On the Sensitivity of Impact Estimates for Fixed Ratio Assumptions

  • Johannes TöbbenEmail author
  • Jan Oosterhaven
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)


Firms react to shortages in the supply of their inputs by looking for substitutes. We investigate the impact of finding such substitutes on estimates of the size of regional and national disaster impacts. To investigate this issue, we use the German multiregional supply-use table (MRSUT) for 2007, together with data on the direct impacts of the 2013 heavy floods of the German Elbe and the Danube rivers. Our analysis starts with a non-linear programming model that allows for maximum substitution possibilities. In that case there are little to no indirect damages in the directly affected regions, whereas negative indirect impacts of a magnitude of 5–7% and of up to 34% of the direct impact occur in other German regions and abroad, respectively. Adding the increasingly less plausible fixed ratios commonly used in standard Type I and extended Type II multiregional input-output and MRSUT models, results in (1) substantial increases in the magnitude of negative indirect impacts and (2) a significant shift in the intra-regional versus interregional and international distribution of these impacts. Our conclusion is that both demand-driven and supply-driven input-output and supply-use models tend to grossly overstate the indirect damages of negative supply shocks, which are part and parcel of most disasters.


  1. Albala-Bertrand JM (2013) Disasters and the networked economy. Routledge, OxonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson CW, Santos JR, Haimes YY (2007) A risk-based input-output methodology for measuring the effects of the August 2003 Northeast blackout. Econ Syst Res 19(2):183–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carerra L, Standardi G, Bosello F, Mysiak J (2015) Assessing direct and indirect economic impacts of a flood event through the integration of spatial and computable general equilibrium modelling. Environ Model Softw 63:109–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chenery HB (1953) Regional analysis. In: Chenery HB, Clark PG, Vera VC (eds) The structure and growth of the Italian economy. U.S. Mutual Security Agency, Rome, pp 97–129Google Scholar
  5. Crowther KG, Haimes YY (2005) Application of the inoperability input-output model (IIM) for systemic risk assessment and management of interdependent infrastructures. Syst Eng 8(4):323–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DeMesnard L (2009) Is the Ghosh model interesting? J Reg Sci 49(2):361–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dietzenbacher E (1997) In vindication of the Ghosh model: a reinterpretation as a price model. J Reg Sci 37(4):629–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dietzenbacher E, Miller RE (2015) Reflections on the inoperability input-output model. Econ Syst Res 27(4):478–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ghosh A (1958) Input-output approach in an allocation system. Economica 25(4):58–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hallegate S (2008) An adaptive regional input-output model and its application to the assessment of the economic cost of Katrina. Risk Anal 28(3):779–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Isard W (1951) Interregional and regional input-output analysis, a model of the space economy. Rev Econ Stat 33(4):318–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Koks EE, Thissen M (2016) A multiregional impact assessment model for disaster analysis. Econ Syst Res 28(4):429–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Koks EE, Carrerra L, Jonkeren O, Aerts J, Husby JCJH, Thissen M, Standardi G, Mysiak J (2015) Regional disaster impact analysis: comparing input-output and computable general equilibrium models. Nat Hazard Earth Syst Sci Discuss 3(11):7053–7088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leontief WW (1951) The structure of the American economy: 1919–1939, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Miller RE, Blair PD (2009) Input-output analysis: foundations and extensions. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Moses LN (1955) The stability of interregional trading pattern and input-output analysis. Am Econ Rev 45(5):803–832Google Scholar
  17. Oosterhaven J (1984) A family of square and rectangular interregional input-output tables and models. Reg Sci Urban Econ 14(4):565–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Oosterhaven J (1988) On the plausibility of the supply-driven input-output model. J Reg Sci 28(2):203–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Oosterhaven J (1996) Leontief versus Ghoshian price and quantity models. South Econ J 62(3):750–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oosterhaven J (2012) Adding supply-driven consumption makes the Ghosh model even more implausible. Econ Syst Res 24(1):101–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oosterhaven J (2017) On the limited usability of the inoperability IO model. Econ Syst Res 29:452–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oosterhaven J, Bouwmeester MC (2016) A new approach to modelling the impact of disruptive events. J Reg Sci 56(4):583–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Oosterhaven J, Polenske KR (2009) Modern regional input-output and impact analyses. In: Capello R, Nijkamp P (eds) Handbook of regional growth and development theories. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 423–439Google Scholar
  24. Oosterhaven J, Többen J (2017) Regional economic impacts of heavy flooding in Germany: a non-linear programming approach. Spat Econ Anal 12(4):404–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rose A, Guha G-S (2004) Computable general equilibrium modelling of electric utility lifeline losses from earthquakes. In: Okuyama Y, Chang SE (eds) Modeling spatial and economic impacts of disasters. Springer, Berlin, pp 119–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Santos JR (2006) Inoperability input-output modeling of disruptions to interdependent economic systems. Syst Eng 9:20–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Santos JR, Haimes YY (2004) Modelling the demand reduction input-output (I-O) inoperability due to terrorism of connected infrastructures. Risk Anal 24:1437–1451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schulte in den Bäumen H, Többen J, Lenzen M (2015) Labour forced impacts and production losses due to the 2013 flood in Germany. J Hydrol 527:142–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Standardi G, Bosello F, Eboli F (2014) A sub-national version of the GTAP model for Italy. Working Papers of the Fondatione Eni Enrico MatteiGoogle Scholar
  30. Többen J (2017a) Effects of energy and climate policy in Germany: a multiregional analysis. PhD, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of GroningenGoogle Scholar
  31. Többen J (2017b) Regional net impacts and social distribution effects of promoting renewable energies in Germany. Ecol Econ 135:195–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tsuchiya S, Tatana H, Okada N (2007) Economic loss assessment due to railroad and highway disruptions. Econ Syst Res 19(2):147–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Industrial Ecology Programme (Indecol)Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.Faculty of Economics and BusinessUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations