Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Published input—output tables in constant prices are relatively scarce. Therefore, input—output tables often have to be deflated by the practitioners themselves. The method of double deflation is used predominantly for this purpose. The present paper shows that the double-deflation method is subject to aggregation problems. Necessary and sufficient conditions for the double-deflation method to provide the correct answers are derived. The conditions are found to be stringent and unlikely to be met in empirical cases. The results for aggregation in the case of double deflation are shown to be dual to the traditional results for aggregation in the case of a quantity model, which have been extensively discussed in the literature.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Afrasiabi

Casier

S D

, 1991, “Product-mix and technological change within the Leontief inverse” Journal of Regional Science 31 147–160

Aislabie

Gordon

, 1990, “Input—output in practice: Sector disaggregation in regional input—output tables” Economic Systems Research 2 407–419

Allen

R I G

Gossling

W F

(Eds), 1975 Estimating and Projecting Input—Output Coefficients (Input—Output Publishing Company, London)

Ara

, 1959, “The aggregation problem in input—output analysis” Econometrica 27 257–262

Bacharach

, 1970 Biproportional Matrices and Input—Output Change (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)

Cabrer

Contreras

Miravette

, 1991, “Aggregation in input—output tables: How to select the best cluster linkage” Economic Systems Research 3 99–109

De Mesnard

Dietzenbacher

, 1995, “On the interpretation of fixed input coefficients under aggregation” Journal of Regional Science 35 233–243

Dietzenbacher

, 1992, “Aggregation in multisector models: Using the Perron vector” Economic Systems Research 4 3–24

Dietzenbacher

Hoen

A R

, 1998, “Deflation of input—output tables from the user's point of view: A heuristic approach” Review of Income and Wealth 44 111–122

10.

Hatanaka

, 1952, “Note on consolidation within a Leontief system” Econometrica 20 301–303

11.

Howe

Johnson

C R

, 1989, “Linear aggregation of input—output models” SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 10 65–79

12.

Howe

Stabler

J C

, 1989, “Canada divided: The optimal division of an economy into regions” Journal of Regional Science 29 191–211

13.

Kymn

K O

, 1990, “Aggregation in input—output models: A comprehensive review, 1946–71” Economic Systems Research 2 65–93

14.

Lynch

R C

, 1986, “An assessment of the RAS method for updating input—output tables”, in Readings in Input—Output Analysis Ed. Sohn

(Oxford University Press, New York) pp 271–284

15.

Macgill

S M

, 1977, “Theoretical properties of biproportional matrix adjustments” Environment and Planning A 9 687–701

16.

Miller

R E

Blair

P D

, 1985 Input—Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ)

17.

Oksanen

E H

Williams

J R

, 1992, “An alternative factor-analytic approach to aggregation of input—output tables” Economic Systems Research 4 245–256

18.

Olsen

J A

, 1993, “Aggregation in input—output models: Prices and quantities” Economic Systems Research 5 253–275

19.

Stone

(Ed.), 1963 Input—Output Relationships, 1954–1966, A Programme for Growth, Volume 3 (Chapman and Hall, London)

20.

United Nations, 1973

Input—Output Tables and Analysis

Studies in Methods, Series F, number 14, revision 1 (United Nations, New York)

Double Deflation and Aggregation

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References