1010 PONTIFICIAE ACADEMIAE SCIENTIARVM SCRIPTA VARIA - 28 
corded in the last column of table 1. As can be expected to 
some extent at least, participation potential increases with in- 
crease in degree of spatial decentralization. This is the case 
for rows A to G where each row involves greater spatial decen- 
tralization than the preceding row. When we come to row H 
it is no longer clear, as indicated, whether G or H involves 
a higher degree of spatial decentralization. Note that P falls 
from 130.00 for G to 65.67 for H. From row H to and includ- 
ing row L, there is once again a succession of patterns, each 
one involving a higher degree of spatial decentralization than 
the preceding one. The value of P also rises, without exception, 
from one pattern to the next. At row M, once again it is not 
possible to state that the pattern has a higher degree of spatial 
decentralization than the preceding one (row L). We also note 
that P at M is lower than P at L. 
(To illustrate the dependence of P on the choice of values 
for the basic parameters, we carry through several more com- 
putations. The results are given in table 2. In column 1 of 
or allocation of decision-making authority among the modes in the » order 
hierarchy. In the calculation of the participation potentials of the last 
column of table I, dzy = oo, whenever f < g since a downward flow of par- 
ticipation or exertion of influence has been precluded by assumption, and 
diu=e which we set equal to 1/10. The value of 2 is 4 so that the [ke] 
vector is [1, 4, 16, 64]. The =| matrix becomes 
d= 
Je 
To 1 ï 
to 7? 
The product of [R#!] and z= is the row vector [43 1/3, 88, 224, 640] 
zl 
This row vector, when multiplied by the matrix [1,,] vields a row vector 
which is the transpose of the last column of table 1. 
[12] Isard - pag. 8