of Talla Co Alabama: ., CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ----- Page 3 m OBJECTIVES PROCEDURE EMPIRICAL EMPIRICAL nn ___n 6 m m n 6 7 I ~ The Economy of Talladega County, Alabama: An Input-Output Analysis with Special Reference to the Effects of Watershed Development R. D. PBPPER and H. A. CLONTS* * * INTRODUCTION MODEL MODELS ASSUMPTIONS AND ANALYSES - n n n 8 8 The Flow T ablenn m_m Technical Direct Coefficients Requirements m_n 14 14 Employment Type I and Type II Coefficients Multipliers MODEL MODEL 18 27 38 THE NEED TO OBTAIN DATA on small governing units for evaluat- PRo JECTION COMPARISON m m 41 41 43 SUMMARY IMPLICA TIONS LITERATURE CITED m ---, m -- 46 50 ApPENDIX .m m__-- __m FOREWORD The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance and cooperation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Personnel in both the Alabama State Office and in Talladega County were quite helpful in all aspects of this study. Gratitude also is expressed to Dr. Wayne C. Curtis, Associate Professor of Economics, Troy State University, formerly of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University. Dr. Curtis served as co-leader of this project while he was at Auburn. A large portion of the theoretical and statistical material in this study was contributed by Dr. Curtis. FIRST PRINTING 3M, Auburn FEBRUARY 1974 is an equal opportunity emploYeT ing proposed development programs by federal, state, and local governments has led to many innovations in analysis. One particular technique quite popular at the state and national level is input-output analysis. Input-output analysis provides a quantitative measure of the interdependence of various sectors of the economy. The technique is most favorable for state and national studies because of the large amounts of data collected from smaller governmental units. Generally, there has been a reluctance to apply the technique to small areas, such as a county in a state, because the data disaggregation problem was so great. Also, at local levels, data disclosure problems related to small or individual firm industries in many cases prohibited complete analysis for the area. This lack of available data at larger area levels, e.g." state or regional, was overcome by adjusting national coefficients to represent the production and consumption patterns of the study area. Numerous questions have been raised about the validity of applying this procedure in areas of small size, such as counties. However, the high cost of obtaining primary data and general limits on data available in local areas tend to force the use of adjusted coefficients and secondary data, if such studies are conducted. Few studies have been conducted on this basis. " Rural Appraiser, North American Revaluation Corporation, fonnerly Research Assistant, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, School of Agriculture and Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University. "" Associate Professor of Resource Economics, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, School of Agriculture and Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama. University l 4 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION THE ECONOMY OF TALLADEGA COUNTY 5 This study was an application of input-output analysis using secondary data and adjusted national or state coefficients. The analysis was conducted to measure the relative interdependence of industries and households in Talladega County, Alabama, and to estimate the influence one expenditure program had on the county economy. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, worked for many years on problems associated with flooding in small watershed areas throughout the United States. In 1954, new impetus was gained for this work through passage of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, commonly referred to as Public Law 566. This program enabled local communities, with financial and technical help from the State and Federal government, to control and develop small watersheds. Watershed development originally was initiated to provide flood protection to landowners in drainage areas. Simultaneous with flood protection, conserving practices were to be initiated to increase land productivity and income. Preproject planning for early developments consisted primarily of engineering designs to satisfy the physical requirements of flood control. Economic aspects included nominal estimates of benefits and costs which may occur over the life of the project. Many of the early estimates of benefits and costs were based on somewhat limited data. Thus, several instances occurred where actual benefit-cost ratios did not closely approximate the original estimates. Many problems, in addition to cost overruns, eventually led to a decision to develop new project evaluation procedures. In order to develop new procedures for project evaluations, the impact of previous development efforts must be considered. This report is based on the results of a study of the impact of Cheaha Creek watershed development on the economy of Talladega County, Alabama. Funds for watershed development were derived primarily from federal government sources. Actual federal expenditures during the development period are shown in Table 1. Cheaha Creek 'Watershed was chosen for study for several reasons: ( 1) The development was begun in 1962-63 just after procedures for project evaluation based on Senate Document 97 ("The Green Book") were published. (2) All structural developments in the watershed were completed by the end of 1971. (3 ) Cheaha Creek Watershed comprises an area of 72,934 acres of I 1 which approximately 99 per cent lies within Talladega County. Land in this watershed accounts for approximately 15 per cent of the total county land area. Thus, a significant portion of the county is directly influenced by activities within the watershed area. TABLE 1. FEDERAL EXPE1'.'DITURES FOR CllEAHA CREEK WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT BY YEARS, 1965-1972, TALLADEGA COUNTY, ALABAMAl Year 1965 --------------1966 -----------------------------------------------------1967 --------1968 --------------------------------------------------------------1969 --------------------------------------197 0 ----------------------------------------------------------1971______----------------------------------------------------------1972 -------------------------Total -----------------------------------------1 Expenditure $ 82,899 222,117 204,655 119,179 221,988 299,4622,863 7,415 $1,160,568 Figures obtained from the State Soil Conservation Service Office. Talladega County is located in east-central Alabama. The county economy is based largely on textile manufacturing. However, a significantportion of county income is derived from agricultural and forest product sales. The population of Talladega county is a rural-urban mix with the cities of Talladega and Sylacauga having populations in excess of 10,000persons. Total population in Talladega County declined slightly between 1960 and 1970. U.S. Census counts showed the population in 1960 to be 65,495. By 1970, the total had dropped 0.3 per cent to 62,280. Urban areas accounted for 54 per oent of the county residents in 1960, but only 53 per cent in 1970. The slight increase in rural residents was not consistent with state trends. However, migration of urban residents to rural subdivisionswas believed to account for most of the change. Actual farm population declined during the period, (49). Talladega County had 1,151 farmers in 1964. This included 590 full-time and 561 part-time farmers. By 1969 there were only 827 farmers, with 376 full-time and 451 part-time operators in the county. Perhaps the more important aspects of these changes were that as farm numbers declined, off-farm employment (parttime farmers) increased approximately six per cent, (26). Approximately half of the Cheaha watershed lies in the Talladega Mountain portion of the Blue Ridge Mountains and half lies in the Appalachian Valley and Ridge section of the Appalachian Highlands, Figure 1. The mountainous area is underlain by Talla- 1 6 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION THIE ECONOMY OF TALLADEGA COUNTY 7 Talladega County Watershed Development Area FIG. 1. Shows the I'ocation of Talladega County within tion of the Talladega County Watershed Development County. Alabama and the locaArea within Talladega dega slate, and the soils are derived from that source. There is virtually no agricultural land in this portion of the watershed. Soils in the lower portion of the watershed were developed from dolomitic limestone and shale. Bottomland soils are Lobelville and Lee. OBJECTIVES The overall objective of this study was to estimate the impact of watershed development on the economy of Talladega County. Accomplishment of this objective required sub-objectives. They were to: ( 1) Determine the flow of goods and services among the various sectors of the Talladega County economy. (2) Derive output, income, and employment multipliers for use in estimating the effects of federal expenditures for watershed development. (3) Develop a predictive model for measuring future expenditures in various sectors of the county economy. PROCEDURE was possible. The year, 1967, was chosen partially on the basis of data availability and partially on the decision that 1967 repre.sented a mid-point with respect to construction activities. Data for 1971 were desired but were not available at the time of the study. Although 1967 was a good year for obtaining data on the county economy, it was not a truly representative year for all sectors. Agricultural productivity suffered a major decline that year due to adverse weather conditions. As a result, interactions of the agricultural sector with other sectors were reduced. Hence, caution in interpreting the results of this study with respect to 1967 agricultural activity is encouraged. Data on the economy of Talladega County were examined to determine the number and size of the various sectors into which the economy could be divided. Secondary data were used throughout the study to insure consistency. Limitations on these data, plus some disclosure problems resulted in several components of the economy being combined into one sector. Final data combinations yielded eleven sectors - nine endogenous, one exogenous, and one treated as both, Appendix. Endogenous sectors were those sectors whose activity was determined within the county economy. Agriculture consisted of livestock and crops production and farm forestry. Manufacturing was a combination of agricultural ~rocessing, textiles and apparel, lumber and wood products, and other manufacturing. Transportation, communications, and public utilities were aggregated into one sector. Service and mining were combined into one sector. Construction; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; state and local government; and federal government were designated as separate sectors. Exogenous sectors were those whose activity was determined outside of the county economy. These sectors were derived and included households and exports-imports. Most sector data were developed from published secondary data using a modified state input-output model, (9). In some cases, incomplete data were compiled using estimates derived from state-federal and statecounty ratios. EMPIRICAL MODEL ASSUMPTIONS The empirical model used in this study follows the theoretical model developed by Leontiff (20) and more recently reported by Curtis and Waldrop, (10). The approach taken to analyze the Two models of the economy were developed, one for 1963 production and the other for 1967. The first year was chosen because Cheaha Creek .Watershed was approved for development in that year. Thus, analysis of the economy before development ... 8 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION THE ECONOMY OF TALLADEGA COUNTY 9 economy of a small economic unit, Talladega County, required several important assumptions as well as a careful development of sector components. The first assumption in developing the empirical model was that technical coefficients were fixed. This meant that technology was constant, optimum scale of production had been reached, external economies and diseconomies did not exist and price ratios were constant. Therefore, substitution effects were not considered a problem in the analysis. Second, no errors of aggregation were assumed to occur. As the number of sectors increased, aggregation errors decreased. Hence, model accuracy increased with size. State and local sectors were assumed to use a constant mix of labor and capital. Such linear assumptions may have caused some inaccuracy in multipliers, but the assumptions were necessary because of time and data constraints. EMPIRICALMODELSAND ANALYSIS Input-output models consist of three basic tables - an interindustry flow table, a technical coefficients table, and a table of interdependence coefficients. The basic flow table is used to derive the latter two data sets. Sectoral output determination is in turn required to develop the flow table. Thus, all input-output analyses require a sequential flow of data with each step being a prerequisite for the subsequent procedure. Final derivation of multipliers for employment, output, and income are the goals of the entire procedure. The Flow Table Mathematically, the flow of transactions between sectors may be expressed by the following equation: n (1) ~ Xij+Yi=Xi(i=1,2,...,n) j=l where Xu = amount of output sector i ships to sector j, Y; = final demand for output of sector i, Xi = total output of sector i. Each column entry in the flow table indicates a purchase by the sector named at the top of each column, from the industry named at the left of the row. For example, in 1963 the construction sector, shown in Table 2, purchased $2,000 from the agricultural sector, $1,000 from itself, $158,000 from the manufacturing sector, and so forth down the column. In 1967, construction, shown in Table 3, purchased $3,000 from agriculture, $2,000 from itself, $256,000 from manufacturing etc.! Each row entry represents a sale of goods by the sector named at the left of the row to the sector identified at the top of the column. The construction sector, in 1963 shown in Table 2, sold $59,000 to the agricultural sector, $1,000 to itself, $199,000 to the manufacturing sector, and so forth across the row. In 1967, Table 3, construction sold $63,000 to agriculture, $2,000 to itself, $244,000 to manufacturing, etc. The state and local government and federal government sectors were considered endogenously determined. This procedure allowed measurement of the interaction of those sectors with the processing sector. Only continuous type federal government ex" penditures were handled in this way. These expenditures included wages and salaries and normal purchases for daily operations. The transaction or interindustry flow table for an economy describes the interaction of the various sectors as they exist. Each sector is developed around relatively homogenous products. The total output of a sector may be used within the endogenous sectors of the economy, or dispersed into the exogenous economy. Usually some of the output will go to each of the areas. The upper left section of the flow table is comprised of the sectors that are determined by the model, or the endogenous sectors. These are the producing sectors of the economy. Households and exports-imports are the only exogenous sectors or "outside connectors" with the economy. 1 The example using construction effects is followed throughout this report. Construction activities were the primary means whereby federal funds for watershed development were injected into the economy of Talladega County. ... 0 TABLE 2. INTERINDUSTRY FLOWS OF GoODS AND SERVICES, TALLADEGA COUNTY, ALABAMA, 196.'3 Industry Agriculture producing Construction Industry purchasing TransportaWholesale tion, commuManuand nioations, facturing retail trade and public utilities Finance, insurance, and real estate 16 91 13 15 Service and mining I> 4 32 256 (Thousand 1,041 59 887 87 315 1,651 4,019 54 348 220 148 58 143 2 1 158 2,997 199 16,356 0 16 117 dollars) 2 127 173 r> 1:11 I> 44 149 202 129 179 CiI I c: 33 27 3 74 17 2 n r-I 169 84 48 6 641 Agriculture -----Construction ------------------------------Manufacturing ------------------------------Transportation, communications, and public utilities------------------Wholesale and retail trade--_---__----Finance, insurance, and real estate m__---___----------------Service and mining--___--------State and local government_____-----Federal government-____------------------ 136 38 3 0 2,566 26,373 1,065 2,742 2,015 5,822 89,338 46,372 162,083 323 2,475 5,364 4,506 1,744 6.860 610 16 28 3 0 529 564 47 11 82 111 199 3 c: ;;a > r391 4,878 8,430 13,949 2,399 987 3,777 895 1,093 2,964 4,952 m Total endogeneous n_--- sectors >< "U m Imports ------------------------------------------Households __m-----__--_---------------------Total outlay- -------------------------------- I -I VI -I > -I (5 2: -I :::t '" TABLE 2. INTERINDUSTRY FLOWS OF GOODS AND SERVICES, TALLADEGA COUNTY, ALABAMA, 1963--(Continued) Industry producing State and local government Federal government Industry purchasing Total Exports endogenous sectors (Thousand 46 2 1 dollars) 202 0 624 42 4,108 1,151 18,003 Households Total output o 118,057 112 39 37 37 8 0 23 4 4 2 0 0 2,399 5,262 1,251 971 352 25 1 0 0 2 986 0 A gri cuI tur em -- -----Construction------------------------------------------Man ufacturing -------------------------------------- 1,054 5,709 26,0'23 3,422 8,687 2,526 3,979 7,784 737 5,364 6,860 162,083 5,822 13,949 3,777 4,952 9,122 762 Transportation, communications, and public utilities_-------------------------Wholesale and retail trade--___--------------Finance, insurance, and real estate_---_-Service and mining --------------------------------State and local governmenL--__------------Federal governmenL-_------------------------Total endogeneous 1m ports Total m n 0 z 0 ~ -< 0 ... -I > rr> " m CiI > n 0 c: Z -I -< sectors..---------------------------------------------------------------------- 899 Households --------------------------------------------outlay_------_------------------------------------ 82 4,006 4,217 9,122 20 660 762 33,522 10'9,305 69,864 212,691 119,248 59,921 212,691 o 28,671 147,919 38,614 0 98,535 147,919 98,535 459,145 ... ... ... ..., TABLE 3. INTERINDUSTRY FLOWS OF GOODS AND SERVICES, TALLADEGA COUJSTY, ALABAMA, 1967 Industry Agriculture Construction producing Industry purchasing TransportaWholesale lion, commuManuand nications, facturing retail trade and public utilities Finance, insurance, and real estate (Thousand dollars) 0 18 120 70 III 48 341 43 59 118 928 9 96 699 566 416 650' Service and mining rtI:I Agriculture--Construction mm mm_mm m m--mmm- 877 63 856 2,880 244 18,023 2,107 3,349 1,077 242 407 178 3 225 276 97 230' 101 425 3 2 256 (;) n c: Man uf acturin gmm--- --m_m--_m_m--Transportation, communications, and public utilities.._m--m--onm-Wholesale and retail trade_mm__mFinance, insurance, and real estate m_m-mm--mmm-- c: 149 92 6 810 1,784 r-I 321 117 49 4 273 48 3 2,760' Service and mining mmm--on State and local government-mm--_Federal government--_m m_m 242 50' .3 a 49 61 5 a 28,581 1,893 841 52 8 241 318 3 '" rm >< "V m m Total endogeneous Imports m m m-m -- m -- m m_--- m m m-- sectors..m_m_m 2,418 90'2 H 0 us Total eh 0 I dsm outlay m m--m_m-----m--mm--m m--m_--- 370' 2,389 5,177 7,356 2,815 1l,073 98,922 51,097 178,600' 4,189 3,220' 9,302 4,853 8,646 14,309 7,60'0' 3,321 12,70'5 2,677 8,10'5 13,542 z -I VI -I -I (5 Z -I ::J: ii'I m n 0 z 0 ~ FLOWS OF GOODS AND SERVICES, TALLADEGA COUNTY ALABAMA, 1967--(Continued) -< 0 "II TABLE 3. INTERINDUSTRY Industry producing State and local government Federal government Industry purchasing Total Exports endogenous sectors (Thousand dollars) ---------______m__m_m_--_m_m---- Households Total output Agriculture.----_--_m_-----------_m------------------ Construction 965 uf acturing ------_--___m--_--m_--___mm_---- a 59 36 2 1 24 3 6 3 3,856 1,956 20',333 0 1 120,892 1,321 9,116 37,375 5,177 11,073 178,60'0 Man Transportation, communications, and public utilities------m_m_------_m_mWholesale and retail trade------m-_mm_-Finance, insurance, and real estate_-----Service and mining------------_m------_m_----- State and local government__--m--------_m F ederlll governmenL_---------m_m_m_m_--Total endogeneous sectors..------m---m---- 180 40' 94 69 12 0 1,419 a 3,611 4,870 3,609 1,80'4 579 1 0 2,374 4,0'11 925 a 75 24 40',642 a 128,204 5,690 9,439 6,722 7,727 11,180' 667 89,237 9,302 14,30'9 12,705 13,542 12,684 691 258,0'83 -I ~ rr~ C m (;) ~ n 0 c: z ~ 1mports----_m_m-- -__--__--m------------------ -------H0 u seh 0 Ids --_m_--_--__---_--m--_--m__--mm_m Total ou tlay m--m----m_m_----_m_m----------- a 5,40'1 5,864 12,684 18 598 691 131,386 86,056 258,0'84 55,461 183,665 52,280' a 141,517 183,666 141,517 583,266 w .-14 ALABAMA AGRICULTURALEXPERIMENT STATION THIE ECONOMYOF TALLADEGACOUNTY OJ'" """0 ;::!- 15 C') .-I 00 Technical Coefficients , 0""'0 t-m.-l ot-"'" Technical or direct coefficients were calculated from the flow tables. Purchases by a sector were divided by total output from that sector for this purpose. This equation took the form: Xij CC ::r:..<:: "';b , .-I lI) co c:"'! t-.-ICOC00"'" "",ooll)omtC0oo""'t-O C')co"",cx:>ocx:> 0 cx:>oo 0000 .-100 "'00 C')oo , '...... c:c:c: ~~§ 155 8 ",to( "';, t-.-I C')coC') o.-I cooo C:C:C: 0.-10 o""'co &J88 co Olf:>lI)OO b oooococoooo '''''''' .-I'" cocom com ::° """"0 > d I=< t- lI) 00 8 c:. .-ICOO 00""'tOCO.-l 00lf:> c:c:c: "",m"", 3;gg8 m c: 0:1 to( au = technical coefficient, Xii = value of shipments from sector i to sector j, Xj = total output of sector j. The coefficients thus estimate the input requirements for each dollar of output. This procedure was based on the assumption that the relationship between purchases of a sector and the level of output of that sector was linear. For example, in 1963, for each $10,000 of output produced by the construction industry, the following approximate intersectoral purchases were necessary: $2.90 from agriculture, $1.50 from construction, $230 from manufacturing, etc., Table 4. In 1967, Table 5, construction purchases per $10,000 in output was $2070 from agriculture, $1.80 from itself, and $231 from manufacturing. In both years, the largest purchases necessary were from imports and households. When households were considered exogenous to the economy, construction required over 90 per cent of its inputs from outside the economy. The total endogenous purchases amounted to only $889 in 1963, for each $10,000 in output by the construction sector. The interaction of construction with the remainder of the Talladega County economy was expected to be limited. These data strongly support this hypothesis. Direct Employment Requirements co m .-I -<' ::g OJ °o~ b( >:: §o;::! ~ . .uo;::! If:>mll)'''''C')o .-It-om""""" cooCO""'C')O co') lf:>0 t- t-lf:>0 0 0000 00 mo lI)O 0 0...... J5 8 OJ ~ C1 t-lI)lf:>""'lf:>m "'CO""'t-.-ItC').-Imoot-o O.-lC')ooo ~ -< ..:i -< ~' f-< Z P 0 U -< " ~ Q -< ..:i ..:i -< 8, ~ ,"'0 §t;8'"'s :~ 0:1 o"'" oS ,s §"g c:c:c: 8 c:c:c:c:c: <01 If:> C') 0 co m lI) "'" COO .-IC00 lI).-10 C')coo COO , '...... ~§~~ ..dOJd)~ e;~'"""" Olf:>'" O.-lC0 c:c:c: ""'.-1.-1 88 COll)""""'i'0 C0.-I.-IC00 '" m.-lm ocom cq 00 <01 t-"",m 0. ;::! ""'~m 00.-10 .-100 00.-1 , " rlJ f-< Z ~ , >:: ;:10': b( mC0.-1 mocooomt- U ~ ~ §.s ::;E~ 'I'< .-Ioo~""'~O 0""'<')C')00 .-I~OOOO 000000 0 0 0 , ,0 t<01 co .-I 0 mo.-l .-1.-10 .-ICOO If:>000 lI)C') 00 t-C0 O t-O~"", Oll)OO 000000 0", t-C')C')~""'0 .g 0 0 0, o '" 00 00 0 , C0 <01 cx:>~o co""'o If:>lI)O CO~O "...... <01.-1.-1 If:>C')0 Z u ~ r-< ~ ~~ 0 °b 1S8~ ~~:g~;g8 ""'.-Ilf:> OOOlf:>t-oo C ",.-ICO co "'" ~ ~c:~ ! ! c:c:c:c:c:c: .,." : I : ! 'i i .-IlI)~OOO ~ gg8 0"",0 : ~ [ ~""'o ~ ~ . .. ! :! ~ .8' ii' i ~ ..:i ~ : : I ! . I : IOJ I I I i~ [ I I I i I ! : 1 I I I I I I! S ~ I [",' i [!! ! ' :~ : 1- : [[ 0 : :: I i ' 'I'< ' ",", , " I I ~ ! , ", Iii ~ I I I,:::::: ilia i I !!i~!cJi5i1::! I : : 1;:1I~"'O I S I : : IS I , I'<:e i I [oa 1"'0 '"' i Q) 0:1 I 0 "5 ~ : : :d ~i!io,"E~g'ab(8 I Q) ..; OJ i!II=<,~oa,oiI>1'< , : ,0,~,,",Q)1'<0Q) '" '" ;:I I I Q) I I '" I Po I' !ilQ) 'I' '" I! i i I ~ ~ Direct employment requirements were calculated by dividing total sectoral output in thousands of dollars into number of people employed in the respective sectors. Employees required in the construction sector in 1963, Table 6, totaled 1.01 people per $10,000 in value of output. By 1967, employment requirements :!b(I'<;:I"'O~'a",;e ~E.s.s:CQ),S"g-o ;:!00"';::!"';,0:I"'Ob("'O ~;::!o:Ioo.",OJQ)I'<- Id'§E,8§~l=lf) """OO~ """0000""" c-1t-l.QCDOt- tIf) 0 C") C")oo ";t00 (000 cD '" "'"0 ::3- ~ C") If) 00 0 : t00 ~c:~ 0° o;e"", <:')00 Olf) C")~ ...... ::r::...c: t-~ ............ ""...... t-oo <:')...... 00 If) "Ee~ '" '" '" '"g5S ~O( "';;, ""-'2"'" ~...s '" frJ~8 000l!) OOCD C")~oo~oo t-C")CD<:')OO c?c?c? ~~~888 ~c:c:C?~~ 0">l!)"""~lf)0 ~~O">o l!) o"> O~O"> CDlf)o"> c-1.CDO"> c:oqo: """"""0"> 00<:')0"> "0 ;> '" ~ '" I': ~ ~s :cq l!)tt-...... t-<:') ~~ ""'"0 ;;. CIJ I': ° I'i g " 8~~ c:C?~ ~8b~88 C?C?c:~C?C? oj0( ~ ~~~ : ~~O: ...... FCD 0"> ...... M CD 0"> ...... ...:' ::;: rCD 0"> ...... ""'"0 ;> " CIJ>::Ol'i (ljb.C 0;' 1] g 2~ oj-""" '" bI: 'S"O ,S ;> >:: >:: d'S for construction totaled 1.67 persons per $10,000 in output. Services and manufacturing required the high and low extremes of employees per $10,000 of output in 1963. The requirements were 2.96 and 0.54, respectively. Federal government with 2.52 employees per $10,000 of output; and finance, insurance, and real estate with 0.26 employees per $10,000 were the high and low extremes in 1967. An increase in employment in the construction sector was expected because of the government expenditures in this sector. The construction sector was growing during this period and federal spending provided additional impetus to the sector. The reduction in employment requirements per $1,000 in output from agriculture probably resulted from technological advances in this area and the decline in production caused by weather conditions. Finance, insurance, and real estate and service and mining were considered to be developing sectors. Therefore, the reduction in employment requirements was explained partially as a more efficient utilization of manpower and partially on the basis of more specialization. Transportation, communications, and public utilities employment changes were explained on the basis of specialization and some over capacity in earlier periods. The reduction in employment requirements per $1,000 in output from state and local government seemed inconsistent when new state facilities such as vocational trade schools were considered. No data were available to adequately resolve this question. "'" cq : V bI: ...:' ::;: ...: ~ ]1:! OI!" 1':"0 ~ ' ,S ~ 'S oj § '" ,"0 (OO">c0">0 :~C: ...... ...: ~ ~ ~ ...: >-< ...: >-< ~ as, ~'- l!)~ 0000 (0...... 0">c-1 C'J~ C")t~o"> 0"> If) t-clf) ~lf) ............ as, :~v g~81-<~ g:~gs ~~~f2~~ C")CD<:')~C)C")"""t-0 Oc-10 00t-,.,,00 ;..' E-< Z P 0 U ~c:c: c:~~~C?C? 0">C)0"> C")C) 00 0"> O">CDO"> ~C'JO: CD~""" g~81-<~ :~ (l) y ~ I'::pS°"O"'::::p ~OI!S~§.g.;=i ...: E-< g ,8 Po I': p.:g E-< OJ) , I': ~' ::3't: z I': ::3 oj"", ...: " ~ "*§~~ e::Vd:JOI! ::;"';;1-<';: '" J, §" ~ 0(00"> O">CDC")OOc-< >-< ~ ...: " r.J A >-< c-10">t- l!)~cc-1 <:')(00 ~ 8~~ 8~~ , " M~g~~8 ~8~~88 '",,' ~ 8g8 ~ ~~g , '" ...: >-< ...: E-< ",' E-< Z ~ ::;: ~ p:; ~ p:< E-< Z ~ ::;: ;.. 0 p., "'" ::;: ::3 fJ;:I P. >-< ~~I-<"'" 1':', on oJ,C ::3>:: '-' "' O"O;':::'~ >::, OI!~ 1-<1:: """'; E-<° P. § :p I':..c,~ OOC") l!) 00 l!) ~ I g ,8 I': ojOl!::3o;;: f:J ~ r.. r.. ~ 0 ~g ..... """C")O">OOt-ot-c-< ...: u H ° '-' U~ "'" '" ,v I': ,0 1':'.;::1 88~ 8~~288 000 000000 , .., ""'" t-00c-1 c-100C"), l!)0 , c-1"""""""""C")~l!)~0 S 0- ~ ~;J;8 0 CDc-< ~ ...: E-< ! ! i I ' I Iii: I 1° I I'" I I ::p I :Ili8i~~i~1 Ili'S:"Ol--< I': II ,0 I~ :'0 j ~ ;:\ 0 ~~ ~E-< '" :>< I-< d 0 0 ' ~ I-< '" A'" '" '" ;>. Construction, manufacturing, and wholesale and retail trade appeared to have been near the optimum scale of production in 1963. Any additional workers would increase production, but the rate of increase appeared to be declining. The increase in federal government employees per $1,000 in output was attributed to the location of additional federal activity in the county. Average salary of government employees was reduced by the influx of more lower ranked individuals. The introduction of a revised, minimum wage law in 1966 was important. Also, this law increased wages from $1.25 to $1.65 per hour. The effect of this increase was a reduction in employment requirements per $1,000 in output in several key sectors. p. ° co CD ... 0">00 ............ "P. 5u§ § ~ dA.S ~~"g ...:: ;:;sE-< ~ ~ en ~ E-< b ...::: :r:E---< : -Eii .~ °"'0; Q S' g -0 S C")tfJ;:I I l' 18 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION THIE ECONOMY OF TALLADEGA COUNTY ~ 0 0 <1) <1) -5 .... 0 ..... .... ,2; ]< ;3 s -= P-= 0 §b 01 .... <1) ;> oj <1) ..d E-< vi 19 Coefficients and Multipliers:Type I and Type II Two sets of coefficients and multipliers were developed from the technical coefficients matrix in both 1963 and 1967. The difference between the two sets was in the way the household sector was considered. These two sets of coefficients and multipliers are normally called "Type I" and "Type II." The difference in consideration of the household sector was the only change between Type 1 and Type II coefficients and multipliers. Households used as an endogenous sector resulted in a larger endogenous matrix for the economy. The matrix of Type II coefficients was a ten by ten model, whereas the Type I matrix was nine by nine. Type I Coefficients Type I coefficients considered the household sector as exogenous to the model. That is, household activity was not determined by the model. Rather, any interactions with the household sector was considered an injection into the county economy. However, household activity was assumed to occur outside the county in the Type I model. Interdependence Coefficients The interdependence coefficients, or direct and indirect coefficients, estimated the output from other sectors required to sustain an increase in production (demand) of $1.00 for the given sector. These were both the direct and indirect effects of a change in output in a particular sector. Interdependence coefficients were calculated by subtracting the technical coefficients matrix from an identity matrix of the same magnitude. The resulting matrix was inverted to obtain the interdependence coefficients matrix. Continuing the example, a $10,000 increase in final demand for the construction sector in 1963 required agriculture to increase output by $10, Table 7. Construction output increased by $10,006, and manufacturing output $269. Final output from a $10,000 increase in demand for construction from all sectors would have been $10,992 in 1963. It should be noted that the interdependence tables indicate the combined direct and indirect effects of a change in final demand. Technical coefficients in Tables 4 and 5 show the direct effect of these changes on a sector. For example, approximately $2 of the extra $6 in construction ~E:"'" Ii> d) f;l;..b.C 13 5 S ~ C'Jmo> m-.:l'co 1-0""" COo:1""" ......1O1-000':>r')C'J ......mo:1Oo:1o""" c::::c:c: -.:1'0010:10':>1- gs:::E8gill 000000...... , , , , 1-001-0 """;""'; co 0:100 CI) I': 0 " o1b.C Co:, co 0':> ...... c;o-< <1) <1) """"d ;> d ~o <1)01':..... ""'0""1': 0001ocoo c:c:c: 0000;:::g3 ......oEEoo...... 000000...... , , , """; """; CO......IOCOr')OOOO <:,)-.:I'O1-o:1-.:1'm O':>mO':>comooo <:')-.:1'0:1......000 0000000:1 , , """; , """; < <:' ~ <: P< <: ~ <1) b.C ,g'"d I': t:. 1':'13 J5 c; 's C'J-.:I'r') cocoo 0:100""" ooco c::::c:::: ......0...... 1-O':>CO mmco 00:10 c:c::::c: 8, 1':38 ~' g ~ a-O t) ."i~ <1) <:')CO1--.t'<:0-.:1'O':> o:1COOOCO1-OO""" u ~' z ~ 0 <: () ~ a 2;:::gsbg 000000""" , """; , , """; -.t'1-""" <:,)C'JcoOOO>}f)O CCOOIOOO if: <1) 0 0 <1) 0 I': <1) '"d , ; , , , , """; 000 . ~ .. ~ ~ u Z ~ ~ a.s :::sg ..... 1- """0 C')<:,)000:1C'J01COo:1 coO':> ~g;J~ '2:1g2~gggs ~c:~ C'JO OCOO':> 0 co 0':>-.:1'-.:1'1-0':>_",O 000:1C'J~00Q:> . m 1 .: ~~~c::::c::::c:~ Col - ..0iif -0,.... 0-<~ " §"E s <1) '! aJ <1) 01 ~'S'p,S:Od),S.:o-<~g O""" Egg P--o <1)' e0::.- ,~~ ~ g,~ "'11 g8 ~ ;::I <1) ,8'E § ~ 1'1'0(on>2~ & ~E-< >. 5Co"'eo1A,siiJ,S<1»' ~ 01 S <:U:::SE-< S:f;I;..CI)CI)f;I;, 0 ,....- 20 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION THE ECONOMY OF TALLADEGA COUNTY 21 output was accounted for by direct purchases from the construction sector, Table 5. The remaining $4 resulted from purchases generated by sectoral interaction. An identical increase in final demand in 1967, Table 8, for construction would have required an increase in agricultural output of $9, construction output of $10,008, and manufacturing output of $270. Approximately $2 of the additional construction output resulted from direct sectoral purchases. A total increase in output of $10,930 from all sectors was needed to support $10,000 in product values supplied to final demand. Thus, the construction sector did change the source of its inputs slightly between 1963 and 1967, but total effect of the change on the economy appeared insignificant. Construction did not interact to a significant extent with the remainder of the economy. This observation provided one indication that federal expenditures may not greatly affect the county economy. Indirect Coefficients Indirect coefficients represent the increase in sector output caused by ,an increase in consumer demand. This demand increase causes secondary spending which results in further expansion of final output. The intrasector indirect coefficients included the initial increase in final demand as well as the increase caused by secondary spending. An increase in final demand of $10,000 for construction in 1963, Table 9, would have caused an indirect increase in the value of agricultural output of $7, construction output of $5 and ma,nufacturing output of $39. Construction output would actually increase by $10,005 since $10,000 was needed to satisfy final output demands.2 The same increase in final demand in 1967, Table 10, would have indirectly increased agricultural output by $6, construction output by $6, and manufacturing output by $39. Construction would have had to increase its output by $10,000 to satisfy final demand and $6 for indirect interindustry demand for a total of $10,006. 2 Differences in output requirements reported on basis of direct and indirect coefficients may occur because of numerical rounding; e.g. $10,006 in construction output was required on the basis of interdependence and direct coefficients and $10,005 was required on the basis of indirect coefficients. In the former, $4 of the extra $6 was attributed to indirect effects, whereas the latter statistic shows $5 due to indirect effects. -;s~ ~11>!:i '"0 :> 11> ~ &6 :> ......coo1 ......coOO1"""o1""" .................. O1t-C')'<:!'lf)OCO ''''If) coo...... 000000...... qc: , , . . """;""'; 888 ~ 0 <.> 11> £ 11> >-< ..8 >-< ,~ P. ";:: "3 S ~ 0. ~ 0 11> bII ~ Q) :> 0:1 11> ...<:: Eo< -;, 2 g 8-;:: 0:1-< 11> 11> rco 0> .-< ...:" cn§& ~"C 6 '<:!'C')o1 <>10>01 ococo ot-O coMoC')lf)"""O> OO>'<:!'cocooo cocoo>co"""oco """0000001 qqq qqqc:q ...... ...... 1:§,5 J5 6 ~,!. 8 >-< 0:1 !:i ;:I ,S.S §"'813 ~ 0:1 <1,'"0 11> ~ ,~ "C .5 ......COo1 C')"1'1f) o...... o......co t-coC')cococot......t-t-......t-O1""" CO,<:!,lf)""OO c:c:c: ot-O1 ......""" "'co 0010 qc: ~ ~ ><" f-< 382gg """; ,. """; . . """; , """; < Z P 0 U ...: >'I :~2 """0 0>...... o 010> c mO1"l'lf)......lf)C') COO1oC')coOC') o......co......ooco 000000...... 0 §"a~ "'<::11>~0:1 ...: " ~ 0 ~e;;~.b '" '<:!'t-COOt-t-t-COOlf) C')'<:!'C') QJt o>coC')""" 0010 If)CO~COC')oco 00 oOo1oooco 000 0000000 . " """;'" """; d"..!. <.>~ '<:!'oo> J,0!:itA" !:i~;:I!:i'"O;::::~ C')""t0:10:16,0 !:i,.D'~ """O>tEo< >-<~6:go:l;:l:a 0<::'1"" 0.;:1 I c:c:q "," Eo'I >'I ...: f-< Z ~ 0; ~ !:i <1J 'u c.; OJ c.; >: OJ '"0 !:i QJ "1'01""01""0,"" 00000001 OJ fd:;J:~&3~~g ~ C coC') co coo co 01 s::>.<.> , ; . , , . """; U r;: "' ~ 0 U ~ u Z ~ 0 z ~ I'< ~ f-< Z .... 8E ~~ "'" ,0 ~ , !:i ;:I't:: If)CO'''''' t-lf)'<:!' 0> cocoo.- """O1t- 010...... 00""" , """; 0>'""01 '<:!'O1o>co"""oco o-d I ~~qqqq~ !:i11> 11>1:: '"0 ,~ 0 6 0:1"8 OJ !:i §~ u,g cocco 00t0001 000 """; , 3S;~~~gg """C')ooooo> ~qc:qC:C:C:' """"ocoO1q;)° -<~ I 0:1.... OJ 1 ~ !:i~ '~;;., 15- ~ ~ 11> , >-< 't:: ;:I ~.:!:: COC'?l!) coco,"" <2 ~~~ ~g~~~g~ 01001 ,; " .... ~ I'< >< Eo< ~Eo< §'"S ...<::-< <'>.5 ooooooco >-< ° ..." """; 0:I~ ;:::", cooco'<:!'t-t-'<:!' "'t-1f) '<:!'0t- .g£ i ! i 0:5 ~ >'I ~ i ! i ~ i !'5 i I ! i i ! 1:3 ! 1-< i i i i 'li!~i~~i~i'b ' 11> I 11> , "~ ""0 >-< : : :!:i . ! iJ i ! II >-< 11) 11> >-< 0.0:1 ",'" 11> >-< ~.~ !:i-< 0:1.& ~ iiig:.b!:iI>::i'O. i : i" ~o::= 0:1 ::;;"';2 : : :S~o:IQ)~:»::;:I i i i8a~g.5~S6 . i 0:1'"0 : 6 :.~ "5':; 05 l 11>~ ,!:: ;:I '"0 0. !:i~CO ,~ ;:10 0:1 . ' :...< >::0<.»::;:16 ul1>Q. ~ >-<'~E"',.DI1>.S>::- >::- ;:I '-<"'" 0.'"0 11> u '" E~ u .'-'~;:I!3>::O§'~11>11>11> ! i bhd"5'; ~.Se;;8~ '"0°;:: !:i~O1 ~...... 011>'" 11> 0:1 0. .!::;;., ~ QEo<;;., ~ :I > ~ > > > r> !II:! n c: c: r-I .'0'0126 .'003'01 1.'00242 .0'009'0 .00'058 000'05 .00321 .00462 .'00300 1.'00182 .00179 .00007 .0'0139 .0'0440 .0'0081 .00074 1.00058 .000'02 .'0'0293 .0'0630 .00302 .00145 .0'0129 1.00'003 1.05228 .00470 .'06664 Manufacturing ._-------------------------------------Transpartatian, cammunicatians, and public facilities---_----------------------- .00832 Whalesale and retail trade -------------------- .'02336 .01008 Finance, insurance, and real estaten---_Service and mining -------------------------------- .'0'0406 State and lacal gavernment-----__----------- .00163 Federal gavernment ----- __---_---m_---___----.0001'0 .00105 .0'0176 .00114 .00'070 .00054 .'00003 1.00357 .'0'0488 .0'0252 .00182 .00176 .'00006 .00'07'0 1.'0'0104 .'00'095 .0'0043 .0'0'033 .0'0002 .'00244 .'00543 .0'0191 .'00114 .0'0064 .0'0003 > r- :>:I I'll >< ." I'll ~ ~ I'll Z -I I/> -I 0 Z ~ -I ::I: iii I'll n 0 z 0 ~ -< TABLE 1'0. TYPE (I) INDffiECT COEFFICIENTS, TALLADEGACOUNTY, ALABAMA, 1967 0 ... Agriculture Canstructian Manufacturing Transportatian, communicatians, and public utilities .0'0062 1.0'0065 .0'039'0 .00563 .0'0119 1.'01649 .00102 .00511 .00812 Whalesale and retail trade Finance, insuranee, and real estate Service and ., mInIng tlte 1 Federal an aca governgavernment ment A gri c ul t ur e .'00'034 .'00121 .'0'0197 1.'03926 ----- - - -- - - - - --- - -- - --- - --- - - - - -- -- - --- --- - --' . Canstruction _m-_mm_-------m---------------n---'0'0566 Man uf a cturing-------m------- --m-----------m ---- .060'01 Transportation, cammunicatians, and public utilities..n-----m-----------mn- .'0'0923 Wholesale and retail trade--------------------- .01627 .'01882 Finance, insurance, and real estate_mm .0'0548 Service and mining --m-----------m--------_m-.'00189 State and local gavernmenL----m---------.0'00'07 F edera 1 government----_-------m--n_---------.00131 .00135 .'00217 .'00095 .00'057 .0'00'02 .'0029'0 .004'01 .00365 .0'0159 .00072 .0'00'02 1.'00486 .00431 .00622 .0'0296 .00214 .0'0005 .00101 1.00101 .'00274 .00079 .0'0045 .0'0'0'02 .00133 .0'0313 .'00354 .0'0164 .00337 .'00990 .0'0024 .00'085 .0'0355 .DllDI .00227 .01367 .00348 .00437 .00189 .'00187 .0'0378 .0'0442 .0'0292 .0'0406 .00199 .00562 .0'0773 1.'00745 .0'0119 .00208 .00178 1.00300 .'00151 .00092 .'0'0221 1.00070 .00006 .0'0'001 1.00002 .'0'00'05 -I > rr> Q I'll G') > n 0 c: Z ~ '" w 24 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION THE ECONOMY OF TALLADEGA COUNTY I Q.)'" ""1j 2S ..8 .. ,~ The intraeconomy interaction of construction is further shown to be low by the indirect coefficients. Construction had very little effect on the local economy. And, construction was the primary means whereby watershed development funds were injected into the economy. Type II Coefficients When households were considered as an endogenous sector of the economy, Type II coefficients could be developed. Activities of households were considered determined by the model. Thus, interaction with the household sector was completely within the economy. Interdependence Coefficients Interdependence coefficients were developed using the same procedure as for Type I, the only difference being that in this case households were considered as an endogenous sector of the economy. The output necessary by each sector to support a $1.00 increase in output for final demand of the respective sector was the basis for these coefficients. These were the total economic interactions within the economy caused by increased sales by each sector. For construction firms to increase output to consumers they would need support from other sectors in the economy because they are interdependent. Since the interrelations between agriculture and construction were quite low in 1963, only $97 worth of products would be purchased by construction, per $10,000 in consumer sales, in the agricultural sector, Table 11. The total output contractors sold to each other and to' other sectors amounted to $10,281. This amount was allocated to final consumers and other endogenous sectors in the economy. A total of $10,000 went to consumers and $281 was purchased by the various interdependent sectors. Agricultural purchases of contractor services amounted to $813, per $10,000 increase in consumer demand for agricultural products. An increase in agricultural output of $82 would have been necessary in 1967, to support construction sales of $10,000 to consumers, Table 12. These consumer sales by construction required $10,314 worth of construction pro~uct~. The remaining quantities were sold to other sectors: Exam.lI~a~onof the dependence of agriculture upon construction activIties revealed that a c-, CD 0:> .-< p..... 2§5g~ ~;;j~~gglC~~ 00.-<00 o"":!'C').-<.-<~<=':)C') C'lo:>.-< OO"":!' , '" "'" ~] ~s~ '1j> . Q.)o f:<.be Q.) Q.) CC"":!'"":!'CD.-<.-1 en 0 0 I=< ~ ""1j > '" -;;;...s; Q) 0;, Q.)"I':"" ",be "":!'C'IC'I c?o.- C')CDO t-oot-o:>ooo:>CD.-< C'lCDO:>'1<" fo< < ~ Q.) bIJ 0. :>Q.) ,~'1j ,0 J5 cD I .. §,S .0; s Q.) g::~~ g~;:S;:SCXjb~;:g; 00C') 0.-<00000:>00 , '" """";" '~i C'lOOC'lOlC<=':)t-'1 !l)lCC'lC'lt-OCDO:> '1«=':)C') <=':)001l)00'-<'1O:>'-< "":!'OO'-< '1< CD I!) oot-C>C') ooOOC'l C'I'-O:> .-<1I)t,,;!t-0:>c? 0:>0'-< C'I'1<1I)C'l00'-<0 o'1j'::::'~ f-< ~:p C')lJ':>C'l t-C'llJ':>t-'1 Z OJ'" ~ :p o..c~ .-< CDtCD0:>C') '1< 00 0 0:>.-< ~ <:I! j """ o pO:::: 00C'l0000001l)C'I '-.."0" , " , ; , , , , , 'c.i ~ "8.U"S p r.. bC .-<.-11) C'I'-CD.-00<=,:) 0!?llJ':> 00.-< """;' '1CDOO 00t-C'lt-'-<'-<0 t-CDCD<=':)'1'-CD ooO.-oo (OOO(OlcOOOoo<=':) 0.-<00000:>C') """ 'c<:i ~ Po. :>< E-< !ii lil!iii !ii:gi!o;!.J!!'!" i i is,,, , ' : S Q.)"~ ,; .-< ~ '"' II E-< ! i i !! cJ ! i ! ! ! i i "," ! !-;;; ! ! i i ! ! i§ ! !~ ! i i ! OJ !.. ...«e "Q.) "0. "':>~E-< "d1; .. "'0; 0..... :DB b!JQ.) §.£ ~~ '1j'" Q.) '" ~ g,~ "8]"" i ! i,8 i~ ~ i ~ i !"~ "d;::J.-< "~.=:lc ili § i<:l!'1jiSiio. i I, : .D 0 : '" ' 1'.1:1 °Slc ""1< !!!0:E~1f~5~!S 1 i l"O::::..o"SbeS!.... ' Q.)"" ! i..... ';::J ' " " ;::JC'I .=: E:J:18."d..s 2$Q.)§o;"'«eQ.) ;::J '" 0. '" ~" .. "", 'J:: <= ! i bi; ci';:;'1j ~ "00; I': :..... .:ao~ i 5Idoo"o;::JI=<"<1> o~:>a:>o"C'.I:I.:::: """'1jo >",;::J .."~ .s,S..c Q.)"S0"'" 0'1j 0 "~::: 8 ~o ;::JJ " ..;::JO; . <:I!'1j beoQ t (,) Q.) 0 ~;:; <:I! ~ 0. 0 0.'" blJo...,... >"~Q.) ~"'en~ Q.)~:>- n ~ .£ E-< § ~ <= 0 0 <:I! """« ~ ~ -;;;'1j;::J0. "~ :>- (,) "~ Q.)Q.)'" Q) OE-< Q) 26 , ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION cb", """'0 ::3'1tC'lOC'l 0'-<'1< C'lt-COO>C'I'1 .-< -<:' ::g -<: ~ -<: ...:i r.n~0 db( 15 1; S ~b( 'Ci!, 1n1n00 C':>C'I'1ooC'l e'Jt-C':>lnC':>'-<'-'1 0000 o.-oooooot0'-<'1< '-<'-<00'-<0<>-1C':> . " """"";""'; c0 1 "'"' ::3 0, $10,000increase in agricultural sales would depend on an increase of $819 in constmction output. Indirect Coefficients Computations to develop indirect coefficients are explained under "Indirect Coefficients (Type I)." Indirect coefficients for construction are shown in Tables 13 and 14. These coefficients indicate that agriculture had to produce $95, construction $10,279, and manufacturing $1,301, in 1963 in additional output for construction to supply $10,000 to satisfy final consumer demand. Agriculture had to produce $79, constmction $10,312, and manufacturing $1,289 in additional output to satisfy an increase in final demand of $10,000from construction in 1967. Obviously, the construction industry was heavily dependent on the manufacturing sector for a large portion of its inputs. However, since most raw product processing was considered as part of the manufacturing sector, this was not unusual. The effect of the household expenditures of income generated by the construction sector can be seen by comparing "Type I and Type II Indirect Coefficients." The increase suggests that household multiplier effects are highly significant. Multipliers Multipliers form the basis for the predictive capacity of an input-output study. Output multipliers show the total interaction that occurs when any sector changes output. Income multipliers reflect the total change in income in the economy when household income changes in anyone sector. An employment change in one sector also has repercussions throughout the economy. Total changes in employment resulting from a change in one sector is measured by employment multipliers. Output Multipliers Output multipliers indicate the level of output resulting from a change in final demand for the products of any particular sector. These multipliers were calculated directly from the interdependence coefficients, Tables 7, 8, 11, 12. Individual sector column coefficients were added to derive the multipliers. Type I Multipliers Output multipliers derived under the assumption that households were exogenous are shown in Tables 7 and 8. The output multipliers for the construction sector were 1.099 and 1.093 in S ~~S; ~~~gs~~~;g: .-C':> 0'-«>1 . " OOOOOOCOC':> """"';"c.i 0>00'1< e')'-<'1CO'1<'1<'-< ,7 >=< ...§.s JS- S cU, .;:;:'"'O.S ~ b.C t-O.-< <>-1lnO> 0>'-<'-< .-CO'1< C'lC'IO .-C'I oo'1. E-< C'lC'I'1<,-'1< 1n.-<'1<.-'1<0C':> CD'-<'-00 """";'" c.i '" b( oS ... U -<: (j "" [5 ~ ,'Ci! Q) -<: -<: E-< ...:i ...:i gt3~~~ oS'" ~'"'O~ .S.S oS~ '" ~ '" ,'"'0 (!)~':";:1~ t:-'1-1C'1lf) OC':>'1<'- O>t-t-OC':>C'lCOC':> C'I'1C'I 00.-<000'1<0> """';'" """; CDCOe'J.- oS t: ui '0 Q) ]:~'" S';~ !:I 8~~ . .. :§bb~bg?gf;:; """;""'c.i C'lCDCOCOt-ooe')11;) CD'-C'lOCO CDC'lO>lf)lf)C':>cOC'I ~ 'u 1=: Q) ~r J,§bi '" ~ §~ S.9'"'Oj.~ >-< ... "'"'S ~ ~...o:;; ~ E-<::; .~ '" 5.3 8 COOOO '- C'I'1-< '" "'"' 88~ ;g:~;g:8;g:g~:§bIJ'>-< '" ~ . """; "...,. c.i O>'- CO'1e'JOO '-<'1<0 If)COoo'1'1< ~~ "'...... "<::0 a CD'-'-COO -~ '"'" ~o, q::", §~ 02 ~ .;::: ;j g8~ """;' 8b888g~g """"""; ...... ~ ...... ...... ~ "" P< ,~ ~"3 a C'I'i<1n 0>.-<0> 1n00 <>-1CDC'I C'l0lf) , ; ,. e'JOO>O>'-«>-1CO.-< O>lf)C'I.-tt-OO11;)'1<'-<'1C'lt-ooOCOO 0'-<'-<0000>e'J """'1:';) 'OE-< "0,",", ... 0 ;8->. 8-3 ;,. E-< c.i .-< "" ...:i ~ -<: E-< : ,~ ~lJ ~o, i ! ~ ,>- i I l;j i """'0 ! S 1 Ie. §Sgs : : IS :.!:I~ :~ : ::p '1< 111"i3':";:1oS:~.Ji"'3 : : ",.>-< '" (!)~ 0 '" :" t' g,c.i 'be:> ~ :" : : : c.-;; "' '" : : I a ':";:1 1::g.S b.C :"'"' S ! ! ~ g'~"O ~"S 'Ci!8 i.e. .s>=<>. ! g"::'.;:Jjj § 51"0 g g;'~;j ,e. ~:P.8 "'...0 "'.S ",- 0"0 0 t",o S ~ a a t: ;j 'Ci! ",,"0 b(c; >=< illi ""II!~ !! i! J i ! § ! ' ; i ",0 ",""" b.C", ~..<:: ",...... ..<::'" a ... "0 os '" ... '" a i I i:p i i- I ! ! i 113 i ~ ~ iI:! ~ g~ 1:: 0, § .>-<>. a QE-<'" " "'32~;j 8. p, ~ ~ 8 §"§~e.'" a""" ","0- "'.>-< '" '" '" ..;f8~':: ":: ~ § @ @..2 ~ i:; ~"O ::3 0, :S~~cn~£~, ~ Q) .s N 00 TABLE 13. TYPE (II) INDIRECT COEFFICIENTS, T ALLADEGA COUNTY, ALABAMA, 1963" A'gnculture Transportation, C °n.M ancommunications structlOn factunng d' an public' utilities Whole- Fnance, S' State F d I ervlCe dI I e era sa Ie a? d msurance and an Dca govem.. governretail d' I t d an rea mmmg men t ment ra e estate Households :l>I"" :I>!XI :I>- ~ .04194 .01827 .08660 .40517 .03308 .15454 ---__m_--------_--mm__m 1.07315 .00945 Agriculture --Construction m--m____mm_m--m----__--_------ .07029 1.02793 .01762 .03368 1.16762 .04318 .18759 1.02944 .06701 .02144 .02820 .04991 .00456 .03830 1.09135 .02846 .03878 .07031 .00656 .01953 .04690 1.01578 .01954 .03459 .00323 .04412 .10289 .03292 1.04355 .07794 .00719 .02405 .05732 .01772 .02318 .04085 .00379 .05771 .26375 .02949 .13048 .06416 .29440 .01358 .01847 .01028 .02154 .01464 .04581 .21121 .03125 .07612 .02265 .03120 1.05616 .00521 :I>:I>" " .13013 .01917 .04529 .01440 .01918 .03426 .00319 (; c: .05884 .14060 .04392 .05848 .10536 1.00976 .02536 .05615 .01831 .02090 .03283 .00297 Manufacturingm_--m--m----_mm_------_m .36829 Transportation, communications, and public utilities_--mm----mmm_-_m_- .05162 Wholesale and retail trademm--m_-m_.12735 Finance, insurance, and real estate------ .04175 Service and mining--m--mmu__m------m- .04822 State and local govemmentm--m_---_m_- .08221 Federal governmentmmmmm--mm_------- .00763 -I c: " :l>.33651 .22015 .41172 1.37320 I"" m >< "1:1 I"" Households'-------m------_-__m_m--m----m_.15994 .20763 .24509 .25502 .52808 ,15629 m 1 Indirect and induced changes per dollar change in final demand. Z ~ ~ m -I -I 0 «II -I :I>- Z , ,:I -I :J: "' m n 0 z 0 ~ -< 0 .., TABLE 14. TYPE (II) INDIRECT-COEFFICIENTS,T ALLADEGACOUNTY, ALABAMA, 1967 ~ Agriculture Federal goverr men Households -I >I"" > Q m " :l>.03385 .09796 .40484 .01531 .03881 .15787 Agricul ture__m-- __--__m--_mm_--_----m__m---- .05652 1 Transportation, Whole- Fnance, . State ConManuousale and mSUf- Service and local struction facturing rucatidns, retail agce, n an . trade an rea I mmm g governme t public estate n utilities .01259 .01860 .00912 .01184 .01585 .01440 .00792 .05260 .07441 .03578 .06617 .05041 1.03123 .03794 .21509 .13702 .30029 .19331 .26753 .12891 1.16673 Con stru cti 0n----_on --m_------n--mm --n--m---- .07797 Manufacturing.. m__----mm_mmmmm------- .35561 Transportation, communications, and public utilitiesm_-----_n------mmm-- .05919 Wholesale and retail trade--m------m_-_m- .90407 .07854 Finance, insurance, and real estate..nm Service and mining mnmm--m----_--mnm- .06453 State and local governmenL---m-----_m_- .08113 Federal government--__m_m-_m-------_m--- .00472 .50589 J-T ollseholds _--___m__m_m__m__-_----_mm--_m .02244 .03426 .02743 .02592 .03409 .00199 .15491 .02829 .04356 .03400 .03160 .04100 .00239 .20577 1.03617 .05305 .04364 .03996 .05178 .00296 .25987 .04589 1.07091 .05640 .05384 .07164 .00420 .26481 .02443 .03805 1.03442 .02844 .03670 .00215 .17542 .05346 .08049 .06641 1.06101 .08006 -00463 .35179 .03764 .05945 .04473 .04345 1.05741 .00334 .22992 n 0 c: Z -I -< .06960 .10738 .08466 .08022 .10637 1.00618 .41469 .03112 .04437 .03776 .02969 .03412 .00193 1.38092 N >0 ~ 30 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION THE ECONOMY OF TALLADEGA COUNTY 31 1963 and 1967, respectively. This indicates that a one-dollar change in final demand for construction would have caused a change in total output of the economy of $1.10 in 1963. In more realistic terms, a $10,000 change in construction output would have generated a $10,992 change in the total economy in 1963 and $10,930 in 1967. The share of the total output change in each year generated by interaction among firms in the construction industry was $6 and $8, respectively. In other words, the remainder of the economy would have generated less than 10 percent of the total output. The relatively low level of interaction of construction with the remainder of the economy meant that changes in that sector would not cause any major change in the county economy. Agriculture, on the other hand, would have generated $16,495 in total output for each $10,000 increase in agricultural production in 1963. The impact of agricultural production on the county economy dropped slightly in 1967. A $10,000 shift in agricultural output generated a shift of $16,237 in total output. Most of the output generated by the agricultural sector was accounted for by firms within the sector itself. Of the total $16,495 change, 76 percent was within the agricultural sector. It was interesting to note the shifts in agricultural sector interaction between 1963 and 1967, particularly with respect to wholesale and retail trade and to finance, insurance, and real estate. The decline in wholesale and retail trade coupled with an increase in the financial sector indicated a possible declining importance of agriculture as a trade sector, but an increasing importance as a credit and land use sector. The latter increase may reflect increased sales of rural land for residential uses. However, the same data also may be a reflection of the fact that 1967 was a poor year for agricultural production. In that case, the decline in trade and increase in finances would reflect less products available for sale and more credit needed to sustain the farm sector. Additional data are needed to draw more definite conclusions. Federal government interactions with the remainder of the economy indicated the impact of federal expenditures. The multipliers generated by federal funds in both 1963 and 1967 amounted to approximately $1.15 for each $1.00 in sector output (expenditures) . This was accounted for on almost a dollar for dollar basis within the federal government sector itself. The largest effect of federal spending was found in the agricultural sector where $754 in output per $10,000 in government funds was generated. That amount dropped to $631 in output by agriculture in 1967. This change could have resulted from a shift out of agricultural production or an unusually poor agricultural crop in 1967. The data were not conclusive on this point. Type II Multipliers If households are considered endogenous to (within) the economy, a different set of multiplier effects may be observed. For example, in both study years, the total economy output would have increased approximately $18,050 if construction output went up $10,000, Tables 11 and 12. The intraeconomy interaction within the construction sector would have increased by $10,281 in 1963 and $10,314 in 1967. Construction-manufacturing interaction accounted for most of the remaining primary sector output. Of course, households generated the greatest sector output other than construction. Household output increased more than $4,000 for every $10,000 increase in construction output both years. Household expenditures also created other significant production changes in the economy. Agriculture and federal government output multipliers increased significantly when household were considered as part of the economy. Labor inputs for the entire economy came from households and imports. Thus, when the households sector was endogenous, the multiplier effect was increased. This occurred because the number of rounds of interaction between the sectors was increased or "multiplied." Income Multipliers Income multipliers reflect the total income change in the county economy resulting from each dollar change in income in a single sector. The basic assumption of income multipliers is that some amount of income is generated each time output is increased. Income multipliers were computed by multiplying the interdependence coefficients matrix (Type I and II, respectively) times the household row entry in the technical coefficients table. The latter is referred to as the direct income effect, Tables 15 and 16. The column sums of the multiplication represent direct and indirect income effects. Multipliers were determined by dividing the direct income effect into the total effects for each sector. W N TABLE 15. INCOME MULTIPLIERS FOR THE TALLADEGA COUNTY ECONOMY, 1963 Direct income effect Indirect income effect effect effect income effect .98949 .41416 .49373 .59119 .85939 Directindirect income Induced income Type I income Directindirectinduced Type II income multiplier multiplier > r> m > 1.65 1.10 1.20 1.21 1.05 > .46141 .25423 .28610 .29970 .02523 .05709 .76111 .27946 .34319 .22836 .13470 .15054 .17240 .22345 2.14 1.63 1.73 1.71 1.42 > G') Agriculture ---------------------..-------------. C onstru ctio n _m-m-------_-----..----------Man uf a c turi n g m ---------------------..Transportation, communications, and public utilitieL_---__------------Wholesale and retail trade--------_--Finance, insurance, .34610 .60434 .07269 .03160 .63594 .41879 '" c n 1.12 1.21 1.11 1.60 1.56 1.48 c '" > and real estate--_____--------------------- !:j .41761 .93506 .68244 1.27786 Service and mining_--___-----------------State and local govemmenL-__---_Federal governmenL---_--___-----------Economy m----- .26132 .59855 .46229 .86614 .03089 .12485 .05107 .13435 .29221 .72340 .51336 .12540 .21166 .16908 .27737 1.00049 r1.16 1.20 1.48 1.64 II'! >< "U II'! i II'! Z '" -I II' -I 0 Z TABLE 16. INCOME MULTIPLIERS FOR THE TALLADEGA COUNTY ECONOMY, 1967 -I :c ii'I II'! n 0 z 0 ~ -< 0 "" Direct income effect Indirect income effect .28783 .02364 .05613 .08247 .03998 .04270 .11074 .05829 .13209 Induced income effect .74929 .27786 .34223 .42863 .64422 .30409 .70925 .52060 .99750 .21807 .13127 .14934 .17740 .22482 .13273 .24105 .17164 .28260 Directindirect income effect Directindirectinduced income effect .96736 .40913 .49166 .60603 .86904 .43682 .95030 .69224 1.28010 Type I income multiplier 1.62 1.09 1.20 1.24 1.07 1.16 1.18 1.13 1.15 1.20 Type II income multiplier 2.10 1.61 1.72 1.75 1.44 1.67 1.59 1.50 1.50 1.65 Agri culture-- ----------------------------------. .46146 Construction---------------------------------- .25422 .28610 Manufacturing_____-----------------------Transportation, communications, and public utilitieL_____------------- .34616 .60424 Wholesale and retail trade------------. Finance, insurance, .26139 and real estate---_-...-------------------.59851 Service and mining---____---------------.46231 State and local governmenL--------.86541 Federal governmenL--__-_------------E con om y- ------------------------------------- ~ r~ g II'! G') > n 0 c z ~ w w 34 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION THIE ECONOMY OF TALLADEGA COUNTY 35 Type I Multipliers Analysis of the direct and indirect effects of income changes revealed very little income interaction in the county economy in either study year. Type I income multipliers showed a rather homogeneous effect derived from each sector with the exception of agriculture. However, in all cases the magnitude of the direct income effects greatly outweighed the indirect effects indicating very little interaction among the endogenous sectors. The relatively low magnitude of the wholesale-retail trade multiplier suggested that large amounts of these type purchases occurred outside the county. Both the construction and wholesale and retail trade income effects were lower than the average for the entire economy. Federal government, on the other hand, had a large direct income effect which meant that for every onedollar of output, federal government spent approximately $.87 for wages and salaries. Other sectors of the economy, including agriculture, were more capital intensive. Hence, they spent less for wages and salaries. The relatively large income effect of the agricultural sector was difficult to interpret in light of the output multipliers reported earlier. Secondary income generated by agricultural production activities was $65 in 1963 and $62 in 1967 per $100 in agricultural income. A partial explanation may be that the large direct income effect in agriculture resulted from a large labor bill. Also, there was a relatively large amount of intrasector activity. Type II Multipliers Analysis of household purchases of locally produced goods and services introduced an additional income effect, induced effect, into the results. This addition completed the circular flow of purchases by assuring that a change in the level of household income generated changes in the level of household spending. Spending changes may cause further endogenous output changes and, consequently, further household receipt changes. Thus, Type II income multipliers reflected changes in household payments "induced" by sectoral adjustments which were "induced" by greater household expenditures. The analysis showed that in 1963 a dollar increase in household income in the agricultural sector eventually generated $.99 of additional receipts to households; while similar increase in the federal government sector generated $1.28 in additional house- hold income; and construction generated only $.41 in income, Table 15. Type II multipliers were computed by dividing direct income effects into the total economy effects. Each multiplier indicates the extra income generated throughout the economy with a oneunit (one-dollar) increase in income in a particular sector. Type II multipliers are larger than Type I because of the additional round of spending brought about by including households. As shown, agriculture had the largest Type II multipliers of any sector in 1963 and 1967. For each $100 in agricultural income payments, a total of $214 in wages and salaries was generated in the economy in 1963 and $210 in 1967. All remaining sectors had comparable multiplier effects. Apparently, the economy of Talladega County still depended on agricultural output heavily in 1967, even though the agricultural sector apparently was declining relative to the total economy. Employment Multipliers Employment multipliers measured the total effect of a change in employment in a sector on employment in the total economy. Employment multipliers were computed using the same procedure followed for income multipliers. Direct employment effects represent employment per thousand dollars of gross output. They were computed by dividing total sectoral employment by total sectoral output. Direct and indirect effects (Type I) were developed by multiplying the direct employment ratio for each sector, Table 6, times each column entry in the interdependence coefficients matrices, Tables 7 and 8. The column sum for each sector represented the direct and indirect employment requirements per thousand dollar change in final demand. Indirect changes were the residual of total, minus direct requirements. Indirect changes reflected the degree of sector interaction with other sectors. Type I Multipliers This multiplier reflected the total employment generated in the economy by a change in employment in a particular sector. Agriculture was the most active sector, Tables 17 and 18. A oneunit (person) change in agricultural employment was expected to initiate changes in the total economy until an additional 1.65 units (people) were hired in 1963 and 1.62 units in 1967. Employment effects of the federal government and construction sectors were 1.16 and 1.10, respectively, in 1963. Multipliers for W 0.. TABLE 17. EMPLOYMENT EFFECTS AND MULTIPLIERS FOR THE TALLADEGA COUNTY ECONOMY, 19631 Direct employment efFect Induced employment effect Type I employment multiplier ----------______m_m -. AgricuItur e-u ----C onstructi 0n-__mmmmm--------m_m Directindirect employment effect Indirect employment effect .11868 .00999 .01071 .12755 .02942 .01866 .03572 .09100 .01587 .00783 1.65 1.10 1.20 1.21 1.05 .30138 .11057 .06426 .09145 .15766 .12717 .24866 .42893 .13999 .08292 Directindirectinduced employment effect Type II employment multiplier 2.35 1.39 1.55 1.68 1.66 > 5= ~ .18270 .10058 .05355 .07558 .14983 ~ > ~ > > ;II:J c !:j c 1.12 1.15 1.11 1.16 1.19 1.41 1.87 1.59 2.06 1.73 n Manufacturin g___--m--_--m_m_----000Transportation, communications, and public utilities...m__mm_mWholesale and retail tradem__--_m. Finance, insurance, and real estate----m-mm-mm-mService and miningm_m_m_--_m_m. State and local government--m--m Federal government_m___--------------- ;II:J .07943 .29685 .24775 .18373 .08883 .34064 .27513 .21224 .11228 .55494 .39462 .37817 .00940 .04379 .02738 .02851 .02345 .21430 .11949 .16593 > I"" EconomY-____----m_--_m_------m_m_--1 ~ "'!:I Employment effects represent estimated changes in employment resulting from a $1,000 change in output. m ;II:J in Z ... V> ... i 0 Z ~ .~ ... ::c iii m n 0 z 0 ~ -< TABLE 18. EMPLOYMENT EFFECTS AND MULTIPLIERS FOR THE TALLADEGA COUNTY ECONOMY, 19671 0 ... Direct employment effect Agri culturem -mom_no mm--- --m- --no Directindirect employment effect Directindirectinduced employment effect Indirect employment effect Induced employment effect Type I employment multiplier Type II employment multiplier ... > I"" 5= tI m ~ > .17385 .16707 Construction ____m_m_mm__m_mm---Manufacturing -----__m_--m-_mmmm- .05605 Transportation, communications, and public utilities -_--____m_____m- .05483 ----------- .28229 .18260 .06704 .06789 .16542 .03021 .15110 .15812 .29025 .40671 .23317 .08743 .09248 .26516 .10844 .01553 .01099 .01306 .01027 .12442 .05057 .02039 .02459 .09974 1.62 1.09 1.20 1.24 1.07 2.34 1.40 1.56 1.69 1.71 n 0 c Z ~ .15515 Wholesale and retail trade Finance, insurance, .02597 and real estate__--m-m----mmm-m .12184 Service and miningm----_------m--_m .14317 State and local government-_._-----m .25181 Federal government._m-----m_--------Economy ----m_m____m_--mm__m--_---_- .03861 .23677 .23453 .52870 .00424 .02926 .01495 .03844 .00840 .08567 .07641 .23845 1.16 1.24 1.10 1.15 1.21 1 1.49 1.94 1.64 2.10 1.76 Employment effects represent estimated changes in employment resulting from a $1,000 change in output. w .... 38 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TH,E ECONOMY OF TALLADEGA COUNTY 39 1967were slightly lower for these sectors. The agricultural sector exhibited the greatest interaction, yet the indirect effects for all sectors were rather low. This indicated very little endogenous interdependence in Talladega County employment. The close proximity of Anniston and Birmingham outside the county may have resulted in an employment leakage which caused the low interaction rate. Since direct employment requirements were also relatively low, this explanation appeared more reasonable. Type II Multipliers Considering households as an integral part of the economy of Talladega County resulted in several significant changes in the multipliers. All sectors showed greater Type II multipliers than Type 1. However, the largest changes were observed in agriculture, services and mining, and federal government. Construction exhibited one of the smallest changes. A one-unit change in employment in these four sectors would generate total economy employment changes of 2.35, 1.87, 2.06, and 1.39, respectively, Table 17. Statistics for 1967, Table 18, were quite comparable. Employment effects appeared to be rather well distributed among the direct, indirect, and induced requirements. Thus, the relatively high level of county employment generated by the three sectors enumerated was difficult to explain. MODEL PROJECTION An input-output model of an economy is a reflection of the economic activity ongoing in that economy as of a given date in time. Use of such a model to plan new expenditures for investment and employment, both private and public, depends greatly on stability of the input-mix of the economy. The empirical models developed for Talladega County were chosen partially on basis of an objective to test the models for their stability and predictive powers. To accomplish this objective, a comparison was desired of a projected 1967 product mix and the actual 1967 output. To derive a projected 1967 output, the output for 1963, Table 2, was expanded. This was accomplished by adjusting the 1963 flow table for each year up to 1967, by the percentage change in gross national product. Annual changes in each sector were based on changes in the total economy. Using this procedure, total county output for 1967 was estimated to be $607 million, Table 19. ~ ~'" "' <..,f ><" ~ g ~ oj ~ ~ ~ ...:I -o~ ~"'Cl:: O"""~ "'~ ~o""oo 0 ~~O J] oj,.§ ::: ~ ~~ ~~ ~:::1'" ~ ~;;~ cD " 00 ............ ,5 '" ~..2 ",,!. 1 1 E-< [:; J,§SOjQt ::3 O:P"" .;'::::p ~~~ " PI cd oj E ~..c.:::l ~ f2 1::S 0 ::3 '.0 u £E-< u ~ 0 ~"""5 ~~ ~ ~ ~~~o 00 g ~~~ "'~'" ~~"oo ~ en ~ ~ ~ ~ ... ~ '@ -, 0 ~ u ! i i "," ! i i i i i ! i i § !: '" 0 .... PI 1;; =' '" 0 ...... bt 0 '8 ::3 I ! II i I i:p i I ! IJ i \ i :1 ! i:,~!cD :io: : i ! : :' , : :.,...:'" ! iIi i :: I:: i i I§ ! ~ !i: :' ci ~ ~ ...:I ~ ~ I:! :poj":~>O : : ,0"..."'" 2J : 0 0 0 ;:J ",.'" '" 0 0 ",.'" ~ go 1':0 § 0"'" <1) <1) $ Po='.5 1': oj ~ oj...c: 0 oj ~ -:;; as 0 0 -< ::EE-<~~ JSiI5~ E-< So:I:E-< ~~.8 ! i~ fi8 - t:iJ 40 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION '" .:: THE ECONOMY OF TALLADEGA COUNTY 41 ~ "" .S ~ 0 ;:! '5 ;:J 0 ...... 0: "" 0 E-< B 000""" C-1(J) 0(J)'1< t-' ocSC-1' ct4 0 ~ ''''''If:) co '1<1(')'1<'1<""" "'", o 0 co ' t-co '0 a1(')' If:)c(J) cp:< If:)'l!)' ...... ~ "" Z ..... ~ ~ "" u ~ , 0 p:; P-< '" ::0 ~ Z ;;; OJ) ~ '0 ;:J "'d 0 i 'i , i '" P< » .tI 0> ~ ..:i ~ <: E-< ...... :3 "0 ~ ..... .8 c.> 1::;::J",@ tJ ",,"0 ,§ J g'"',g,,g § 5;"'dis ~ "':p;::JO:..o""S~"""o ;:J,"8.P.: 0 '" i i :':'.o"":'SbtS i :gr,:;:J"OE'§";E i i i,8 i~ i" ' i 0 i ! Qj i i i:g i i"; Ii",' i i ~ :.: I :..... i i iJ i, : i i ' ",' 0:""" c.> ,SJ~EE ! ! .B iiJO < i Ii 2""',: ()~ : : b() ,:.::J i .J ii ~ "' , S U ~ :3 :is '" ii..o2 i! ~:50 vi» o.~i:i ~..f3 ",E-<.8 O;:J ,OJ) if;; ~1J~ 2L~ ~ iiJ bb§ § oj oj"", ~ c;~"2 -. . ."f;',