Advertisement

Other IO Applications with Complications

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

Abstract

This chapter deals with two other types of applications of IO analysis that regularly appear in the literature without consideration of their limitations. Regional and interregional, forward and backward linkage analysis, also known as key sector analysis, only looks at the benefits while ignoring the policy cost of stimulating the sector chosen. Structural decomposition analysis of national and interregional economic growth only looks at demand-side explanations of growth, while ignoring the supply side, which is especially a problem when analysing longer-run economic growth. Hence, in both cases, policy makers are presented only half of the truth.

Keywords

Forward and backward linkages Key sector analysis Dutch mainport regions Net multipliers Shift and share analysis Structural decomposition analysis Processing exports Growth accounting 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Andreosso-O’Callaghan B, Yue G (2002) Sources of output growth in China: 1987–1997: application of a structural decomposition approach. Appl Econ 34:2227–2237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beyers WB (1976) Empirical identification of key sectors: some further evidence. Environ Plan A 8:231–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Broersma L, Oosterhaven J (2009) Regional labour productivity in The Netherlands, evidence of agglomeration and congestion. J Reg Sci 49:483–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bulmer-Thomas V (1978) Trade, structure and linkages in costa rica: an input-output approach. J Dev Econ 5:73–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carter A (1970) Structural change in the American economy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caves DW, Christensen LR, Diewert WE (1982) The economic theory of index numbers and the measurement of input, output, and productivity. Econ Soc 50:1393–1414Google Scholar
  7. Chalmers JA, Beckhelm TL (1976) Shift and share and the theory of industrial location. Reg Stud 10:15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chenery HB, Watanabe T (1958) International comparisons of the structure of production. Econom 26:487–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diamond J (1985) Interindustry indicators of employment potential. Appl Econ 7:265–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dietzenbacher E (2005) More on multipliers. J Reg Sci 45:421–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dietzenbacher E, Los B (1998) Structural decomposition techniques: sense and sensitivity. Econ Syst Res 10:307–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diewert WE (1976) Exact and superlative index numbers. J Econom 4:115–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feldman S, McClain D, Palmer K (1987) Sources of structural change in the United States, 1963–1978: an input-output perspective. Rev Econ Stat 69:503–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fujimagari D (1989) The sources of change in Canadian industry output. Econ Syst Res 1:187–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gallego B, Lenzen M (2005) A consistent input-output formulation of shared producer and consumer responsibility. Econ Syst Res 17:365–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Graham DJ, Spence N (1998) A productivity growth interpretation of the labour demand shift-share model. Reg Stud 32:515–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hazari BR (1970) Empirical identification of key sectors in the Indian economy. Rev Econ Stat 52:301–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hewings GDD (1982) The empirical identification of key sectors in an economy: a regional perspective. Dev Econ 20:173–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hirschman A (1958) The Strategy of Economic Development. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  20. Jepma CJ (1986) Extensions and Application Possibilities of the Constant Market Share Analysis: The Case of the Developing Countries Exports. PhD, Faculty of Economics, University of GroningenGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones LP (1976) The measurement of Hirschmanian linkages. Q J Econ 90:323–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kendrick JW (1961) Productivity Trends in the United States. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  23. Lahr ML, Dietzenbacher E (2017) Structural decomposition and shift-share analyses: let the parallels converge. In: Jackson R, Schaeffer P (eds) Regional Research Frontiers, vol 2. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  24. Leontief W (1941) The Structure of the American Economy. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Loviscek AL (1982) Industrial analysis: Backward and forward linkages. An Reg Sci 16:36–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McGilvray JW (1977) Linkages, Key Sectors and Development Theory. In: Leontief WW (ed) Structure, System and Economic Policy. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. McLean M (2018) Understanding Your Economy: Using Analysis to Guide Local Strategic Planning. Routledge, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miller RE, Blair PD (2009) Input-output analysis: foundations and extensions, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Miller RE, Lahr ML (2001) A taxonomy of extractions. In: Lahr ML, Miller RE (eds) Regional Science Perspectives in Economics: A Festschrift in Memory of Benjamin H. Stevens. Elsevier Science, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  30. Oosterhaven J (1981) Interregional Input-Output Analysis and Dutch Regional Policy Problems. Gower Publishing, Aldershot-HampshireGoogle Scholar
  31. Oosterhaven J (1983) Evaluating land-reclamation plans for northern friesland: an interregional cost-benefit and input-output analysis. Pap Reg Sci Assoc 52:125–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oosterhaven J (2017) Key sector analysis: a note on the other side of the coin. SOM Report 2017-015-GEM, University of GroningenGoogle Scholar
  33. Oosterhaven J (2004) On the Definition of Key Sectors and the Stability of Net Versus Gross Multipliers. SOM Report 04C01, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of GroningenGoogle Scholar
  34. Oosterhaven J, Broersma L (2007) Sector structure and cluster economies: a decomposition of regional labour productivity. Reg Stud 41:639–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Oosterhaven J, Pellenbarg PH (1994) Regionale spreiding van economische activiteiten en bedrijfs-mobiliteit. Maandschr Econ 58:388–404Google Scholar
  36. Oosterhaven J, van der Linden JA (1997) European technology, trade and income changes for 1975–85: an intercountry input-output decomposition. Econ Syst Res 9:393–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Oosterhaven J, Stelder D (2002) Net multipliers avoid exaggerating impacts: with a bi-regional illustration for the Dutch transportation sector. J Reg Sci 42:533–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Oosterhaven J (2008) A new approach to the selection of key sectors: Net forward and net backward linkages. International IO Meeting on Managing the Environment, Seville, July 2008Google Scholar
  39. Oosterhaven J, Broersma L (2008) Measuring revealed localisation economies. Lett Spat Res Sc 1:55–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Oosterhaven J, van Loon J (1979) Sectoral structure and regional wage differentials: a shift and share analysis on 40 Dutch regions for 1973. Tijdschr Econ Soc Geogr 70:3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oosterhaven J, Eding GJ, Stelder D (1999) Over mainports en de rest van het land. Econ-Stat Ber 84:666–668Google Scholar
  42. Oosterhaven J, Eding GJ, Stelder D (2001) Clusters, linkages and interregional spillovers: methodology and policy implications for the two Dutch mainports and the rural North. Reg Stud 35:809–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Paelinck J, de Caevel J, Degueldre DJ (1965) Analyse quantitative de certaines phénomènes du développement régional polarisé: Essai de simulation statique d’itérarires de propogation. In: No. 7, Problémes de Conversion Économique: Analyses Théoretiques et Études Appliquées, M.-Th. Génin, ParisGoogle Scholar
  44. Pei J, Oosterhaven J, Dietzenbacher E (2012) How much do exports contribute to China’s income growth? Econ Syst Res 24:275–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Perlof HS, Dunn ES, Lampard EE, Muth RF (1960) Regions, resources, and economic growth. John Hopkins Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  46. Perroux F (1961) La firme motrice dans la région et la région motrice. In: No. 1, Théorie et Politique de l’Expansion Régionale: Actes du Colloque International de l’Institute de Science Économique de l’Université de Liège, Libraire encyclopedique, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  47. Rasmussen PN (1956) Studies in Inter-Sectoral Relations. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  48. Richardson HW (1978) Regional and Urban Economics. Penguin, HarmondsworthGoogle Scholar
  49. Rose A, Casler S (1996) Input-output structural decomposition analysis: a critical appraisal. Econ Syst Res 8:33–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rose A, Chen CY (1991) Sources of change in energy use in the U.S. economy, 1972–1982. Resour Ener 13:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. RUG/CBS (1999) Regionale Samenhang in Nederland. REG-publicatie 20, Stichting Ruimtelijke Economie Groningen, University of GroningenGoogle Scholar
  52. RUG/TNO (1999) Clusters en Linkages in Beeld. REG-publicatie 19, Stichting Ruimtelijke Economie Groningen, University of GroningenGoogle Scholar
  53. Schaffer WA (1973) Determination of key sectors in a regional economy through input-output analysis: comment. Rev Reg Stud 3:33–34Google Scholar
  54. Schultz S (1977) Approaches to identifying key sectors empirically by means of input-output analysis. J Dev Stud 14:77–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Skolka J (1989) Input-output structural decomposition analysis for Austria. J Pol Mod 11:45–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Strassert G (1968) Zur bestimmung strategischer sektoren mit hilfe von von input-output modellen. Jahrb Nationalök Stat 182:211–215Google Scholar
  57. Szyrmer JM (1984) Total flow in input-output models. Ph.D. School of Arts and Sciences. University of Pennsylvania, PAGoogle Scholar
  58. Szyrmer JM (1992) Input-output coefficients and multipliers from a total-flow perspective. Environ Plan A 24:921–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Temurshoev U, Oosterhaven J (2014) Analytical and empirical comparison of policy-relevant key sector measures. Spat Econ Anal 9:284–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Timmer MP, Inklaar RC, O’Mahony M, van Ark B (2010) Economic growth in Europe: a comparative industry perspective. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. UN.: A System of Quantity and Price Statistics. United Nations, New York (1975)Google Scholar
  62. Uno K (1989) Measurement of Services in An Input-output Framework. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  63. van Ark B, O’Mahony M, Timmer MP (2008) The productivity gap between Europe and the United States: tends and causes. J Econ Perspect 22:25–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wu HX (2016) On China’s strategic move for a new stage of development—a productivity perspective. In: Jorgenson DW, Fukao K, Timmer MP (eds) The world economy: growth of stagnation?. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle 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