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-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T11:31:05.865Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Organization of Basic Data for Input–Output Models

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 4 deals with the construction of input–output tables from standardized conventions of national economic accounts, such as the widely used System of National Accounts (SNA) promoted by the United Nations, including a basic introduction to the so-called commodity-by-industry or supply-use input–output framework developed in additional detail in Chapter 5. A simplified SNA is derived from fundamental economic concepts of the circular flow of income and expenditure, that is, as additional sectoral details are defined for businesses, households, government, foreign trade, and capital formation, ultimately result in the basic commodity-by-industry formulation of input–output accounts. The process is illustrated with the US input–output model and some of the key traditional conventions widely applied for such considerations as secondary production (multiple products or commodities produced by a business), competitive imports (commodities that are also produced domestically) versus non-competitive imports (commodities not produced domestically), trade and transportation margins on interindustry transactions, or the treatment of scrap and secondhand goods.

Keywords

System of National Accountscircular flowcommodity-by-industrysupply tableuse tablemake matrixsecondary productioncompetitive importsnon-competitive imports
Type
Chapter
Information
Input-Output Analysis
Foundations and Extensions
 , pp. 112 - 175
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

Supplemental Appendix SA4.1, located on the internet web site associated with this text (http://www.cambridge.org/millerandblair), develops two key theorems providing the basis for measures of first-order and total aggregation bias in input–output models. Also explored are these measures applied to interregional (IRIO) and multiregional (MRIO) models, known as spatial aggregation bias. These measures are applied, as examples, to historical Japanese IRIO and US MRIO models.Google Scholar

References

Andrew, Robbie, Peters, Glen P. and Lennox, James. 2009. “Approximation and Regional Aggregation in Multiregional Input–Output Analysis,” Economic Systems Research, 21, 311–335.Google Scholar
Ara, Kenjiro. 1959. “The Aggregation Problem in Input–Output Analysis,” Econometrica, 27, 257–262.Google Scholar
Aulin-Ahmavaara, Pirkko. 1990. “Dynamic Input–Output and Time,” Economic Systems Research, 2, 329–344.Google Scholar
Avelino, Andre Fernandes Tomon. 2017. “Disaggregating Input–Output Tables in Time: The Temporal Input–Output Framework,” Economic Systems Research, 29, 313–334.Google Scholar
Balderston, J. B. and Whitin, T. M.. 1954. “Aggregation in the Input–Output Model,” in Morgenstern, Oskar (ed.), Economic Activity Analysis. New York: Wiley, pp. 79–128.Google Scholar
BEA. 2008. Concepts and Methods of the U.S. Input–Output Accounts. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), April.Google Scholar
Beutel, Joerg. 2017. “The Supply and Use Framework of National Accounts,” in ten Raa, Thijs (ed.), Handbook of Input–Output Analysis, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 41–132.Google Scholar
Blair, Peter D. and Miller, Ronald E.. 1983. “Spatial Aggregation in Multiregional Input–Output Models,” Environment and Planning A, 15, 187–206.Google Scholar
Blin, Jean-Marie and Cohen, Claude. 1977. “Technological Similarity and Aggregation in Input–Output Systems: A Cluster-Analytic Approach,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 44, 82–91.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
Bulmer-Thomas, Victor. 1982. Input–Output Analysis in Developing Countries. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Cabrer, Bernadí, Contreras, Dulce and Miravete, Eugenio J.. 1991. “Aggregation in Input–Output Tables: How to Select the Best Cluster Linkage,” Economic Systems Research, 3, 99–109.Google Scholar
Chase, Robert A., Bourque, Philip and Conway, Richard S.. 1993. The 1987 Washington State Input–Output Study, Report for Washington State Office of Financial Management, by Graduate School of Business, University of Washington, Seattle, September.Google Scholar
Daniel, Ellis, Flynn, William and Graham, Ben. 2017. Double Deflation: Methods and Application to UK National Accounts, Experimental Statistics, Office of Natonal Statistics, Supply and Use Development Branch, Economic Statistics Change and Support Division, United Kingdom, July.Google Scholar
Dietzenbacher, Erik and Hoen, Alex R.. 1999a. “Deflation of Input–Output Tables from the Users Point of View: A Heuristic Approach,” Review of Income and Wealth, 44, 111–122.Google Scholar
Dietzenbacher, Erik and Hoen, Alex R.. 1999b. “Double Deflation and Aggregation,” Environment and Planning A, 31, 1695–1704.Google Scholar
Dietzenbacher, Erik, Albino, Vito and Kühtz, Silvana. 2005. “The Fallacy of Using US-Type Input–Output Tables,” Paper Presented at the 15th International Conference on Input–Output Techniques, Beijing, China, June 27–July 1, 2005.Google Scholar
Dietzenbacher, Erik and Temurshoev, Umed. 2012. “Input–Output Impact Analysis in Current or Constant Prices: Does it Matter?” Journal of Economic Structures, 1(4), 18pp.Google Scholar
Doeksen, Gerald A. and Little, Charles H.. 1968. “Effects of the Size of the Input–Output Model on the Results of an Impact Analysis,” Agricultural Economics Research, 20, 134–138.Google Scholar
Donaghy, Kieran P., Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye and Hewings, Geoffrey. 2007. “Modeling Unexpected Events in Temporally Disaggregated Econometric Input–Output Models of Regional Economies,” Economic Systems Research, 19, 125–145.Google Scholar
Eldridge, Lucy P. and Harper, Michael J.. 2010. “Effects of Imported Intermediate Inputs on Productivity,” Monthly Labor Review, Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, June, pp. 3–15.Google Scholar
Emerson, M. Jarvin. 1969. Interindustry Structure of the Kansas Economy, Kansas Department of Economic Development, Report No. 21.Google Scholar
European Commission. 1996. European System of Accounts ESA 1995. Eurostat, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2008. Eurostat Manual of Supply, Use and Input–Output Tables. Eurostat, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2013. European System of Accounts ESA 2010. Eurostat, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
Fisher, Walter D. 1969. Clustering and Aggregation in Economics. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbons, Joel C., Wolsky, Alan and Tolley, George. 1982. “Approximate Aggregation and Error in Input–Output Models,” Resources and Energy, 4, 203–230.Google Scholar
Gordon, Robert J. 1978. Macroeconomics. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Guo, Dong, Webb, Colin and Yamano, Norihiko. 2009. “Towards Harmonised Bilateral Trade Data for Inter-Country Input–Output Analyses: Statistical Issues”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2009/04. Paris: OECD Publishing.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. London: BiblioGov.Google Scholar
Hatanaka, Michio. 1952. “Note on Consolidation within a Leontief System,” Econometrica, 20, 301–303.Google Scholar
Hewings, Geoffrey J. D. 1972. “Aggregation for Regional Impact Analysis,” Growth and Change, 2, 15–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, Werner Z. 1959. “Interindustry Relations of a Metropolitan Area,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 41, 360–369.Google Scholar
Hoen, Alex R. 2002. An Input–Output Analysis of European Integration. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horowitz, Karen J. and McCulla, Stephanie H.. 2001. “Upcoming Changes in the NAICS-Based 1997 Benchmark Input–Output Accounts,” Survey of Current Business, 81 (December), 71–73.Google Scholar
Horowitz, Karen J. and Planting, Mark A.. 2009. Concepts and Methods of the U.S. Input–Output Accounts. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.Google Scholar
Howse, Joshua. 2017. Input–Output Analytical Tables: Methods and Application to UK National Accounts. London: Office of National Statistics, Supply and Use Production and GNI Coordination Branch.Google Scholar
Inomata, Satoshi. 2016. Adjustment Methods of National Input–Output Tables for Harmonized and Consistent Multi-Regional Input–Output Databases, IDE Discussion Paper No. 555. Chiba, Japan: Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization (IDE-JETRO), February.Google Scholar
Isard, Walter and Langford, Thomas. 1971. Regional Input–Output Study: Recollections, Reflections and Diverse Notes on the Philadelphia Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Israilevich, Philip, Hewings, Goeffrey, Sonis, Michael and Schindler, Graham R.. 1997. “Forecasting Structural Change with a Regional Econometric Input–Output Model,” Journal of Regional Science, 37, 565–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Randall W. and Schwarm, Walter R.. 2011. “Accounting Foundations for Interregional Commodity-by-Industry Input–Output Models,” Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, 4, 187–196.Google Scholar
Jaszi, George. 1986. “An Economic Accountant’s Audit,” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings of the Ninety-Eighth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, 76, 411–418.Google Scholar
Kratena, Kurt, Streicher, Gerhard, Temurshoev, Umed, Amores, Antonio F., Arto, Iñaki, Mongelli, Ignazio, Neuwahl, Frederik, Rueda-Cantuche, José Manuel and Andreoni, Valeria. 2013. FIDELIO 1: Fully Interregional Dynamic Econometric Long-Term Input–Output Model for the EU27. Seville, Spain: European Commission Joint Research Centre.Google Scholar
Kronenberg, Tobias H. 2012. “Regional Input–Output Models and the Treatment of Imports in the European System of Accounts (ESA),” Review of Regional Research, 32, 175–191.Google Scholar
Kronenberg, Tobias H. 2019. “Construction of Regional Input–Output Tables Using Nonsurvey Methods: The Role of Cross-Hauling,” International Regional Science Review, 32, 40–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhbach, Peter D. and Planting, Mark A.. 2001. “Annual Input–Output Accounts of the U.S. Economy, 1997,” Survey of Current Business, 81 (January), 9−47.Google Scholar
Kymn, Kern O. 1990. “Aggregation in Input–Output Models: A Comprehensive Review, 1946–1971,” Economic Systems Research, 2, 65−93.Google Scholar
Lawson, Ann M., Bersani, Kurt S., Fahim-Nader, Mahnaz and Guo, Jiemin. 2002. “Benchmark Input–Output Accounts of the United States 1997,” Survey of Current Business, 82 (December), 19–56.Google Scholar
Lenzen, Manfred. 2019. “Aggregating Input–Output Systems with Minimum Error,” Economic Systems Research, 31, 594–616.Google Scholar
Leontief, Wassily. 1955. “Some Basic Problems of Empirical Input–Output Analysis,” in National Bureau of Economic Research, Input–Output Analysis: An Appraisal. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 9–52.Google Scholar
Malinvaud, Edmond. 1956. “Aggregation Problems in Input–Output Models,” in Barna, Tibor (ed.), The Structural Interdependence of the Economy. New York: Wiley, 189–202.Google Scholar
Matteo, Ilaria Di. 2018. “10 Years since the Adoption of the System of National Accounts 2008: Status of Implementation,” United Nations Statistical Division, presentation to Annual Seminar on National Accounts, Panama City, Panama, May 9–11.Google Scholar
McCulla, Stephanie H. and Moylan, Carol E. 2003. “Preview of Revised NIPA Estimates for 1997: Proposed Definitional and Statistical Changes Effects of Incorporating the 1997 Benchmark I–O Accounts,” Survey of Current Business, 83 (January), 10–16.Google Scholar
McManus, Maurice. 1956. “General Consistent Aggregation in Leontief Models,” Yorkshire Bulletin of Economic and Social Research, 8, 28–48.Google Scholar
Miller, Ronald E. and Blair, Peter D.. 1981. “Spatial Aggregation in Interregional Input–Output Models,” Papers, Regional Science Association, 48, 150–164.Google Scholar
Moore, Frederick and Peterson, James W.. 1955. “Regional Analysis: An Interindustry Model of Utah,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 37, 369–383.Google Scholar
Morimoto, Yoshinori. 1970. “On Aggregation Problems in Input–Output Analysis,” Review of Economic Studies, 37, 119–126.Google Scholar
Moyer, Brian C., Planting, Mark A., Fahim-Nader, Mahnaz and Lum, Sherlene K. S.. 2004b. “Preview of the Comprehensive Revision of the Annual Industry Accounts: Integrating the Annual Input–Output Accounts and Gross-Domestic-Product-by-Industry Accounts,” Survey of Current Business, 84 (March), 38–51.Google Scholar
Moyer, Brian C., Planting, Mark A., Kern, Paul V. and Kish, Abigail M.. 2004a. “Improved Annual Industry Accounts for 1998–2003: Integrated Annual Input–Output Accounts and Gross-Domestic-Product-by-Industry Accounts,” Survey of Current Business, 84 (June), 21–57.Google Scholar
Murray, Joy and Lenzen, Manfred (eds.). 2013. The Sustainability Practitioner’s Guide to Multi-Regional Input–Output Analysis, Champaign, IL: Common Ground Publishing.Google Scholar
Neudecker, Heinz. 1970. “Aggregation in Input–Output Analysis: An Extension of Fisher’s Method,” Econometrica, 38, 921–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NRC. 2006. Analyzing the U.S. Content of Imports and the Foreign Content of Exports. Committee on Analyzing the US Content of Imports and the Foreign Content of Exports, National Research Council (NRC). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
O’Connor, Robert and Henry, Edmund W.. 1975. Input–Output Analysis and its Applications. London: Charles Griffin and Company.Google Scholar
Oksanen, Ernest H. and Williams, James R.. 1992. “An Alternative Factor-Analytic Approach to Aggregation of Input–Output Tables,” Economic Systems Research, 4, 245–256.Google Scholar
Okubo, Sumiye, Lawson, Ann M. and Planting, Mark A.. 2000. “Annual Input–Output Accounts of the U.S. Economy, 1996,” Survey of Current Business, 80 (January), 37–87.Google Scholar
Olsen, J. Asger. 1993. “Aggregation in Input–Output Models: Prices and Quantities,” Economic Systems Research, 5, 253–275.Google Scholar
Olsen, J. Asger. 2001. “Perfect Aggregation of Industries in Input–Output Models,” in Dietzenbacher, E. and Lahr, M.L. (eds.), Input–Output Analysis: Frontiers and Extensions. London: Palgrave MacMillan Publishers, pp. 5–19.Google Scholar
OMB. 2017. North American Industry Classification System, United States, 2017. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget (OMB).Google Scholar
OTA. 1988. US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), Technology in the American Economic Transition, OTA-TET-283.Google Scholar
Park, Jiyoung and Richardson, Harry W.. 2015. “Refining the Isard Multiregional Input–Output Model: Theory, Operationality and Extensions,” in Nijkamp, Peter, Rose, Adam and Kourtit, Karima (eds.), Regional Science Matters: Studies Dedicated to Walter Isard. Basil, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, pp. 35–54.Google Scholar
Planting, Mark A. and Kuhbach, Peter D.. 2001. “Annual Input–Output Accounts of the U.S. Economy, 1998,” Survey of Current Business, 81 (December), 41–66.Google Scholar
Rampa, Giorgio. 2008. “Using Weighted Least Squares to Deflate Input–Output Tables,” Economic Systems Research, 20, 259–276.Google Scholar
Reich, Utz-Peter. 2008. “Additivity of Deflated Input–Output Tables in National Accounts,” Economic Systems Research, 20, 415–428.Google Scholar
Remond-Tiedrez, Isabelle and Rueda-Cantuche, José M. (eds.). 2019. EU Inter-Country Supply, Use and Input–Output Tables – Full International and Global Accounts for Research in Input-Output Analysis (FIGARO). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
Ritz, Philip. 1979. “The Input–Output Structure of the U.S. Economy: 1972,” Survey of Current Business, 59 (February), 34–72.Google Scholar
Romanoff, Eliahu and Levine, Stephen H.. 1981. “Anticipatory and Responsive Sequential Interindustry Models,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, SMC- 11, 181–186.Google Scholar
Roy, John R., Batten, David F. and Lesse, Paul F.. 1982. “Minimizing Information Loss in Simple Aggregation,” Environment and Planning A, 14, 973–980.Google Scholar
Rueda-Cantuche, Jose M. 2017. “The Construction of Input–Output Coefficients,” in ten Raa, Thijs (ed.), Handbook of Input–Output Analysis, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 133–174.Google Scholar
Rueda-Cantuche, José M., Amores, Antonio F., Beutel, Joerg and Remond-Tiedrez, Isabelle. 2018. “Assessment of European Use Tables at Basic Prices and Valuation Matrices in the Absence of Official Data,” Economic Systems Research, 30, 252–270.Google Scholar
Rueda-Cantuche, José M., Amores, Antonio F. and Remond-Tiedrez, Isabelle. 2020. “Can Supply, Use and Input–Output Tables be Converted to a Different Classification with Aggregate Information?” Economic Systems Research, 32, 145–165.Google Scholar
Ryaboshlyk, Volodymyr. 2006. “A Dynamic Input–Output Model with Explicit New and Old Technologies: An Application to the UK,” Economic Systems Research, 18, 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sevaldson, Per. 1970. “The Stability of Input–Output Coefficients,” in Carter, A. P. and Bródy, A. (eds.), Applications of Input–Output Analysis, Vol. 2. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 207–237.Google Scholar
Schaffer, William A. 1978. “Constructing the Nova Scotia Input–Output System,” Canadian Journal of Regional Science, I (Spring), 1–11.Google Scholar
Sommers, Albert T. 1985. The U.S. Economy Demystified. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Statistics Canada. 2001. A Guide to Deflating the Input–Output Accounts: Sources and Methods. Ottawa, Ontario: Industry Measures and Analysis Division.Google Scholar
Stanger, Michael. 2018. An Algorithm to Balance Supply and Use Tables, Statistics Department, International Monetary Fund, Technical Notes and Manuals, No. 18/03.Google Scholar
Stevens, Benjamin H. and Lahr, Michael L.. 1993. “Sectoral Aggregation Error in Regional Input–Output Models: A Simulation Study,” RSRI Discussion Paper No. 132, Hightstown, NJ, Regional Science Research Institute.Google Scholar
Stone, Richard. 1947. “Definition and Measurement of the National Income and Related Totals,” in United Nations, Measurement of National Income and the Construction of Social Accounts. New York: United Nations, Appendix.Google Scholar
Stone, Richard. 1961. Input–Output and National Accounts. Paris: Organization for European Economic Cooperation.Google Scholar
Sveriges Riksbank. 1984. “The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 1984,” Press Release, October 18, 1984.Google Scholar
Temurshoev, Umed, Webb, Colin and Yamano, Norihiko. 2011. “Projection of Supply and Use Table: Methods and Their Empirical Assessment,” Economic Systems Research, 23, 91–123.Google Scholar
ten Raa, Thijs. 1986. “Dynamic Input–Output Analysis with Distributed Activities,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 68, 300–310.Google Scholar
Theil, Henri. 1957. “Linear Aggregation in Input–Output Analysis,” Econometrica, 25, 111–122.Google Scholar
Többen, Johannes and Kronenberg, Tobias H.. 2015. “Construction of Multi-Regional Input–Output Tables Using the CHARM Methhod,” Economic Systems Research, 27, 487–507.Google Scholar
Torres-González, Luis Daniel and Yang, Jangho. 2019. “The Persistent Statistical Structure of the US Input–Output Coefficient Matrices: 1963–2007,” Economic Systems Research, 31, 481–504.Google Scholar
Tukker, Arnold and Dietzenbacher, Erik. 2013. “Global Multiregional Input–Output Frameworks: An Introduction and Outlook,” Economic Systems Research, 25, 1–19.Google Scholar
United Nations. 1947. Measurement of National Income and the Construction of Social Accounts, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
United Nations. 1950. A System of National Accounts and Supporting Tables. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
United Nations. 1968. A System of National Accounts. Studies in Methods, Series F, No. 2, rev. 3., Department of Economic and Social Affairs. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
United Nations. 1973. Input–Output Tables and Analysis. Studies in Methods, Series F, No. 14, rev. 1. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
United Nations. 1993. A System of National Accounts 1993. Studies in Methods, Series F, No. 2, rev. 4. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
United Nations. 1999. Handbook of Input–Output Table Compilation and Analysis. Studies in Methods, Series F, No. 74. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
United Nations. 2004. Handbook of National Accounting. National Accounts: A Practical Introduction. Studies in Methods Series F, No. 85. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
United Nations. 2009. System of National Accounts 2008. Studies in Methods, Series F, No. 2, rev. 5. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
United Nations. 2018a. 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
United Nations. 2018b. National Accounts Statistics: Main Aggregates and Detailed Tables, Parts 1–5, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
US Department of Commerce. 1969. “The Input–Output Structure of the U.S. Economy: 1963,” Survey of Current Business, 49 (November), 16–47.Google Scholar
US Department of Commerce. 1974. “The Input–Output Structure of the U.S. Economy: 1967,” Survey of Current Business, 54 (February), 24–56.Google Scholar
US Department of Commerce. 1980. “Definitions and Conventions of the 1972 Input–Output Study,” Bureau of Economic Analysis Staff Paper 80–034 (July). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Vaccara, Beatrice, Shapiro, Arlene and Simon, Nancy. 1970. “The Input–Output Structure of the U.S. Economy: 1947,” Mimeograph, US Department of Commerce, Office of Business Economics, March.Google Scholar
Van de Ven, Peter. 2015. “New Standards for Compiling National Accounts: What’s the Impact on GDP and Other Macro-economic Indicators?” OECD Statistics Brief, No. 20, Paris: The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), February.Google Scholar
Viet, Vu Quang. 1994. “Practices in Input–Output Table Compilation,” Regional Science and Urban Economics, 24, 27–54.Google Scholar
Walmsley, Terrie, Narayanan, Badri, Aguiar, Angel and McDougall, Robert. 2018. “Building a Global Database: Consequences for the National I–O Data,” Economic Systems Research, 30, 478–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, Roy. 1995. “The National Income and Product Accounts,” in Macroeconomic Data: A User’s Guide. Richmond, VA: Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, pp. 11–17.Google Scholar
Wenz, Leonie, Willner, Sven Norman, Radebach, Alexander, Bierkandt, Robert, Steckel, Jan Christoph and Levermann, Anders. 2015. “Regional and Sectoral Disaggregation of Multi-regioinal Input–Output Tables – A Flexible Algorithm,” Economic Systems Research, 27, 194–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Robert B. 1970. “Simple Input–Output Models for Area Analysis,” Land Economics, 46, 333–338.Google Scholar
Yuskavage, Robert E. and Pho, Yvon H.. 2004. “Gross Domestic Product by Industry for 1987–2000: New Estimates on the North American Industry Classification System,” Survey of Current Business, 84 (November), 33–53.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
×