Abstract
Most of the comment of de Mesnard applies to a causal interpretation of the net multiplier that is applied to economically impossible exogenous (changes in) total output. This reply shows that this interpretation is incorrect and that his further argumentation is based on a time inconsistent derivation of the Leontief output multiplier. Instead the net multiplier concept is designed as a two-way dependency or net contribution indicator that—when applied to all sectors—reproduces the exact size of the economy at hand. De Mesnard’s iterative alternative does not satisfy this output preservation requirement and therefore it is not a proper net multiplier. Instead it equals an old gross multiplier, namely the one that indicates the indirect output effect per unit of final demand.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cras JHA, Eding GJ, Knijff van der EC, Oosterhaven J (1995) EDON en de Regio: Een sterke tweezijdige relatie. REG Foundation, University of Groningen
Dietzenbacher E (2005) More on multipliers. J Reg Sci 45:421–426
Elhorst JP, Strijker D (eds) (1999) Het economische belang van vervoer. REG-publication 18, University of Groningen
de Mesnard L (1997) A biproportional filter to compare technical and allocation coefficient variations. J Reg Sci 37:541–564
de Mesnard L (2000) Bicausative matrices to measure structural change: are they a good tool? Ann Reg Sci 34:421–449
de Mesnard L (2002) Note about the concept of net multipliers. J Reg Sci 42:545–548
de Mesnard L (2006) A critical comment on Oosterhaven–Stelder net multipliers. Ann Reg Sci (this volume)
Miller RE, Blair PD (1985) Input–output analysis: foundations and extensions. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Oosterhaven J (1988) On the plausibility of the supply-driven input–output model. J Reg Sci 28:201–217
Oosterhaven J (1996) Leontief versus Ghoshian price and quantity models. South Econ J 62:750–759
Oosterhaven J (2004) On the definition of key sectors and the stability of net versus gross multipliers. SOM research report 04C01, University of Groningen (at: http://www.som.rug.nl)
Oosterhaven J (2006) A new approach to the selection of key sectors: China, South Korea, the Netherlands, the United States. In: Paper to be presented at the 53rd North American Meetings of the Regional Science Association International, November 2006, Toronto
Oosterhaven J, Stelder D (2002a) 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, networks and hierarchies. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 119–133
Oosterhaven J, Stelder D (2002b) Net multipliers avoid exaggerating impacts: with a bi-regional illustration for the Dutch transportation sector. J Reg Sci 3:533–543
Oosterhaven J, Eding GJ, Stelder D (2001) Clusters, linkages and interregional spillovers: methodology and policy implications for the two Dutch mainports and the rural north. Reg Stud 35:809–822
Oosterhaven J, Knijff van der EC, Eding GJ (2003) Estimating interregional economic impacts: an evaluation of nonsurvey, semisurvey, and fullsurvey methods. Environ Plann A 35:5–18
RUG/CBS (1999) Regionale Samenhang in Nederland: Bi-regionale input–output tabellen voor de 12 provincies en de twee mainport regio’s. REG-publication 20, University of Groningen/Netherlands Statistics
Stelder D (1991) ISAM II, een nieuwe versie van het Integraal Sectorstructuur-en Arbeidsmarkt Model voor Groningen, Friesland en Drenthe. IEO-report 451, University of Groningen