Advertisement

From Basic IO and SU Models to Demo-Economic Models

  • Jan OosterhavenEmail author
Chapter
First Online:
  • 192 Downloads
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Regional Science book series (BRIEFSREGION)

Abstract

A social accounting matrix (SAM) is shown to represent the ideal set of data to endogenize household consumption, as it contains a full description of the generation, redistribution and spending of income. Type II multipliers and interregional spillovers of an interregional SAM model are both larger than those of the standard, Type I input–output model, whereas exogenous final demand is smaller. Type II multipliers are shown to represent an upper limit for the true multipliers. Type III multipliers are smaller, as intensive income growth of existing jobs needs to be multiplied with smaller marginal instead of average consumption/output ratios. Type IV multipliers are even smaller, as they include the negative feedback of increasing employment on unemployment benefits. Endogenizing remaining final demand leads to ever larger, less plausible multipliers.

Keywords

Endogenous household consumption Social accounting matrices (SAMs) Type II input–output model Demo-economic models Vacancy chains Type IV multipliers Infinite multipliers Net multipliers 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Batey PWJ (1985) Input-output models for regional demographic-economic analysis: some structural comparisons. Environ Plan A 17:77–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batey PWJ, Madden M (1983) The modelling of demographic-economic change within the context of regional decline: analytical procedures and empirical results. Socio-Econ Plan Sci 17:315–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batey PWJ, Rose A (1990) Extended input-output models: progress and potential. Int Reg Sci Rev 13:27–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blackwell J (1988) Disaggregation of the household sector in regional input-output analysis: some models specifying previous residence of worker. Reg Stud 12:367–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cole S (1989) Expenditure lags in impact analysis. Reg Stud 23:105–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cole S (1997) Closure in Cole’s reformulated Leontief model: a response to R.W. Jackson, M. Madden, and H.A. Bowman. Pap Reg Sci 76:29–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Mesnard L (2006) A critical comment on Oosterhaven-Stelder net multipliers. Ann Reg Sci 41:249–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dietzenbacher E (2005) More on multipliers. J Reg Sci 45:421–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jackson RW, Madden M, Bowman HA (1997) Closure in Cole’s reformulated Leontief model. Pap Reg Sci 76:21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Madsen B, Jensen-Butler C (2004) Theoretical and operational issues in sub-regional economic modelling, illustrated through the development and application of the LINE model. Econ Model 21:471–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Madsen B, Jensen-Butler C (2005) Spatial accounting methods and the construction of spatial social accounting matrices. Econ Syst Res 17:187–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Miller RE, Blair PD (2009) Input-output analysis: foundations and extensions, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Miernyk WH, Bonner ER, Chapman JH, Shellhammer K (1967) Impact of the space program on a local economy: an input-output analysis. West Virginia University Library, MorgantownGoogle Scholar
  14. Miyazawa K (1976) Input-output analysis and the structure of the income distribution. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Miyazawa K, Masegi S (1963) Interindustry analysis and the structure of income distribution. Metroecon 15:89–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Oosterhaven J (1981) Interregional input-output analysis and Dutch regional policy problems. Gower Publishing, Aldershot-HampshireGoogle Scholar
  17. Oosterhaven J (2000) Lessons from the debate on Cole’s model closure. Pap Reg Sci 79:233–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Oosterhaven J (2007) The net multiplier is a new key sector indicator: reply to De Mesnard’s comment. Ann Reg Sci 41:249–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Oosterhaven J, Dewhurst JHL (1990) A prototype demo-economic model with an application to Queensland. Int Reg Sci Rev 13:51–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oosterhaven J, Folmer H (1985) An interregional labour market model incorporating vacancy chains and social security. Pap Reg Sci Assoc 58:141–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oosterhaven J, Stelder TM (2002) Net multipliers avoid exaggerating impacts: with a bi-regional illustration for the Dutch transportation sector. J Reg Sci 42:533–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oosterhaven J, van der Knijff EC, Eding GJ (2003) Estimating interregional economic impacts: an evaluation of nonsurvey, semisurvey, and full survey methods. Environ Plan A 35:5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Oosterhaven J, Polenske KR, Hewings GJD (2019) Modern regional input–output and impact analysis. In: Capello R, Nijkamp P (eds) Handbook of regional growth and development theories: revised and extended, 2nd edn. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  24. Pyatt G (2001) Some early multiplier models and the relationship between income distribution and production structure. Econ Syst Res 13:139–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pyatt G, Round JI (1977) Social accounting matrices for development planning. Rev Income Wealth 23:339–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pyatt G, Thorbecke E (1976) Planning techniques for a better future. International Labour Office, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  27. Sonis M, Hewings GJD (1999) Miyazawa’s contributions to understanding economic structure: interpretation, evaluation and extensions. In: Hewings GJD, Sonis M, Madden M, Kimura Y (eds) Understanding and interpreting economic structure. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  28. Tiebout CM (1969) An empirical regional input-output projection model: the State of Washington 1980. Rev Econ Stat 51:334–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. van Dijk J, Oosterhaven J (1986) Regional impacts of migrants’ expenditures: an input-output/vacancy-chain approach. In: Batey PWJ, Madden M (eds) Integrated analysis of regional systems (London Pap Reg Sci 15). Pion, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. van Dijk J, Folmer H, Oosterhaven J (2019) Regional policy: rationale, foundations and measurement of its effects. In: Capello R, Nijkamp P (eds) Handbook of regional growth and development theories: revised and extended, 2nd edn. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options