346 SECTIONAL TRANSACTIONS.— F. 



movements. The movements of prices (a) in the steel industry, and (b) in the cotton 

 industry, in relation to those of general prices. Movements in the prices of variable- 

 income shares, and in short-money rates. Customary sequences in the movements 

 of these several classes of prices and alterations in such sequences ; their potential 

 explanation. 



Comparative movements in strictly similar classes of prices in the United States, 

 1890-1913, the problem of relative precedence in the movements of prices as between 

 the two countries, and possible interpretations of certain apparent relations. 



The movements of general prices in Great Britain and the United States in the 

 post-war period. The extent of their control by central banks, as inferred from the 

 inter-relations of prices in the markets for commodities, for securities and for money. 



Tuesday, September 6. 



Joint Discussion with Section J on Innate Differences and Social Status. 

 Introduced by (a) Dr. Morris Ginsberg. 



(b) Prof. Godfrey Thomson. 



(c) Mr. F. C. Bartlett. 



Dr. Ginsbeeg. — The paper deals with the nature of the social classes and the 

 differences in respect of physical and mental characters existing between them. The 

 problem is to determine to what extent these differences are due to forms of social 

 selection operating upon innate differences, and to what extent they are due to 

 environmental influences. A critical study will be made of the evidence relating to 

 (1) differences in physical characters, such as stature, cranial capacity, brain weight, 

 &c. ; (2) differences in intelligence as measured by mental tests and in other ways. 

 The difficulties of disentangling the environmental from the innate factors will be 

 stressed. It will be shown that only very tentative conclusions can be arrived at as 

 yet. Considerable importance will be shown to attach to the problem of the extent 

 of social mobility, and evidence bearing on this will be submitted based on (1) data 

 derived from Prof. Bowley's studies on poverty, (2) a questionnaire specially designed 

 for this purpose. The whole problem will be discussed in the light of what is known 

 with regard to the laws of heredity in man and in the history of social differentiation. 



Mr. A. W. Ashby. — The Economic Situation of Agriculture. 



Wednesday, September 7. 



Mr. C. J. Hamilton. — The Theory of Co-partnership. 



(1) The capitalist system has hitherto exhibited certain characteristics which 

 have exposed it to just criticism. Co-partnership is advanced as a remedy for some 

 of these, and its adherent claim that it enables the essential advantages of capitalism 

 to be reconciled with ' a socialised industry.' 



(2) The expectations regarding co-partnership entertained fifty years ago have 

 not been realised. It is now often said that the claims of co-partnership are fallacious, 

 or that co-partnership is of very limited application. 



(3) The term co-partnership has been used in two senses : a partnership between 

 workers and a partnership between capital and labour. The latter interpretation 

 now predominates. 



(4) The supporters of co-partnership have commonly belonged to one of two 

 schools. According to one view co-partnership is founded on the need for economic 

 justice and goodwill. According to the others it is based on the need for a productive 

 stimulus. Both schools have treated profit-sharing as an essential element. The 

 justification for profit-sharing thus needs to be examined. 



(5) Profit-sharing as a stimulus to productive effort. The nature of the stimulus 

 differently conceived. This mode of rewarding it implies its partial application. 



It is said that ' profit-sharing is a form of exploitation.' 



(6) Profit-sharing based on surplus. This raises the question of the reality of 





