Regional Input-Output, Leontief-Strout and Uncertainty

  • John R. Roy
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)


The multi-regional input-output approach of Leontief-Strout, described in Leontief and Strout (1963), built on the Chenery-Moses model introduced by Chenery (1953). In this model, two key assumptions are embedded (i) the demand pool assumption, whereby the users of intermediate inputs are taken as indifferent to their region of origin and (ii) the supply pool assumption, where producers are taken as indifferent to the region of destination of their outputs. The resulting model turns out to be much more tractable than a full interregional model, and has been widely applied. Leontief and Strout used an independent gravity-type model to estimate the resulting trade flows, as a substitute for the provision of trade coefficients in models from the Chenery-Moses tradition. Wilson (1970) provided a more integrated procedure, setting up a conventional entropy framework to determine the commodity flows enhanced by the Leontief-Strout input-output balance relations introduced as constraints. In other words, the flows were co-determined by the transport cost information together with the technological information embodied in the Leontief-Strout representation of input-output. Another enhancement was to replace the entropy framework by one from information theory based on historical trade patterns (Snickars and Weibull, 1977), yielding models such as those described in Batten (1983).


Transport Cost Intermediate Input Final Demand Supply Function Balance Relation 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Batten, D.F. 1983. Spatial Analysis of Interacting Economies. Boston, Kluwer.Google Scholar
  2. Chenery, H. 1953. “Regional analysis.” In H. Chenery, P. Clark, V. Cao Pinna, eds. The Structure and Growth of the Italian Economy. Rome, US Mutual Security Agency.Google Scholar
  3. Hotelling, H. 1932. “Edgeworth’s taxation paradox and the nature of supply and demand functions.” Journal of Political Economy, 40, 577–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Isard, W. 1998. Methods of Interregional and Regional Analysis. Aldershot, Ashgate.Google Scholar
  5. Leontief, W. and A. Strout. 1963. “Multi-regional input-output analysis.” In T. Barna, ed. Structural Interdependence and Economic Development. London, Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Lesse, P.F. 1982. “A phenomenological theory of socioeconomic systems with spatial interactions.” Environment and Planning A, 14, 869–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Roy, J.R. 1987. “An alternative information theory approach for modelling spatial interaction.” Environment and Planning A, 19, 385–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Roy, J.R. 1997. “A price-responsive framework for interregional input-output.” Annals of Regional Science, 31, 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Snickars, F. and J. Weibull. 1977. “A minimum information principle: theory and practice.” Regional Science and Urban Economics, 7, 137–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Wilson, A.G. 1970. Entropy in Urban and Regional Modelling. London, Pion.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • John R. Roy
    • 1
  1. 1.ETUDESMallacootaAustralia

Personalised recommendations