Advertisement

Future: What to Forget, to Maintain and to Extend

  • Jan OosterhavenEmail author
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Regional Science book series (BRIEFSREGION)

Abstract

This book has shown that the four basic IO models are practically unsuited as prediction models. The basic, demand-driven IO model, however, has proven to be a perfect descriptive device to measure the direct and indirect value added or natural resources embodied per unit consumption or exports, etc., whereas both price models offer as yet unused application possibilities. Moreover, IOTs, or better SUTs, or even better SAMs have proven to provide the indispensable data for ever more sophisticated, econometrically extended IO models and interindustry CGE models, both for single and for multiple regions and nations.

Keywords

Input–output models Price models Descriptive statistics Consumer responsibility Trade in value added Social accounting matrices 

References

  1. Almon C (1991) The INFORUM approach to interindustry modeling. Econ Syst Res 3:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bouwmeester MC, Oosterhaven J (2013) Specification and aggregation errors in environmentally-extended input-output models. Environ Resour Econ 56:307–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bröcker J (1998) Operational spatial computable general equilibrium modelling. An Reg Sci 32(3):367–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davar E (1989) Input-output and general equilibrium. Econ Syst Res 1:331–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dietzenbacher E, Los B, Stehrer R, Timmer M, de Vries G (2013) The construction of world input-output tables in the WIOD project. Econ Syst Res 25:71–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fujita M, Krugman P, Venables AJ (2001) The spatial economy: cities, regions, and international trade. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Ghosh A (1958) Input-output approach in an allocation system. Economica 25:58–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hummels D, Ishii J, Yi K-M (2001) The nature and growth of vertical specialization in world trade. J Int Econ 54:75–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Johnson RC, Noguera G (2012) Accounting for intermediates: production sharing and trade in value added. J Int Econ 86:224–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Knaap T, Oosterhaven J (2011) Measuring the welfare effects of infrastructure: a simple spatial equilibrium evaluation of Dutch railway proposals. Res Transp Econ 31:19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Koopman R, Wang Z, Wei S-J (2014) Tracing value-added and double counting in gross exports. Am Econ Rev 104:459–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kratena K (2005) Prices and factor demand in an endogenized input-output model. Econ Syst Res 17:47–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Leontief WW (1951) The structure of the American economy: 1919–1939, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Leontief WW (1941) The structure of the American economy, 1919–1929: an empirical application of equilibrium analysis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Madsen B (2008) Regional economic development from a local economic perspective – A general accounting and modelling approach. Habilitation Thesis, University of CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  16. Oosterhaven J (1989) The supply-driven input-output model: a new interpretation but still implausible. J Reg Sci 29:459–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shoven JB, Whalley J (1992) Applying general equilibrium. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Timmer MP, Los B, Stehrer R, De Vries GJ (2013) Fragmentation, incomes and jobs: an analysis of European competitiveness. Econ Pol 28:613–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Venables AJ, Gasiorek M (1998) The welfare implications of transport improvements in the presence of market failure. Reports to SACTRA, Department of Environment, Transport and Regions, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations