The Evolution of Input–Output Analysis

  • Paul J. ThomassinEmail author
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)


The static input–output model has been used by academics and policy analysts for decades to investigate real world problems and provide advice to policy makers. From its initial development, the input–output model has continuously evolved to incorporate more complex situations in a systematic manner. This includes integrating other biological, physical and social models into the input–output framework, developing dynamic models, and incorporating uncertainty to better analyze these complex real world problems. This paper outlines the history of input–output analysis and some of the specific country experiences. It explores the conceptual extensions of the basic input–output model that have significantly broadened its scope and discusses the numerous areas of application of input–output models and the insights of these applications. Finally, the paper makes suggestions on the future use of input–output analysis.



I would like to thank Professor Kakali Mukhopadhay for her input, comments, and support in the writing of this paper. I would also like to acknowledge the late Professor Debesh Chakraborty who spent time at McGill University and provided many hours of stimulating discussion on input–output analysis and economics in general.


  1. Allan, G. J., Hanley, N .D., Mcgregor, P. G., Kim Swales, J., & Turner, K. R. (2007). Augmenting the input–output framework for common pool resources: operationalising the full Leontief environmental model. Economic Systems Research, 19(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aylin-Ahmavaara, P. (1999). Effective rates of sectoral productivity change. Economic Systems Research, 11(4), 349–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bachmann, C., Roorda, M. J., & Kennedy, C. (2015). Developing a multi-scale multi-region input-output model. Economic Systems Research, 27(2), 172–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baranov, E., Kim, I., Piontkovski, D., & Staritsyna, E. (2016). The problem of constructing time series of russian input-output account for the use of international projects. In E. G. Yasin Kn (Eds.), Paper presented at XVI April international scientific conference on the problems of economic development and society. Moscow: Publishing House of the Higher School of Economics.Google Scholar
  5. Baumol, W. J. (2000). Leontief’s great leap forward: Beyond Quesnay, Marx and von Bortkiewicz. Economic Systems Research, 12(2), 141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belykh, A. A. (1989). A note on the origins of input-output analysis and the contribution of the early soviet economists: Chayanov, Bogdanov and Kritsman. Soviet Studies, 41(3), 426–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Broersma, L., & Moergastel, T. V. (2007). A shortcut method for generating time series of input-data for productivity analysis. Economic Systems Research, 19(3), 277–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, X., Guo, J., & Yang, C. (2005). Extending the input-output model with assets. Economic Systems Research, 17(2), 211–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cumberland, J. H., & Stram, B. N. (1976). Empirical results from application of input-output models to environmental problems. In K. R. Polenske & J. V. Skolka (Eds.), Advances in input-output analysis (pp. 365–382). Cambridge: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  10. Dietzenbacher, E., Lenzen, M., Los, B., Guan, D., Lahr, M. L., Sancho, F., & Yang, C. (2013). Input–output analysis: The next 25 years. Economic Systems Research, 25, 369–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dixon, P. B., & Parmenter, B. (1996). Advances in input-output modeling. Journal of Policy Modelling, 1(2), 271–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duane, W. E., & Hoffenberg, M. (1952). The interindustry relations study for 1947. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 34(2), 97–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eurostat, (1995). Regional accounts methods. Eurostat, Luxembourg: GVA and GFCF by activity.Google Scholar
  14. Eurostat, (2001). Report from the task force on accuracy assessment in national accounts statistics. Luxembourg: GNI Committee.Google Scholar
  15. Eurostat. (2005). European statistics code of practice. Luxembourg: Eurostat.Google Scholar
  16. Eurostat. (2006). Quality declaration of the European statistical system. Website Eurostat.Google Scholar
  17. Fox, G., & Quirk, J. (1985). Uncertainty and input-output analysis. In Economic Research Series, no. 23, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, October.Google Scholar
  18. Ghanem, Z. (2010). The Canadian and inter-provincial input-output models: The mathematical framework. Ottawa: Industry Accounts Division, Statistics Canada.Google Scholar
  19. Grubbstorm, R. W., & Tang, Q. (2000). An overview of input-output analysis applied to production-inventory systems. Economic Systems Research, 12(1), 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gu, W., & Yan, B. (2017). Productivity growth and international competitiveness. The Review of Income and Wealth, 63(1), S113–S133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hartog, H., Houwelling, A. (1974). Pollution, pollution abatement and the economic structure: Empirical results of I-O computations for the Netherlands. In Paper presented at the sixth International conference on I-O technique. Vienna, April.Google Scholar
  22. Hertwich, E. (2011). Footprint family technical report: Integration into MRIO model, one planet economy network. Available via DIALOG Accessed on November 2017.
  23. Hulten, C. R. (1978). Growth accounting with intermediate inputs. Review Of Economic Studies, XLV, 511–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. INFORUM in Clopper, A. (1967). How to purify an input-output matrix. MIFP Research Report #2, July 5, 1967. Available at
  25. Inklaar, R., & Timmer, M. P. (2007). International comparisons of industry output, inputs and productivity levels: Methodology and new results. Economic Systems Research, 19(3), 343–363. Scholar
  26. Jewczak, M., & Suchecka, J. (2014). Applications of input-output analysis in the health care. Comparative Economic Research, 17(4), 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jorgenson, D. W., Ho, M. S., Samuels, J. D., & Stiroh, K. J. (2007). Industry origins of the American productivity resurgence. Economic Systems Research, 19(3), 229–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kazemier, B., Driesen, C. H., & Hoogbruin, E. (2012). From Input–output Tables to Supply-and-Use Tables. Economic Systems Research, 24, 319–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kohli, M. C. (2001a). Leontief and the Bureau of labor statistics, 1941–54: An unfinished chapter in the history of economic measurement. Bureau of Labor Statistics New York, NY 10011.
  30. Kohli, M. C. (2001b). Leontief and the U.S. Bureau of labor statistics, 1941–54: Developing a framework for measurement. History of Political Economy, 33, 190–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Koks, E. E., Thissen, M. (2014). The economic-wide consequences of natural hazards: An application of a European interregional input-output model. In Presented in Conference of 22nd Input Output. Lisboa, Port. Google Scholar
  32. Kurz, H. D., & Lager, C. (2000). Introduction: Input-output analysis and classical economic theory. Economic Systems Research, 12(2), 139–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kurz, H. D., & Salvadori, N. (2000). Classical roots of input-output analysis: A short account of its long prehistory. Economic Systems Research, 12(2), 153–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. L’Abbate, P. (2012). Evolution of the analysis of input/output in physical units. In Conference paper presented at the XX International Scientific and Professional Meeting “Ecological Truth” Eco-Ist’12.Google Scholar
  35. Lenzen, M., Wood, R., & Wiedmann, T. (2010). Uncertainty analysis for multi-region input-output models—A case study of the UK’s carbon footprint. Economic Systems Research, 22(1), 44–63.Google Scholar
  36. Leontief, W. W. (1936). Quantitative input and output relations in the economic systems of the United States. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 18, 105–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leontief, W., Ford, D., Brody, A., & Carter, A. P. (Eds.). (1972). Air pollution and the economic structure: Empirical results of input–output computations. Input–output techniques. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on input–output techniques. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  38. Li, J., et al. (2013). Modeling imbalanced economic recovery following a natural disaster using input-output analysis. Risk Analysis, 33(10), 1908–1923.Google Scholar
  39. Lopes, T. C., & Neder, H. D. (2016). Sraffa, Leontief, Lange 2016: The political economy of input-output economics. Economia (Brasília), 17, 600.Google Scholar
  40. Marangoni, G. D., & Rossignoli, D. (n.d.). Richard stone’s contribution to input-output analysis. Cahiers D’économie Politique 71(2), 219–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Meade, D. (2010). The U.S. Benchmark IO table: history, methodology and myths. In Paper presented at the 18th Inforum World Conference in Hikone, Japan, September 5–10, 2010. Douglas S. Meade: Inforum, University of Maryland, P.O. Box 451, College Park, MD 20740.Google Scholar
  42. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication Japan. No Date. Appendix 1. The history of input-output tables for Japan. Accessed on January 2018.
  43. Miernyk, W. H. (1968). International developments in the elements of input-output analysis by William H. Miernyk. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  44. Mukhopadhyay, K., & Thomassin, P. J. (2012). Economic impact of adopting a healthy diet in Canada. Journal of Public Health, 20(6), 639–652. Scholar
  45. OECD. (2012). Trade policy implications of global value chains. Paris: OECD Publishing, Paris.Google Scholar
  46. Okuyama, Y., & Santos, J. R. (2014). Disaster impact and input-output analysis. Economic Systems Research, 26(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pasinetti, L. L. (1992). Professor Sir Richard Stone (1913–1991) (pp. 112–118). Caian: The Annual Record of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  48. Petersen, W. (1979). A total factor productivity growth in the UK: A disaggregated analysis. In K. Patterson & M. Scott (Eds.), The measurement of capital theory and practice. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  49. Phimister, E., & Robert, D. (2017). Allowing for uncertainty in exogenous shocks to CGE models: The case of a new renewable energy sector. Economic Systems Research, 29(4), 509–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pyatt, G., & Round, J. I., (eds). (1985). Social accounting matrices: A basis for planning. The World Bank, Washington D. C.Google Scholar
  51. Raa, T. T. (2005). The economics of input-output analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Raa, T. T. (2017). Multipliers, factor content, and productivity. In T. ten Raa (Ed.), Handbook of input-output analysis. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  53. Raa, T. T., & Shestalova, V. (2015a). Complementarity in input-output analysis and stochastics. Economic Systems Research, 27(1), 95–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Raa, T. T., & Rueda-Cantuche, J. J. (2007). Stochastic analysis of input-output multipliers on the basis of use and make matrices. Review of Income and Wealth, 53, 318–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Raa, T. T., & Shestalova, V. (2011). The Solow residual, Domar aggregation, and inefficiency: A synthesis of TFP measures. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 36, 71–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Raa, T. T., & Shestalova, V. (2015b). Supply-use framework for international environmental policy analysis. Economic Systems Research, 27(1), 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Remington, T. F. (1982). Varga and the Foundation of Soviet Planning. Soviet Studies, 34(4), 585–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rey, S. J., West, G. R., & Janikas, M. V. (2004). Uncertainty in integrated regional models. Economic Systems Research, 16(3), 259–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rose, A. Z., & Miernyk, W. (1989). Input–Output Analysis: The First Fifty Years. Economic Systems Research, 1, 229–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Roy, J. R. (2004). Regional input-output analysis, data and uncertainty. Annual Regional Science, 38, 397–412.Google Scholar
  61. Rueda-Cantuche, J. M., Amores, J., Beutel, A. J., & Tiedrez, R. I. (2018). Assessment of European Use tables at basic prices and valuation matrices in the absence of official data. Economic Systems Research, 30(2), 252–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Shestsava, V. (2017). Input-output based general equilibrium analysis of efficiency. In T. ten Raa (Ed.), Handbook of input-output analysis. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  63. Sidney, J. A., Jones, A., Coberley, C., Pope, J. E., & Wells, A. (2017). The well-being valuation model: A method for monetizing the nonmarket good of individual well-being. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 17, 84–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Standardi, G., & Mysiak, J. (2016). Regional disaster impact analysis: Comparing input–output and computable general equilibrium models. Natural Hazards and Earth Systems Sciences, 16, 1911–1924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Statistics Canada. (2016a). Chapter 2 History of Canada’s macroeconomic accounts. In User Guide: Canadian System of Macroeconomic Accounts. Accessed on November 2017.
  66. Statistics Canada. (2016b). Chapter 4 Supply and use accounts. In User guide: Canadian system of macroeconomic accounts. Accessed on December 2017.
  67. Statistics Netherlands. (2016). Environmental input-output analyses for the Netherlands. European Union. Accessed on September 2017.Google Scholar
  68. Steenge, A. E., & Bočkarjova, M. (2007). Thinking about imbalances in post-catastrophe economies: An input-output based proposition. Economic Systems Research, 19(2), 205–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stone, R., & Pesaran, M. H. (1991). The ET interview: Professor Sir Richard Stone. Econometric Theory, 7(1), 85–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tcheremnykh, I. N. (1997). Systems analysis and modeling of integrated world systems—Vol. II—input-output models—input-output models. ©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS).
  71. Timmer, M., Dietzenbacher, E., Los, B., Stehrer, R., & de Vries, G. (2015). An illustrated user guide to the world input–output database: The case of global automotive production. Review of International Economics, 23, 575–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Timmer, M. (2017). Productivity measurement in global value chains. International Productivity Monitor, 33, 182–193.Google Scholar
  73. Tukker, A. & Reinout, H. (Eds.). (2007). EXIOPOL: A new environmental accounting a new environmental accounting framework using externality framework using externality data and input-data and input-output tools output tools output tools for policy analysis. Project No. 037033, Technical Report: Definition study for the EE IO database, Integrated Project in Priority 6.3 Global Change and Ecosystems in the 6th EU framework programme, European Commission.Google Scholar
  74. Temurshoev, U. (2015). Uncertainty treatment in input-output analysis. Working Papers 2015-004, Universidad Loyola AndalucÃ-a, Department of Economics.Google Scholar
  75. Vazquez, E. F., Geoffrey, J. D. H., & Carmen, R. C. (2015). Adjustment of input–output tables from two initial matrices. Economic Systems Research, 27(3), 345–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wang, H., Cheng, W., Haitao, Z., Haoyun, F., Rong, G., & Wen, L. (2015). Updating input–output tables with benchmark table series. Economic Systems Research, 27(3), 287–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Weinzettel, J., Steen-Olsen, K., Galli, A., Cranston, G., Ercin, E., Hawkins, T., & Wiedmann, T. (2011). Footprint family technical report: Integration into MRIO model, OPEN EU project report, NTNU, Trondheim.Google Scholar
  78. Wiedmann, T. (2010). Editorial: Carbon footprint and input-output analysis—An introduction. Economic Systems Research, 21(3), 175–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wolff, E. N. (1985). Industrial composition, interindustry effects and the U. S. Productivity Slowdown. Review of Economics and Statistics, 67, 268–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Yamada, G., & Imanaka, Y. (2015). Input-output analysis on the economic impact of medical care in Japan. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine, 20, 379–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural EconomicsMcGill UniversityQuebecCanada

Personalised recommendations