Abstract
Literature shows that nonsurvey input–output tables tend to produce regional multipliers with systematic upward biases. This paper explores the related, relatively uncharted territory of nonsurvey versus survey impact studies by means of a series of simulations. The base case is provided by a very detailed five region survey of both the forward and the backward impacts of the energy-distribution sector in the four northern provinces of the Netherlands. To deal adequately with the two-sided dependence between a firm or sector and a region, as opposed to using the traditional (gross) multipliers, we argue in favor of using a new multiplier concept: the net multiplier. Next, from examining alternative impact study methods ranging from quick and dirty, via semiextensive, to full-survey methods, we conclude that using even aggregate, first-order impact information is more important than using a very detailed survey-based input–output model.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
