A NOTE ON ADDED INFORMATION IN THE RAS PROCEDURE: REEXAMINATION OF SOME EVIDENCE

ABSTRACT.  An example in Miernyk (1977) presented a rather counterintuitive result, namely, that introducing accurate exogenous information into an RAS matrix estimating procedure could lead to an estimate that was worse than one generated by RAS using no exogenous information at all. This became an oft-cited black mark against RAS. Miller and Blair (1985) included a different (and small) illustration of the same possibility. It was recently pointed out by one of us that the Miller–Blair numerical results are wrong. For that reason, we decided to reexamine all the empirical evidence we could find on the subject. While figures in both Miernyk and Miller–Blair appear to be wrong, more recent published examples seem to have it right. In short, it is possible to identify examples in which additional (correct) information leads to poorer RAS estimates, at least under several fairly common metrics for comparing "closeness" of matrices. However, the overwhelming majority of the evidence is to the contrary. As a general rule, introduction of accurate exogenous information into RAS improves the resulting estimates, and counterexamples should probably not be taken too seriously.     

Rural Opportunities: Minimalist Policy and Community-Based Experimentation

Rural America's experiences with federal policies provide lessons on both the benefits and liabilities of minimalist policy attention and community-based policy experimentation. Prior to the New Deal federal rural policies promoted incentives to settle vast territories, subsidize private development of internal market structures, and invest in the benefits of higher education. The New Deal redirected rural policies to more narrow foci on the farm economic and environmental crises. These new, more centralized policies were built upon the rapid expansion of the Department of Agriculture into the first modern federal bureaucracy, politically legitimized on the basis of community-based policy experimentation. The seemingly unintended consequence of these emergency efforts to rescue farming was the marginalization of most non-farm policy concerns. The resulting minimalist federal approach to rural America was due to the absence of a unified national constituency for rural concerns. Understanding rural America's inadvertent experimentation in minimalist policy attention and in community-based policy structures can inform current policy initiatives to decentralize federal authority.