California Economy Research Articles

Energy in a regional economy: A computable general equilibrium model for california

This study presents a model of energy in the California economy and uses it to simulate long-run impacts of oil price changes under varying assumptions about the structure of the economy. The distinguishing feature of the model is flexibility. Use of generalized Leontief flexible cost functions at the sectoral level captures the substitution effects of relative price changes while, at the same time, retaining the structure of traditional input-output analysis. Experimental results suggest this innovation can be important; a doubling of the price of imported oil leads to a much larger drop in oil use and a substantially smaller drop in aggregate consumption than is obtained with a fixed-coefficient version of the model.

Alternative approaches to the estimation of economic impacts resulting from supply constraints

The standard Leontief input-output approach to estimating the impacts resulting from changes in final demands is inappropriate to apply to cases in which the gross outputs of particular sectors of the economy are constrained because of conditions such as strikes or natural disasters. In this paper two alternative approaches are presented for estimating the impacts on production resulting from supply-constraints. The first is based on standard interindustry purchase coefficients, the second on sales coefficients. Each model is applied in turn to estimate the impact on the Kern County, California economy of a hypothetical curtailment of State-supplied water to the County's agricultural activities. The empirical results, as well as the underlying assumptions, of each approach are compared and discussed.

Managing Water Resources From the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time

California's economy developed through use of summer flows of streams and drilling of wells in extensive ground‐water basins. As these sources were overexploited, storage of winter flood flows and massive transportation facilities were constructed. Extensive water‐quality control programs were implemented.

The Decade after the Gold Rush: Social Structure in Grass Valley and Nevada City, California, 1850-1860

AT A TIME WHEN gold mining dominated California's economy, Grass Valley and Nevada City were the two richest, most productive gold camps in the state. The two towns lie four miles apart in the lower foothills of the Sierra Nevada, approximately seventy miles northeast of Sacramento. Both began as placer mining camps, but achieved their greatest importance as centers of the quartz mining industry. Because the first gold excitement in the area was at Nevada City, that community was able to become the county seat and establish itself as the commercial focus for camps which developed later. When its placers declined in value, Nevada City was able to maintain itself through its political, legal, and business importance until rich hydraulic and quartz mining interests could be developed. G rass Valley, with poorer placer deposits, initially grew more slowly, but when mining technology advanced to the point where its extensive quartz gold deposits could be effectively exploited it quickly eclipsed its neighbor and all other camps in California. The mineral wealth of these towns allowed them to thrive long after most camps had disappeared. Although reduced in size and no longer producing gold, they still survive.

An Intersectoral Flows Analysis of the California Economy

OUR empirical knowledge of the demand and structural interrelationships of the economy at the regional level is indeed limited. Some understanding of these interrelationships can be gained through (1) the economic baseforeign trade multiplier approach, (2) the regional interindustry (input-output) approach, and (3) various other approaches, involving linear programming and the like, which are not of concern here.' Although the interindustry approach seems superior to the base-multiplier approach for most, though not all, purposes, the real difficulty lies in translating either approach into an operational one so that meaningful estimates of these interrelationships can be generated at a reasonable cost. This is a rather unfortunate state of affairs because it means that decision makers have no firm guidelines to use in attempting to assess the impact of autonomous demand forces upon regional economies or specific sectors within them. In an attempt to at least partially remedy this situation, we have developed an alternative type of framework which, for the lack of a better name, can be called an intersectoral flows model. This model incorporates certain features of the base-multiplier approach in addition to certain features of a regional interindustry approach hopefully some of the best features of each in terms of our objectives. In designing the model, one of the main concerns was that it be operational, in the sense that the necessary data could be obtained at a reasonable cost. Thus, to the extent that this objective is achieved, the restrictions on making such studies and repeating them may no longer be so formidable. The particular region chosen for study is California and the three major subregions within the State. Since the interest here is in the model and its implementation, as contrasted with the implications for the California economy, major attention will be focused on these topics.

The Changing Pattern of Southern California's Economy

tropolis of Los Angeles, apart from Los Angeles City, includes important satellite cities such as Long Beach, Santa Monica, Burbank, Glendale, Vernon, Downey, Torrance, Hawthorne, El Segundo, Inglewood, and many others in which important defense production has developed. Both the Los Angeles and San Diego industrial areas have felt the steadily increasing effects of the defense program which assumed new and larger proportions after May 1940. In 1940 Los Angeles County had a population of 2,785,643, Los Angeles City a population of 1,504,277, the Los Angeles metropolitan census district 2,904,596, and the five counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura, 3,252,720. This five-county area had increased 1200 per cent from 1900 to 1940, compared with a 365 per cent increase for California and 73.3 per cent for the Nation. Population density in 1940 was considerably larger than for all of California. Between the census in 1940 and January 1942, this five-county area had increased in population by an estimated 164,780 persons.2 The population of San Diego City in 1940 was 203,341, while that of the county was 289,473, the percentages of increase for the 1930-40 decade being 37 and 38 respectively. By January 1, 1942, the population of the county was estimated at 370,000. Thus the population of the six southern counties hav-