Modeling and Forecasting Populations by Time Series: The Swedish Case

Author(s): Joao L. M. Saboia

Source: Demography, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Aug., 1974), pp. 483-492
Published by: Springer on behalf of the Population Association of America
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2060440
Accessed: 06-10-2018 21:20 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Population Association of America, Springer are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to Demography

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Sat, 06 Oct 2018 21:20:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
DEMOGRAPHY? Volume 11, Number 3 August 1974

MODELING AND FORECASTING POPULATIONS BY

TIME SERIES: THE SWEDISH CASE

Joao L. M. Saboia
Operations Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720

Abstract-Time series analysis techniques are used to model and to forecast

populations. An autoregressive (AR) and a moving average (MA) model,
which seem to fit the population of Sweden very well, are found. Fore-
casts are calculated using both models and are compared with the fore-
casts obtained by other methods. This comparison is very favorable for
the time series models. Although our study is confined to the mid-year
population of Sweden, there are good reasons to expect that the technique
can be successfully applied to other population parameters.

INTRODUCTION were obtained from the Demographic

It is a common practice among de-
mographers (e.g., Keyfitz and Flieger,
1971) to project populations assuming
that the age-specific birth and death
rates of a given period will persist un-
changed over the succeeding periods and
that the population is closed to migra-
tion. These projections serve as a base-
line from which other predictions can be
evaluated (Keyfitz, 1972). Keyfitz also
suggests various techniques potentially
useful for population forecasts, among
which is the time series analysis tech-
nique of Box and Jenkins (1970).
In this paper we apply Box and Jen-
kins' results to population forecasts.
It was decided to study Sweden due to
the fact that the technique requires a
large amount of data in order to be suc-
cessful, and this country has population
data available since the eighteenth cen-
tury (Gille, 1949). Keyfitz and Flieger
(1971) have the mid-year population for
Sweden at five-year intervals since 1780.
The data used in this paper are the same
as in Keyfitz and Flieger (1971) with
the addition of the data for 1970, which
483
Yearbook (United Nations, 1971). We
could have worked with a smaller in-
terval for the population data, but using
the data mentioned above facilitates the
comparison of our results with the pro-
jections assuming constant age-specific
birth and death rates, which are already
calculated for five-year intervals in Key-
fitz and Flieger (1971).
To make the paper more self-con-
tained, a very brief summary of the time
series analysis technique is provided in
the Appendix.
The calculations in this paper were
made with the help of an electronic com-
puter and used more decimals than are
shown here.
MODEL IDENTIFICATION
Column 3 of Table 1 shows the Swed-
ish population from 1780 to 1970 at
five-year intervals. The two models that
will be derived below are based on the
population up to 1960.
The general ARIMA (p, d, q) model is
described by
4(B)Vdzt = 0o + o(B)a,, (1)

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Sat, 06 Oct 2018 21:20:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
484 DEMOGRAPHY, volume 11, number 3, August 1974

TABLE 1.-Population, Projections and Forecasts for Sweden (At mid-year and in millions)

Population
Projection Population Forecast
Fixed Rates
Population No Migration ARIMA(1,1,0) ARI4A(0,2,1)

t Year zt it-l(l) zt-2(2) Zt-(l) zt-2(2) zt-1(l) zt-2(2)

l 1780 2.104
2 1785 2.147 2.197
3 1790 2.161 2.193 2.292 2.238 2.197
4 1795 2.274 2.219 2.238 2.237 2.357 2.199 2.248
5 1800 2.352 2.374 2.272 2.403 2.347 2.337 2.237
6 1805 2.418 2.414 2.470 2.462 2.542 2.420 2.401
7 1810 2.380 2.497 2.478 2.522 2.591 2.485 2.488
8 1815 2.450 2.371 2.579 2.428 2.647 2.411 2.553
9 1820 2.573 2.553 2.379 2.556 2.552 2.494 2.443
10 1825 2.749 2.692 2.657 2.708 2.682 2.644 2.539
11 1830 2.876 2.931 2.806 2.912 2.849 2.855 2.715
12 1835 3.004 2.980 3.113 3.013 3.069 2.989 2.962
13 1840 3.123 3.166 3.090 3.141 3.156 3.122 3.102
14 1845 3.296 3.267 3.341 3.255 3.284 3.241 3.240
15 1850 3.462 3.471 3.437 3.458 3.396 3.432 3.360
16 1855 3.625 3.662 3.668 3.620 3.614 3.608 3.569
17 1860 3.824 3.795 3.880 3.781 3.774 3.777 3.755
18 1865 4.092 4.094 3.971 4.000 3.935 3.992 3.929
19 1870 4.164 4.356 4.354 4.305 4.163 4.293 4.160
20 1875 4.362 4.363 4.617 4.271 4.489 4.321 4.495
21 1880 4.572 4.621 4.568 4.537 4.398 4.533 4.479
22 1885 4.664 4.856 4.895 4.754 4.701 4.756 4.705
23 1890 4.780 4.962 5.164 4.782 4.921 4.817 4.940
24 1895 4.896 5.053 5.277 4.911 4.914 4.920 4.970
25 1900 5.117 5.175 5.334 5.027 5.050 5.028 5.061
26 1905 5.278 5.401 5.476 5.305 5.166 5.279 5.160
27 1910 5.499 5.575 5.707 5.433 5.475 5.439 5.441
28 1915 5.696 5.813 5.902 5.687 5.586 5.680 5.601
29 1920 5.876 5.942 6.151 5.871 5.857 5.882 5.862
30 1925 6.045 6.088 6.218 6.041 6.034 6.060 6.069
31 1930 6.131 6.225 6.314 6.204 6.200 6.224 6.245
32 1935 6.242 6.232 6.414 6.246 6.360 6.278 6.403
33 1940 6.356 6.313 6.331 6.370 6.376 6.377 6.426
34 1945 6.636 6.490 6.367 6.486 6.508 6.484 6.512
35 1950 7.017 6.909 6.593 6.855 6.625 6.815 6.612
36 1955 7.262 7.225 7.128 7.291 7.043 7.264 6.995
37 1960 7.480 7.427 7.379 7.463 7.508 7.508 7.512
38 1965 7.734 7.636 7.568 7.666 7.640 7.716 7.755
39 1970 8.046 7.962 7.791 7.939 7.835 7.988 7.953

Sources: Population data (column 3) were obtained from Keyfitz and Flieger, 1971; UJnited
Nations, 1948-1971. Population projections (columns 4 and 5) were obtained from
Keyfitz and Flieger, 1971. Population forecasts (columns 6 to 9) were calculated
asing Equations (22) to (25), respectively.

where Z= population at time t;

a= in dependent random variables
+(B) = 1 - OB- 02B _.. _-0,B';
normally distributed with mean
(2)
zero and variance 0-2 (white
O(B)= 1-01B-02B2- - Bq; noise);
(3) 0 = overall moving average constant.
Table 2 shows the estimated mean z,
Vzt = Zt- Zt_1; VdZt = V(VdlZt); (4)
variance a,2, and the first ten auto-
Bzt = Zt-1; Bmzt = zt-m; (5) correlations (rk's) and partial autocor-

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Sat, 06 Oct 2018 21:20:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Swedish Case 485

TABLE 2.-Mean, Variance, Autocorrelations THE AUTOREGRESSIVE MODEL

and Partial Autocorrelations for Zt, Vzt and ARIMA(1, 1, 0)
'V 2Zt

V2zt~~~~t(2
This model is defined by

(1 -B)?t = a,, (6)

i(w) 4.29684 .14933 .00500
where
z( w) 2.70079 .00634 .00581
?bt = wt -W 'CV(7)
r1 .920 .517 -.271
r2 .839 .249 -.134 = vzt - ,
r3 .757 .101 -.129
r4 .683 .077 .000 N-1 /

r5 .613 .096 .017 w= E wt/(N -1), (8)

r6 .540 .047 -.086 t=1

r7 .464 .133 .127

r8 .384 .102 -.028
and N = number of data in the original
*9 .305 .118 .042 series zt.
*10 .229 .065 .095 The maximum likelihood estimate 4
was calculated using the procedure de-
.920 .517 -.271
scribed -in Box and Jenkins (1970, Ap-
022 -.049 -.024 -.224 pendix 7.5):
033 -.045 - .025 -.267

!44 .000 .054 -.202 =.540. (9)

055 -.021 .057 -.169

66 - .057 -.044 -.281 From Table 2, the mean for the time
077 -.073 .156 -.111
series wt is given by
!88 -.069 -.031 -.169
099 -.050 .063 -.105
w = .149. (10)
010, 10 -.043 -.031 .080
From Box and Jenkins (1970, Table
Sources: Mean, Variance, Autocorrelations, and
Partial Autocorrelations were calculated 6.6) we can estimate the standard error
according to Equations (13), (14), (18) and
(19) of the Appendix.
for iw. Its value is given by

aw _ .024. (11)
relations (+kk') for the original time Comparing
series (10) and (11) we see that jw
zt, as well as for the first two differences
should be considered nonzero. Finally, the
Vz, and V2z,. (See Appendix for residual
defini- variance can be estimated from
tion of z, AZ2 rk and ?kk.) the sum of squared residuals as in Box
As expected, it is found that in the and Jenkins (1970, Chapter 7). Thus we
original population time series zt the co- have
efficients rk decay approximately lin-
early, which implies that the series is 0a2 = .00442. (12)
nonstationary (Box and Jenkins, 1970, From (6), (7), (9) and (10) the ARIMA
pp. 174-175). (1, 1, 0) model is given by
Using the technique suggested by Box
and Jenkins (1970, Chapter 6), we can z, = 1.540z,1 - .540z 2 + .069 + a,.
identify two possible time series models: (13)
an autoregressive process of order 1 for
the first differences, ARIMA (1, 1, 0), THE MOVING AVERAGE MODEL
and a moving average process of order 1 ARIMA(0, 2, 1)
for the second differences, ARIMA This model is defined by
(0, 2, 1). (See Appendix for more details
of the identification procedure.) t = (1 - O1B)a, (14)

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Sat, 06 Oct 2018 21:20:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
486 DEMOGRAPHY, volume 11, number 3, August 1974

where minimum mean square error forecast

, (1) at origin t for lead time 1 is the con-
i-v= wt - i ditional expectation of z, given know-
ledge of all z's up to time t (see Appendix).
- V2zt -w W, (15)
For the ARIMA (1, 1, 0) model the
and corresponding forecasts at time t and
N-2 / 1 = 1, 2 are given by
w? wt /(N-2). (16)
t =1 StM = 1.540zt - .540z,-1 + .069 (22)
The least squares estimate 01 was deter- and
mined using the procedure of Box and
Jenkins (1970, Section 7.2): z, (2) = 1. 540zt(1) .540zt + .069, (23)
respectively, and for the ARIMA (0, 2, 1)
dl= .663. (17)
model
From Table 2, the mean for the time
series wt is given by zt(l)= 2zt - zt-, + .663at (24)
and
= .005. (18)

As mentioned before, the standard error A (2) 2z(1) =z (25)

for w can be estimated from Table 6.6
of Box and Jenkins (1970):
(f)- .009. (19)
Comparing (18) and (19) we see that it
is reasonable to assume w = 0. In the
same way as in the ARIMA (1, 1, 0)
process, we can obtain an estimate for the
residual variance:
62 = .00463. (20)
Finally, from (14), (15) and (17) the
ARIMA (0, 2, 1) model is given by
zt = 2zt-- Zt-2 + at - .663at-1. (21)
Table 3 summarizes the two models
ARIMA (1, 1, 0) and ARIMA (0, 2,ing
1).that the a,'s are normally distributed,
FORECASTS
Box and Jenkins (1970) show that the
respectively.
Notice that while we only need the z,'s
in order to calculate the forecasts for the
ARIMA (1, 1, 0) model, we also need the
at's for the ARIMA (0, 2, 1) forecasts.
Estimates for the at's can be determined
as being the expectation of the at's
conditional on &1 and the zt's (Box and
Jenkins, 1970, Chapter 7).
Table 1 shows the Swedish population
from 1780 to 1970 with forecasts five
and ten years ahead (1 = 1, 2) for the two
models ARIMA (1, 1, 0) and ARIMA
(0, 2, 1), as well as the corresponding
projections of Keyfitz and Flieger (1971).
As mentioned in the Appendix, assum-
it follows that, given the information up
to time t, the conditional probability
distribution of the future population zt+,

TABLE 3.-Summary of Fitted Models

Type of Model Fitted Model Residual Variance

ARIMA(1,1,) zt= 1.540zt_1 - .540z t2 + .069 +at .00442

ARIMA(0,2,l) zt= 2zt_1 - zt-2 + at- .663at-1 .00463

Sources: The ARIMA (1,1,0) model was obtained from Equations (12) and (13). The
ARIMA (0,2;1) model was obtained from Equations (20) and (21).

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Sat, 06 Oct 2018 21:20:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Swedish Case 487

is normal with mean Z (1) and variance
V(l). Thus, confidence intervals can be
easily obtained (see Box and Jenkins,
1970, pp.135-137).
Table 4 shows the forecasts for 1965
and 1970, together with 50 and 95 per-
cent limits, for the ARIMA (1, 1, 0) and
ARIMA(0, 2, 1) models, based on the
population of Sweden up to 1960. The
order of magnitude of the standard de-
viations for both models is the same. It
is interesting to notice that for the
ARIMA(1, 1, 0) model Z38 and z39 lie
outside the 50 percent limits but inside
the 95 percent limits. For the ARIMA
(0, 2, 1) model, Z38 lies inside the 50 per-
cent limits, and Z39 lies inside the 95 per-
cent limits.
If the forecasts for the Swedish pop-
ulation for 1975 and 1980 are desired,
the models can be adjusted, incorporat-
ing the populations of 1965 and 1970. In
this case the ARIMA (1, 1, 0) model is
given by
z, = 1.604z-1 - .604z,-2 + .062 + a,
(26)
with an estimated residual variance of
0Ja = .00455. (27)
And the adjusted ARIMA (0, 2, 1) model
is given by
with an estimated residual variance of
0a = .00452. (29)
With the adjusted models the fore-
casts for 1975 and 1980 can be calculated
using equations similar to (22), (23),
(24) and (25).
The resulting forecasts for 1975 and
1980 for both models, together with 50
percent and 95 percent limits, are sum-
marized in T'able 5.
COMPARISON BETWEEN TIME SERIES
FORECASTS AND OTHER POPULATION
PROJECTIONS
In this section we compare the results
obtained in this paper with the projec-
tions assuming fixed age-specific birth
and death rates and no migration (Key-
fitz and Flieger, 1971), the United Na-
tions projections (United Nations, 1966),
and also with the results obtained from
the logistic function (Pearl and Reed,
1920).
The logistic curve, N(t) = a/[1 + b
exp(-ct)], was fitted to the population
data of Sweden from 1780 to 1960. The
method employed was the least squares
of Keyfitz (1968, Section 9.2), and we
obtained
N(t) = 11.988/[1 + 5.484

zt = 2zt-, Zt-2 + at - .628a,1 (28) * exp (-.0118t)]. (30)

TABLE 4.-Forecasts for the 1965 and 1970 Populations of Sweden with 50 Percent and 95
Percent Limits (In millions)

Population Forecast

Model Year Population (z t) With 50 Percent Limit With 95 Percent Limit

ARIMA(l,l,0) 1965 7.734 7.666 + .045 7.666 + .130

ARIMA(0,2,1) 1965 7.734 7.716 + .046 7.716 + .133

ARIMA(l,l,0) 1970 8.046 7.835 + .082 7.835 + .239

ARIMA(0,2,1) 1970 8.046 7.953 + .077 7.953 + .223

Sources: Population data (column 3) were obtained from United Nations, Demographic
Yearbook, 1966, 1971. Population forecasts were obtained from Equations (22) to (25).
Confidence limits were obtained from Equation (5.2.6) of Box and Jenkins, 1970.

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Sat, 06 Oct 2018 21:20:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
488 DEMOGRAPHY, volume 11, number 3, August 1974

TABLE 5.-Forecasts for the 1975 and 1980 Population of Sweden with 50 Percent and 95
Percent Limits (In millions)

Population Forecast

Model Year With 50 Percent Limit With 95 Percent Limit

ARIMA(1,1,0) 1975 8.296 + .045 8.296 + .132

ARIMA(0,2,1) 1975 8.316 + .045 8.316 + .132

ARIMA(1,1,0) 1980 8.510 + .086 8.510 + .250

ARIMA(0,2,1) 1980 8.586 + .077 8.586 + .224

Sources: Population forecasts and confidence limits are the sane as in Table 4.

The sum of the squares (ss) of the de-
partures of the fitted from the observed
populations (in millions squared) was
ss = .4676.
Table 6 shows the forecasts for the
mid-year population of Sweden for 1965
and 1970, based on the population up to
1960, using various methods. As we see,
all the procedures underestimated the
Swedish population in 1965 and 1970.
The best forecasts were obtained by the
ARIMA(0, 2, 1) model, followed by the
United Nations proj ections and the
ARIMA(1, 1, 0) model. The results
obtained assuming fixed age-specific
birth and-death rates and no migration,
although inferior to the time series fore-
casts, are much better than the results
obtained by the logistic function. Notice
that the forecast for 1965 using the
logistic curve is smaller than the Swedish
population in 1960.
According to Keyfitz (1972), the qual-
ity of a prediction can be measured by
the formula:
Quality
Prediction - Projection at fixed rates
Realization - Projection at fixed rates
(31)
Using Formula (31) we can construct
Table 7.
If one of the time series models were
to be chosen, it should be the ARIMA
(0, 2, 1). The first reason is that it is
more reasonable to have second differ-
ences (V2zt) for human populations sta-
tionary than first differences (Vzt). The
second is that the forecasts for 1965 and
1970 for the ARIMA (0, 2, 1) model are
better than the corresponding forecasts
for the ARIMA(1, 1, 0) model (see
Tables 6 and 7).

TABLE 6.-Mid-Year Population and Forecasts for Sweden for 1965 and 1970 Based on the
Population up to 1960 (In millions)

Population Forecast

Mid-year Fixed Rates

Year Population ARIMA(l,l,0) ARIMA(0,2,1) No Migration U.N. Logistic

1965 7.734 7.666 7.716 7.636 7.700 7.413

1970 8.046 7.835 7.953 7.791 7.920 7.579

Sources: Population data were obtained from United Nations, Demographic Yearbook,
1966, 1971. ARIMA(l,l,0) and ARIMA (0,2,1) forecasts were calculated according
to Equations (22) to (25). Projections with fixed rates and no migration were
obtained from Keyfitz and Flieger, 1971. U.N. projections were obtained from
United Nations, 1966. Logistic projections were calculated using Equation (30).

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Sat, 06 Oct 2018 21:20:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Swedish
TABLE 7.-Quality of Predictions as Measured by Formula (31)
Year ARIMA(1,1,0) ARIMA(0,2,1) No Migration U.N. Logistic
1965 .31 .82
1970 .17 .64
Source: The quality of the various predictions is measured by Formula (31).
CONCLUSIONS
Although the results obtained here are
encouraging, we should be aware of the
limitation of the application of time
series analysis techniques to population
forecasting. This is due to the fact that
in order to have good estimates for the
parameters of the model we should use
at least 50 observations of the time series
(Box and Jenkins, 1970). Even Sweden,
which is the country with the best de-
mographic data, has not such a long
demographic history if five-year inter-
vals are to be taken. Even taking one-
year intervals, most countries do not
have population data for 50 consecutive
years. Can we reduce this number and
still find a useful model? This can only
be answered by carefully applying the
time series technique to other countries
and by comparing the forecasts obtained
with future populations.
Other demographic parameters, such
as number of births and deaths (or birth
and death rates), reproductive value, life
expectancy, infant mortality, depen-
dency rate, etc., rmight also be studied
by similar time series models, so that
future trends could be predicted. This
was indeed done for U. S. births, and an
ARIMA (0, 1, 2) model was found. De-
tails of this model can be obtained from
the author upon request.
Further research is needed to under-
stand the meaning of the parameters of
the time series population models. Also
it would be interesting to relate such
parameters to the classical population
models.
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Sat, 06 Oct 2018 21:20:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Case 489
Constant Rates
.0 .65 -2.28
.0 .51 - .83
The main advantage of the time series
models over most of the other usual
ways of projecting populations is that
the time series forecasts can be given by
normal distributions, and confidence in-
tervals can be easily obtained. Thus,
following the recommendation of Key-
fitz (1972), we have a forecast given by
a probability distribution and not simply
by a number.
APPENDIX
Mathematically, a time series is a
sequence of observations at equispaced
intervals of time. Let zt be the observation
attimet, whereteI1, 2, * I *
The backward shift operator B is defined
by Bz, = z, , and in general Bmz, = Zt-m
Another operator used is the backward
difference operator V, which is defined by
Vzt = Zt - z,-. In general Vdz' =
V (Vd-z).
The Box-Jenkins models are based on
the idea (Yule, 1927) that a time series
in which successive values are highly
dependent can be regarded as being
generated from a series of independent
shocks a,. The shocks used here have a
normal distribution with mean zero and
variance 0a'. Such a sequence of random
variables a, is called white noise process.
Stationary Models
A stationary process zt is one in which
the joint probability associated with m
observations zt, zt2, ... , Ztm made at any
set of times t,, t2y * * tm is the same as
that associated with m observations zt,+k,
Zt2+k, .* . , Zt,m+k made at times t1 + k,
t2+ ky., * tm + k.
490 DEMOGRAPHY, volume 11, number 3, August 1974

and IAW
Let IA be the mean about = thethe
which mean about whi
process varies, and let difference of z, varies.
2t= -Zt (A.1) Model Identification and Estimation

The mixed autoregressive-moving av- For a stationary process let p(z) be

erage model of order (p, q), ARMA the probability distribution of Zt at an
(p, q), is defined by the relation arbitrary time t.
The mean of the process, which meas-
2t = 41Zt-1 + .. + &Zt-p ures the level about which it fluctuates,
is defined by
+ a, - 01a,- - - Oqat-q (A.2)
or
= E(zt)
O(B)2t= O(B)at, (A.3) co

where = f zp(z) dz. (A.1)

_co

?~(B) = 1-qB-42B2 _PBP And the variance, which measures its

(A.4) spread, is defined by
and
= -2E[(z, _)2]
O(B)= 1- 01B- 02B2- OqB'. co
(A.5) = f (z -Z _A)2p(Z) dz. (A.12)
_co

If q = 0, it becomes the autoregressive

model of order p, AR(p) , defined by Having N observations of a process, it is
possible to estimate its mean and vari-
O(B)2t = a,. (A.6) ance, respectively, by
And if p = 0, it becomes the moving N

average model of order q, MA(q), de- =(1/N) EZt (A.13)

t=
fined by
and
zt = o(B)a,. (A.7)
N

Yonstationary Models
z= (1/N) E (z - Z)2. (A.14)
t =1
Many series encountered in the real
life exhibit nonstationary behavior and The autocovariance at lag k is defined by
do not vary about a fixed mean. This is
7k = cov (Ztr Zt+k)
the case of the population series we used
in this paper. Such series may become
= E[(zt - /)(Zt+k - AAY
stationary after taking differences in
level. In general it is necessary to take k = 0,1, 2, .2 . (A.15)
the d'th difference of the time series in
And the autocorrelation at lag k is de-
order to have a stationary process. And
fined by
the autoregressive integrated moving av-
erage model of order (p, d, q), ARIMA Pk = Yk/7Oz. (A. 16)
(p, d, q) , is defined by
An estimate for the autocovariance
O(B)?t = o(B)a, , (A.8) N-k

where Ck = (1/N) (Zt - 2)(Zt+k - 2),

wt = Vdzt (A.9) k =0 12* ** n, (A.17)

= Wt- w (A.10) where n should not be larger than N/4.

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Sat, 06 Oct 2018 21:20:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Swedish
An estimate for the k'th lag autocorrela-
tion Pk iS given by
rk = Ck/CO- (A.18)
The partial autocorrelation at lag k,
4kk, is the solution of the Yule-Walker
equations
1 Pi P2 ... Pk-1 rkl Pi
Pi 1 Pi Pk-2 4k2 P2
... . 1.= k = 1 2k=, 2, . (A. 19)
_Pk-1 Pk-2 Pk-3 ... 1 1 LkkJ LPkl
By substituting estimates rk for the
theoretical autocorrelations pk in the
Yule-Walker equations, 'kk can be esti-
mated.
The autocorrelation function (pk, k -
1, 2, * * *) and the partial autocorrelation
function ('pkk, k = 1, 2, * * *) are the key
elements in identifying the appropriate
model(s). The general procedure for
identifying a time series model is to esti-
mate the autocorrelation and partial
autocorrelation functions for the original
time series zt and successive differences
Vdzt, d = 1, 2, * . By comparing the
foregoing functions with the theoretical
functions for the various models we
should be able to identify one or more
models. The theoretical autocorrelation
and partial autocorrelation functions for
the different time series models are
studied in Chapter 3 of Box and Jenkins
(1970) and are summarized in their
Table 3.2. We should keep in mind, how-
ever, that the estimated autocorrelations
can have rather large variances and can
be highly autocorrelated with each other.
Thus the estimated autocorrelations will
differ somewhat from the theoretical
autocorrelations. Box and Jenkins (1970)
provide us with formulas to estimate the
standard errors for the estimated auto-
correlation and partial autocorrelation
functions. They also present methods for
estimating the residual variance Ua2 and
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Sat, 06 Oct 2018 21:20:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Case 491
the parameters of the polynomials + (B)
and @(B).
Forecasts
Box and Jenkins (1970, Chapter 5)
show that the minimum square error
forecast, z(1) at origin t for lead time 1 is
the conditional expectation of z,+,, given
knowledge of all z's up to time t. Also, on
the assumption that the independent
shocks a, have a normal distribution with
mean zero and variance Ua 2 it follows
that, given the information up to time t,
the conditional probability distribution
of a future value z,+ is also normally
distributed with mean Z (1) and variance
V(l) that can be easily estimated. Thus we
can obtain confidence intervals for the
forecasts.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I want to express my gratitude to Pro-
fessor Richard E. Barlow, who intro-
duced me to the study of populations
and to time series analysis, for the
stimulus and many suggestions given
during the development of this research.
Also, I am indebted to the Editor and
the referees for their constructive criti-
cisms. My thanks are also extensive
to Barbara Brewer and Sandra Ham
for typing the manuscript. This research
has been partially supported by the
Office of Naval Research under Con-
tract N00014-69-A-0200-1036, CAPES,
and COPPE-Federal University of Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil, with the University
of California. Reproduction in whole or
in part is permitted for any purpose of
the United States Government.
492 DEMOGRAPHY, volume 11, number 3, August 1974
REFERENCES
Box, G. E. P., and G. M. Jenkins. 1970. Time
Series Analysis: Forecasting and Control.
San Francisco: Holden-Day.
Gille, H. 1949. The Demographic History of
the Northern European Countries in the
Eighteenth Century. Population Studies 3:
3-65.
Keyfitz, Nathan. 1968. Introduction to the
Mathematics of Population. Reading: Ad-
dison-Wesley.
. 1972. On Future Population. Journal
of the American Statistical Association 67:
347-363.
and Wilhelm Flieger. 1971. Population:
Facts and Methods of Demography. San
Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co.
Pearl, R., and L. J. Reed. 1920. On the Rate
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Sat, 06 Oct 2018 21:20:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
of Growth of the Population of the United
States Since 1790 and Its Mathematical
Representation. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 6:275-288.
Sweden. Central Bureau of Statistics. 1955.
Historical Statistics of Sweden, No. 1. Pop-
ulation: 1720-1950. Stockholm: Government
Publishing House.
United Nations. 1948-1971. Demographic Year-
book, 1st to 23rd issues. New York: United
Nations.
1966. World Population Prospects as
Assessed in 1963. Population Studies No. 41,
Series A/41. New York: United Nations.
Yule, G. U. 1927. On a Method of Investigat-
ing Periodicities in Disturbed Series, with
Special Reference to Wolfers' Sunspot Num-
bers. Philosophical Transactions A226, A267.