Advertisement

Structural Changes in the Chicago Economy: A Field of Influence Analysis

  • Yasuhide Okuyama
  • Geoffrey J. D. Hewings
  • Michael Sonis
  • Philip Israilevich
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)

Abstract

The analysis of economic structure has created a demand for techniques that could provide insights into both the nature and changes of the structure over time. Renowned proposed techniques include the familiar multiplicative decomposition associated with the work of Pyatt and Round (1979) and of Round (1985, 1988) and interpretations using structural path analysis as in Defourny and Thorbecke (1984). These approaches were directed towards the evaluation of economies based on the structure of social accounting matrices. Narrowing to the changes of the structure over time, analysis of the evolution of interindustry relations has become a major topic for economic analysis. The traditional approach, introduced by Chenery (1953; Chenery and Watanabe, 1958) was further extended in various studies (for example, Carter, 1970; Harrigan et al., 1980; Deutsch and Syrquin, 1989, among others).

Keywords

Forward Linkage Sanitary Service Ally Product Drinking Place Leontief Inverse 
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. Atkins, R.H. 1974. Mathematical Structures in Human Affairs. London, Heineman Educational.Google Scholar
  2. Atkins, R.H. 1981. Multidimensional Man. Harmondsworth, UK, Penguin.Google Scholar
  3. Barker, T.S. 1985. “Endogenising Input-Output Coefficients by means of Industrial Submodels.” In A. Smyshlyaev ed. Input-Output Modeling. Berlin, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. Bullard, C.W. and A.V. Sebald. 1977. “Effects of Parametric Uncertainty and Technological Change in Input-Output Models.” Review of Economics and Statistics 59, 75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bullard, C.W. and A.V. Sebald. 1988. “Monte Carlo Sensitivity Analysis of Input-Output Models.” Review of Economics and Statistics 70, 705–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carter, A.P. 1980. “Changes in Input-Output Structure Since 1972.” Interindustry Review, Summer.Google Scholar
  7. Chenery, H.B. 1953. “Regional Analysis.” In H.B. Chenery, P.G. Clark and V. Cao-Pinna eds. The Structure and Growth of the Italian Economy. Google Scholar
  8. Chenery, H.B. and T. Watanabe. 1958. “International Comparisons of the Structure of Production.” Econometrica 26, 487–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conway, R. 1990. “The Washington Projection and Simulation Model, A Regional Interindustry Econometric Model.” International Regional Science Review 13, 141–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Conway, R. 1991. “An Empirical Comparison of Regional Multipliers.” In John J.LI. Dewhurst, Geoffrey J.D. Hewings, and Rodney C. Jensen eds. Regional Input-Output Modelling, New Developments and Interpretations. Aldershot, Avebury.Google Scholar
  11. Defourny, J. and E. Thorbecke. 1984. “Structural Path Analysis and Multiplier Decomposition within a Social Accounting Framework.” Economic Journal 94, 111–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deutsch, J. and M. Syrquin. 1989. “Economic Development and the Structure of Production.” Economic Systems Research 1, 447–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harrigan, F., J.W. McGilvay and I. McNicoll. 1980. “A Comparison of Regional and National Technical Structures.” Economic Journal 90, 795–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hewings, G.J.D. 1984. “The Role of Prior Information in Updating Regional Input-Output Models.” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 18, 319–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hewings, G.J.D., and M.C. Romanos. 1981. “Simulating Less Developed Regional Economies under Conditions of Limited Information.” Geographical Analysis 13, 373–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hewings, G.J.D., M. Sonis, J. Guo, P. R. Israilevich, and G. R. Schindler. 1998. “The Hollowing-out Process in the Chicago Economy, 1975–2015.” Geographical Analysis 30, 217–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Israilevich, P.R., and R. Mahidhara 1991. “Hog Butchers No Longer, Twenty Years of Employment Change in Metropolitan Chicago.” Economic Perspectives 15, 2–13.Google Scholar
  18. Israilevich, P.R., G.J.D. Hewings, G.R. Schindler, and R. Mahidhara. 1996. “The Choice of Input-Output Table Embedded in Regional Econometric Input-Output Models.” Papers in Regional Science 75, 103–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Israilevich, P.R., G.J.D. Hewings, M. Sonis, and G.R. Schindler. 1997. “Forecasting Structural Change with a Regional Econometric Input-Output Model.” Journal of Regional Science 37, 565–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pyatt, G. and J.I. Round. 1979. “Accounting and Fixed Price Multipliers in a Social Accounting Matrix Framework.” Economic Journal 89, 850–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Round, J.I. 1985. “Decomposing Multipliers for Economic Systems Involving Regional and World Trade.” Economic Journal 95, 383–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Round, J.I. 1988. “Incorporating the International, Regional and Spatial Dimension into a SAM, Some Methods and Applications.” In F.J. Harrigan and P.G. McGregor eds. Recent Advances in Regional Economic Modeling. London, Pion.Google Scholar
  23. Schindler, G.R., P.R. Israilevich, and G.J.D. Hewings. 1994. “Chicago’s Economic Transformation, Past and Future.” Economic Perspectives 14, 2–9.Google Scholar
  24. Sherman, J. and W.J. Morrison. 1949. “Adjustment of an Inverse Matrix Corresponding to Changes in the Elements of a Given Column or Given Row of the Original Matrix.” Annals of Mathematical Statistics 20, 621.Google Scholar
  25. Sherman, J. and W.J. Morrison. 1950. “Adjustment of an Inverse Matrix Corresponding to Changes in an Elements of a Given Matrix.” Annals of Mathematical Statistics 21, 124–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sohn, I. 1986. Readings in Input-Output Analysis, Theory and Applications. New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Sonis, M., and G.J.D. Hewings. 1991. “Fields of Influence and Extended Input-Output Analysis, A Theoretical Account.” In John J.L. Dewhurst, Geoffrey J.D. Hewings, and Rodney C. Jensen eds. Regional Input-Output Modelling, New Developments and Interpretations. Aldershot, Avebury.Google Scholar
  28. Sonis, M., and G.J.D. Hewings. 1992. “Coefficients Change in Input-Output Models, Theory and Applications.” Economic Systems Research 4, 143–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sonis, M., and G.J.D. Hewings. 1993. “Hierarchies of Regional Sub-Structures and Their Multipliers within Input-Output Systems, Miyazawa Revisited.” Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics 34, 33–44.Google Scholar
  30. Sonis, M., and G.J.D. Hewings. 1995. “Matrix Sensitivity, Error Analysis and Internal/External Multiregional Multipliers.” Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics 361, 61–70.Google Scholar
  31. Sonis, M., G.J.D. Hewings, and A. Bronstein. 1994. “Structure of Fields of Influence of Economic Changes, A Case Study of Changes in the Israeli Economy.” Discussion Paper 94-T-10. Regional Economics Applications Laboratory, University of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
  32. Sonis, M., G.J.D. Hewings, and E. Hulu. 1997. “Interpreting Spatial Economic Structure, Feedback Loops in the Indonesian Interregional Economy, 1980, 1985.” Regional Science and Urban Economics 27, 325–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sonis, M., G.J.D. Hewings, and J. Guo. 1996. “Sources of Structural Change in Input-Output Systems, A Field of Influence Approach.” Economic Systems Research 8, 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sonis, M., G.J.D. Hewings, and J. Guo. 2000. “A New Image of Classical Key Sector Analysis, Minimum Information Decomposition of the Leontief Inverse.” Economic Systems Research 12, 401–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Takayama, A. 1985. Mathematical Economics, Second Edition. New York, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Wrigley, K.J. 1970. “Production Models and Time Trends of Input-Output Coefficients.” In W.F. Gossling ed. Input-Output in the United Kingdom. 89–118. London, Cass.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yasuhide Okuyama
    • 1
  • Geoffrey J. D. Hewings
    • 2
  • Michael Sonis
    • 2
    • 3
  • Philip Israilevich
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of PlanningState University of New York at BuffaloBuffaloUSA
  2. 2.Regional Economics Applications LaboratoryUniversity of IllinoisUrbanaUSA
  3. 3.Bar Ilan UniversityRamat GanIsrael
  4. 4.Regional Economics Applications LaboratoryFederal Reserve Bank of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations