Skip to main content
Log in

A critical comment on Oosterhaven–Stelder net multipliers

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The Annals of Regional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recently, Oosterhaven and Stelder (OS; J Reg Sci 42(3):533–543, 2002; Trade, network and hierarchies: modeling regional and interregional economies, pp. 119–133, 2002) have introduced the operational idea of a “compensated net multiplier” (CNM) to take into account the double counting that occurs when output replaces final demand as an exogenous entry when the Leontief model is used to evaluate operationally the impact of large investments. Each output gross multiplier is compensated by multiplying it by the ratio of final demand to output. Oosterhaven (Research Report 04C01, 2004) has demonstrated that CNM fulfills an axiom of “total output preservation,” namely that the sum of effects equals the total output. It is shown in the present paper that the original CNM is only a homogenous formula with no causal link between the cause (the exogenous output) and the effect (the total output), so that it cannot be a multiplier. The paper explores all the other possibilities for deriving CNM by considering an exogenous output: (1) in absolute value; (2) in variation; and finally (3) at final equilibrium. Possibilities (1) and (2) do not work while only the variation from zero is option (3) working, although imperfectly. The derivations yield two results: (1) the final demand ratio, and so CNM, cannot be stable even if the technical coefficient matrix is fixed, except for very small perturbations; (2) even if total output preservation derives from the definition of a multiplier, CNM cannot fulfill total output preservation when an exogenous output is taken as the initial shock. De Mesnard (J Reg Sci 42(3):545–548, 200) has proposed another solution, “iterative net multiplier” (INM), derived by considering the successive rounds after an exogenous impact of output. INM is stable and makes a link between cause and effect. In contrast to the assertions by OS (J Reg Sci 42(3):533–543, 2002; Trade, network and hierarchies: modeling regional and interregional economies, pp. 119–133, 2002), INM fulfills output preservation when an exogenous output is taken as the initial shock. Neither CNM nor INM must be confused with the so-called “output-to-output multipliers.”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Dietzenbacher E (2005) More on multipliers. J Reg Sci 45(2):421–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin RM (1949) The Multiplier as matrix. Econ J. Reprinted in: Goodwin RM (1983) Essays in linear economic structures. The MacMillan Press, London, pp 1–21

  • Haavelmo T (1945) Multiplier effects of a balanced budget. Econometrica 13(4): 311–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keynes JM (1936) The general theory of employment, interest and money. Harcourt, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Leontief W (1936) Quantitative input – output relations in the economic system of the United States. Rev Econ Stat 18(3):105–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leontief W (1985) Input–output analysis. In: Encyclopedia of materials science and engineering. Pergamon Press, Oxford. Reprinted in: Leontief W (1986) Input–output economics. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 19–40

  • de Mesnard L (2002) Note about the concept of ‘Net multipliers’. J Reg Sci 42(3):545–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller RE, Blair PD (1985) Input–output analysis: foundations and extensions. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Oosterhaven J, Stelder D (2002a) Net multipliers avoid exaggerating impacts: with a biregional illustration for the Dutch transportation sector. J Reg Sci 42(3):533–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oosterhaven J, Stelder D (2002b) On the economic impact of the transport sector: a critical review with Dutch bi-regional input–output data. In: Hewings GJD, Sonis M, Boyce D (eds) Trade, network and hierarchies: modelling regional and interregional economies. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 119–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Oosterhaven J, van der Knijff EC, Gerard JE (2003) Estimating interregional economic impacts: an evaluation of nonsurvey, semisurvey, and full-survey methods. Environ Plann A 35(1):5–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oosterhaven J (2004) On the definition of key sectors and the stability of net versus gross multipliers. Research Report 04C01, SOM Research School, University of Groningen

  • Perroux F (1955) Note sur la notion de pôle de croissance. Economie Appliquée 1–2:307–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Perroux F (1961) L’Economie du XXe Siècle. PUF, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritz PM, Spaulding E (1975) Basic I–O terminology. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Interindustry Economics Division, 25 February 1975

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Louis de Mesnard.

Additional information

The author thanks two anonymous referees, T. John Kim and Geoffrey Hewings, for their very helpful remarks.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

de Mesnard, L. A critical comment on Oosterhaven–Stelder net multipliers. Ann Reg Sci 41, 249–271 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-006-0093-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-006-0093-3

JEL Classification

Navigation