Dynamic Econometric Input-Output Modeling: New Perspectives

  • Kurt KratenaEmail author
  • Umed Temursho
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)


In this chapter we discuss some, in our view, fruitful future directions for econometric input-output (IO) modeling. In particular, we bring to the attention of practitioners of this line of research the important recent developments, both theoretical and empirical, in other fields of economics, in particular, in macroeconomics, agricultural economics, and post-Keynesian economics, which have been completely ignored in this strain of modeling. We highlight issues related to modeling of private consumption (consumers’ heterogeneity, socio-economic characteristics of households), and of production and trade (imperfect competition, technical change), data calibration, and real and financial stock-flow consistency. Given their importance and usefulness for a sound economic analysis, we think that regional research in general would benefit if these issues were incorporated into and/or appropriately adopted to the needs of econometric IO (or other relevant regional research) modeling.


Total Factor Productivity Technical Change Computable General Equilibrium Computable General Equilibrium Model Expenditure Elasticity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Almon C (1991) The INFORUM approach to interindustry modeling. Econ Syst Res 3(1):1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almon C, Buckler M, Horwitz L, Reimbold T (1974) 1985: interindustry forecasts of the American economy. D.C. Heath, Lexington, MAGoogle Scholar
  3. Armington PS (1969) A theory of demand for products distinguished by place of production. IMF Staff Pap 16:159–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barker T (ed) (1976) Economic structure and policy. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Barker T, Peterson W (1987) The cambridge multisectoral dynamic model of the British economy. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Berg M, Hartley B, Richters O (2015) A stock-flow consistent input-output model with application to energy price shocks, interest rates, and heat emissions. New J Phys 17. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/17/1/015011Google Scholar
  7. Cambridge, DAE (Dept. of Economic Analysis) (1962) A programme for growth. A computable model for economic growth, vol 1Google Scholar
  8. Carroll CD (1997) Buffer-stock saving and the life cycle/permanent income hypothesis. Q J Econ 112:1–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carroll CD, Kimball MS (1996) On the concavity of the consumption function. Econometrica 64(4):981–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Conway RS (1990) The Washington projection and simulation model: a regional interindustry econometric model. Int Reg Sci Rev 13:141–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deaton A, Muellbauer J (1980) An almost ideal demand system. Am Econ Rev 70(3):312–326Google Scholar
  12. Eggertson G, Krugman P (2012) Debt, deleveraging, and the liquidity trap: a Fisher-Minsky-Koo approach. Q J Econ 2012:1–45Google Scholar
  13. Gillingham K, Newell RG, Pizer WA (2008) Modeling endogenous technological change for climate policy analysis. Energy Econ 30:2734–2753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Godley W, Cripps F (1983) Macroeconomics. Fontana, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Godley W, Lavoie M (2007) Monetary economics: an integrated approach to credit, money, income, production and wealth. Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Green RD, Alston JM (1990) Elasticities in AIDS models. Am J Agric Econ 72:442–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall RE (1978) Stochastic implications of the life cycle-permanent-income hypothesis: theory and evidence. J Polit Econ 86:971–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heckelei T, Britz W (2005) Models based on positive mathematical programming: state of the art and further extensions. In: Arfini F (ed) Modelling agricultural policies: state of the art and new challenges. Proceedings of the 89th European seminar of the European association of agricultural economics, University of Parma, Parma, Italy, pp 48–73Google Scholar
  19. Heckelei T, Britz W, Zhang Y (2012) Positive mathematical programming approaches—recent developments in literature and applied modelling. Bio-based Appl Econ 1:109–124Google Scholar
  20. Henry de Frahan B, Buysse J, Polomé P, Fernagut B, Harmignie O, Lauwers L, van Huylenbroeck G, van Meensel J (2007) Positive mathematical programming for agricultural and environmental policy analysis: review and practice. In: Weintraub A, Romero C, Bjorndal T, Epstein R, Miranda J (eds) Handbook of operations research in natural resources, International series of operations research & management science, vol 99. Springer, New York, pp 129–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Howitt RE (1995) Positive mathematical programming. Am J Agric Econ 77:329–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jansson T, Heckelei T (2011) Estimating a primal model of regional crop supply in the European Union. J Agric Econ 62:137–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Japelli T, Pistaferri L, Padula M (2008) A direct test of the buffer-stock model of saving. J Eur Econ Assoc 6(6):1186–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jorgenson DW, Goettle R, Ho M, Wilcoxen P (2013) Energy, the environment and US economic growth. In: Dixon P, Jorgenson DW (eds) Handbook of CGE Modeling, vol 1. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  25. Kasnakoglu H, Bauer S (1988) Concept and application of an agricultural sector model for policy analysis in Turkey. In: Bauer S, Henrichsmeyer W (eds) Agricultural Sector Modelling. Proceedings of the 16th Symposium of the EAAE, Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk, Kiel, pp 71–84Google Scholar
  26. Kim K, Kratena K, Hewings GJD (2015) The extended econometric input-output model with heterogenous household demand system. Econ Syst Res 27(2):257–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kratena K, Sommer M (2014) Policy implications of resource constraints on the European economy. WWWforEurope Policy Brief, No 6, November 2014Google Scholar
  28. Kratena K, Streicher G, Temurshoev U, Amores AF, Arto I, Mongelli I, Rueda-Cantuche JM, Andreoni V (2013) FIDELIO 1: fully interregional dynamic econometric long-term input-output model for the EU 27. JRC Scientific and Policy Reports, JRC 81864, EU Commission, Joint Research CentreGoogle Scholar
  29. Langrell S (ed) (2013) Farm level modelling of CAP: a methodological overview. JRC Scientific and Policy Report, EUR 25873 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  30. Luengo-Prado MJ (2006) Durables, nondurables, down payments and consumption excesses. J Monet Econ 53:1509–1539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Luengo-Prado MJ, Sorensen BE (2004) The buffer-stock model and the aggregate propensity to consume: a panel-data study of the US states. CEPR Discussion Papers, No 4474, July 2004Google Scholar
  32. Lutz C, Meyer B, Wolter MI, (2005) GINFORS-Model, MOSUS Workshop. IIASA Laxenburg, 14–15 April 2005Google Scholar
  33. Meghir C, Pistaferri L (2010) Earnings, consumption and lifecycle choices. NBER Working Paper Series, 15914, April 2010Google Scholar
  34. Mérel P, Howitt R (2014) Theory and application of positive mathematical programming in agriculture and the environment. Ann Rev Resour Econ 6:451–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miyazawa K (1976) Input-output analysis and the structure of income distribution. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mian A, Rao K, Sufi A (2013) Household balance sheets, consumption, and the economic slump. Q J Econ 2013:1687–1726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Naqvi AA (2015) Modeling growth, distributions and the environment in a stock-flow consistent framework. WWWforEurope Policy Paper 18Google Scholar
  38. Nyhus D (1991) The INFORUM international system. Econ Syst Res 3(1):55–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pan H (2006) Dynamic and endogenous change of input-output structure with specific layers of technology. Struct Chang Econ Dyn 17:200–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pan H, Köhler J (2007) Technological change in energy systems: learning curves, logistic curves and input-output coefficients. Ecol Econ 63:749–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Paris Q, Drogué S, Anania G (2011) Calibrating spatial models of trade. Econ Model 28:2509–2516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schumacher K, Sands RD (2007) Where are the industrial technologies in energy-economy models? An innovative CGE approach for steel production in Germany. Energy Econ 29:799–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sue Wing I (2006) Representing induced technological change in models for climate policy analysis. Energy Econ 28:539–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Taylor L (2004) Reconstructing macroeconomics: structuralist proposals and critiques of the mainstream. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  45. Temurshoev U, Lantz F (2016) Long-term petroleum product supply analysis through a robust modelling approach. Loyola Econ Working Paper, Loyola University, AndalusiaGoogle Scholar
  46. Temurshoev U, Mraz M, Delgado SL, Eder P (2015) EU petroleum refining fitness check: OURSE modelling and results. JRC Science for Policy Report, EUR 27269 EN, doi:10.2791/037768, Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre of Economic Scenario Analysis and Research, Department of EconomicsLoyola University AndalucíaSevilleSpain

Personalised recommendations