Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

New Developments in Input-Output Analysis

Fields of Influence of Changes, the Temporal Leontief Inverse and the Reconsideration of Classical Key Sector Analysis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Tool Kits in Regional Science

Part of the book series: Advances in Spatial Science ((ADVSPATIAL))

Abstract

In this chapter, a new temporal approach to the classical Leontief input–output analysis is elaborated that avoids the assumption of the constant direct input coefficients. The presentation builds on earlier work (Sonis & Hewings, 1989, 1991, 1992) that examined a variety of issues surrounding error and sensitivity analysis, decomposition and inverse important parameter estimation. These ideas are now brought into a general form as a basis for a more complete, general fields of influence approach that is the main vehicle for describing the overall changes in economic relationships between industries created by combinations of changes in technological coefficients caused by diffusion of technological, organizational and administrative innovations. The most important new concept based of the notion of the direct fields of influence is the multiplier product matrix and the corresponding artificial economic landscape which represents the classical key sector analysis and hierarchies of sectoral backward and forward linkages. The multi plier product matrix is the main part of the fundamental minimal information decomposition of Leontief inverse in the form of the difference between the global presentation of direct effects of the changes in inputs coefficients and the syner getic effects of the overall interaction of the changes. The new Temporal Leontief inverse is constructed such that it can serve as the basis for the temporal analysis of an evolving input–output system; the inverse depends on an evolutionary tail of changes in a highly non-linear manner. The detailed analytical structure of the Temporal Leontief inverse addresses the possibilities of tracing the impact of each change in the individual direct inputs in each time period through to the final state of the economy. This dynamic approach provides the basis for a new perturbation theory for matrix inversion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Bacharach, M. (1970). Biproportional matrices and input–output change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullard, C. W., & Sebald, A. V. (1977). Effects of parametric uncertainty and technological change in input–output models. Review of Economics and Statistics, 59, 75–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bullard, C. W., & Sebald, A. V. (1988). Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis of input–output models. Review of Economics and Statistics, 70, 705–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, A. P. (1970). Structural change in American economy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Defourny, J., & Thorbecke, E. (1984). Structural path analysis and multiplier decomposition within a social accounting matrix framework. Economic Journal, 94, 111–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietzenbacher, E. (1988). Estimation of the leontief inverse from the practitioner's point of view. Mathematical Social Sciences, 16, 181–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietzenbacher, E. (1990). Seton's eigenprices: Further evidence. Economic Systems Research, 2, 103–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietzenbacher, E. (1991). Perturbations and eigenvectors, essays. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drud, A. Grais, W., & Pyatt, G. (1985). An approach to macroeconomic model building based on social accounting principles. Report No. DRDISO, Washington D C, World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eliasson, G. (Ed). (1978). A macro-to-macro model of Swedish economy. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wicksell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, W. D. (1954). The effect of structural matrix errors in interindustry relations estimates. Econometrica, 22, 461–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillen, W. J., & Guccione, A. (1980). Interregional feedbacks in input–output models: some formal results. Journal of Regional Science, 20, 477–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giarratani, F., & Garhart, R. E. (1991). Simulation techniques in the evaluation of regional Input–Output models: a Survey. In J. J. L. I. Dewhurst, G. J. D. Hewings & R. C. Jensen (Eds), Regional input–output modeling: New developments and interpretations (pp. 14–50). Aldershot: Avebury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, H. V., & Searle, S. R. (1981). On deriving the inverse of a sum of matrices. SIAM Review, 23, 53–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewings, G. J. D. (1982). The empirical identification of key-sectors in an economy: A regional perspective. The Developing Economies, 20, 173–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewings, G. J. D. (1984). The role of prior information in updating regional input–output models. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 18, 319–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewings, G. J. D. (1985). Regional input–output analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewings, G. J. D., & Syversen, W. M. (1982). A modified bi-proportional method for updating regional input–output matrices; holistic accuracy evaluation. Modeling and Simulation, 13, 1115–1120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschman, A. (1958). The strategy of economic development. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Israilevich, P. R., Hewings, G. J. D. (1991). Regional trade and regional structure: Implications for the construction of regional input–output models Unpublished manuscript. Regional Economic Application Laboratory (REAL), Urbana, Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, R. W. (1986). The ‘full-distribution’ approach to aggregate representation in the input–output modeling framework. Journal of Regional Science, 26, 515–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, R. W., & Hewings, G. J. D. (1984). Structural change in regional economy: An entropy decomposition approach. Modeling and Simulation, 15, 451–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, R., Hewings, G. J. D., & Sonis, M. (1990). Economic structure and coefficient change: a comparative analysis of alternative approaches, Economic Geography, 66, 216–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, R. W., & West, G. R. (1989). Perspectives on probabilistic input–output analysis. In R. Miller, K. Polenske, & A. Rose (Eds.), Frontiers of input–output analysis. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, R. C. & West, G. R. (1980). The effect of relative coefficient size in input–output multipliers, Environment and Planning, A 12, 659–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kymm, K. O. (1990). Aggregation in input–output models: A comprehensive review, 1946–71. Economic Systems Research, 2, 65–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahiri, S. (1976). Input–output analysis with scale-dependent coefficients. Econometrica, 44, 947–962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahiri, S., & Satchell, S. (1986). Properties of the expected value of the leontief inverse: Some further results. Mathematical Social Science, 11, 69–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, T. (1980). A ‘rational modeling’ procedure. Economics of Planning, 16, 105–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leontief, W. (1951). The structure of American economy, 1919–1939, An empirical application of equilibrium analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matuszewski, T. I., Pitts, P. R., & Sawyer, J. A. (1964). Linear programming estimates of changes in input coefficients. Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 30, 203–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. E., & Blair, P. D. (1985). Input–output analysis: Foundations and extensions. Englewood Hills, N.J: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, W. I., & Thumann, R. G. (1980). A lagrangian multiplier approach to the solution of a special constrained matrix problem. Journal of Regional Science, 20, 279–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, P. (1956). Studies in inter-sectoral relations. Copenhagen: Einar Harks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romanoff, E., & Levine, S. H. (1977). Interregional sequential interindustry modeling: A preliminary analysis of regional growth and decline in a two region case. Northeast Regional Science Review, 7, 87–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romanoff, E., & Levine, S. H. (1991). Technical change and regional development: Some further developments with the sequential interindustry Model. In D. E. Boyce, P. Nijkamp, & D. Shefer (Eds.), Regional science: Retrospect and prospect (pp. 251–275). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sevaldson, P. (1970). The stability of input–output coefficients. In A. P. Carter, & A. Brody (Eds.), Applications of input–output analysis (pp. 207–307). Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1964). The mathematical theory of communications urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, J., & Morrison, W. J. (1949). Adjustment of an inverse matrix corresponding to change in the elements of a given column or a given row of the original matrix. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 20, 621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, J., & Morrison, W. J. (1950). Adjustment of an inverse matrix corresponding to a change in an element of a given matrix. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 21, 124–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonovits, A. (1975). A note on the underestimation and overestimation of the leontief inverse, Econometrica, 43, 493–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snower, D. J. (1990). New Methods of updating Input–Output matrices. Economic Systems Research, 2, 27–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonis, M. (1968). Significance of Entropy measures of homogeneity for the analysis of population redistributions. Geographical Problems. Mathematics in Human Geography, 77, 44–63, (in Russian).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonis, M., & Hewings, G. J. D. (1989). Error and sensitivity input–output analysis: A new approach. In R. Miller, K. Polenske, & A. Rose (Eds.), Frontiers in input–output analysis (pp. 232–244). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonis, M., & Hewings, G. J. D. (1991). Fields of influence and extended input–output analysis: a theoretical account. In J. J. L. I. Dewhurst, G. J. D. Hewings, & R. C. Jensen (Eds.), Regional input–output modeling: New developments and interpretations (pp. 141–158). Aldershot: Avebury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonis, M., & Hewings, G. J. D. (1992). Coefficient change in input–output models: theory and applications. Economic Systems Research, 4, 143–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonis, M., & Hewings, G. J. D. (1995). Matrix sensitivity, error analysis and internal/external multiregional multipliers. Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, 36, 61–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonis, M., & Hewings, G. J. D. (1998a). Theoretical and applied input–output analysis: A new synthesis. Part I: Structure and structural changes in input–output systems. Studies in Regional Science, 27, 233–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonis, M., Hewings, G. J. D. (1998b). The temporal leontief inverse. Macroeconomic Dynamics, 2, 89–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonis, M., Hewings, G. J. D., & Guo, J -M. (1997). Comparative analysis of China's metropolitan economies: an input–output perspective. In M. Chatterji, & Y. Kaizhong (Eds.), Regional science in developing countries (pp. 147–162), Basingstoke, England: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonis, M., Hewings, G. J. D., & Guo, J -M. (2000). A new image of classical key sector analysis: minimum information decomposition of the leontief inverse. Economic Systems Research, 12, 401–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, B. H., & Trainer, G. A. (1976). The generation of errors in regional input–output impact models. Working Paper, Peace Dale, Rhode Island, Regional Science Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Theil, H. (1957). Economics and information theory. Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Theil, H. (1972). Statistical decomposition analysis. Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilanus, C. B. (1966). Input–output analysis experiments: The Netherlands, 1948–61. Rotterdam: Rotterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, G. R. (1981). An efficient approach to the estimation of input–output multipliers. Environment and Planning, A, 13, 857–876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, G. R. (1982). Sensitivity and key sector analysis in input–output models. Australian Economic Papers, 21, 365–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wibe, S. (1982). The distribution of input coefficients. Economics of Planning, 18, 65–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, S., & Madden, M. (1991). The concept of important coefficients in Input–Output models. In J. J. L. I. Dewhurst, G. J. D. Hewings, & R. C. Jensen (Eds.), Regional input–output modeling: New developments and interpretations. Aldershot: Avebury.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Regional Economics Applications Laboratory, University of Illinois, USA and Bar Ilan University, Israel, USA

    Michael Sonis

  2. Regional Economics Applications Laboratory, University of Illinois, Illinois, USA

    Geoffrey J. D. Hewings

Authors
  1. Michael Sonis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Geoffrey J. D. Hewings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Sonis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    Copyright information

    © 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

    About this chapter

    Cite this chapter

    Sonis, M., Hewings, G.J.D. (2009). New Developments in Input-Output Analysis. In: Sonis, M., Hewings, G. (eds) Tool Kits in Regional Science. Advances in Spatial Science. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00627-2_3

    Download citation

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00627-2_3

    • Published:

    • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

    • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-00626-5

    • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-00627-2

    • eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)

    Publish with us

    Policies and ethics

    Search

    Navigation