Regional input-output models and the treatment of imports in the European System of Accounts
Input-output models are often used in regional science due to their versatility and their ability to capture many of the distinguishing features of a regional economy. Input-output tables are available for all EU member countries, but they are hard to find at the regional level, since many regional governments lack the resources or the will to produce reliable, survey-based regional input-output tables. Therefore, in many cases researchers adopt nonsurvey techniques to derive regional input-output tables (RIOT) on their own. The earliest applications of this type relied on the commodity balance (CB) method, and the simple location quotient (SLQ) method. Over time, numerous variations therefore have been introduced. The latest proposals have been the FLQ method (Flegg and Webber, 2000; Flegg et al., 1995) and the CHARM approach (Kronenberg, 2009). This increasing variety of methods has spawned a stream of literature comparing the relative performance of nonsurvey regionalisation methods. The present paper contributes to that literature by examining a largely neglected problem of nonsurvey techniques: the allocation of imports. In the European System of Accounts (ESA) there are two ways of allocating imports: inside the interindustry transactions matrix or outside. In the latter case, imported products are allocated to the sector that uses them (direct allocation). In the former case, they are allocated as imports in the sector that produces similar goods and as a delivery from that sector to the sector which uses them (indirect allocation). The present paper argues that the choice of a nonsurvey method should depend on the way in which imports are allocated. The argument is explained with reference to the theoretical and empirical literature. It is shown that if the nonsurvey method is not properly chosen the results of the procedure may be misleading and implausible. These findings suggest that LQ methods are better suited for regionalising input-output tables with directly allocated imports, whereas commodity-balance methods like CHARM are better suited for regionalising input-output tables with indirectly allocated imports.
|Date of creation:||30 Jun 2011|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany|
Web page: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Miller,Ronald E. & Blair,Peter D., 2009. "Input-Output Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521739023, November.
- Miller,Ronald E. & Blair,Peter D., 2009. "Input-Output Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521517133, November.
- Andrea Bonfiglio & Francesco Chelli, 2008. "Assessing the Behaviour of Non-Survey Methods for Constructing Regional Input-Output Tables through a Monte Carlo Simulation," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 243-258.
- Timo Tohmo, 2004. "New Developments in the Use of Location Quotients to Estimate Regional Input-Output Coefficients and Multipliers," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(1), pages 43-54.
- Tobias Kronenberg, 2009. "Construction of Regional Input-Output Tables Using Nonsurvey Methods," International Regional Science Review, SAGE Publishing, vol. 32(1), pages 40-64, January.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:30797. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Joachim Winter)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.