<p>Very obscure indeed. If you see his paper in <a href="https://repub.eur.nl/pub/15944/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">English</a> (published in 1959), you can see the following (page 43):</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/HvfaZ.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/HvfaZ.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>By checking other variables, you can confirm that the variable letters are equivalent in this and your reference. Then, $E$ stands for "<em>all non-wage income, taken at the moment received, instead of take when earned</em>". </p>

<p>This is a standard differentiation between the time an income has been <a href="http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/accruedincome.asp" rel="nofollow noreferrer">accrued</a> ($Z$) and when it has actually been received ($E$). </p>

<p>You can see more about these definitions later on in the document. In page 49, you find an explanation on how these are calculated (19 is $Z$, 20 is $E$; see table in page 47-48):</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/fSsN0.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/fSsN0.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>It seems the author is assuming that income is received one further year <em>after</em> is is accrued. However, the text seem to me rather obscure. He mentions a "pamphlet regarding this working method which will be published later." (p.42). You might want to trace that one down.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-22T13:54:54.880Z
2017-05-22T14:00:30.857Z
2017-05-22T14:00:30.857Z
luchonacho
<p>In <em>When it all began</em> by <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02649993/6/2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dhaene and Barten (1989)</a>, the authors discuss in detail what they claim was the first ever macroeconometric model, Tinbergen's 1936 model of the Netherlands economy.</p>

<p>Some of their summaries of Tinbergen's variables are a bit vague though.</p>

<p>What, for example, is $E$, described as <em>"All other income, when paid out"</em>?</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/uRrSd.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/uRrSd.png" alt="All other income, when paid out"></a></p>

<macroeconomics><econometrics>
What is Tinbergen's "all other income when paid out" measuring?
LondonRob
# What is Tinbergen's "all other income when paid out" measuring?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-05-22)

In *When it all began* by [Dhaene and Barten (1989)](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02649993/6/2), the authors discuss in detail what they claim was the first ever macroeconometric model, Tinbergen's 1936 model of the Netherlands economy.

Some of their summaries of Tinbergen's variables are a bit vague though.

What, for example, is $E$, described as *"All other income, when paid out"*?

[![All other income, when paid out](https://i.sstatic.net/uRrSd.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/uRrSd.png)

**Tags:** macroeconomics, econometrics

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2017-05-22. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

Very obscure indeed. If you see his paper in [English](https://repub.eur.nl/pub/15944/) (published in 1959), you can see the following (page 43):

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/HvfaZ.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/HvfaZ.png)

By checking other variables, you can confirm that the variable letters are equivalent in this and your reference. Then, $E$ stands for "*all non-wage income, taken at the moment received, instead of take when earned*".

This is a standard differentiation between the time an income has been [accrued](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/accruedincome.asp) ($Z$) and when it has actually been received ($E$).

You can see more about these definitions later on in the document. In page 49, you find an explanation on how these are calculated (19 is $Z$, 20 is $E$; see table in page 47-48):

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/fSsN0.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/fSsN0.png)

It seems the author is assuming that income is received one further year *after* is is accrued. However, the text seem to me rather obscure. He mentions a "pamphlet regarding this working method which will be published later." (p.42). You might want to trace that one down.


---

