For additional information on the California State Development Plan, see California State Development Plan Program—Progress Report and Summary Interpretation of Phase I Studies (Sacramento: Department of Finance, State Office of Planning, Feb. 1965).
2.
See TieboutC. M., “Exports and Regional Economic Growth,”Journal of Political Economy, LXIV (April 1956).
3.
KeynesJ. M., The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (London: MacMillan Company, 1936).
4.
ThompsonW. R., A Preface to Urban Economics (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965), p. 141.
5.
“Reflections on the Manpower Revolution,”American Scholar, XXXIII (Autumn 1964), 568; and LeavittH. J.WhistlerT. L., “Management in the 1980's,”Harvard Business Review, XXXVI: 6 (Nov. 1958), 41.
6.
The author wishes to thank Professor C. M. Tiebout, University of Washington, for drawing to his attention this characteristic of the urban consumption function, i.e., the effect of different marginal and average propensities to consume specific product groups.
7.
Californians per dentist were 1,268 in 1940; 1,681 in 1961; 1,712 in 1963; and will be estimated 1,800 in 1975. In the United States there are 7.3 dental students per 100,000 of the population; in California, only 5.3. (Report of the Coordinating Council for Higher Education, 1964.)
8.
Los Angeles Times, Jan. 3, 1965.
9.
See BurchG.ParkerS., “The Other Half is Healthy,”Fortune, Oct. 1962.
10.
RieserC., “The Salesman Isn't Dead—He's Different,”Fortune, Oct. 1962.
11.
California Labor Statistics Bulletin, (Sacramento: Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Statistics and Research, Dec. 1964).
12.
In 1959–1963, state government and local government ranked fourth and eighth, respectively, in rate of growth of wage bill with growth rates of 11.7 per cent per annum and 10.0 per cent per annum, respectively.
