On the Economic Impact of the Transport Sector: A Critical Review with Dutch Bi-Regional Input-Output Data

  • Jan Oosterhaven
  • Dirk Stelder
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)


Arguments for state aid and state intervention in favor of certain sectors of industry are often based on their assumed economic importance for the region or nation at hand. The same argument is used, especially in small open economies, when decisions about large infrastructure projects have to be taken. In the Netherlands, both lines of reasoning are combined by special interest groups that argue in favor of state support in the case of extensions of the port of Rotterdam and of Schiphol airport, which are considered to function as the motors of the Dutch economy. But also in the case of more peripheral regions, such as the northern Netherlands, transport and distribution activities and infrastructure investments are considered to be of great importance for the economic development of such regions (see Henstra, et al., 1999). Mostly, the arguments are not primarily based on the own size and the direct impact of the sector or project at hand, but on its assumed indirect importance for the regional or national economy.


Transport Sector Small Open Economy Freight Transport Road Freight Indirect Export 
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. BCI/NEI. 1997. Ruimtelijke-economische verkenning van de Toekomstige Nederlandse Luchtvaart Infrastructuur. Nijmegen/Rotterdam, Buck Consultants International/Nederlands Economisch Instituut.Google Scholar
  2. Beyers, W.B. 1976. “Empirical identification of key sectors: some further evidence.” Environment and Planning A, 8, 231–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bröcker, J. 1995. “Chamberlinian Spatial Computable General Equilibrium Modelling: A Theoretical Framework.” Economic Systems Research, 7,137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bröcker, J. 1998. “Operational Spatial Computable General Equilibrium Modelling.” The Annals of Regional Science, 32,367–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cole, S. 1988. “The delayed impacts of plant closures in a reformulated Leontief model.” Papers of the Regional Science Association, 65, 135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eding, G.J., J. Oosterhaven J, B. de Vet, H. Nijmeijer. 1999. “Constructing Regional Supply and Use Tables: Dutch Experiences.” In: G.J.D. Hewings, M. Sonis, M. Madden and Y. Kimura, eds. Understanding and Interpreting Economic Structure. Heidelberg, Springer Verlag. pp. 237–63.Google Scholar
  7. Ghosh, A. 1958. “Input-output Approach in an Allocation System.” Economica, 25, 58–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Henstra, D.A., H.P. Krolis and J. Oosterhaven. 1999. Noord-Nederland op de logistieke kaart gezet. Delft, TNO Inro.Google Scholar
  9. Hirschman, A.O. 1958. The Strategy of Economic Development. New Haven, Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Jackson, R.W., M. Madden and H.A. Bowman. 1997. “Closure in Cole’s Reformulated Leontief Model.” Papers in Regional Science, 76, 21–28Google Scholar
  11. Knight Wendling Consulting. 1992. Macro-economische en maatschappelijke kosten-baten analyse van de Betuweroute. Amsterdam, Rapport voor het Ministerie van V&W.Google Scholar
  12. Miller, R.E. and P.D. Blair. 1985. Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Myrdal, G. 1957. Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions. London, Duckworth.Google Scholar
  14. Oosterhaven, J. 1981. Interregional Input-Output Analysis and Dutch Regional Policy Problems. Aldershot, Gower.Google Scholar
  15. Oosterhaven, J. 1988. “On the plausibility of the supply-driven input-output model.” Journal of Regional Science, 28, 203–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Oosterhaven, J. 1996. “Leontief versus Ghoshian price and quantity models.” Southern Economic Journal, 62, 750–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. RUG/CBS. 1999. Regionale Samenhang in Nederland. Bi-regionale input-output tabellen en aanbod- en gebruiktabellen voor de 12 provincies en de twee mainport regio’s. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen/Centraal Bureau voor de Statisitiek, REG-publicatie 20, Stichting Ruimtelijke Economie Groningen.Google Scholar
  18. Schultz, S. 1977. “Approaches to identifying key sectors empirically by means of input-output analysis.” Journal of Development Studies 14, 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stelder, T.M., J. Oosterhaven and G.J. Eding. 1999. “Het huidige belang van de vervoerssector voor de nationale en de noordelijke economie.” In: J.P. Elhorst and D. Strijker, eds. Het economisch belang van het vervoer, verleden, heden en toekomst. Groningen, REG-publicatie 18, Stichting Ruimtelijke Economie, pp. 37–49.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Oosterhaven
    • 1
  • Dirk Stelder
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations