The RAS technique is used to explore the possibilities for utilizing survey-based input–output models developed for one state in another state. The sensitivity of the biproportional parameters are examined in the context of a simple coefficient exchange. Finally, survey-based, RAS-derived, and random-coefficient models are compared under varying conditions of changes in final demand. The results confirm the aggregate validity of the RAS technique but question its reliability on an industry-by-industry basis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlmonCJr, 1966The American Economy to 1975 (Harper and Row, New York)
2.
BacharachM, 1970Biproportional Matrices and Input–Output Change (Cambridge University Press, London)
3.
BeyersW B, 1972“On the stability of regional interindustry models: The Washington data for 1963 and 1967”Journal of Regional Science12363–374
4.
BonnerE RFahleV L, 1967Technique for Area PlanningRegional Economic Development Institute, Pittsburgh, Pa
5.
BourqueP JWeeksE E, 1969“Detailed input–output tables for Washington State” circular 508, Washington Agricultural Experimental Station, Washington State University, Pullman, Wash.
6.
BullardC WSebaldA R, 1977“Effects of parametric uncertainty and technological change on input–output models”Review of Economics and Statistics5975–81
7.
CarterA P, 1957“Capital coefficients as economic parameters: The problem of instability” in Problems of Capital FormationNational Bureau of Economic Research, Princeton, NJ, 287–310
8.
ConwayR S, 1975“A note on the stability of regional interindustry models”Journal of Regional Science1567–72
9.
ConwayR S, 1977“The stability of regional input–output multipliers”Environment and Planning A9197–214
10.
EmersonJ M, 1969The Interindustry Structure of the Kansas EconomyKansas Office of Economic Analysis and Planning Division, Kansas Department of Economic Development, Topeka
11.
GiarrataniF, 1975a“A note on the McMenamin–Haring input–output projection technique”Journal of Regional Science15371–373
12.
GiarrataniF, 1975b“Erratum”Journal of Regional Science15238–239
13.
HewingsG J D, 1972“The aggregation of input–output models for regional impact analysis”Growth and Change315–19
14.
HinojosaR C, 1976“A performance test of the biproportional adjustment of input–output coefficients”Department of Geography, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash. (mimeo)
15.
IsardWRomanoffE, 1968“The printing and publishing industries of Boston SMSA, 1963: And comparison with the corresponding Philadelphia industries” TP-7, Regional Science Research Institute, Cambridge, Mass.
16.
McMenaminD GHaringJ E, 1974“An appraisal of nonsurvey techniques for estimating regional input–output models”Journal of Regional Science14191–205
17.
MaliziaEBondD L, 1974“Empirical tests of the RAS method of interindustry coefficient adjustment”Journal of Regional Science14355–365
18.
MatuszewskiT IPittsP RSawyerJ A, 1964“Linear programming estimates of changes in input coefficients”Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science30203–210
19.
MorimotoY, 1970“On aggregation problems in input–output analysis”Review of Economics Studies37119–126
20.
MorrisonW ISmithP, 1974“Nonsurvey input–output techniques at small area level: An evaluation”Journal of Regional Science141–14
21.
StevensB HTrainerG A, 1976“The generation of error in regional input–output impact models” WP-A1-76, Regional Science Research Institute, Cambridge, Mass.
22.
StoneR, 1963A Programme for Growth, Part III: Input–Output Relationships 1954–1966 (Chapman and Hall, London)
23.
SuT T, 1970“A note on regional input–output models”Southern Economic Journal37325–327
24.
TieboutC M, 1969“An. empirical regional input–output projection model, the State of Washington, 1980”Review of Economics and Statistics51334–340
25.
WilsonA G, 1968“Inter-regional commodity flows: Entropy maximizing approaches” WP-19, Centre for Environmental Studies, London
