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
7 - Supply-Side Models, Linkages, and Important Coefficients
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 7 presents the so-called supply-side input–output model. It is discussed both as a quantity model (the early interpretation) and as a price model (the more modern interpretation). Relationships to the standard Leontief quantity and price models are also explored. In addition, the fast-growing literature on quantification of economic linkages and analysis of the overall structure of economies using input–output data is examined. Finally, approaches for identifying key or important coefficients in input–output models and alternative measures of coefficient importance are presented.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Input-Output AnalysisFoundations and Extensions, pp. 289 - 346Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Supplemental Appendix SA7.2, located on the internet web site associated with this text (http://www.cambridge.org/millerandblair), uses the basic operations of partitioned matrices developed in Appendix A to examine hypothetical extraction measures developed in this chapter. Cases examined include complete extraction of an economic sector, extraction of a sector’s intersectoral relationships, extraction of a sector’s intermediate purchases, extraction of a sector’s intermediate sales, extraction of a sector’s intersectoral intermediate purchases, and extraction of a sectors intersectoral intermediate sales. Some comparisons with the Ghosh Model developed in this chapter are also explored.Google Scholar
References
Adamou, Nicholas and Gowdy, John M.. 1990. “Inner, Final, and Feedback Structures in an Extended Input–Output System,” Environment and Planning A, 22, 1621–1636.Google Scholar
ADB (Asian Development Bank). 2016. Backward and Forward Linkages and Key Sectors in the Kazakhstan Economy. Consultant’s Report. Manila (TA 8414-KAZ). Available at: www.adb.org/projects/documents/kaz-47110-001-dpta-2.Google Scholar
Ali, Yousaf. 2015. “Measuring CO2 Emission Linkages with the Hypothetical Extraction Method (HEM),” Ecological Indicators, 54, 171–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aroche-Reyes, Fidel. 1996. “Important Coefficients and Structural Change: A Multi-layer Approach,” Economic Systems Research, 8, 235–246.Google Scholar
Aroche-Reyes, Fidel. 2002. “Structural Transformations and Important Coefficients in the North American Economies,” Economic Systems Research, 14, 257–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Augustinovics, Maria. 1970. “Methods of International and Intertemporal Comparison of Structure,” in Carter, Anne P. and Bródy, Andrew (eds.), Contributions to Input–Output Analysis. Vol. 1 of Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Input–Output Techniques. Geneva, 1968. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 249–269.Google Scholar
Batten, David F. and Martellato, Dino. 1988. “Modelling Interregional Trade within Input–Output Systems,” Ricerche Economiche, 42, 204–221.Google Scholar
Beyers, William B. 1976. “Empirical Identification of Key Sectors: Some Further Evidence,” Environment and Planning A, 17, 73–99.Google Scholar
Blair, Peter D. and Miller, Ronald E.. 1990. “Spatial Linkages in the US Economy,” in Chatterji, Manas and Kuenne, Robert E. (eds.), Dynamics and Conflict in Regional Structural Change (Essays in Honour of Walter Isard, Vol. 2). Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan, pp. 156–179.Google Scholar
Boomsma, Piet and Oosterhaven, Jan. 1992. “A Double-Entry Method for the Construction of Bi-Regional Input–Output Tables,” Journal of Regional Science, 32, 269–284.Google Scholar
Bulmer-Thomas, Victor. 1982. Input–Output Analysis in Developing Countries. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Casler, Stephen D. and Hadlock, Darren. 1997. “Contributions to Change in the Input–Output Model: The Search for Inverse Important Coefficients,” Journal of Regional Science, 37, 175–193.Google Scholar
Cella, Guido. 1984. “The Input–Output Measurement of Interindustry Linkages,” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 46, 73–84.Google Scholar
Chen, Chia-Yon and Rose, Adam. 1986. “The Joint Stability of Input–Output Production and Allocation Coefficients,” Modeling and Simulation, 17, 251–255.Google Scholar
Chen, Chia-Yon and Rose, Adam. 1991. “The Absolute and Relative Joint Stability of Input–Output Production and Allocation Coefficients,” in Peterson, William (ed.), Advances in Input–Output Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 25–36.Google Scholar
Chen, Wen, Los, Bart, McCann, Philip, Ortega‐Argilés, Raquel, Thissen, Mark and van Oort, Frank. 2018. “The Continental Divide? Economic Exposure to Brexit in Regions and Countries on Both Sides of the Channel,” Papers in Regional Science, 97, 25–54.Google Scholar
Chenery, Hollis B. and Watanabe, Tsunehiko. 1958. “International Comparisons of the Structure of Productions,” Econometrica, 4, 487–521.Google Scholar
Chow, Kit Boey, Lee, Kee Beng and Ong, Chin Huat. 2006. “Singapore Key Sectors Through I–O Tables,” in Kuwamori, Hiroshi and Meng, Bo (eds.), The Industrial Structure of Asia-Pacific Region (V). Papers and Proceedings of the International Workshop, “Frontiers of International Input–Output Analyses – A Challenge of the 2000 Asian I-O Table” (Asian International Input–Output series, No. 67.) Tokyo: IDE-JETRO, pp. 17–30.Google Scholar
Clements, Benedict J. 1990. “On the Decomposition and Normalization of Interindustry Linkages,” Economics Letters, 33, 337–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, H. Craig and Salkin, Lawrence F.. 1984. “Alternative Approaches to the Estimation of Economic Impacts Resulting from Supply Constraints,” Annals of Regional Science, 18, 25–34.Google Scholar
Diamond, Jack. 1974. “The Analysis of Structural Constraints in Developing Economies: A Case Study,” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 36, 95–108.Google Scholar
Diamond, Jack. 1976. “Key Sectors in Some Underdeveloped Countries: A Comment,” Kyklos, 29, 762–764.Google Scholar
Dietzenbacher, Erik. 1989. “On the Relationship between the Supply-Driven and Demand-Driven Input–Output Models,” Environment and Planning A, 21, 1533–1539.Google Scholar
Dietzenbacher, Erik. 1992. “The Measurement of Interindustry Linkages. Key Sectors in the Netherlands,” Economic Modelling, 9, 419–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietzenbacher, Erik. 1995. “On the Bias of Multiplier Estimates,” Journal of Regional Science, 35, 377–390.Google Scholar
Dietzenbacher, Erik. 1997. “In Vindication of the Ghosh Model: A Reinterpretation as a Price Model,” Journal of Regional Science, 37, 629–651.Google Scholar
Dietzenbacher, Erik. 2005. “More on Multipliers,” Journal of Regional Science, 45, 421–426.Google Scholar
Dietzenbacher, Erik. 2006. “Multiplier Estimates: To Bias or not to Bias,” Journal of Regional Science, 46, 733–786.Google Scholar
Dietzenbacher, Erik and Lahr, Michael L. 2013. “Expanding Extractions,” Economic Systems Research, 25, 341–360.Google Scholar
Dietzenbacher, Erik, van Burken, Bob and Kondo, Yasushi. 2019. “Hypothetical Extractions from a Global Perspective,” Economic Systems Research, 31, 505–519.Google Scholar
Dietzenbacher, Erik and van der Linden, Jan A.. 1997. “Sectoral and Spatial Linkages in the EC Production Structure,” Journal of Regional Science, 37, 235–257.Google Scholar
Dietzenbacher, Erik, van der Linden, Jan A. and Steenge, Albert E.. 1993. “The Regional Extraction Method: ECF Input–Output Comparisons,” Economic Systems Research, 5, 185–206.Google Scholar
Duarte, Rosa, Sánchez-Chóliz, Julio and Bielsa, Jorge. 2002. “Water Use in the Spanish Economy: An Input–Output Approach,” Ecological Economics, 43, 71–85.Google Scholar
Dwyer, Paul S. and Waugh, Frederick V.. 1953. “On Errors in Matrix Inversion,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 48, 289–319.Google Scholar
Evans, W. Duane. 1954. “The Effect of Structural Matrix Errors on Interindustry Relations Estimates,” Econometrica, 22, 461–480.Google Scholar
Forssell, Osmo. 1989. “The Input–Output Framework for Analysing Transmission of Technical Progress between Industries,” Economic Systems Research, 1, 429–445.Google Scholar
Gallego, Blanca and Lenzen, Manfred. 2005. “A Consistent Input–Output Formulation of Shared Producer and Consumer Responsibility,” Economic Systems Research, 17, 365–391.Google Scholar
García Muñiz, Ana Salomé, Raya, Antonio Morales and Carvajal, Carmen Ramos. 2008. “Key Sectors: A New Proposal from Network Theory,” Regional Studies, 42, 1013–1030.Google Scholar
Ghosh, Ambica. 1958. “Input–Output Approach to an Allocation System,” Economica, 25, 58–64.Google Scholar
Giarratani, Frank. 1978. “Application of an Industry Supply Model to Energy Issues,” in Miernyk, William, Giarratani, Frank and Socher, Charles (eds.), Regional Impacts of Rising Energy Prices. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, pp. 89–102.Google Scholar
Giarratani, Frank. 1980. “The Scientific Basis for Explanation in Regional Analysis,” Papers of the Regional Science Association, 45, 185–196.Google Scholar
Giarratani, Frank. 1981. “A Supply-Constrained Interindustry Model: Forecasting Performance and an Evaluation,” in Buhr, Walter and Friedrich, Peter (eds.), Regional Development under Stagnation. Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 281–291.Google Scholar
Gowdy, John M. 1991. “Structural Change in the USA and Japan: An Extended Input–Output Analysis”, Economic Systems Research, 3, 413–423.Google Scholar
Gray, S. Lee, McKean, John R., Sparling, Edward W. and Weber, Joseph C.. 1979. “Measurement of Growth Equalized Employment Multiplier Effects: An Empirical Example,” Annals of Regional Science, 13, 68–75.Google Scholar
Gruver, Gene W. 1989. “A Comment on the Plausibility of Supply-Driven Input–Output Models,” Journal of Regional Science, 29, 441–450.Google Scholar
Guerra, Ana-Isabel and Sancho, Ferran. 2011. “Revisiting the Original Ghosh Model: Can It Be Made More Plausible?” Economic Systems Research, 23, 319–328.Google Scholar
Gurgul, Henryk and Lach, Łukasz. 2018. “Some Remarks on a Social Network Approach to Identifying Key Sectors,” Economic Systems Research, 30, 120–135.Google Scholar
Harrigan, Frank J. and McGilvray, James. 1988. “The Measurement of Interindustry Linkages,” Ricerche Economiche, 42, 325–343.Google Scholar
Hazari, Bharat R. 1970. “Empirical Identification of Key Sectors in the Indian Economy,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 52, 301–305.Google Scholar
Henderson, H. V. and Searle, S. R.. 1981. “On Deriving the Inverse of a Sum of Matrices,” SIAM Review, 23, 53–60.Google Scholar
Hewings, Geoffrey J. D. 1981. “Monitoring Change in a Regional Economy: An Input–Output Simulation Approach,” Modeling and Simulation, 12, 1043–1046.Google Scholar
Hewings, Geoffrey J. D. 1982. “The Empirical Identification of Key Sectors in an Economy: A Regional Perspective,” The Developing Economies, 20, 173–195.Google Scholar
Hewings, Geoffrey J. D. 1984. “The Role of Prior Information in Updating Regional Input–Output Models,” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 18, 319–336.Google Scholar
Hewings, Geoffrey J. D. and Romanos, Michael C.. 1981. “Simulating Less-Developed Regional Economies under Conditions of Limited Information,” Geographical Analysis, 13, 373–390.Google Scholar
Hirschman, Albert O. 1958. The Strategy of Economic Development. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, Randall W. 1991. “The Relative Importance of Input Coefficients and Transactions in Input–Output Structure,” in Dewhurst, John H. Ll., Hewings, Geoffrey J. D. and Jensen, Rodney C. (eds.), Regional Input–Output Modelling. New Developments and Interpretations. Aldershot, UK: Avebury, pp. 51–65.Google Scholar
Jackson, Randall W. and West, Guy W.. 1989. “Perspectives on Probabilistic 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. 209–221.Google Scholar
Jensen, Rodney C. and West, Guy R.. 1980. “The Effects of Relative Coefficient Size on Input–Output Multipliers,” Environment and Planning A, 12, 659–670.Google Scholar
Jílek, Jaroslav. 1971. “The Selection of the Most Important Coefficient,” Economic Bulletin for Europe, 23, 86–105.Google Scholar
Jones, Leroy P. 1976. “The Measurement of Hirschmanian Linkages,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 90, 323–333.Google Scholar
Kop Jansen, Pieter S. M. 1994. “Analysis of Multipliers in Stochastic Input–Output Models,” Regional Science and Urban Economics, 24, 55–74.Google Scholar
Lahiri, Sajal. 1983. “A Note on the Underestimation and Overestimation in Stochastic Input–Output Models,” Economics Letters, 13, 361–365.Google Scholar
Lahr, Michael L. 2001. “A Strategy for Producing 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
Laumas, Prem. 1975. “Key Sectors in Some Underdeveloped Countries,” Kyklos, 28, 62–79.Google Scholar
Laumas, Prem. 1976a. “Key Sectors in Some Underdeveloped Countries: A Reply,” Kyklos, 29, 767–769.Google Scholar
Laumas, Prem. 1976b. “The Weighting Problem in Testing the Linkage Hypothesis,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 90, 308–312.Google Scholar
Los, Bart, McCann, Philip, Springford, John and Thissen, Mark. 2017. “The Mismatch Between Local Voting and the Local Economic Consequences of Brexit,” Regional Studies, 51, 786–799.Google Scholar
Los, Bart, Timmer, Marcel P. and de Vries, Gaaitzen J.. 2015. “How Global Are Global Value Chains? A New Approach to Measure International Fragmentation,” Journal of Regional Science, 55, 66–92.Google Scholar
Los, Bart, Timmer, Marcel P. and de Vries, Gaaitzen J.. 2016. “Tracing Value-Added and Double Counting in Gross Exports: Comment,” American Economic Review, 106, 1958–1966.Google Scholar
Loviscek, Anthony J. 1982. “Industrial Cluster Analysis – Backward or Forward Linkages?” Annals of Regional Science, 16, 36–47.Google Scholar
Maaß, Siegfried. 1980. Die Reagibilität von Prognosen mittels Input–Output-Modellen auf Fehler im Datenmaterial. Berlin: Duncker and Humblot.Google Scholar
Manresa, Antonio and Sancho, Ferran. 2013. “Supply and Demand Biases in Linear Interindustry Models,” Economic Modelling, 33, 94–100.Google Scholar
Manresa, Antonio and Sancho, Ferran. 2020. “A Follow-up Note on the Plausibility of the Leontief and Ghosh Closed Models,” Economic Systems Research, 32, 166–172.Google Scholar
McGilvray, James. 1977. “Linkages, Key Sectors and Development Strategy,” in Leontief, Wassily (ed.), Structure, System and Economic Policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49–56.Google Scholar
Meller, Patricio and Marfán, Manual. 1981. “Small and Large Industry: Employment Generation, Linkages, and Key Sectors,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, 29, 263–274.Google Scholar
de Mesnard, Louis. 2001. “On Boolean Topological Methods of Structural Analysis,” in Lahr, Michael L. and Dietzenbacher, Erik (eds.), Input–Output Analysis: Frontiers and Extensions. New York: Palgrave, pp. 268–279.Google Scholar
de Mesnard, Louis. 2009. “Is the Ghosh Model Interesting?” Journal of Regional Science, 49, 361–372.Google Scholar
Miller, Ronald E. 1989. “Stability of Supply Coefficients and Consistency of Supply-Driven and Demand-Driven Input–Output Models: A Comment,” Environment and Planning A, 21, 1113–1120.Google Scholar
Miller, Ronald E. and Blair, Peter D.. 1985. Input–Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Miller, Ronald E. 1988. “Measuring Spatial Linkages,” Ricerche Economiche, 42, 288–310.Google Scholar
Okamoto, Nobuhiro. 2005. “Agglomeration, Intraregional and Interregional Linkages in China,” 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. 128–153.Google Scholar
Okuyama, Yasuhide, Hewings, Geoffrey J. D., Sonis, Michael and Israilevich, Philip. 2002. “Structural Changes in the Chicago Economy: A Field of Influence Analysis,” in Hewings, Geoffrey J. D., Sonis, Michael and Boyce, David (eds.), Trade, Networks and Hierarchies. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 201–224.Google Scholar
Oosterhaven, Jan. 1980. Interregional Input–Output Analysis and Dutch Regional Policy Problems. Aldershot, UK: Gower.Google Scholar
Oosterhaven, Jan. 1988. “On the Plausibility of the Supply-Driven Input–Output Model,” Journal of Regional Science, 28, 203–271.Google Scholar
Oosterhaven, Jan. 1989. “The Supply-Driven Input–Output Model: A New Interpretation but Still Implausible,” Journal of Regional Science, 29, 459–465.Google Scholar
Oosterhaven, Jan. 1996. “Leontief versus Ghoshian Price and Quantity Models,” Southern Economic Journal, 62, 750–759.Google Scholar
Oosterhaven, Jan. 2004. “On the Definition of Key Sectors and the Stability of Net versus Gross Multipliers.” Research Report 04C01, SOM Research School, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Oosterhaven, Jan. 2007. “The New Multiplier is a New Key Sector Indicator: Reply to de Mesnard’s Comment,” Annals of Regional Science, 41, 273–283.Google Scholar
Oosterhaven, Jan. 2012. “Adding Supply-Driven Consumption Makes the Ghosh Model Even More Implausible,” Economic Systems Research, 24, 101–111.Google Scholar
Paelinck, Jean, de Caevel, Jean and Degueldre, Joseph. 1965. “Analyse Quantitative de Certaines Phénomènes du Développment Régional Polarisé: Essai de Simulation Statique d’itéraires de Propogation,” in Bibliotèque de l’lnstitut de Science Économique, No. 7, Problèmes de Conversion Économique: Analyses Théoretiques et Études Appliquées. Paris: M.-Th. Génin, pp. 341–387.Google Scholar
Pan, Wenquing and Liu, Qiyun. 2005. “Spatial Linkages of the Chinese Economy,” 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. 101–127.Google Scholar
Quandt, Richard E. 1958. “Probabilistic Errors in the Leontief System,” Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 5, 155–170.Google Scholar
Quandt, Richard E. 1959. “On the Solution of Probabilistic Leontief Systems,” Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 6, 295–305.Google Scholar
ten Raa, Thijs. 1995. Linear Analysis of Competitive Economies. Hertfordshire, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
ten Raa, Thijs. 2005. The Economics of Input–Output Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, P. Nørregaard. 1957. Studies in Inter-sectoral Relations. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Roland-Hoist, David W. 1989. “Bias and Stability of Multiplier Estimates,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 71, 718–721.Google Scholar
Rose, Adam and Allison, Tim. 1989. “On the Plausibility of the Supply-Driven Input–Output Model: Empirical Evidence on Joint Stability,” Journal of Regional Science, 29, 451–458.Google Scholar
Schintke, Joachim. 1979. “Der Einfluss von Input-Koefflzientenanderungen auf die Sektorale Bruttoproduktion,” in Seetzen, Jurgen, Krengel, Rolf and Kortzfleisch, Gert von (eds.), Makroökonomische Input–Output-Analysen und dynamische Modelle zur Erfassung technischer Entwicklungen. Interdisciplinary Systems Research, Vol. 69. Basel: Birkhäuser, pp. 127–144.Google Scholar
Schintke, Joachim. 1984. “Fehlersimulationen mit Input–Output-Tabellen des Statistischen Bundesamtes,” Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, 3, 314–330.Google Scholar
Schintke, Joachim and Stäglin, Reiner. 1984. “Stability of Import[ant] Input Coefficients,” in Smyshlyaev, Anatoli (ed.), Input–Output Modeling. Proceedings of the Fifth IIASA (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis) Task Force Meeting on Input–Output Modeling, Laxenburg, Austria, October 4–6, 1984. Laxenburg, Austria: IIASA, pp. 129–139.Google Scholar
Schnabl, Hermann. 2003. “The ECA-method for Identifying Sensitive Reactions within an IO Context,” Economic Systems Research, 15, 495–504.Google Scholar
Schultz, Siegfried. 1976. “Intersectoral Comparisons as an Approach to the Identification of Key Sectors,” 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. 137–159.Google Scholar
Schultz, Siegfried. 1977. “Approaches to Identifying Key Sectors Empirically by Means of Input–Output Analysis,” Journal of Development Studies, 14, 77–96.Google Scholar
Schultz, Siegfried and Schumacher, Dieter. 1976. “Key Sectors in Some Underdeveloped Countries: A Comment,” Kyklos, 29, 765–766.Google Scholar
Sekulić, Mijo. 1968. “Application of Input–Output Models to the Structural Analysis of the Yugoslav Economy,” Ekonomska Analiza, 2, 50–61.Google Scholar
Shao, Gang and Miller, Ronald E.. 1990. Demand-side and Supply-side Commodity-Industry Multi-regional Input–Output Models and Spatial Linkages in the US Regional Economy,” Economic Systems Research, 2, 385–405.Google Scholar
Sherman, Jack and Morrison, Winifred J.. 1949. “Adjustment of an Inverse Matrix Corresponding to Changes in the Elements of a Given Column or a Given Row of the Original Matrix (Abstract),” Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 20, 621.Google Scholar
Sherman, Jack and Morrison, Winifred J.. 1950. “Adjustment of an Inverse Matrix Corresponding to a Change in One Element of a Given Matrix,” Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 21, 124–127.Google Scholar
Siebe, Thomas. 1996. “Important Intermediate Transactions and Multi-sectoral Modelling,” Economic Systems Research, 8, 183–193.Google Scholar
Simonovits, András. 1975. “A Note on the Underestimation and Overestimation of the Leontief Inverse,” Econometrica, 43, 493–498.Google Scholar
Sonis, Michael and Hewings, Geoffrey J. D.. 1989. “Error and Sensitivity Input–Output Analysis: A New Approach,” in Miller, Ronald E., Polenske, Karen R. and Rose, Adam Z. (eds.), Frontiers of Input–Output Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 232–244.Google Scholar
Sonis, Michael and Hewings, Geoffrey J. D.. 1992. “Coefficient Change in Input–Output Models: Theory and Applications,” Economic Systems Research, 4, 143–157.Google Scholar
Sonis, Michael and Hewings, Geoffrey J. D.. 1999. “Miyazawa’s Contributions to Understanding Economic Structure: Interpretation, Evaluation and Extensions,” in Hewings, Geoffrey J. D., Sonis, Michael, Madden, Moss and Kimura, Yoshio (eds.), Understanding and Interpreting Economic Structure. Berlin: Springer, pp. 13–51.Google Scholar
Strassert, Günter. 1968. “Zur Bestimmung stratigischer Sektoren mit Hilfe von Input–Output Modellen,” Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, 182, 211–215.Google Scholar
Szyrmer, Janusz. 1984. “Total Flow in Input–Output Models.” PhD Dissertation, Department of Regional Science, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Szyrmer, Janusz. 1992. “Input–Output Coefficients and Multipliers from a Total-Flow Perspective,” Environment and Planning, A, 24, 921–937.Google Scholar
Szyrmer, Janusz and Ulanowicz, Robert E.. 1987. “Total Flows in Ecosystems,” Ecological Modelling, 35, 123–136.Google Scholar
Szyrmer, Janusz and Walker, Robert. 1983. “Interregional Total Flow: A Concept and Application to a U.S. Input–Output Model,” Review of Regional Studies, 13, 12–21.Google Scholar
Tarancón, Miguel Ángel, Callejas, Fernando, Dietzenbacher, Erik and Lahr, Michael L.. 2008. “A Revision of the Tolerable Limits Approach: Searching for the Important Coefficients,” Economic Systems Research, 20, 75–95.Google Scholar
Temurshoev, Umed. 2010a. “Identifying Optimal Sector Groupings with the Hypothetical Extraction Method,” Journal of Regional Science, 50, 872–890.Google Scholar
Temurshoev, Umed. 2010b. “Interdependencies: Essays on Cross-Shareholdings, Social Networks, and Sectoral Linkages.” PhD Thesis, University of Groningen. Groningen: University of Groningen, Ipskamp Drukkers B.V.Google Scholar
Temurshoev, Umed and Oosterhaven, Jan. 2014. “Analytical and Empirical Comparison of Policy-Relevant Key Sector Measures,” Spatial Economic Analysis, 9, 284–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Yuan, Wang, Wenqin, Mao, Guozhu, Cai, Hua, Zuo, Jian, Wang, Lili and Zhao, Peng. 2013. “Industrial CO2 Linkages in China Based on the Hypothetical Extraction Method: Linkage Analysis,” Energy Policy, 62, 1238–1244.Google Scholar
West, Guy R. 1986. “A Stochastic Analysis of an Input–Output Model,” Econometrica, 54, 363–374.Google Scholar
Woodbury, Max A. 1950. “Inverting Modified Matrices,” Memorandum Report No. 42. Statistical Research Group, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Wu, Tsai-Yi and Chen, Hung-Chyn. 2006. “An Input–Output Analysis on Trade with Japan: Evidence from Taiwan, Korea and China,” in Kuwamori, Hiroshi and Meng, Bo (eds.), The Industrial Structure of Asia-Pacific Region (V). Papers and Proceedings of the International Workshop, “Frontiers of International Input–Output Analyses – A Challenge of the 2000 Asian I-O Table” (Asian International Input–Output series, No. 67.) Tokyo: IDE-JETRO, pp. 111–128.Google Scholar
Xu, Songling and Madden, Moss. 1991. “The Concept of Important Coefficients in Input–Output Models,” in Dewhurst, John H. L1., Hewings, Geoffrey J. D. and Jensen, Rodney C. (eds.), Regional Input–Output Modelling. New Developments and Interpretations. Aldershot, UK: Avebury, pp. 66–97.Google Scholar
Yotopoulos, Pan A. and Nugent, Jeffery B.. 1973. “A Balanced-Growth Version of the Linkage Hypothesis: A Test,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 157–171.Google Scholar
Zhang, Junjie, Yu, Biying, Cai, Jiawei and Wei, Yi-Ming. 2017. “Impacts of Household Income Change on CO2 Emissions: An Empirical Analysis of China,” Journal of Cleaner Production, 157, 190–200.Google Scholar
Zhao, Yuhuan, Zhang, Zhonghua, Wang, Song, Zhang, Yongfeng and Liu, Ya. 2015. Linkage Analysis of Sectoral CO2 Emissions Based on the Hypothetical Extraction Method in South Africa,” Journal of Cleaner Production, 103, 916–924.Google Scholar