@Yoshinori Shiozawa topic mentioned is very interesting. I am not that knowledgeable to answer your question. Come across some interesting links, hope they are useful. 

Frank D. Graham, 1890-1949 

http://cruel.org/econthought/profiles/fgraham.html 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND INVESTMENT :TWO PERSPECTIVES Harry G. Brainard

https://www.princeton.edu/~ies/IES_Essays/E143.pdf

you should have access for the following

PRESENT-DAY APPLICATIONS OF GRAHAM'S THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL VALUES

http://www.jstor.org/stable/29767633?loggedin=true&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Graham's Theory of International Values Lloyd A. Metzler

http://www.jstor.org/stable/29767633?loggedin=true&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Dear Jetty Ramadevi, 

your information is very useful.  I wonder why you a specialist in molecular biology have this kind of knowledge. At any rate, I thank you very much.

Yoshinori

I have checked four documents hinted by Jetty Ramadevi. I could read three of them. This post is my comment on the first document:

            Frank D. Graham, 1890-1949.

Jetty linked this to a website in Japan, which is run by a famous columnist and translator Hiroo Yamagata. The original article was written by Gonçalo L. Fonseca and made open in the History of Economic Thought Website, which had been sponsored by the New School for Social Research, of which Fonseca was a graduate student. The website once disappeared but revived under the sponsorship of the Institute for New Economic Thinking. Actual URL:

http://www.hetwebsite.net/het/profiles/fgraham.htm

In the Wikipedia (English), we have an article Frank D. Graham but it is an article on a successful writer with the same name (middle names are different with the same capital D.). I sincerely hope that someone will create an article Frank D. Graham (economist) in Wikipedia.

Gonçalo’s article is concise and exact except for two points. The first point concerns the circumstance of Graham’s death. Fonseca writes that Graham was professor at the Princeton University “until his retirement.” In fact, Graham died from a fall at Palmer Stadium at eh close of the Princeton-Lafayette football game, when he was still an active professor at the Princeton. (See Richard A. Lester, In Memoriam, American Economic Review 40(2): 585-587, May 1950)

The second point is more controversial. Graham criticized the use of two-sector, two-country models adopted by majority of trade theorists. This is true but it is doubtful if his intention was simply to question the validity of a two-sector, two country model in more general many-commodity, many-country case. Graham criticized the well established tradition since John Stuart Mill to determine the terms of trade by the workings of reciprocal demands. Graham argued instead that, in a general case, there are common goods (link commodities) that are produced by more-than-one countries. The existence of commonly produced goods determines relative wages of linked countries, and by consequence, the product prices that are produced in those countries. He in fact claimed that the international values are determined by the same logic as the classical theory of domestic values. His criticism was not a simple existence of an equilibrium solution for a many-commodity, many-country model.

Fonseca writes also that

• “It was in solving to 'Graham's Model' that Lionel McKenzie (1954) introduced the first proof of existence of a general equilibrium via a fixed-point theorem.”

It is true that McKenzie (1954) thought that he had provided a proof of existence of a general equilibrium, but this is a half truth because what Graham wanted was not such a solution in general equilibrium framework à la John Stuart Mill.

I cannot blame Fonseca, because his comment is widely accepted one. However, this common understanding reveals how Graham has been long misinterpreted. For the reason of this misunderstanding, I ask readers to read my paper (still in a form of working paper) An Origin of the Neoclassical Economics: Mill’s “Reversion” and its Consequences (the second draft of “Mill’s Reversion and an Origin of Neoclassical Revolution”), which I will upload soon.

The followings are comments on last three of Jetty Ramadevi’s four indications:

International Trade and Investment: Two Perspectives

By Marina von Neumann Whitman, 1981 Essays in International Finance No. 143. Princeton University. (Harry G. Brainard is the name of author of the third paper.)

This is a paper based on the invited lecture presented at the Frank D. Graham Memorial Lecture. The author was at the time of lecture Vice-President and the Chief Economists of the General Motors Corporation. As it is told in the lecture, the author moved form academe to cooperate world and had a wide perspective on what was happening in the automotive industry in the world. She tells the first phase of globalization of the automotive industry. Export, direct investment for the production in consumers’ countries and trade of parts across the frontiers are summarized.

The fresh viewpoint of the paper is that Whitman cites automotive industry as an example of F. D. Graham’s notion of “common industry”. I never thought “common industry” in this concrete way, but in the 4the quarter of the 20th century, the automotive industry was (and still is) representative “common industry” that Graham imagined that links various countries. The story Whitman tells is already an old memory but shows how the globalization began.

One remark on Graham’s terminology would be useful. As it was cited by Whitman in page 1, Graham criticized “the classical theory” vehemently but this “classical theory” stands for the tradition from John Stuart Mill to Graham’s days. In the more standard terminology, this means neoclassical theory. which was established by the marginal revolution in 1870’s. This term is also used by some other trade economists. For example, John S. Chipman used this term in the same meaning in his survey paper: A Survey of the Theory of International Trade: Part 1, The Classical Theory. Econometrica 33(3): 477-519, July 1965.

Present-day Applications of Graham's Theory of International Values

by Harry G. Brainard, Review of Social Economy 17(2): 126-135, September 1959.

I could not read this paper, because I could not obtain a copy of this paper. A retired researcher who lives on public pension cannot afford to pay 45 US dollars for this single paper. It is a shame that this old paper costs so much. This must be a free open paper as it is already a common property of all people.

Graham's Theory of International Values

Lloyd A. Metzler, American Economic Review, 40(3): 301-322, June 1950.

(Jetty's link is misdirected.)

This is one of three book reviews of Graham’s The Theory of International Values, 1948. The other two reviews were

• The Theory of International Values by G. A. Elliott, Journal of Political Economy 58(1): 16-29, Feb., 1950.
• Classical Theory, Graham's Theory and Linear Programming in International Trade by T.M. Whitin, Quarterly Journal of Economics 67(4): 520-544, 1953.

The last paper is commented by Schumann and Todt in 1957.

• Classical Theory, Graham's Theory, and Linear Programming in International Trade: Comment  by J. Schumann and H.t Todt, Quarterly Journal of Economics 71(3): 464-469, August 1957.

I will make my own comment on these reviews in the next post.

A new paper inspired by Graham's work was published.

H. Sato (2017) Graham-type Trade Model under the Condition of Full Employment: Ricardian Trade Model with Link Commodities

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318902042_Graham-type_Trade_Model_under_the_Condition_of_Full_Employment_Ricardian_Trade_Model_with_Link_Commodities

The most remarkable point of this working paper is that Sato is now preparing a paper by which we can examine Keynes-type unemployment by using  Graham-type Trade Model. This is remarkable because traditional trade theories like HOS and HOV models and other newer theories that assume full employment of production factors.  

As labor is one of production factors in the neoclassical ideas, this implies that unemployment is excluded by their assumption. Sato is proposing a totally different framework. 

Working Paper Graham-type Trade Model under the Condition of Full Employme...

Dear Yoshinori:

Thanks for the information., because there is few bilbiography about this topic.

Frank D. Graham went on to become professor of economics and international finance at Princeton University from 1921 until his retirement in 1945. In 1954, Lionel Mckenzie introduced the first proof of existence of a general equilibrium via a fixed-point theorem.   

Hello, Martha Pantoja ,

thank you for reviving the old topic that was posed three years ago.

Frank Dunstone Graham is an important person in the history of international economics. Although he gave certain influence on Lionel McKenzie, McKenzie or Ronald Jones could not understand what Graham had really shown in his book: The theory of international values, 1949.

As I have explained briefly in my post of November 10, 2016, Graham's idea on international values were so different from (or opposed to) the mainstream interpretation that import and export goods prices are determined at the point of zero balance of trade. This idea originates from John Stuart Mill and later named reciprocal demand theory. For details, see my previously cited paper:

An Origin of the Neoclassical Economics: Mill’s “Reversion” and its Consequences. Chapter 7 (pp.191-243) in Shiozawa et al. (eds.) A New Construction of Ricardian Theory of International Values. Springer Singapore, Singapore.

More detailed account is given by Hideo Sato in the same book:

Overview of Research into International Values in Japan. Chapter 10 (pp.281-303) in Shiozawa et al. (eds.) A New Construction of Ricardian Theory of International Values. Springer Singpore, Singapore.

Sections 3 (Research into International Values since ) of his paper is in fact a unique survey of researches in the line of F D Graham after Graham's death. He was almost forgotten in the USA. A thin stream of study continued in Japan isolated from the rest of the world.

The idea of link industry or common industry is now given a more modern form as links given by a spanning tree of production techniques.

See two papers of mine:

(1) Shiozawa and Fujimoto (2018) The nature of international competition among firms. Chapter 2 (pp.43-96) in Fujimoto and Ikuine (eds.) Industrial Competitiveness and Design Evolution, Springer Japan: Tokyo.

(2) Shiozawa (2019) A large economic system with minimally rational agents. Chapter 2 (pp.53-138) in Shiozawa et al. (eds.) Microfoundations of Evolutionary Economics, Springer Japan: Tokyo.

Dear Yoshinori:

You´re Welcome,

According with one of the his biogrophies "Graham attacked the classical international trade theory, particularly the two-country, two-commodity approach and the assumption of comparative advantage statically conceived"

Its important to notice that his papers are not common used in the Universities.

Dear Martha Pantoja

it is necessary to read what Graham really wanted to say, because his terminology is some times very different from ours. There is a similar confusion of terminology when John M. Keynes called theories before him "classical theory". The term included both classical and neoclassical theory.

When Graham says "classical international trade theory", he meant almost all theories of trade discovered by John Stuart Mill and developed afterwards. I m not sure if there were any other economists who used the term in the same meaning as Graham.

At least after 1960's another system of names was proposed by John S. Chipman when he wrote a now classical survey on the theory of international trade. In fact his survey was into three parts:

(1) A survey of the Theory of International Trade: Part 1, The Classical Theory, Econometrica 33(3): 477-519, 1965.

(2) A survey of the Theory of International Trade: Part 2, The Neo-Classical Theory, Econometrica 33(4): 687-760, 1965.

(3) A survey of the Theory of International Trade: Part 3, The Modern Theory, Econometrica 34(1): 1-24, 1966.

In Chipman's survey, classical theory stands for "classical" approach in which Chipman includes Torrens, Ricardo and Mill. Neo-classical approach includes Marshall, Edgeworth, Haberler, Viner, Lerner, early-Leontief, and Meade. The "modern" approach, by which Chipman understands "the school of thought that began with Heckscher and Ohlin, but which did not really come into its own until recently with the work of Lerner and Samuelson."

Graham was vehemently opposed to all three approaches and he called them classical international trade theory. Numbers of countries and commodities have no meaning in this case. What matters was the logic or the mathematical structure (in Chipman's meaning) of trade theory.

One of reasons why Graham denounced all trade theory after John Stuart Mill is given by my paper: An origin of the neoclassical revolution: Mill's "reversion" and its consequences:

(1)https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315861681_An_Origin_of_the_Neoclassical_Revolution_Mill's_Reversion_and_Its_Consequences

(2)https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305810200_An_Origin_of_the_Neoclassical_Revolution_Mill's_Reversion_and_its_Consequences

(1) is the published version and (2) is its first draft made open in a form of working paper.

The most important point is why Graham opposed to classical trade theory in Graham's meaning. Probably you cannot imagine because Graham's contention was so different from others. It was the great contribution of Hideo Sato who has re-discovered the true meaning of Frank Dunstone Graham.

Dear Yoshinori:

For Samuel E Braden

"For more than two decades, the late Professor Frank D. Graham Of Princeton, sougth to isolate an internal flaw in the explanation of the classical writers".