The Report of the is of necessity a somewhat schizophrenic document. This is so because the Employment Act of 1946 (which called it into being) ordains that it seek to serve two purposes that are not entirely compatible. On the one hand, it is an apology for the President's economic program, prepared by the and a Council of Advisers appointed by him for no fixed term. In this role, it seeks to show that the economic policies of the and his party will be successful (and, if the incumbent president has already been in office for a year or more, have already begun to be successful) in solving the grievous problems created by the foolish mistakes made by the other party when it was last in power. On the other hand, it is a professional economic report on the American economy and related public policy, prepared by three leading professional economists. These three economic advisers are chosen from among those who have devoted their previous careers (and will in all likelihood devote their subsequent careers) primarily to teaching and/or research in economics. In this role, the Report seeks to present to the Congress and the public an analysis that is competent by the standards of the economics profession, describing and assessing the present state of the American economy, how it came to be the way it is, and how it can and cannot be changed by public policy especially at the federal level. I believe this schizophrenia is unavoidable, unless the rules are changed either so that the has no professional economists as advisers, or so that an independent body of professional economists is constituted and charged with issuing reports on the economy and public policy without being responsible to any elected official. Neither of these changes in the rules would be desirable. The first would deprive the President, the Congress, and the public of the competence and discipline offered by professional economic standards. The second would divorce the President's economic advice from the different but equally important discipline of the political arena. The 1973 Report, like its predecessors from 1949 onwards, consists of three very different components. The first is the Economic Report of the President proper, addressed to the Congress and signed by the President. Mr. Nixon's 1973 report, like his 1972 report, is just 5 pages long. The second is the Annual Report of the Council of Advisers, addressed to the and signed by the Council. The 1973 version, by Herbert Stein, chairman, Ezra Solomon, and Marina v.N. Whitman, is 174 pages long, including two appendices. It is in this second part that the schizophrenia is most evident. The third is a statistical Appendix, con* The Johns Hopkins University. I am indebted to my colleagues, Louis Maccini and Jurg Niehans, for valuable comments on an earlier draft, and to Mary Anne Matthews for drawing Figure 1.

I am indebted for helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper to Akira Takayama and Gerhard Tintner. Valuable suggestions concerning style and substance have been made by William A. Brock, Bryan Ellickson and Gilles Paquet. Since some of the issues raised in the recent literature have been-and still are-highly controversial, I must strongly emphasize that all responsibility for the vietvs expressed and the interpretations ogered rests with me alone

A preliminary draft of this paper was presented at the Decemnber, 1971 meetings of the Econometric Society. This paper has benefited from the perceptive comments of a number of readers; I am particularly indebted to Ronald Bodkin, Stewart Gillmor, Zvi Griliches, Sherwin Rosen and the referees. Assistance in data compilation was provided by Peter Brubaker, Maureen Donahoe, Charles Eckert, Marshall E. Goldman, Stephen Kalos, Lawrence Kenny, Richard LeClair, and Thurman Northcross. Computations were executed on the Wesleyan University IBM 1130 computer. Research support has been provided by Wesleyan University and National Science Foundation Research Grant GS 2903

A large literature has grown up in urban economics in the last decade. It can be broadly classified into: 1) studies of the growth, composition (industry and population), and spatial form of urbanized areas; and 2) analyses of problems such as congestion, discrimination in housing and employment, and the fiscal difficulties of cities. This paper concentrates on the former, where the contributions from other disciplines have been as important as those from economics. Part One of the paper deals with models of growth and intra-urban land use. Part Two is devoted to urban simulation and efforts to build large scale statistical models for analyzing, among other things, the impact of alternative government policies on patterns of urban development