Supply-Driven IO Quantity Model and Its Dual, Price Model

  • Jan OosterhavenEmail author
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Regional Science book series (BRIEFSREGION)


The supply-driven IO quantity model is shown to be the pure opposite of the standard IO model. In this model, any change in the exogenous supply of primary inputs is passed on forwardly to purchasers that pass it on further with fixed intermediate and fixed final output coefficients. The Ghosh model furthermore assumes a single homogeneous input, which means that factories may work without labour. The Type II supply-driven model, additionally, has a supply-driven consumption function, which allows kitchen appliances to run without electricity. The dual of the Ghosh quantity model, the revenue-pull IO price model, simulates the backward passing on, under full competition, of any final output price change to the suppliers of intermediate inputs who pass them on further, to end up in changes in the prices of the primary inputs. Finally, all four basic IO models are compared and are shown to overestimate their typical impacts.


Supply-driven IO quantity model Ghosh model Allocation coefficients Ghosh-inverse Processing coefficients Revenue-pull IO price model Revenue shares Price multipliers CGE models 


  1. Almon C (1991) The INFORUM approach to interindustry modeling. Econ Syst Res 3:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Augustinovics M (1970) Methods of international and intertemporal comparison of structure. In: Carter A, Bródy A (eds) Contributions to input-output analysis. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  3. Bon R (1986) Comparative stability analysis of demand-side and supply-side input-output models. Int J Forecast 2:231–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bon R (1988) Supply-side multiregional input-output models. J Reg Sci 28:41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bröcker J, Meyer R, Schneekloth N, Schürmann C, Spierkemann K, Wegener M (2004) Modelling the socio-economic and spatial impacts of EU transport policy. IASON deliverable 6. Christian-Albrechts-Universität Kiel/Universität DortmundGoogle Scholar
  6. Cartwright JV, Beemiller RM, Trott EA, Younger JM (1982) Estimating the potential impacts of a nuclear reactor accident. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen CY, Rose A (1986) The joint stability of input-output production and allocation coefficients. Model Simul 17:251–255Google Scholar
  8. Davar E (1989) Input-output and general equilibrium. Econ Syst Res 1:331–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis HC, Salkin EL (1984) Alternative approaches to the estimation on economic impacts resulting from supply constraints. Ann Reg Sci 18:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Mesnard L (2004) understanding the shortcomings of commodity-based technology in input-output models: an economic-circuit approach. J Reg Sci 44:125–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Mesnard L (2009) Is the Ghosh model interesting? J Reg Sci 49:361–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dietzenbacher E (1997) In vindication of the Ghosh model: a reinterpretation as a price model. J Reg Sci 37:629–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ehret H (1970) Die Anwendbarkeit von input-output Modellen als prognose Instrument. Dunkler & Humbolt, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  14. Ghosh A (1958) Input-output approach in an allocation system. Economica 25:58–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giarratani F (1976) Application of an interindustry supply model to energy issues. Environ Plan A 8:44754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Giarratani F (1980) The scientific basis for explanation in regional analysis. Pap Reg Sci Assoc 45:185–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Giarratani F (1981) A supply-constrained interindustry model: forecasting performance and an evaluation. In: Burh W, Friedrich P (eds) Regional development under stagnation. Nomos Verlag, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  18. Gruver GW (1989) On the plausibility of the supply-driven input-output model: a theoretical basis for input-coefficient change. J Reg Sci 29:441–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guerra AI, Sancho F (2011) Revisiting the original Ghosh model: can it be made more plausible? Econ Syst Res 23:319–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Helmstädter E, Richtering J (1982) Input coefficients and output coefficients types models and empirical findings. In: Proceedings of the Hungarian conference on input-output techniques, Statistical Publishing House, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  21. Kratena K (2005) Prices and factor demand in an endogenized input-output model. Econ Syst Res 17:47–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kratena K (2017) General equilibrium analysis. In: ten Raa T (ed) Handbook of input-output analysis. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  23. Manresa A, Sancho F (2013) Supply and demand biases in linear interindustry models. Econ Model 33:94–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McGregor P, Swales JK, Yin YP (1999) Spillover and feedback effects in general equilibrium models of the national economy: a requiem for interregional input-output? In: Hewings GJD, Sonis M, Madden M, Kimura Y (eds) Understanding and interpreting economic structure. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller RE, Blair PD (2009) Input-output analysis: foundations and extensions, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nieuwenhuis A (1981) Vraag, aanbod en input-output tabellen. Centraal Planbureau, Notitie nr. 8, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  27. Oosterhaven J (1981) Interregional input-output analysis and Dutch regional policy problems. Gower Publishing, Aldershot-HampshireGoogle Scholar
  28. Oosterhaven J (1988) On the plausibility of the supply-driven input-output model. J Reg Sci 28:203–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oosterhaven J (1989) The supply-driven input-output model: a new interpretation but still implausible. J Reg Sci 29:459–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Oosterhaven J (1996) Leontief versus Ghoshian price and quantity models. South Econ J 62:750–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Oosterhaven J (2012) Adding supply-driven consumption makes the Ghosh model even more implausible. Econ Syst Res 24:101–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rose A, Allision T, Gruver GW (1989) On the plausibility of the supply-driven input-output model: empirical evidence on joint stability. J Reg Sci 29:451–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rose A, Wei D (2013) Estimating the economic consequences of a port shutdown: the special role of resilience. Econ Syst Res 25:212–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. ten Raa T (2004) A neoclassical analysis of total factor productivity using input-output prices. In: Dietzenbacher E, Lahr ML (eds) Wassily Leontief and input-output economics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle 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