Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T01:05:42.492Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Nonsurvey and Partial-Survey Methods:

Fundamentals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2022

Ronald E. Miller  and
Peter D. Blair
Ronald E. Miller
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Peter D. Blair
Affiliation:
George Mason University
Get access

Summary

Chapter 9 introduces approaches designed to deal with the major challenge in input–output analysis that the kinds of information-gathering surveys needed to collect input–output data for an economy can be expensive and very time consuming, resulting in tables of input–output coefficients that are outdated before they are produced. These techniques, known as partial survey and nonsurvey approaches to input–output table construction, are central to modern applications of input–output analysis. The chapter begins by reviewing the basic factors contributing to the stability of input–output data over time, such as changing technology, prices, and the scale and scope of business enterprises. Several techniques for updating input–output data are developed and the economic implications of each described. The bulk of the chapter is concerned with the widely utilized biproportional scaling (or RAS) technique and some related “hybrid model” variants.

Keywords

nonsurvey estimationbiproportional scalingRASupdating coefficientsprojecting coefficientsexogenous informationbiproportional scaling and constrained optimization
Type
Chapter
Information
Input-Output Analysis
Foundations and Extensions
 , pp. 400 - 440
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, R. I. G. and Gossling, W. F. (eds.). 1975. Estimating and Projecting Input–Output Coefficients. London: Input–Output Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Almon, Clopper. 1968. “Recent Methodological Advances in Input–Output in the United States and Canada.” Unpublished paper, Fourth International Conference on Input–Output Techniques, Geneva.Google Scholar
Bacharach, Michael. 1970. Biproportional Matrices and Input–Output Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barker, Terry S. 1975. “Some Experiments in Projecting Intermediate Demand,” in Allen, R. I. G. and Gossling, W. F. (eds.), Estimating and Projecting Input–Output Coefficients. London: Input–Output Publishing Co., pp. 26–42.Google Scholar
Baster, J. 1980. “Stability of Trade Patterns in Regional Input–Output Tables,” Urban Studies, 17, 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beutel, Joerg. 2008. An Input–Output System of Economic Accounts for the EU Member States. Report to the Directorate-General for Regional Policies, Konstanz. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/objective1/final_report.Google Scholar
Beyers, William B. 1972. “On the Stability of Regional Interindustry Models: The Washington Data for 1963 and 1967,” Journal of Regional Science, 12, 363–374.Google Scholar
Beyers, William B., Bourque, Philip J., Seyfried, Warren R. and Weeks, Eldon E.. 1970. “Input–Output Tables for the Washington Economy, 1967,” Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Graduate School of Business Administration.Google Scholar
Bezdek, Roger H. 1978. “Postwar Structural and Technological Changes in the American Economy,” OMEGA. The International Journal of Management Science, 6, 211–225.Google Scholar
Bezdek, Roger H. and Dunham, Constance R.. 1978. “Structural Change in the American Economy, by Functional Industry Group,” Review of Income and Wealth, 24, 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, Peter D. and Wyckoff, Andrew W.. 1989. “The Changing Structure of the U.S. Economy: An Input–Output Analysis,” in Miller, Ronald E., Polenske, Karen R. and Rose, Adam Z. (eds.), Frontiers of Input–Output Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 293–307.Google Scholar
Bourque, Philip J. and Conway, Richard S. Jr. 1977. “The 1972 Washington Input–Output Study,” Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Graduate School of Business Administration.Google Scholar
Bourque, Philip J. and Weeks, Eldon E.. 1969. “Detailed Input–Output Tables for Washington State, 1963,” Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Washington Agricultural Experiment Station, Circular 508.Google Scholar
Cambridge University, Department of Applied Economics. 1963. Input–Output Relationships, 1954–1966, Vol. 3, A Programme for Growth. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Canning, Patrick and Wang, Zhi. 2005. “A Flexible Mathematical Programming Model to Estimate Interregional Input–Output Accounts,” Journal of Regional Science, 45, 539–563.Google Scholar
Carter, Anne P. 1970. Structural Change in the American Economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Conway, Richard S. Jr. 1975. “A Note on the Stability of Regional Interindustry Models,” Journal of Regional Science, 15, 67–72.Google Scholar
Conway, Richard S., 1977. “The Stability of Regional Input–Output Multipliers,” Environment and Planning A, 9, 197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, Richard S., 1980. “Changes in Regional Input–Output Coefficients and Regional Forecasting,” Regional Science and Urban Economics, 10, 158–171.Google Scholar
Deming, W. Edwards and Stephan, Frederick F.. 1940. “On a Least-Squares Adjustment of a Sampled Frequency Table When the Expected Marginal Totals Are Known,” Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 11, 427–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietzenbacher, Erik and Miller, Ronald E.. 2009. “RAS-ing the Transactions or the Coefficients: It Makes No Difference,” Journal of Regional Science, 49, 555–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietzenbacher, Erik and Temurshoev, Umed. 2012. “Input–Output Impact Analysis in Current or Constant Prices: Does it Matter?” Journal of Economic Structures, 1, 1–18.Google Scholar
Dobrescu, Emilian. 2013. “Restatement of the I–O Coefficient Stability Problem,” Journal of Economic Structures, 2, 1–67.Google Scholar
Emerson, M. Jarvin. 1976. “Interregional Trade Effects in Static and Dynamic Input–Output Models,” in Polenske, Karen R. and Skolka, Jiří V. (eds.), Advances in Input–Output Analysis. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Input Output Techniques. Vienna, April 22–26, 1974. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, pp. 263–277.Google Scholar
Eurostat, . 2008. Eurostat Manual of Supply, Use and Input–Output Tables. European Communities, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
Friedlander, D. 1961. “A Technique for Estimating Contingency Tables, Given Marginal Totals and Some Supplemental Data,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, A, 124, 412–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilchrist, Donald A. and St. Louis, Larry V.. 1999. “Completing Input–Output Tables Using Partial Information, with an Application to Canadian Data,” Economic Systems Research, 11, 185–193.Google Scholar
Gilchrist, Donald A. and St. Louis, Larry V.. 2004. “An Algorithm for the Consistent Inclusion of Partial Information in the Revision of Input–Output Tables,” Economic Systems Research, 16, 149–156.Google Scholar
Günlük-Şenesen, Gülay and Bates, J. M., 1988. “Some Experiments with Methods of Adjusting Unbalanced Data Matrices,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 151, 473–490.Google Scholar
Guo, Jiemin and Planting, Mark A.. 2013. Using Input–Output Analysis to Measure U.S. Economic Structural Change Over a 24 Year Period. Washington, DC: BiblioGov.Google Scholar
Harris, Tameka R. L., Jolliff, William A., Lyndaker, Amanda S. and Schroeder, Matthew B.. 2011. “Annual Industry Accounts: Revised Statistics for 2007–2009,” Survey of Current Business, 91(January), 9–29.Google Scholar
Harthoorn, Rudi and van Dalen, Jan. 1987. “On the Adjustment of Tables with Lagrange Multipliers.” NA-024. Central Bureau of Statistics, The Netherlands, National Accounts Research Division.Google Scholar
Hewings, Geoffrey J. D. 1969. “Regional Interindustry Models Derived from National Data: The Structure of the West Midlands Economy.” PhD dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
Hewings, Geoffrey J. D. and Janson, Bruce N.. 1980. “Exchanging Regional Input–Output Coefficients: A Reply and Further Comments,” Environment and Planning A, 12, 843–854.Google Scholar
Jackson, Randall W. and Murray, Alan T.. 2004. “Alternative Input–Output Matrix Updating Formulations,” Economic Systems Research, 16, 135–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, Rodney C. 1980. “The Concept of Accuracy in Input–Output,” International Regional Science Review, 5, 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junius, Theo and Oosterhaven, Jan. 2003. “The Solution of Updating or Regionalizing a Matrix with both Positive and Negative Entries,” Economic Systems Research, 15, 87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanemitsu, Hideo and Ohnishi, Hiroshi. 1989. “An Input–Output Analysis of Technological Changes in the Japanese Economy: 1970–1980,” in Miller, Ronald E., Polenske, Karen R. and Rose, Adam Z. (eds.), Frontiers of Input–Output Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 308–323.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Masahiro. 1988. “A Method of Estimation for the Updating Transaction Matrix in the Input–Output Relationships,” in Uno, Kimio and Shishido, Shuntaro (eds.), Statistical Data Bank Systems. Socio-Economic Database and Model Building in Japan. Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 43–56.Google Scholar
Lahr, Michael L. 1993. “A Review of the Literature Supporting the Hybrid Approach to Constructing Regional Input–Output Tables,” Economic Systems Research, 5, 277–293.Google Scholar
Lahr, Michael L. 2001. “A Strategy for Producing Hybrid Regional Input–Output Tables,” in Lahr, Michael L. and Dietzenbacher, Erik (eds.), Input–Output Analysis: Frontiers and Extensions. New York: Palgrave, pp. 211–242.Google Scholar
Lahr, Michael L. and de Mesnard, Louis. 2004. “Biproportional Techniques in Input–Output Analysis: Table Updating and Structural Analysis,” Economic Systems Research, 16, 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lecomber, J. R. C. 1975. “A Critique of Methods of Adjusting, Updating and Projecting Matrices,” in Allen, R. I. G. and Gossling, W. F. (eds.), Estimating and Projecting Input–Output Coefficients. London: Input–Output Publishing Co., pp. 43–56.Google Scholar
Lenzen, Manfred, Gallego, Blanca and Wood, Richard. 2009. “Matrix Balancing under Conflicting Information,” Economic Systems Research, 21, 23–44.Google Scholar
Lenzen, Manfred, Wood, Richard and Gallego, Blanca. 2007. “Some Comments on the GRAS Method,” Economic Systems Research, 19, 461–465.Google Scholar
Leontief, Wassily. 1941. The Structure of American Economy 1919–1929. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leontief, Wassily 1951. The Structure of American Economy 1919–1939. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leontief, Wassily, Chenery, Hollis B., Clark, Paul G., Duesenberry, James S., Ferguson, Alan R., Grosse, Anne P., Grosse, Robert N., Holzman, Mathilda, Isard, Walter and Kistin, Helen. 1953. Studies in the Structure of the American Economy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Macgill, S. M. 1977. “Theoretical Properties of Biproportional Matrix Adjustments,” Environment and Planning A, 9, 687–701.Google Scholar
Matuszewski, T., Pitts, P. R. and Sawyer, J. A.. 1964. “Linear Programming Estimates of Changes in Input–Output Coefficients,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 30, 203–211.Google Scholar
de Mesnard, Louis. 2003. What is the Best Method of Matrix Adjustment? A Formal Answer by a Return to the World of Vectors. Paper presented at the 50th Annual North American Meetings of the Regional Science Association International, November 20–22, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
de Mesnard, Louis. 2004. “Biproportional Methods of Structural Change Analysis: A Typological Survey,” Economic Systems Research, 16, 205–230.Google Scholar
de Mesnard, Louis and Miller, Ronald E.. 2006. “A Note on Added Information in the RAS Procedure: Reexamination of Some Evidence,” Journal of Regional Science, 46, 517–528.Google Scholar
Miernyk, William H. 1965. The Elements of Input–Output Analysis. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Miernyk, William H. 1977. “The Projection of Technical Coefficients for Medium-Term Forecasting,” in Gossling, W F. (ed.), Medium-Term Dynamic Forecasting. (The 1975 London Input–Output Conference.) London: Input–Output Publishing Co., pp. 29–41.Google Scholar
Mínguez, Roberto, Oosterhaven, Jan and Escobedo, Fernando. 2009. “Cell-Corrected RAS Method (CRAS) for Updating or Regionalizing an Input–Output Matrix,” Journal of Regional Science, 49, 329–348.Google Scholar
Möhr, Malte, Crown, William H. and Polenske, Karen R.. 1987. “A Linear Programming Approach to Solving Infeasible RAS Problems,” Journal of Regional Science, 27, 587–603.Google Scholar
Okuyama, Yasuhide, Hewings, Geoffrey J. D., Sonis, Michael and Israilevich, Philip R.. 2002. “An Econometric Analysis of Biproportional Properties in an Input–Output System,” Journal of Regional Science, 42, 361–387.Google Scholar
Oosterhaven, Jan. 2005. “GRAS versus Minimizing Absolute and Squared Differences: A Comment,” Economic Systems Research, 17, 327–331.Google Scholar
Polenske, Karen R. 1997. “Current Uses of the RAS Technique: A Critical Review,” in Simonovits, András and Steenge, Albert E. (eds.), Prices, Growth and Cycles: Essays in Honour of András Bródy. London: Macmillan, pp. 55–88.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, P. Nørregaard. 1957. Studies in Inter-sectoral Relations. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Richardson, Harry W. 1985. “Input–Output and Economic Base Multipliers: Looking Backward and Forward,” Journal of Regional Science, 25, 607–661.Google Scholar
Rueda-Cantuche, José M. 2018. “Projecting Supply, Use and Input–Output Tables,” in United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Handbook on Supply, Use and Input–Output Tables with Extensions and Applications, Studies in Methods, Handbook of National Accounting, Series F, No.74, Rev.1, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. New York: United Nations, chapter 17, pp. 477–506.Google Scholar
Sawyer, John A. 1992. “Forecasting with Input–Output Matrices: Are the Coefficients Stationary?” Economic Systems Research, 4, 325–348.Google Scholar
Shishido, Shuntaro, Nobukuni, Makoto, Kawamura, Kazumi, Akita, Takahiro and Furukawa, Shunichi. 2000. “An International Comparison of Leontief Input–Output Coefficients and its Application to Structural Growth Patterns,” Economic Systems Research, 12, 45–64.Google Scholar
Stäglin, Reiner and Wessels, Hans. 1972. “Intertemporal Analysis of Structural Changes in the German Economy,” in Bródy, Andrew and Carter, Anne P. (eds.), Input–Output Techniques. Vol. 1 of Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Input–Output Techniques. Geneva, 1971. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 370–392.Google Scholar
Stone, Richard. 1961. Input–Output and National Accounts. Paris: Organization for European Economic Cooperation.Google Scholar
Stone, Richard and Brown, Alan. 1962. A Computable Model of Economic Growth. Vol. 1, A Programme for Growth. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Streitwieser, Mary L. and Moyer, Brian C.. 2011. “Measuring the Nation’s Economy: An Industry Perspective, A Primer on BEA’s Industry Accounts.” US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. An earlier summary appeared as Streitwieser, Mary L. 2009. “A Primer on BEA’s Industry Accounts,” Survey of Current Business, 89(June), 40–52.Google Scholar
Szyrmer, Janusz. 1989. “Trade-Off between Error and Information in the RAS Procedure,” in Miller, Ronald E., Polenske, Karen R. and Rose, Adam Z. (eds.), Frontiers of Input–Output Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 258–278.Google Scholar
Temurshoev, Umed and Timmer, Marcel P.. 2011. “Joint Estimation of Supply and Use Tables,” Papers in Regional Science, 90, 863–882.Google Scholar
Temurshoev, Umed, Miller, Ronald E. and Bouwmeester, Maaike C.. 2013. “A Note on the GRAS Method,” Economic Systems Research, 25, 361–367.Google Scholar
Temurshoev, Umed, Webb, Colin and Yamano, Norihiko. 2011. “Projection of Supply and Use Tables: Methods and Their Empirical Assessment,” Economic Systems Research, 23, 91–123.Google Scholar
Tilanus, C. B. 1966. Input–Output Experiments: The Netherlands, 1948–1961. Rotterdam: Rotterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Tilanus, C. B. 1967. “Marginal vs. Average Input Coefficients in Input–Output Forecasting,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 81, 140–145.Google Scholar
Tilanus, C. B. and Rey, G.. 1964. “Input–Output Volume and Value Predictions for the Netherlands, 1948–1958,” International Economic Review, 5, 34–45.Google Scholar
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2018. Handbook on Supply, Use and Input–Output Tables with Extensions and Applications, Studies in Methods, Handbook of National Accounting, Series F, No.74, Rev.1, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
Vaccara, Beatrice N. 1970. “Changes Over Time in Input–Output Coefficients for the United States,” in Carter, Anne P. and Bródy, Andrew (eds.), Applications of Input–Output Analysis, Vol. 2 of Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Input–Output Techniques. Geneva, 1968. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 238–260.Google Scholar
Valderas-Jaramillo, Juan M., Rueda-Cantuche, José M., Olmedo, Elena and Beutel, Joerg. 2019. “Projecting Supply and Use Tables: New Variants and Fair Comparisons,” Economic Systems Research, 31, 423–444.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×