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.
The Sequence from Invention to Innovation and Its Relation to Economic Growth
Introduction, 97. — I. The propensity to develop pure science, 98. — II. The propensity to invent, 102. — III. The propensity to innovate, 105. — IV. The propensity to finance innovation, 108. — V. The propensity to accept innovations, 110.