Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 69, No. 12, pp. 3839-3848, December 1972

A Study of Optimum Population Levels-A Progress Report*

S. FRED SINGER Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va. 22903

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to explore Then there are economic policies, investment policies, and different approaches and to develop a methodology that tax policies, all of which have an impact; for example, mort- will allow a calculation of "optimum levels of population." subsidies for veterans and other The discussion is specialized to the United States, but the gage policies and special methodology should be broad enough to handle other groups have had an effect upon the development of housing countries, including less-developed countries. The study and population distribution, but also on family size and popu- is based on economics, but with major inputs from the lation growth. areas of technology, natural resources management, en- In turn, the growth and distribution of population have vironmental effects, and demography. resources The general approach will be to develop an index for important consequences. People consume prodi- quality of life (IQL or Q-index) and to maximize this index giously-or rather they transform them into wastes. There- as a function of level and distribution of population. The fore, with an ever-growing population and an ever-increasing technique consists of a reshuffling of national income ac- standard of living, there has come a vastly increased use counts so as to be able to go from the Gross National resources of course, a vastly increased level Product (GNP) to the index for quality of life, plus a care- of natural and, ful discussion of what is and what is not to be included. of pollution. Pollution has been particularly pronounced in The initial part of the study consists of a projection of urban areas. There the density of population has become so the index for quality of life as population level increases large that the additional disamenities of crowding, of traffic and as population distribution changes, under the as- snarls, and of all kinds of urban problems, from drugs and sumption of various technologies, particularly as these burden relate to the consumption of minerals, energy, and other crime to noise, have produced an increasing economic natural resources. One would expect that as economic not only for the residents of the particular city but for the growth continues, an increasing fraction of expenditures nation as a whole. We thus conclude that governmental would be for the diseconomies produced by population policies influence population growth and distribution, but growth and economic growth. in turn have consequences that run counter to the This study should be useful by providing a rational base these may for governmental policies regarding population, both in intended effects. We have here a classic problem of feedback the United States and abroad. Another application of the that calls for systems analysis. In order to understand and study is to technology assessment, by measurement of the predict the effects of policies, we need to establish first an impact on economic well-being through the introduction adequate data base and a model. of new technologies. Therefore, one can gauge the neces- we need to ask is what sary and desirable investments in certain new technolo- One of the most important questions gies. In general, mathematical models resulting from this is the most desirable level and distribution of population. study can become useful diagnostic tools to analyze the What is the optimum or ideal for a country like the United consequences of various public and private policy decisions. States? Do we want more people or less people? If we are need to be sure moved to the going to set up far-reaching policies, we fairly In recent years the question of population has are really desirable. Instead, we find that has become also a concern of the federal that the directions center of the stage and policies are proposed, or at least discussed, without an ade- government. The establishment of the National Commission or even without a clear Future, in March quate understanding of their impact, on Population Growth and the American definition of their goals. Most people, particularly those who 1970, and the passage of the Family Planning Services and for not much the live in crowded environments, would opt Population Research Act, in December 1970, have put believe that our affecting further increase in population. Many even government in a position where policies directly population should be smaller and that this would result in the growth of population may soon come into being. for of us. A few believe that we should keep is to say that government policies have not affected a better life all This not on increasing. Some argue for an immediate zero-population population in the past, but usually this has been a by-product a slowdown is attempt to influence growth or dis- growth-ZPG-while others feel that only rather than a deliberate desirable. Most of these reactions are intuitive. Clearly, we tribution of population. Yet every government policy does to back up our have an effect, directly or indirectly, on population growth would like to have some rational analyses and distribution. During the last century, the policies of policies. t opening up the West made possible the large migration within Defining "optimum population" the United States, and also attracted many additional im- It should be clear at the outset that any quantitative result migrants. In more recent years, agricultural policies and urban about optimum population depends on the assumptions, policies may have led to the large migration from rural areas and especially on how one defines "optimum." A pragmatic to the cities. (In fact, the very success of our agricultural technology has led to a reduction of the agricultural working t It is clear that optimum is not synonymous with maximum; population from something like 80% to our present 5%.) in fact, the optimum level should be well below the maximum sustainable population level. This result is in sharp contra- distinction to, say, the raising of cattle where optimum, from the * A proposal outline of the study was published in Is There An rancher's point of view, means the level that will result in a maxi- Optimum Level of Population (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1971). mum financial yield. 3839 Downloaded by guest on September 24, 2021 3840 COSPUP: Singer Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 69 (1972)

approach is to work up a definition with which reasonable to the physical environment, but there seems to be no way people can agree, calculate the corresponding optimum level, of combining these into a single index unless one can use a and then parameterize the situation by varying the definition common denominator, namely dollars. The GNP really works to see how the result changes. This approach can establish because market prices can be used to combine and aggregate just how sensitive the actual result is to the definition. apples and oranges, manufactured goods, and services. The first step, then, is to arrive at a suitable definition for There is a loophole in Denison's statement, however. Had "optimum." What are the criteria for such a definition? It he said "universally acceptable" I would have thrown up should be (i) acceptable, (ii) unambiguous, and (iii) opera- my hands, but "generally acceptable" means to me that tional, i.e., it should incorporate a method of calculation. reasonable people might accept an index, perhaps on a tem- One definition often proposed defines optimum as the porary basis, to see how it works, and then through modifica- "highest quality of life for the largest percentage of popula- tion evolve it into a better index. tion." This puts the burden on defining "quality of life," and With these preliminaries out of the way, let me discuss how on devising a yardstick for measuring it. In our society, one might start with the GNP index and by suitable additions where material comforts are important and contribute to and subtractions and other modifications arrive at an index what people perceive of as happiness, a loose definition might that more nearly represents quality of life. be "having as much money as possible left over after taking Before going into details, however, let me state two general care of the basic necessities, and having the necessary time points that are often overlooked. The first is that we are in- and opportunities for spending it in a pleasant way." It terested only in a relative index and not an absolute index. means also having the maximum range of choices for a way of We want to know whether we are better off this year as com- life. This definition, however, might not be acceptable to a pared to last year, or whether we will be better off 5 years society living a monastic kind of life. from now if we take certain actions or if certain things come The definition just given satisfies our criteria reasonably to pass. This means that we can neglect quantities that are well. It tells us how to measure quality of life in terms of constant, or quantities that change only very slowly over the dollars by calculating the potential consumption and as- time period in which we are interested.¶ signing a monetary value to free time. Specifically, then, one The second point is somewhat related. We have to keep in starts by examining the national income accounts, which ag- mind the purpose to which we want to apply the index. It may gregate the output of the nation, to see which items, and to not be possible, and in fact it may be misleading, to look for what extent, they contribute to an index of quality of life a universally applicable index for quality of life. In what (IQL). One includes amenities, such as leisure time, that are follows, we are interested primarily in how the level of popula- not counted in the GNP; one subtracts items that enter into tion, as well as its rate of growth and distribution, affect the GNP, but are really disamenities and do not contribute quality of life. We want to know whether we will be better to quality of life. Among the most important are pollution off in a few years when we have a larger population; for ex- control costs and increased costs of distribution in crowded ample, what would be the consequence to the quality of life if urban areas. we followed the various population projections of the Bureau of Census? Would we find a maximum value for the index, Critique of the welfare index corresponding to an "optimum" population? It should be stated explicitly that we are interested in de- It is true that we do not take account of the nonquantifiable veloping a single quantity that aggregates the total economic factors that contribute to what is commonly called "true welfare of the nation, and can be converted to a per-capita happiness," such as love, status, work satisfaction, etc. We index of the average person. Although a complete index for justify their neglect by arguing that they do not change for the quality of life would be desirable, we will concentrate on an individual as total population level changes. There is, of its economic welfare components. The index is thus related course, a good deal of arbitrariness in the definition of a wel- to the Gross National Product, but differs from it. It should, fare index. Yet I hope that we have not been guilty of what however, be derivable from the same basic data that are St. Augustine confessed: "For so it is, oh Lord my God, I produced by national income accountants. measure it, but what it is that I measure I do not know." Our search for an index of economic and social welfare, Dependence of IQL on demographic parameters or an index for quality of life as it is sometimes called, is based on the well-recognized fact that the GNP is not an Once the IQL has been defined, we can go back into the adequate index for quality of life. Let me state at the outset historic record, trace its variation, and analyze its dependence that this does not mean that the GNP itself needs to be re- on demographic parameters. In general, each item that enters constructed or abandoned. The GNP does what it is supposed into the IQL will show a quite specific dependence on popula- to do very well, namely to measure the total output of the § See, e.g., Toward a Social Report, HEW Report (Jan. 1969); U.S. economy. It will continue to do so. Rather, I think we I find it difficult to see how one can even construct a single, should be investigating the construction of a parallel index, or generally acceptable index for any one of the social indicators. really a series of indexes designed for various purposes. Take for example our physical environment. How can we com- Edward Denisont has advanced the proposition that a pare the amount of biological oxygen demanding material in a single, generally acceptable index of welfare cannot be con- lake with the amount of mercury in the water or the amount of structed. Strictly speaking, his statement is correct. One sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere on some kind of a common can, of course, construct a whole multiplicity of indicators§ basis. If we remove a certain amount of mercury, but increase the BOD by a certain percentage-are we then better off or worse that relate to the state of the nation's health, or to crime, or off? What would the index show? I As a rough guide, we can neglect quantities that have a In Survey of Current Business, Vol. 51, no. 1 (January 1971). secular rate of change of less than 0. 1% per year. Downloaded by guest on September 24, 2021 Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 69 (1972) Science and Public Policy (COSPUP) 3841

tion distribution, income, and age. We will discuss here three technologies that would tend to lower the costs of instruction specific examples within the broad general categories of goods, or the preparation of educational materials. In principle, the services, and government expenditures to illustrate the com- costs per capita should diminish as the size of population plexity of this dependence. grows, since this would allow spreading of the cost for the 1. The cost of consumer goods depends on wages, rents, the preparation of such educational material. But another al- amount of capital invested in producing the goods, and on ternative is likely to take its place, namely an improvement the costs of the input material-which includes manufactured in the diversity and choice of educational and cultural ex- goods but also primary resource items such as minerals, perience as population rises. In either case, there will be a energy, water, and air. (By tracing back the manufacturing rise in the IQL. steps we arrive, of course, at only primary items.) The costs 3. The final example is space research. Clearly the cost of of the primary resource items depend on their level of ex- exploring Mars should not depend on the level of population. haustion in the case of nonrenewable resources, and also on Therefore, the larger the population of taxpayers, the lower the costs of maintaining a postulated fixed level of environ- the per capita cost. Other examples in this category are ex- mental quality. penditures for scientific research, medical research, and, in- Natural resources are limited and the capacity of the en- terestingly enough, expenditures for defense. However, each vironment to absorb wastes is limited. As a consequence, the item will make a different positive or negative contribution environmental costs rise not only faster than population, but to the IQL that must be discussed in detail. faster even than the amount of pollution released to the With these three examples, we illustrate how we would go environment, which itself is roughly proportional to the GNP. about revising a model of GNP projection into one of pre- In a very rough way, therefore, one can see that the natural dicting IQL. We would also construct a model in which the resource and environmental costs must increase faster than IQL depends explicitly on three major demographic param- the GNP itself and thus occupy a larger and larger fraction eters: geographic distribution, income, and age. of GNP-and of GNP per capita. Fortunately, these costs are Once the model has been developed and programmed so rather low right now, with the environmental costs about 1% that it can be quickly "exercised" on a high-speed computer, of GNP. Approximately 0.5% of GNP is devoted to municipal it is then possible to apply various external conditions and waste collection and disposal, and the rest to all of air and observe their results. In the simplest case, we would let the water pollution- abatement. But this situation cannot be model develop according to the demographic forecasts of maintained, e.g., as mineral supplies become exhausted and the Census Bureau. In addition, however, one would examine lower-grade ores have to be mined; or as the capacity for specific government policies and determine their effects upon waste absorption of the air and water becomes stretched to demographic parameters, or upon the costs of any of the the limit, especially since the water supply itself is finite. components that go to make up the IQL. One could also ex- It is important to understand how all of these costs change amine the effects of new technologies and, thereby, -have a as the level of population or distribution of population quantitative tool for technology assessment. As an example, changes. This requires a rather complete study for each re- one could examine the development of a nonpolluting auto- source area to determine the availability of the resource, the mobile engine that might reduce environmental costs of probable demands, the environmental effects produced in transportation by perhaps $6 X 109 per year. Or, one could obtaining the resource, and the costs incurred in maintaining examine the consequences of an effective desulfurization of environmental quality. The data base for this effort has not fossil fuels that could reduce environmental costs nationwide yet been assembled. It is clearly necessary to prepare-it and, by perhaps $2 X 109 per year. A breakthrough in the desalina- if possible, publish and disseminate it widely, so as to make tion of seawater could improve the water supply situation in it available to many people who can use it. The data them- the arid Southwest and make possible settlements in areas selves are dispersed among several government agencies that are now without water. Clearly there is no limit to the and many experts. However, we are currently assembling the runs that can be made once a mathematical model is developed information in separate chapters, each for a basic resource area. and found to be acceptable. It might then become an im- 2. Educational services is an example of an item that does portant tool for testing the effects of proposed governmental not involve the consumption of resources, does not create and private policies before they are put into operation. pollution, but is strongly determined by demographic param- eters. It can also be influenced by new technology. Total A Postscript on model building national expenditures for education have been rising sharply It is a cardinal principle, never to be lost sight of, that a from 1.8% of GNP in 1943 to 7.1% in 1968, increasing nearly model is a model is a model, and never the real world-not linearly with time at the rate of 0.2% per year. These ex- even if it is a mathematical model that is complicated enough penditures cannot increase indefinitely; therefore, one must to require the use of a computer. carefully analyze the reasons for the increase. A large part Some models are built for forecasting purposes; for those may be due to the fact that a large fraction of the population the important criterion is accuracy. Others, like our present is now covered by educational services. Secondly, the quality one, have as their purpose only a better understanding of the and extent of education have increased. Finally, also, the variables that enter into the model, their interactions, and efficiency may have suffered. One question to be investigated how they influence the outputs of the model. The use of a is: When will saturation be reached; i.e., when will everyone computer increases neither the meaningfulness nor the ac- in the United States be able to obtain an adequate level of curacy, but merely lightens the burden of work. education? At that point, national educational expenditures I am, of -course, hopeful that models like the present one should be reasonably predictable in terms of demographic will become useful for policy analysis. Probably this will re- parameters only. One must also investigate the impact of new quire more complicated models, but perhaps even a simple Downloaded by guest on September 24, 2021 3842 COSPUP: Singer Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 69 (1972)

I. DEMOGRAPHIC MODEL

model will serve useful purposes. R. M. Solow1' has expressed To be able to answer this simple-sounding question we need very well this attitude regarding simple models: a "yardstick," which should be a per-capita index of welfare. "I don't think that models like this lead directly to pre- The Optimum Population Level (O.P.) model consists of scription for policy or even to detailed diagnosis. But neither three submodels: I. Demographic Model; II. Production are they a game. They are more like reconnaissance exercises. Model; III. Welfare Index Model. Briefly speaking, the If you want to know what it's like out there, it's all right to Demographic Model calculates the effective labor force, send two or three fellows in sneakers to find out the lay of the which then feeds into the Production Model. The output of land and whether it will support human life. If it turns out the Production Model is partly reinvested and partly con- to be worth settling, then that requires an altogether bigger sumed (by households and by government). But only a por- operation. The job of building usable larger-scale econometric tion of the total consumption contributes to social and models on the basis of whatever analytical insights come from economic welfare. In addition, there are items that contribute simple models is much more difficult and less glamorous. to welfare but are not in the Production Model (or the GNP). But it may be what God made graduate students for. Pre- Therefore, the Welfare Index Model performs a diagnostic sumably he had something in mind." function by sectoring and analyzing the output and deter- mining from its various items just how large a contribution Brief description of the research accomplished is made to welfare. We are interested in developing a methodology for deriving I. The Demographic Model is quite elaborate. It pro- the optimum level of population for the United States. We vides for simulation of fertility, both exogenous and endog- are currently not attempting any estimates or methodologies enous, for immigration, for variations in the participation for the world as a whole, nor are we interested in extrapolating rate of females, and for changes in labor composition and much beyond 30 years. trends in labor productivity. We recognize that "optimum" is a concept that depends on II. The Production Model uses an appropriate two-factor definitions, that it depends on the spacial distribution and production function, utilizing the labor input from Model I, rate of growth of population, and that it is not constant with and an effective capital input. The capital is accumulated time, but-once reached-may either increase or, more likely, in "vintages" (or "cohorts") by annually adding investments decrease with time. that correspond to the savings, i.e., the unconsumed portion As a minimum, we would like an answer to the question: of the output. Allowance is made both for depreciation of will we be better off or worse off as our population increases? capital and for capital widening, i.e. the expansion of the capital sector so as to keep the ratio of effective labor to ef- 11 In Growth Theory-An Exposition (Clarendon Press, Oxford, fective capital constant. 1970). III. The Welfare Index Model starts off by sectoring Con- Downloaded by guest on September 24, 2021 Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 69 (1972) Science and Public Policy (COSPUP) 3843

,...... II. PRODUCTION MODEL Downloaded by guest on September 24, 2021 3844 COSPUP: Singer Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 69 (1972)

sumption according to demand, i.e., by sectoring according distributional effect uses a weighting function, which relates to the various items in the tables of Personal Consumption to income distribution. Expenditures, and by sectoring Government Expenditures according to major functions in the governmental budgets Results (federal, state, and local). Each item is then examined to see As of November 1972, we have completed the general outline how much it contributes to current consumption of house- of the model but have much work left in filling in and re- holds. The remainder must either be investments for future fining relationships among variables, in collecting and analyz- consumption, or instrumental expenditures ("regrettable ing empirical data, and in "debugging" the computer pro- necessities"), and does not contribute to "welfare." gram. A print-out of a typical run is shown below-not as a Added to the welfare index are two major items not con- definitive result but to convey an idea of the scope and format. tained in the GNP, i.e., nonmarket production-e.g., in the The result to focus on is the time-variation of per-capita household-and leisure. welfare, here referred to as Q-index**. The fact that it in- Next, we perform a different sectoring of Consumption ac- creases is encouraging. But the more discriminating result cording to production, i.e., into various goods and services, will be to see differential changes in Q-index that follow as a to determine the use of natural resources and the pollution consequence of different assumptions concerning fertility, created in producing the output. From these, by using an type of immigration, female labor participation, retirement Input Output Table, we compute the effect of price rises age, government versus manufacturing work force, labor of resources and land, as well as the costs of pollution control productivities, rate of investment in new capital, changes in to maintain a fixed level of environmental quality. A por- consumer consumption patterns, and a whole variety of other tion of these effects and costs are then subtracted from the inputs and parameters of the model. welfare index, since they constitute intrinsic disbenefits of This research was supported by the Center for Population Re- growth in consumption. Finally, we calculate an urban dis- search, NICHD, National Institutes of Health, under contract amenity correction caused by the crowding of the population. 72-2052. Funds for earlier studies were provided by the Popula-' This figure is also subtracted from the welfare index. tion Council, New York City. So far the Welfare Index is simply averaged over the whole population. To transform it to a more realistic index we must ** This term was deliberately chosen, since everyone seems to consider that welfare is distributed unequally, including many have his own ideas about "quality of life," and no one outside the households where welfare is close to or below subsistence. restricted community of economists, knows the technical meaning One approach that makes some allowance for this important of "welfare."

Key to Column Captions in Computer Printouts I. Demographic Variables C. National defense and international relations A. Population D. Education 1. Total E. Medical care, health, and hospitals 2. Yearly percentage growth rate F. Postal services B. Crude birth rate G. Personal business, recreation, parks, and foreign travel C. Total yearly births H. Household operations, housing, and urban renewal D. Total yearly deaths I. Transportation E. Net yearly immigration J. Utilities and liquor stores (government expenditures) F. Students in K. Highways 1. Grades 1-8 L. Transfer payments 2. Grades 9-12 M. Police and fire protection 3. College N. Sanitation G. Number of households 0. Natural resources H. Urban population P. Food, tobacco and beverages I. Rural farm population Q. Clothing and personal care J. Rural nonfarm population R. Other K. Dependency ratio S. Private consumption expenditures II. Economic Performance 1. Goods related A. GNP 2. Service related 1. Total IV. Q Index 2. Yearly percentage growth rate A. Consumption expenditures B. Consumption in the private sector 1. Private C. Government expenditures 2. Government D. Gross investment 3. Total E. Disposable income B. Imputed Values F. Depreciation of capital 1. Leisure G. Sum of total capital stock 2. Nonmarket activities H. Employed labor C. Environmental costs 1. Goods related sector 1. Total 2. Service sector 2. Percent of GNP 3. Farm sector D. Resource cost increase 4. Government sector E. Urban disamenities 5. Total F. Per capita values I. Index of labor productivity 1. GNP III. Consumption Sectors 2. Disposable income A. Total consumption expenditures (government & private) 3. Welfare B. Space research and technology G. Q index (welfare) Downloaded by guest on September 24, 2021 Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 69 (1972) Science and Public Policy (COSPUP) 3845

Is DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES IN MILLIONS. * POP GROWTH' CRUDE * STUDENTS IN 4 RURAL DEPEND YE AR * TOTAL RATE#BIRTH RATE'BIRTHS DEATHS IMMIGR* 1-8 9-12 COLL * HOSHLOS URBAN FARM NONFARM RATIO YEAR 1970 204.37 17.72 3.62 1.51 *34 34*29 14.95 8.43 62.36 145.10. 10.42 48.85 . 77 1970 1971 206.89 1.23 1 8. 00 3.72 1.56 .35 34.48 15.36 8.64 63.58 147.18 10.53 49. 18 .77 1971 1972 209.45 1.24 18.28 3.83 1.62 .35 34.67 15.78 8.85 64.77 149.28 10.65 49. 52 .77 1972 1973 212.07 1.25 18.54 3.93 1.67 .36 34.86 15.87 n.19 66.14 151.42 10.77 49.88 .76 1973 1974 214.76 1.27 18.79 4*03 1. 71 .36 35.01 16.01 9.53 67.50 153.61 10.89 5s. e6 . 75 1974 1975 217.52 1.28 19. u2 4.14 1.75 .37 35.12 16.12 9.73 68 84 155.84 11. .2 5L*. 66 .75 1975 1976 220.34 1.3X 19.20 4.23 1. 78 .37 34.66 16.22 9.93 70.17 158.11 11.16 51. 07 .74 1970 1977 223.23 1.31 19.37 4.32 1.81 .37 34.30 16.32 10.13 71.49 160.43 11.40 51. 50 . 74 1977 1978 226.20 1.33 19.53 4.42 1.83 .38 34.03 16.37 10.35 72.83 162.80 11.44 51 95 .73 1978 1979 229.24 1.35 19.68 4.51 1.85 .38 33.55 16.70 10.57 74. 17 165.22 11.59 52*43 .72 1979 1980 232.37 i.36 19.82 4.61 1.87 .39 33.18 17.00 10.66 75.50 167.70 11.75 52.92 .72 1986i 1981 235.48 1.34 19.86 4.68 1.96 .40 32.89 17.30 13.75 76.79 170.16 11*90 53.41 .72 1981 1982 238.59 1.32 19.91 4.75 2.04 .40 32.78 17.52 10.84 78.G6 172.63 12* U6 53. 90 .72 1982 1983 241.72 1.31 19.95 4.82 2.10 *41 33.49 16.77 11.02 79.45 175.10 12.21 54.41 .71 1983 1984 244.87 1.30 19.98 4.89 2.15 *41 34.18 16.11 11.21 80.82 177.59 12.37 54.91 . 71 1984 1985 248.04 1.29 19.91 4.94 2.19 .42 34.87 15.52 11.34 82.17 18u. i8 i2.53 55.43 .71 198i 1986 251*19 1.27 19.79 4.97 2.24 *42 35.56 15.10 11.45 83.46 182.56 12.69 55.94 *7. 1986 1987 254.35 1.26 19.70 5.0 1 2.27 .43 36.29 15.44 11.29 84.34 185.04 i2.85 5b. 46 .71 1987 1988 257.54 1.25 19.61 5.05 2.29 .43 36.97 15.78 11.17 85.26 187.55 13.u1 56.99 .71 1988 1989 260.76 1.25 19.52 5.0 9 2.31 .44 37.62 16.11 11.08 86.22 190.*6 13.17 57.52 .72 1989 1990 263.96 1.23 19.30 5.10 2.33 .44 38.25 16.43 10.92 87.22 192.57 13.33 58. 06 .72 1990 1991 267.09 1.18 19.05 5*09 2.41 *45 38.82 16.75 13.79 88.23 195.02 13.49 ,6. 58 .72 1991 1992 270.15 1.15 18.83 5o. 9 2.48 .45 39.33 17.06 10.69 89.2-7 197.42 13.64 59. o9 .72 1992 1993 274.18 1.12 18.65 5.10 2.53 .46 39.78 17.38 1J.64 90.32 199.79 13.79 59.59 .72 1993 1994 276.18 1.10 18.51 5.11 2.57 .46 40.18 17.73 10.81 91.39 202.14 13.95 60. 10 .72 1994 1995 279.19 1.09 18.44 5.15 2.61 *47 40.54 18.07 LJ.97 92.50 244.49 14.10 60.60 .71 1995 1996 282.19 1.07 18.32 5.17 2.65 .47 40.84 18.39 11.13 93.63 206.83 14.25 bl. 11 .71 1996 1997 285.18 1.06 18.23 5.2C 2.68 .48 41.X7 18.68 11.30 94.79 2u9.17 14.40 61.62 . 7 1997 1998 288.20 1.06 18.15 5.23 2.70 .48 41*27 18*95 11.46 95.97 211.51 14.55 o.13 .7u 1998 1999 291.24 1.06 18.11 5.27 2.72 .49 41.44 19*19 11*66 97.18 213.88 14.71 62.66 .69 1999 2000 294.34 1.06 18.15 5.34 2.74 .50 41.60 19.39 11.84 98. 42 216.28 14.66 63.19 .69 2aut 2001 297.44 1.05 18.17 5.40 2.80 .50 41.75 19.58 12.01 99.67 218.69 15.02 o3.74 .68 20j1 2002 300.56 1.05 18.19 5.47 2.86 .51 41.89 19.75 I1.18 10 u . 91 221.16 15.18 64.28 .67 2102 2003 303.70 1.04 18.21 5.53 2.9G .51 42.06 19.89 12.33 102.15 223.53 15.33 o. 84 .67 2003 2004 306.87 1.04 18.23 5.59 2.94 .52 42.28 20.00 12.51 103.39 225.97 15.49 65.40 .66 204A 2005 310.08 1.05 18.28 5.67 2.97 *52 42.54 20.07 12.67 104.63 228.45 15.o6 65.97 * 65 2005 2006 313.33 1.05 18.31 5.74 3.02 .53 42.86 20.11 12.83 105.88 230.95 15.82 66.56 .65 2006 2007 316.61 1.05 18.32 5.80 3.05 *53 43.22 20.15 12.96 107.12 233.47 15.99 67. 15 .65 2uu7 2008 319.93 1.05 18.32 5.86 3.08 .54 43.61 20.23 13.07 108.34 236.u3 16.15 61.75 .65 2008 2009 323.29 1O05 18.30 5.92 3.10 .54 44.04 20.33 13.16 109.55 238.60 16.32 b6.37 .64 2U9 2010 326.70 1.05 18.3 0 5.98 3 13 .55 44.51 20*44 13o24 110.76 241.21 16.49 68.99 *64 2u10 2011 330.13 1.05 18.28 6. 4 3.15 .56 45.02 20.57 13.31 111.97 243.84 16.67 69.62 .64 2011 2012 333.60 1.05 18.25 6.09 3.18 .56 45.54 20.70 13.38 113.18 246.49 16.84 70.26 .65 2012 2013 337.09 1.05 18.20 b*13 3.21 .57 46.07 20.87 13.44 114.40 249.16 17.62 7u*91 *65 2013 2014 340*60 1.04 68.14 6.18 3.24 .57 46.59 21.07 13.50 115.61 251.84 17.20 71.57 .65 2014 2015 344.14 1*04 18oC9 6.22 3.27 .58 47.11 21.30 13.57 116.83 254.53 17.38 72.23 .65 2u15 2016 347.68 1.03 18.03 6.27 3.31 .59 47.62 21.54 13.64 118.06 257.24 17.55 72.89 .66 2U1o 2017 351.25 1.03 17.98 6.31 3.34 .59 48.12 21.79 13.73 119 30 259.96 17.73 73.56 .66 2u17 2018 354.84 1.02 17.92 6.36 3.37 .60 48.60 22.05 13.84 120.57 262.69 17.92 74.24 .6b 2018 2019 358.45 1.02 17.86 6.4 0 3.40 .60 49.06 22.31 13*95 121.85 265.43 18.1l 74.92 .67 2019

A typical printout of the mathematical simulation model using a set of representative projections. For example; fertility is assumed to remain at the present low level, discretionary leisure time to increase by 60%, female labor participation rate to remain con- stant, households to contain fewer persons, geographic population trends to continue, savings (investment) and taxes as a constant frac- tion of GNP, labor trends in government and services sectors to continue upward, while the manufacturing and farm sectors decline (on a relative basis), and labor productivity continues to increase due to technological progress, as does the productivity of newly added capital stocks.

The distribution of total (private and government) consumption into the 17 sectors (including miscellaneous) is arrived at very roughly, on the basis of trends, some demographic considerations, and many assumptions; this assignment will be improved as we introduce income distribution of households into the model. Of the total consumption, approximately 70% is judged to contribute directly to welfare. However, it is necessary to apply five major corrections. We add the value of discretionary leisure time, taking account of diminishing utility as leisure grows. We add an imputed value of nonmarket production, mainly in the household. We subtract the costs of pollution control calculated from a semiempirical model. We also subtract the added resource costs, brought about by gradual exhaustion of non-renewable resources, mainly fossil fuels. We finally subtract the disamenity costs imposed on the nation through the inefficiencies of increasingly large urban agglomerations. We end up with values of per capita welfare that we can also express by means of a Q-index. At this stage of the development of the model, no great significance should be attached to any of the actual numbers, although the trends may be representative even when the model is further refined. Downloaded by guest on September 24, 2021 3846 COSPUP: Singer Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 69 (1972)

II. ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE IN BILLIONS OF 1958 DOLLARS. LABOR IN MILLICNS.

* GNPG * GOVT * GROSS * DISPOS * CAP * CAP * EMIPLOYED LABOR *LAB PROD * YEAR * TOTAL RATE * CONSUM* EXP * INVEST* INCOME* OEPREC* STOCK 4 MFG SE2v FARM GOVT TOTAL* INDEX * YEA 6Z

1970 727. 7u 471.91 167.37 8 . 42 5G2.83 57 . 50 1031 29.41 4.61 12.47 79. 1 fi 34.02 9. i . 1917U 1971 747.28 2.69 '.83. 76 172.54 90.98 5 15 .46 59. 28 10 63 29.75 34.52 %..06 12.67 81.ul 100 .777 7 1971 1972 769.32 2.95 497.34 178.28 93.69 529. 94 61.1 J 1095 30.18 35.12 4.12 12.92 82.34 197 2 £973 792.4C 3.00 511.63 184. 26 96.5G 545.16 62. 97 1129 30.62 35.72 4..9 13.16 83.69 102.29 1973 1974 816.57 3.05 526.66 190 .50 99.41 561.17 64 .90 1163 31.O6 36.33 4.*6 13.41 85.06 1J3 . I$6 1974 1975 841.88 3.10 542.45 197.OG £2.1 43 577.99 66.89 1199 31.52 36. 96 4.32 13.66 86.46 103. 93 1375 £976 869.21 3.25 559.63 203. 98 1 05.60 596.30 68. 93 1235 32.01 37.64 4.40 13.93 87.99 1.4.75 191b 1977 897 .93 3.30 5 77.7 4 211.29 £08.90 615. 6 71. u4 1273 32.53 38. 34 4.48 14.21 89.56 1 45. bk 197 7 1978 927.84 3.33 59b.64 218.88 112.31 635. 74 73.22 1312 33.04 39.65 4.55 14.49 91.14 1978 1979 958.98 3.36 616.35 226.77 115.85 656.74 75.46 1353 33.5b 39.76 4.63 14.77 92.72 £07. 38 197 9 1980 991.40 3.38 636.91 234. 97 119.52 678.65 77. 79 1395 34.08 40.48 4.71 15.05 94.32 1£8.31 19.d 1981 £023.82 3.27 657.38 243.17 123.27 700.46 8d . 19 1438 34.55 41.14 4.78 15.30 95.77 1981 £982 £G58.77 3.41 679.bO 251.98 127.20 724.13 82 * 66 1482 35.07 41.86 4.86 15.58 97.37 110.28 198B £983 1095.03 3.42 702.66 261. 10 131.27 748.70 85 . 22 1528 35.59 42.58 4.94 15. 86 98.97 £11.29 £983 1984 1132.64 3.43 726.60 2 7 0.55 1 35. 49 774.22 87.87 1576 36.11 43.31 5. 2 16.13 100 .57 112.32 198 4 £985 171.25 3.4£ 751.17 2 83 .24 139.83 8G0 .40 90.61 1625 3b.61 44. U£ 5. 10 16.40 102. le 113.38 1985 1986 1208.23 3.16 774.4d 289.55 144.19 825.24 93. 44 1676 36.99 44.57 5.lb 16.62 1u3.34 114.54 1986 £987 1247.OG 3.21 798.99 299.29 148.72 851.35 96o 36 1728 37.38 45.15 5.22 16.84 104.b6 115. 7 1987 1988 1287.68 3.26 824. 78 309.49 153.42 878.83 99 . 37 1782 37.80 45.76 5.29 17.u7 105.92 11b.88 1989 1330.18 3.3G 851.76 320.13 158.29 907.58 102 .48 1838 38*22 46.38 5.36 17.30 1J7.2b 118.o7 198 9 1990 1373.04 3.22 B78.90 330 . 86 163.28 936.50 1G5 .69 £896 38.6£ 46.94 5.42 17.51 108.48 119.3,u 1989 £991 1418.34 3.30 90 7.69 342.18 168.48 967.17 109. 00 1955 39.02 47.55 5.48 17.74 £09.79 12 G *53 199.1 1992 £465.82 3.35 937.92 354. 3 1 7 3.88 999.38 112. 42 2017 39.45 48.17 5.55 17.97 £11.15 121.77 1991 1993 1515.61 3.40 969. b8 366.44 1 79.50 1033.22 115.95 208k 39.89 48.62 5.62 18.21 112.55 123.. 1 £99e1993 1994 1567.84 3.45 1 C 3. ( 6 379.44 185.34 1068.79 119. 61 2146 40.36 49.49 5.69 18.46 114.01 124.2b 1994 1995 1622.65 3.50 1 38.16 393. u7 191 . 42 1 106 19 123 .39 2214 40.84 50.19 5.77 18.72 115.52 12 5.2 1935 1996 1679.69 3.52 lu 74. 71 407.25 1 97.72 1145.14 127. 30 2284 41.33 50.9i 5.85 18.98 117.05 126.79 199b 1997 1739.33 3.55 1112.99 422. 06 204.28 £185.92 £31.35 2357 41.83 51.62 5.93 19.25 118.62 128.*.d 1997 1998 1801.72 J.59 1153.07 437.55 211.10 1228.63 135 .54 2433 42.35 52.36 6.61 19.52 12u.23 129.37 1996 1999 1866.98 3.62 1195.j5 453.73 218.20 1273.37 139.89 2511 42.88 53.12 6.09 19.80 121. 8 130.67 1999 2000 1935.25 3.66 1239.2 1 470.65 225.58 1320 .21 144.39 2592 43.42 53.90 b.17 2J.J8 123.5d 131.99 2001 2006.24 3.67 £284.75 * 88. 24 233.25 1368.94 £49. 06 2676 43.97 54.68 6.2b 20.37 125.28 133.32 2002 2080.07 3.68 1332.34 506.53 241.21 1419.65 153.90 2764 44.52 55.47 6.34 2u. 66 126.99 134.67 2003 2156.89 3.69 1381.88 525.54 2 49.47 1472.*3 158.92 2854 45.06 56.26 6.43 20.94 128.71 136.*63 2k..2.J £3 2004 2236.82 3.71 1433.44 545.32 2 58. G6 1527.37 1b4. 13 2948 45.b4 57.06 6.52 21.23 130.45 137.41 2005 2319.64 3.70 1486b.8 565.81 266.96 1584.30 169.53 3046 46.19 57.85 6.60 21. 52 132.17 1386. 2 2UJ5 2006 2403.07 3.60 154G.54 586.45 2 76. 08 1641.49 175.13 3147 46.68 58.57 6.68 21.78 133.71 i'joi.. 2uU6 2007 2489.52 3.60 1596.15 607.83 285.53 1700.75 183 s 93 3251 47.17 59.28 6.76 22.o4 £35.25 141.70 2, 7 2008 2579.20 3.60 1653. 87 630.0£ 295.33 1762.25 186.95 3360 47.65 6.63 22.29 136.78 143.2 7 2i... 6J.uO 2.05 2009 2672.3G 3.61 1713. dJ 653. C2 305.48 1826.10 193.18 3472 48.14 60.71 6.91 22.55 138.31 144.78 2ulb 2010 2768.93 3.62 1776. 1 676.96 316.G2 1 892.39 199.64 3588 48.63 61.42 6.98 22.81 1 39. 84 146.32 2011 2866.11 3.51 183d.39 700.92 326.80 1958.86 206.33 3709 49.05 62.05 7.05 23.03 141.18 147.92 2 Quls 2012 2966.94 3.52 1903.14 725.83 337.97 2027.85 213.26 3834 49.47 62.68 7.12 23.26 142.52 149.53 2.87 2013 3071.61 3.53 1970.38 751.69 349,55 2099.50 220. 43 3963 49.89 63.31 7.19 23. 48 143.87 151.16 2014 3186.35 3.54 2G40.26 778.54 361.55 2173.96 227.85 4096 54.32 63.95 7.25 23.71 145.23 152.81 2015 3293.45 3.56 2112.9d 8G6.47 374.00 2251.45 235.54 4235 50.75 64.59 7.32 23.94 146. b 154.47 2fr£6 3467.94 3.48 2186.4 3 834.73 3 86.178 2329.70 243.50 4378 51.12 65.17 7.38 24.14 147.81 156.18 2017 3527.19 3.50 2262.99 864.17 4 C0 .G03 2411.28 251£ 74 4526 51.51 65.75 7.45 24.35 149. u6 157. 9. 2U17 2018 3651.46 3.52 2342.83 894.84 413.79 2496.35 260 .27 468U 51.91 66.36 7.51 24.56 150.33 159.64 2 f 1 B 2019 3780.98 3.55 2426.11 926.8u 4 2 8. 0 8 2585.09 269. 09 4839 52.32 6b.97 7.57 24.78 151.63 161.38 2L19 Downloaded by guest on September 24, 2021 Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 69 (1972) Science and Public Policy (COSPUP) 3847

III. CONSUMPTION SECTORS TOTAL,GOODS,AND SERV ARE IN BILLIONS OF £958 DOLLARS. OTHER ITEMS IN PERCENT OF TOTAL(=PRIV+GOVT COhSUMPTIJN). L. S. NAT FOOU CLO * PRIVATE * YEAR TOTAL SPACE OEF ED MED PO P8FT HOUS TRANS UTIL HIWAY XFER PROT SAN RES TUB P.C. OTHER* GOOOS SERV YEAR

197C 639.28 .61 £1. C6 7.22 6.49 .77 7.94 18.51 8.56 .97 1.74 6.0 1 .63 .32 1.09 14.78 7.66 . b5 2d9.7 182.2 1970 1971 656. 30 .6C 10.91 7.43 6.67 .77 7.93 18.45 8.53 .97 1.73 6. 0u .62 .32 1.u9 14.78 7.63 5.55 296. 7 187.1 1971 1972 675.63 .59 £0. 73 7.57 6.82 .77 7.93 18.44 8.52 .97 1.73 6.01 .62 .32 1.J9 14.80 7.63 5.40 3 .04.b 192. 7 1972 1973 695. 9G .58 10.54 7.66 6.94 .77 7.94 18.44 8.52 .97 1.73 o.0 1 .62 .32 1.09 14.82 7.63 5 313. L 198.b 1973 1974 717.15 .5 7 10.36 7.72 7.04 .77 7.95 18.45 8.53 .97 1.73 b. 02 .62 .32 1.09 14.84 7.63 ,.39. 49 J31.8 2u4. 9 1974 1975 739.45 .56 1J. 18 7.75 7.12 .77 7.97 18.48 8.54 .97 1.73 6.03 .63 .32 1.09 14.86 7.64 5.36 331.1 211.4 1975 1976 763.61 .55 9.98 7.71 7.18 .77 8.00 18.53 8.56 .97 1.74 o. J5 .63 .32 1.09 14.91 7.66 5.35 341.2 218. 5 1976 1977 789. 03 .54 9.79 7.67 7.22 .77 8.63 18.59 8.59 .97 1.74 b. 08 .63 .32 1.10 14.95 7.68 5 *34 351.0 226.9 1977 1978 815.53 .53 9. u 7.61 7.25 .77 8.06 18.66 8.61 .98 1.75 6. 1a .63 .32 1.1. 15.00 7.70 5.33 3b2.9 233.7 1978 1979 843.13 .52 9.41 7.55 7.26 .78 8.09 18.72 8.64 .98 1.75 6.13 .63 .32 1.10 15.06 7.73 ,.33 3 74.5 241. 9 1976

1980 871.88 .51 9. 22 7.47 7.26 .78 8.13 18.80 8.67 . 98 1.76 6.15 .63 .32 1.11 15.11 7.76 5.33 386.b 25L.4 198o 1981 900.55 .50 9. C5 7.46 7.26 .78 8.16 18.87 8.70 .99 1.76 6. 18 .6% .33 1.11 15.16 7.76 5.34 398.6 258.8 1961 1982 931.58 .49 8.86 7.32 7.23 .78 8.20 18.94 8.74 .99 1.77 6.21 .64 .33 1.12 15.22 7.8? 5.34 411.6 268.6 1982 1983 963.76 .48 8.68 7.22 7.20 .79 8.24 19.03 d.78 .99 1.78 6. 24 .64 .33 1.12 15.29 7.85 5.35 425. 1 277. 5 1983 1984 997.15 .47 8. 50 7.13 7.16 .79 8.28 19.11 8.81 1.00 1.78 o.27 .65 .33 1.13 15.35 7.88 5. 36 's39.2 287.' 1964 1985 1031.42 .46 8.32 7.a3 7.11 .79 8.32 19.20 8.85 1.00 1.79 6. 30 .65 .33 1.13 15.42 7.92 5.37 '53.6 297.6 1985 1986 1064.03 .45 8.17 6.90 7.u8 .8u 8.35 19.27 8.88 1.0£ 1.80 b.32 .65 .33 1.14 15.47 7. 94 5.38 4i67.2 3i7.3 1986 1987 1098.28 .44 8. G1 6.94 7.03 .8G 8.38 19.33 8.91 1. 01 1.80 o. 34 .65 .33 1.14 15.52 7.97 5.38 481.5 317.6 1987 1988 1134.26 .43 7.86 6.90 6.98 .8G 8.41 19.40 8.94 1. 01 1.81 6.37 *65 .33 1.14 15.57 7.99 5.39 496.6 328.2 1988 1989 1171.89 .42 7.l7 6. 85 6.91 .81 8.44 19.47 8.97 1.02 1.82 o. 39 .66 .34 1.15 15.63 8. 02 5. 46 512.4 339. 4 1986

1990 1209.76 .41 7.55 6.8a 6.85 .81 8.48 19.55 9.60 1.02 1.82 6.42 .66 .34 1.15 15.68 8.05 5.41 528.2 356.7 1 99i 1991 1249.86 .41 7. 39 6.72 6.77 .81 8.51 19.63 9.04 1.6 2 1.83 b. 44 .66 .34 1.16 15.75 8.08 5.43 545.u J62.7 1991 1992 1291.94 .40 7.24 6.64 6.69 .81 8.55 19.72 9. 08 1.03 1. 84 o.47 .66 .34 1.16 15.81 8.12 5. 44 562.7 375.3 199e 1993 1336.11 .39 7. G7 6.55 6.bD .82 8.59 19.81 3.12 1.03 1.85 6.50 .67 .34 1.17 15.88 8.15 5.46 581*. 3b8.5 1993 1994 1382.50. .38 6.91 6.47 6.50 .82 8.63 19.90 9.16 1.04 1.85 6.53 .o7 .34 1.17 15.95 8.19 5.46 6si .7 4u2..4 1994 1995 1431.23 .37 6.75 6.38 6.40 .83 8.67 19.99 9.20 1.64 1.86 6.57 .67 .34 1.18 16.o3 8. 23 5.50 o21.2 41b.9 1995 1996 1481.97 .36 6.59 6.28 6.29 .83 8.72 20.09 9.24 1.65 1.87 6. 60 .68 .35 1.18 16.10 8.27 5.52 642.6 432.2 199o 1997 1535.05 .35 6.43 6.£1 6.18 .83 8.76 20.19 9.29 1.05 1.88 6. b3 .68 .35 1.19 £6.18 8. 31 5.54 664.9 448.1 1997 1998 1590.62 .34 6. 27 6.04 6.36 *84 8.81 20.29 9.33 1. u6 1.89 D 67 .68 .35 1.2U 16.26 8.35 5.56 od8.3 464.6 1996 1999 1648.79 .34 6.11 5.92 5.95 .84 8.85 20.40 9.38 1.C6 1.90 6. 7u .69 .35 1.20 16.34 8. 39 5.58 712.8 482.3 1999

2000 1709.67 .33 5.96 5.79 5.83 .85 8.90 20.50 9. 43 1.07 1.91 o.74 .69 .35 1.21 16.43 8.43 5.60 7J8.4 Su.b 2600 2001 1773.OG .32 5.80 5.66 5.71 .85 8.94 20.61 9.48 1.07 1.92 6.77 .69 .35 1.21 16.51 8.47 5.63 765.1 519.ob 26u1 2002 1838.87 .31 5.66 5.53 5.59 .85 8.99 20.71 9.52 1.08 1.93 6.80 .70 .36 1.22 16.59 8.52 5.65 792.9 539.5 2003 1907.42 .3G 5.51 5.39 5.47 .86 9.63 20.82 9.57 1. 08 1.94 6.84 .70 .36 1.23 16.67 8.5b 5.68 821.7 56u.1 2003 2004 1978.76 .29 5.37 5.26 5.36 .86 9.u8 20.92 9.62 1.09 1.95 6.87 .70 .36 1.23 16.75 8.60 5.70 651.d 581.6 2005 2052.68 .29 5.23 5.14 5.2. .87 9.12 21.02 9.66 1.09 1.95 6.91 *71 .36 1.24 16.83 8.64 5.72 682.9 6.4.ou 2006 2126.99 .28 5.10 5.Z2 5.13 .87 9.16 21.11 9.70 1.1G 1.96- 6.94 .71 .36 1.24 16.90 8.68 5.74 914*1 626.4 20u6 2007 2203.99 .27 4.97 4.90 5.02 .87 9.20 21.20 9.74 1.10 1.97 6.97 .71 .36 1.25 16.97 8.71 5.7b 94b.5 649.7 2008 2283.87 .27 4.65 4.79 4. 92 .88 9.24 21.29 9.78 1.11 1.98 6.99 .72 .37 1.25 17.04 8.75 5.78 960.1 673.od 2GOG3 2009 2366.82 .26 4.73 4.6d 4.81 .88 9.28 21.38 9.82 1.11 1.99 7.02 .72 .37 1.26 17.11 8.78 5.86 1U14.9 698.9 206 .9 2010 2452.91 .25 4.61 4.57 4.71 .88 9.31 21.46 9*86 1.12 1.99 7.05 .72 .37 1.26 17.18 8.82 5.82 1051.1 7e5.. 2,10 2011 2539.31 .25 4.50 4.48 4.61 .89 9.35 21.54 9.90 1.12 2.0u 7.08 .72 .37 1.27 17.24 8.85 5.84 1087.3 751.1 2012 2628.97 .24 4.39 4.38 4.52 .89 9.38 21.62 9.93 1.12 2.01 7.10 .73 .37 1.27 17.30 8.88 5.db 1124.9 778.3 2012 2013 2722.06 .24 4.28 4.28 4.42 .89 9.41 21.70 9.97 1.13 2.02 7.13 .73 .37 1.28 17.36 8.91 5.88 1163.9 d86.5 2013 2014 2818.80 .23 4.18 4.19 4.33 .9G 9.45 21.77 13.00 1.13 2.02 7.15 .73 .37 1.28 17.42 8. 94 5.96 12.4.4 835.8 2014 2015 2919.45 .22 4.08 4.10 4.23 .9C 9.48 21.85 10.03 1.14 2. 03 7.18 .73 .38 1.29 17.48 8.97 5.91 12'46.6 8b6.4 2015 2016 3021*16 .22 3.98 4.01 4.14 .90 9.51 21.92 1J.07 1.14 2.04 7.2u .74 .38 1.29 17.54 9.0G 5.93 1269.2 897.2 2ul. 2017 3127.16 .21 3. 89 3.93 4.06 .91 9.54 21.99 1J10 1.14 2.04 7.22 .74 .38 1.29 17.59 9.03 5.95 1333.6 929.4 2017 2018 3237.66 .21 3. 79 3.84 3.97 .91 9.57 22.06 1£313 1.15 2.05 7.25 .74 .38 1.30 17.o4 9.06 5.9o 1379.8 96..u 2018 2019 3352.91 .20 3.70 3.76 3.88 .91 9.60 22.13 10.16 1.15 2.06 7.27 .74 .38 1.3. 17.70 9.09 5.98 1'c8.1 99d.6 2019 Downloaded by guest on September 24, 2021 3848 COSPUP: Singer Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 69 (1972)

IV. Q INDEX IN BILLIONS OF 1958 DOLLARS. PER CAPITA VALUES IN 1958 DOLLARS

CONSUMPTION EXPS * IMP NONMKT *ENVIROM COSTS* RES * URBAN * PER CAPITA 0Q TEAR * PRIV * GOVT * TOTAL* LEIS 4 ACT *TOTAL PC GNP * COST* DIS * GNP OISP INC WELF # INDEX * YEAR 1973 471.9 167.4 639.3 134.0 42.3 10.9 1.50 0i.O 36.4 3561 2460 2554 lG0.0 1970 1971 483.8 172.5 656.3 139.2 43.5 11.3 1.51 1.1 37.4 3612 2491 2595 l10.6 1971 1972 497.3 178.3 675.6 144.5 44.6 11.7 1.52 2.3 38.5 3673 2530 2642 103.4 1972 1973 511.6 184.3 695.9 156. 1 45.9 12.2 1.54 3.5 39.6 3736 2571 2691 1a5.4 1973 1974 526.7 190.5 717.2 155.8 47.2 12.7 1.56 4.9 40.8 3802 2613 2742 1u7.3 1974 1975 542.4 197.G 739.4 161.5 48.5 13.3 1.58 6.5 42.1 3870 2657 2793 139.4 1975 1976 559.6 2,4.0 7b3.6 167.5 49.9 £4.0 1. 61 8.1 43.5 3945 2706 2849 111.6 1976 1977 577.7 211.3 789.0 173.6 51.2 14.7 1.63 9.9 44.9 4022 2758 2906 113.8 1977 1978 596.6 218.9 815.5 179.9 52.6 15.5 1.67 11.9 46.4 4102 2811 2963 116.0 1978 1979 616.4 226.8 843.1 186.2 54.0 16.3 1.70 14.1 47.9 4183 2865 3u21 118.3 1979 198G 636.9 235.0 871.9 192.7 55.5 17.2 1.73 16.4 49.6 4267 2921 3079 120.6 1980 1981 657.4 243.2 960.6 199.1 56.9 18.1 1.77 18.9 51.2 4348 2975 3135 122.8 1961 1982 679.6 252.0 931.6 205.8 58.4 19.2 1.81 21.7 52.9 4438 3035 3195 125.1 1982 1983 702.7 261.1 9b3.8 2 12.7 60 . 20.3 1.85 24.6 54.8 4530 3397 3257 127.5 1983 1984 726.6 270.5 997.2 219.6 61.6 21.5 1.90 27.9 56.6 4625 3162 3320 130.0 1984 1985 751.2 280.2 1031.4 226.7 63.2 22.7 1.94 31.3 58.6 4722 3227 3382 132.4 1985 1986 774.5 289.5 1L64.0 233.5 64.8 23.9 1.98 35.u 60.4 4810 3285 3436 134.6 1986 1987 799.0 299.3 1L98.3 240.0 66*2 25.3 2.02 39.0 62.3 4903 3347 3488 136.6 1967 1988 824.8 309.5 1134.3 246.7 67*6 26.7 2.07 43.3 64.4 5000 3412 3542 138.7 1988 1989 851.8 32G.1 1171.9 253.5 69.G 28.2 2.12 47.9 66.5 5101 3481 3598 140.9 1989 1990 878.9 330.9 1209.8 260.4 70.6 29.8 2.17 52.9 68.7 5202 3548 3652 143.0 1990 1991 907.7 342.2 1249.9 267.4 72.1 31.6 2.23 58.3 70.9 5310 3621 3711 145.3 1991 1992 937.9 354.0 1291.9 274.7 73.7 33.5 2.29 64.1 73.3 5426 3699 3773 147.7 1992 1993 969.7 366.4 1336.1 282.1 75 .4 35.6 2.35 70 .4 75.8 5548 3782 .838 150.3 1993 1994 1003.1 379.4 1382.5 289.7 77.0 37.9 2.42 77.2 78.4 5677 3870 3905 152.9 1994 1995 1038.2 393.1 1431.2 297.6 78.8 40.4 2.49 84.6 81.1 5812 3962 3975 155.6 1995 1996 1074.7 407.3 1482.u 305.6 80.5 43.1 2.57 92.5 84.0 5952 4058 4047 158.4 1996 1997 1113.0 422.1 1535.0 313.8 82.3 46.1 2.65 101.1 87.0 6U99 4158 412u 161.3 1997 1998 1153.1 437.5 1590.6 322.3 84.2 49.4 2.74 110f.4 90o1 6252 4263 4196 164.3 1998 1999 1195.1 453.7 1648.d 330.9 86.1 52.9 2.83 120.4 93.3 6410 4372 4273 167.3 1999

2000 1239.0 47U.7 1709. 7 339.8 88.1 56.8 2.93 131.3 96. 8 6575 4485 4351 170.4 2i00 2001 1284.8 488.2 1773.G 348.9 90.1 61.0 3.04 142.9 16d.3 6745 4602 4430 173.5 2001 2002 1332.3 506.5 1838.9 358.1 92.2 65.5 3.15 155.5 144.4 6921 4723 4510 176.6 20J2 2003 1381.9 525.5 1907.4 367.4 94*3 70.4 3.27 169.0 107.8 7102 4848 4589 179.7 2403 2004 1433.4 545.3 1978.8 377.0 96*4 75.8 3.39 183.6 111.8 7289 4977 4669 182.8 2004 2005 1486.9 565.8 2t52.7 386.7 98.5 81.6 3.52 199.3 116.0 7481 5109 4747 185.9 2Gu5 2006 1540.5 586.4 2127.0 396.3 100.7 87.7 3.65 215.9 120.2 7670 5239 4821 188.8 2006 2007 1596.2 607.8 2204.G 406.1 103.0a 94.2 3.78 233.8 124.5 7863 5372 4893 191.6 2007 2008 1653.9 630.0 2283.9 416.0 105.3 1i1.3 3.93 253.0 129.0 8062 5508 4964 194.4 2008 2009 1713.8 653.0 2366.8 426.1 107.6 109.0 4.G8 273*6 133.6 8266 5648 5034 197.1 2u09 2010 177b.0 676.9 2452.9 436.3 109.9 117.3 4.24 295.7 138.4 8476 5793 5102 199.8 2010 eo21 1838.4 700.9 2539.3 446.5 112 . 3 125.9 4.39 319.1 143.3 8682 5934 5163 202.2 2011 2012 1903.1 725.8 2629.0 456.8 114.8 135.3 4.56 344.2 148.3 8894 6079 5223 204.5 2G02 2013 1970.4 751.7 2722.1 467.3 117.3 14505 4.74 371.1 153.6 9112 6228 5281 206.8 2013 2014 2040.3 778.5 2818.8 477.9 119.8 156.5 4.92 400.0 159.0 9338 6383 5337 2u9.0 2014 2015 2113.0 806.5 2919.4 488.7 122.4 168.5 5.12 431.o 164.7 9570 6542 5390 211.1 2015 2016 2186.4. 834.7 3G21.2 499.6 125.1 181.2 5.32 463.8 170.4 9802 6701 5438 212*9 2016 2017 2263.0 864.2 3127.2 510.6 127.8 194.9 5.53 499.1 176*4 10042 6865 5483 214.7 2017 2018 2342.8 894.8 3237.7 521.9 130.6 209.9 5.75 536.9 182.6 10290 7035 5526 216.4 2018 2019 2426.1 926.8 3352.9 533.5 133.4 226.3 5.98 577.6 189.0 10548 7212 5566 217.9 2019 Downloaded by guest on September 24, 2021