In this study we analyze the changes that take place in intersectoral linkages in the process of diversification, and the roles of sectors in such changes. Data from input—output and structural path analysis are utilized to develop indices that can be used for assessing the connectedness of sectors (and industries within sectors) in any economy. In addition, measures are developed for quantifying linkages, and the economic influence transmitted by them, that are sensitive to structural change over space and time. The indices are then used to examine the relationship between sectoral diversity, linkages, and development by analyzing the economic relationships between sectors in the form of intersectoral linkages of six planning districts in Virginia, in addition to the economies of the State of Virginia and the USA. On the basis of these analyses, it is concluded that:
contrary to Hirschman's suggestion that the complexity of linkages increased with industrial diversification, the results suggest that diversification leads to less complexity in the linkage relationships; and
economies with mixed sectoral representation have higher levels of cycling, on average, than those with industrial diversity in just one sector.
The implications of these findings for policy and planning are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlinJ MCohenC, 1977, “Technological similarity and aggregation in input—output systems: A cluster analytic approach”Review of Economics and Statistics5982–91
BossermanR W, 1981a, “Effects of structural changes on matter and energy models of ecosystems”, in Energy and Ecological Modelling Eds MitschW SBossermanR WKlopatekJ M (Elsevier, Amsterdam) pp 617–625
4.
BossermanR W, 1981b, “Sensitivity techniques for examination of input—output flow analyses”, in Energy and Ecological Modelling Eds MitschW SBossermanR WKlopatekJ M (Elsevier, Amsterdam) pp 653–660
5.
BossermanR W, 1982, “Complexity measures for evaluation of ecosystem networks”International Society for Ecological Modelling Journal437–59
6.
CampbellJ, 1972, “Growth pole theory, digraph analysis and interindustry relationships”Tijdschrift Voor Economische Sociale Geografie6379–87
7.
CampbellJ, 1974, “Selected aspects of the interindustry structure of the State of Washington, 1967”Economic Geography5091–106
8.
CampbellJ, 1975, “Application of graph theoretical analysis and interindustry relationships”Regional Science and Urban Economics591–106
9.
CheneryH BWatanabeT, 1958, “Interregional comparisons of the structure of production”Econometrica26487–521
10.
CzamanskiSCzamanskiD Z, 1976Study of Formation of Spatial Complexes (Dalhousie University Press, Halifax, Canada)
11.
DefournyJThorbeckeE, 1984, “Structural path analysis and multiplier decomposition within a social accounting matrix framework”The Economic Journal94111–136
12.
ERS/USDA, 1987, Data diskette, ERS Policy Impacts, Income and Well-being Section, Economic Research Service/United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC
13.
FinnJ R, 1980, “Flow analysis of models of the Howard Brooks ecosystem”Ecology61562–571
14.
FinnJ T, 1976, “Cycling index: A general definition for cycling in compartment models”Journal of Theoretical Biology56363–380
15.
HamiltonJ RJensenR C, 1983, “Summary measures of interconnectedness for input—output models”Environment and Planning A1555–65
16.
HelmstadterE, 1969, “The hierarchical structure of interindustrial transactions”, in International Comparisons of Interindustry Data United National Industrial Development Organization Report, Industrial Planning and Programming Series No 2, United Nations, New York, 231–241
17.
HewingsG J D, 1983, “Design of appropriate accounting systems for regional development in developing countries”Papers of the Regional Science Association51179–185
18.
HewingsG J DJensenR CWestG R, 1987, “Holistic matrix descriptors of regional input—output systems”, WP-60, Department of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia
19.
HirschmanA O, 1958The Strategy of Economic Development (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT)
20.
Imai Ken-ichi, 1993, “Japan's corporate networks”, in The Political Economy of JapanVol. 3, Eds RosovskyHKumonS (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA) 210–231
21.
IMPLAN, 1990, “IMpact Analysis for PLANning”, USDA Forest Service; National Computer Center Fort Collins, 3825 East Mulberry St, Ft Collins, CO 80524
22.
JacksonR WHewingsG J D, 1984, “Structural change in a regional economy: An entropy decomposition approach”Modelling and Simulation15241–246
23.
JensenR CWestG R, 1980, “The effect of relative coefficient size on input—output multipliers”Environment and Planning A1265–70
24.
KhanAThorbeckeE, 1988Macroeconomic Effects and the Diffusion of Alternative Technologies within a Social Accounting Matrix Framework: The Case of Indonesia (Gower, Aldershot, Hants)
25.
LamelJRichterJTeufelsbauerW, 1971, “Triangulation of input—output tables for EEC countries”, Annexure III to GentileRMessyRSkolkaJPreparation of the Set of the Standardized Input — Output Tables and First Results of the Comparative Analysis Fifth International Conference on Input—Output Techniques, Palais des Nations, Geneva
26.
LincolnJ RGerlachM LTakashiP, 1992, “Kieretsu networks in the Japanese economy: A dyad analysis of intercorporate ties”American Sociological Review57561–585
27.
Matrix Accounts Transformation Systems (MATS), Berkeley Economic Advising and Research, PO Box 9357, Berkeley, California 94709, USA
28.
ÓhUllacháinB, 1984, “The identification of industrial complexes”Annals of the Association of American Geographers74420–436
29.
RasmussenP N, 1958Studies in Intersectoral Relations (North-Holland, Amsterdam)
30.
RobinsonSMarkandayaA, 1973, “Complexity and adjustment in input—output systems”Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics35119–134
31.
RoepkeHAdamsDWisemanR, 1974, “A new approach to the identification of industrial complexes using input—output data”Journal of Regional Science1415–29
32.
SchultzS, 1977, “Approaches to identifying key sectors empirically by means of input—output analysis”The Journal of Development Studies177–96
33.
SimpsonDTsukuiJ, 1965, “The fundamental structure of input—output tables: An international comparison”Review of Economics and Statistics47434–446
34.
SzyrmerJ M, 1985, “Measuring connectedness of input—output models: 1. Survey of the measures”Environment and Planning A171567–1700
35.
SzyrmerJ M, 1986, “Measuring connectedness of input—output models: 2. Total flow concept”Environment and Planning A18107–121
36.
UlanowiczR E, 1980, “An hypothesis on the development of natural communities”Journal of Theoretical Biology85223–245
37.
UlanowiczR E, 1981, “A united theory of self-organization”, in Energy and Ecological Modelling Eds MitschW SBossermanR WKlopatekJ M (Elsevier, Amsterdam) pp 649–652
38.
WongY K, 1954, “Some mathematical concepts for linear economic models”, in Economic Activity Analysis Ed. MorgensteinO (Wiley, New York) pp 283–341
39.
YanCAmesE, 1965, “Economic interrelatedness”Review of Economic Studies32277–310
40.
ZuchettoJ, 1981, “Energy diversity of regional economies”, in Energy and Ecological Modelling Eds MitschW SBossermanR WKlopatekJ M (Elsevier, Amsterdam) pp 543–548
