
IT IS NOW OVER a decade since Copeland's pioneering work set the stage for what we know today as the flow-of-funds accounts. This was followed in 1955 by the Board of Governors' first exposition of the flow of funds, and then in 1959 by the board's revised presentation. Since then the board has been disgorging statistics at an unbelievable pace, and a few economists have been having a field day discussing the host of technicalities involved.' Meanwhile, the economist who is not a specialist in the capital markets has been sitting uneasily on the sidelines, wondering what all the shouting is about and growing increasingly perplexed about what he is to make of this avalanche of numbers that has descended upon him. On occasion he will righteously turn to the Quarterly Presentation or to Supplement 5 and gingerly extract a number, or perhaps even a row of numbers. Other than that, he seems to find little use for the flow of funds in his research and even less use for it in the classroom. If he seeks to orient himself by first acquiring an understanding of the basic framework of the accounts, he will find little help in the literature, most of which is concerned with technical details.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 4 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
