Input-output and the firm: Some comments
Morrison W. I. (1973) Input-output and the firm: Some comments, Reg. Studies 7, 253–256. This paper continues the debate started by Tiebout and continued recently in Regional Studies by Hewings and Greytak, who both suggested that a method originally proposed by Tiebout could be used to integrate an individual firm into a regional input-output table. Tiebout's approach is considered in some detail, and a number of critical comments are made. It is shown that Tiebout's method was not intended for use in the way Hewings intimated, and, consequently, many of Greytak's criticisms become less important. Finally, it is suggested that an iterative approach to the Leontief inverse is often most suitable in impact studies.
The effect of aggregation on the output multipliers in input-output models
This paper compares the output multipliers of the 1967 National input output model (367 industries) with the multipliers of the aggregated version (81 industries). The results show that, generally, the set of industries in the “full” model that were aggregated together for the “reduced” model, display a wide range of output multiplier values. Therefore, the output multiplier of an aggregated industry may not be truly representative of any of the industries that were joined together. Finally we show how information for a particular firm or disaggregated industry can be incorporated in an aggregated input-output model to obtain a close estimate of the actual output multiplier for that firm or industry.
An Introduction to Property Theory: Utilitarian Property Theories
As a leading property law casebook puts it, “[u]tilitarian theory is, without doubt, the dominant view of property today, at least among lawyers.” This is certainly true, but the story is also significantly more complicated. Although utilitarian analysis provides tremendous insight into the institution of property, it raises a number of important questions when treated as a comprehensive theory of property. Moreover, the term utilitarian masks a great deal of intellectual and methodological diversity. Rather than a single utilitarian theory, it is more appropriate to speak of a number of utilitarian (or even utilitarian-influenced) property theories . For our purposes, these utilitarian-influenced theories include many contemporary theories that refer to themselves as economic or welfarist . In this chapter, we will explore the broad outlines of these theories, focusing on their points of overlap and also on key areas of disagreement. A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO UTILITARIANISM Utilitarianism is a consequentialist moral philosophy, that is, one that judges the rightness and wrongness of actions or rules or institutions by the goodness and badness of the consequences they bring about. Utilitarianism assesses the goodness or badness of consequences in terms of their tendency to maximize utility or welfare. Bernard Williams has observed that “[t]he fathers of utilitarianism thought of it principally as a system of social and political decision,” as opposed to “a system of personal morality.” As Williams correctly notes, it is sometimes hard to keep these two domains apart. Nevertheless, it is plainly as a theory of social choice that utilitarianism has been deployed in the context of property theory.