IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rpi/rpiwpe/0422.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Physical and Monetary Input-Output Analysis: What Makes the Difference?

Author

Listed:
  • Helga Weisz

    () (Institute of Social Ecology, Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies (IFF), Klagenfurt University, Vienna, Schottenfeldgasse 29, 1070 Vienna, Austria)

  • Faye Duchin

    () (Department of Economics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 12180-3590, USA.)

Abstract

A recent paper in which embodied land appropriation of exports was calculated using a physical input-output model (Ecological Economics 44 (2003) 137-151) initiated a discussion in this journal concerning the conceptual differences between input-output models using a coefficient matrix based on physical input-output tables (PIOTs) in a single unit of mass and input-output models using a coefficient matrix based on monetary input-output tables (MIOTs) extended by a coefficient vector of physical factor inputs per unit of output. In this contribution we argue that the conceptual core of the discrepancies found when comparing outcomes obtained using physical vs. monetary input-output models lies in the assumption of prices and not in the treatment of waste as has been claimed (Ecological Economics 48 (2004) 9-17). We first show that a basic static input-output model with the coefficient matrix derived from a monetary input-output table is equivalent to one where the coefficient matrix is derived from an input-output table in physical units provided that the assumption of unique sectoral prices is satisfied. We then illustrate that the physical input-output table that was used in the original publication does not satisfy the assumption of homogenous sectoral prices, even after the inconsistent treatment of waste in the PIOT is corrected. We show that substantially different results from the physical and the monetary models in fact remain. Finally, we identify and discuss possible reasons for the observed differences in sectoral prices and draw conclusions for the future development of applied physical input-output analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Helga Weisz & Faye Duchin, 2004. "Physical and Monetary Input-Output Analysis: What Makes the Difference?," Rensselaer Working Papers in Economics 0422, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Economics, revised May 2005.
  • Handle: RePEc:rpi:rpiwpe:0422
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.economics.rpi.edu/workingpapers/rpi0422.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giljum, Stefan & Hubacek, Klaus & Sun, Laixiang, 2004. "Beyond the simple material balance: a reply to Sangwon Suh's note on physical input-output analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 19-22, January.
    2. Dietzenbacher, Erik, 2005. "Waste treatment in physical input-output analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 11-23, October.
    3. Hubacek, Klaus & Giljum, Stefan, 2003. "Applying physical input-output analysis to estimate land appropriation (ecological footprints) of international trade activities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 137-151, February.
    4. Suh, Sangwon, 2004. "A note on the calculus for physical input-output analysis and its application to land appropriation of international trade activities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-17, January.
    5. Stefan Giljum & Klaus Hubacek, 2004. "Alternative Approaches of Physical Input-Output Analysis to Estimate Primary Material Inputs of Production and Consumption Activities," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 301-310.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics
    • C67 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Input-Output Models

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rpi:rpiwpe:0422. 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: (Shawn Kantor). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/derpius.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.