On approximating the accelerator part in dynamic input–output models

  • Henryk Gurgul
  • Łukasz Lach
Original Paper


We release the limitations of previous studies and instead of setting the crucial parameters of the dynamic endogenous input–output model with layers of techniques on an arbitrary basis we propose a new optimization-based approach to approximating of the elements of capital matrices on the basis of recent historical data. Using recent IO data we first formally prove that in comparison to arbitrarily adjusted dynamic IO models the new theoretical approach allows one to obtain a significantly better fit to the historical data in the short-run. This result has also some implications for the long-run analyses as it suggests that using the new approach for typical empirical applications of dynamic IO models with respect to modelling future behavior of economies seems relatively much more reasonable. Having this remark in mind, in the empirical part of the paper we use the new methodological approach in a particular case study. In an illustrative empirical application we try to forecast the possible evolution of sectoral classification in the Polish economy over the next 40 years.


Dynamic input–output model Nonlinear optimization Key sector analysis 

JEL Classification

C53 D57 030 



We would like to thank the Editor of this journal, prof. Ulrike Leopold-Wildburger, and two anonymous Referees for valuable comments on earlier versions of the paper. Financial support for this paper from the National Science Centre of Poland (Research Grant No. DEC-2015/19/B/HS4/00088) is gratefully acknowledged.


  1. Brody A (1966) A simplified growth model. Q J Econ 80:137–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Campisi D, Gastaldi M (1996) Decomposing growth in a multiregional I–O framework. Ann Reg Sci 30:409–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Campisi D, Nastasi A, La Bella A, Schachter G (1991) The dynamic behavior of multiregional multisectoral models: a biregional application to the Italian economy. Appl Math Model 15(10):525–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carter A (1970) Structural change in the American economy. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chenery HB, Watanabe T (1958) International comparisons of the structure of production. Econometrica 26(4):487–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ćmiel A, Gurgul H (2002) Application of maximum entropy principle in key sector analysis. Syst Anal Modell Simul J Math Model Simul Syst Anal 42(9):1361–1376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Defourny J, Thorbecke E (1984) Structural path analysis and multiplier decomposition within a social accounting framework. Econ J 94:111–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dobos I, Floriska A (2008) The efficiency of remanufacturing in a dynamic input–output model. CEJOR 16(3):317–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dobos I, Tallos P (2013) A dynamic input–output model with renewable resources. CEJOR 21(2):295–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duchin F, Szyld D (1985) A dynamic input–output model with assured positive output. Metroeconomica 27:269–282Google Scholar
  11. Edler D, Rybakova TA (1992) The dynamic input–output LSD-model with reduction of idle capacity and modified decision function. DIW discussion papers, p 39Google Scholar
  12. Ghezavati VR, Hooshyar S, Tavakkoli-Moghaddam R (2017) A Benders’ decomposition algorithm for optimizing distribution of perishable products considering postharvest biological behavior in agri-food supply chain: a case study of tomato. CEJOR 25:29–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldsmith RW (1951) A perpetual inventory of national wealth. In: Studies in income and wealth, vol 14. National Bureau of Economic Research, New York.
  14. Griliches Z (1957) Hybrid corn: an exploration in the economics of technological change. Econometrica 25:501–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grübler A (1998) Technology and global change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gurgul H, Lach Ł (2015) Key sectors in the post-communist CEE economies: What does the transition data say? Communist Post Communist Stud 48(1):15–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gurgul H, Lach Ł (2016) Simulating evolution of interindustry linkages in endogenous dynamic IO model with layers of techniques. Metroeconomica 67(4):632–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gurgul H, Lach Ł (2017) Some remarks on a social network approach to identifying key sectors. Econ Syst Res 1:1. Google Scholar
  19. Gurgul H, Majdosz P (2005) Key sector analysis: a case of the transited Polish economy. Manag Glob Transit 3(1):95–111Google Scholar
  20. Hewings GJD (1982) The empirical identification of key-sectors in an economy: a regional perspective. Dev Econ 20:173–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hewings GJD, Romanos MC (1981) Simulating less developed regional economies under conditions of limited information. Geogr Anal 13(4):373–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hirschman AO (1958) Interdependence and Industrialization. In: Hirschman AO (ed) The strategy of economic development. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 98–119Google Scholar
  23. Köhler J (2003) Long run technical change in an energy-environment-economy (E3) model for an IA system: a model of Kondratiev waves. Integr Assess 4(2):126–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kovačić D, Hontoria E, Ros-McDonnell L, Bogataj M (2015) Location and lead-time perturbations in multi-level assembly systems of perishable goods in Spanish baby food logistics. CEJOR 23(3):607–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leontief W (1953) Dynamic analysis. In: Leontief W (ed) Studies in the structure of the American economy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 53–90Google Scholar
  26. Luptáčik M, Böhm B (2010) Efficiency analysis of a multisectoral economic system. CEJOR 18(4):609–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pan H (2006) Dynamic and endogenous change of input–output structure with specific layers of technology. Struct Change Econ Dyn 17:200–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pfajfar L, Dolinar AL (2000) Intersectoral linkages in the Slovenian economy in the years 1990, 1992, 1993 and 1995 key sectors in the Slovenian economy. In: Paper presented at 13th international conference on input–output techniques, Macerata, 2000Google Scholar
  29. Rasmussen P (1956) Studies in inter-sectoral relations. Einar Harks, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  30. Temurshoev U, Oosterhaven J (2014) Analytical and empirical comparison of policy-relevant key sector measures. Spat Econ Anal 9(3):284–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. ten Raa T (1986) Dynamic input–output analysis with distributed activities. Rev Econ Stat 68:300–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Timmer MP, Los B, Stehrer R, de Vries GJ (2016) An anatomy of the global trade slowdown based on the WIOD 2016 release. GGDC research memorandum number 162Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applications of Mathematics in Economics, Faculty of ManagementAGH University of Science and TechnologyCracowPoland

Personalised recommendations