In this paper a framework for computing input—output coefficients and multipliers is considered which draws upon the so-called total-flow approach. The total-flow indicators express the total effect of a change in gross output rather than in final-demand deliveries. It is shown that these indicators significantly differ from their final-demand counterparts in their absolute values and in their ranking of input—output sectors. It is demonstrated that the final-demand-based coefficients and multipliers fail to express an overall effect of an industrial activity (economic sector) and caution must be used in their empirical applications and interpretations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BEA, 1985BEA Regional Projectionsvolume 1, Bureau of Economic Analysis (US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC)
2.
BourquePJ, 1987, “The Washington input—output study for 1982. A summary of findings”Pacific Northwest Executive (April) 10–16
3.
BruckerSMHastingsSELathamWRIII, 1988, “Commercial regional input-output models. A comparison and evaluation”, miscellaneous paper 1231, Delaware Agricultural Experimental Station, Hockessin, DE 19707
4.
CellaG, 1984, “The input—output measurement of interindustry linkages”Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics4673–84
5.
CheneryHBWatanabeT, 1958, “International comparisons of the structure of production”Econometrica4487–521
6.
DorfmanRSamuelsonPASolowRM, 1958Linear Programming and Economic Analysis (McGraw-Hill, New York)
7.
HamiltonJRJensenRC, 1983, “Summary measures of interconnectedness for input-output models”Environment and Planning A1555–66
8.
HirschmanAD, 1958The Strategy of Economic Development (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT)
9.
IsardWKuenneRE, 1953, “The impact of steel upon the Greater New York—Philadelphia industrial region”Review of Economics and StatisticsXXXV289–301
10.
JeongK, 1982, “Direct and indirect requirements: A correct economic interpretation of the Hawkins — Simon conditions”Journal of Macroeconomics4349–356
11.
JeongK, 1984, “The relation between two different notions of direct and indirect input requirements”Journal of Macroeconomics6473–476
12.
MellerPMarfanM, 1981, “Small and large industry: Employment generation, linkages and key sectors”Economic Development and Cultural Change29263–274
13.
MilanaC, 1985, “Direct and indirect requirements for gross output in input—output analysis”Metroeconomica (October) 283–292
14.
MillerRE, 1966, “Interregional feedback effects in input—output models: Some preliminary results”Papers of the Regional Science Association17105–125
15.
MillerRE, 1969, “Further results on interregional feedback effects in input—output models: Some experimental results”Western Economic JournalVII41–50
16.
MillerREBlairPD, 1985Input—Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ)
MiyazawaK, 1976Input—Output Analysis and the Structure of Income Distribution (Springer, Berlin)
19.
PlochDR, 1974, “Ordinal measures of association and the general linear model”, in Measurement in the Social Sciences Ed. BlalockHMJr (Aldine, Chicago, IL) pp 343–368
20.
RasmussenPN, 1958Studies in Intersectoral Relations (North-Holland, Amsterdam)
21.
RitzPM, 1975, Unpublished memorandum on basic input—output terminology, 25 February, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Washington, DC 20230
22.
RoseAZBeaumontP, 1989, “Interrelational income distribution multipliers for the US economy”, in Frontiers of Input—Output Analysis Eds MillerREPolenskeKRRoseAZ (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 134–147
23.
RoseAKolkDChenCY, 1986, “On the use of sectoral input—output multipliers: Computer algorithms for avoiding common abuses”, unpublished manuscript available from the author
24.
SastryMLSzyrmerJMWeeksM, 1989, “Economic—demographic linkages in an extended US input—output model: The impact of income and age”Socio-Economic Planning Sciences23303–320
25.
SCB, 1984, “Input—output structure of the US economy, 1977Survey of Current Business6442–84
26.
SchultzS, 1977, “Approaches to identifying key sectors empirically by means of input—output analysis”Journal of Development Studies1477–96
27.
SmithTE, 1983, “A proof of Szyrmer's conjecture”, unpublished manuscript, Department of Regional Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA19104–6209
28.
StevensBH, 1983, “A new technique for the construction of non-survey-based models”International Regional Science Review8271–286
29.
SzyrmerJM, 1984, “Total flow in input—output models”, PhD dissertation, School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
30.
SzyrmerJM, 1985a, “Measuring importance of economic sectors: A Philadephia regional input—output study”, paper prepared for the Wharton Philadelphia Monitoring Project, copy available from author
31.
SzyrmerJM, 1985b, “Measuring connectedness of input—output models: 1. Survey of the measures”Environment and Planning A171591–1612
32.
SzyrmerJM, 1986, “Measuring connectedness of input—output models: 2. Total flow concept”Environment and Planning A18107–121
33.
SzyrmerJMUlanowiczRE, 1987, “Total flows in ecosystems”Ecological Modelling35123–136
34.
SzyrmerJMWalkerR, 1983, “Interregional total flow: A concept and application to a US input—output model”Review of Regional Studies1312–21
35.
UlanowiczRE, 1980, “An hypothesis on the development of natural communities”Journal of Theoretical Biology85223–245
