this. First, the U.S. is ahead of other nations in both Year 2000 awareness and in Year 2000 repairs (Year 2000 computing crisis: Strong leadership..., 1997, 5). This means that, in all likelihood, if Year 2000 is not dealt with successfully in the U.S. then it will not be dealt with anywhere. The second reason is the availability of data to assess the questions. Dr. Edward Yardeni, chief economist at Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, maintains an internet website with a wealth of information on Year 2000 related issues. Included on his site are links to ongoing and updated survey results from county and state governments, official assessments by relevant officers in key federal agencies, and a multitude of other sources. No other such collection of data is available for other nations.
This section of the paper will review the written literature on the Year 2000 problem. It will focus on two primary aspects of the problem. First, in order to provide a firm grounding for discussion, the technical side of the problem will be briefly examined. Second, the scope of the problem and possible specific consequences for government operations will be discussed. These will be detailed from reports from federal, state, and county agencies and officials.
The first question in assessing Year 2000 is "How could this have happened?" Wolfberg (1993), describes several reasons that account for the genesis of the Year 2000 problem:
Saving Space in computer memory. Originally, computers had very small amounts of memory available and the repeated
use of two extra numbers could make a significant difference on the amount of memory available so in the interests of efficiency, the seemingly redundant thousands and hundreds were dropped.
Preprinted forms. Designing computer output for old systems was quite tedious and required that every variable be specifically defined. In order to make it easy to print a two digit year after a pre...