Wassily Leontief and Input Output Analysis in Economics
Wassily Leontief: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
From the time he was a young man growing up in Saint Petersburg, Wassily Leontief devoted his studies to input-output analysis. When he left Russia at the age of nineteen to begin the Ph.D. program at the University of Berlin, he had already shown how leon walras’s abstract equilibrium theory could be quantified. But it was not until many years later, in 1941, while a professor at Harvard, that Leontief calculated an input-output table for the American economy. It was this work, and later refinements of it, that earned Leontief the Nobel Prize in 1973.
Input-output analysis shows the extensive process by which inputs in one industry produce outputs for consumption or for input into another industry. The matrix devised by Leontief is often used to show the effect of a change in production of a final good on the demand for inputs. Take, for example, a 10 percent increase in the production of shoes. With the input-output table, one can estimate how much additional leather, labor, machinery, and other inputs will be required to increase shoe production.
Most economists are cautious in using the table because it assumes, to use the shoe example, that shoe production requires the inputs in the proportion they were used during the time period used to estimate the table. There’s the rub. Although the table is useful as a rough approximation of the inputs required, economists know from mountains of evidence that proportions are not fixed. Specifically, when the cost of one input rises, producers reduce their use of this input and substitute other inputs whose prices have not risen. If wage rates rise, for example, producers can substitute capital for labor and, by accepting more wasted materials, can even substitute raw materials for labor. That the input-output table is inflexible means that, if used literally to make predictions, it will necessarily give wrong answers.
At the time of Leontief’s first work with input-output analysis, all the required matrix algebra was done using hand-held calculators and sheer tenacity. Since then, computers have greatly simplified the process, and input-output analysis, now called “interindustry analysis,” is widely used. Leontief’s tables are commonly used by the World Bank, the United Nations, and the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Early on, input-output analysis was used to estimate the economy-wide impact of converting from war production to civilian production after World War II. It has also been used to understand the flow of trade between countries. Indeed, a 1954 article by Leontief shows, using input-output analysis, that U.S. exports were relatively labor intensive compared with U.S. imports. This was the opposite of what economists expected at the time, given the high level of U.S. wages and the relatively high amount of capital per worker in the United States. Leontief’s finding was termed the Leontief paradox. Since then, the paradox has been resolved. Economists have shown that in a country that produces more than two goods, the abundance of capital relative to labor does not imply that the capital intensity of its exports should exceed that of its imports.
Throughout his life Leontief campaigned against “theoretical assumptions and nonobserved facts” (the title of a speech he delivered while president of the American Economic Association, 1970–1971). According to Leontief too many economists were reluctant to “get their hands dirty” by working with raw empirical facts. To that end Wassily Leontief did much to make quantitative data more accessible, and more indispensable, to the study of economics.
1941. The Structure of American Economy, 1919–1929. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
1966. Essays in Economics: Theories and Theorizing. New York: Oxford University Press.
From NY Times
Wassily Leontief, Economist Who Won a Nobel, Dies at 93
By HOLCOMB B. NOBLE
Wassily Leontief, who won the Nobel prize in economics in 1973 for his analyses of America’s production machinery, showing how changes in one sector of the economy can exact changes all along the line, affecting everything from the price of oil to the price of peanut butter, died Friday night at the New York University Medical Center. He was 93.
His analytic methods, as the Nobel committee observed, were adopted and became a permanent part of production planning and forecasting in scores of industrialized nations and in private corporations all over the world.
Following the model of his so-called input-output analysis, General Electric, for example, was able to load data from 184 sectors of the economy — such as energy, home construction and transportation — into a mammoth computer to help it predict how the energy crisis brought on by the Arab oil boycott in 1973 would affect public demand for its products and services, from light bulbs to turbines.
A well-known academic figure, Mr. Leontief was the director of the Institute for Economic Analysis of New York University from 1975 until 1991; even after his retirement he still taught at the university into his 90’s. Before coming to N.Y.U. he taught economics at Harvard for 44 years and directed large research projects there as well.
Mr. Leontief was a thinker who often complained that too many of his academic colleagues spent too much time staring out their office windows instead of being out in the field, as any good economist ought to be, counting things. ”Facts,” he said. ”You have to have facts. Theories aren’t good unless you have facts to back them.”
When asked how he developed the input-output analysis recognized by his Nobel memorial prize, he would invariably begin, ”Oh, it’s really very simple — what I wanted to do was collect facts.” The facts he sought were those that explained how segments of production were interconnected.
He showed that if you carefully studied changes in the cost and components of one type of product, you could determine the resulting changes in cost and components of others along the production chain.
Suppose you have a sudden rise the price of oil or steel? Mr. Leontief taught government officials and corporate executives to track how this influenced the costs of production in other segments of a local or national economy, both within an industry or more broadly across many industries and many nations.
Wassily Leontief was born Aug. 5, 1905, in St. Petersburg, the son of Wassily W. Leontief, an economist, and the former Eugenia Bekker. A brilliant student, he was allowed to enroll when he was only 15 at the newly renamed University of Leningrad. But he got in trouble by expressing vehement opposition to the lack of intellectual and personal freedom under the country’s Communist regime, which had taken power three years earlier. He was arrested as he was nailing up anti-Communist posters on the wall of a military barracks and placed in solitary confinement. Released after several days, he promptly resumed his anti-Communist activities and was arrested several more times.
Finally, in 1925, he was allowed to leave the country, a turn of fate he attributed to a growth on his neck. He said the authorities believed that the growth was cancerous and that he would die and be of no use to the state. He left Russia to resume his studies in economics at the University of Berlin, and his parents soon followed. The growth was benign and he completed his doctorate in 1929. He spent a year as an economist advising the Government of China, particularly on the planning of a new railroad network.
Then he came to the United States and worked briefly in New York at the National Bureau of Economic Research, where his published work quickly attracted attention, and Harvard invited him to join its economics faculty. He agreed, provided the university help him develop his ideas about production. Harvard gave him a research assistant and a $2,000 grant to develop the system of input-output analysis that the world was to adopt. He and his assistant began constructing a table covering 42 American industries, taking months to compile figures and perform calculations that computers would latter handle in fractions of seconds.
During the war, he helped the United States Government with planning for industrial production, worked as a consultant to the Office of Strategic Services and supervised compilation of a 92-economic-sector table for the Department of Labor. In 1948, Mr. Leontief set up the Harvard Research Project on the Structure of the American Economy with the aid of large grants from the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations and the Air Force to expand and refine his input-output models. Soon he had a staff of 20 — and a 650-punch-card computer from I.B.M., then the state-of-the art.
He did not, however, keep the Air Force grant long once the Eisenhower Administration came to power; some of its officials were critical of his input-output theory as smacking too much of a planned economy. That was precisely what he thought it should smack of.
One of his goals in studying the nature of changes in industrial production was to enable nations to plan in ways that would be economically beneficial and help them avoid periods of economic hardship. But to some economists the idea of national economic planning was ill advised: not only would it not work, they said, but it might make matters worse and also might open the door to excessive Government control. They maintained it would be better to let the private sector and the free market determine the course of future economic events.
To Mr. Leontief, it seemed short-sighted for nations to devote little or no thought to the analysis of the future of the overall economy, especially after what he regarded as the effective work of modern economists in devising projections that are mathematically and statistically sound. He spoke out often on the subject in the 1970’s and 80’s.
He and Leonard Woodcock, then president of the United Auto Workers, proposed that the Federal Government establish an Office of National Economic Planning to help coordinate economic projects and make recommendations on policies they said could avert unnecessary unemployment, inflation, failures in health care, shortages in affordable housing, energy, public transportation and other requirements of a civilized society.
The idea never materialized. If anything, the generation of younger economists who followed him, many of whom he taught, developed less respect for the abilities of national Governments to plan for the long term. It bothered him greatly that toward the end of the century many Americans seemed to have lost broad faith in their Government’s ability to improve the lot of its citizens, particularly through economic programs.
In an Op-Ed article in The New York Times in 1992, he said there was little doubt that the United States Government had played an important role in a generally prosperous economy for more than half the century, from ending the Great Depression in the 30’s to guiding the nation through most of the rest of the century in generally sounder economic health than most of the rest of the world.
Mr. Leontief was always fearful that employment problems would accompany widespread use of the high-speed computers that he himself relied on almost from the moment they first became applicable for nonmilitary purposes after World War II. He warned that computers would be for many workers what the tractor was to the horse — great for the farmer but not great for the horse.
In an interview in 1996, when he was 90, Mr. Leontief, noting the trend toward corporate downsizing, said: ”Individual entrepreneurs will continue to do better and better and better, but significant segments of the work force will do worse and worse. Ultimately, Governments will have to play a role in arbitrating and correcting this.”
Mr. Leontief seemed to grow more liberal with age. During the student protests on the Harvard campus in 1969, he split with most senior faculty members and joined with a younger group more sympathetic to the protesting students. In 1975, he resigned from Harvard, where he was the Henry Lee Professor of Economics and chairman of the university’s Society of Fellows, its most distinguished group of scholars. He left a year ahead of schedule, complaining that too often teachers at the graduate level did not teach and researchers did not do research.
Shortly before he resigned, he joined an internal report criticizing Harvard’s economics department, which had long been regarded as among the world’s best. The report said that the department had failed to adequately recruit minority faculty members, that it took an overly narrow approach in scholarship and that a ”deterioration in attitudes and relationships” had occurred.
At N.Y.U., he continued to expand his work on input-output analysis and helped foreign nations adopt it. China was among the last to do so, as it intensified its industrialization in the late 1980’s.
Wassily Leontief, a balletomane and connoisseur of fine wines, said he also thought of himself as a squire of Willoughby Brook in northern Vermont, where he and his family had a summer home. It was all very well to be an internationally regarded scholar, but landing a beautiful brook trout, he would say with his sly smile, was his passion.
He is survived by his wife, Estelle Helena Marks, a writer, whom he married in 1932, his daughter, Svetlana Alpers, the art historian, author, and professor of fine arts at the University of California at Berkeley, and two grandsons.
From Ecological Macroeconomic Models: Assessing Current Developments
From A stock-flow-fund ecological macroeconomic model
From Stock-Flow Consistent Input–Output Models as a Bridge Between Post-Keynesian and Ecological Economics
One effort to explicitly represent the dynamics of debt, finance, and other monetary factors has been the post-Keynesian stock-flow consistent (SFC) approach. At the same time, input–output (IO) models have been widely used to investigate sectoral interdependencies within the real economy, while environmentally extended input–output models have been used to analyze the relationship between the economy and ecological subsystems. However, the role of monetary dynamics has been left relatively unexplored in IO models (Caiani et al., 2014). This paper proposes a synthesis of elements from both SFC and IO models with insights from ecological economics to provide an avenue for investigating the interrelations between the monetary economy and the physical environment.
From Stock-Flow Consistent Input–Output Models as a Bridge Between Post-Keynesian and Ecological Economics
By combining SFC models and IO models, financial flows of funds can be integrated with flows of real goods and services. Lawrence Klein, who developed large scale macroeconomic models typified by the FRB-MIT-Penn model, has noted the natural synergies between the National Income and Product accounts, the IO accounts, and the FF accounts (Klein, 2003). The approach of combining both SFC and IO models with ecological macroeconomics affords one method to unite those accounts, as suggested by Klein, and to simultaneously model monetary flows through the financial system, flows of produced goods and services through the real economy, and flows of physical materials through the natural environment. Models of this type may provide additional tools to aid macro economists, ecological economists, and physicists in the task of understanding the economy and the physical environment as one united and complexly interrelated system, rather than as a colloidal agglomeration of artificially separated analytical domains. These modes of analysis are required to study pressing problems such as climate change, which are neither purely economic, nor purely environmental, nor purely physical, but rather are all of the above (Rezai et al., 2013).
USA and China: What are Trade in Value Added (TiVA) Balances
Changes in Global Trade
Global Value Chains
Value added content of Trade
FROM INTERCONNECTED ECONOMIES : BENEFITING FROM INDUSTRY GLOBALISATION
From Domestic Value Added in Chinese Exports
From Measurement and Determinants of Trade in Value Added
From OECD WTO TIVA
Ongoing TiVA Projects
OECD TIVA Initiative
EU FIGARO Initiative
NA TIVA Initiative
APEC TiVA Initiative
There is also OECD TiVA – MNE Project which incorporates Intra Firm trade of MNEs.
From An Overview on the Construction of North American Regional Supply-Use and Input-Output Tables and their Applications in Policy Analysis
Trade-in-Value Added (TiVA) is a statistical approach used to measure the interconnectivity and marginal contribution in production of participating economies in global value chains (GVCs) (Degain and Maurer, 2015). The advantage of TiVA over traditional trade statistics is that TiVA measures trade flows consistent with internationally, vertically integrated global production networks, often called GVCs. TiVA statistics allow us to better analyze three aspects of international trade: measuring the contribution of domestic versus foreign intermediates in the exports, tracing production across countries to their final destination, and finally quantifying how individual industries contribute to producing exports (Lewis, 2013).
TiVA statistics allow us to map and quantify the interdependencies between industries and economies, and help us develop better estimates of the contribution from each country in the production processes and, consequently, better measure the impact from GVC engagement for domestic economies. However, it is necessary to highlight the underlying compilation methodology of TiVA in order to better understand the characteristics, scope and interpretation of TiVA. Hence, it is important to remember that TiVA statistics are estimated statistics that are derived, in part, from official statistics. TiVA statistics are meant to complement but not to replace official statistics.
Measuring trade flows in value added as opposed to gross value of trade flows has become increasingly important as the influence that GVCs has on international trade continues to rise. (Johnson, 2014; Ahmad and Ribarsky, 2014). The proliferation of GVCs means that production has become increasingly fragmented and vertically integrated across countries (Jones and Kierzkowski, 1988; Hummels, Ishii, and Yi, 2001; OECD, 2013). At the micro level, this means that many firms in disparate countries are interconnected. Across international borders, these firms take part in particular stages of the production process, together forming a global supply chain. As a result, intermediate inputs may cross international borders several times before being used to produce final consumable goods. This matters for several reasons. First, when goods cross multiple borders multiple times, they are exposed to more trade costs, which accumulate and compound before the goods are sold for final consumption. Additionally, traditional gross trade flows are overstated because gross trade flows may count intermediates multiple times. Relatedly, gross trade flows obscure the marginal contributions of countries along GVCs. TiVA measures the flows related to the value that is added at each stage of production by each country and maps from where value is created, where it is exported, and how it is used, as final consumption or as an input for future exports. How we understand gains from trade from trade flows is fundamental, and value-added approaches lead to better understanding of GVCs and their role in international trade.
There are two ways to capture TiVA. The first method is a direct approach, which decomposes existing data on trade statistics. Johnson (2012) introduce a TiVA indicator using value-added to output ratios from the source country to compute the value-added associated with the implicit output transfer to each destination. Koopman, Wang, and Wei (2014) build on the literature in vertical specialization (e.g. Hummels, Ishii, and Yi 2001) and the literature on TiVA (e.g. Johnson and Noguera, 2012; Daudin, Rifflart, and Schweisguth, 2011) to implement a complete decomposition of a country’s gross exports by value added components. This work has evolved into a second, indirect method of capturing TiVA. The indirect method is employed in the regional North American supply-use table (NASUT) and the regional North American inter-country input-output table (NAIOT). Estimating TiVA this way relies on national and international input-output tables as well as bilateral trade statistics to derive the international intermediate and final supply-demand matrices. These matrices reveal the origin and use of goods and services produced and exchanged among the countries and industries within the table domain. Other major international input-output tables include the Asian International Input-Output (AIO) Tables published by the Institute of Developing Economies Japan External Trade Organization (IDE-JETRO), the Inter-Country Input-Output (ICIO) Tables published by the OECD, the World Input-Output Tables (WIOT) published by the World Input-Output Database (WIOD) project, and the Eora Multi-region Input-Output Database (Eora MRIO).
The studies based on the above two approaches have revealed a trend of rising foreign value-added content in international trade flows and the resulting implications for trade policies. Johnson and Noguera (2016) find that value-added exports are falling relative to gross exports, which means that double-counting is increasingly more common in trade flows. This is consistent with increased GVC activity. Hummels, Ishii, and Yi (2001) show that vertical specialization has grown about 30 percent and accounts for about one-third of the growth in trade from about 1970 to 1990.
In recent years, more than half of global manufacturing imports are intermediate goods and more than 70 percent of global services imports are intermediate services (OECD, 2013). This is relevant because tariffs (and other trade costs) have a higher impact on the cost of GVC activity. Each time an intermediate input crosses an international border as part of the production process, the input incurs trade costs. As first observed by Yi (2003), trade costs are compounded when intermediate goods cross borders multiple times to complete the production process. Rouzet and Miroudot (2013) demonstrate that small tariffs can add up to a significant sum by the time a finished product reaches its consumers. Other trade costs such as non-tariff measures also have such accumulative effect on downstream products.
What the literature indicates the trends in GVCs mean for trade flows, generally, are two-fold. First, with the growth of GVC activity, gross value of trade flows will continue to be larger than the value of final goods that cross borders. Second, trade policy designed with respect to gross trade flows could have the potential to be overly restrictive or even impose costs indirectly on domestic production. Trade-in-Value Added thus provides a supplementary, relevant reference for evaluating the economic effect of trade policies.
In this paper, we introduce the North American Trade-in-Value Added (NA-TiVA) project, a trilateral, multiyear initiative that aims to produce a regional TiVA database that maps the value chains connecting Canada, the United States, and Mexico. Furthermore, we introduce and discuss the project’s deliverables, the agencies involved, how the NA-TiVA project complements other ongoing TiVA initiatives around the world, the technical framework for producing a regional inter-country input-output table for the NA region, and the value of this work to resolving open policy questions within international trade.
Ongoing TiVA Initiatives
Currently there are three major ongoing global and regional TiVA projects that are related to the North America TiVA project. They are the World Input-Output database (WIOD), OECD-WTO TiVA, and APEC TiVA initiatives.
The World Input-Output database (WIOD): The official WIOD project ran from May 1, 2009 to May 1, 2012, as a joint effort of eleven European research institutions. It was funded by the European Commission. Under the official WIOD project, the accounting framework and methodologies of constructing the TiVA databases, as well as the first version of the World Input-Output database were developed. The database was officially launched in April 2012. Since then, two additional versions of WIOD databases, namely the 2013 and 2016 Releases, were published. The 2016 Released database covers 28 EU countries and 15 other major economies in the world for years 2000-2014 with 56 industries.
The OECD-WTO TiVA database: The Organization for Economic Cooperate and Development (OECD) and World Trade Organization (WTO) undertook a joint initiative on TiVA in 2013. Since then, two versions of TiVA databases have been released (2013 and 2015 release). The 2015 release of OECD-WTO TiVA database covers 61 countries and 13 regions, with 34 industries, for years 1995, 2000, 2005, 2008-2011.
APEC TiVA initiative: In 2014, APEC economic leaders endorsed the APEC TiVA database initiative, a four-year project co-led by China and the United States. Under this project, an APEC TiVA database would be constructed by the end of 2018, covering 21 APEC economies.
Each of these three major global and regional TiVA initiatives include Canada, Mexico, and the United States. In the light of this, why is there still a need for constructing the NA TiVA database? What kind of additional value can the NA TiVA project bring to this global and regional network of TiVA initiatives?
The NA-TiVA project was motivated by regional statistical developments and continuous improvements in compiling TiVA databases. The 2003 Mexican input-output table distinguishes trade flows by domestic producers and production undertaken in Maquiladoras, a tax-free, tariff-free special processing zone, which allowed the estimates of separate production coefficients and thus TiVA measures for these two distinctive zones in Mexico (Koopman, Powers, Wang, and Wei, 2010; De la Cruz, Koopman, Wang, and Wei, 2011). The government of Canada further highlighted the importance and relevance of global value chains in the publication of a book assessing the impact and implication of GVCs (Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, 2011); and as of the 2015 edition of the OECD’s ICIO tables, Mexico is broken out as Mexico Global Manufacturers and Mexico Non-Global Manufacturers. This NA TiVA project builds off of these developments.
Constructing inter-country input-output tables, or so called TiVA databases, requires the harmonization of national supply-use tables (SUTs) or input-output tables (IOTs) as well as bilateral trade statistics from different countries. However, the data produced by countries often vary greatly in the level of detail and differ in industry and product classifications. Thus, the more countries are included in a global or regional TiVA project, the higher level of aggregation would be required for the purpose of harmonization. With only three countries involved, it is feasible for the NA TiVA database to include more products and sectors than other global and regional TiVA projects.
Moreover, other factors, such as all three countries adopt the same industry and product classifications (e.g. using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)), and produce SUTS at similarly detailed levels, would ensure the compatibility of data components, and thus lead to better quality of the resulting NA TiVA database.
Finally, the NA TiVA project could synthesize the ongoing trilateral trade statistics reconciliation effort and produce better-quality balanced bilateral trade data to feed into other global and regional TiVA initiatives. One of the key inputs for constructing TiVA databases is balanced bilateral trade statistics. However, countries rarely report symmetric bilateral trade statisticsone country’s reported exports rarely equals its trading partner’s reported imports, and vice versa. To reconcile such asymmetries to produce balanced bilateral trade statistics, joint effort by both trading countries is warranted, including investigating the causes of asymmetries at detailed product level and making corresponding adjustment mechanically. However, global and regional TiVA initiatives often have to consider an incredible number of country pairs, making such an elaborate reconciliation practice rather infeasible. Thus, global and regional TiVA initiatives often turn to economic modelling to balance bilateral trade statistics which could be applied in a systematic way to all countries. Although such approach can be mathematically sound, the resulting data often require additional scrutiny, validation, and adjustment, as they do not always reflect the reality accurately. Canada, Mexico, and the United States have ongoing bilateral trade reconciliation. This NA TiVA project provides additional motivation and framework for this effort.
The History, Scope, and Major Objectives of the NA TiVA Initiative
In October 2014, the representatives from the United States, Canada, and Mexico met and kicked off the idea of constructing the NA TiVA database at a UN conference in Mexico. The main objective of this project is to construct the NA TiVA database by 2021 covering three NA countries with more detailed industry and firm information, and to improve the quality of TiVA measures for the value chains in the NA region.
The NA-TiVA project involves eight government agencies across the three NA countries: for Canada, Statistics Canada (STATCAN) and Global Affairs Canada; for Mexico, Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI) and Banco de Mexico; and for the United States, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the U.S. Census Bureau (CENSUS), the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR).
In addition, because the resulting NA-TiVA database would be eventually integrated into the OECD-WTO TiVA database to improve the quality of information on the North American region, participants of the NA-TiVA project regularly meet with OECD representatives to harmonize TiVA database compilation methodologies, exchange data to synthesize the effort and ensure consistency across countries, and discuss best practices. Other international organizations, such as United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD), and WTO, are often consulted as well for national account and trade statistics related issues.
Under the NA-TiVA initiative, three parallel work streams have been established: The trade in goods and services reconciliation team, which is tasked to produce balanced bilateral trade statistics for goods and services; the SUT team, whose goal is to harmonize the national SUTs and compile the regional NASUTs and NAIOTs; and the White Paper team, the goal of which is to produce documentation that outlines the conceptual methodology, identifies major technical issues, describes policy applications of a NA-TiVA initiative, and details project outputs as well as future work.
FROM INTERCONNECTED ECONOMIES :BENEFITING FROM INDUSTRY GLOBALISATION
From Supply-Use Tables, Trade-in-Value-Added Initiatives, and their Applications
US Trade Wars with Emerging Countries in the 21st Century: Make America and Its Partners Lose Again
Antoine Bouët (International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C., and Groupe de Recherche en Économie Théorique et Appliquée [GREThA], University of Bordeaux, France)
David Laborde (International Food Policy Research Institute)
Measuring Value Added in the People’s Republic of China’s Exports: A Direct Approach.
ADBI Working Paper 493. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute
International Trade Costs, Global Supply Chains and Value-added Trade in
Gerard Kelly and Gianni La Cava
Trade in Value Added Revisited: A Comment on R. Johnson and G. Noguera,
Accounting for Intermediates: Production Sharing and Trade in Value Added
Measuring Globalization: Global Multi Region Input Output Data Bases (G-MRIO)
A special issue of Economic Systems Research published in 2013 discussed currently available GMRIO data bases. There are two strands of research in development and use of these databases:
Trade flows and global supply chains
Environmental Impacts of Economic Growth, Trade and Globalization
IDE JETRO Asian IO Tables
OECD Inter-Country Input-Output (ICIO) tables
GRAM (Global Resource Accounting Model )
World Input-Output Database (WIOD).
Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP)
Another recent development is development of Trade in Value added databases analyzing trade flows of intermediate goods and fragmented global supply chains and production networks. These projects are currently underway at the time of writing of this post.
NA TiVA Project
The OECD-WTO TiVA database
APEC TiVA initiative
There are also EE- GMRIO (Environmentally extended GMRIO) discussed else where in a related post.
The Global Resource Accounting Model (GRAM) is a multi-regional input-output model (MRIO), which currently distinguishes between 62 countries and one ‘rest of the world’ region and 48 industrial sectors per country or region. The heart of the model is made up of OECD data on bilateral trade flows and input-output tables for 1995 to 2010. Combined with additional data sets, such as CO2 emissions and material extraction, the model enables production-related variables to be attributed to end consumption.
GLOBAL MULTIREGIONAL INPUT–OUTPUT FRAMEWORKS: AN INTRODUCTION AND OUTLOOK
Arnold Tukker & Erik Dietzenbacher
Published online: 21 Mar 2013
This review is the introduction to a special issue of Economic Systems Research on the topic of global multi regional input–output (GMRIO) tables, models, and analysis. It provides a short historical context of GMRIO development and its applications (many of which deal with environmental extensions) and presents the rationale for the major database projects presented in this special issue. Then the six papers are briefly introduced. This is followed by a concluding comparison of the characteristics of the main GMRIO databases developed thus far and an outlook of potential further developments.
COMPILATION AND APPLICATIONS OF IDE-JETRO’S INTERNATIONAL INPUT–OUTPUT TABLES
Bo Meng , Yaxiong Zhang & Satoshi Inomata
Published online: 21 Mar 2013
International input–output (IO) tables are among the most useful tools for economic analysis. Since these tables provide detailed information about international production networks, they have recently attracted considerable attention in research on spatial economics, global value chains, and issues relating to trade in value added. The Institute of Developing Economies at the Japan External Trade Organization (IDE-JETRO) has more than 40 years of experience in the construction and analysis of international IO tables. This paper explains the development of IDE-JETRO’s multi-regional IO projects including the construction of the Asian International Input–Output table and the Transnational Inter regional Input–Output table between China and Japan. To help users understand the features of the tables, this paper also gives examples of their application.
EXIOPOL – DEVELOPMENT AND ILLUSTRATIVE ANALYSES OF A DETAILED GLOBAL MR EE SUT/IOT
Arnold Tukker , Arjan de Koning , Richard Wood , Troy Hawkins , Stephan Lutter , Jose
Published online: 21 Mar 2013
EXIOPOL (A New Environmental Accounting Framework Using Externality Data and Input–Output Tools for Policy Analysis) was a European Union (EU)-funded project creating a detailed, global, multi regional environmentally extended Supply and Use table (MR EE SUT) of 43 countries, 129 sectors, 80 resources, and 40 emissions. We sourced primary SUT and input–output tables from Eurostat and non-EU statistical offices. We harmonized and detailed them using auxiliary national accounts data and co-efficient matrices. Imports were allocated to countries of exports using United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database trade shares. Optimization procedures removed imbalances in these detailing and trade linking steps. Environmental extensions were added from various sources. We calculated the EU footprint of final consumption with resulting MR EE SUT. EU policies focus mainly on energy and carbon footprints. We show that the EU land, water, and material footprint abroad is much more relevant, and should be prioritized in the EU’s environmental product and trade policies.
A MULTI-REGION INPUT–OUTPUT TABLE BASED ON THE GLOBAL TRADE ANALYSIS PROJECT DATABASE (GTAP-MRIO)
Robbie M. Andrew & Glen P. Peters
Published online: 21 Mar 2013
Understanding the drivers of many environmental problems requires enumerating the global supply chain. Multi-region input–output analysis (MRIOA) is a well-established technique for this purpose, but constructing a multi-region input–output table (MRIOT) can be a formidable challenge. We constructed a large MRIOT using the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) database of harmonised economic, IO, and trade data. We discuss the historical development of the GTAP-MRIO and describe its efficient construction. We provide updated carbon footprint estimates and analyse several issues relevant for MRIO construction and applications. We demonstrate that differences in environmental satellite accounts may be more important than differences in MRIOTs when calculating national carbon footprints. The GTAP-MRIO is a robust global MRIOT and, given its easy availability and implementation, it should allow the widespread application of global MRIOA by a variety of users.
THE CONSTRUCTION OF WORLD INPUT–OUTPUT TABLES IN THE WIOD PROJECT
Erik Dietzenbacher , Bart Los , Robert Stehrer , Marcel Timmer & Gaaitzen de Vries
Published online: 21 Mar 2013
This article describes the construction of the World Input–Output Tables (WIOTs) that constitute the core of the World Input–Output Database. WIOTs are available for the period 1995–2009 and give the values of transactions among 35 industries in 40 countries plus the ‘Rest of the World’ and from these industries to households, governments and users of capital goods in the same set of countries. The article describes how information from the National Accounts, Supply and Use Tables and International Trade Statistics have been harmonized, reconciled and used for estimation procedures to arrive at a consistent time series of WIOTs.
BUILDING EORA: A GLOBAL MULTI-REGION INPUT–OUTPUT DATABASE AT HIGH COUNTRY AND SECTOR RESOLUTION
Manfred Lenzen , Daniel Moran , Keiichiro Kanemoto & Arne Geschke
Published online: 21 Mar 2013
There are a number of initiatives aimed at compiling large-scale global multi-region input–output (MRIO) tables complemented with non-monetary information such as on resource flows and environmental burdens. Depending on purpose or application, MRIO construction and usage has been hampered by a lack of geographical and sectoral detail; at the time of writing, the most advanced initiatives opt for a breakdown into at most 129 regions and 120 sectors. Not all existing global MRIO frameworks feature continuous time series, margins and tax sheets, and information on reliability and uncertainty. Despite these potential limitations, constructing a large MRIO requires significant manual labour and many years of time. This paper describes the results from a project aimed at creating an MRIO account that represents all countries at a detailed sectoral level, allows continuous updating, provides information on data reliability, contains table sheets expressed in basic prices as well as all margins and taxes, and contains a historical time series. We achieve these goals through a high level of procedural standardisation, automation, and data organisation.
POLICY-RELEVANT APPLICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALLY EXTENDED MRIO DATABASES – EXPERIENCES FROM THE UK
Thomas Wiedmann & John Barrett
Published online: 21 Mar 2013
The impressive development in global multi-region input–output (IO) databases is accompanied by an increase in applications published in the scientific literature. However, it is not obvious whether the insights gained from these studies have indeed been used in political decision-making. We ask whether and to what extent there is policy uptake of results from environmentally extended multi-region IO (EE-MRIO) models and how it may be improved. We identify unique characteristics of such models not inherent to other approaches. We then present evidence from the UK showing that a policy process around consumption-based accounting for greenhouse gas emissions and resource use has evolved that is based on results from EE-MRIO modelling. This suggests that specific, policy-relevant information that would be impossible to obtain otherwise can be generated with the help of EE-MRIO models. Our analysis is limited to environmental applications of global MRIO models and to government policies in the UK.
From GLOBAL MULTIREGIONAL INPUT–OUTPUT FRAMEWORKS: AN INTRODUCTION AND OUTLOOK
From POLICY-RELEVANT APPLICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALLY EXTENDED MRIO DATABASES – EXPERIENCES FROM THE UK
From Economic Systems Research
Volume 26, 2014 – Issue 3: A Comparative Evaluation of Multi-Regional Input-Output Databases
CONVERGENCE BETWEEN THE EORA, WIOD, EXIOBASE, AND OPENEU’S CONSUMPTION-BASED CARBON ACCOUNTS
Daniel Moran & Richard Wood
Published online: 14 Jul 2014
In this paper, we take an overview of several of the biggest independently constructed global multi-regional input–output (MRIO) databases and ask how reliable and consonant these databases are. The key question is whether MRIO accounts are robust enough for setting environmental policies. This paper compares the results of four global MRIOs: Eora, WIOD, EXIOBASE, and the GTAP-based OpenEU databases, and investigates how much each diverges from the multi-model mean. We also use Monte Carlo analysis to conduct sensitivity analysis of the robustness of each accounts’ results and we test to see how much variation in the environmental satellite account, rather than the economic structure itself, causes divergence in results. After harmonising the satellite account, we found that carbon footprint results for most major economies disagree by<10% between MRIOs. Confidence estimates are necessary if MRIO methods and consumption-based accounting are to be used in environmental policy-making at the national level.
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF MRIO DATABASES
Satoshi Inomata & Anne Owen
Published online: 11 Aug 2014
This editorial is the introduction to a special issue of Economics Systems Research on the topic of intercomparison of multi-regional input–output (MRIO) databases and analyses. It explains the rationale for dedicating an issue of this journal to this area of research. Then the six papers chosen for this issue are introduced. This is followed by a concluding section outlining future directions for developers and users of MRIO databases.
The World Input‐Output Database (WIOD): Contents, Sources and Methods
Edited by Marcel Timmer (University of Groningen)
With contributions from:
Abdul A. Erumban, Reitze Gouma, Bart Los, Umed Temurshoev and
Gaaitzen J. de Vries (University of Groningen)
Iñaki Arto, Valeria Andreoni Aurélien Genty, Frederik Neuwahl, José
M. Rueda‐Cantuche and Alejandro Villanueva (IPTS)
Joe Francois, Olga Pindyuk, Johannes Pöschl and Robert Stehrer
(WIIW), Gerhard Streicher (WIFO)
April 2012, Version 0.9
Analyzing Global Value Chains using the World Input-Output
Bart Los (University of Groningen)
with Marcel Timmer (Groningen), Gaaitzen de Vries
(Groningen) and Robert Stehrer (wiiw Vienna)
BBVA Foundation – Ivie Workshop, October 30, 2017, Valencia
An Overview on the Construction of North American Regional Supply-Use and Input-Output Tables and their Applications in Policy Analysis
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
U.S. International Trade Commission
Ross J. Hallren
ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER SERIES
Working Paper 2017-12-A
The Global MRIO Lab – charting the world economy,
Manfred Lenzen, Arne Geschke, Muhammad Daaniyall Abd Rahman, Yanyan
Xiao, Jacob Fry, Rachel Reyes, Erik Dietzenbacher, Satoshi Inomata, Keiichiro Kanemoto, Bart Los, Daniel Moran, Hagen Schulte in den Bäumen, Arnold Tukker, Terrie Walmsley, Thomas Wiedmann, Richard Wood & Norihiko Yamano
Economic Systems Research, 29:2, 158-186
INPUT–OUTPUT ANALYSIS: THE NEXT 25 YEARS,
Erik Dietzenbacher, Manfred Lenzen, Bart Los, Dabo Guan, Michael L. Lahr,
Ferran Sancho, Sangwon Suh & Cuihong Yang