Search results

AK During the past academic year the Computer Board, which is the controlling body for the financing of university computers, has issued its first report, covering the period up to October 1968, which was published as a Command paper in June 1969. Perhaps more significant, in its immediate effects, was that the Board introduced a procedure, in February 1969, whereby each university will be asked to submit, each year, forward estimates of its computing equipment requirements for each of the following three years. The first of such three‐year forward estimates were called for, by the end of the academic year 1968/69, to cover the financial years 1970/71 to 1972/73. Such a rationalization of the Board's procedures must be applauded warmly for it will certainly simplify the Board's own task of producing its five‐year programme. Inevitably though, it has been noticeable that specific applications already in the hands of the Board before the introduction of this new procedure have been held in limbo awaiting an overall assessment of university needs generally. The timing too, and the interplay of academic and financial years, has accentuated this delay.

Introduction Recent declines in the rate of productivity growth in America have drawn attention to the links among productivity, unit labour costs, inflation, and living standards. Economists have focused on the causes of declining productivity growth and have identified such factors as slowdowns in capital formation, decreased spending on research and development, increased government regulation, and changes in the economy's output mix and labour force composition. McConnell has suggested alternative sources of the “productivity problem”: blem”: