This paper presents estimates of the concentration of personal wealth in the United States from 1922 to 1969. These estimates lead us to conclude that the distribution of wealth (1) became significantly more equal in the 1930's and early 1940's, two periods of massive government intervention in the marketplace, and (2) has remained essentially unchanged since 1945.1 In what follows, we compare the wealth held by the richest 1.0 and 0.5 percent of the population to that of all persons. The wealth of the richest 1.0 and 0.5 percent was estimated by the estate multiplier technique.2 The wealth of all persons was derived from national balance sheets.3 The estimates presented here for the period before 1953 were developed by Robert J. Lampman using highly aggregated Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data. For 1953 and 1958 we use detailed estimates (from special IRS tabulations) by Lampman and Smith, modified slightly to take account of current knowledge. Estimates for 1962, 1965, and 1969 are new detailed estimates developed by the authors using microdata files of estate tax returns prepared by the IRS for its routine publications. Here we focus on the years since 1953. Information available from estate tax returns varies from year to year, so a number of adjustments were made to bring the estimates for individual years into conceptual alignment with one another. The alignment problem was exacerbated because the IRS has destroyed tapes of returns filed before 1963, leaving only Lampman's and Smith's printed tabulations for 1953 and 1958.4 It was impractical to reestimate the distributions for 1953 and 1958 by better methods based on current knowledge. Consequently, the estimates for 1962, 1965, and 1969 were made consistent with those for 1953 and 1958 * The Urban Institute and the Pennsylvania State University. The work reported here is part of the Urban Institute's research program on income and wealth distribution. The support of the National Science Foundation is gratefully acknowledged. 1 We wish to make clear that our concern is with temporal change and that we have sacrificed best estimates for individual years to achieve consistency over the time series. Individual figures have a downward bias of 10 to 15 percent from our best estimates of concentration. (Best estimates for 1969 may be found in Smith; similar estimates for other years will appear later.) 2 Detailed descriptions of the methodology and attendant problems can be found in Smith and Staunton Calvert, Robert J. Lampman, and Smith. I National balance sheets were constructed for a person's sector using data supplied by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Helen Stone Tice did the basic work on these special sector balance sheets. Smith provides a detailed description of the balance sheet. I A further problem resulted from the fact that the IRS erased the age field from the 1965 tape. This was most unfortunate because of all years for which the IRS has coded estate tax returns, 1965 had the most detailed classification of information. The erased data was restored by a stochastic process which took into account the relationship between age and other characteristics observable in the files for 1962 and 1969.

The recent article in this Review by Anthony Fisher, John Krutilla, and Charles Cicchetti (F-K-C) is an important step towards the development of a general method of analysis of the economics of environmental preservation. They are also commended for their attempt to adapt their model to the investigation of an important environmental policy question concerning the advisability of hydroelectric development in the Hells Canyon region of the Snake River. We feel, however, there is room for improvement in their theoretical models and perhaps in the presentation of empirical results. Sections I and II of their article consist of the development of an allocation model of some degree of sophistication from which some general conclusions are drawn which are not necessarily true. For instance, in Section I, it is stated that .... the marginal opportunity costs of development, the benefits from preservation, are increasing as development increases (p. 607). This certainly follows from the assumptions upon which their model is based; i.e., from their assumptions it follows BPD>0. It is not completely relevant, however, for as their later analysis indicates, the important question is what happens to total benefits rather than marginal. With respect to the portion of Hells Canyon in question, the present level of developed area is very small. Since almost all of the area is in a preserved state, i.e., P_L their assumptions BD> 0 and BDD <0 imply the marginal benefits of development are relatively large. Thus in seeking an optimal allocation of the land between preservation and development, we would seek to increase marginal benefits from preservation and decrease marginal benefits from development. Thus we would seek to increase the developed area D. We might also point out an undeveloped Hells Canyon may be so unique a natural resource that, as F-K-C suggest, there are no adequate substitutes of like quality and as such their procedures are justified. In general, however, we should note theirs is basically a suboptimization procedure in it isolates its analysis upon a single area without regard to other areas. Thus, if such a method were to be used in a piecemeal area by area decision process, the end result may be far from optimnal for the total environment. In Section II, F-K-C use the concept of total benefits and conclude . . as benefits from preservation increase relative to benefits from development, the optimal short-run level of development D*(t) decreases (p. 611). The justification for this statement is provided in their footnote 17. There they correctly derive the relation

It was the best of years and the worst of years. The Economic Report of the President proudly announces that the average income of Americans record highs (p. 4). Yet the index of consumer sentiment reached an all-time low in 1973. It seems likely that the 1973 inflation was at the top of the list of economic ills, with consumer prices rising 8.8 percent over 1972. Most of the rise was due to severe structural shifts in agriculture and energy. In response to the unusual developments in those industries, chapter 4 of the Report is devoted to Energy and Agriculture. I will concentrate only on the section on energy. Most of the discussion of energy is a superficial narrative of recent history, with the usual tables of wholesale price data and pages filled with journalistic analysis. A sample of the style is the following history of petroleum usage: