Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-r4mrb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-07T10:16:32.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic Factors Influencing the Level of Economic Development of Multicounty Areas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Stan Daberkow
Stan Daberkow*
Affiliation:
Economic Development Division, Economic Research Service, USDA, stationed at theUniversity of California, Davis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Economic development is an elusive, multidimensional concept. Identification of the interdependencies and interactions underlying the development process seem to call for appropriate multivariate analysis. Principal component and factor analyses were used in a study of socioeconomic interdependencies associated with economic development in multicounty areas in the 48 contiguous States. This paper summarizes some results from that study and explains the use of a mathematical identity relating factor analysis to principal component analysis. This identity explains the level of economic development in terms of alternative levels of factors.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , July 1972 , pp. 45 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1]Edwards, Clark, Coltrane, Robert, and Daberkow, Stan, Regional Variations in Economie Growth and Development with Emphasis on Rural Areas, USDA, ERS, Ag. Econ. Report No. 205, May 1971.Google Scholar
[2]Rand McNally and Co., 1971 Rand McNally Commercial A tlas and Marketing Guide, Chicago, 1971.Google Scholar
[3]Spiegelman, Robert G., Analysis of Urban Agglomeration and Its Meaning for Rural People, USDA, ERS, Ag. Econ. Report No. 96, June 1966.Google Scholar