Advertisement

Constructing Regional Supply and Use Tables: Dutch Experiences

  • Gerard Eding
  • Jan Oosterhaven
  • Bas de Vet
  • Henk Nijmeijer
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)

Abstract

At present, two major and seemingly contrasting developments are visible: the increasing degree of economic integration between nations and the growing interest in regional economic development. The former development culminated in a wide variety of economic co-operations such as the creation of the EU in Europe and NAFTA in North America. The former resulted in all kinds of economic aid for ‘economically less developed’ regions, such as the objective 1, 2 and 5b programs of the EU (Commission of the European Communities, 1991 and 1994). The (renewed) interest in regions also increases the need for empirical data on regional economic performance and regional economic structure. In recent years this data need has been fulfilled by all kinds of statistics, ranging from income data to regional economic data on industrial production and value added. However, with eligibility criteria for economic aid being constantly tightened, the need for regional economic structure and performance analysis increases simultaneously. Besides, the need for modeling regional economies has grown stronger in recent years. Hence, more suitable and flexible statistics for all of these purposes have to be developed.

Keywords

Regional Account Regional Supply Export Coefficient Accounting Framework Interregional Trade 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Boomsma, P. and J. Oosterhaven. 1992. “A double-entry method for the construction of bi-regional input-output tables.” Journal of Regional Science 32, 269–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brucker, S.M., S.E. Hastings and W.R. Latham III. 1990. “The variation of estimated impacts from five regional input-output models.” International Regional Science Review 13, 119–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. CBS, 1983. Regionale Input-Output Tabellen. The Hague, Statistics Netherlands.Google Scholar
  4. CBS, 1996. Annual economic figures by region 1994. Voorburg, Statistics Netherlands.Google Scholar
  5. Commission of the European Communities. 1991. The regions in the 1990s, fourth periodic report on the social and economic situation and development of the regions of the Community. Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  6. Commission of the European Communities. 1994. Competitiveness and cohesion: trends in the regions, fifth periodic report on the social and economic situation and development of the regions of the Community. Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  7. Eding, G.J., T.M. Stelder, E.R. Vos en J. Oosterhaven. 1995. Bi-regionale interactie, nieuwe input-output tabellen voor Groningen, Friesland, Drenthe en Overijssel voor 1990. Groningen, Stichting Ruimtelijke Economie Groningen.Google Scholar
  8. Eding G.J., and J. Oosterhaven. 1996. “Towards a new, rectangular approach in the construction of regional input-output tables.” Paper presented to the British & Irish section and to the North American Section of the Regional Science Association International, Edinburgh/Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  9. Eurostat. 1993. Classification of Products by Activity (CPA). Luxembourg, Statistical Office of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  10. Eurostat. 1995. Regional accounts methods, gross value added and gross fixed capital formation by activity.). Luxembourg, Statistical Office of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  11. Eurostat. 1996a. European System of Accounts, ESA 1995.). Luxembourg, StatisticalGoogle Scholar
  12. Office of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  13. Eurostat, 1996b. Introduction to CPA (draft).). Luxembourg, Statistical Office of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  14. Eurostat. 1996c. Regional accounts methods, household accounts. Luxembourg, Statistical Office of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  15. Eurostat. 1996d. Nomenclature générale des Activités Economiques dans les Communautés Europeénnes (MACE). Luxembourg, Statistical Office of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  16. Hirsch, W.Z. 1959. “Interindustry relations of a metropolitan area.” Review of Economics and Statistics 41, 360–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Isard, W. and T.W. Langford. 1971. Regional Input-Output Study: Recollections, Reflections and Diverse Notes on the Philadelphia Experience. Cambridge, MA., The M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  18. Jensen, R.C. 1990. “Construction and use of regional input-output models: Progress and prospects.” International Regional Science Review 13, 9–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kesteren, F.J. 1996. Het bedrijfsleven in Nederland 1996, Woerden, Enquête Regionale Bedrijfsontwikkeling (ERBO). Kamers van Koophandel en Fabrieken in Nederland.Google Scholar
  20. Kesteren, F.J. van, B. de Vet and G.J. Eding. 1997. Methodology of regional accounts of households in the Netherlands: possibilities and constraints. Final report for Eurostat. Voorburg, Statistics Netherlands.Google Scholar
  21. Keuning, S.J. and M. de Haan. 1996. “What’s in a Namea? Recent results of the Nameaapproach to environmental accounting.” Occasional Paper NA-080. Voorburg, Statistics Netherlands.Google Scholar
  22. Konijn, P.J.A. 1994. The make and use of commodities by industries; on the compilation of input output data from the National accounts. Enschede, University Twente.Google Scholar
  23. Lahr, M.L. 1993. “A review of the literature supporting the hybrid approach to constructing regional input-output models. ” Economic Systems Research 5, 277–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller, R.E. and P. Blair. 1985. Input-output analysis: Foundations and extensions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  25. Miyazawa, K. 1976. Input-Output Analysis and the Structure of Income DistributionHeidelberg, Springer-Verlag. Google Scholar
  26. Oosterhaven, J. 1980. “Review of Dutch regional input-output analysis.” The Annals of Regional Science 14, 6–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oosterhaven, J. 1981. Interregional Input-Output Analysis and Dutch Regional Policy Problems. Aldershot, Gower.Google Scholar
  28. Oosterhaven, J. 1984. “A family of square and rectangular inter-regional input-output tables and models.” Regional Science and Urban Economics 14, 565–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oosterhaven, J. and B.B.A. Drewes eds. 1985. Constructie en actualisering van regionale en interregionale input-output tabellen. Arnhem, Economisch-Technologische Instituten.Google Scholar
  30. Oosterhaven, J. and H. Folmer. 1985. “An interregional labor market model incorporating vacancy chains and social security.” Papers of the Regional Science Association 58, 141–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Oosterhaven, J., G. Piek and T.M. Stelder. 1986. “Theory and practice of updating regional versus inter-regional interindustry tables.” Papers of the Regional Science Association 59, 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rijken van Olst, H. 1958. De provincie Groningen en overig Nederland: Een statische analyse van de Groningse bijdrage tot de nationale welvaart en van het aandeel daarin, dat Groningen ontvangt. Groningen, Scripta Academica Groningana. Wolters.Google Scholar
  33. Siddiqi, Y.M. and M. Salem. 1995. Regionalization of commodity-by-industry input-output accounts: the Canadian Case. Ottawa, Statistics Canada.Google Scholar
  34. Stelder, T.M. 1991. ISAM II; een nieuwe versie van het Integraal Sector structuur-en Arbeidsmarkt Model voor Groningen, Friesland en Drenthe. IEO-memorandum nr. 451.Google Scholar
  35. United Nations. 1968. A System of National Accounts (SNA). series F, no.2, revision 3, New York, United Nations.Google Scholar
  36. United Nations. 1990. International Standard Industrial Classification of all economic activities (ISIC). New York, United Nations.Google Scholar
  37. United Nations. 1991. Central Product Classification (CPC). New York, United Nations.Google Scholar
  38. United Nations, CEC, IMF, OECD and World Bank, 1993. System of National Accounts (SNA), New York, United Nations.Google Scholar
  39. Venekamp, P.E. 1954. Stedelijke Jaarrekeningen van Amsterdam. Supplement Kwartaalbericht. Amsterdam, Bureau van Statistiek der Gemeente.Google Scholar
  40. Vet, B. de. 1997. Report on the screening of the Dutch regional accounts compilation. Final report for Eurostat. Voorburg, Statistics Netherlands.Google Scholar
  41. West, G.R. 1990. “Regional trade estimation: A hybrid approach.” International Regional Science Review 13, 103–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerard Eding
    • 1
  • Jan Oosterhaven
    • 1
  • Bas de Vet
    • 2
  • Henk Nijmeijer
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Statistics NetherlandsVoorburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations