Book contents
- Input–Output Analysis
- Input–Output Analysis
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Preface
- 1 Introduction and Overview
- 2 Foundations of Input–Output Analysis
- 3 Input–Output Models at the Regional Level
- 4 Organization of Basic Data for Input–Output Models
- 5 The Commodity-by-Industry Approach in Input–Output Models
- 6 Multipliers in the Input–Output Model
- 7 Supply-Side Models, Linkages, and Important Coefficients
- 8 Decomposition Approaches
- 9 Nonsurvey and Partial-Survey Methods:
- 10 Nonsurvey and Partial-Survey Methods:
- 11 Social Accounting Matrices
- 12 Energy Input–Output Analysis
- 13 Environmental Input–Output Analysis
- 14 Mixed and Dynamic Models
- 15 Additional Topics
- Postscript
- Book part
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
8 - Decomposition Approaches
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 January 2022
Book contents
- Input–Output Analysis
- Input–Output Analysis
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Preface
- 1 Introduction and Overview
- 2 Foundations of Input–Output Analysis
- 3 Input–Output Models at the Regional Level
- 4 Organization of Basic Data for Input–Output Models
- 5 The Commodity-by-Industry Approach in Input–Output Models
- 6 Multipliers in the Input–Output Model
- 7 Supply-Side Models, Linkages, and Important Coefficients
- 8 Decomposition Approaches
- 9 Nonsurvey and Partial-Survey Methods:
- 10 Nonsurvey and Partial-Survey Methods:
- 11 Social Accounting Matrices
- 12 Energy Input–Output Analysis
- 13 Environmental Input–Output Analysis
- 14 Mixed and Dynamic Models
- 15 Additional Topics
- Postscript
- Book part
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
Chapter 8 introduces and illustrates the basic concepts of structural decomposition analysis (SDA), in both additive and multiplicative forms, within an input–output framework. The concept of decomposition of the various types of multipliers is introduced and explored further in Chapter 11, as applied to Social Accounting Matrices (SAMs). The application of SDA to MRIO is developed to introduce a spatial context. Numerous applications are cited and summaries of their results are presented. Appendices to this chapter develop extended presentations of additional decomposition results as well as an overview of early applied studies and some further mathematical results.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Input-Output AnalysisFoundations and Extensions, pp. 347 - 399Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Supplemental Appendix SA8.1, located on the internet web site associated with this text (http://www.cambridge.org/millerandblair), explores three alternative variations of additive structural decomposition introduced in Section 8.2 and illustrated in sections that follow in that chapter.Google Scholar
Supplemental Appendix SA8.2, located on the internet web site associated with this text (http://www.cambridge.org/millerandblair), summarizes seven early structural decomposition studies applying the basic concepts of additive structural decomposition developed in this chapter. The studies include applications at various level of sectoral aggregation from 19 to 477 economic sectors.Google Scholar
References
Acquaye, Adolf, Wiedmann, Thomas, Feng, Kuishang, Crawford, Robert H., Barrett, John, Kuylenstierna, Johan, Duffy, Aidan P., Koh, S. C. Lenny, and McQueen-Mason, Simon. 2011. “Identification of ‘Carbon Hot-Spots’ and Quantification of GHG Intensities in the Biodiesel Supply Chain Using Hybrid LCA and Structural Path Analysis,” Environmental Science and Technology, 45, 2471–2478.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Afrasiabi, Ahmad and Casler, Stephen D.. 1991. “Product-Mix and Technological Change Within the Leontief Inverse,” Journal of Regional Science, 31, 147–160.Google Scholar
Bezdek, Roger H. and Wendling, Robert M.. 1976. “Disaggregation of Structural Change in the American Economy: 1947–1966,” Review of Income and Wealth, 24, 93–104.Google Scholar
De Boer, Paul. 2008. “Additive Structural Decomposition Analysis and Index Number Theory: An Empirical Application of the Montgomery Decomposition,” Economic Systems Research, 20, 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Boer, Paul. 2009. “Multiplicative Structural Decomposition Analysis and Index Number Theory: An Empirical Application of the Sato-Vartia Decomposition,” Economic Systems Research, 21, 163–174.Google Scholar
De Boer, Paul and Rodrigues, João F. D.. 2020. “Decomposition Analysis: When to Use Which Method?,” Economic Systems Research, 32, 1–28.Google Scholar
Casler, Stephen D. 2001. “Interaction Terms and Structural Decomposition: An Application to the Defense Cost of Oil,” in Lahr, Michael L. and Dietzenbacher, Erik (eds.), Input–Output Analysis: Frontiers and Extensions. New York: Palgrave, pp. 143–160.Google Scholar
Chenery, Hollis B. 1960. “Patterns of Industrial Growth,” American Economic Review, 50, 624–654.Google Scholar
Chenery, Hollis B., Shishido, Shuntaro and Watanabe, Tsunehiko. 1962. “The Pattern of Japanese Growth, 1914–1954,” Econometrica, 30, 98–139.Google Scholar
Defourny, Jacques and Thorbecke, Erik. 1984. “Structural Path Analysis and Multiplier Decomposition within a Social Accounting Matrix Framework,” The Economic Journal, 94, 111–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietzenbacher, Erik. 2002. “Interregional Multipliers: Looking Backward, Looking Forward,” Regional Studies, 36, 125–136.Google Scholar
Dietzenbacher, Erik, de Groot, Olaf and Los, Bart. 2007. “Consumption Growth Accounting,” Review of Income and Wealth, 53, 422–439.Google Scholar
Dietzenbacher, Erik and Hoekstra, Rutger. 2002. “The RAS Structural Decomposition Approach,” in Hewings, Geoffrey J. D., Sonis, Michael and Boyce, David (eds.), Trade, Networks and Hierarchies. Modeling Regional and Interregional Economies. Berlin: Springer, pp. 179–199.Google Scholar
Dietzenbacher, Erik, Hoen, Alex R. and Los, Bart. 2000. “Labor Productivity in Western Europe 1975–1985: An Intercountry, Interindustry Analysis,” Journal of Regional Science, 40, 425–452.Google Scholar
Dietzenbacher, Erik, Lahr, Michael L. and Los, Bart. 2004. “The Decline in Labor Compensations’s Share of GDP: A Structural Decomposition Analysis for the United States, 1982–1997,” in Dietzenbacher, Erik and Lahr, Michael L. (eds.), Wassily Leontief and Input–Output Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 188-212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietzenbacher, Erik and Los, Bart. 1997. “Analyzing Decomposition Analyses,” in Simonovits, András and Steenge, Albert E. (eds.), Prices, Growth and Cycles. London: Macmillan, pp. 108–131.Google Scholar
Dietzenbacher, Erik and Los, Bart. 1998. “Structural Decomposition Techniques: Sense and Sensitivity,” Economic Systems Research, 10, 307–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietzenbacher, Erik and Los, Bart. 2000. Structural Decomposition Analyses with Dependent Determinants,” Economic Systems Research, 12, 497–511.Google Scholar
Feldman, Stanley J. and Palmer, Karen. 1985. “Structural Change in the United States: Changing Input–Output Coefficients,” Business Economics, 20, 38–54.Google Scholar
Feldman, Stanley J., McClain, David and Palmer, Karen. 1987. “Sources of Structural Change in the United States, 1963–78: An Input–Output Perspective,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 69, 503–510.Google Scholar
Fromm, Gary. 1968. “Comment on Vaccara and Simon,” in Kendrick, John W. (ed.), The Industrial Composition of Income and Product. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 59–66.Google Scholar
Fujita, Natsuki and James, William E.. 1990. “Export Oriented Growth of Output and Employment in Taiwan and Korea, 1973/74 – 1983/84,” Weltwirtschaftlisches Archiv, 126, 737–753.Google Scholar
De Haan, Mark. 2001. “A Structural Decomposition Analysis of Pollution in the Netherlands,” Economic Systems Research, 13, 181-196.Google Scholar
Holland, David and Cooke, S. C.. 1992. “Sources of Structural Change in the Washington Economy,” Annals of Regional Science, 26, 155–170.Google Scholar
Itoh, Hidekazu. 2016. “Understanding of Economic Spillover Mechanism by Structural Path Analysis: A Case Study of Interregional Social Accounting Matrix Focused on Institutional Sectors in Japan,” Journal of Economic Structures, 5, 1–20.Google Scholar
Jiang, Xuemei, Dietzenbacher, Erik and Los, Bart. 2014. “A Dissection of the Growth of Regional Disparities in Chinese Labor Productivity Between 1997 and 2002,” Annals or Regional Science, 52, 513–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, Haider A. and Thorbecke, Erik. 1988. Macroeconomic Effects and Diffusion of Alternative Technologies within a Social Accounting Matrix Framework. Aldershot, UK: Gower.Google Scholar
Lenzen, Manfred. 2002. “A Guide for Compiling Inventories in Hybrid Life-Cycle Assessments: Some Australian Results,” Journal of Cleaner Production, 10, 545–572.Google Scholar
Lenzen, Manfred. 2007. “Structural Path Analysis of Ecosystem Networks,” Ecological Modelling, 200, 334–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattila, Tuomas. 2012. “Any Sustainable Decoupling in the Finnish Economy? A Comparison of the Pathways and Sensitivities of GDP and Ecological Footprint 2002–2005,” Ecological Indicators, 16, 128–134.Google Scholar
Miller, Ronald E. 1966. “Interregional Feedbacks in Input–Output Models: Some Preliminary Results,” Papers of the Regional Science Association, 17, 105–125.Google Scholar
Miller, Ronald E. 1969. “Interregional Feedbacks in Input–Output Models: Some Experimental Results,” Western Economic Journal, 7, 41–50.Google Scholar
Miller, Ronald E. and Shao, Gang. 1994. “Structural Change in the U.S. Multiregional Economy,” Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 5, 41–72.Google Scholar
Moran, Daniel, Wood, Richard and Rodrigues, João F. D.. 2018. “A Note on the Magnitude of the Feedback Effect in Environmentally Extended Multi-Regional Input–Output Tables,” Journal of Industrial Ecology, 22, 532–539.Google Scholar
Nagashima, Fumiya. 2018. “The Sign Reversal Problem in Structural Decomposition Analysis,” Energy Economics, 72, 307–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okuyama, Yasuhide. 2014. “Disaster and Economic Structural Change: Case Study on the 1995 Kobe Earthquake,” Economic Systems Research, 26, 98–117.Google Scholar
Okuyama, Yasuhide. 2015. “How Shaky was the Regional Economy after the 1995 Kobe Earthquake? A Multiplicative Decomposition Analysis of Disaster Impact,” Annals of Regional Science, 55. 289–312.Google Scholar
Oosterhaven, Jan and Hoen, Alex R.. 1998. “Preferences, Technology, Trade and Real Income Changes in the European Union: An Intercountry Input–Output Decomposition Analysis for 1975–1985,” Annals of Regional Science, 32, 505–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oosterhaven, Jan and van der Linden, Jan A.. 1997. “European Technology, Trade and Income Changes for 1975–85: An Intercountry Input–Output Decomposition,” Economic Systems Research, 9, 393–411.Google Scholar
Oshita, Yuko. 2012. “Identifying Critical Supply Chain Paths that Drive Changes in CO2 Emissions,” Energy Economics, 34, 1041–1050.Google Scholar
Owen, Anne, Wood, Richard, Barrett, John and Evans, Andrew. 2016. “Explaining Value Chain Differences in MRIO Databases through Structural Path Decomposition,” Economic Systems Research, 28, 243–272.Google Scholar
Peters, Glen P. and Hertwich, Edgar G.. 2006. “The Importance of Imports for Household Environmental Impacts,” Journal of Industrial Ecology, 10, 89–109.Google Scholar
Pyatt, Graham and Round, Jeffery I., 1979. “Accounting and Fixed Price Multipliers in a Social Accounting Matrix Framework,” Economic Journal, 89, 850–873.Google Scholar
Rose, Adam and Casler, Stephen D.. 1996. “Input–Output Structural Decomposition Analysis: A Critical Appraisal,” Economic Systems Research, 8, 33–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Adam and Chen, Chia-Yon. 1991. “Sources of Change in Energy Use in the U.S. Economy, 1972–1982: A Structural Decomposition Analysis,” Resources and Energy, 13, 1–21.Google Scholar
Round, Jeffery I. 1985. “Decomposing Multipliers for Economic Systems Involving Regional and World Trade,” Economic Journal, 95, 383–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Round, Jeffery I. 2001. “Feedback Effects in Interregional Input–Output Models: What Have We Learned?” in Lahr, Michael L. and Dietzenbacher, Erik (eds.), Input–Output Analysis: Frontiers and Extensions. New York: Palgrave, pp. 54–70.Google Scholar
Siegel, Paul B., Alwang, Jeffrey and Johnson, Thomas G.. 1995. “Decomposing Sources of Regional Growth with an Input–Output Model: A Framework for Policy Analysis,” International Regional Science Review, 18, 331–353.Google Scholar
Skolka, Jiří. 1989. “Input–Output Structural Decomposition Analysis for Austria,” Journal of Policy Modeling, 11, 45–66.Google Scholar
Sonis, Michael and Hewings, Geoffrey J. D.. 1988. “Superposition and Decomposition Principles in Hierarchical Social Accounting and Input–Output Analysis,” in Harrigan, F. and McGregor, Peter G (eds.), Recent Advances in Regional Economic Modelling. London: Pion, pp. 46–65.Google Scholar
Sonis, Michael and Hewings, Geoffrey J. D.. 2001. “Feedbacks in Input–Output Systems: Impact, Loops and Hierarchies,” in Lahr, Michael L. and Dietzenbacher, Erik (eds.), Input–Output Analysis: Frontiers and Extensions. New York: Palgrave, pp. 71–99.Google Scholar
Stäglin, Rainer and Wessels, Hans. 1972. “Intertemporal Analysis of Structural Changes in the German Economy,” in Bródy, Andrew and Carter, Anne P. (eds.), Input–Output Techniques. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Input–Output Techniques. Geneva, 1971. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 370–392.Google Scholar
Sir Stone, Richard. 1985. “The Disaggregation of the Household Sector in the National Accounts,” in Pyatt, Graham and Round, Jeffery I. (eds.), Social Accounting Matrices. A Basis for Planning. Washington, DC: The World Bank, pp. 145–185.Google Scholar
Syrquin, Moshe. 1988. “Patterns of Structural Change,” in Chenery, Hollis B. and Srinivasan, T. N. (eds.), Handbook of Development Economics, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 203–273.Google Scholar
Temursho, Umed. 2018. “Intercountry Feedback and Spillover Effects within the International Supply and Use Framework: A Bayesian Perspective,” Economic Systems Research, 30, 337–358.Google Scholar
Temursho, Umed and Wood, Richard. 2020. “Input–Output Decomposition Analysis: Review and an Application of Global Multiregion Structural Path Decomposition,” IOpedia Research Paper No. 04, August, 2020. Available at www.iopedia.eu.Google Scholar
Vaccara, Beatrice and Simon, Nancy W.. 1968. “Factors Affecting Postwar Industrial Composition of Real Product,” in Kendrick, John W. (ed.), The Industrial Composition of Income and Product. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 19–58.Google Scholar
Wood, Richard and Lenzen, Manfred. 2009. “Structural Path Decomposition,” Energy Economics, 31, 335–341.Google Scholar
Wolff, Edward N. 1985. “Industrial Composition, Inter-Industry Effects, and the U.S. Productivity Slowdown,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 67, 268–277.Google Scholar
Xia, Yan, Fan, Ying and Yang, Cuihong. 2015. “Assessing the Impact of Foreign Content in China’s Exports on the Carbon Outsourcing Hypothesis,” Applied Energy, 150, 296–307.Google Scholar
Yang, Ling and Lahr, Michael L.. 2010. “Sources of China’s Labor Productivity Growth: A Structural Decomposition Analysis, 1987–2005,” China Economic Review, 21, 557–570.Google Scholar
Zhang, Haiyan, Lahr, Michael L. and Bi, Jun. 2016. “Challenges of Green Consumption in China: A Household Energy Use Perspective,” Economic Systems Research, 28, 183–201.Google Scholar
Zhang, Yaxiong and Zhao, Kun. 2005. “The Spillover and Feedback Effects between Coastal and Non-coastal Regions,” in Okamoto, Nobuhiro and Ihara, Takeo (eds.), Spatial Structure and Regional Development in China: An Interregional Input–Output Approach. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan (for IDE/JETRO), pp. 178–200.Google Scholar
Zhang, Zengkai and Lin, Jintai. 2018. “From Production-Based to Consumption-Based Regional Carbon Inventories: Insight from Spatial Production Fragmentation,” Applied Energy, 211, 549–567.Google Scholar