Frame-Shifting in Regional General Equilibrium Models

  • Philip R. Israilevich
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)


In CGE (Computable General Equilibrium) models, input-output coefficients are balanced row-wise through a supply-demand interaction for a physical commodity. Input-output columns consist of physical flows that require a unique set of prices to balance income and sales of intermediate goods and services. Another type of model, developed originally by Conway (1990, 1991) and further developed by Israilevich et al. (1997), termed the Regional Econometric Input-Output Model [REIM] approach, balances the input-output table rows in value terms. This approach has no physical flows of inputs nor does it have prices. It utilizes Marshallian (see Takayama, 1985) output equilibrium that requires no explicit price values. Since REIM has no prices, it is impossible to impose column-wise constraints. As a result, value-added rows can be considered a residual that creates a potential problem in that the value added may be too small, or even negative, as a result of simulation exercises, impact analyses or forecasts.


Computable General Equilibrium Final Demand Capital Service Output Block Price Block 
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. Armington, P.S. 1965. “A Theory of Demand for Products Distinguished by Place of Production.” International Monetary Fund Staff Papers. Google Scholar
  2. Conway, R.S. 1990. “The Washington projection and simulation model: a regional interindustry econometric model.” International Regional Science Review, 13, 141–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Conway, R.S. 1991. “An empirical comparison of regional multipliers.” In J.J.LI. Dewhurst, G.J.D. Hewings and R.C. Jensen, eds. Regional Input-Output Modelling: New Developments and Interpretations. Aldershot: Avebury, pp. 178–195.Google Scholar
  4. Glick R., and K. Rogoff. 1995. “Global versus country-specific productivity shocks and the current account.” Journal of Monetary Economics, 35, 159–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hewings, G.J.D., P.R. Israilevich, M. Sonis and G.R. Schindler. 1997. “Structural change in a metropolitan economy: the Chicago region, 1975–2010.” In S. Bertuglia, S. Lombardo and P. Nijkamp, eds. Spatial Effects of Innovative Behaviour. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  6. Hewings, G.J.D., P.R. Israilevich, Y. Okuyama, D.K. Anderson, G.R. Schindler, M. Foulkes and M. Sonis. 1997. “Returns to Scope, Returns to Trade and the Structure of Spatial Interaction in the US Midwest.” Discussion Paper 97-P-3, Regional Economics Applications Laboratory, University of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
  7. Hoffman, S., S. Robinson and S. Subramanian. 1996. “The role of defense cuts in the California recession: computable general equilibrium models and interstate factor mobility.” Journal of Regional Science, 36, 571–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hudson, E. and D.W. Jorgenson. 1974. “US energy policy and economic growth, 1975–2000.” Bell Journal of Economics, 5, 461–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hulten, C.L. 1990. “The Measurement of Capital.” In E.R. Berndt and J.E. Triplett (eds), Fifty Years of Economic Measurement. New York: NBERGoogle Scholar
  10. Israilevich, P.R. 1991. “The construction of input-output coefficients with flexible functional forms.” In J.J.D. Dewhurst, G.J.D. Hewings and R.C. Jensen, eds. Regional Input-Output Modelling: New Developments and Interpretations. Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  11. Israilevich, P.R., G.J.D. Hewings, G.R. Schindler and R. Mahidhara. 1996. “The choice of input-output table embedded in regional econometric input-output models.” Papers in Regional Science, 75, 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Israilevich, P.R., G.J.D. Hewings, M. Sonis and G.R. Schindler. 1997. “Forecasting Structural Change with a Regional Econometric Input-Output Model.” Journal of Regional Science, 37, 565–90.Google Scholar
  13. Jorgenson, D.W., F.M. Gollop, and B. M. Fraumeni. 1987. Productivity and U.S. Economic Growth. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kehoe, P.J. and T.J. Kehoe. 1994. Capturing NAFTA’s impact with applied general equilibrium models. Quarterly Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, 18, 17–22.Google Scholar
  15. McGregor, P.G., J.K. Swales and Y.P. Yin. 1996. “A long-run interpretation of regional input-output analysis.” Journal of Regional Science, 36, 479–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nakamura, S. 1984. An Inter-Industry Translog Model of Prices and Technical Change for the West German Economy. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shapiro, M., 1986. “The Dynamic Demand for Capital and Labor.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 101, 513–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Takayama, Akira. 1985. Mathematical Economics. Cambridge, U.K.: University Press.Google Scholar
  19. West, G.R. 1994. “The Queensland Impact and Projection Model: The Household Sector.” Economic Systems Research, 6, 363–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip R. Israilevich
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Regional Economics Applications LaboratoryFederal Reserve Bank of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.University of IllinoisUSA

Personalised recommendations