Advertisement

The RAS Structural Decomposition Approach

  • Erik Dietzenbacher
  • Rutger Hoekstra
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)

Abstract

Technology and trade are widely considered to be significant driving forces of economic growth and have been subject to numerous studies. The input-output framework is a useful tool in this respect, because it coherently integrates information on the production technologies of the sectors and on the import and export relations. Input-output tables for different years, therefore may provide insight into how these economic processes have affected the economic structure and growth.

Keywords

European Union Intermediate Input Final Demand Substitution Effect Structural Decomposition 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albala-Bertrand, J.M. 1999. “Structural change in Chile: 1960–90.” Economic Systems Research, 11, 301–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alcala, R., G. Antille, and E. Fontela. 1999. “Technical change in the private consumption converter.” Economic Systems Research, 11, 389–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen, R.I.G. and W.F. Gossling. (eds) 1975. Estimating and Projecting Input-Output Coefficients. London, Input-Output Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  4. Andréosso-O’Callaghan, B. and G. Yue. 2000. “An analysis of structural change in China using biproportional methods.” Economic Systems Research, 12, 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bacharach, M. 1970. Biproportional Matrices and Input-Output Change. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cabrer, B., D. Contreras, and A. Sancho. 1998. “Prices revisited: their effects on industrial structure.” Economic Systems Research, 10, 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Casler, S.D. 2001. “Interaction terms and structural decomposition: an application to the defense cost of oil.” In M.L. Lahr and E. Dietzenbacher (eds). Input-Output Analysis: Frontiers and Extensions. London, Palgrave (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  8. Cronin, F.J. and M. Gold. 1998. “Analytical problems in decomposing the system-wide effects of sectoral technical change.” Economic Systems Research, 10, 325–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dietzenbacher, E. 2001. “An intercountry decomposition of output growth in EC countries.” In M.L. Lahr and E. Dietzenbacher (eds). Input-Output Analysis: Frontiers and Extensions. London, Palgrave (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  10. Dietzenbacher, E. and A.R. Hoen. 1998. “Deflation of input-output tables from the user’s point of view: a heuristic approach.” Review of Income and Wealth, 44, 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dietzenbacher, E., A.R. Hoen, and B. Los. 2000. “Labor productivity in Western Europe 1975–1985: an intercountry, interindustry analysis.” Journal of Regional Science, 40, 425–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dietzenbacher, E. and J.A. van der Linden. 1997. “Sectoral and spatial linkages in the EC production structure.” Journal of Regional Science, 37, 235–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dietzenbacher, E., J.A. van der Linden, and A.E. Steenge. 1993. “The regional extraction method: applications to the European Community,” Economic Systems Research, 5, 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dietzenbacher, E. and B. Los. 1997. “Analyzing decomposition analyses.” In A. Simonovits and A.E. Steenge (eds). Prices, Growth and Cycles. London, MacMillan, pp. 108–131.Google Scholar
  15. Dietzenbacher, E. and B. Los. 1998. “Structural decomposition techniques: sense and sensitivity.” Economic Systems Research, 10, 307–323. Eurostat (1979) European System of Integrated Economic Accounts, ESA. 2”d edition. Luxembourg, Eurostat.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eurostat (1990) External Trade Statistics: User’s Guide. Luxembourg, Eurostat.Google Scholar
  17. Gilchrist, D.A. and L.V. St Louis. 1999. “Completing input-output tables using partial information, with an application to Canadian data.” Economic Systems Research, 11, 185–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Golan, A., G. Judge, and S. Robinson. 1994. “Recovering information from incomplete or partial multisectoral economic data.” Review of Economics and Statistics, 76, 541–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hitomi, K., Y. Okuyama, G.J.D. Hewings, and M. Sonis. 2000. “The role of interregional trade in generating change in the regional economies of Japan, 1980–1990.” Economic Systems Research, 12, 515–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoen, A.R. 1999. An Input-Output Analysis of European Integration. Capelle a/d IJssel, Labyrint Publication, Ph.D. thesis.Google Scholar
  21. Jacobsen, H.K. 2000. “Energy demand, structural change and trade: a decomposition analysis of the Danish manufacturing industry.” Economic Systems Research, 12, 319–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jalili, A.R. 2000. “Comparison of two methods of identifying input-output coefficients for exogenous estimation.” Economic Systems Research, 12, 113–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Konijn, PJA. 1994. The make and use of commodities by industries: On the compilation of input-output data form the national statistics. Faculteit Bestuurskunde, Universiteit Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands, Ph.D. thesis.Google Scholar
  24. Lecomber, J.R.C. 1975. “A critique of methods of adjusting, updating and projecting matrices.” In R.I.G. Allen and W.F. Gossling (eds). Estimating and Projecting Input-Output Coefficients. London, Input-Output Publishing Company, pp. 43–56.Google Scholar
  25. Lin, X. and K.R. Polenske. 1995. “Input-output anatomy of China’s energy-demand change.” Economic Systems Research, 7, 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Linden, J.A. van der. 1998. Interdependence and Specialisation in the European Union. Capelle a/d IJssel, Labyrint Publication, Ph.D. thesis.Google Scholar
  27. Linden, J.A. van der and E. Dietzenbacher, E. 1995. “The nature of changes in the EU cost structure of production 1965–1985: an RAS approach.” In H. Armstrong and R. Vickerman (eds). Convergence and Divergence among European Regions. London, Pion, pp. 124–139.Google Scholar
  28. Linden, J.A. van der and E. Dietzenbacher. 2000. “The determinants of structural change in the European Union: a new application of RAS.” Environment and Planning A, 32, 2205–2229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Linden, J.A. Van der and J. Oosterhaven. 1995. “Intercountry EC input-output relations: construction method and main results for 1965–1985.” Economic Systems Research, 7, 249–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lynch, R.G. 1986. “An assessment of the RAS method for updating input-output tables.” In I. Sohn (ed.). Readings in Input-Output Analysis: Theory and Applications. New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 271–284.Google Scholar
  31. MacGill, S.M. 1977 “Theoretical properties of biproportional matrix adjustments.” Environment and Planning A, 9, 687–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mesnard, L. de. 1994. “Unicity of biproportìon.” SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 15, 490–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mesnard, L. de. 1997. “A biproportional filter to compare technical and allocation coefficient variations.” Journal of Regional Science, 37, 541–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miernyk, W.H. 1977. “The projection of technical coefficients for medium-term forecasting.” In W.F. Gossling (ed.). Medium-Term Dynamic Forecasting, The 1975 London Input-Output Conference. London, Input-Output Publishing Company, pp. 29–42.Google Scholar
  35. Milana, C. 2001. “The input-output structural decomposition analysis of ‘flexible’ production systems.” In M.L. Lahr and E. Dietzenbacher (eds). Input-Output Analysis: Frontiers and Extensions. London, Palgrave (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  36. Miller, R.E. and P.D. Blair. 1985. Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  37. Mukhopadhyay, K. and D. Chakraborty. 1999. “India’s energy consumption changes during 1973–74 to 1991–92.” Economic Systems Research, 11, 423–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Oosterhaven, J. and A.R. Hoen. 1998. “Preferences, technology, trade and real income changes in the European Union: an intercountry decomposition analysis for 1975–1985.” Annals of Regional Science, 32, 505–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oosterhaven, J. and J.A. Van der Linden. 1997. “European technology, trade and income changes for 1975–85: an intercountry input-output decomposition.” Economic Systems Research, 9, 393–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Polenske, K.R. 1997. “Current uses of the RAS technique: a critical review.” In A. Simonovits and A.E. Steenge (eds). Prices, Growth and Cycles. London, MacMillan, pp. 58–88.Google Scholar
  41. Rose, A. and S. Casler. 1996. “Input-output structural decomposition analysis: a critical appraisal.” Economic Systems Research, 8, 33–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stone, R. 1961. Input-Output and National Accounts. Paris, OECD.Google Scholar
  43. Toh, M.-H. 1998. “The RAS approach in updating input-output matrices: an instrumental variable interpretation and analysis of structural change.” Economic Systems Research, 10, 63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wier, M. 1998. “Sources of changes in emissions from energy: a structural decomposition analysis.” Economic Systems Research, 10, 99–112.Google Scholar
  45. Wier, M. and B. Hasler. 1999. “Accounting for nitrogen in Denmark — a structural decomposition analysis.” Ecological Economics, 30, 317–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erik Dietzenbacher
    • 1
  • Rutger Hoekstra
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Economics/SOM Research InstituteUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Spatial Economics, Faculty of Economics and EconometricsVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations