Spatial Linkages in the US Economy

  • Peter D. Blair
  • Ronald E. Miller


The publication of Walter Isard’s spatially extended input-output model (Isard [15]) must surely be regarded as a (if not the) cornerstone of operational regional science. At issue was the custom, perhaps especially noticeable in economics, of assuming that much of a nation’s human activity took place in a spaceless vacuum. Yet activities occur at specific locations, and since not all activities exist at all locations, there must be interactions among places. Thus, it was argued, an explicitly regional approach was called for; but such a perspective carries with it an obligation to pay attention to the structure of activity within each place (region) and also to the nature of connections that tie the regions together. It is precisely these two aspects of the regional view that are captured in Isard’s pioneering interregional input-output (IRIO) model, in which intraregional structures appear in on-diagonal blocks and interregional connections are captured in off-diagonal blocks of a spatially explicit technical coefficients matrix.


Final Demand Spatial Linkage East North Central East South Central Linkage Measure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    W.B. Beyers, ‘Empirical Identification of Key Sectors: Some Further Evidence’, Environment and Planning, A, 17, pp. 73–99, 1976.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    W.B. Beyers, ‘Structural Change in Interregional Input-Output Models: Form and Regional Economic Development Implications’, in R.E. Miller, K.R. Polenske and Adam Z. Rose (eds) Frontiers of Input-Output Analysis: Commemorative Papers (Oxford University Press, New York, 1989).Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    V. Bulmer-Thomas, Input-Output Analysis in Developing Countries (John Wiley, New York, 1989).Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    G. Cella, ‘The Input-Output Measurement of Interindustry Linkages’, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, vol. 46, pp. 73–84, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    G. Cella, ‘The Input-Output Measurement of Interindustry Linkages. A Reply’, Oxford Bulletin and Economics and Statistics, vol. 48, pp. 379–83, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    H.B. Chenery, ‘Regional Analysis’, ch. 5 in H.B. Chenery, P.G. Clark and V. Cao-Pinna (eds) The Structure and Growth of the Italian Economy (US Mutual Security Agency, Rome, 1953).Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    H.B. Chenery and T. Watanabe, ‘Interregional Comparisons of the Structure of Production’, Econometrica, vol. 26, pp. 487–521, 1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    D. DiPasquale and K.R. Polenske, ‘Output, Income and Employment Input-Output Multipliers’, in S. Pleeter (ed.) Economic Impact Analysis: Methodology and Applications, (Boston: Martinius Nijhoff, 1980) (Studies in Applied Regional Science, vol. 19.)Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    A. Guccione, ‘The Input-Output Measurement of Interindustry Linkages: A Comment’, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, vol. 48, pp. 373–7, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    A. Guccione, W.J. Gillen, P.D. Blair and R.E. Miller, ‘Interregional Feedbacks in Input-Output Models: The Least Upper Bound’, Journal of Regional Science, vol. 28, pp. 397–404, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    J.R. Hamilton and R.C. Jensen, ‘Summary Measures of Interconnectedness for Input-Output Models’, Environment and Planning, A, vol. 15, pp. 55–65, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    T.P. Hettmansperger, Statistical Inference Based on Ranks (John Wiley, New York, 1984).Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    A.O. Hirschman, The Strategy of Economic Development (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1958).Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    T. Ihara, ‘An Economic Analysis of Interregional Commodity Flows’, Environment and Planning, A, vol. 11, pp. 1115–28, (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    W. Isard, ‘Interregional and Regional Input-Output Analysis: A Model of a Space Economy’, Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 33, pp. 318–28, 1951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    W. Isard and R.E. Kuenne, ‘The Impact of Steel Upon the Greater New York-Philadelphia Industrial Region’, Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 35, pp. 289–301, 1953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    R.W. Jackson, ‘Interindustry Modelling of Regional Economic Dependency’, Modeling and Simulation, vol. 17, pp. 263–7, 1986.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    R. Jackson, ‘Measuring the Impact of External Economic Ownership’, Geographical Analysis, vol. 18, pp. 313–23, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    L.P. Jones, ‘The Measurement of Hirschmanian Linkages’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 90, (1976), pp. 323–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    A.L. Loviscek, ‘Industrial Cluster Analysis — Backward or Forward Linkages?’ Annals of Regional Science, vol. 16, pp. 36–41, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    P. Meller and M. Marfán, ‘Small and Large Industry: Employment Generation, Linkages and Key Sectors’, Economic Development and Cultural Change, vol. 29, pp. 263–74, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    C. Milana, ‘Direct and Indirect Requirements for Gross Output in Input-Output Analysis’, Metroeconomica, vol 37, pp. 283–92, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    R.E. Miller, ‘Interregional Feedback Effects in Input-Output Models: Some Preliminary Results’, Regional Science Association, vol. 17, pp. 105–25, 1966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    R.E. Miller, ‘Interregional Feedbacks in Input-Output Models: Some Experimental Results’, Western Economic Journal, 7, pp. 41–50, 1969.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    R.E. Miller and P.D. Blair, ‘Measuring Spatial Linkages’, Ricerche Economiche, 42, pp. 288–310, 1988.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    L. Moses, ‘The Stability of Interregional Trading Patterns and Input-Output Analysis’, American Economic Review, vol. 45, pp. 803–32, 1955.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    J. Oosterhaven, Interregional Input-Output Analysis and Dutch Regional Policy Problems (Aldershot, Hampshire, 1981).Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    J. Oosterhaven, ‘On the Plausibility of the Supply-Driven Input-Output Model’, Journal of Regional Science, vol. 28, pp. 203–17, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    K.R. Polenske, The US Multiregional Input-Output Accounts and Model (Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1980).Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    G. Pyatt, and J.I. Round, ‘Accounting and Fixed Price Multipliers in a Social Accounting Matrix Framework’, The Economic Journal, vol. 89, pp. 850–973, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    P.N. Rasmussen, Studies in Intersectoral Relations. (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1956).Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    J.I. Round, ‘Decomposing Multipliers for Economic Systems Involving Regional and World Trade’, The Economic Journal, 95, 383–99.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    J.I. Round, ‘Multipliers and Feedback Effects in Interregional Input-Output Models,’ Ricerche Economiche, vol. 42, pp. 311–24, 1988.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    S. Schultz, ‘Intersectoral Comparisons as an Approach to the Identification of Key Sectors’, in K.R. Polenske and J.V. Skolka (eds) Advances in Input-Output Analysis (Ballinger, Cambridge; 1976).Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    S. Schultz, ‘Approaches to Identifying Key Sectors Empirically by Means of Input-Output Analysis’, Journal of Development Studies, vol. 14, pp. 77–96, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. [36]
    B.H. Stevens and M.L. Lahr, ‘Regional Economic Multipliers: Definition, Measurement, and Application’, Economic Development Quarterly, vol. 2, pp. 88–96, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    B.H. Stevens and G.I. Treyz, ‘Trends in Regional Industrial Diversification and Self-Sufficiency and Their Implications for Growth.’ Paper presented at the Regional Science Association Meetings (Chicago, Illinois, November, 1983).Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    G. Strassert, ‘Zur Bestimmung strategischer Sektoren mit Hilfe von Input-Output Modellen’, Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, vol. 182, pp. 211–15, 1968.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    J.M. Szyrmer, ‘Measuring Connectedness of Input-Output Models: 1. Survey of the Measures’, Environment and Planning, A, vol. 17, pp. 1591–612, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. [40]
    J.M. Szyrmer and R. Walker, ‘Interregional Total Flow: A Concept and Application to a US Input-Output Model’, Review of Regional Studies, vol. 13, pp. 12–21, 1983.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. The Multiregional Input-Output Accounts, 1977 (US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 1984) [Based on data assembled by Jack Faucett Associates].Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    R. Weisskoff, and E. Wolff ‘Development and Trade Dependence: The Case of Puerto Rico, 1948–1963,’ Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 57, pp. 470–77, (1975). [Also reprinted in I. Sohn (ed.) Readings in Input-Output Analysis (New York, Oxford University Press, 1986).]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Manas Chatterji and Robert E. Kuenne 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter D. Blair
  • Ronald E. Miller

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations