Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Description <br /> <br />Interdependence of the Regions <br /> <br />Colorado Regions, in that order. Each of the latter <br />three regions trades extensively with the California <br />Region, whereas trade among themselves is relatively <br />insignificant in terms of net flow. However, net flow <br />need not necessarily present a complete picture of <br />regional dependence. Certain flows, although possibly <br />small in numerical value, may be essential for a <br />region'8 economic activity. Moreover, a large volume <br />of two-directional trade of a single product could <br />result in little net flow. <br />Again, from the above-mentioned model, 1965 <br />gross regional product (GRP) data reflect the domi- <br />nance of the California Region. Total GRP for the <br /> <br />The general interrelationship of the four regions is <br />indicated by the 1965 net output flows presented in <br />figure 2. The model from which these data were <br />obtained utilizes net flows as an indicator of eco~ <br />nomic interdependence. That is, sector by sector, <br />only the difference between imports and exports was <br />tabulated, with no crosshauling assumed. <br />The arrows in figure 2 are sized to indicate the <br />general level of net flow between regions. Clearly, the <br />California Region plays the dominant role l followed <br />by the Lower Colorado, Great Basin, and Upper <br /> <br />.".,.,.---146--...... <br />."",. .....--.............., <br />./ ."...-:::.--- -...... '" <br />///":,,""" 348 -............ <br />/ // ."...--- ......." <br />//' ./""" ............, " <br />/' /' <br /> <br /> <br />Great Basin Region <br /> <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br /> <br />Upper Colorado <br />Region <br /> <br />Region <br /> <br />Lower Colorado <br />Region <br /> <br /> <br />Figure 2.-Interregional net output [lows in 1965 ($ million) <br /> <br />14 <br /> <br />