India is the world's largest democracy, and second-largest developing country. For forty years it has also been one of the most dirigiste and autarkic. The 1980s saw most developing and erstwhile communist countries opt for market economic systems. India belatedly initiated similar reforms in 1991. This book evaluates the progress of those reforms, covering all of the major areas of policy; stabilization, taxation and trade, domestic and external finance, agriculture, industry, the social sectors, and poverty alleviation. Will India realize its great potential by freeing itself from the self-imposed constraints that have hindered its development? This is the important and fascinating question considered by this book.

A Critique of Welfare Economics was first published in 1950. It was concerned with the exposition, criticism, and appreciation of the theory of economic welfare as it had been developed to that date. It was an attempt to clarify what was meant by 'welfare'; to distinguish measurable, verifiable elements of the theory from subjective normative judgements about policies for improving economic well-being; and to establish criteria for determining whether one configuration of the economic system is better or worse than another. Little showed that the welfare theory of the time could be based directly on individual market choices, and that resort to traditional utilitarian concepts was not essential. A Critique of Welfare Economics is now reissued at the same time as Ethics, Economics, and Politics - Little's latest book which explores the overlap between the three disciplines, and discusses the need for political decisions in economic matters, and the principles guiding them. He has added a new retrospective preface to Critique in which he assesses the contribution the book made in the light of subsequent literature in the area.

Ian Little has been one of the most significant British contributors to economics in the post-war era. His contributions to Welfare Economics and Development Economics have been highly influential and well-regarded throughout the world. This book is a fascinating insight into the personal and intellectual development of Professor Little, containing both the most important articles of his working life and autobiographical chapters.

Concentration data - which expresses the relative importance of the largest firms in an industry - covering almost the entire range of British industry, were made available for this study, first published in 1960, by the Board of Trade. The authors combined with each industry's concentration-ratio with the average and relative sizes of its constituent firms and plants, and so sought to determine its structural type. Then, by comparing these results with those of an earlier study, they established in which trades significant changes in concentration occurred since 1935. Two chapters describe how the leading firms in such highly concentrated trades as sugar refining, wallpaper, matches, explosives, tinplate and oil-refining grew over the years and how they maintained their position. There is also a discussion of the relevance of such factors as mergers, nationalisation, technological changes, illustrated by reference to brief case-studies of twenty trades.

Ian Little offers a new defence of utilitarianism as a basis for assessing the role of the State. Lucidly and elegantly he explains how the three disciplines of philosphy, economics, and politics can be integrated to provide guidance on issues of public policy. Anyone interested in public affairs will be enlightened by Little's crisp analysis and any student taking an interdisciplinary course in social science will find a clear framework for thinking about the subject.

This book studies the interfaces of ethics, economics, and politics. Public policy issues involve all three of these subjects. Although it may be seen as suggesting the nucleus of a joint university course, the book is accessible to and should interest all those concerned with political decisions. Any such decision needs a criterion for judging whether one action or outcome is better than another. Even a dictator must to some extent be concerned about the economic welfare of the citizens; and a democratic government more so. But how is a person's economic welfare to be judged? Furthermore, any political decision affects the economic welfare of different people differently. How then is the welfare of a community to be judged? This is an ethical question. Underlying any coherent public policy there must be a relevant moral code.