A-105"* ^i«n Schvrarsh rng 10/17 
April 8 1982, 
Dear Amit, 
I have n't written to y^u before because I have been waiting all 
the time for an answer from Cambridge, which still has n't c me 
to my great annoyance. I have been in Italy giving six lectures 
and meeting a lot of people I have been spoilt. I aloo met 
your old friend Godwin in Siena where he is a Professor, 
teaching in Italian, which must be hard on the students 
I am told his main motives are coffee and wine, which he b th 
finds satisfactory in those parts. They are a very nice cr'wd there 
and get on trell with each other. 
How to your paper which is very beautiful as abstract analysis 
but I would suggest you might discuss a little the questions which 
are behind it. First, why not try to put the gist of your 
argument in w^rds after the algebraic analysis? F'r example, 
you might explain why the pr cess of growth cannot stop ( because 
there is the potential saving which has t be used) and why it 
c'-ntinu usly requires new exp'its ( because the . ;r wth requires 
increasing imp;rts ) etc Y>u might discuss the transfer of the 
pr fit earned on the investment of the f reign firms In fact 
if they w uld keep the m'ney within the c mntry and fully invest it 
that would be the c ntinuing in.fl'W f new capital of y ur m'del, 
u 
but it wold be rather a sm oth prcess in c mpa is n to a full 
taking ut of profits new capital imp rts being necessary 
^ Secunds Y>u deal with a pr ce s which is fairly 
1 ngierin anl a V ffi »r -ugh change in Structure One may ask whether 
y ur c efficientscan remain c nstant (me f ). fn fact if the 
ideas f y ur adversaries are right- and the domestic firms 
lern frvm the multinationals, there should be a decline in 
import propensity for investment godds, a shift of >utput from 
the multinationals to the autochtonous firms therof >re 
presumably an increase in e, etc. One might say you have excluded 
forcibly the learning effectsfrom your model//^)'./ on which the 
arguments of your opponents are based.