A temporal structural path analysis of the Shetland Islands from 1971 to 2003 is used to describe the process by which two new sectors associated with the discovery of North Sea oil became integrated into the wider Shetland economy. The results confirm that it can take considerable time for incoming sectors to become integrated within an economy and that integration may increase when a sector is in decline. It is argued that structural path analysis provides complementary insights into the process of economic integration which are complementary to those gained from more standard multiplier techniques, and that both are useful to rural development analysts charged with maximising the benefits of incoming sectors and/or minimising the adverse effects of a sector in decline.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AchjarNSonisMHewingsGJD, 2006, “Structural changes in the Indonesian economy: A Network complication approach”Journal of Applied Input–Output Analysis1191–119.
2.
AmaralJ FDiasJLopesJ C, 2007, “Complexity as interdependence in input–output systems”Environment and Planning A391770–1782.
3.
BasuRJohnsonT G, 1996, “The development of a measure of intersectoral connectedness by using structural path analysis”Environment and Planning A28709–730.
4.
CheneryH BWatanabeT, 1958, “Interregional comparisons of the structure of production”Econometrica26487–521.
5.
DefournyJThorbeckeE, 1984, “Structural path analysis and multiplier decomposition within a social accounting matrix framework”The Economic Journal94111–136.
6.
DietzenbacherERomeroI, 2007, “Production chains in an interregional framework: Identification by means of average propagation lengths”International Regional Science Review30362–383.
7.
EdmistonK D, 2004, “The net effects of large plant locations and expansions on county employment”Journal of Regional Science44289–319.
8.
FeldmanS JMcClainDPalmerK, 1987, “Sources of structural change in the United States, 1963–78: An input–output perspective”Review of Economics and Statistics69503–510.
9.
FoxW FMurrayM N, 2004, “Do economic effects justify the use of fiscal incentives?”Southern Economic Journal7178–92.
10.
GilchristD ASt LouisL V, 1991, “Directions for diversification with an application to Saskatchewan”Journal of Regional Science31273–289.
11.
GillespieGMcGregorP GSwalesJ KYinY P, 1999An Input–Output Table and Model for the Shetland Islands, 1996/97 Final Report for Shetland Islands Council and Shetland Enterprise, Fraser of Allander Institute, University of Strathclyde.
12.
HarrisA HLloydM GMcGuireA JNewlandsD A, 1987, “Incoming industry and structural change: Oil and the Aberdeen economy”Scottish Journal of Political Economy3469–90.
13.
HewingsGJDSonisMGuoJIsrailevichP RSchindlerG R, 1998, “The hollowing out process in the Chicago economy, 1975–2015”Geographical Analysis30217–233.
14.
IsardWIwanJAzizMDrennanPMillerR ESaltzmanSThorbeckeE, 1998Methods of Interregional and Regional Analysis (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants).
15.
JacksonR WHewingsGJDSonisM, 1989, “Decomposition approaches to the identification of change in regional economies”Economic Geography65216–231.
16.
McNicollI H, 1976The Shetland Economy RM 2, Fraser of Allander Institute, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
17.
McNicollI H, 1985Shetland: Economy and Industry 1982/83 (The Shetland Times Ltd, Lerwick).
18.
McNicollI H, 1992, “Small area input–output analysis: a case study of Shetland for 1987/88”, ESU Research Paper No. 25, The Scottish Office Industry Department, Edinburgh.
19.
McNicollI HReesJ, 1982, “Intertemporal stability in small area input–output coefficients”Scottish Journal of Political Economy29192–205.
20.
McNicollI HWalkerG, 1979The Shetland Economy 1976–77: Structure and Performance Report to Shetland Islands Council and Highlands and Islands Development Board (Shetland Times Limited, Lerwick).
21.
MillerR EBlairP D, 2009Input–Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions2nd edition (Cambridge University Press, New York).
22.
MiyazawaK, 1976, Input–Output Analysis and the Structure of Income Distribution (Springer, Heidelberg).
23.
NewlandsDRobertsD, 2006Shetland Regional Accounts 2003 Final Report for Shetland Islands Council, University of Aberdeen Business School.
24.
RobertsD, 2005, “The role of households in sustaining rural economies: A Structural path analysis”European Review of Agricultural Economics32393–420.
25.
SonisMHewingsGJD, 1988, “Superposition and decomposition principles in hierarchical social accounting and input–output analysis”, in London Papers in Regional Science 19: Recent Advances in Regional Economic Modelling Eds McGregorP GHarriganF (Pion, London) pp 46–65.
26.
SonisMHewingsGJD, 1998, “Economic complexity as network complication: Multiregional input–output structural path analysis”Annals of Regional Science32407–436.
27.
SonisMHewingsGJD, 2000, “A new image of classical key sector analysis: Minimum information decomposition of the Leontief inverse”Economics Systems Research815–32.
28.
SonisMHewingsGJDSulistyowatiS, 1997, “Block structural path analysis: Applications to structural change in the Indonesian economy”Economic Systems Research9265–280.
29.
TödtlingF, 1992, “Technological change at the regional level: The role of location, firm structure, and strategy”Environment and Planning A241565–1584.
30.
WagnerJ EDellerS, 1998, “Measuring the effects of economic diversity on growth and stability”Land Economics74541–556.
31.
YanCAmesE, 1965, “Economic interrelatedness”Review of Economic Studies32277–310.
