Literature shows that nonsurvey input–output tables tend to produce regional multipliers with systematic upward biases. This paper explores the related, relatively uncharted territory of nonsurvey versus survey impact studies by means of a series of simulations. The base case is provided by a very detailed five region survey of both the forward and the backward impacts of the energy-distribution sector in the four northern provinces of the Netherlands. To deal adequately with the two-sided dependence between a firm or sector and a region, as opposed to using the traditional (gross) multipliers, we argue in favor of using a new multiplier concept: the net multiplier. Next, from examining alternative impact study methods ranging from quick and dirty, via semiextensive, to full-survey methods, we conclude that using even aggregate, first-order impact information is more important than using a very detailed survey-based input–output model.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BateyP W J, 1985, “Input–output models for regional demographic–economic analysis: Some structural comparisons”Environment and Planning A1773–99.
2.
BeemillerR M, 1990, “Improving accuracy by combining primary data with RIMS: Comment on Bourque”International Regional Science Review1399–101.
3.
BoomsmaPOosterhavenJ, 1992, “A double-entry method for the construction of bi-regional input–output tables”Journal of Regional Science32269–284.
BruckerS MHastingsS ELathamW RIII, 1990, “The variation of estimated impacts from five regional input–output models”International Regional Science Review13119–139.
6.
CrasJ H AEdingG JVan der KnijffE COosterhavenJ, 1995EDON en de Regio: Een sterke tweezijdige relatie [EDON and the region: A Strong bilateral relation]Stichting REG, University of Groningen, Groningen.
7.
EdingG JStelderT MVosEOosterhavenJ, 1995aBi-regionale Interactie: Nieuwe input—output tabellen voor Groningen, Friesland, Drenthe en Overijssel voor 1990 [Biregional interaction: new input–output tables for Groningen, Friesland, Drenthe and Overijssel for 1990] REG-Publication 7, University of Groningen, Groningen.
8.
EdingG JStelderT MOosterhavenJ, 1995bStructuuren Interactie: Een interregionale structuurschets van Groningen, Friesland en Drenthe voor 1990 [Structure and interaction: The interregional economic structure of Groningen, Friesland and Drenthe for 1990]REG-Publication 10, University of Groningen, Groningen.
9.
FNEI, 1984De Interregionale Input—Output Tabel voor Drenthe-overig Nederland 1975 [The interregional input–output table for Drenthe and the rest of the Netherlands 1975] (Federatie van Noordelijke Economische Instituten, Assen).
10.
HewingsG J D, 1971, “Regional input–output models in the UK: Some problems and prospects for the use of nonsurvey methods”Regional Studies511–22.
11.
JensenR C, 1980, “The concept of accuracy in regional input–output models”International Regional Science Review5139–154.
OosterhavenJ, 1988, “On the plausibility of the supply-driven input–output model”Journal of Regional Science28203–217.
16.
OosterhavenJ, 1996, “Leontief versus Ghoshian price and quantity models”Southern Economic Journal62750–759.
17.
OosterhavenJDewhurstJ H L, 1990, “A prototype demo-economic model with an application to Queensland”International Regional Science Review1351–64.
18.
OosterhavenJStelderT M, 2002, “Net multipliers avoid exaggerating impacts: With a bi-regional illustration for the Dutch transportation sector”Journal of Regional Science42533–543.
19.
OosterhavenJEdingG JStelderT M, 2001, “Clusters, linkages and regional spillovers: Methodology and policy implications for the two Dutch mainports and the rural north”Regional Studies35809–822.
20.
RichardsonH W, 1985, “Input–output and economic base multipliers: Looking backward and forward”Journal of Regional Science25607–662.
21.
SonisMHewingsG J D, 1992, “Coefficient change in input–output models: Theory and applications”Economic Systems Research4143–157.
22.
SpijkerJ, 1985, “Een combinatie van de directe en indirecte methoden” [A combination of direct and indirect methods] in Constructie en actualisering van regionale en interregionale input–output tabellen Eds OosterhavenJDrewesB B A (Economisch-Technologische Instituten, Arnhem pp 171–178.
23.
StevensB HTreyzG ILahrM L, 1989, “On the comparative accuracy of RPC estimation techniques”, in Frontiers of Input—Output Analysis Eds MillerR EPolenskeK RRoseA Z (Oxford University Press, Oxford pp 245–257.
24.
TieboutC M, 1967, “Input–output and the firm: A Technique for using national and regional tables”Review of Economics and Statistics49260–262.
25.
Van DijkJOosterhavenJ, 1986, “Regional impacts of migrants' expenditures: An input—output/vacancy-chain approach”, in London Papers in Regional Science 15. Integrated Analysis of Regional Systems Eds BateyP W JMaddenM (Pion, London pp 122–147.
