Advertisement

The Annals of Regional Science

, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 485–513 | Cite as

Integrating the fragmented regional and subregional socioeconomic forecasting and analysis: a spatial regional econometric input–output framework

  • Jae Hong Kim
  • Geoffrey J. D. Hewings
Special Issue paper

Abstract

This study presents an integrated socioeconomic forecasting and analysis framework: a spatial regional econometric input–output model and its application to the Chicago metropolitan area. The new framework is designed to overcome some limitations of existing models, particularly (1) limited consideration of population–employment interactions and (2) dominance of top-down approach to vertical integration of regional and subregional variables. It captures local and lower level conditions and their effects on macroeconomic variables by using a modified disequilibrium adjustment model that incorporates subregional dynamics into a regional econometric input–output model in a reciprocal, interactive manner, as opposed to a top-down allocation process. The framework also considers both region-wide and subregional level population–employment interactions more systematically. It is demonstrated that the present model can support socioeconomic forecasting and a broad range of analyses, including the examinations of the macroeconomic impacts of local actions.

JEL Classification

C53 R12 R15 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Boarnet MG (1994) An empirical model of intrametropolitan population and employment growth. Papers Reg Sci 73: 135–152Google Scholar
  2. Boarnet MG (1994) The monocentric model and employment location. J Urban Econ 36: 79–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boarnet MG, Chalermpong S, Geho E (2005) Specification issues in models of population and employment growth. Papers Reg Sci 84: 21–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bollinger C, Ihlanfeldt KR (1997) The impact of rapid rail transit on economic development: the case of Atlanta’s MARTA. J Urban Econ 42: 179–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlino GA, Mills ES (1987) The determinants of county growth. J Reg Sci 27: 39–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carruthers JI, Hollar MK, Mulligan GF (2008) Growth and convergence in the space economy: evidence from the United States. Region Dev 27: 35–60Google Scholar
  7. Carruthers JI, Mulligan GF (2007) Land absorption in US metropolitan areas: estimates and projections from regional adjustment models. Geogr Anal 39: 78–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cervero R (2001) Efficient urbanisation: economic performance and the shape of the metropolis. Urban Stud 38: 1651–1671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chalmers JA, Greenwood MJ (1985) The regional labor market adjustment process: Determinants of changes in rates of labor force participation, unemployment, and migration. Ann Reg Sci 19: 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark DE, Murphy CP (1996) Countywide employment and population growth: an analysis of the 1980s. J Reg Sci 36: 235–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conway RS Jr (1990) The Washington projection and simulation model: a regional inter-industry econometric model. Int Reg Sci Rev 13: 141–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feser E, Isserman A (2005) Urban spillovers and rural prosperity. http://www.urban.uiuc.edu/faculty/feser/Pubs/Urban_spillovers_and_rural_prosperity.pdf Accessed October 2008
  13. Greenwood MJ (1985) Human migration: theory, models, and empirical studies. J Reg Sci 25: 521–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gyourko J, Saiz A, Summers A (2008) A new measure of the local regulatory environment for housing markets: the Wharton residential land use regulatory index. Urban Stud 45: 693–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Henry MS, Barkley DL, Bao S (1997) The hinterland’s state in metropolitan growth: evidence from selected southern regions. J Reg Sci 37: 479–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Henry MS, Schmitt B, Piguet V (2001) Spatial econometric models for simultaneous systems: application to rural community growth in France. Int Reg Sci Rev 24: 171–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hewings GJD, Sonis M, Guo J, Israilevich PR, Schindler GR (1998) The hollowing out process in the Chicago economy, 1975–2015. Geogr Anal 30: 217–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hunt JD, Kriger DS, Miller EJ (2005) Current operational urban land use—transport modelling frameworks: a review. Transp Rev 25: 329–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Israilevich PR, Hewings GJD, Schindler GR, Mahidhara R (1996) The choice of input–output table embedded in regional econometric input–output models. Papers Reg Sci 75: 103–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Israilevich PR, Hewings GJD, Sonis M, Schindler GR (1997) Forecasting structural change with regional econometric input–output model. J Reg Sci 37: 565–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kelejian HH, Prucha IR (1998) A generalized spatial two-stage least squares procedure for estimating a spatial autoregressive model with autoregressive disturbances. J Real Estate Finance Econ 17: 99–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kelejian HH, Prucha IR (1999) A generalized moments estimator for the autoregressive parameter in a spatial model. Int Econ Rev 40: 509–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kelejian HH, RobinsonDP (1993) Asuggested method of estimation for spatial interdependent models with autocorrelated errors, and an application to a county expenditure model. Papers Reg Sci 72:297–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kim JH (2011) Linking land use planning and regulation to economic development: a literature review. J Plan Lit 26:35–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kim JH, Hewings GJD (2011) Framing urban systems and planning concerns as a multi-level problem: a review of the integrated urban system models with an emphasis on their hierarchical structures. In: Brooks N, Donaghy K, Knaap G (eds) Oxford University Press Handbook of Urban Economics and Planning. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 674–700Google Scholar
  26. Levemier W, Cushing B (1994) A new look at the determinants of the intrametropolitan distribution of population and employment. Urban Stud 31: 1391–1405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mulligan GF, Vias AC (2006) Growth and change in US micropolitan areas. Ann Reg Sci 40: 203–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mulligan GF, Vias AC, Glavac SM (1999) Initial diagnostics of a regional adjustment model. Environ Plan A 31: 855–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nelson AC, Peterman DR (2000) Does growth management matter? The effect of growth management on economic performance. J Plan Educ Res 19: 277–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Parr JB (1979) Regional economic change and regional spatial structure: some interrelation-ships. Environ Plan A 11: 825–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Parr JB (1987) The development of spatial structure and regional economic growth. Land Econ 63: 113–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rey SJ (1998) The performance of alternative integration strategies for combining regional econometric and input–output models. Int Reg Sci Rev 21: 1–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rey SJ (2000) Integrated regional econometric + input–output modeling: issues and opportunities. Papers Reg Sci 79: 271–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rey SJ, Boarnet MG (2004) A taxonomy of spatial econometric models for simultaneous equations systems. In: Anselin L, Florax R, Rey SJ (eds) Advances in spatial econometrics: methodology, tools, and applications. Springer, Berlin, pp 99–119Google Scholar
  35. Schindler GR, Israilevich PR, Hewings GJD (1997) Regional economic performance: an integrated approach. Reg Stud 31: 131–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Steinnes DN (1977) Causality and intraurban location. J Urban Econ 4: 69–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Steinnes DN (1982) Do ‘people follow jobs’ or do ‘jobs follow people’? A causality issue in urban economics. Urban Stud 19: 187–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Treyz GI (1995) Policy analysis applications of REMI economic forecasting and simulation models. Int J Public Adm 18: 13–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vermeulen W, Ommeren J (2004) Interaction of regional population and employment: identifying short-run and equilibrium adjustment effects. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper, TI 2004-083/3. http://dspace.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/1871/9620/1/04083.pdf Accessed September 2009
  40. Vermeulen W, Ommeren J (2009) Does land use planning shape regional economies? A simultaneous analysis of housing supply, internal migration and local employment growth in the Netherlands. J Hous Econ 18: 294–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vias AC (1999) Jobs follow people in the rural Rocky Mountain West. Rural Dev Perspect 14: 14–23Google Scholar
  42. Vias AC, Mulligan GF (1999) Integrating economic base theory with regional adjustment models: the nonmetropolitan Rocky Mountain West. Growth Change 30: 507–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wegener M (1994) Operational urban models: state of the art. J Am Plan Assoc 60: 17–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. West GR (1995) Comparison of input–output, input–output+econometric, and computable general equilibrium impact models at the regional level. Econ Syst Res 7: 209–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. West GR, Jackson RW (1998) Input–output + econometric and econometric + input–output: Model differences or different models?. J Reg Anal Policy 28: 33–48Google Scholar
  46. White R, Engelen G (2000) High-resolution integrated modelling of the spatial dynamics of urban and regional systems. Comput Environ Urban Syst 24: 383–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zellner A, Tobias J (2000) A note on aggregation, disaggregation and forecasting performance. J Forecast 19: 457–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Landscape Architecture/Regional and Community PlanningKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA
  2. 2.Department of Economics, Geography, Government and Public Affairs, Urban and Regional Planning, Regional Economics Applications LaboratoryUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations