Refine
Document Type
- Article (5)
- Part of a Book (4)
- Conference Proceeding (3)
- Report (1)
Keywords
- Basic prices (1)
- Diversification (1)
- Euro method (2)
- Fuel subsidy (1)
- GRAS method (2)
- Input–Output (1)
- National Accounts (1)
- Non-survey techniques (2)
- SUT-EURO (1)
- SUT-RAS (1)
Institute
For a long time, the use of intermediate products in production has been growing more rapidly in most countries than domestic production. This is a strong indication of more interdependency in production. The main purpose of input-output analysis is to study the interdependency of industries in an economy. Often the term interindustry analysis is also used. Therefore, the exchange of intermediate products is a key issue of input-output analysis. We will use input–output data for this study that the author prepared for the new ‘Handbook on Supply, Use and Input–Output Tables with Extensions and Applications’ of the United Nations. The supply use and input–output tables contain separate valuation matrices for trade margins, transport margins, value added tax, other taxes on products and subsidies on products. For the study, two input–output models were developed to evaluate the impact of fuel subsidy and taxation reform on output, gross domestic product, inflation and trade. Six scenarios are discussed covering different aspects of the reform.
Input–Output modellers are often faced with the task of estimating missing Use tables at basic prices and also valuation matrices of the individual countries. This paper examines a selection of estimation methods applied to the European context where the analysts are not in possession of superior data. The estimation methods are restricted to the use of automated methods that would require more than just the row and column sums of the tables (as in projections) but less than a combination of various conflicting information (as in compilation). The results are assessed against the official Supply, Use and Input–Output tables of Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Finland, Austria and Slovakia by using matrix difference metrics. The main conclusion is that using the structures of previous years usually performs better than any other approach.
Industrial growth and a rapidly growing world population have large impacts on the global environment and allocation of material resources. Most changes in the environment are brought about by human activities and these activities result in a flow of materials. The flows of resources from the natural environment to the economy are a prerequisite of production while flows of residuals from the economy to the environment are the consequence of production and consumption. A full understanding of these processes requires a complete description of the physical dimension of the economy and its interaction with the environment.
For decades now, exports and import have grown more rapidly than domestic production. This is a strong indication that, besides the rapid growth of foreign trade in final goods, trade in intermediates is becoming increasingly important. For this reason, an input-output ap-proach is more appropriate for any analysis of diversification than a traditional approach based purely on macroeconomic data.
This article analyses economic diversification in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries using data from input-output tables which are an integral part of the national accounts. We compare the performance of the GCC economies with that of a reference case, Norway, which is considered to have successfully diversified its economy despite having a large oil resource base. It also assesses these countries’ relative progress on sustainable development using a measure of the World Bank, adjusted net savings, which evaluates the true rate of savings in an economy after accounting for investments in physical and human capital, de-pletion of natural resources, and damage from environmental pollution.
The article concludes that GCC countries have, contrary to expectation, collectively per-formed relatively well on diversification, but their performance on sustainable development varies.
We have introduced in this paper new variants of two methods for projecting Supply and Use Tables that are based on a distance minimisation approach (SUT-RAS) and the Leontief model (SUT-EURO). We have also compared them under similar and comparable exogenous information, i.e.: with and without exogenous industry output, and with explicit consideration of taxes less subsidies on products. We have conducted an empirical assessment of all of these methods against a set of annual tables between 2000 and 2005 for Austria, Belgium, Spain and Italy. From the empirical assessment, we obtained three main conclusions: (a) the use of extra information (i.e. industry output) generally improves projected estimates in both methods; (b) whenever industry output is available, the SUT-RAS method should be used and otherwise the SUT-EURO should be used instead; and (c) the total industry output is best estimated by the SUT-EURO method when this is not available.
Structural interventions of the Commission comprise expenditures for objective 1, objective 2 and objective 3. The three priority objectives of the Structural Funds are: • promoting the development and structural adjustment of the regions whose development is lagging behind (objective 1); • supporting the economic and social conversion of areas facing structural difficulties (objective 2); • supporting the adaptation and modernisation of policies and systems of education, training and employment. (objective 3). The purpose of this study is to quantify the economic impacts of objective 1 interventions of the Structural Funds for the period 2000 – 2006. The expenditures of the Structural Funds for objective 2 and objective 3, the Cohesion Fund, the Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-accession (ISPA) and loans which are granted by the European Investment Bank (EIB) are not included in the analysis. The study quantifies how much of expected development can be attributed to objective 1 expenditures for • Community interventions (Structural Funds), • public interventions (Structural Funds, national public interventions) and • total interventions (Structural Funds, national public interventions, private participation). The study uses the autumn 2001 forecast and medium-term projection of Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs of the European Commission in order to calculate a baseline for the impact assessment. Today, the forecast itself seems rather optimistic. However, this does not cause problems for the analysis in this report, because the objective is to estimate the impact of the structural funds. In other words the objective is to estimate, for example, the additional growth caused by the structural funds and not to forecast growth as such. Therefore, whether the forecast as such will materialise is of no consequence for the impact analysis in this study.
The main objective of this paper is to revisit the Euro method in a critical and constructive way.Wehave analysed some arguments against the Euro method published recently in the literature as well as some other relevant aspects of the SUT-Euro and SUT-RAS methods not covered before. Although not being the Euro method perfect, we believe that there is still space for the use of the Euro method in updating/regionalizing Supply and Use tables.