier if most of the students attend the same educational institutions and share common experiences with others. This could certainly be a proper case for the defense of the public provision of education. However, there are ways of
public
escaping from it, as those that have the ability to pay could choose a noninstitution. The argument of the imperfections in the market draws on the fear that if left to private and/or parrochial institutions, education might become a monopoly. This would jeopardize other ends the society may have, such as religious freedom. These three important conditions justify government intervention in the education market. This intervention can take the form of regulating, providing and/or financing the activity. However, not all of these conditions support government intervention through educational regulation, provision and financing. As a matter of fact, this form of intervention can be obsolete,
Puerto Rico. This brings
us
as evidenced by the increase in private institutions of higher education in to a related topic, that of equity in governmental
intervention in education, which will be examined in the next section.
l/In previous studies carried out by the author, this cost came to be 70 percent of the total cost in Puerto Rico. But given the high rates of unemployment, is, it reasonable to include it as a cost?
4 One possible way of determining how efficient an activity has been is by measuring its productivity. : In other words, one must look at the relation-
is
ship between the inputs utilized and the output(s) obtained.
In education it
difficult to apply this concept because, although it is easy to add all the
inputs in monetary tenis, it is not possible to do the same for the output(s) of education.
On the input side we could add the money value of time inputs
by teachers, students and aciiiinistrators as well as the estimated value of classrooms, books, and other educational materials. • allow fo.r changes in prices and quality.
The monetary estimates would
On the output side we face some
First, .education is not usually sold in the market and it does not
problems.
have a:.price.,. 3ut even if it could be assigned a price, the resulting money value would be exceeded by the benefits, given the externalities.
Second, the
We could conclude, therefore, that there objectives:
will
education activity is multidimensional so that there is more than one output. be as many outputs as there are
cultural, social, economic, and so on.
It is possible to use
proxies of these objectives to obtain measures of the productivity of education, as developed by Woodhall and Bl ug (1965) in .London. The Method designed by g4loodhall and 31aug estimates a co,nposite index of the inputs of education and relates it to an index of output of education. Output is measured in terms of the graduates and school-leavers wighted by
twice
in
proxies of tfie objectives of the education.
Such a method has been applied
Puerto luco, first to estimate tree productivity of secondary public
nigh schools: (Tirado, 1969) and *hen for the largest (Rio Piedras) campus of the public university in Puerto Rico (Rosado, 1973) .
The findings in both
studies point to increases as well as decreases in the productivity of education when the various objectives are considered.
The ilsportant thing to mention
is that the "economic" objective was:achieved"with greater efficiency than the "academic" objective.
We wonder if this was the intended order of objectives
S in Puerto Rico because if it were, then the school is preparing the students just for the labor market. But if at the same time we find a high rate of unemployment in Puerto Rico--as a later reference will show--then the educational system is not efficient in providing the necessary education needed in relation. to the labor market. Another possible indicator of efficiency is afforded through the results of the college entrance examinations. Let's take a closer look at this possibility. A study by the Council of Higher Education of Puerto Rico in 1969 showed, first, that students from higher income classes have more access to the University of Puerto Rico; second, that usually students with higher family incomes attended private secondary schools, and third, that students in private universities (with higher tuition costs) came froru the i idd1e and lower-income classes who attended public secondary schools. These facts point to two different kinds of problems: (1) a difference in the quality of public versus private secondary education, and (2) a problem of equity. The latter will be analyzed later on. Healing first with the quality of secondary education, the fact is that students from private schools have more access to the University of Puerto Rico. This can be taken as an indication that private education is of superior quality as the University of Puerto Rico requires for admission higher entrance examination results than private universities. This fact could also imply that the quality of private higher education is lower than that of the public university, granted that those admitted at private universities come from public secondary schools. On the other hand, it is possible that quality is the same at both public and private universities, while students may differ in their achievement. Furthermore, it is possible that many courses at the university,level just overcome difficiences at the secondary school level. This is more likely to happen at private universities than at the State University in Puerto Rico.
If,a system is inequitable
in
6 providing a service that is intended to equal-
ize opportunities, it certainly is inefficient. II. EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS The question we address to when we consider the problem of equity is who
or
not.
provides the funds for the financing of education and whether it is regressive Financing of public education in Puerto Rico comes from the State
government's general fund and from United States federal funds. At thé State University, for year 1975-76, average annual tuition and fees were $188 for undergraduate students while the estimated cost per student financed from the general fund was approximately $2,000. The addition of federal funds to this cost increases the same to more than $3,000 per FTE student. There is no doubt that there is a fair amount of subsidy to higher public education in Puerto Rico. But, is it equitable? To answer this question we have to analyze the situation of the higher education 'Snarket" in Puerto Rico. The private sector of higher (or post-secondary) education has increased very rapidly in recent years. As implied from above, it provides at present 54.9 percent of the educational services. The average annual tuitim and fees
University of Puerto Rico. If one takes into consideration that the
best
in these universities is about $1,000,or over five times as large as in the
students attend the public university; that the latter is the least expensive institution, and that students' parents could afford part of the costs of educating their children, then it becomes obvious that the system of financing higher education in Puerto Rico is not equitable. This conclusion is reinforced by the aforemost fact that students who attend private universities are poorer and of lower academic achievement, receive a lower quality of education and at
90.0 percent of the funds for student-aid are received by students at thé cost University of Puerto Rico.
low-
the same time receive less financial support to pursue their studies. In fact,
7 The Rio Piedras Campus of the University of Puerto Rico is the largest one, comprising half of the enrollment of the State institution. The biographical data of the graduating class of 1978. that is, those students who were admitted in 1974, suggests that: (1) they had a grade point average (G.P.A.) at high school of 3.41 (out of a maximum c2 4.0); (2) they came from public and private schools in the proportion of 66 and 30 percent respectively, yet 57 percent of applicants from private sclioo]s were admitted against only 33% from public schools, (3) their parents had a university and/or secondary education; and (4) their fathers are professionals or technical workers while their mothers are usually housewifes,
v1e can conclude from these data that most of these
students would have gone to study with or without t;ie State subsidy. If one now r.elates the education niarket with the labor market, it can be inferred that the possible increase in the desire to continue post-secondary education (although it is expensive) comes as a result of the very high unemployment rate in Puerto Rico.
It is isually of the magnitude of 10 percent but in
the past years it has risen to an annual rate of o:rer 20 percent.
Around
70 percent of the unemployed are Liss than 35 years old. One must ask, will they get a job when they graduate? It is a 'rery i-rportant question for public policy and attentioi to it will prevent the u'employment of the educated, i.e. will they get the skills needed to acquire a job? The government intervention in this aspect is highly desirable.
It should inform students of occupations
that are likely to be demanded in the future. Furthermore, government should ii,►prove conditions of the capital market to finance education. Various alternatives have been suggested previously and the government of Puerto Rico should try to experiment with some of them with the purpose of making the
we
educational system more quitable and efficient. In the next part of this paper deal with son; of these alternatives. T1? Drinciples underlying all of them
are: (1) it is more efficient to subsidize the student rather than the
8 institution, (2) given that education is in part an investment, the student should bear part of the cost, (3) the subsidy should be in inverse proportion with the student's ability to pay and/or the family-income, and (4) the institutions, in their search for more students,will increase the quality of service they render. III.
A PROPOSAL TO EXPLORE NEW WAYS OF FINANCING HIGHER EDUCATION
Wé propose that, as a partial solution to the problem, the funds devoted in the públic budget to student aid be administered and distributed niore' equitably.
Efficient new forms of financing require that: (1) the State
University charge tuition and fees more in line with other universities in Puerto Rico, (2) Government should administer the funds, and (3) Government should supervise the quality of the educátion services.
Concurrently, more
funds should be devoted to students from low family incomes who have the capacity of benefiting from higher education.
It must be borne in mind that
if the subsidies are distributed equally, there will be inequities since' students from high income families are equally subsidized as students from low income families.
Moreover, if subsidies are distributed in inverse
proportion with family income, then inefficiencies cóuld result as prospective students from high income families might be less motivated towards higher éducation.
This suggests another inefficiency related tó the :kind or type
o€ education to be provided.
Both equity and efficiency are possible íf;
public funds are reassignea among the different types of educafiori'' ccording to the tequiréments of the occupational structure in the economy. This consideration is beyond the scope of this paper.
Our alternatives cóver'fotfr points. system of vouchers for education.
In the first
place, we propose a
Friedman (1962), Péacóck and Wiseman
(1964), West (1967) and Blaug (1967) are among the leading economists who
9 have analyzed this alternative. The system would provide each qualified student a voucher to 'buy', in this case higher education, in public or private instititions. The voucher could vary in value in inverse proportion with the per capita family income of the student -'. As a second alternative, the University of Puerto Rico could explore the possibility of instituting the postponement of the payment of tuition, as is now been done at the University of Yale and the University of Duke. This system has been found to be uore equitable than the usual system of federal loans. They have longer maturity, usually 30 to 35 years, and the repayment period begins when the student starts earning and pays in proportion of the income received, rather than a fixed amount for fewer years. But to be equitable, the interest rates for the poorer should be subsidized and it should be possible to postpone the whole amount of tuition and fees instead of only the annual increases intuition and fees, as done both at Yale and Duke. In the third place, Government can intervene by improving the capital market so that students can get funds in loans not only to pay tuition and fees but also to cover part of their costs in terms of foregone earnings.
If these
loans are to be equitable, they should be made available in larger amounts per student, at lengthly maturities, and possibly with subsidized interest rates. _ .. As a fourth alternative, the Government of Puerto Rico should explore the possibility of establishing a tax similar to the Ohio tax plan. This tax is imposed upon the recipients of public higher education when their incomes exceededithe amount of $7,500 taxable income. This special bill would supply grants to students of low-income classes and would be a way of achieving greater equity. In this way the former recipients of public higher education would repay the subsidies received. l'This alternative has been analyzed in a previous work by the author for the Puerto Rico Planning Board: Nuevos enfoques para el financiamiento de la educación en Puerto Rico, 1972.
10 IV. SUvvLARY AND CONCLUSIONS The provision of higher education in Puerto Rico is found to be inefficient and inequitable when it is provided and financed by Government. There has been a significant rise of private higher education institutions in Puerto Rico. It can be inferred that this increase c3uld be in response to the high rates of unemployment in Puerto Rico. Due to the fact that the poorer students are attending the private institutions that have higher tuition and fees, Government should intervene in the system. We propose that the funds assigned in the budget for financial aid should be distributed among all qualified students according to their needs; that the capital market be made less imperfect, and that additional funds be raised along the Ohio tax plan. It can be concluded that it is necessary to explore new alternative arrangemBnts of the provision and/or the financing of higher education in order to achieve both more efficiency and equity.
11
BIBLIOGRAPHY Blaug, riI. Economic Aspects of Vouchers for Education? in Education: A Framework for Choice, London, 1967. Blaug, N. "The Empirical Status of Human Capital Theory: A Slightly Jaundiced Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XIV, No. 3 (Sept. 1976). • Freedman, iv1. "The Role of Government in Education," in Capitalism and Freedom, Chicago, 1962. Peacock, A. T. and J. Wiseman. Education for Democrats, London, 1964. Rosado, A. L. Productividad y eficiencia en la educación superior del Recinto de Rio Piedras, U.P.R., 1955-1970, Unpublished í1.A. thesis, U.P.R., 1973. T~.rado, I.G. Aids to Financial Planning in Education: A Case Study.of Puerto Rico, Unp".4.ished Ph.D. dissertation, University of York, England, 1969. West, E.G.• Education and the State, London, 1965. Woodhall, Ivl. and M. Blaug. "Productivity Trends in British University Education, 1938-62," Minerva, Sept. 1965.
12
APPENDIX A ENROLL`AENT AT THE UNIVERSITIES OF PUERTO RICO: 1970-71 AND 1976-77
University
1970-71 Percent Number
1976-77 Percent Number
26,.912 8,506 1,383 1,850 1,967 1,898
41.76 13.20 2.15 2.87 3.05 2.94
24,216 9,130 2,120 2,350 3,233 9,175
21.76 8.20 1.90 2.11 2:D0 8.24
42,516
65.97
50,225
45.11
10.000 7,130 797 4,006
15.52 11.06 1.24 6.22
26,379 10,804 3,934 10,560 3,795 3,153 2,461
23.70 9.71 3.53 9.49 3.41 2.83 2.21
University of Puerto Rico Rio Piedras campus Mayaguez campus ¡Medical Sciences campus Cayey campus Humacao campus Regional colleges Total Private universities Interamerican University Catholic University Sacred Heart P. R. Junior College and 'lurabo World University Other private colleges Other post-secondary centers
-
Total
21,933
34.04
61,086
54.88
Grand Total
64,449
100.01
111,311
100.00
Source: University of Puerto Rico, Office of the President, Central Administration.
13
APPENDIX B BUDGETARY RECUíiENDATIONS FOR AID TO EDUCATION TO BE FtÑANCL3] BY THE GOVEINMENT OF PUERTO RICO: 1977
Itëii per institution
Amount
Departuent of Education General fund Special funds State funds ii. S. avenmient funds
$277,765,426 1,188,622 121,231,870 Total
$ 400,185,918
University of Puerto Rico General fund Special funds. State fü,ds U.S. government funds Other
$ 102,738,827 13,795,153 39,119,429 10,r854,904
" Total
$ 166,508,313
Grand total
$ 566,694,231
Studerit-aid funds For U.P.R. students, total
6,746,547 825,153 26,299,970
funds
-
State
General funds Special funds ands U.S. govérniaent
S. 33,871,670
For sutdents in private universities
4,442,200 Total
Source:
Bureau of tie Budget, isudget for 1977.
38,313,870
14
APPENDIX C • SELECTED DATA ON THE CLASS OF 1978: RIO PIEDRAS CAMPUS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO
Number of students applying to the University of Puerto Rico and related data, by public or private high school. High school
Applications
Admissions
Registrations
Total Public Private
10,394 7,763 2,631
4,066 2,555 1,511
3,117 2.179 938
school.
II. Percentage distribution of students by academic index per public or private high
Academic index
Applications Public Private
Admissions Public Private.
Registrations Public Private
3.0 or more
38.7
47.0
90.1
79.5
90.8
80.1
Less than 3.0
61.3
53.0
9.9
20.5
9.2
19.9
III. Average academic index and results of the College Entrance Examination per public and private schools.
School
Index
Aptitude Tests Verbal Math <
English
Academic Tests i Iath, Spanish
Public
3.45
575.6
552.6
527.7
591.4
538.8
Private
3.35
613.1
623.2
608.6
660.0
621.7
Both
3.41.
589.9
579.5
558.4
617.3
598.3
Source: University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras Campus, Dean of Students, Clase 1978, 1975.
Publicaciones de la Unidad de Investigaciones Económicas
TII1AS SOBRE ECONOHIA DE PUERTO RICO Serie de Conferencias y Foros
dam.
Núm. 1.
2:
José A. herrero, La economaía de Puerto Rico: noviembre 1975.
El presente crítico,
Jaime A. Santiago, Impacto de la recesión en Puerto Rico, febrero 1976.
Núm. 3:
Jaime A. Santiago, Objectives and Strategy for Economic Development: A Challenge, julio 1976.
Núm. 4:
Jaime A. Santiago, Conferencia sobre economía y población, septiembre 1976.
Núm. 5:
Rubén A. Vilches, Current Labor Force Perspectives & Problems in Puerto Rico, octubre 1976.
Núm. 6:
Jaime A. Santiago, L..t situación presupuestaria de 1976 y 1977 y sus efectos sobre la economía, diciembre 1976.
Núm. 7:
Elías R. Asón, Comentarios sobre las recomendaciones del uso de los fondos de las corporaciones 936, mayo 1977.
Núm. 8:
Irma C. Tirado de Alonso, Equity and Efficiency Considerations Concerning Higher Education in Puerto Rico, diciembre 1977.
Serie de Ensayos y Ionografías Alejandro Asmar, Análisis breve del Informe Tobin, junio 1976.
Núm. 2:
Samuel Torres Roman, La problemática económica de Puerto Rico, diciembre 1976.
Núm. 3:
Angel L. Ruíz, Enfoque de insumo-producto para determinar una política de sustitución de importaciones en Puerto mayo 1977.
Núm. 4:
Angel A. Rivera, Nodelo de costo-beneficio vara la evaluación de proyectos que sustituyan importaciones, junio 1977.
Núm. 5:
Angel L. Ruíz, Un análísis de la productividad en la industria de centrales y refinerías en Puerto Rico, diciembre 1977.
r;ico,
Núm. 1:
Serie de Temas Relacionados Núm. 1:
Walter Bruckman, Diseño y método de investigación en la ciencia económica, mayo 1977.
Núm. 2:
Stephen J. Hiemstra, Perspectives on Food Program Evaluation and Research, mayo 1977.
Núm. 3:
Angel L. Pluíz, Las conferencias cimeras de :ambouillet y Puerto Rico, mayo 1977.
Núm. 4:
Jaime A. Santiago, E,1 presupuesto ejecutivo: octubre 1977.
Reto al poder ejecutivo,
Núm. 5z . ~.iiguc~l A. Ramírez Pérez y iligdalia Rivera Avílés, secesión e inflación: Inaplicabilidad de la Curva Phillips a la economía de Puerto Rico, diciembre 1977.
TENS .DIVERSOS DE ECONOMIA Núm. 1:
Fuat y Suphan Andic, Puh:lic Finance, Developuent, and the Third World, d ciembre 1976.
Núm. 2:
Paul W. Strassman, housing Priorities in Déveloping Countries: ,Planning iiddel, enero 1977.
Núm. 3:
William J. Baumol,.Quasi Optimality, Price System, marzo 1977.
Núm. 4:
Angel L. Ruiz, La recuperacióp:.eeonóniea norteamericana y perspectivas par.á 1977,. junio 197?.
Núm. 5:
J. Vanek, Selfmanagement, Workers' Pianagemeñt and Labor Management in Theory. and Practice: A Comparative Study, julio 1977.
Núm. 6:
J. Vanek, The Absurdity of the Rich Men's Trade Doctrine and Institutions for the Present Day 7orld Economy and an Attempt to Reformulate, agosto 1977.
Núm. 7:
Karel lolbik, The International monetary System and the New International Order, noviembre 1977.
Núm. 8:
J. :. Dosworth y T. V. Somersall, The Analysis, of Taxable Capacity of LDC °s, noviembre 1977.
Núm. 9:
Ramón J. Cao García; Equilibrio y análisis económico, noviembre 1977.
Núm.lO:
Suphan Mdic, Industrializáti6n and Economic Integration: of Latin American Performance, diciembre 1977.
Núm.11:
Víctor A. Sepúlveda Rodríguez, Nunca veremos la mano invisible: proceso de difusión de capital, diciembre Z977.
A
The Price We Must Pay for a
(Continúa...)
An Evaluation
El
Núm. 12:
Evelyn Ramos de Jesús, Apuntes sobre desarrollo económico: ciembre 1977.
I, di-
Núm. 13:
Evelyn Ramos de Jesús, Apuntes sobre desarrollo económico: diciembre 1977.
II,
SEPARATAS Núm.
1:
Richard A. Posner, The Economic Approach to Law, 1976.
Núm.
2:
Richard A. lus;rave, ET . , OT . , and S . B .T . , 1976.
Núm.
3:
Fuat . Andic y Arthur iann, Secular Tendencies in the Inequality of Earnings in Puerto Rico, febrero 1977.
Núm.
4:
Arthur J. iann, Public Expenditure Patterns in the Dominican Republic and Puerto i.ico, 1930-1970, septiembre 1977.
Núm.
5:
Arthur J. iiann, The Fiscal System and Income Distribution: Case of Puerto iico, septiembre 1977.
1úm.
6:
Arthur J. Tíana y Donald Perlis, Utility Functions, Public Goods, and Income Distribution, septiembre 1977.
Núm.
7:
Suphan Andic y Parimal Choudhury, Direct Subsidies and Income Redistribution: The Food Stamp Program in Puerto Rico, octubre 1977.
Núm.
8.
Fuat i . Andic, Poverty and Tax Incidence in West Malaysia, diciembre 1977.
The
RES EÍ`AS Núm.
1:
Elena ii. Diaz, Economic Theory and the Developing Countries.- por Ajit K. Dasgupta, diciembre 1977.
Núm.
2:
i_iriam Borrero, Economic Theory and the Developing Countries - por Ajit K. Dasgupta, diciembre 1977.
~