text: alternatives outlined in the report of the Committee on Contributions, alternative II should be discarded because it was not based on capacity to pay. With respect to alternative III, many delegations had acknowledged that estimates of national wealth had not been sufficiently developed, that the concept of national wealth had not yet been standardized, and that, therefore, it would not be feasible to use that indicator in the immediate future. work had been initiated recently by the United Nations Statistical Office to produce a handbook on balance­ sheet statistics with a view to standardizing the definition of national wealth. It would take some time before the recommended concepts and definitions gained acceptance by most Member States and then, even if countries had adequate statistical resources to undertake a comprehensive compilation of data based on internationally recognized concepts, it would require at least another five or six years before comparable data on national wealth became available for use by the Committee on Contributions. 39. The majority of speakers had voiced fears that alternative I would create significant juridical, political and practical problems, and had suggested that it might not be worth investigating that alternative further. On the other hand, a number of representatives had found that new approach attractive in that it recognized the existing differences between groups of countries, and had felt that it merited further study. With respect to alternative IV, many representatives had expressed interest in a further exploration of ways of integrating economic and social indicators into the current methodology. Various ideas had been put forward regarding the selection of indicators, and several speakers had emphasized that "short-term" indicators should be taken into account either in the integration methodology or by other means to be considered by the Committee. Others had recommended that, in the selection of indicators, due account should be taken of 
analysis: The text discusses the Committee on Contributions and the alternatives outlined in a report, focusing on the feasibility of using national wealth as an indicator. The discussion involves statistical and methodological considerations, with no direct reference to specific sectors or industries. It seems that the text is more concerned with the theoretical and practical aspects of measuring national wealth and its potential impact on the Committee's work.