Advertisement

Studies on Russian Economic Development

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 129–135 | Cite as

Methodological Problems of Using the Structural Decomposition Analysis in the Input-Output Model at the Present Stage

  • E. F. Baranov
  • D. I. Piontkovski
  • E. A. StaritsynaEmail author
MACROECONOMIC PROBLEMS
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract—

The Input-Output Structural Decomposition Analysis approach enables a fairly comprehensive and detailed analysis of the economic growth sources using the input-output model. The active use of this approach is currently hampered by the lack of a reliable instrumental method for constructing symmetrical input-output tables and deflators that permit the output and import indicators to be recalculated by types of products for different years into constant prices, as well as by ambiguity of interpretations of the content of growth sources. The paper discusses the ways to overcome these methodological problems and gives an example of the experimental use of the structural decomposition analysis approach based on the data of the input-output tables of the Russian Federation for 2011–2015.

Notes

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The article was prepared within the framework of the project Long-term Economic Growth and Structural Changes in Russia, the CIS and Eastern Europe in a Comparative Prospect, which was funded by the Fundamental Research Program of the National Research University, Higher School of Economics.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    W. Leontief, Structure of the American Economy (University Press Oxford, New York, 1941).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Carter, Structural Change in the American Economy (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. B. Chenery, S. Shishido, and T. Watanabe, “The pattern of Japanese growth, 1914–1954,” Econometrica 30 (1), 98–139 (1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Rose and S. Casler, “Input-output structural decomposition analysis: A critical appraisal,” Econ. Syst. Res. 8 (1), 33–62 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    System of National Accounts of 1993. Prepared under the Auspices of the Intersecretariat Working Group on National Accounts (Brussels/Luxembourg, New York, Paris, Washington, DC, 1993).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    System of National Accounts 2008 (European Commission, International Monetary Fund, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, United Nations and World Bank, New York, 2009).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Almon, The Craft of Economic Modeling (Ginn Press, Needham Heights, MA., 1988; MAKS Press, Moscow, 2012).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Stone, Input-Output and National Accounts (Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, 1961; Statistika, Moscow, 1964).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. E. Miller and P. D. Blair, Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions (University Press, Cambridge, 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Manual of Supply, Use and Input-Output Tables (Eurostat, Luxembourg, 2010).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    N. E. Ustinova, Russian input-output tables: Experience, problems, and prospects (2017). http://www.gks.ru/ free_doc/new_site/rosstat/smi/ustinova-070417.pdf.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    National Accounts. http://www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/ru/statistics/accounts/.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. R. Eidel’man, Input-Output Balance of the Public Product (Statistika, Moscow, 1966) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goskomstat of Russia. Input-Output Tables of Russia for 1995 (according to a brief scheme). Statistical Book (Goskomstat, Moscow, 2000) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Stone, “Multiple classifications in social accounting,” Bull. Inst. Int. Stat. 39 (3), 215–233 (1962).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    E. F. Baranov, A. V. Elsakova, E. S. Korneva, and E. A. Staritsyna, “Decomposition analysis of the impact of demand on economic growth (based on input-output tables),” Vopr. Stat., No. 10, 44–56 (2016).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. P. Martin and D. Holland, “Sources of output change in the U.S. economy,” Growth Change 23 (4), 446–468 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    National Accounts of Russia in 2011–2016. http://www. gks.ru/free_doc/doc_2017/nac/NAC_Ch_2017.pdf.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Russian Statistical Yearbook. http://www.gks.ru/wps/ wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/ru/statistics/publications/catalog/doc_1135087342078.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    E. Dietzenbacher and B. Los, “Structural decomposition techniques: Sense and sensitivity,” Econ. Syst. Res. 10 (4), 307–324 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. F. Baranov
    • 1
  • D. I. Piontkovski
    • 2
  • E. A. Staritsyna
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.National Research University Higher School of Economics, Center of Development InstituteMoscowRussia
  2. 2.National Research University, Higher School of Economics, Faculty of Economic Sciences, Department of MathematicsMoscowRussia
  3. 3.National Research Institute, Higher School of Economics, Expert InstituteMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations