Abstract

Input-output models are useful tools for regional science owing to their ability to capture many of the distinguishing features of a regional economy. Since input-output tables are hard to find at the regional level, many researchers adopt nonsurvey techniques to derive regional input-output tables (RIOTs). Numerous methods have been suggested and this has spawned a stream of literature comparing the relative performance of these methods. The present paper contributes to that literature by examining a largely neglected problem of nonsurvey techniques: the allocation of imports. In the European System of Accounts (ESA), there are two ways of allocating imports: inside the interindustry transactions matrix or outside. In the former case, they are allocated as imports in the sector that produces similar goods (indirect allocation). In the latter case, imported products are allocated to the sector that uses them (direct allocation). This paper shows that the choice of a nonsurvey method should depend on the way in which imports are allocated. If the nonsurvey method is not properly chosen, the results of the procedure may be misleading and implausible. The paper concludes that LQ methods are better suited for regionalising input-output tables with directly allocated imports, whereas commodity-balance methods like CHARM are better suited for regionalising input-output tables with indirectly allocated imports.

Highlights

  • Input-output analysis is widely used by authors working in the fields of regional science or regional economics

  • This paper aims at drawing attention to a crucial issue whose importance has not yet been fully realised in the literature on nonsurvey regionalisation methods: there are different variants of the symmetric input-output table (SIOT), and the choice of nonsurvey method should depend on the type of SIOT that is to be regionalised

  • The United Nations handbook on input-output analysis identified four different variants, labelled alphabetically from “A” to “D” (United Nations 1973). This convention is adopted in the present paper, and an additional variant “E” is introduced to describe the tables based on the European System of Accounts (ESA 95)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Input-output analysis is widely used by authors working in the fields of regional science or regional economics. This paper aims at drawing attention to a crucial issue whose importance has not yet been fully realised in the literature on nonsurvey regionalisation methods: there are different variants of the symmetric input-output table (SIOT), and the choice of nonsurvey method should depend on the type of SIOT that is to be regionalised. The United Nations handbook on input-output analysis identified four different variants, labelled alphabetically from “A” to “D” (United Nations 1973). This convention is adopted in the present paper, and an additional variant “E” (for “Eurostat”) is introduced to describe the tables based on the European System of Accounts (ESA 95).

Definitions and conventions
Variants of the symmetric input-output table
Interpretation of coefficients
Implications for regional input-output modellers
Concluding remarks

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 call

Disclaimer: 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.