60 total employees, if not in either the health or construction sectors, or the food sector between March 29 and September 12, 1973. There were undoubtedly a few units of this type that were inflationary leaders in areas with small firms, but their inflationary impact outside their localities were considered negligible by the Pay Board. In Phase III-IV, CLC emphasized case-by-case analysis based on the factors relevant in a particular sector. It was concerned with obtaining moderate settlements without distorting the wage structure. Inflationary leaders could be large or small. In actual practice in the self-administered sectors, CLC emphasized large units by maintaining reporting requirements only on units having 5,000 or more employees. However, by monitoring settlements of firms of all sizes, small units could be selected for further analysis if their settlements seemed to be pattern-setting. In the mandatory sectors, Phase II reporting requirements continued the emphasis on large units, but the Phase III-IV analytical approach considered the impact of small as well as large units. SUMMARY In making comparisons of Phase III-IV with Phase II, similarities and differences can be drawn with respect to (1) the case-by-case approach versus a uniform standard, (2) dispute settlement, (3) long-term versus short-term objectives, and (4) treatment based on size of units. Despite philosophical differences, the two programs were similar in many ways, due, in large part, to their common need to deal with the same real world as well as the constraints imposed by Congress and the administrative problems inherent in radically changing the program in the transition to Phase III. ECONOMIC CONTROLS ON STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT By: Eugene R. Elkins Assisted by: Thomas R. Goin Although initially subject to some controversy, state and local government activities were construed to be under the jurisdiction of formal wage and price controls. As the program went on, the focus of its activities in the out state and local government area was concentrated on wage determination. This monograph describes the philosophy and operations of the Program's treatment of public sector wage stabilization-an area with peculiarities, forces and counterforces all its own. Mr. Elkins was Deputy Director of the Committee on State and Local Government Cooperation during Phase II of the Economic Stabilization Program. In Phases III-IV, he served as the state and local government specialist in the Pay Division, Office of Operations, Cost of Living Council. Mr. Elkins is a 1948 graduate of Marshall University with an A.B., cum laude, in political science. He completed his Ph.D. course work in 1951 at the Maxwell School, Syracuse University in public administration and public law. Ms. Ramey received her bachelors degree in political science from Mary Washington University in 1968. She has been associated with the various public sector activities of the Economic Stabilization Program, most recently as a pay stabilization analyst in the Public Sector Division of the Cost of Living Council. Mr. Goin was associated with the Economic Stabilization Program in Phases I and II, primarily as a Policy Analyst at the Pay Board. A 1971 honors graduate of Brown University with a B.A. in political science, Mr. Goin is currently a candidate for a J.D. degree from the School of Law, University of California at Davis. |