International Journal of Forecasting 8 (1992) 329-338 329

North-Holland

Forecasting US population totals with the

Box-Jenkins approach
Peter Pflaumer
SFB 178, Universitiit Konstanz, D-7750 Konstanz, Germany

Abstract: The use of the Box-Jenkins approach for forecasting the population of the United States up
to the year 2080 is discussed. It is shown that the Box-Jenkins approach is equivalent to a simple trend
model when making long-range predictions for the United States. An investigation of forecasting
accuracy indicates that the Box-Jenkins method produces population forecasts that are at least as
reliable as those done with more traditional demographic methods.

Keywords: Population forecasting, Time series analysis, Difference equations, Forecasting accuracy

1. Introduction population forecast according to age and sex.

However, since the beginning of the 197Os,
The first population forecasts were performed statistical time series methods and models have
exclusively with time series methods. Time series been extensively applied to the analysis of
forecasts are based on past observations of the monthly and annual demographic series, espe-
variables to be predicted. The structure of past cially mortality and fertility series [see Lee
development is investigated in order to extrapo- (1974), Saboia (1974), McDonald (1979), Land
late the future course of a time series. The and Cantor (1983), Land (1986)]. Kashyap and
population prognosticians of the seventeenth, Rao (1976) compare different time series meth-
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries utilized sim- ods in order to forecast the total population of
ple time series models. The first calculations of the United States between 1900 and 1971. They
the world population were done by G. King in come to the conclusion that a first-order au-
the year 1695. Starting with those of the English toregressive process of first logarithmic differ-
clergyman and scholar T.R. Malthus, many ences is preferable. The usefulness of the Box-
population forecasts were based on the geomet- Jenkins model for predicting US state popula-
ric growth model. tions has been investigated by Voss and Palit
At the end of the last century, the North (1981). El-Attar (1988) compares the perform-
American demographer Pritchett attempted to ance of the Box-Jenkins approach with the com-
describe the growth behavior of the US popula- ponent method in predicting the US population.
tion with a third degree polynomial. In the The aim of this paper is to investigate the
192Os, the biologists Pearl and Reed estimated long-term characteristics of various Box-Jenkins
the future population with logistic curves. models in predicting the US population. The
Gradually time series procedures were supplan- starting point is the Kashyap-Rao model. Since
ted by the component method, which delivers a this model is identical in the long run to a
geometric growth-rate model, as will be shown,
Correspondence to: P. Pflaumer. SFB 178. Universitat Kon- and the population is therefore in all likelihood
stanz, D-7750 Konstanz, Germany. overestimated, a Box-Jenkins model with sec-

0169-207O/Y2/$05.00 0 1992 - Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved

MO P. Pflaumer I Forecasting US population totals

ond differences of the original values is recom- interval, one can then more easily decide
mended. whether the uncertainty connected with the fu-
Ideally, population forecasts should be based ture population development was estimated too
on social theories linking social, cultural, psycho- high or too low.
logical and economic factors to demographic be-
havior [see Keilman (1990, p. SO)]. Therefore it
is correct to question the use of time series
2. Data and model
procedures like the Box-Jenkins approach for
population forecasts. In contrast to the compo-
The Box-Jenkins model has gained great
nent method. the Box-Jenkins approach does
popularity since the publication of their book in
not even provide a population forecast classified
1970. This method depends on the class of au-
according to age and sex. In my opinion, there
toregressive (AR). integrated (I), moving aver-
are several reasons that justify the use of time
age (MA) models. Non-stationary data must be
series methods with population forecasts, where-
differentiated until stationarity is achieved. An
by the Box-Jenkins approach is generally better
ARIMA model must then be formulated for the
than other time series methods [see. for exam-
differentiated data by looking at the autocorrela-
ple, Newbold and Granger (1974)].
tion and the partial autocorrelation functions.
(1) Time series methods may perform more
After estimating the parameters of the model,
accurately. or at least as accurately, as more
diagnostic checks should be made. If the model
sophisticated methods. This has been found in a
is appropriate. forecasts are produced; if not,
number of studies [see. for example, Voss and
alternative models should be considered.
Palit (1981). Stoto (1983), Mahmoud (1984)].
The annual population size of the United
(2) The accuracy of time series methods
States from 1900 to 1988 serves as data base.
should always be regarded as a baseline against
When using the Box-Jenkins procedure, it has
which the forecasts made by more complex mod-
to be taken into account that the population size
els (e.g. the component method) can be as-
is only determined every 10 years by a census.
sessed. As long as these complex models do not
The data for the intervening years are estimates
surpass simple time series models in accuracy,
based on registered births, deaths and migrants.
they should be improved and modified. In this
The efficiency of the Box-Jenkins projection
sense, time series prognoses serve as a measure
therefore depends largely on the accuracy of the
of the accuracy of forecasts. The long-term goal
annual population estimates.
of the demographer should be to predict the
population more accurately than a forecaster
without demographic knowledge, since the de-
mographer’s entire expert knowledge goes into 3. Analysis of the population size
the production of prognoses.
(3) The results of time series forecasts serve This section demonstrates the application of
to test the plausibility of the assumptions of the Box-Jenkins technique using annual US
forecasts that have been produced with the com- population figures P, from 1900 to 1988 (Exhibit
ponent method [see, for example, Pflaumer 1). The series had to be differentiated until it
(1988a, 1988b)]. The time series forecast projects appeared to be stationary (see Exhibits 2 and 3).
the past population development into the future. The examination of the correlograms of various
If considerable deviations occur, one should con- differentiated series indicated the necessity of
sider whether the assumptions about fertility, differentiating twice, since the correlogram of
mortality and migration, whose extrapolation is the first differentiated series did not disappear
often based on time series methods as well, have fast enough.
been realistically chosen. Exhibit 4 shows the autocorrelation function
(4) The uncertainty of population forecasts (ACF) and the partial autocorrelation function
can be described in the case of the Box-Jenkins (PACF) of the second differences A’P,. The
method with a confidence interval. If one com- PACF is characterized by two negative spikes at
pares the alternative projections of the compo- lags 1 and 2 with the values r, = -0.18 and
nent method with the width of the confidence r2 = -0.306. The ACF is characterized by a
 331

Exhibit 1. US population from19Utffo IYSS (in millions).

1980. 1926. 1948. 1968. 198iti, 2808,

YE&R

Exhibit 2. US population (first differences) from 1900 to 1YSS (in thousands).

332 P. Pflaumer I Forecasting US population totals

2.88

1.88
%
:
P
D
.ee
k
E
P
E
SE
-1.88

-2.88
19 88‘I 1928. 1948. 1968. 1988. 2888.

YE(IR

Exhibit 3. US population (second differences) from 1900 to 1988 (in 100 000)

dampened sine wave. The behavior of both cor- The empirical results show a significant in-
relograms is consistent with an ARIMA (2,2,0) fluence of the regressors A’P,_, and Alp,_,. The
process for the population figures P,. Having asymptotic r-values are shown in parentheses
chosen an ARTMA model to fit to the data, the below the estimators.
next step is to estimate the parameters from the Since A’P, can be satisfactorily described by
data. Applying least squares yields the following an ARMA(2,O) process, it is easy to show, when
fitted equation: considering that

A’P, = 0.0125 - 0.203 A+_, - 0.255 A2P,_z , A’P, = P, -2P,_, + P,_, ,

(-1.93) (-2.42)
that the predictions of the original values P, are
C+z= 0.35
obtained by

Exhibit 4
Autocorrelation and partial autocorrelation functions of ALP,

Lag 1 2 3 4 5 6

Autocorrelation -0.162 -0.221 0.050 0.112 -0.118 -0.Oh.S

partial
Autocorrelation -0.180 -0.306 -0.075 0.072 -0.134 - 0.070

Lag 7 8 9 10 11 12

Autocorrelation 0.239 -0.104 -0.027 -0.009 0.067 -0.14’)

partial
Autocorrelation 0.173 -0.082 0.007 -0.079 0.040 -0.09’)
 P. Pfaumer I Forecasting US population totals 333

Exhibit 5 the too conservative assumptions of the US

Results of the ARIMA(2,2.0) model with 95% confidence Bureau of the Census in the middle and high
intervals (in millions).
projections. They conclude that the Census
Year Lower limit of Point Upper limit Bureau high projection might be treated as a
a 95% C.I. forecast a 95% C.I. reasonable middle forecast [see Ahlburg and
1990 249.3 250.6 251.9 Vaupel (1990, p. 654)]. The high projection of
2000 262.0 213.7 285.3 Ahlburg and Vaupel is more than 300 million
2010 270.1 297.6 325.1
people higher than the Census Bureau high pro-
2020 275.0 322.3 369.6
2030
jection. In light of the forecasts produced by
277.6 347.9 418.3
2050 276.9 401.7 526.5 Ahlburg and Vaupel, with their various assump-
2080 265.0 488.8 712.6 tions about fertility, mortality and migration, the
results of the Box-Jenkins model do not appear
so unrealistic.
P,-1.797P,_,+0.849P,m,-0.307P,_, The middle forecasts of Ahlburg and Vaupel
almost coincide with the middle Box-Jenkins
+ 0.255P,_,
= 0.0125,
forecasts.
which is an inhomogeneous fourth-order differ- We will now show that the chosen Box-
ence equation. The sum of the coefficients of the Jenkins model is equivalent to a parabolic trend
homogeneous part of the equation is zero. model when making long-term population fore-
The results of the projection with the Box- casts. Considering that the above Box-Jenkins
Jenkins model are shown in Exhibit 5. The US model of P, is a fourth-order (stochastic) differ-
population will continue to grow. In 2080 a total ence equation, it is possible to reduce the solu-
population of 489 million will be reached. Plac- tion of this model to the solution of an algebraic
ing a confidence interval around this point fore- equation, which is called the characteristic equa-
cast, it is assumed that the population will be in tion of the difference equation [see, for example,
the range 265 to 713 million with a probability of Goldberg (1958) or Gandolfo (1971)]. In that
95%. special case, we obtain
It is informative to compare these figures with
the projection results of the US Bureau of the h” - 1.797A’ + 0.849A’ - 0.307A + 0.255 = 0,
Census (1989) (see Exhibit 6) and of Ahlburg
and Vaupel (1990). Ahlburg and Vaupel criticize with the roots

Exhibit 6
Projections of the US population (in millions).

Year

1990 2020 2050 2080

Census Bureau
projections (1989)
Middle 250 294 300 292
High 252 335 414 501
Projections of
Ahlburg and
Vaupel ( 1990)
Middle 252 329 402 487
(1% mortality progress
TFR = 2, 1-2 million
immigrants)
High 252 385 553 811
(2% mortality progress
large fertility cycles
l-2 million immigrants)
334 P. Pfluumer I Forecasting US population totals

A,=h,=l, P, = (-0.07005 + 0.043461)(-0.1015 + 0.49461’)’

A, = -0.1015 + 0.49461’ . + (-0.07005 - 0.043461’)-0.1015
A, = -0.1015 - 0.49461’ . - 0.4946i)’

This equation has repeated real roots and conju- + 239.419 + 2.219t + 0.004286t’ ,
gate complex numbers. Because of the existence fort=0,1,2,.
of repeated roots, the general solution is
Transforming it into its trigonometric form leads
P, = C,(-0.1015 + 0.49461’)’ to
+ C-O.1015 - 0.49461’)’ + (C, + tC,)l’ , p, = e~lMX37f
(-0.140 cos 1.77t - 0.087 sin 1.77t)

where C, . C,, C, and C, are arbitrary constants. + 239.419 + 2.21Yt + 0.004286t’ ,

In order to -find the particular solution, we set
fort=O, 1,2,.
P, = zt’, which leads to

The resulting time path of P, is a dampened

Z? - 1.797z(t - 1)’ + 084Yz(r - 2)?
oscillation around its particular solution, which is
- 0.3072(t - 3)? + 0.25Sz(t - 4)? = 0.0125 a parabolic trend curve. After only a few years,
the oscillations can be forecasted solely by its
or particular solution.

z = 0.004286.
4. Analysis of the logarithms of the population
Given the population (in millions) P,, = 239.3 size
(1985). P, = 241.6 (lY86), P2 = 243.9 (1987) and
P, = 246.1 (I YSS). The following linear systems In accordance with a recommendation by
of equations Kashyap and Rao (lY76), a Box-Jenkins model
has been selected with the logarithms of popula-
(-0. 1015 t 0.4Y46i)” (-0.1015 ~ 0.4946i)” 1 0 c‘,
(-0.1015 + 0.4946i)’ (~O.lOlS - 0.4Y46i)’ 1 1 CJ tion size. These authors find that the optimal
(-0.1015 + 0.4Y46i)’ (~0.1015 - 0.49461’)’ 1 2 c, model for US population data 1900-1971 is a
i (~0.1015 + 0.3046i)’ (-0.1015 - U.JY46i)’ I 3,:li C, :I first-order autoregressive model in the first dif-
‘239.3 ference of the natural logarithms of total popula-
~
_
241.6 tion. Exhibit 7 shows the autocorrelations and
243.Y the partial autocorrelation of the first logarithmic
( 246. I,1
differences A In P, = In P, - In P,_ , between lYO0
have to be solved in order to obtain the definite and 1988. The logarithmic differences are to be
solution interpreted as growth rates.

Exhibit 7
Autocorrelation and partial autocorrelation functions of J In P,.
Lag 1 2 3 3 5 6
Autocorrelation 0.781 0.633 0.598 O.S4 0.416 0.363
partial
Autocorrelation 0.7Xi 0.059 0.223 0 PO. 141 0.065

Lag 7 8 Y 10 11 12
Autocorrelation 0.337 0.204 0.122 0.066 0.028 -0.062
partial
Autocorrelation 0.012 -0.230 0.017 -0.104 0.041 PO. 106
 If one neglects the slight negative trend which The general solution of the difference equation is
still remains in the growth rates (see Exhibit S),
then the autocorrelation function and the partial In P, = C, 1’ + C(O.782)’ + zt
autocorrelation function lead to the assumption
that the development of the logarithmic differ- If one takes the initial conditions P,, = 243.9
ences (growth rates), can be described, as in the (1987) and P, = 246.1 (1988) into consideration,
case of Kashyap and Rao, with an AR(l) model. one then obtains as the definite solution
The estimated model is
In P,= 5.4771 + 0.0197(0.7X2) + 0.0133t
A In P, = 0.0029 + 0.782A In P,_,.
or
(3.25) (12.42)
0 0197(0 7X2)‘+0.l11331
The model can be rearranged as a second-order P,= 239.15 e
difference equation, since A In P,= In P,-
In P, ,. It follows that In the long term, the AR(l) model of the first
logarithmic differences is identical to an ex-
In P, - 1.782In P,_, + 0.782 In P,_,= 0.0029. ponential growth model with a constant growth
rate (Y = 0.0133). The results of population pro-
The characteristic equation is jections up to the year 2080 with this model are
given in Exhibit 9.
A- - 1.782A + 0.782 = 0. Assuming a constant growth rate of about
1.33% annually. the population in the year 2080
The solutions are would rise to about X30 million. If one compares
the results of the ARIMA( 1,l ,O) model of the
A, = I .
logarithmic differences with the results of the
A, = 0.782. ARIMA(2,2,0) model of the initial values, then

,839

1928. 1948. 1968. 1988. 2888.

YEAR
Exhibit 8. US population (first logarithmic differences) from 1900 to 1988
336 P. PjCm-r~er I Forecusting US population lot&

Exhibit 9 tions accurately. The accuracy was tested by

Results of the ARIMA( 1.1 ,O) model (In P,) with 95% Codi- comparing past hypothetical US population fore-
dence intervals (in millions).
casts with the subsequent outcomes. This was
Year Lower limit of Point Upper limit of done by fitting ARIMA(2,2,0) models to the first
a9S% C.I. forecast a95% C.1.
II values of the population series, ARIMA
1990 247.7 250.2 255.3 (l,l,O) models to the first n log values, and
2000 268.3 284.9 302.5 calculating the annual growth rate error e, as
2010 293.6 324.5 358.6
follows:
2020 321.1 373.2 420.8
2030 365.9 425.1 493.‘)
2050 465.1 5.56.8 666.6
e, = (t, - Y,) ,
2080 660.0 830.7 1045.5

one sees that the ARIMA( 1 ,l ,O) model leads to where r is the actual annual growth rate and i is
significantly higher population forecasts. If one the forecasted annual growth rate I periods in the
suspects a future decrease in the population future. The time horizon of the ex post forecast-
growth rate, then the ARIMA(2,2,0) model or ing ranged from 1 year to 60 years. The fitting
the quadratic time series model is better suited periods included the periods 1900-1930, 1900-
to modelling the population development, since 1940, . ( 1900-1970, 1900-1980.
this model implies a decrease in the growth rate.’ We first look at some short-term forecasts.
The same effect could be achieved with the Exhibit 10 presents the e, for projections made in
second logarithmic differences of the population the jump-off years 1930-1980.
totals. If the error e, is positive, then the actual
population has been overestimated. For exam-
ple, e, = 0.0020 means that the estimated annual
5. Forecasting accuracy growth rate was roughly 0.2 percentage points
higher than the actual rate. A negative error
The question here is whether the Box-Jenkins should be interpreted correspondingly. From
approach is capable of predicting future popula- Exhibit 10 it becomes apparent that the

Exhibit 10
Errors e, of short-term population forecasts with the BoxxJenkins model: (a) ARlMA(2.2.0) for P,; (b) ARIMA( 1,I .(I) for In I’,.
Years Jump-off year
ahead
1980 1970 1960 I950 1940 1930

1 (a) 0.0013 -0.0014 - 0.0005 O.0026 -0.0015 0.0040

(b) 0.0034 ~0.0039 ~0.001 1 ~0.0006 -0.000x 0.01 12

2 (a) 0.001 1 ~0.0007 0 0.0019 -0.0026 0.0044

(b) 0.0017 0.0025, 0.0019 0.0010 -0.001 I 0.0075

3 (a) 0.0013 0 0.0005 0.0021 -0.0037 0.0045

(b) 0.001 I 0.0020 -0.0002 O.OOlY ~0.0052 O.OOY4

4 (a) 0.0015 0.0004 0.0007 0.001x -0.0038 0.0045

(b) 0.0036 0.0016 0.0013 -o.tKK)3 ~0.0046 0.0080

5 (a) 0.0015 0.0005 0.001 1 0.0017 ~0.003Y 0.0043

(b) 0.0029 0.0034 0.0006 0 --0.003Y O.OOYO

10 (a) - 0.0014 0.0028 0.0014 ~0.0068 0.0037

(b) - 0 0046 o.otl20 ~0.0003 -0.0073 0.00x9

dP ldt 2.219 + 2.0.004286t

’ lim r, = lim A = lim
c-1 I -= p 1-j 239.419 + 2.219t + 0.004286tL
=0
ARIMA(2,2,0) model has been on the average Exhibit 12
superior to the ARIMA( l,l,O) model. In the Population projections for the United States in 1970 with the
Box-Jenkins approach (actual population: 204.9 million).
five-year forecasts, the mean absolute errors
amount to 0.22 percentage points and 0.33 per- Base ARIMA(2.2.0) AKIMA(I.1.0)
year
centage points, respectively. Comparable fore- Projections e. Projections E,
cast errors can be found in UN population (in millions) (in millions)
forecasts; the mean absolute error in five-year
1930 177.2 -0.0036 233.3 0.0032
forecasts fluctuates between 0.31 and 0.38 per- lY40 159.1 ~O.OOX4 196.8 -0.0013
centage points [see Pflaumer (1988c, p. 301)]. 1950 217.2 0.0029 209.0 0.0010
Stoto (1983) calculated the error e, of projec- lY60 210.x 0.002x 209 .o 0.0020
tions made by Pearl and Reed, Dublin, and the
Scripps Institute (see Exhibit 11). Their projec-
tions for the United States in 1970 ranged from 6. Conclusion
145 to 172 million. The errors e, ranged between
-0.0102 and -0.0033. Comparable results from In this study two important results are men-
ARIMA time series projections for the United tioned. First. when making long-term population
States in 1970, covering a longer historical span, forecasts for the United States, the Box-Jenkins
are presented in Exhibit 12. Those projections approach is equivalent to a simple trend model.
range from 1.59 to 233 million and the errors e, Secondly, the Box-Jenkins approach has not
from -0.0084 to 0.0032. These results clearly performed worse than more complex demo-
indicate that the Box-Jenkins approach would graphic models in projecting future population
have been better suited than other methods if size.
had been applied between 1930 and 1960. Al- The application of a forecasting model de-
though the ARIMA(2,2,0) model has been on pends on the specific situation and specific needs.
the average superior to the ARIMA( 1 ,l ,O) If, for example, age-structured population fore-
model, the ARIMA( 1,l ,O) model performed casts are required, time series models are obvi-
better in forecasting the 1970 population (see ously not suitable. In addition, since forecasters
Exhibit 12). will not reach the same conclusion about a
We can therefore support the findings of Voss model. they will use different models for their
and Palit (1981), who concluded that the forecasts. We cannot decide a priori which fore-
strongest argument for applying Box-Jenkins casting model will perform better in the the
methods in population forecasting lies in the ex future. However, the accuracy of the Box-
post evaluation, which shows that ARIMA mod- Jenkins approach, or of any other simple time
els produce population forecasts which are at series method, should be used as a standard for
least as reliable as more traditional demographic applying more complex demographic or
models. economic forecasting techniques.

Exhibit 11
Population projections for the United States in 1970 (actual population: 204.9 million).

Name Year Projection Base r,

(in millions)

Pearl-Reed I 1910 167.9 Y2.4 -0.0033

Pearl-Reed II 1930 160.4 123.0 - 0.006 1
Dublin 1931 1.51.0 124.1 -0.0078
Scripps 1928 171.5 120.5 -0.0042
Scripps 1931 144.6 124.1 ~0.0089
Scripps 1933 146.0 12.5.7 -0.0092
Scripps 1935 155.0 127.4 - 0.0080
Scripps 1943 160.5 136.7 -0.0090
Scripps 1947 162.0 144. I -0.0102

SouKr: stoto (1983)

338 P. P’Gmmer 1 Forecasring US p~jpiliuti~~~ to&

In addition to the forecast comparison, the Land, K.C. and D. Cantor, 1983, -‘ARIMA models of
Box-Jenkins approach serves to investigate the seasonal variation in U.S. birth and death rates”,
Drmogruphy, 20, 541-56X.
plausibility of the assumptions in the component
Lee, K.D.. 1974, “Forecasting births in post-transition popu-
method. Furthermore, the uncertainty of popula- lations: Stochastic renewal with serially correlated
tion forecasts is taken into account by specifying fertility”, Journal of the American Statistical Association,
a confidence interval. Time series methods, espe- 69, 607-617.
cially the Box-Jenkins method, therefore should Mahmoud. E.. 1984. “Accuracy in forecasting: A survey”,
Journal of Forecasting, 3, 139-1.59.
not replace the component method in population
McDonald, J.. 1979, “A time series approach to forecasting
forecasting, but supplement it. Australian live births”, Demography, 16, 57.5-601.
Newbold. P. and C.W.J. Granger, 1974, “Experience with
forecasting univariate time series and the c(~mbinati~~n of
Acknowledgment forecasts”. Jourmcl of the Royal ~~t~ti~t~cu~ Society. 137,
131-165.
Pflaumer, P.. 1988a. “Confidence intervals for population
I wish to thank two anonymous referees for projections based on Monte Carlo methods”, Irzternatiunnl
helpful and valuabie comments. Journal of Forecasting, 4. 135-142.
Pflaumer. I?, IYHHb, Methoden der Bevolkerungvoraussthiit-
zung unier hesonderer Reriicksichtigung der Unsicherheit
(Duncker & Humblot. Berlin).
References
Pflaumer, P.. lYX8c, “The accuracy of U.N. population pro-
jections”. Americun Stati.yticul Associrrtion, Proceedings of
Ahlhurg, D.A. and J.W. Vaupel, 1990, “Alternative projec- the Social Statistics Section. 2Y9-304.
tions of the U.S. population”, Demography. 27. 639-652. Sahoia. J.L.M.. 1974. “Modeling and forecasting population
Box. G.E.P. and G.M. Jenkins. 1970, ‘%tc Series Analysis - time series”, Demogruph_y, 11, 4833492.
Forecustirrg and Conrrol (Holden-Day, San Francisco). Stoto, M.. lY83, “The accuracy of population projections”,
El-At&n, S.. 19X8, .‘Popuiation forecasting: An application four& ~?f the A~zeri~urz .~tut~.~t~~~I Association, 78, 13-20.
of the Box-Jenkins technique, American Stutjstic~I As- U.S. Bureau of the Census. IY89, Pr#;ection~ of‘thr Popula.
sociation. Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section. 30% tion of rhe United Stures by Age. Se.w and Race: i%W to
310. 2080. Current Population Reports. Series P-25. No. IO18
Gandolfo, S., 1971, Muthemaiical Methods and Models in (US Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.).
Economic Dynamics (North-Holland, Amsterdam- Voss, P.R. and C.D. Palit. lY81, “Forecasting state popula-
London). tion using ARIMA time series techniques”, Technical
Goldberg, S.. 1958. Introduction to Difference Equations Series 70-6, llniversity of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
(Addison-Wesley. New York).
Kashyap, R.L. and A.R. Rao, lY76, Dynamic Stochastic
Models from Empirical Data (Academic Press, New York, Biography: Peter PFLAUMER has been teaching statistics
and demography at the University of Dortmund since 1974.
San Francisco. London).
From 1981 to 1983 he was a visiting fellow at the Center for
K&mm. N .W.. 1990, Uncertainty in Nafional Popz~iatiofl
Population Studies of Harvard University in Cambridge. In
Forecusiing Issuer: 3uckgroun~. Ar~~ly.~es, Re~o~lmend~- 1989 he was appointed affiliated project director in the
tions (Swets & Z&linger. Amsterd~~m). long-term rest&h program ‘lnte~na~ionalization of the
Land. K.C.. 19%. “Methods for national population fore- Economv’ at the Universitv of Constance. Here he is working
casts: A review”. Jourrral c# the Ameriwn Sicrtisticoi As- on a study of the dem~~~phic effects of guest worker
sociutiofz. 81, X8X-901. migration.