Teiwes' rankings are for personnel stability within provincial CCP secretariats in contrast to our ranking of overall political stability. Teiwes examined data covering (a) the secretaries' length of time in office; (b) the occurrences of purges, demotions and turnovers of secretaries; and (c) the sizes of "core groups" of secretaries who served together for long periods of time. Teiwes' rankings provided him with a systematic means of making qualitative judgments about provincial politics in general and quantitative judgments about the strength of the relationships between personnel stability and other political, social or economic variables.

Teiwes attributed the difference between his two rankings to changes in the Chinese political system caused by the turbulence of the Cultural Revolution. He argued that the Cultural Revolution changed the situation that had existed in the 1950s and early 1960s, in which the richer more developed provinces tended to be more stable than the poorer provinces. He concluded that "Mao had created an environment in which skill in adjusting to contradictory political signals and shifting power alignments became critical for survival." 75

The differences between Teiwes' rankings and ours are due not only to further changes in the Chinese political system brought on by the struggle for succession in the mid-1970s but also to our more comprehensive system of rating.

APPENDIX B. MONTHLY INDUSTRIAL OUTPUT FOR SELECTED
PROVINCES IN RECENT YEARS

The data on monthly industrial output presented in Tables B-1 through B-22 were derived from the large number of statements on industrial performance that were broadcast or published during 1977 and early 1978. Typical of these statements are the following two, which were used in calculating monthly industrial output in Sinkiang:

From January to August this year, the total industrial output value of our region surpassed the previous corresponding period. It was equivalent to 68.3 percent of the target figure set for this year and showed a 17.17 percent rise over last year's corresponding period."

The total value of industrial production in 1977 overfulfilled the plan by 7.27 percent, an increase of 11.72 percent over 1976.77

In the first statement we are told that 68.3 percent of the annual plan was fulfilled during the first eight months of the year, or a monthly average of 8.5 percent of the plan. In the second statement we are told that the plan was overfulfilled by 7.27 percent. From these two percents we can calculate that 39.0 percent (that is, 107.3-68.3) of the output originally planned for the year was produced during the last four months, or a monthly average of 9.8 percent of the plan.

Similarly, output in 1976 can be related to the output planned for 1977. In the first eight months of 1976, output was 58.3 percent (that is, 68.3÷1.1717) of that planned for 1977, or a monthly average of 7.3 percent of the 1977 plan. During the entire year 1976, output was 96.0 percent (that is, 107.3÷1.1172) of that planned for 1977. Finally, output in the last four months of 1976 was 37.7 percent (that is, 96.0-58.3) of that planned for 1977, or a monthly average of 9.4 percent.

75 Ibid., p. 135.

FBIS, Oct. 14, 1977, M9:

FBIS, Feb. 7, 1978, M4

January-March 1976: Derived from cumulative output through March 1977 and the statement that output in the 1st quarter of 1977 was 3.3 percent less than in the corresponding period of 1976. See BBC, FE/W965/A/3, Feb. 1, 1978. July-December 1976: Derived from output in the 2d half of 1977 and the statement that output in the 2d half of 1977 increased 9.8 percent over the corresponding period of 1976. See FBIS, Jan. 24, 1978, G5.

January-June 1977: Derived from output in the 2d half of 1977 and the statement that output in the 2d half of 1977 increased 13.3 percent over the 1st half (see FBIS, Jan, 24, 1978, G5). The individual months were derived from the following increases over the preceding months:

January-February 1978: Derived from the statement that output in the 1st 2 mo of 1978 increased 31.2 percent over the corresponding period of 1977. See Hopei Provincial Service, Mar. 29, 1978.

TABLE B-2.-MONTHLY INDUSTRIAL OUTPUT IN CHEKIANG, SELECTED MONTHS, 1973 AND 1976-77

January-June 1973: Derived from cumulative output through June 1977 and the statement that output in the 1st half of 1977 increased 17 percent over the corresponding period of 1973, the previous peak. See JMJP, July 22, 1977. July-November 1973: Derived from cumulative output through November 1977 and the statement that output in the 1st 11 mo of 1977 increased 7.1 percent over the corresponding period of the previous peak, here assumed to be 1973. See TKP (HK), Dec. 29, 1977.

January-August 1976: Derived from cumulative output through August 1977 and the statement that output in the 1st 8 mo increased 25.9 percent over the corresponding period of 1976. See FBIS, Sept. 20, 1977, G1.

September-November 1976: Derived from cumulative output through November 1977 and the statement that output increased 35.8 percent over the corresponding period of 1976. See TKP (HK), Dec. 29, 1977.

January-June 1977: Derived from the statement that 50.3 percent of the plan was fulfilled by the end of June (see JMJP, July 22, 1977). The individual months were derived from the following increases over the preceding month:

July-August 1977: Derived from the statement that 70.5 percent of the plan was fulfilled by the end of August. See FBIS, Sept. 20, 1977, GI.

September-October 1977: Derived from the statement that 92 percent of the plan wasf filled by the end of October. See FBIS, Nov. 28, 1977, G5.

November 1977: Derived from the statement that 105.7 percent of the plan was fulfilled by the end of November. See TKP (HK), Dec. 29, 1977.

January-March 1978: Derived from the statement that output in the 1st 3 mo of 1978 increased 70.1 percent over the corresponding period of 1977. See FBIS, Apr. 19, 1978, G5.

TABLE B-3.-MONTHLY INDUSTRIAL OUTPUT IN FUKIEN, SELECTED MONTHS, 1976-78

January-September 1976: Derived from cumulative output through September 1977 and the statement that output in the 1st 9 mo increased 17.5 percent over the corresponding period of 1976. See FBIS, Nov. 9, 1977, G3. October-December 1976: Cumulative output through Dec. 5 was derived from cumulative output through Dec. 5, 1977, and the statement that output increased 20.4 percent over the corresponding period of 1976 (see FBIS, Jan. 5, 1978, G11). Output in the months of October, November, and December was estimated from total output in the period October-Dec. 5 and from the monthly increases in November and December of 15.5 percent and 28 percent (see FBIS, Feb. 18, 1977, G7) on the assumption that average daily output was constant in December. The equations for calculating the estimates are:

5

Oct.+Nov.+31 Dec.=16.6
Nov. 1.155 Oct.

Dec. 1.28 Nov.

January 1977: Derived from output in the month of January 1978 and the statement that output in January 1978 increased 29.1 percent over that of January 1977. See Foochow Provincial Service, Feb. 9, 1978.

February-September 1977: Derived from the statement that 78.1 percent of the plan was fulfilled by the end of September. See FBIS, Nov. 9, 1977, G3.

October-November 1977: Derived from the statement that the plan was fulfilled on Dec. 5, 1977, on the assumption that average daily output was constant in December. See FBIS, Jan. 5, 1978, G11.

December 1977: Derived from cumulative output through December 1976 and the statement that output increased 18.62 percent over that of 1976. See FBIS, Jan. 6, 1978, G3.

January 1978: Derived from the statement that output in January 1978 increased 5.3 percent over the average monthly output in the 4th quarter of 1977. See Foochow Provincial Service, Feb. 9, 1978.

TABLE B-4.-MONTHLY INDUSTRIAL OUTPUT IN HEILUNGKIANG, SELECTED MONTHS, 1976-77

January-March 1976: Derived from output in the 1st quarter of 1977 and the statement that output in the 1st quarter of 1977 increased 62 percent over the corresponding period of 1976. See "Learn from Taching," p.6.

April-August 1976: Derived from cumulative output through August 1977 and the statement that output in the 1st 8 mo of 1977 increased 9.3 percent over the corresponding period of 1976. See FBIS, Oct. 5, 1977, LI.

January-March 1977: Derived from the statement that 22 percent of the plan was fulfilled by the end of March. See "Learn from Taching," p. 6.

April-June 1977: Derived from cumulative output through March 1977 and the statement that output in the 2d quarter increased 20 percent over the 1st quarter. See FBIS, Oct. 5, 1977, LI.

July-August 1977: Derived from the statement that 66.3 percent of the plan was fulfilled by the end of August. See FBIS Oct. 5, 1977, LI.

January-March 1978: Derived from the statement that output in the 1st 3 mo increased 20.2 percent over the corresponding period of 1977. See FBIS, Apr. 25, 1978, L10.

January-June 1975: Derived from cumulative output through June 1976 and the statement that output in the 1st half of 1977 increased 10 percent over the corresponding period of 1975. See BBC, FE/W890/A/6, Aug. 11, 1976. July-December 1975: Derived from the cumulative output through December 1977 and the statements that output in 1975 was 3.7 times that of 1965 (see FBIS, May 19, 1976, K3) and that the average annual rate of growth between 1965 and 1977 was 11.4 percent. See BBC, FE/W962/A/7, Jan. 11, 1978.

January-June 1976: Derived from cumulative output through June 1977 and the statement that output in the 1st 7 months increased 6 percent over the corresponding period of 1976 on the assumption that the percentage increase through June was the same as the percentage increase through July. See NCNA, Peking, Aug. 30, 1977. July-December 1976: Derived from cumulative output through December 1977 and the statement that output in 1977 increased 15.4 percent over that in 1976. See FBIS, Feb. 8, 1978, K3.

January-June 1977: Derived from the statement that 49 percent of the plan was fulfilled by the end of June. See FBIS, Aug. 10, 1977, K1.

July-December 1977: Estimated on the assumption that the plan was fulfilled by the end of the year.

January-June 1974: Derived from cumulative output through June 1975 and the statement that output in the 1st half of 1975 increased 29 percent over the corresponding period of 1974. See FBIS, July 14, 1975, H3.

July-December 1974: Derived from cumulative output through December 1975 and the statements that output in 1974 was 29 times that of 1949 (see FBIS, Feb. 3, 1975, H3) and that output in 1975 was 29 times that of 1949 (see "Peking Review, No. 30, 1976, p. 19).

January-June 1975: Derived from cumulative output through June 1976 and the statement that output in the 1st half of 1976 increased 4 percent over the corresponding period of 1975. See FBIS, Aug. 2, 1976, H11.

July-December 1975: Derived from cumulative output through December 1976 and the statements that output in 1975 was 29 times that of 1949 (see Peking Review, No. 30, 1976, p. 19) and that output in 1976 was 29.5 times that of 1949 (see FBIS, July 13, 1977, G6).

January-June 1976: Derived from cumulative output through June 1977 and the statement that output in the 1st half of 1977 increased 13.5 percent over the corresponding period of 1976. See BBC, FE/W939/A/4, July 27, 1977. July-September 1976: Derived from cumulative output through September 1977 and the statement that output in the 1st 9 months of 1977 increased 19.25 percent over the corresponding period of 1976. See FBIS, Oct. 14, 1977, H5. October-December 1976: Derived from cumulative output through December 1977 and the statement that output in 1977 increased 22.9 percent over that in 1976. See FBIS, Jan. 12, 1978, H1.

January-June 1977: Derived from the statement that 52 percent of the plan was fulfilled by the end of June. See BBC, FE/W939/A/4, July 27, 1977. The individual months were derived from the following increases over the preceding month:

Note: The rate of growth in March was estimated subject to the constraint that output in the 2d quarter be 68 percent greater than in the 1st quarter. See BBC, FE/W939/A/4, July 27, 1977.

July-September 1977: Derived from the statement that 84 percent of the plan was fulfilled by the end of September. See BBC, FE/W954/A/8, Nov. 9, 1977.

October 1977: Derived from the statement that 95.4 percent of the plan was fulfilled by the end of October. See FBIS, Nov. 17, 1977, H1.

November 1977: Derived as the difference between cumulative output through December and output in the month of December.

December 1977: Cumulative output through December was derived from the statement that 115.6 percent of the plan was fulfilled by the end of December (see FBIS, Jan. 12, 1978, H1). Output in the month of December was estimated from cumulative output through December and the statement that the plan was fulfilled 48 days early on the assumption that average daily output was the same in late November and December (see NCNA, Changsha, Dec, 26, 1977).