Economic impact analysis: A U.K. literature survey and bibliography

Economic Impact Analysis: A U.K. Literature Survey and Bibliography J. A.

LEWIS

Institute for Employment Research, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K. and School of Economic and Social Studies, The Polytechnic, Molineux Street, Wolverhampton WV1 ISB, U.K.

PERGAMON

PRESS

OXFORD . NEW YORK . BEIJING . FRANKFURT SiiO PAUL0 . SYDNEY TOKYO . TORONTO

Progress in Planning, Vol. 30, pp. 157-209, 1988. Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved.

Copyright

03059006/88 $O.OO+SO 0 1988 Pergamon Press plc

Contents Acknowledgements

161

Abstract

162 Part I.

Economic Impact Analysis: A U.K. Literature Survey

1.

Introduction

163

2.

Methodologies of Economic Impact Analysis 2. I. Multiplier Concepts 2.2. The Keynesian Income and Employment

163 164 164 165 167 168 169 169 171 172 174 178 179 180

2.2. I.

Derivation

Multipliers

of the multiplier

2.2.2.

The multiplicand

2.2.3. 2.2.4.

Sectoral multipliers Industrial contraction

and the multiplier effect

2.3. 2.4.

Economic Base Multipliers A Social Accounting Approach

2.5.

2.6.

Input-Output Models 2.5.1. Sub-national input-output models 2.5.2. Limitations of input-output models Intersectoral Flows Analysis

2.7.

Sub-national

Econometric

Models

3.

U.K. Impact Studies

180

4.

Conclusions

187

Appendix

189

Part II. I. 2.

Economic Impact Analysis: A Bibliography

Impact Studies Policy Impact Studies

191 199 159

160

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Progress in Planning Methodological Issues in Impact Analysis Regional and Urban Models used for Economic Impact Analysis in the United Kingdom A Selection of Regional and Urban Models from other parts of the World Some Useful Surveys, Reviews and Bibliographies Additional References included in the Literature Survey

202 206 201 208 208

Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Professor Robert Lindley of the IER for helpful advice and constructive criticism. She would also like to thank Chris Vallely of the Polytechnic, Wolverhampton, for comments on the multiplier section. In addition thanks are due to all those who supplied articles and texts for inclusion in the review especially Peter Batey and Thea Sinclair.

161

Abstract The monograph reviews U.K. economic impact studies, referring to the United States and other literature only briefly. The methodologies of impact studies are examined. These have developed along two separate routes; one has concentrated on the theory and the model-building process; the other has been concerned with the more practical aspects of estimating impacts, often with very strict time and budget constraints, which make the most rigorous methods prohibitive. Some researchers have been involved in both routes, usually by developing models and techniques and then using them for practical purposes. Undoubtedly this is desirable in terms of “best practice”, and certainly where large scale models (such as input-output tables) exist the results of economic impact analysis are the most comprehensive. The setting up of these models is however extremely expensive and even then the model will probably always be some years out of date because of the lags between data collection and their incorporation into the model. The main tool for assessment of economic impact is the multiplier, that is the multiple of an initial exogenous change in income (the multiplicand) in any economic system by which total income in the system changes. There are, however, a number of different mutiplier concepts as well as different specifications of the multiplicand and differences in the size and type of economic system defined. These are highlighted by comparing studies. The impact studies undertaken in the U.K. are discussed in Section 3. In Section 4 some conclusions on the current state of research in this area are presented. The bibliography contains over 400 references and is divided into seven sections. Section 1 contains a comprehensive list which attempts to cover all published U.K. impact studies and also includes significant overseas impact studies. Section 2 covers mainly U.K. policy impact studies. Section 3 contains the more significant methodological papers. Section 4 is a comprehensive list of U.K. regional and urban models used for economic impact analysis and Section 5 contains a list of only a sample of overseas models. Some useful surveys, reviews and bibliographies are listed in Section 6.

162

Part

I

Economic Impact Analysis: A U.K. Literature Survey

1.

Introduction

Economists, geographers and planners have shown interest in the spatial economic impact of exogenous changes, such as public or private investment programmes, export orders or public sector current expenditures, for many decades. The work of Kahn (193 1) and Keynes (1936) is well-known but was preceded by some earlier attempts at identifying the “economic base” (e.g. Aurousseau, 1921), in a less rigorous manner. During the last two decades a vast number of economic impact studies have been undertaken. In a recent article Richardson (1985) surveyed the material on inputoutput and economic base multipliers, in which he cited 354 references, a list which he claimed was “. . . far from comprehensive even in terms of literature in the last decade and repeat(s) only 44 of the 283 items published in a 1972 regional input-output text (Richardson, 1972)” (Richardson, 1985, p. 608). The purpose of this paper is to concentrate on the U.K. studies, referring to the U.S. and other literature only briefly. The paper is divided as follows: first in Section 2 the methodologies of impact studies are examined; second the impact studies undertaken in the U.K. are presented in a series of tables in Section 3 and finally in Section 4 some conclusions on the current state of research in this area are presented.

2. Methodologies

of Economic

Impact

Analysis

The methodologies of economic impact analysis have developed along two separate routes; one route has concentrated on the theory and mathematical correctness of the model-building process and the derivation of the formulas for the induced effects; the 163

164

Progress in Planning

other route has been concerned with the practical aspects of designating the area of impact, collecting data or finding suitable proxy data, and attempting to estimate the impact, often with very strict time and budget constraints, which make the most rigorous methods prohibitive. Some researchers have been involved in both routes, usually by developing models and techniques and then using them for practical purposes. Undoubtedly this is desirable in terms of “best practice”, and certainly where large scale models (such as input-output tables) exist the results of economic impact analyses are the most comprehensive. The setting up of these models is however extremely expensive in terms of construction and also in terms of updating the model, and even then the model will probably always be some years out of date because of the lags between data collection and production and between production of data and their incorporation into the model.

2.1.

MULTIPLIER

CONCEPTS

The main tool for assessment of economic impact is the multiplier, that is the multiple of an initial exogenous change in income (the multiplicand) in any economic system by which total income in the system changes. There are, however, a number of different multiplier concepts (Keynesian, economic-base, input-output) and sub-types (Type I, II, etc.) as well as different specifications of the multiplicand and differences in the size and type of economic system defined. Mostly the studies are concerned with impacts on regions, sub-regions or urban areas and the size of the area is the single most important determinant in the multiplier effect; that is the larger the economic system, the larger the size of the multiplier in general. In the U.K. the vast majority of impact studies have used Keynesian income multipliers as the main tool of analysis; U.S. studies on the other hand have used almost exclusively economic base concepts. ~cNicoll(l981) contains a comparison of the definitions and compares estimates of different multipiier concepts using data for Shetland.

2.2.

THE

KEYNESIAN

INCOME

AND

EMPLOYMENT

MULTIPLIERS

The basic concept of the Keynesian Multiplier is simple and rests on the assumption that there are some involuntarily unemployed resources in the system. Then if an injection of income occurs the income recipients will spend some of this new income on goods and services (some will also be saved and some taken in direct taxation), some of which will be produced within the system (and some imported from outside of the system); this then provides additional income to residents, who will then also spend some of their additional income on goods and services produced within the system and so on. The total increase in income in the system is normally therefore greater than the initial increase by some multiple. The multiplier measures the amount by which the initial injection of income is increased through the first and all the subsequent rounds of expenditure. The size of the multiplier is determined by the size of the leakages: direct taxation, saving, imports and indirect taxation net of any

Economic Impact Analysis

165

compensating income transfers. The smaller the leakages and the smaller the ratio of transfer benefits to income, the higher the multiplier. The employment multiplier process is similar. If new jobs are created in an economic system then as the newly employed workers spend their additional income on goods and services produced in the system, they create additional jobs at each round of the process. Employment multipliers measure the relationship between total jobs created in an area in relation to the initial job creation exercise. Employment multipliers are usually derived from estimates of total income increases. The employment creation may however take longer to materialise; firms will often increase existing labour utilisation in the short-run, through overtime, increased shift-working and increases in productivity and linked bonuses before recruiting additional workers. If labour utilisation is slack recruitment may not materialise at all, though some otherwise vulnerable jobs may be saved. This basic Keynesian multiplier ignores any feedback effects from the income which accrues to other areas and may ultimately involve exports from the system. Also ignored in the basic model are any additional induced investment effects which might result. Both of these can be incorporated into the model, the latter usually by way of a multiplier-accelerator specification. In either case the specification becomes more complex though the amount of data required for the computation may not increase.

2.2.1. Derivation

of the multiplier

The specification of the basic Keynesian income multiplier for GDP at factor prices applicable to an exogenous change in public expenditure, investment, or exports is: 1

Kr= l-c (I-td-U)

(l-m)

( l-ti)

Where Kr

is the Keynesian

C

is the marginal

income

fd

is the marginal propensity to pay direct taxation out of income, national insurance and superannuation deductions,

U

is the marginal

transfer

m

is the marginal

propensity

6

is the marginal propensity to pay indirect tax out of consumption of goods and services produced within the system (i.e. consumption net of imports).

propensity

multiplier

for GDP,

to consume

benefit/income to import

out of disposable

income, including

ratio, out of consumption

expenditure,

and

For the full derivation see Appendix. There is some variation in the specification of the models and in the choice of symbols. Sinclair and Sutcliffe (1978) point out that the type of multiplier which is being measured is not always made clear nor is the definition of the coefficients always

166

Progress

in Planning

clear and unless the full derivation of the model is given it is not possible to identify the type. Archibald (1967) Brown (1967) Allen (1969) and Steele (1969) each use a slightly different multiplier specification. Archibald (1967) has only one taxation coefficient, t which is the “marginal rate of tax”, presumably this is income tax, in which case he has omitted the effect of taxation on consumption. Brown’s specification is such that he is likely to double count the indirect taxation paid on imported goods and since he “borrows” coefficients from other work with a different specification the likelihood is greater. The size of the multiplier The first attempt to calculate values for all British regions was made by Steele (1969) using 1964 data, the values lie between 1.19 and 1.41 for regions in England and Wales. For Scotland he calculated two multipliers based on slightly different methods of computing the import leakage coefficient. Both values are high relative to those for England and Wales: 1.89 and 1.70; the high values arise due to relatively low imputed import leakages for Scotland. Most of the United Kingdom empirical studies of the 1960s and 1970s estimate values for the regional multiplier which are positive, and lie for the most part within a relatively narrow range corresponding to Archibald’s original “guess” of between 1.2 and 1.7. Sadler, Archer and Owen (1973) suggest, however, that it is possible that a regional or sub-regional multiplier could be negative. This could arise only if marginal leakages from income were greater than the increase in income. This might arise if locally produced goods had the characteristics of “inferior goods”, so that as income in the economic system rises in the first round, expenditure switching to imports occurs; m, the marginal propensity to import out of consumption could exceed 1. At the end of the first round, therefore, the amount of income remaining in the system would be negative. A negative net income at the end of the first round would also arise if the income recipients have less disposable income, after direct taxation deductions and loss of transfer benefits, such as unemployment and social security payments. Sinclair and Sutcliffe (1977) demonstrate some circumstances under which the multiplier effect may be negative. It is therefore worth noting that the possible range for the multiplier may lie outside the range suggested by the consensus, that the multiplier may be less than 1 and that a negative multiplier is possible. The effect of immigration The importance of immigration in the multiplier process was introduced in a study by Greig (1971a) on the impact of the Pulp and Paper Mill at Corpach on the sub-region. Gordon (1973) also noted that immigration can result from indirect and induced income generation as well as the initial injection and he stresses the importance of immigration for the estimation of the coefficients for savings and taxation. If new income to the area accrues to immigrants into the area then the impact will be different than if the income accrued to residents. There will, for example, be no loss of social benefits to consider, they may bring accumulated savings to spend within the area, and their contribution to regional expenditure will depend upon their average propensities to consume, pay tax, import etc., rather than the marginal propensities as

Economic Impact Analysis

167

would be appropriate for residents. Their patterns of expenditure will also be different and they will add to the demand for public services, such as education and health care.

2.2.2. The multiplicand Wilson (1968) suggests we pay greater attention to the estimation of the multiplicand, since the multiplier effect is much less significant than the value-added component of the initial injection. There is some confusion over the definition of the multiplicand. Archer (1976) attempts to clarify the position. The choice of multiplicand and the specification of the multiplier model may vary so long as they are clearly defined. Lever (1974a) uses a model which incorporates leakages from the original injection into the multiplier calculation, whereas other studies have incorporated those leakages into the calculation of the multiplicand. The specification of the multiplier will also vary for different multiplicands (see Sinclair and Sutcliffe, 1982b). Difficulties may arise if coefficients are borrowed from one study for use in another with a different set of definitions. Greig (1971b) identifies three types of multiplicand; the initial injection; “the primary multiplicand”, the ongoing multiplier, resulting from a permanent increase in income and employment in the area; “the secondary multiplicand”, the induced investment effect and “the tertiary multiplicand”. Brownrigg (1973) also uses a family of multiplicands in his study of the economic impact of the University of Stirling; the initial construction expenditure, (Jl); staff salaries and wages, (52); students’ income, (53); and induced investment expenditure, (54). The multiplier applied to each multiplicand is the same but Jl and 54 are reduced by their import content before the multiplier effect is applied. Steele (1969) excludes undistributed profits from the multiplicand, since these do not accrue as personal incomes in the area. Sinclair and Sutcliffe (1978) emphasise the importance of the identification of all leakages (indirect taxes, direct taxes and national insurance contributions, loss of benefits, and all payments to non-residents) from the first round of the multiplier process, which do not accrue as personal incomes to residents. This importance is demonstrated in applications of the multiplier effect to tourist expenditures in Sinclair and Sutcliffe (1982) and to Civil Service dispersal in Ashcroft and Swales (1982). The multiplicand can also take the form of a single shot or a continuing injection and these two multiplicands should be treated separately. Sinclair and Sutcliffe (1982b) derive multiplier specifications applicable to several multiplicands. Changes over time Garnick (1970) Lever (1974a, b) and McGilvray and Simpson (1969) examined the change in the local income multiplier which might occur over time. Changes in the region’s industrial structure, changes in regional consumption patterns, changes in exogenous supply and demand phenomena are the long-run factors, inelasticities in local supply and cyclical effects on regional industry are the short-run factors identified by Garnick (1970). McGilvray and Simpson (1969) examined the effect of

168

Progress in Planning

changes in the factor mix over time. Lever (1974a) studied the propensity of establishments to use imported inputs. Branch plants were found to have initially high propensities to import but switching to more local supplies over time. The reverse was true for local entrepreneurs. Feedback from other areas The simple multiplier model makes no allowance for the increases in income which accrue through feedback from other areas. If some income at each round of the multiplier process accrues to residents outside the area, then some of that income will inevitably return to the area through exports. Steele (1972) considers the effect of feedback from other areas and produces a “monster” equation in his appendix to incorporate these feedback effects (Steele, 1972, p. 130). Black (198 1) also includes a feedback effect. See also Sinclair and Sutcliffe (1983) for a discussion of trade repercussions in multiplier analysis. The induced investment effect The multiplier model can also be developed to take account of any induced investment effects in the region, by use of accelerator theory. The assumption would be that investment is related to changes in the level of income: I=iAY where i is the investment coefficient. In this specification the relationship is a simple linear one, though an alternative, such as a log-linear relationship might be preferred. Black (198 1) includes a similar specification. Sinclair and Sutcliffe (1983) suggest that, at the sub-national level, induced investment is likely to be discontinuous and might be more appropriately treated as a separate multiplicand. It might also be desirable to include some upper and lower limits (ceilings and floors) into any such model to prevent implausible fluctuations. In any case the coefficient i will be difficult to estimate for an area. Puu (1986) develops a multiplier-accelerator model in a two dimensional spatial setting, augmented by an inter-regional trade multiplier and incorporating the concept of floors and ceilings to limit the action of a linear accelerator.

2.2.3. Sectoral multipliers Some studies, such as Archer (1973) have examined the multiplier for a particular sector, in this case the Tourist industry. Tourist multipliers have been the subject of many studies (see Section 3 below). There are probably three reasons for their popularity: first, the routes of supply are relatively easy to identify (through hotels and other forms of accommodation, catering establishments, entertainment providers and so on); second, local policy-makers have been interested in the contributions that tourists make to their local economies, since they are often well aware of the costs they themselves need to incur as a result of tourism; and third tourism probably has unique linkage patterns. These patterns differ from other sectors, particularly manufacturing

Economic Impact Analysis

169

sectors. Multipliers for other sectors have received less attention. The major scope for development in this area lies in the development of input-output type studies, where the intersectoral flows of inputs can be traced. The input-output approach is discussed below. Dickerman (1975) estimates a personal income multiplier for a 16 sector regional economy using a net-trade-flow model, without the use of an input-output model. Garnick (1970) compares a number of methods for deriving sector multipliers using minimum resource inputs. Burford and Katz (1981) have suggested a method for computing input-output multipliers where no input-output model exists. Harrigan (1982) suggests a modification to their specification which improved the estimated multipliers for Scotland.

2.2.4. Industrial

contraction and the multiplier effect

By far the greater proportion of studies have been concerned with economic expansion. A relatively small number have focused their attention on industrial decline. In the case of industrial contraction the multiplicand is negative. Lange (1943) emphasises the distinction between a negative multiplier and a negative multiplicand. A number of studies have been concerned with redundancies and decline. JURUE (1979, 1981, 1983, summarised in Bozeat, 1983), and Chakravarty, Jones and MacKay (198 1) have investigated the impact of closures of Steel Works on the surrounding economies. Brownrigg (1980) and Lewis (1982, 1986a) address the differences between contraction and expansion. The specification for a multiplier relating to industrial decline may be identical to one relating to expansion. The first round leakages or in the case of decline, injections, will differ; and the coefficients may have slightly different values for income decline than they would for income expansion. Offsetting injections will include redundancy payments and remedial investment programmes by Central or Local Government, the European Community, or private companies (e.g. where a prime site is released). Additional difficulties in the case of industrial decline arise because of problems of identifying lag structures and anticipating expectations. For example, if redundant workers have high expectations of obtaining alternative employment they will behave differently than if they have low expectations and their patterns and levels of consumption will vary. As the duration of unemployment continues, changes in consumption patterns will occur, as savings and redundancy payments decline and ultimately are used up. The age, wealth holdings, marital status and economic status of other household members will all influence the behaviour and therefore the impact of the plant closure. Just as an investment might attract immigrants to the area and additional induced investment, a plant closure may result in emigration and other plant closures, which would exacerbate the impact on the area.

2.3.

ECONOMIC

BASE

MULTIPLIERS

The basic concept of the economic base multiplier is that there exists a stable relationship between employment in the “basic” sector of the economy and

170

Progress

in Planning

employment in the “non-basic” sector. There are differences in the way in which the “basic” sector is identified and measured, but the idea has been to choose this sector such that it is dependent on exports from the area and employment in this sector is therefore exogenously determined. The “non-basic” employment sector serves only local needs, but expands and contracts with the “basic” empIoyment sector. In a survey article, Lane (1966) reviews the development of urban base multipliers through “two independent areas of investigation which only recently have come together” (Lane, 1966, p. 339). The formal economic analysis approach to the concept dates from Kahn (1931) and was developed by Keynes in his General Theory (Keynes, 1936), while its empirical development, primarily by geographers and planners, began about ten years earlier with the work of Aurousseau. Aurousseau (1921) presented the idea that the “primary” occupations were concerned with the town’s functions while the “secondary” occupations supported the primary sector. Hartshorne (1936) made the first major attempt to measure the basic and non-basic sectors though only for manufacturing employment. Two years later Fortune magazine (Fortune, 1938) attempted to divide the employment structure of Oskaloosa, Iowa into an export (or basic) sector, an import sector and a non-basic sector engaged in inter-city trade, using international trade theory as a guide. Hoyt (1936) (see also Weimer and Hoyt, 1939a, b), used the economic base concept to forecast city growth and estimate future housing demands. Lane criticises these (non-economist) studies with three points. First, many studies seem to suggest that exports are the only source of growth for an area, this criticism certainly applies to Blumenfeld (1956). Second, the distinction between income and employment flows is blurred. If there is full employment and a completely inelastic supply of labour, then an increase in exports will lead to an increase in income but no increase in employment; and third, no distinction between the short and long runs are made, so that short-term fluctuations are confused with long-term developments. Economic base multipliers have been developed in order to derive input-output type multipliers without the expense of developing a full input-output table. Although all economic base models are based on the same principle that certain industries are “basic”, while the remaining industries are essentially “service”, in practice there are some difficulties in the classification of industries. A variety of techniques have been devised for these purposes and a number of specifications of the multiplier have emerged. The basic formulation of the economic base multiplier is: K: = l/l-er where er = the marginal propensity to spend locally. Wagstaff (1973) used a modification of the formulation to derive employment multipliers for Shetland, a small sub-regional economy. McNicoll(198 1) used an adapted version of Wagstaff s formulation to compare Keynesian, economic base and input-output multipliers also for Shetland using data from the Shetland input-output study. The Keynesian multipliers were lower than the input-output multipliers in every industry, on average by 1 I. lo/O. The economic base multipliers had a much larger spread of difference from the input-output multipliers.

Economic

Impact

Analysis

171

There are two main methods used to identify the economic base of the area; the location quotients method and the minimum requirements method. In the location quotients method all industries with location quotients greater than one are assumed to have some of their employment dependent on exports. The employment dependent on exports is assumed to be the difference between 1 and the reciprocal of the location quotient. The minimum requirements method is similar except that the industrial structure of an area is compared with areas of a similar size rather than the nation as a whole. For any industry the minimum share is identified as the employment level associated with the area with the lowest employment level. Other areas of that size are then presumed to export some of that industry’s output. See Ullman and Dacey (1960) for a more detailed explanation. See also critiques by Pratt (1968) and Pfister (1976). A number of other methods have been devised. Richardson (1985) reviews the methods.

2.4.

A SOCIAL

ACCOUNTING

APPROACH

The spatial impact analysis focuses attention on impact within a defined spatial area and treats all other effects as exogenous. The wider impacts can be incorporated into a social cost-benefit framework, in which case the total impacts will be evaluated. For the purpose of spatial impact studies, a social accounting framework is more desirable. In the case of a social accounting exercise, the costs and benefits for various sections of the economy are identified, and wherever possible, quantified. Lichfield (1962, 1966), Lichfield and Chapman (1970), Lichfield, Kettle and Whitbread (1975), JURUE (1979) and Defouney and Thorbecke (1984) have suggested or utilised this framework of analysis. In the JURUE (1979) study the costs and benefits of the (then) proposed closure of Bilston Steel Works were attributed to the British Steel Corporation (BSC), the local economy and the economy as a whole. Similar social accounts were estimated for alternatives to full closure. The benefit of this approach was to illustrate that whilst the closure option represented the greatest net benefits to BSC, this option did not contribute the greatest net benefits to society as a whole. Social costs and benefits are likely to be subject to varying values, depending on who makes those valuations. Additionally those who bear the costs, the losers, and those who reap the benefits, the gainers, are normally two different sets of people. Summing the costs and benefits ignores the distribution of costs and benefits amongst individuals. No pareto improvement can be made if there are losers as well as gainers, but a social welfare improvement using the Kaldor-Skitovsky compensation principle -that the gainers are able to more than compensate the losers -may be possible. If we define the sum of money necessary to make an individual no better or worse off after an economic change than before, as the compensating variation (CV), then where the sum of CVs of the gainers exceeds the sum of the CVs of the losers, a potential social welfare improvement can be made. Since the gainers are not required to compensate the losers, this approach indicates that a social welfare improvement is possible, not that one is made. UNIDO (1972) and Little and Mirrlees (1974) contain detailed discussions of cost-benefit evaluation and project appraisal.

172

Progress

in Planning

2.5.

INPUT-OUTPUT

MODELS

An input-output model was first developed by Leontief in 1936. At the sub-national level much pioneering work was undertaken first by Isard (1951), then by Moses (1955). A great deal of development and refinement and applications of the technique have followed this work, initially in the United States but later in other countries too. There are heavy resource costs involved in the development of these models, particularly when survey data are used or when attempts are made to overcome the static nature of the trading patterns. Continually updating the model is essential and this therefore ensures that the running costs are also high. The detailed inter-sectoral linkage information generated by the model has however continued to provide an incentive to the search for a model providing an acceptable level of accuracy within the budget constraints available. The increasing interest of urban and sub-regional policy-makers in the economic development of their areas continues to generate an interest in an input-output approach. Leontief s input-output model of the United States (Leontief, 1936) probably marks the beginning of the development of inter-linkage models. In Leontief’s first model there is a basic set of linear equations, estimated empirically, linking intermediate and final outputs to total outputs. The linear production functions imply fixed technological relationships between sectors related to the levels of outputs of purchasing sectors. All products within sectors are assigned identical production functions. Factor substitution, economies of scale and lags in production stages are ignored. Dorfman (1954) describes Leontief s input-output model as a simplification of a Walrasian general equilibrium model. This probably understates its importance; not only does an input-output model provide a balance (equilibrium) between inputs and outputs, it has the additional advantage of providing detailed inter-industry linkage data, which are subsumed in aggregate econometric models. The basic set of equations in the national and single area input-output models are those first developed by Leontief. [See Leontief (1966) or Yan (1969).]

Basically

we have

X=Z+F

where X = Gross

sales 1 = Intermediate F = Final sales

For each industry X, = :

,=

I

I,, + F,

sales

i, we have

Economic Impact Analysis

173

where X, = Gross sales of industry ,i ,= Sum of intermediate

i

sales of industry

F, = Final sales of industry

i

i

Intermediate sales can be expressed as a proportion of gross outputs and represented by a matrix AX, where A is a matrix of sales from each industry to all other industries with output expressed as a proportion of the receiving industries gross output, so that aij = industry i’s sales purchased by industry j as a proportion of industry j’s gross output. Therefore

where X is the vector of gross output. We therefore

have

AX+F=X and therefore X = (I - A)-‘F The ij’th element of the inverse matrix (I - A)-’ represents the total direct and indirect outputs required in each industry to produce a unit of final output (of say 51000) for the corresponding column industry. National input-output tables are constructed from three basic tables: (i) (ii) (iii)

The The final The final

make matrix - showing the commodities produced by industries; absorption matrix - showing the commodities purchased by industries and demand; and imports matrix -showing imported commodities purchased by industries and demand.

Once these three matrices have been compiled, the industry-by-industry transactions matrix and the inverse matrix can be computed. The Central Statistical Office produces input-output tables for the United Kingdom. Aggregate output is constrained to the national accounting aggregates produced in the National Income and Expenditure Blue Book for the specific year. The intermediate sales are based on either a full Census of Production (1954, 1963, 1968, 1974) or are updates on earlier years computed using the RAS method (1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1979). The RAS method takes a matrix for an earlier year and a set of desired row and JPP

30:3-B

174

Progress

in Planning

column totals for the current year, and iteratively adjusts the coefficients until the row and column totals are achieved. Bacharach (1970) describes the method in full.

2.5.1. Sub-national

input-output

models

Isard (195 1) began the development of the inter-regional model with a theoretical “ideal”; its implementation having enormous data requirements. There has been an enormous input of research resources into the theoretical and empirical development of sub-national input-output models. This is by no means a comprehensive survey. Richardson (1985) provides an extensive review. See also Round (1972, 1983). Round (1983) provides a very helpful critical review of non-survey techniques. Moses (1955) developed the first empirical inter-regional model for the United States; Chenery (1953) developed a two-region model for Italy; Isard and Kuenne (1953) developed an inter-linkage model to estimate the effects of expansion of a particular industry (steel) on a region; and Leontief (1953) developed a framework for assessing the impact of national industries on local economies based on a hierarchical system of regions. The input-output models of the 1950s and 1960s which followed were regional rather than inter-regional models. Two alternative approaches were taken; either the national input-output tables were adjusted to take account of different regional production functions, products or marketing practices (for example Moore and Peterson, 1955) or survey data were used (e.g. Hirsh, 1959). Hush’s study, and other survey-based studies which followed, involved large resource costs. Even so a considerable amount of unscientific estimation for some data was always involved so that some uncertainty in the results remained. More ambitious multi-regional input-output studies have been undertaken. Crow (1973) Putnam (1975), Ballard and Glickman (1977) Treyz et al. (1977) are multiregional though sub-national models of the United States. Polenske (1970, 1972, 1980) Harris (1973) and Dresch and Goldberg (1973) describe multi-regional models of the United States. A multi-regional model has also been developed for Australia (Smith, 1986). Tiebout’s forecasting model (Tiebout, 1969) developed the idea, which had always been suggested but very seldom considered, of using input-output tables to forecast the effect of change on regional employment. Tilanus (1967) questions the use of average input coefficients for forecasting, and used a simple technique to derive marginal coefficients, using the change in inputs related to changes in outputs over a 5 year period. The forecasts reproduced using Swedish data performed less well than those using average coefficients, though this may be attributable to the technique rather than the concept. Basically there are two approaches that these models take in their construction: the “bottom-up” approach, where the area models are independently constructed; or the “top-down” approach where the national model is dissected to provide the area models. The model design suggested by Treyz (1980) is eclectic, incorporating input-output, economic base, neo-classical general equilibrium, Keynesian macro-modelling,

Economic

Impact

Analysis

175

regional locational analysis, segmented labour market analysis and econometric modelling. Some of these features have been incorporated into the Massachusetts Economic Policy Analysis (MEPA) Model. The resources needed for the development of this type of model are enormous. The availability of data is more problematic in the U.K. and some of the features are less important. There is, for example, less variation in prices, wages, rating and consumer taxes across regions in the U.K. In the United Kingdom work has been more sporadic and on a much less ambitious scale. The combination of a shortage of available data and resource constraints have prevented the proliferation of either large scale survey-based models or the development of an inter-regional model. The Manpower Research Group (now The Institute for Employment Research) at the University of Warwick, set up in 1975 to assess U.K. employment prospects in the medium term, has developed a model (see Keogh and Elias, 1979; Elias, 1982) to incorporate the medium term employment forecasts of the Cambridge Growth Project developed in the Department of Applied Economics at Cambridge (see Barker, 1976). The Cambridge model incorporates an input-output analysis which enables an intersectoral simulation of exogenous changes to be undertaken. The Warwick regional employment forecasts are determined by adjusting the U.K. sectoral forecasts from the Cambridge model for the regions based on regional employment shares. A number of single area (regional, urban or sub-regional) models have been developed or commenced in the U.K., usually for a single year. Nevin, Roe and Round (1966) developed a model for the Welsh economy which appears to offer a reasonable amount of confidence in a non-survey approach. Their model is based on three assumptions: first, total intermediate output of each industry in the region is distributed as inputs into national (U.K.) industries in the same relative proportions as the distribution of the total intermediate output of the corresponding U.K. industries; second, intermediate inputs into each industry in the region are obtained from national industries in the same relative proportions as each corresponding industry in the U.K. obtains its intermediate inputs from national industries; and third, the industries within each region obtain as far as possible their inputs from supplying industries within the region and likewise sell their output as much as possible to industries within the region. This latter assumption is at the opposite extreme to Lewis (1985) where the assumption is that industries buy their inputs and sell their outputs from and to local industries by no higher proportion than those industries are represented in the local economy. In this respect these two models should provide the lower and upper boundaries of possible multipliers. Hewings (1969) produced a non-survey model for the West Midlands, Hewings (1971) tested the West Midlands table using a projection for 1958 from the 1954 base and concluded that non-survey techniques: would seem to have considerable (Hewings, 1971, p. I I).

Round

(1972) referring any statement

potential

to Hewings

even approaching

in assisting

the production

of regional

accounts

(1971) argues that:

the tone of this conclusion

is questionable

(Round,

1972, p. 1).

Progress

176

in Planning

Round (1972) examined three issues: the usefulness of regional input-output models in their (then) current form for regional policy; the assumptions used by Hewings together with some suggested amendments; and the model used to simulate a model for the Welsh economy (Nevin et al., 1966) is compared with the models used by Hewings to reveal the advantages of the Welsh model. Morrison and Smith (1974) tested a number of non-survey input-output techniques and found that the simple location quotient approach was the most successful although the differences between survey and non-survey trade coefficients were quite large; and that the volume of local trade is usually overstated in non-survey models. A critical review of non-survey techniques is contained in Round (1983). Basically nonsurvey techniques are of three kinds: Those which use location quotients to determine regional trade patterns; those which use the biproportional matrix adjustment method (the RAS method) where the national coefficients are used together with constrained column and row totals, an iterative process is then used to make the table consistent with the totals; and a third type which is more ad hoc, using a combination of survey data, informed guesses and secondary data to arrive at “guesstimates”. Round (1983) suggests that it would be preferable to refer to the results (from all three methods) as “surrogates rather than estimates” (Round, 1983, p. 191). Harrigan, McGilvray and McNicoll (1980) compared the regional and national technical coefficients of Scotland and the U.K. and found significant differences. Differences can arise for a number of reasons. For example firms in the same sector producing similar products in different regions may use different processes (i.e. their production function is different); or the product-mix within a specified sector may be different (e.g. “shipbuilding” will be a different sector in the West Midlands to the sector in the North East). The implication for non-survey techniques is that caution is necessary. Round (1978a, b) considers non-survey techniques for the development of an interregional system. He concludes that the extension of the model to incorporate an interregional system is a conceptual improvement on the non-survey single area model, particularly when the inter-regional model incorporates consistency between estimates of exports and imports. A number of models in the U.K. have been developed using survey data. The Peterborough model (see Morrison, 1973; Smith and Morrison, 1974) is an urban model. Inevitably the data collected are imperfect: 59?, of total

employment was cowred no response at all from three sectors workers (Morrison. 1973, p.379).

McNicoll

(1976) has developed

there were some marked fluctuations

between sectors electrical engineering is more significant with 3700

a model for Shetland:

Shetland was comparatively easy to delineate since Its geographical economlcally from its neighbours. (McNicoll, 1976. p. 5).

isolation separates It socially and

McNicoll (1976) used primary data and secondary source data supplemented with national data. The major industries, such as Agriculture, Fishing, Quarrying, Fish Processing and Textiles were surveyed or had been covered by earlier work. Other

Economic

Impact Analysis

177

manufacturing industries were covered using national (U.K.) data and a location quotient technique used for adjustment. Similar methods were used of Construction and Distribution, using G.B. and Scottish data respectively. McNicoll (1977) uses the Shetland table to examine the impact of Local Government activity on the economy. McNicoll (198 1) compares Keynesian, input-output and economic base multipliers using the data from the input-output exercise. McNicoll (1982) presents an ex-post appraisal of the input-output forecast derived from the model (McNicoll, 1977) of the oil impact on Shetland compared with the “actual” impact ascertained through a later survey-based table. He concludes: forecast wasrevealed a relatively poor one: the magnitude output generation was substantially underestimated for most sectors. One virtue in predicting the sectoral distribution of oil impact (McNicoll, 1982, p. 402).

. . . overall, the “ex-ante” oil-induced its accuracy

of was

And although the forecast was made with strictly limited resources; if additional resources had been available would not have necessarily been clear ex-ante how best they might be used to improve the forecast (McNicoll, 1982, p. 402).

it

Clearly there are problems associated with identifying the impact of a rapidly growing industry which cannot easily be overcome even if the resource constraint were less strict. These problems would almost certainly apply in all cases where rapid change were taking place, particularly when there is a change in the overall structure of the industry-mix. Pullen et al. (198 1) is also based on survey data from the North Staffordshire economy. Many sectors (50) are covered by only one return and in 18 of the sectors the responses represent less than 10% of employment. The Scottish table (Fraser of Allander, 1978) was also constructed from survey data. Again there were variations in coverage; for Distribution 2% of employment was covered, while 90% of Utilities and 92% of Extraction were covered. Harrigan (1982) uses the data collected for the Scottish study to demonstrate that an adaptation of Burford and Katz’ method for estimating input-output multipliers when no input-output table exists (Burford and Katz, 1977) can be improved by reference to the A matrix of an existing table (for an earlier year, for another region or for the nation) rather than making the assumption of equal likelihood of non-zero coefficients. Madden and Batey (1980) demonstrate the inconsistency concerning unemployment rates, which arises from the traditional treatment of the household as endogenous in the input-output model. The modelling system used by Batey and Madden in various papers (Madden and Batey, 1980, 1984; Batey and Madden, 1981, 1983; Batey, Madden and Weeks, 1985) is described as an activity-commodity framework. This framework is used to incorporate the effects of changes in consumption which arise from changes in demographic size and structure and the resultant changes in final demand. The effect of the receipt of social security payments of the unemployed and pensioners; and the differences in wages and consumption patterns between “indigenous” and in-migrant workers into a region are modelled. Batey (1985) reviews “a family” of ten models which have extended the Leontief input-output model to

178

Progress

in Planning

include demographic-economic relationships. The differences lie in their treatment of household income, employment and unemployment. Batey (op.cit.) analyses the mathematical relationships between the models to demonstrate the “sources and scale of variation in income- and employment-multipliers.” (Batey op.cit. p. 98). A number of input-output studies have taken place in developing countries, where often the data constraints are more severe, yet the need to evaluate the impacts of development projects is essential (see McGilvray, 1977; Bulmer-Thomas, 1982).

2.52.

Limitations

of input-output

models

The input-output technique has several drawbacks, most of which can be overcome at some cost. At the sub-national level there are more severe problems which cannot easily be overcome unless a multi-regional approach is taken and then the resource costs may dramatically increase. The fundamental problems of input-output analysis lie in the restrictive underlying assumptions: The trading relationships are static; there are constant returns to scale; all products within a defined industry are assigned the same trading patterns and production functions; technology is fixed; the production functions are linear and their coefficients are fixed; and there are no lags. Essentially these assumptions mean that the model has limited value for forecasting purposes and for long-run planning exercises. Tiebout (1957) and Isard (1960) identified these operational limitations at an early stage and much research effort has gone into overcoming these problems. Tiebout himself devoted much time to both the theoretical and practical development of regional input-output models, eventually incorporating a forecasting model (Tiebout, 1969) in a paper published posthumously. Miernyk et al. (1970) have identified means of overcoming the restrictive assumptions. The problems of the basically static nature of the input-output model may be reduced under certain circumstances: First, so long as factor substitution and technological change are sufficiently slow to make the production functions of firms relatively fixed, then the model will be useful for several years beyond construction (however at the current time the latest national input-output tables available for the United Kingdom are for 1979 and therefore sub-national tables which are developed using the national coefficients are bound to rely on very dated production data); second, although the quantitative measure of economic impact may be subject to a growing degree of error, it is unlikely that the results will be completely erroneous; third, the model can be partially updated in important sectors or sectors where significant changes are known to have occurred and we may use the model as a basis for a more detailed investigation of a particular case. In the case of single area sub-national models a more serious problem arises from the openness of the economy. This inevitably means that a large proportion of the area’s intermediate output is simply assigned to exports and similarly a large proportion of inputs to imports. In the North Staffordshire study (Pullen et al., 1981), for example, 71% of intermediate sales went to other regions and 71% of inputs came

Economic

Impact

Analysis

179

from outside the area. If we treat the very large “export” flows as if they were final demand (and therefore exogenous) we will create a misleading picture of the sectors of final demand on which the area is dependent, since inter-regional feedback effects may be significant (see Round, 1978). A further difficulty for these single area models is in the determination of the final demand and final output sectors for which we have no data. Nevin, Roe and Round (1966) differentiated between exports of intermediate outputs and exports of final outputs in order to alleviate the problem of misrepresenting final demand sectors. The development of a multi-regional input-output model provides almost the only satisfactory means of adequately assigning sectoral employment and income to the appropriate final demand sector. Constructing such a model requires a massive resource input. Polenske (1972) describes the Harvard Economic Research Project multi-regional input-output model of the United States, and details the construction of the model. She gives some indication of the size of the task: Since there are 4386 figures for each particular component, a complete multi-regional input-output set of data for a single year contains more than 300,000 numbers. A considerable amount of research effort was of course required just to assure that as the data was assembled, an internal consistency was maintained between the State figures and the national aggregates (Polenske, 1972, p. 172-3).

The construction of a multi-regional model is a fruitful area for further research, but its implementation involves heavy research costs. At the same time there exists the need to develop techniques for local economies, both regional and urban to assess the impact of local or national policies or exogenous changes on employment and income within the area.

2.6.

INTERSECTORAL

FLOWS

ANALYSIS

The intersectoral flows analysis (ISF) was first introduced by Hansen and Tiebout (see Hansen and Tiebout, 1963) in order to reduce the resource costs involved in setting up a sub-national model to examine the impact of external forces on an area. Their model was devised to assess the impact of changes in the Federal defence budget on the State of California, where defence expenditure was significant. The major differences from input-output models is that the intersectoral and interspatial linkages are expressed in terms of employment rather than income; and the flows are established through data collected of output flows (input flows are ignored). Richardson (1972) in his comprehensive survey of the development of input-output in relation to regional economic analysis, says of the ISF model: Although it is obvious traditional I-O Model, very simple to operate useful tools in regional

Bramhall consistency

that this model cannot generate much of the useful information from a its benefits suggest that it is worth serious consideration. It is inexpensive, it is and its main product -employment multipliers - is possibly one of the more economic analysis (Richardson, 1972, p. 133).

(1962) has criticised this approach since it effectively checks. Giarratani (1980) has reiterated this criticism

removes any and shows that

180

Progress in Planning

without the input data the Leontief inverse cannot be valid, even though an approximation can be generated. Clapp (1977) takes a more pragmatic approach, recognising its descriptive value and offering some suggestions for augmenting the row data with some column data to obtain inexpensive regional input-output tables. Barnard and Ballman (1979) however, found the employment multipliers derived from the ISF to forecast employment changes at least as well as, and often better than alternative forecasts. Lee, Lewis and Moore (1971) have developed an inter-regional ISF model. An Intersectoral Flows Model has not been developed in the United Kingdom.

2.7.

SUB-NATIONAL

ECONOMETRIC

MODELS

The deficiencies and limitations of multiplier concepts, input-output models and the intersectoral flows model have led researchers (see for example, Glickman 1977; Ledent 1982; Chakravarty, 1982) to turn to econometric modeis, which use time series data to estimate a series of regression equations to be used for economic simulation and forecasting purposes at the sub-national level. Econometric models at the sub-national level can be designed so that they are relatively inexpensive to construct and contain a number of simple linear regression equations of the general form: Yit = J (Zjt, ut)

where Yit is the ith endogenous Zjt is thejth

exogenous and ut is the error term.

variable in period t variable in period t

The equations are estimated from time-series data and solved simultaneously. A more sophisticated model would have multiple regression equations, lagged variables and non-linear relationships. The models, once developed, need to be constantly amended to reflect changes in the local, regional or national economy. These models offer several advantages over input-output and multiplier analysis: they can incorporate more recent data than input-output models, are more flexible and can be used for forecasting purposes. They do not however, provide the d&aggregated industry data that the input-output models provide.

3. U.K. Impact

Studies

Tables 1 to 5 summarise U.K. impact studies. The tables list the studies in alphabetical order of author, indicate the impact that has been studied and the

Economic Impact Analysis TABLE

1. U.K. economic impact studies: Tourism

Methodology

Authors Archer,

B.H. (1973)

Keynesian

multiplier

Archer,

B.H. and Owen, C.B. (1971)

Keynesian

multiplier

Archer,

B.H., Shea, S. and De Vane, R. (1974)

Keynesian

multiplier

Input-output

Baster, J. (1976) Blake, C. and McDowall,

Input-output

S. (1967)

Brownrigg,

M. and Greig, M.A. (1974)

Keynesian

Brownrigg,

M. and Greig, M.A. (1975)

Differential multipliers

Capstick,

Hanna,

J.T. and Duffield,

B.S. (1975)

M. (1976)

Henderson,

R.A. (1982)

Henderson,

D.M. and Cousins,

JURUE

Vaughan, Wheeler,

R.L. (1975)

Keynesian

Keynesian

multiplier

Keynesian

multiplier

Keynesian

multiplier

Keynesian

multiplier

survey and comparison

Keynesian multipliers; survey of visitors to National Exhibition Centre

(1978)

Lewes, F.M.A., Culyer, Brady, G.A. (1970) Sinclair,

model multiplier

Keynesian multipliers; with a control area

M. (1972)

Coppock,

model

Keynesian multiplier; identification of geographical concentration and amenities required

A.J. and

M.T. and Sutcliffe,

Keynesian multiplier round effects)

C.M.S. (1982a)

(emphasis

on first and second

Identification of expenditures of visitors and generated income and employment effects

D.R. (1976) B. (1974)

TABLE

2. U.K. economic impact studies: Educational establishments

Educational

Authors

establishment

Adams, J.C., Kraithman, Veltman, R.K. (1984)

D.A. and

Hatfield

Blake, C. and McDowall,

S. (1967)

St. Andrews

Braddon,

Stirling

M. (1973, 1974)

Dick, B. and Wood, Lewes, F.M.M.

University

Bristol Polytechnic

D. ef al. (1982)

Brownrigg,

Polytechnic

and Kirkness,

University

Newcastle-upon-Tyne

B. (1980) A. (1974)

Wolverhampton

Lewis, J.A. (1986b) Mallier,

A.T. and Rosser,

Mallier,

A.T. and Rosser, M. (1986)

M. (1983)

Polytechnic

Exeter University

Coventry

Polytechnic

(Lanchester)

Polytechnic

Survey

These studies, with the exception of Blake and McDowall (1967) use the Keynesian multiplier to assess the impact of the University or Polytechnic on the local economy. Blake and McDowall (1967) use an input-output methodology.

181

182

Progress

in Planning TABLE 3. U.K. economic impact studies: Industrial plants

Authors

Impact

Bozeat, N. (1983)

Steel redundancies

Review of studies

Brownrigg,

Industrial

Review of studies

M. (1980)

of:

Methodology

contraction

Buchanan, Cohn and Partners (1980)

Airport

Chakravarty, S.P., Jones, D.R. and MacKay, R.R. (1981)

Steel redundancies

Investigation of the destiny of redundant Shotton workers and the effect on the area e.g. unemployment rate

Crompton, D., Barlow, A.T. and Downing, S. (1976)

Automobile

Survey of component suppliers

Drapkin,

Development station

D.B. (1974)

Development

industry

Evans, A.W. (1973)

New factory

Fishwick,

Development station

F. (1981)

Greenwood. (1973)

D. and Short, J.

Military

of power

Cost-benefit

Description procedures

analysis

of

Markov chains based on initial recorded source of job-fillers in Grime and Starkie (1968) of power

installations

New factory

Keynesian income and employment multiplier

Grime, E.K. and Starkie, D.N.M. (1968)

New factory

Identification of source of people filling new jobs

Gwynedd (1978)

Development of a power station

Keynesian

Hills, P., Williams, K. and Cope, D. (1978)

Coalfield

Review and critique of the consultants report (Leonard and Partners, 1977)

Hoare,

Industrial

Greig,

M.A. (197la)

County

Council

A.G. (1975)

growth

multiplier

Identification of industrial linkages

JURUE

(1978)

National Centre

Exhibition

Keynesian multiplier: survey of visitors

JURUE

(1979)

Closure of a steel works and remedial investment

Keynesian multiplier; and social accounting framework

JURUE with Ward, Ashcroft and Parkman (1981)

Closure of a steel works and remedial investment

Keynesian multiplier; and social accounting framework

JURUE with Ward, Ashcroft and Partners (1983)

Closure of a steel works and remedial investment

Keynesian multiplier; and social accounting framework

Economic

impact

Analysis

TABLE 3. cont’d Impact

Authors Lee, N. and Woods, (1977)

C.

Methodology

of:

Major projects physical plans

and

Survey of techniques for environmental impact assessment

Coalfield

Report to NCB: review of alternative sites for mining in Vale of Belvoir

Lewis, J.A. (1982)

Plant closures and industrial decline

Keynesian

multiplier

Lewis, J.A. (1986a)

Plant closures

Keynesian

multiplier

Lewis, P.M. (1986)

Operation and closure of a nuclear power station

Keynesian

multiplier

McGuire,

Nuclear stations

Keynesian

multiplier

Leonard (1977)

MacKay, McVean, (1980) MacKay,

and Partners

A. (1982, 1983)

power

D.I., MacKay, R.R., P. and Edwards, R.

Redundancies

G.A. (1978)

Aluminium

smelter

Input-output

analysis

Oxford (1979)

Polytechnic

Power stations

Identification of the social costs and benefits

Parker, (1978)

Hon. Mr. Justice

Nuclear

Report

Sadler, P., Archer, Owen, C. (1973)

B. and

establishment

Aluminium

smelter

of Inquiry

Keynesian

multiplier

Salt, J. (1967)

Car plants

Identification of sources of job recruitment; survey of firms losing workers to new plants

Sewel, J. (1975)

Colliery

Social impacts of colliery closures on individuals and communities

Short, J., Steele, T. and Greenwood, D. (1974)

Submarine

Stoney,

Motor vehicle assembly

P.J.M. (1983)

Town, S.W. (1978)

Closure

closures

base

of coal mines

Investigation of purchasing pattern three Merseyside assembly plants

of

Identification of social impacts of colliery closures on individuals and communities

183

184

Progress

in Planning

TABLE 4. U.K. economic impact studies: Oil development. The following studies have examined the impact of North Sea Oil and Gas developments. An extensive bibliography of North Sea Oil impact studies can be found in The Planning Exchange (1978) Authors

Methodology

Cleveland County Planning Department (1975)

Identification of impact on housing, jobs, infrastructure

Gaskin,

M. and MacKay,

D.I. (1978)

Social accounting; input-output model; and econometric modelling

Harris, T., Lloyd, G., McGuire, and Newlands, D. (1985a)

A

Keynesian multiplier; and shiftshare analysis to identify displacement and deterence effect

Harris, T., Lloyd, G., MC&ire, and Newlands, D. (1985b)

A.

Identification as gained

MacKay,

D. and MacKay.

MacKay,

G.A. and Moir, A. (1980)

of jobs lost as well

G.A. (1975) Identification of the impact of oil on local labour markets, industries and infrastructure

McNicoll,

I.H. (1980 and 1982)

Input-output

model of Shetland

McNicoll,

I.H. and Lewis, T.M

Input-output

model of Shetland

(1978)

Page, S.A.B. (1977)

Identification of balance of payments effects, Government revenues and the distribution of benefits

Peters, A.F. (ed.) (1974)

Papers from a conference at Aviemore organised by the Institute of Petroleum

Planning

Annotated bibliography of publications and research projects

Exchange

(1978)

Scottish Development Department (1975) and Sewel, J. (1983)

Survev of local reactions; identification of economic and social change necessary to accommodate construction phase of oil development

Social Science Research (1975)

Review of research into oil development in Scotland

Walker,

C.A. (1979)

Council

Input-output

tables; and survey

methodology used. The majority are based on the concept of the Keynesian multiplier, though several have used input-output models (see Baster, 1976; Gaskin and MacKay 1978; MacKay, 1978; McNicoll, 1977, 1978; Walker, 1979). Early U.K. studies were concerned with regional development generally and the effect of regional policy (for example Archibald, 1967; Brown, 1967; Allen, 1969; Steele, 1969, 1972). A number of subjects have been the focus of several impact studies. Table 1 indicates studies devoted to the assessment of the impact of tourism; 2 identifies those concerned with the effect of educational establishments; 3 contains a list of those which have identified the impact of the development (or closure) of

Economic Impact Analysis TABLE

5. Other U.K. economic impact studies

Impact

Authors

Methodology

of:

Allen, K.J. (1969)

Regional

development

Keynesian

multiplier

Archibald,

Regional

development

Keynesian

multiplier

G.C. (1967)

Ashcroft, B. and Swales, J.K. (1982a)

Civil service dispersal

Keynesian multiplier (emphasis on the first round)

Ashcroft, B. and Swales, J.K. (1982b)

Civil service dispersal

Estimation of a shadow wage

Batty, M. (1969)

A new town

Garin-Lowry

Brown,

Regional

Keynesian

A.J. (1967)

policy

Manual of techniques of evaluation

Catlow, J. and Thirlwall, C.G. (1976)

Environmental analysis

Greig, M.A. (1972)

Investment fisheries

Jackman,

Rates

Papers of a conference on the impact of rates on industry

Jones, K. and Smith, A.D. (1970)

Commonwealth immigration

Identification and benefits

Lever, W.F. (1974a)

Regional

development

Identification of leakages at plant level

Lever, W.F. (1974b)

Regional

development

Identification of factors affecting leakages over time

Lever, W.F. (1975)

Regional

development

Reply to criticism of Lever (1974a) by McDowall(1975) and Swales (1975)

Lichfield,

N. (1966)

Town planning

Cost-benefit analysis using a social accounting framework

Lichfield, Chapman,

N. and H. (1970)

Urban development

Cost-benefit analysis using a social accounting framework

Regional

Comment (1974a)

R. (ed.) (1978)

McDowall,

S. (1975)

McNicoll,

I.H. (1977)

Moseley,

M.J. (1973)

impact

model multiplier

in

development

Keynesian survey

multiplier;

of costs

on Lever

Local government activity

Input-output

Growth

Keynesian multiplier; identification of industrial linkages, spatial flows, commuting and migration patterns

centres

Steele, D.B. (1969. 1972)

Regional

development

Stone, T. (1973)

Defence spending

Keynesian

analysis

multiplier

Survey of literature relating to spatial impact of defence spending

185

186

Progress

in Planning TABLE 5. cont’d

Authors

Impact

Swales. J.K. (1975)

Regional

Transport

(1986)

M25

Discussion of impact on traffic flows, employment location, housing and shopping developments

Wagstaff,

H.R. (1973)

Agricultural employment

Economic multiplier

base

Office relocation

Keynesian

multiplier

Yannopoulos.

G. (1973)

of: development

Methodology Comment (1974)

on Lever

TABLE 6. U.K. input-output models Author

Area

Technique

Batey and Madden (1981, 1983)

Merseyside

Demographic-economic inputoutput, extension of De Kanter and Morrison (197X)

Blake and McDowall (1967)

St. Andrews

National

Burdekin (1978) and Fraser of Allander Institute (1978)

Scotland

Survey

De Kanter and Morrison (1978)

Merseyside

RAS technique

Fraser of Allander Institute (1978)

Scotland

Survey

Hewings

(1969)

West Midlands

RAS adaptation of national coefficients

Hodgson (1978)

and Handley

West Midlands (not completed)

RAS adaptation of national coefficients

Keogh and Elias (1979) and Elras (1982)

U.K. Regions

Macro Model adapted using regional employment shares

Lewis (1985)

U.K. Regions

Adaptation of national inputoutput table using regional employment shares

McDowall

Sutherland

(1973)

McN~coll (1976, 1977, 1981)

Shetland

MacKay

East Ross

(1978)

coefficients

Survey data, supplemented with national data

Morrison (1973) and Smith and Morrison (1974)

Peterborough

Survey

Nevin, Roe and Round (1966)

Wales

National

Pullen, Proops, Booth and Fishman (1981) and Pullen and Proops (1982)

North Staffordshire

Survey

coefficients

Economic

Impact

Analysis

187

industrial plants; 4 includes some of the studies devoted to the effects of North Sea Oil and Gas. [A more extensive bibliography of studies concerned with the effects of North Sea Oil and Gas is contained in The Planning Exchange (1978)]; and 5 includes the remaining studies. Table 6 summarises the U.K. models which have been developed. The table indicates the area or region of the model and the methodology used in its compilation.

4. Conclusions Despite the vast number of studies, methodological and empirical reviewed here, it is difficult to conclude that the practice of economic impact analysis has substantially improved over the decades. The fundamental problem which remains is that we have very imperfect data (particularly in the U.K., compared with the U.S.) with which to make our impact assessments and are always faced with a resource constraint, which prohibits the collection of perfect data. Nevertheless we are going to continue to be interested in the outputs of impact studies and it is therefore important that we use “best practice” techniques as far as possible. Undoubtedly “best practice” in the case of the Keynesian multiplier would involve rigorous development of the model used, such as can be found in the work of Sinclair and Sutcliffe (1977, 1978, 1982c, 1983). Practical problems which arise in empirical work involve the difficulties associated with identifying and quantifying various impacts. These problems can be reduced by concentrating the available resources in areas where they are likely to yield maximum benefits; for example by concentrating on the multiplicand, which we know to constitute the main impact (Wilson, 1968), by clearly specifying the multiplier which is being estimated (Sinclair and Sutcliffe, 1982c), and by “borrowing” coefficients rather than multipliers. This last point is particularly important when large time distances have elapsed since empirical investigation. For example it is dangerous to borrow the multipliers developed during the 1960s and early 1970s; we know for example that indirect taxation is higher, that the propensity to import from overseas has increased and that the benefit structure has changed. Substituting updated coefficients where they are relatively easily estimated will improve the estimation. Including inter-regional feedback and induced investment effects remains problematic. If we cannot identify these we can ensure that the reader is aware of the possibilities of their existence. Adopting a social accounting framework is one way of doing this. We can then include items as costs or benefits even where we cannot make estimations. Additionally the social accounting framework enables us to identify the “gainers” and “losers”. This is another important role for impact analysis. Urban and regional models based on an input-output framework provide us with the most comprehensive results of impact studies. Unfortunately their construction (and updating) involves massive resource costs and many reservations remain about the accuracy of the table developed. A major problem remains that we have no way of testing for accuracy. We can compare survey-based tables with non-survey-based tables but all we can conclude are that there are differences. Tables based on national coefficients are almost universally condemned (see Round, 1983). Harrigan,

188

Progress in Planning

McGilvray and McNicoll(l980) found major differences between U.K. and Scottish (based on primary data) coefficients. Tables based on survey data would seem to be preferred, yet unless we have sufficiently large coverage this may not be so. An ex-post test of forecasts from tables is an alternative test of accuracy. McNicoll (1982) made such a test of the Shetland input-output study (McNicoll, 1976), yet although the forecasts were disappointing in terms of magnitude, the sectoral distribution of the impact of oil was accurately predicted. More importantly McNicoll concluded that given an improved resource budget for the construction of the table it was not obvious how additional resources could have been used to improve the quality of the output. The problems associated with the input-output methodology, which basically arise because of the static nature of the relationships, will remain. The failure to incorporate lags, the use of average rather than marginal coefficients, and the failure of the inputoutput system to incorporate dynamic changes, such as changes in production technologies and the product-mix within sectors render it inappropriate as a forecasting tool at the national or sub-national level. This is particularly true when the tables are some years out of date when produced. At the sub-national level the problems are exacerbated because we have less confidence in the estimated coefficients. Again we need to search for “best practice”, given the constraints of poor data and resource limitations. If we want sectoral as well as aggregate multipliers in impact studies we should consider short-cut methods, such as suggested by Drake (1976) Burford and Katz (1981) and Harrigan’s (1982) suggested amendment. We should also consider the conclusions of Round (1978a, b) that the multi-regional input-output system is the only way to treat inter-regional flows consistently (when comparing nonsurvey techniques). The incorporation of the labour market into the framework, through a demographic-economic system (e.g. Batey, 1985) is also important. Recent debates about a growing North-South divide make the need for disaggregated spatial analysis more acute, we must therefore continue to devote research resources in both methodological and empirical studies towards this important area.

APPENDIX

Derivation

of the Keynesian

Income

Multiplier

Suppose

(1)

Y=C+I+G+X-M-Ti where Y C G X M Ti

= = = = = =

GDP at factor prices Consumption Public expenditure Exports Imports Indirect taxes (and subsidies)

The following identities hold (Capital letters represent variables, C Yd Td U I G

= c + c(Yd) =Y-Td+U = td(Y) = -u(Y) or V - u(Y) T :G

x M Ti

=x =Ik+m(C) = ti(C - M)

lower-case

letters represent

the parameters)

(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

where --c, 7, G, X, M are constant terms Yd = disposable income Td = direct taxation and national insurance contributions U = transfer payments, e.g. unemployment benefit C-M = locally produced goods and services consumed By substitution of (3), (4) and (5) into (2) C

By substitution M

(11)

= c + CY (1-td-u) of (11) into (9)

(12)

= ti + mC + mcY (I-td-u) 189

JPP

30:3-c

190

Progress

By substitution Ti

in Planning

of (11) and (12) into (10)

= tic + ticY (I-td-u)

By substitution Y

(l-m)

- tiM - timC

(13)

of (6), (7), (8), (1 l), (12) and (13) into (1)

= cY( 1-td-u) + 7 + G + 2 - &I - mC - mcY( I-td-u) + tiM + timC

Collecting

-tic - ticY( 1-td-u)

(l-m) (14a)

Y’s together

Y - cY( 1-td-u) + mcY( 1-td-u) + ticY( 1-td-u) = C(l-m-ti+tim) +I + G + % - M(l-ti)

(l-m) (14b)

therefore Y( l-c) (I-td-u) + mc( 1-td-u) + tic( 1-td-u) = C( l-m) (1-t;) + I + G + X - M( 1-ti)

(l-m) (14c)

and Y

=C(I-m)(l-ti)+T

+G+k-M(l-ti)

1-c(l-td-u)(l-m)(l-ti)

The multiplier will be the total change in GDP (Y) divided exogenous variables G, I or X.

Kr=% AG Differentiating Kr =

=%= AI

(14d)

by a change in one of the

AY nx

(14d) with respect to G, I or X gives 1 1-c( 1-td-u)

(l-m)

Equation (15) is therefore the multiplier exogenous change in public expenditure,

(15)

(l-ti) for GDP at factor prices applicable investment or exports.

to an

Part II Economic Impact Analysis: A Bibliography The bibliography

is divided

into seven sections:

Impact studies Policy impact studies Methodological issues in impact analysis Regional and urban models used for economic impact analysis in the United Kingdom 5. A selection of regional and urban models from other parts of the world 6. Some useful surveys, reviews and bibliographies 7. Additional references included in the literature survey 1. 2. 3. 4.

References in the literature survey can be found in this bibliography in alphabetical order under the the appropriate section. Most references appear only once though inevitably a number are included in more than one section. The bibliography is by no means exhaustive, particularly in respect of Sections 2, 3, 5 and 6. The last section contains those references in the literature survey which do not fit easily into any of the other sections.

1. Impact

Studies

This is a comprehensive list of published overseas impact studies are also included.

U.K. impact

studies.

Some significant

ADAMS, J. C., KRAITHMAN, D. A. and VELTMAN, R. K. (1984) The Impact ofHatfieldPolytechnic on the Economy of Hertfordshire. Occasional Papers in Economics No. 11, School of Business and Social Sciences, The Hatfield Polytechnic. ADAMS, J. G. L. (1975) Gas and Oil Developments in the South of France. Report for Western European Union. ALLEN K. J. (1969) The regional multiplier in Orr and Cullingworth, (Eds.) Regional and Urban Studies. Allen and Unwin. ANDREANO, R. L. (1967) The Economic Impact of the American Civil War, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Schenkman Publishing Co. Inc. ARCHER, B. H. (1973) The Impact of Domestic Tourism, Tourist Research Paper TUR 1, University College of North Wales, Bangor. 191

192

Progress

in Planning

ARCHER, B. H., SHEA, S. and DE VANE, R. (1974) Tourism in Gwynedd: An Economic Study, Wales Tourist Board, Cardiff. ARCHER, B. H. and OWEN, C. B. (1971) Towards a tourist regional multiplier, Regional Studies, 5, 289-294.

ARCHER, K. M. (1977) Oil and housing in Aberdeen. Housing Review, 26, 21-23. ARCHIBALD, G. C. (1967) Regional multiplier effects in the United Kingdom, Oxford Economic Papers, 19, 22-45. ASH, M. (1977) Energy and form: the Windscale file, Town and Country Planning, 45,469-473. ASHCROFT, B. and SWALES, J. K. (1982a) The importance of the first round in the multiplier process: The impact of civil service dispersal, Environment and Planning A, 14, 429-444. ASHCROFT, B. and SWALES, J. K. (1982b) Estimating the effects of government office dispersal. Regional

Science

and Urban Economics,

12, 81-98.

AUROUSSEAU, M. (1921) The distribution of population: A constructive problem, Geography, Review. 11, 563-592. BALDWIN, P. and BALDWIN, M. F. (1975) Onshore Planning for Offshore Oil: Less0n.s from Scotland, The Conservation Foundation, Washington D.C. BASTER, J. (1976) The Economic Impact of Visitors to Scot/and, Scottish Council Research Institute, Edinburgh. BATTY, M. (1969) The impact of a New Town: An application of the Garin-Lowry model. Journal of Town Planning

Institute,

55,428-435.

BAUMOL, W. J. (1970) The Visitor Industry and Hawaii’s Economy: A C‘ost-Benefit Analysis, Study prepared for the State of Hawaii Department of Planning and Economic Development, Mathematics, Princeton, New Jersey. BELL, F.W. and CANTERBURY, E. R. (1975) An Assessment of the Economic Benefits which will Accrue to the Commercial and Recreational Fisheries from the Incremental Improvements in the Quality of Coastal Waters, National Commission on Water Quality, WQ5AC008, Tallahassee, Florida.

BELLENGER, D. (1971) The income and employment impact of the University of Alabama on Tuscalossa County, Alabama Business, Center for Business and Economic Research, University of Alabama. BONNER, E. R. (1968) The economic impact of a University on its community, Journal of the American Institute of Planners,

34.

P. J. (1969) Income multipliers for the Washington economy, University of Washington Business Review, 28, Winter, 5-15. BOZEAT, N. (1983) The Impact of SteelRedundancies. Paper presented to the SSRC (now ESRC) Urban and Regional Economic Study Group, Reading, July. Joint Unit for Research on the Urban Environment, Birmingham. BRADDON, D., HATT, J., KENDRY, A., RUEL, R., TAYLOR, P., THURLOW, T. and TOZER, W. (1982) The Economic Impaci of Bristol Polytechnic on the County of Avon, Polytechnic, Bristol. BRADBURY, F. R. and LOASBY, B. J. (1979) The Economic and Social Impact of Secondary Industrial Development arisingfrom North Sea OiI in Scotland, Technological Economics Research Unit, University of Stirling. BRADY, A. B. (1977) The Transport Impact of the Howard Davis Ltd. Platform Construction Yard at Loch Kishorn, Planning and Research Division, Highlands and Islands Development Board, Inverness. BREESE, G. (1965) The Impact of Large Installations on Nearby Areas, Sage Publications, California. BRENDLE, P., COHENDET, P. and LARUE DE TOURNEMINE, R. (1986) The economic impact of European space projects, Futures, 18, 178-191. BROWN, A. J. (1967) Appendix to the green paper on the development areas: Regional multipliers, National Institute Economic Review, 51, p. 33. BROWNRIGG, M. (1973) The economic impact of a new University, Scottish Journal of Political Economy. BOURQUE,

20, 123-139.

BROWNRIGG, M. (1974) A Srudy of Economic Edinburgh. BROWNRIGG, M. (1980) Industrial contraction 51, 195-210. BROWNRIGG, M. and GREIG, M. A. (1974) and Islands Development Board, Special BROWNRIGG, M. and GREIG, M. A. (1975) Political Economy,

BRYDEN,

J. and FABER,

61-82.

Impact:

The C/niversity of Stirling.

and the regional The Economic

multiplier

Scottish

Press,

effect, Town Planning Review,

Impact of Tourist Spending

Report 13, Inverness. Differential multipliers

Academic

for tourism,

in Sk_ve. Highlands

Scottish Journal

of

22, 261-275.

M. (1971) Multiplying

the tourist

multiplier,

Social and Economic

Studies,

20,

Economic

Impact Analysis

193

BUCHANAN, C. AND PARTNERS (1980) Stansted Airport - The Economic Impact, Colin Buchanan and Partners. CAFFERY, J. and ISAACS, H. (1971) Estimating the Impact of a College or University on the Local Economy, American Council on Education, Washington D.C. (This publication also cites many other (mainly U.S.) studies of the effects of educational institutions on their local community.) CAITHNESS COUNTY COUNCIL (1968) A County Development Report: The Dounreay Nuclear Projects and their Impact upon Caithness over the Period 1955-1968, Caithness County Council, Wick. CAPSTICK, M. (1972) Some Aspects of the Economic Effects of Tourism in the Westmorland Lake District, Economics Department, University of Lancaster, Lancaster. CATLOW, J. and THIRLWALL, C. G. (1976) Environmental Impact Analysis. Department of the Environment, Research Report 11, London. CHAKRAVARTY, S. P., JONES, D. R. and MacKAY, R. R. (1981) Redundancy at Shotton the Place of Steel, Institute for Economic Research, University College of North Wales, Bangor. CLARK, B. D. (1976) Evaluating environmental impacts. In: O’Riordan, T. and Hey, R. D. (Eds), Environmental Impact Assessment, Saxon House. Farnborough. CLARK, B. D., CHAPMAN, K. M., BISSET, R. and WATHERN, P. (1976) Assessment of Major Industrial Applications: A Manual, Department of the Environment, Research Report 13, London. CLEVELAND COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT (1975) The Economic Impact of North Sea Oil in Cleveland, Cleveland County Council. COOK, E. (1970) Analyzing university student contribution to the base of the community, Anna/s of Regional Science, 4, 146-153. COPELAND, J. R. (posthumously) and HENRY, E. W. (1975) Irish Output Multipliers 1964-1968, Paper No. 82, Dublin, Economic and Social Research Institute. COPPOCK, J. T. and DUFFIELD, B. S. (1975) The economic impact of tourism: A case study in greater Tayside. In: Tourism as a Factor in National and Regional Development. Proceedings of a Meeting of the International Geographical Union’s Working Group on the Geography of Tourism and Recreation, Occasional Paper No. 4, Department of Geography, Trent University, Peterborough, Canada. CROMPTON, D., BARLOW, A. T. and DOWNING, S. (1976) Component Suppliers to the Car Industry in the West Mid/ands Region, Research Section, Department of Industry, West Midlands Regional Office, Birmingham. DALY, M. C. (1940) An approximation to a geographical multiplier, Economic Journal, 50, 248-258. DAVIS, H. C. (1986) Income and employment multipliers for 7 British-Columbia regions, Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 9, 103-l 15. DE KANTER, J. and MORRISON, W. I. (1978) The Merseyside input - output study and its application in structural planning, In: Batey P. W. J. (Ed,) Theory and Method in Urban and Regional Analysis. Pion, London. DICK, B. and WOOD, B. (1980) The Impact of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Polytechnic upon Employment and Income in the Local Economy, Polytechnic, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. DOODY, F. S. (1961) The Immediate Impact of Higher Education in New England, Boston University Bureau of Business Research, Boston. DRAPKIN, D. B. (1974) Development, electricity and power stations: Problems in electricity planning decisions, Public Law, Autumn, 220-253. DYFRI-JONES, W. (1972) The impact of public works schemes on farming: A case study relating to reservoir and power station in North Wales, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 23, l-13. ECONOMIST INTELLIGENCE UNIT (1968) The economic effects of the Vietnamese war in East and South East Asia. Quarterly Economic Review’, Specials 3. ECONOMIST INTELLIGENCE UNIT (1975) Buchan Impact Study, Report for Aberdeen County Council and Scottish Development Department. London: Economist Intelligence Unit. ECONOMIST INTELLIGENCE UNIT (Canada Ltd) (1972) The Impact on the Regional Economy of Canada resulting from the Potential Development of Offshore Oil and Gas, Summary of Study for Regional Economic Development of Energy, Mines and Resources, Toronto: Economist Intelligence Unit Canada Ltd. ERICKSON, R. A. (1977) Sub-regional impact multipliers: Income spread effects from a major defence installation, Economic Geography, 53,283-294. ERICKSON, R. A., GAVIN, N. I. and CORDES, S. M. (1986) Service industries in interregional trade The economic impacts of the hospital sector, Growth and Change, 17, 17-27. EVANS, A. W. (1973) Measuring the total impact of a new factory in Furness: A Markovian approach, Regional Studies, 7, 407-408.

194

Progress in Planning

EVANS, W. D. and HEOFFENBERG, M. (1952) The interindustry relations study for 1947, Reviews of Economics and Statistics, 34, 97-142. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF KANSAS CITY (1952) Employment multipliers in Witchita. Monthly Review, 37. FERRARO, P. and NAZARYK, P. (1983) Assessment of the Cumulative Environmental Impacts of Energy Development in Norfhwestern Colorado, Department of Health in cooperation with US Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, Colorado. FISHWICK, F. (1981) Employment Implications of a Major Capital Project: The Case of Heysham II A G‘R Station, Report for the Central Electricity Generating Board, Cranfield School of Management. FORSYTH, P. J. and KAY, J. A. (1980) The Economic Implications of North Sea Oil Revenues, IFS Working Paper No. 10, Institute for Fiscal Studies. FORTUNE (1938) Oskaloosa vs the United States. Fortune, April, 54-132. FRANCIS, 3. and SWAN, N. (1973) Scotland in Turmoil: A’Social and Environmental Assessment of the Impact of North Sea Oil and Gas on Community in the North of Scotland, St. Andrews Press, Edinburgh. FRANCIS, J. and SWAN, N. (1974) Scotland’s Pipedream: A Study of the Growth of Peterhead in Response to the Demands of the North Sea Oil and Gas Industry, Church of Scotland Home Board, Edinburgh. FRANCIS, J. and SWAN, N. (1975) Scottish Oil Shakedown -An Assessment of some Future Prospects.for Oil-related Industry in the West of Scotland, Church of Scotland Home Board, Edinburgh. GARRISON, C. (1972) The impact of new industry: An application of the economic base multiplier to small rural areas, Land Economics, 48, 329-337. GASKIN, M. and MacKAY, D. I. (1978) The Impact of North Sea Oil on Scotland, HMSO, London. GILES, B. D. and JENNINGS, A. (1982) The case of the Viphya Pulp Mill project in Malawi, Oxford Economic Papers, 34, 390-402. GILMORE, J. S., HAMMOND, D., MOORE, K. D., JOHNSON, J. F. and CODDINGTON, D. C. (1982) Socioeconomic Impacts of Power P/ants, EPRI EA-2228, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California. GOLLADAY, F. L. and HAVEMAN, R. H. (1977) The Economic Impacts of Tax-Transfer Policy: Regional and Distributional Effects, Academic Press, New York. GREENWOOD, D. and SHORT, J. (1973) Military Installations and Local Economies: A Case Study, The Moray Air Stations, Centre for Defence Studies, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen. GREIG, M. A. (1971a) The regional income and employment effects of a pulp and paper mill, Scottrsh Journal of Political Economy, 18, 3 1-48. GREIG, M. A. (1972) A Study of the Economic Impact of the Highlands and Islands Development Boards Investment in Fisheries, Special Report No. 7, Highlands and Islands Development Board. Inverness. GRIME, E. K. and STARKIE, D. N. M. (1968) New jobs for old: An impact study of a new factory in Furness, Regional Studies, 2, 57-67. GWYNEDD COUNTY COUNCIL (1978) The Impact of a Power Station on Gvvynedd, Gwynedd County Council, Caernarfon. HALSTEAD, J. M. and LEISTRITZ, F. L. (1983) Impacts of Energy Development on Secondary Labour Markets: A Study of Seven Western Counties. Agricultural Economics Report No. 178, North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station, Fargo. HAMILTON, J. R. and PONGTANAKORN, C. (1983) The economic impact of irrigation development in Idaho: An application of marginal input-output methods, Annals of Regional Science, 17, 60-69. HANNA, M. (1976) Tourist Multipliers in Britain, English Tourist Board, London. HARRIS, T., LLOYD, G., McGUIRE, A. and NEWLANDS, D. (1985a) Displacement andDeterrence: The Employment Implications of Oil in Aberdeen, Paper presented to the Centre for Urban and Regional Research, University of Glasgow. University of Aberdeen. HARRIS, T., LLOYD, G., McGUIRE, A. and NEWLANDS, D. (1985b) The Distribution of the Benefirs and Costs of Oil Related Change in Aberdeen, Paper presented to the ESRC Urban and Regional Economic Study Group, Gregynog, Wales. University of Aberdeen. HARTSHORNE, R. (1936) A new map of the manufacturing belt of North America, Economic Geograph.v, 12,45-53. HARVIE, C. (1985) North Sea Oil and its Impact upon the U.K. Economy: A Brief Out/me, University of Technology, Department of Management Studies, Working Paper 128, Loughborough. HENDERSON, R. A. (1982) Recent Trends in Tourism and the Economic Impact of Tourists in Scotland, Discussion Paper 15, ESU, Scottish Economic Planning Department, Edinburgh. HENDERSON, D. M. and COUSINS, R. L. (1975) The Economic Impact of Tourism: A Case Study in Greater Tayside, Tourism and Recreation Research Unit, University of Edinburgh.

Economic

Impact

HILDEBRAN, G. H. and MACE, A. (1950) The employment multiplier in an expanding Los Angeles County 1940-47, Review of Economics and Statistics, 32, 241-249. HILLS, P., WILLIAMS, K. and COPE, D. (1978) EIA and the Vale of Belvoir coalfield,

195

Analysis industrial

market:

Built Environment,

4, 142-151.

HOARE, A. G. (1975) Linkage flows, local evaluation and industrial geography: A case study of Greater London, Environment and Planning, I, 41-58. HOLLENBECK, K. (1979) The employment and earnings impact of the regulation of stationary source pollution, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 6, 208-221. HOLMES, J. C. (1972) An ordinal method of evaluation, Urban Studies. 9, 179-193. JACK HOLMES PLANNING GROUP with CROUCH AND HOGG. Consultine Engineers (1974) An Examination of Sites for Gravity Platform Construction on the Clyde Estuary, Report for the Scottish Development Department and the Department of Energy. Jack Holmes Planning Group, Glasgow. HOPKINS, F. E. (1972) Model for analyzing external effects of new towns on regional development, SocioEconomic Planning Sciences, 6, 555-567. HOWELL, R. P., BRESWICK, W. N. and WENRICK, E. D. (1966) The Economic Impact of Defense R & D Expenditure, Menlo Park, Stanford Research Institute, California. HOYT, H. (1937) Basic Data on Northern New Jersey Housing Market. Federal Housing Administration. Quoted in Meyer, J. R. (1966) as an early user of the concepts of economic base and the multiplier in an urban area. HUNT, D. (1975) Aberdeen and the oil boom. Personnel Management Review, 7(2), 24-28. HUNT, D. (1976) Responses of industry within Aberdeen to oil-related change, some implications for urban planners, International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 9, 269-278. ISARD, W. and KUENNE, R. E. (1953) The impact of steel upon the Greater New York-Philadelphia urban industrial region, Review of Economics and Statistics, 35, 293-30 1. ISARD, W. and LANDGFORD, T. W. (1969) Impact of Vietnam War expenditures on the Philadelphia economy: Some initial experiments with the inverse of the Philadelphia input-output table, Papers and Proceedings

of the Regional

Science

Association,

23. 217-265.

REINER, R. and STRATHMAIN, J. (1976) RegionalEconomic Impacts of Nuclear Power P/ants, University of Pennsylvania, Department of Regional Studies. JACKMAN, R. (Ed.) (1978) The Impact of Rates on Industry and Commerce, Centre for Environmental Studies, Policy Series No. 5, London. JOHANSSON, B. and LAKSHMANAN, T. R. (Eds.) (1984) Regional Impacts of Large-Scale Energy, North Holland, Amsterdam. JOHNSTON, M. H. and BENNETT, J. T. (1979) An input-output model of regional environmental and economic impacts of nuclear power plants, Land Economics, 55,236-252. JONES, K. and SMITH, A. D. (1970) The Economic Impact of Commonwealth Immigration, Occasional _ Papers No. 24, National Institute for Economic and Social Research. JURUE (1978) The Imuact of the National Exhibition Centre. A Reoort for the Deoartment of the Environment. Joint Unit for Research on the Urban Environment, University of Aston, Birmingham. JURUE (1979) The Closure of Biiston Steel Works: An Appraisal. Report for West Midlands County Council and Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough Council. Joint Unit for Research on the Urban Environment, University of Aston, Birmingham. JURUE with WARD, ASHCROFT AND PARKMAN (1981) West Cumbria Pilot Study. Joint Unit for Research on the Urban Environment, University of Aston, Birmingham. JURUE with WARD, ASHCROFT AND PARTNERS (1983) Scunthorpe (TTWA) Industrial Development Srudy. Joint Unit for Research on the Urban Environment, University of Aston, Birmingham. KALTER, R. J. and LORD, W. B. (1968) Measurement of the impact of recreational investments on the local economy, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 50, 243-257. KARASKA, G. J. (1966) Interregional flows of defense-space awards: The role of subcontracting in an impact analysis of changes in the levels of defense awards upon the Philadelphia economy, Papers of ISARD,

W. T., VANZELE

the Peace Research

KARASKA,

Society,

KIPNIS,

Society,

5, 45-62.

G. J. (1967) The spatial

impacts

of defense-space

procurement,

Papers of the Peace Research

8, 109-122.

B. A. (1977) The impact

of factory

size on urban growth

and development,

Economic

Geography,

53, 295-302.

KRAUSHAAR, J. L. (1964) How much of an asset is a College? College and University Business, 36. LATIMER. H. (Ed.) (1985) The Impact of Tourism and Recreation on the Environment: A Miscellanv of Readings,’ University of Bradford Project Planning Centre for Developing Countries. Occasional Paper 8. Selected Papers from a Seminar at the University of Bradford 27.6-1.7.86, Bradford.

196

Progress in Planning

LEE, N. and WOOD, C. (1977) Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment for Major Projects and Physical Plans, Occasional Paper No. 7, Department of Town and Country Planning, University of Manchester. LEONARD AND PARTNERS (1977) The Be/voir Prospecr. Surface Works Report to the National Coal Board, South Notts and South Midlands Areas. LEVEN, C. L. (1958) Theory and Method of Income and Product Accounts: Including the Elgin-Dundee Area as a Case Study. Iowa State College Press, Iowa. LEVER, W. F. (1974a) Regional multipliers and demand leakages at establishment level, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 21, 11 I- 122. LEVER, W. F. (1974b) Changes in income multipliers over time, Journal of Economic Studies, 1,98-l 1I. LEVER, W. F. (1975) Regional multipliers and demand leakages at establishment level: A reply, Scotttsh Journal

of Political Economy,

22, 103- 105.

LEVITT, K. and GULATI, 1. (1970) Income effects of tourist spending: Mystification multiplied: A critical comment on the Zinder report. Social and Economic Studies, 19. LEWES, F. M. M., CULYER, A. J. and BRADY, G. A. (1970) The Holiday Industry ofDevon and Cornwall. HMSO, London. LEWES, F. M. M. and KIRKNESS, A. (1974) Exeter - University and Ctty: A St& of‘Economic and Social Interactions Caused by Unrversity Growth. University of Exeter. LEWIS, J. A. (1982) Regional Deflationary A4ultipliers, Discussion Paper in Economics, The Polytechnic, Wolverhampton. LEWIS, J. A. (1986a) Assessing the Ejfect ofa Plant Closure on a Local Economy. Discussion Paper in Economics, The Polytechnic, Wolverhampton. LEWIS, J. A. (1986b) Assessing the Effect of the Polytechnic, Wolverhampton on the Local Community. Discussion Paper in Economics, The Polytechnic, Wolverhampton and Urban Studies (1988), 25 LEWIS, P. M. (1986) The economic impact of the operation and closure of a nuclear power station, Regional

Studies,

20, 425-432.

LIEU, T. S. (1986) Impacts Regional Science,

of air pollution

control

costs: An input-output

approach,

The Annals o/

20, 55-65.

LIEW, C. K. and LIEW, C. J. (1984) Measuring the development impact of a proposed system, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 14, 175-198. LICHFIELD, N. (1966) Cost-benefit analysis in town planning: A case study, Swanley,

transportation tlrban Studies.

3,

215-49.

LICHFIELD, N. and CHAPMAN, H. (1970) Cost-benefit analysis in urban expansion: A case study, Ipswich, Urban Studies, 7, 153-188. LUCEY, D. I. F. and KALDOR, D. R. (1969) Rural Industrialisation: The Impact of Industrialisation on Two Rural Communities in Ireland. Chapman, London. LYDDON, W. D. C. (1976) North Sea Oil and its consequences for housing and planning: the Scottish experience, Planning Administration, 1, 71-84. McDOWALL. S. (1975) Regional multipliers and demand leakages at establishment level: A comment, Scottish Journal ifPolitical Economy. 22, 99- 101. McGUIRE, A. (1982) The Regional Income and Employment Impacts of Nuclear Power Stations. Discussion Paper No. 82-07, University of Aberdeen. McGUIRE, A. (1983) The regional income and employment impacts of nuclear power stations, Scottish Journal

of Political Economy,

30, 264-274.

MacKAY, D. and MacKAY, G. A. (1975) The Political Economy of North Sea Oil. Martin Robertson, Oxford. MacKAY, D. I., MacKAY, R. R., McVEAN, P. and EDWARDS, R. (1980) Redundancy and Displacement. Research Paper No. 16, Department of Employment. MacKAY, G. A. (1978) A Study of the Economic Impact of the Invergordon Aluminium Smelter. Highlands and Islands Development Board Special Report No. 15. Inverness. MacKAY, G. A. and MOIR, A. (1980) North Sea Oil and the Aberdeen Economy, Social Science Research Council, London. McNICOLL, I. H. (1977) The impact of local government activity on a small rural economy: An inputoutput study of Shetland, Urban Studies, 14, 339-346. McNICOLL, I. H. (1980) The impact of oil on the Shetland economy, Managerial and Decision Economics, 1, 91-98. McNICOLL, I. H. and LEWIS, T. M. (1978) North Sea Oil and Scotland’s Economic Prospects, Croom Helm, London. MALLIER, A. T. and ROSSER, M. (1983) The Impact ofthe Polytechnic on the Local Economy. Paper for the Students’ Union, Coventry (Lanchester) Polytechnic.

Economic

Impact Analysis

197

MALLIER, A. T. and ROSSER, M. (1986) Economic impact studies and higher education institutions, Journal of Institutional Management in Higher Education, l&21-33. MATSON, R. A. and STUDER, J. B. (1975) Simulating the employment impact of coal development in Wyoming, Regional Science Perspective, 5, 43-60. MIERNYK, W. H. (1967) Impact of the Space Program on a Local Economy, University Library, Morganstown, West Virginia. MILLER, R. E. (1957) The impact of the aluminium industry on the Pacific Northwest: A regional inputoutput analysis. Review of Economics and Statistics, 39, 200-209. MINE, M. (1986) The social impact of microelectronics in Japan. International Labour Review, 125, 473-497. MOORE, C. L. (1974) The impact of public institutions on regional income: Upstate Medical Center as a case in point. Economic Geography, 50, 124-129. MOORE, C. L. and SUFRIN, S. C. (1974) The impact of a nonprofit institution on regional income. Growth and Change, 5, 36-40. MOSELEY, M. J. (1973) The impact of growth centres in rural regions I: An analysis of spatial “patterns” in Brittany. II: An analysis of spatial flows in East Anglia. Regional Studies, 7, 57-94. MOTHERWELL AND WISHAW TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT (1975) Sreek the Implications of Change, Town Council, Motherwell. MULLIGAN, G. F. and GIBSON, L. J. (1984) Regression estimates of economic base multipliers for small communities. Economic Geography, 60, 225-237. MURDOCK, S. H. and LEISTRITZ, F. L. (1979) Energy Development in the Western United States: Impact on Rural Areas. Praeger, New York. NABARRO, R. (1973) Do public works help the Uplands? Neti, Society, 26, 525-527. NAGARAJAN, P. (1975) The impact of universities on local economy: University of Prince Edward Island as a case in point. Indian Journal of Economics, 56, 33-43. NATIONAL COAL BOARD, North Yorkshire Area (1974) The Selby Coalfield Project, NCB. NORTH WEST INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION (1973) Implications of the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry for the North West Region, Preliminary Report. North West Industrial Development Association, Manchester. OAKLAND, W. H., SPARROW, F. T. and STETTLER, H. L. (1971) Ghetto multipliers: A case study of Hough. Journal of Regional Science, 11, 337-45. O’RIORDAN, W. K. (1986) Service sector multiplier. The Irish Banking Review, Summer, 30-40. O’RIORDAN, T. and HEY, R. D. (Eds.) (1976) EnvtronmenfalZmpact Analysis. Saxon House, Farnborough. OXFORD POLYTECHNIC (1976) PIanning for Rapid Development: Oil-related Development in the North of Scotland and the Shetlands. Oxford Polytechnic, Oxford. OXFORD POLYTECHNIC (1979) The Socio-Economic Effects of Power Stations on their Localities. Department of Town Planning, Oxford Polytechnic. PSI Project, Oxford. PAGE, S. A. B. (1977) The value and distribution of the benefits of North Sea Oil and Gas. National Institute Economic Review, 82, 41-58. PARKER, Hon. Mr. Justice (1978) The Windscale Inquiry. (Three Volumes) HMSO, London. PEASE, G. (1975) The Effects of North Sea Oil and Gas Development in Easter Ross on Labour Supply and Communitv Services in Ea.rt Suther/and. East Sutherland Council of Social Service. PETERS, A. F. (Ed.) (1974) The Impact of Offshore Oil Operations. Papers from a Conference at Aviemore. Institute of Petroleum, London. POLYTECHNIC OF CENTRAL LONDON, Department of Social and Environmental Planning (1973) Impaci: A Study of the Effects of Proposed Oil Platform Construction in the Western Highlands. Polytechnic of Central London, London. RESOURCE PLANNING ASSOCIATES (1973) Potential Onshore Effects of Oil and Gas Production on the Atlantic and Gulfof Alaska Outer Continental Shelf: Report for the Council on Environmental Quality. Resource Planning Associates, Cambridge, Mass. RICHARDSON, D. H. (1986) The St. Lawrence seaway and power project: An ex post evaluation. Public Finance, 41, 8-4 1. ROESLER, T., LAMPHEAR, F. and BEVERIDGE, M. (1968) The Economic Impact of Irrigated Agriculture on the Economy of Nebraska. Bureau of Business Research, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. RORHOLM, N. (1960) The University of Rhode Island as an Economic Factor in the Community. Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Rhode Island. ROSIE, G. (1974) Cromarty- The Scramblefor Oil. Canongate Publishing Ltd, Edinburgh. ROSS AND CROMARTY COUNTY COUNCIL (1974) Planning Application by Cromarty Firth Petroleum Company for the Establishment of an Oil Refinery and Associated Processes at Nigg. Impact Study. Ross and Cromarty County Council, Dingwall, Scotland.

JPP 30:3-D

198

Progress

in Planning

ROSS AND CROMARTY

COUNTY COUNCIL (1974) Planning Application by Fred Olsen Ltd. at Amish Ross and Cromarty County Council, Dingwall, Scotland, SADLER, P., ARCHER, B. and OWEN, C. (1973) Regional Income Multipliers: the Anglesey Study. Bangor Occasional Papers in Economics, 1, University of Wales Press. SALT, J. (1967) The impact of the Ford and Vauxhall plants on the employment situation of Merseyside 1962-1965. Tijdshrtfi voor Economische en Social Geografie. 58,255-264. SCOTTISH DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (1974) Appraisal of the Impact of Oil-related Development. Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 Development Plans. Technical Advrcr Note 16. Scottish Development Department, Edinburgh. SCOTTISH DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (1975) North Sea Oil and Gas Developments in Scotland: Oil Terminal. Implications for Planning. Scottish Development Department, Edinburgh. SCOTTISH DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (1978) Social Consequences of Oil Developments. Central Research Unit, Scottish Development Department, Edinburgh. SEWEL, J. (1975) Collier Closure and Social Change: A Study of u South Wales Muting Valley. University of Wales Press, Cardiff. SEWEL, .I. (1983) Social Consequences of Oil Development. Scottish Development Department, Edinburgh. SHORT, J., STEELE, T. and GREENWOOD, D. (1974) Militury Installations rend Local Economres - A Case Study: The Clyde Submarine Bose. Aberdeen Studies in Defence Economics, Aberdeen University. SINCLAIR, M. T. and SUTCLIFFE, C. M. S. (1982a) Keynesian income multipliers and first and second round effects: An application to tourist expenditures. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 44, Point,

Sfornaway.

321-338.

SINCLAIR, M. T. and SUTCLIFFE, C. M. (1982b) The Case of the Viphya Pulp Mill Protect: A C‘omment. Mimeo, University of Reading. SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL (1975) Social Consequences of Oil Developments in Scotland Social Science Research Council, London. SPHERE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS LTD. ( 1973) Impact Analysis: Oil Plutf~orm Construction at Loch Broom. Scottish Development Department, Edinburgh. SPHERE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS LTD. (1973) Impact Analysis: Oil Plotform C‘onrtrurtion at I.och Carron. Sphere, London. SPHERE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS LTD. (1973) Impact Study Oil Platform Constructton near Ullapool. Sphere, London. SPHERE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS LTD. (1974) Loch Carron Area: Compurrrtivr Analysis of Platform Construction Sites. Sphere, London. STEELE, D. B. (1969) Regional multipliers in Great Britain. OwfcordEconomic Papers. 21, 268-293. STEELE, D. B. (1972) A numbers game (or the return of regional multipliers). Regional Studies, 6, I 15- 130. STONE, T. (1973) Anolysing the Regional Impacf qfDefence Spending. Aberdeen Studies in Defcnce Studies, University of Aberdeen. STONEY, P. J. M. (1983) The Employment Imprrct of the Merseyside Motor Vehicle Assembly Industry’. Paper presented to the SSRC (now ESRC) Urban and Regional Economic Study Group, Reading, July. Also in Danson, M. (Ed.) (1986) Redundancy and Recession: Restructuring the Regions? Gee Books, Norwich. SULLOM VOE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY GROUP (1976) Oil Impuct rrt Sullom Voe. Environmental Impact Assessment. Thuleprint, Sandwick. SWALES, J. K. (1975) Regional multipliers and demand leakages at establishment level: A comment. Scottish

TIEBOUT,

Journal

of Political

Economy,

C. M. (1960) Community

income

22, 101-103.

multipliers:

A population

growth

model. .Journcrl of Re,gtonul

Science, 2, 75-84.

THOMPSON,

G. E. (1959) An investigation

TOWN,

41, 61-67. S. W. (1978) After rhe Mines.

of the local employment

multiplier.

Rrvieh, of Economic.s and

Statistus,

Social Science Monographs No. 4. University of Wales, Board of Celtic Studies. University of Wales Press, Cardiff. TRANSPORT (1986) M25 with the completion of the motorway due shortly, Transport reports on the history of this project and its future impact. Transport. 7(5), 209-213. VAUGHAN, D. R. (1976) The Economic Impact of Tourrsm in Edinburgh and the I othtan Region. Scottish Tourist Board, Edinburgh. VLACHOS, E., BUCKLEY, W. and FILSTEAD, W. J. (1975) Social Impact Assessment: An Overvrew. Distributed by National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Economic impact Analysis

199

WAGSTAFF, H. R. (1973) Employment multipliers in rural Scotland. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 20, 239-262. WALKER, C. A. (1979) The Impact of Offshore Oil on the Scottish Economy: A Comparative Study using the Scottish Input-Output Tables and the 1976 SEPD Oil Survey. ESU Discussion Paper 2, Scottish Economic Planning Department. WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH INSTITUTE (1974) Energy Resources Development in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin: An Assessment of Potential Social and Economic Impacts. University of Wyoming, Water Resources Research Institute, Laramie, Wyoming. WATT, D. C. (1976) Britain and North Sea Oil: Policies past and present. Political Quarter/y, 47, 377-397. WEISS, S. J. and GOODING, E. C. (1968) Estimation of differential employment multipliers in a small regional economy. Land Economics, 44, 235-244. WELLS, R. G. (Ed.) (1961) New England Council Education Study: The Economic Value of Education Institutions to New England. Bureau of Business Research, Boston University, College of Business Administration, Boston. WEST PHILADELPHIA CORPORATION (1963) Economic Profile of University City, Philadelphia. West Philadelphia Corporation, Philadelphia. WHEELER, B. (1974) The Economic Impact of Tourism in a Region: Cardiganshire. A University of Surrey Report to the Wales Tourist Board. WILSON, J. H., MOORE, C. L. and SUFRIN, S. C. (1975) The impact of a nonprofit institution on regional income: A discussion. Growrh and Change, 6, 45-48. WILSON, J. H. and RAYMOND, R. (1973) The economic impact of a university upon the local community. Annals of Regional Science, 7, 130-142. YANNOPOULOS, G. (1973) The local income effects of office relocation. Regional Studies, 7, 33-46. ZINDER, H. AND ASSOCIATES (1969) The Future of Tourism in the Eastern Carribbean. Zinder, H. and Associates, Washington DC.

2. Policy Impact

Studies

This section covers mainly

U.K. policy impact studies.

ASHCROFT, B. K. (1979) The Evaluation of Regional Economic Policy: The Case of the United Kingdom. Studies in Public Policy No. 12, University of Strathclyde and Ch. 7 in Allen, K. (Ed.) Balance National Growth. Lexington, Mass. ASHCROFT, B. K. (1980) The Evaluation of Regional Policy in Europe. Studies in Public Policy No. 68, University of Strathclyde. ASHCROFT, B. K. (1982) The measurement of the impact of regional policies in Europe: A study and critique. Regional Studies, 16, 287-305. ASHCROFT, B. K. (1983) Regional Policy Evaluation and the Disaggregation of Policy Effects. Studies in Public Policy No. 113, University of Strathclyde. ASHCROFT, B. K. and INGHAM, K. P. D. (1982) The comparative impact of U.K. regional policy on foreign and indigenous firm movement. Applied Economics, 14, 81-100. ASHCROFT, B. K. and MacGREGOR, P. (1983) Industrial Development Certificates and Regional Policy: An Application of a Modified Factor Demand Model, University of Strathclyde, Department of Economics, Mimeo. ASHCROFT, B. K. and TAYLOR, J. (1977) The movement of manufacturing industry and the effect of regional policy. Oxford Economic Papers, 29, 84-101. ASHCROFT, B. K. and TAYLOR, J. (1978) The effect of regional policy on the movement of industry in G.B. In: MacLennan, D. and Parr, J., (Eds.) Regional Policy: Past Experience and New Directions. Martin Robertson, London, ASHCROFT, B. K. and TAYLOR, J. (1979) The effect of regional policy on the movement of industry in Great Britain. Ch. 2. In: MacLennan, D. and Parr, J. (Eds.) RegionalPolicy: Pasr Experience and New Directions. Martin Robertson, London. BARTELS, C. P. A., NICOL, W. R. and VAN DUIGN, J. J. (1982) Estimating the impact of regional policy: A review of applied research methods. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 12, 3-42.

200

Progress

in Planning

BEACHAM, A. and OSBORNE, W. T. (1976) The movement of manufacturing industry. Regional Studies, J,41-47. BEGG, II. M., LYTHE, C. M. and MacDONALD, D. R. (1976) The impact of regional policy on investment in manufacturing industry in Scotland 1960-71. Urban-Studies, i3, 171-179. BIRD. I’. A. and THIRLWALL, A. P. (1967) The incentive to invest in the development areas. D&r& Bunk Reriew, No. 162, 24-45. BLAKE, C (1972) The effectiveness of investment grants as regional subsidy. Scottish Journal of Political E’conomy, 19,63-7 1. BLAKE. C. (1976) Some economics of investment grants - Allowances. In: Whiting, A. (Ed.) The Ecanomics of Industrial Subsidies. HMSO, London. BLUES~rONE. B. and HAVENS, J. (1986) The inicroeconomic impacts of macroeconomic fiscal policy 198 I-85. Journal of Pcsr Keynesian Economics, 3, 499-5 14. BORTS. G. (1966) Criteria for the evaluation of regional development programmes. In: Hirsh, W. Z. (Ed.) R(‘gional Accounts for Polic)’ Decisions. RREHNEY, M. J. (1984) Urban fo/ic;v Impact Ana/wi.r. Report for ESRC. School Government Publishing Co. Ltd. Rcdhill. Surrey. BROWN, A. J. (1966) The Framework ofReg~onnl Economics in the UK. University Press, Cambridge. BIJCK. T. W. and ATKINS, M. II. (1976a) The impact of British regional policies on employment growth. O.\:fordEconomic Papers, 28, I 18- 132. BUCK. T. W. and ATKINS. M. H. (1976b) Capital subsidies and unemployed labour, a regional production function approach. Regional Srudies, l&215-222. BUCK. T. W. and LOWE, J. F. (1972) Regional policy and the distribution of investment. Scottish Journal qf Polirical Economy, 19, 253-27 1. CHISHOLM, M. (1970) On the making of a myth? How capital intensive is industry investing in the development areas. tirban Studies. 7,289-323. CHISHOLM. M. and MANNERS, G. (Eds.) (1971) Spari& Polic}, Problems of the British Economy. Univei-sity Press, Cambridge. COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (1981) Study of the Regional Impact of the Common Agrirulfure Policy. Regional Policy Series 21, Brussels. COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (1984) Sfudy ofthe Regional Impact of rhe CommunirJ’s External Trade Policy. Regional Policy Series 22. Brussels. DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (1973) Statistical analysis of investment grant payments made under the industry development act 1966. Trade and industry, 25, 186-200. DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (1983) Regional Industrial Polrcy: Some Economic Issues. DTI, London. DESSANT, J. W. and SMART. R. (1977) Evaluating the effects of regional economic policy: A critique. Rt~gio~aiStudies, 11, 147- 152. DISNEY, R. (1984) The regional impact of unemployment insurance in the United Kingdom. Oxford Bulletin ofEconomics and Staiistics, 46, 241-254. DUNN. E. S. (1960) A statistical and analytical technique for regional analysis. Regional Science Arrociation. Papers and Proceedings, 6, 97-I 12. DUSANSKY. R., INGBER, M. and WALSH, 3. (1981) Estimating the economic impacts of public spending in a sub-region - An econometric approach. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 15, 255-262. FOLMER, H. (1980) Measurement of the effects of regional policy instruments. Environment and Planning A, 12, 1191-1201. FROST. M. E. (1975) The impac.t of Government Policy: A Case Study qf Manufactrrring Employment in the ~~~~r~hern Region. Pergamon, Oxford. FROST, M. E. (1976) Government action and manufacturing employment in the northern region In: Masser, I. (Ed.) Theory and Practice in Regional Science, Pion, London. GARRISON, C. B. and KORT. J. R. (1983) Regional impact of monetary and fiscal policy: A comment. .Jotrrnal of Regional Science, 23, 249-261. GLICKMAN. N. J. (Ed.) (1979) The Lfrban Impacts of Federal Policies. John Hopkins University Press. Baltimore. GREIG. M. A. (1972) A Stud,, of the Economrc Impact qf theHighlands and Mands Development Board’s lnvestmenr in Fisherie.\. Special Report No. 7, Highlands and Islands Development Board, Inverness. HARE. I’. G. (1975) Regional investtnent criteria and shadow wage rates. Scottish Journal of Po/itica/ Economy, 22, 305-320. HAVEMAN, R. H. (1976) Evaluating the impact of public policy on regional welfare. Regional.~fudie.s, 1% 449-463.

Economic

Impact Analysis

201

OF COMMONS EXPENDITURE COMMITTEE (1973) Regional Development Incentives. HMSO, London. JONES, M. E. F. (1985) Regional employment multipliers, regional policy and structural change in interwar Britain. Explorations in Economic History, 22,417-439. LOASBY, B. J. (1967) Making locational policy work. Lloyds Bank Review, No. 83, 34-47. LUND, P. J. (1976) The econometric assessment of the impact of investment incentives. In: Whiting, A. (Ed.) The Economics of Industrial Subsidies. HMSOI London. McCRONE. G. (1969) Regional Policv in Britain. Unwin. London: McDERMdTT,‘P. J. (1977) Capital subsidies and unemployed labour: A comment on the regional production function approach. Regional Studies, 11, 203-210. MacKAY, R. R. (1976a) The impact of the regional employment premium. In: Whiting, A. (Ed.) The Economics of Industrial Subsidies. HMSO, London. MacKAY, R. R. (1976b) Regional policy in the U.K: The effect on employment. In: Grant, R. M. and Shaw, G. K. (Eds.) Current Issues in Economic Policy. Philip Allan, Oxford. MARELLI, E. (1985) Economic policies and their effects upon regional economies. Pupers of the Regional Science Association, 58, 127-140. MARQUAND, J. (1980) Measuring the effects and costs of regional incentives. Government Economic Service Workshop Paper No. 32. Department of Industry, London. MATHUR, V. K. and STEIN, S. S. (1980) Regional impact of monetary and fiscal policy: an investigation into the reduced form approach. Journal of Regional Science, 20, 343-35 1. MATHUR, V. K. and STEIN, S. S. (1983) Regional impact of monetary and fiscal policy: A reply. Journal of Regional Science, 23,263-265. MELLISS, C. L. and RICHARDSON, P. W. (1976) Value of investment incentives for manufacturing industry 1946 to 1974. In: Whiting, A. (Ed.) The Economics of Industrial Subsidies. HMSO, London. MOODY, T. and SMITH, K. G. D. (1975) Some problems in the evaluation of subsidies to British manufacturing industry. Oxford Economic Papers, 27,274-294. MOORE, B. C. and RHODES, J. (1973) Evaluating the effects of British regional economic policy. Economic Journal, 83,87-l 10. MOORE, B. C. and RHODES, .I. (1974a) The effects of regional policy in the United Kingdom. In: Sant, M. E. C. (Ed.) Regional Policy and Planningfor Europe. Saxon House, Farnborough. MOORE, B. C. and RHODES, J. (1974b) Regional policy and the Scottish economy. Scotrish Journal of Political Economy, 21, 215-235. MOORE, B. C. and RHODES, J. (1975a) RegionalPolicy and the Economy of Wales. Welsh Office, Cardiff. MOORE, B. C. and RHODES, .I. (1975b) The economic and exchequer implications of regional policy. In: Vaizey, J. Economic Sovereignfy and Regional Policy. Gill and McMillan, London, MOORE, B. C. and RHODES, J. (1976a) A quantitative analysis of the effects of the regional employment premium and other regional policy instruments. In: Whiting, A. (Ed.) The Economics of Industrial Subsidies. HMSO, London. MOORE, B. C. and RHODES, J. (1976b) Regional policy and the movement of manufacturing firms to the development areas. Economica, 43, 17-3 I. MOORE, B. C. and RHODES, J. (1977a) Evaluating the economic effects of regional policy. In: Methods of Measuring the Effects of Regional Policies. OECD, Paris. MOORE, B. C. and RHODES, J. (1977b) Industrial and Regional Policy in the Republic of Ireland. Department of Applied Economics, University of Cambridge. MOORE, B. C., RHODES, J. and TYLER, P. (1977) The impact of regional policy in the 1970s. Centrefor Environmental Studies Review, 1, 67-77. MOORE, B. C., RHODES, J. and TYLER, P. (1984) New Estimates of the Impact of Regional Policy) on the Development Areas. Paper presented to the ESRC Urban and Regional Economic Study Group, Liverpool, December. Department of Applied Economics, University of Cambridge. NEEDLEMAN, L. and SCOTT, B. (1964) Regional problems and location of industry policies in Britain. Urban Studies, 1, 153-173. NICOL, W. (1982) Estimating the effects of regional policy: A critique of the European experience. Regional Studies, 16, 199-210. NORTHERN REGION STRATEGY TEAM (1975) Evaluation of the Impact of Regional Policy on Manufacturing Industry in the Northern Region. NRST Technical Report No. 2. Northern Region Strategy Team, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. OAXACA, R. L. and TAYLOR, C. A. (1986) Simulating the impacts of economic programs on urban areas: The case of unemployment insurance benefits. Journal of Urban Economics, 19, 23-46. HOUSE

202

Progress

in Planning

O’DONNELL, A. T. and SWALES, J. K. (1977) Regional elasticities of substitution in the United Kingdom in 1968: A comment. Urban Studies, 14, 31 l-377. RANDALL, J. N. (1973) Shift-share analysis as a guide to the employment performance of West Central Scotland. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 20. RICHARDSON, P. W. (1976) Value of investment for manufacturing industry 1946-1974. In: Whiting, A. (Ed.) The Economics of Industrial Subsidies. HMSO, London. SANT, M. E. C. (1975) Industrial Movement and Regional Development - The British Case. Pergamon, Oxford. SCHOFIELD, J. A. (1976) Economic efficiency and regional policy in Britain. Urban Studies, 13, 181-192. SCHOFIELD, J. A. (1979) Macro evaluations of the impact of British regional policy: A review of recent research. Urban Studies, 16, 251-271. SMITH, B. M. D. (1975) Industrial mobility: In which industries has plant location changed most? Regional Studies, 9, 27-38. STILWELL, F. J. B. (1972) RegionalEconomic Policy. Macmillan, London. SWALES, J. K. (1981) The employment effects of a regional capital subsidy. Regional Studies, 15, 263-274. TERVO, H. and OKKO, P. (1983) A note on shift-share analysis as a method of estimating the employment effects of regional economic policy. Journal of Regional Science, 23, 1 15-l 2 I. THIRLWALL, A. P. (1967) A measure of the proper distribution of industry. OxfordEconomic Papers, 19, 46-58. THOMAS, R. (1971) New investment incentives. Oxford University Instituie of Statistics BuZZetin, 33, 93-106. TOWNROE, P. M. (1971) Industrial Location Decisions. Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, Occasional Paper 15, Birmingham. TOWNROE, P. M. (1972) Some behavioural considerations in the industrial location decision. Regional Studies, 6, 261-272. TRUSSLER, S. P. (1982) Income effects of regional public finance. Geographical Analysis, 14,41-50. TYLER, P. (1980) The impact of regional policy on a prosperous region: The experience of the West Midlands. OxfordEconomic Papers, 32, 151-162. TYLER, P. (1983) The Impact of Regional Policy on Different Types of Industry and the Implications for Industrial Restructuring. Paper presented to the SSRC (now ESRC) Urban and Regional Economic Study Group, Reading, July. Department of Applied Economics, University of Cambridge. VANDOORN, J. (1975) European regional policy - Evaluation of recent developments. Journal of Common Market Studies, 13, 391-401. VANHOVE, N. and KLAASEN, L. H. (1980) Regional Policy: A European Approach. Saxon House, Farnborough. WILSON, T. (1967) Finance for regional industrial development. Three Banks Review, No. 75, 3-23. WISEMAN, J. (1976) An economic analysis of the expenditure committee reports on public money m the private sector. In: Whiting, A. (Ed.) The Economics of Industrial Subsidies. HMSO, London. WHITING, A. (Ed.) (1976) The Economics @Industrial Subsidies. HMSO. London.

3. Methodological This list contains means exhaustive. ALLEN,

Issues in Impact

some of the more significant

Analysis

methodological

papers and is by no

K. J. (1969) The regional multiplier. In: Orr and Cullingworth (Eds.) Regional and Urban Studies. Allen and Unwin. ALEXANDER, J. W. (1954) The basic nonbasic concept of urban economic functions. Economic Geography, 30,246-26 1. ANDREWS, R. B. (1953) Mechanics of the urban economic base: Historical development of the base concept. LandEconomics. 29, 161-167. This article is the first of a series of I2 articles by Andrews which appeared in Land Economics, 1953-1956. ARCHER, B. H. (1976) The anatomy of a multiplier. Regional Studies, 10, 71-77. BARNARD. J. R. and BALLMAN, R. J.. Jr. (1979) Tests of regional intersectoral flows analysis multipliers JournalofRegional Science, 19, 201-215.

Economic

Impact

Analysis

203

BATEY, P. W. J. (1985) Input-output models for regional demographic-economic analysis: Some structural comparisons. Ikvironment and Planning A, 11,73-99. BATEY, P. W. J. and MADDEN, M. (1981) Demographic-economic forecasting within an activitycommodity framework: Some theoretical considerations and empirical results. Environment and Phnning A, 13. 1067-1083. BATEY, P. W. J. and MADDEN, M. (1983) The modelling of demographic-economic change within the context of regional decline: Analytical procedures and empirical results. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 17, 3 15-328. BILLINGS, B. (1969) The mathematical identity of the multipliers derived from the economic base model and the input-output model. Journal ofRegional Science, 9,471-473. BILLINGS, R. B. and KATZ, J. L. (1982) A technique to obtain impact multipliers for individual firms by means of existing input-output models. Environment and Planning A, 14, 739-744. BLACK, P. A. (1981) Injection leakages, trade repercussions and the regional income multiplier. Scottish Jaurnal of Political Economy, 28,227-235. BLACK, P. A. (1984) The regional income multiplier: A comment. Srottish Journal of Political Economy, 31, 199-201. BLITZER, C., DASGUPTA, P. and STIGLITZ, J. E. (1981) Project appraisal and foreign exchange constraints. Economic Journal, 91, 58-74. BONNER, E. R. and FAHLE, V. L. (1967) Techniquefbr Area Planning: A Manual for the Construciion and Application of a Simplified input-Ourput Table. Regional Economic Development Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. BRADLEY, 1. E. and GANDER, J. P. (1969) Input-output multipliers: Some theoretical comments. Journal of Regional Science, 9, 309-3 17. BROWN, A. J. (1967) Appendix to the Green Paper on the development areas: Regional multipliers. National institute Economic Review, 51, 33. BROWNRIGG, M. (1971) The regional income multiplier: An attempt to complete the model. Scottish Journal of Politjco~ Economy, IS,28 t-297. BROWNRIGG, M. (1976) The sub-regional income multiplier model. Economics, 12, 3-14. BROWNRIGG, M. (1980) Industrial contraction and the regional multiplier effect. Town Planning Review. 51, 195-210. BURFORD, R. L. and KATZ, J. L. (198 1) A method for estimation of input-output multipliers when no input-output model exists. Journat of Regional Science, 21, 151-162. CAVALIERI, A., MARTELLATO, D. and SNICKARS, F. (1983) A model system for policy impact analysis in the Tuscany region. Papers of the Regional Science Association, 52, 105-124. DAVIS, H. C. (1975) Economic base and input-output multipliers: A comparison for Vancouver B. C. Annak of Regional Science, 9, 1-8. DAVIS, H. C. (1976) Regional sectorai multipliers with reduced data requirements. ~nrernutjo~oI Regiona/ Science Revieuj, 1, 18-29. DAVIS, H. C. (1978) A synthesis of two methods of estimating regional sector multipliers. Growth and CXange. 9, 9- 13. DEFOIJRNY, J. and THORBECKE, E. (1984) Structural path analysis and multiplier decomposition within a social accounting matrix framework. Economic Journal, 94, 11I-136. DICKERMAN, A. R. (1975) Estimating regional net trade flows and income multipliers from secondary data: An application of Keynesian theory. Anna/s of Regional Science, 9,44-50. DRAKE, R. L. (1976) A short-cut to estimates of regional input-output multipliers. Inrernafionol Regional Science Review. 1, I-17. ELIAS, D. P. B. (19823 The regional impact of national economic policies: A muIti-regional simulation approach for the United Kingdom. Regional Studies, 16, 335-343. EVANS, A. W. (1977) Measuring the total impact of a new factory in Furness: A Markovian approach. Regional Studies, I, 407-408. FOLMER, H. and NIJKAMP, P. (1985) Methodological aspects of impact analysis of regional economic policy. Papers of the Regional Science Association. 57, 165- 181. FOURAKER, L. E. (1955) A note on regional multipliers. Proceedings ofthe Regiona! Science Association, l,ll-119. GARNICK, D. H. (1970) Differential regional multiplier models, Journal of Regional Science, 10, 35-47. GORDON, I. R. (1973) The return of regional multiphers: A comment. Regional Studies, 7,257-262. GORDON, I. R. (1976) Gravity demand functions, accessibility and regional trade. Regional Studies, 10, 25-37. GREIG, M. A. (1971b) Regional income effects in the U.K.: A comment. OxfordEconomic Papers, 23, 276-284.

204

Progress

GREYTAK,

D. (1970) Regional

Regional

HANSEN,

in Planning

Science

impact

Association,

W. L. and TIEBOUT,

Review of Economics

of inter-regional

trade in input-output

analysis,

Papers

of the

25, 203-2 17.

C. M. (1963) An intersectoral

and Statistics,

flows analysis

of the California

economy.

45, 409-418.

HARRIGAN, F. J. (1982) The estimation of input-output type multipliers when no input-output model exists: A comment. Journal of Regional Science, 22, 375-381. HARRIGAN, F. J., McGILVRAY, I. H. and McNICOLL, I. (1980) A comparison of national and regional technical structures. Economic Journal, 90, 795-8 10. HAVEMAN, R. H. (1976) Evaluating the impact of public policies on regional welfare. Regional Studies, 10, 449-463.

R. H. and KRUTILLA, J. V. (1968) Unemployment, Excess Capacity and thr Evaluation of John Hopkins Press, Maryland. HEWINGS, G. J. D. (1969) Regional input-output models using national data: The structure of the West Midlands economy. Annals of Regional Science, 3, 119- 19 1. HEWINGS, G. J. D. (1971) Regional input-output models in the U.K.: Some problems and prospects for the use of non-survey techniques. Regional Studies, 5, 1 l-22. HEWINGS, G. J. D. (1972) Input-output models: Aggregation for regional impact analysis. Growth and HAVEMAN,

Public Expenditures.

Change,

HEWINGS,

3, 15-19.

G. J. D. (1977) Evaluating

the possibilities

for exchanging

regional

output

coefficients.

Environment

ISARD, ISARD,

and Planning A, 9,927-944. W. (1960) Methods of Regional Analysis. Norton,

New York. W. and CZAMANSKI, S. (1965) Techniques for estimating local and regional multiplier effects 01 changes in the level of major government programs. Papers of /he Regional Science Association, 3, 19-46.

ISARD,

W. and KUENNE, R. E. (1953) The impact of steel upon the Greater New York-Philadelphia urban industrial region. Review of Economics and Statistics, 35, 293-301. ISSERMAN, A. M. (1975) Regional employment multipliers: a new approach: Comment. Land Economics. 51, 290-293. ISSERMAN, A. M. (1977a) The location quotient approach to measuring regional economic impacts. Journal

of American

Institute of Planners,

43, 33-4

I.

ISSERMAN, A. M. (1977b) A bracketing approach for estimating regional impact multipliers and a procedure for assessing their accuracy. Environment and Planning A, 9, 1003-1011. KAHN, R. F. (1931) The relation of home investment to unemployment, EconomicJournal, 41, 173-198. KATZ, J. L. and BURFORD, R. L. (1982) The estimation of input-output type output multipliers when no input-output model exists: A reply. Journal of Regional Science, 22, 383-387. KEYNES, J. M. (1936) The General Theory of Employment, Interest andMoney. Macmillan, London. LANGE, 0. (1943) The theory of the multiplier. Econometrica, 11, 227-245. LATHAM, W. R. and MONTGOMERY, M. (1979) Methods for calculating regional industry impact multipliers. Growth and Change, 10, 2-9. LEDENT, J. (1978) Regional multiplier analysis: A demometric approach. Environment and Planning A, 10, 537-560.

LEDENT, J. (1982) Long-range regional population forecasting: specification of a minimal demoeconomic model, with a test for Tucson, Arizona. Papers of the Regional Science Association, 49, 37-67. LEIGH, R. (1970) The use of location quotients in urban economic base studies. Land Economics. 46, 202-205.

LEISTRITZ, F. L. and CHASE, R. A. (1982) Socioeconomic impact monitoring systems: A review and evaluation. Journal of Environmental Management, 15, 333-349. LEISTRITZ, F. L., CHASE, R. A. and MURDOCK, S. H. (1984) Socioeconomic Impact Models: A Revie+i of Analytical Methods and Policy Implications. Paper presented to the Regional Science Association, University of Kent at Canterbury, September. LEVEN, C. L. (1961) Regional income and product accounts: Construction and application. In: Design of Regiona/ Accounts, W. Hochwald (Ed.) John Hopkins Press, Maryland. LEVEN, C. L. (1964) Regional and inter-regional accounts in perspective. Papers and Proceedings ofthe Regional

Science

Association,

13, 127-143.

W. F. (1974~) Migrant Industry, Demand Linkages and the Multipher: Some Paradoxes m Regional Development. Urban and Regional Discussion Papers, 12, University of Glasgow. LIEW, C. K. and LIEW, C. J. (1984) Measuring the development impact of a proposed transportation system. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 14, 175-198. LICHFIELD, N. (1962) Cost-Ben@r Ana/ysis in Urban Redevelopment. Berkeley Real Estate Research Program, Report No. 20.

LEVER,

Economic

Impact

Analysis

205

LICHFIELD, N., KETTLE, P. and WHIT3READ, M. (1975) evaluation in the Planning Profess. Pergamon, Oxford. LITTLE, I. M. D. and MIRRLEES, J. A. (1974) Project Appraisal and Planning for Developing Countries. Heinemann, London. McGILVRAY. J. and SIMPSON. D. f 1969) Some tests of stability in interindustry coefficients. ~~onorn~tri~a~37,2&t-2221 MacKAY, D, (1968) Industrial structure and regional growth: A methodology problem. Scottish Journai of Political Economy, 15, 129-143. McNICHOLL, I. H. (1981) Estimating regional industrial multipliers: Alternative techniques. Town Planning Review, 52, 80-88. MADDEN, M. and BATEY, P. W. J. (1980) Achieving consistency in demographic-economic forecasting. Papers of the Regional Science Associarion, 44,91-106. MADDEN, M. and BATEY, P. W. J. (1981) A methodology for the integration of population and employment forecasts. In: Vilquin, E. (Ed.) Perspectives de Population, d’Emploi et de Croissance Ckbaine. Ordina Editions, Liege, Belgium. MADDEN, M. and BATEY, P. W. J. (1984) A demographic-economic model of a Metropolis. In: Woods, R. and Rees, P. H. (Eds.) Developments in Spalial Demography. George Allen and Unwin, Hemel Hempstead. MATHUR, V. K. and ROSEN, H. S. (1974) Regional employment multipliers: A new approach. Land Economics, 50.93-96. MATHUR, V. K. and ROSEN, H. S. (1975) Regional employment multipliers: A new approach: Reply. Land Economics, 51,294295. MAYBEE, J. S. and VOOGD, H. (1984) Qualitative impact analysis through qualitative calculus: A review. Environment and Planning R. 11, 365-376. MORRISON, W. and SMITH, P. (1974) Non-survey input-output techniques at the small area level. Journal ofRegional Science, 14, I-14. MORRISON, W. I. and SMITH, P. (1978) Input-output methods in urban and regional planning: A practical guide. Progress in Planning, 7. NIJKAMP, P. (1984) Qualitative spatial impact analysis. In: Chatterji, M., Nijkamp, P., Lakshamanan, T. R. and Pathak, C. R. (Eds.) pp. 79-91. Spatial, Environmentai and Resource Policy in the Developing Countries. Gower, Aldershot. NIJKAMP, P. and REGGIANI, A. (1986) A Synthesis between Macro and Micro ModeIs in Spatial Interaction Analysis, with Special Reference to Dynamics. Economische Faculteit Research Memorandum 1986-10, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. PFISTER, R. (1976) On improving export base studies. Regional Science Perspectives, 6, 104-106. PFOUTS, R. W. (Ed.) (1960) The Technique of Urban Economic Analysis. Chandler-Davis Publishing Company, Trenton, New Jersey. PHIBBS, P. J. and HOLSMAN, A. J. (1982) Estimating input-output multipliers - A new hybrid approach. Environment and Planning A, 14, 335-342. PLEETER, S. (Ed.) (1980) Economic Impact Analysis: Methodology and Appiications. Martinus Nijhoff, Amsterdam. PRATT, R. T. (1968) An appraisal of the minimum requirements technique. Eeonumic Geograph~l, 117-124. PUU, T. (1986) Multiplier-accelerator models revisited. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 16, 81-96. RICHARDSON, H. W. (1972) Input-Output and Regional Economics. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London. RICHARDSON, H. W. (1985) Input-output and economic base multtphers: Lookmg backward and forward. Journal of Regional Science, 25,607-661. ROMANOFF, E. (1974) The economic base model: A very special case of input-output analysis. Journnf of Regional Science, 14, 12 l- 129. ROUND, J. I. (1972) Regional input-output models in the U.K.: A re-appraisal of some techniques. Regianal Studies, 6, 1-9. ROUND, J. I. (1978a) On estimating trade flows in interregional input-output models. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 8, 289-302. ROUND, J. I. (1978b) An interregional input-output approach to the evaluation of non-survey methods. Journal of Regional Science, 18, 179-194. SAH, R. K. and STIGLITZ, J. E. (1985) The social cost of labor and project evaluation: A general approach. Journal of Public Economics. 28, I35- 164. SEN, A. K. f 1968) Choice of Techniques: An Aspect of rhe Theory of Planned Economic Deile~opment. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. SEN, A. K. (1972) Control areas and accounting prices: An approach to economic valuation. Economic Journal, 82, 486-501.

206

Progress in Planning

SINCLAIR, M. T. and SUTCLIFFE, C. M. S. (1977a) On the Theory ofKeynesian Regional Income Multipliers. Discussion Paper, Department of Economics, University of Reading. SINCLAIR, M. T. and SUTCLIFFE, C. M. S. (1977b) Rounds of the multiplier process and realtime. In: Sinclair, M. T. and Sutcliffe, C. M. S. Cotnments on Keynesian Income Multipliers. Discussion Paper 99, University of Reading. SINCLAIR, M. T. and SUTCLIFFE, C. M. S. (1978) The first round of the Keynesian regional income multiplier. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 25, 177-186. SINCLAIR, M. T. and SUTCLIFFE, C. M. S. (1982~) The TheoreticalBasisfor Estimating Keynesian Income Multipliers at the Sub-National Level. Mimeo, IJniversity of Reading. SINCLAIR, M. T. and SUTCLIFFE, C. M. S. (1983) Injection leakages, trade repercussions and the regional income muItiplier: An extension. Scoftish Journal of Polifiral Economy, 30, 275-286. SIRKIN, G. (1959) The theory of the regional economic base. Review of Economics and Statistics, 41, 426-429. STEELE, D. B. (1969) Regional multipliers in Great Britain. OxfordEconomic Papers, 21, 268-293. STEELE, D. B. (1972) A numbers game (or the return of regional multipliers). Regional Studies. 6, 115-130. TIEBOUT, C. M. (1960) Community income muitipli~rs: A population growth model. Journal of Regional Science, 2, 75-84. ULLMAN, E. L. (1968) Minimum requirements after a decade: A critique and an appraisal. Economic Geography, 364-369. ULLMAN, E. L. and DACEY, M. F. (1960) The minimum requirements approach to the urban economic base. Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Associarion, 6, ITS-194. UNIDO (1972) Guidehes for Project Evaluation. United Nations, New York. WILLIAMS, S. (1975) Analytical techniques for geographers: Tourist regional multipliers. Camhria, 2, 56-58. WILLIAMSON, R. B. (1970) Simple input-output models for area economic analysis. Journal qf Lund Economics, 46. WILSON, J. H. (1977) Impact analysis and multiplier specification. Growth and Change, 8,42-46. WILSON, T. (1968) The regional multiplier: A critique. OxfordEconomic Papers, 20, 374-393.

4. Regional and Unman Models used for Economic Impact Analysis in the United Kingdom This is a comprehensive

list of U.K. models.

BATEY, P. W. J. and MADDEN, M. (1981) Demographic-economic forecasting within an activitycommodity framework: Some theoretical considerations and empirical results, Environment and Planning A, 13, 1067-1083. BATEY, P. W. J. and MADDEN, M. (1983) The ~ode~f~ng of ~emo~~raphi~-Ecan~lmlc Change within the Context of RegionalDecline: Ana~~~ti~af Procedures and Empirical Results. Department of Civic Design, University of Liverpool. BLAKE, C. and McDOWALL, S. (1967) A local input-output table. Scottish .Jvurna/ of Political Economy, 14, 227-242. BULMER-THOMAS, V. (1978) The valuation of transactions in input-output tables. JournaL qfkonomic Studies, 5, i-19. BURDEKIN (1978) The Construction of the 1973 Scottish Input-Output Tables. Fraser of Allander institute. University of Strathclyde. CHAKRAVARTY, S. P. (1982) Economefric Mode/s/or Wules. Discussion Paper Reg. 30. Institute of Economic Research, University College of North Wales, Bangor, Gwynedd. DE KANTER, J. and MORRISON, W. I. (1978) The Merseyside input-output study and its application in structural planning. In: Batey, P. W. J. (Ed.) Theorjj and Method in Urban and Regiona! Analysis. Pion, London. EDWARDS, S. L. and GORDON, I. R. (1971) The application of input-output methods to regional forecasting: The British experience. In: Chisholm, M., F:rey, A. E. and Haggett, P. (Eds.) Regional Forecasting. Butterworths, London. ELIAS, P. (1982) The regional impact of national economic policies: A multi-regional simulation approach for the United Kingdom. Regional Studies, 16, 335-343. FRASER OF ALLANDER INSTITUTE (1978) Input-Output Tables for Scotland, 1973. IBM (U.K.)

Economic

impact

Analysis

207

Scientific Centre and Scottish Council Research Institute at the University of Strathclyde. Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh. HEWINGS, G. J. D. (1969) Regional input-output models using national data: The structure of the West Midlands economy. Annals of Regional Science, 3, 179-19 1. HODGSON, R. and HANDLEY, I. (1978) Industrial Linkages in the West Midlands Region. West Midlands County Council, Birmingham. KEOGH, G. T. and ELIAS, D. P. B. (1979) A model for projecting regional employment in the U.K. Regional Studies, 13, 465-482. LEWIS, J. A. (1985) A regional (area) employment-dependency model. Journal of Indusrrial Affairs. McDOWALL, S. (1973) Discussion Paper on the Results of the Input-Output Study of Sutherlandfor 1970. University of St. Andrews. McNICOLL, I. H. (1976) The Shetland Economy. Fraser of Allander Research Monograph No. 2. McNICOLL, I. H. (1977) The impact of local government activity on a small rural economy: An inputoutput study of Shetland. Urban Studies, 14, 339-346. McNICOLL, I. H. (1982) Ex-post appraisal of an input-output forecast. Urban Studies, 19, 397-404. McNICOLL, I. H. (1984) The Shetland Input-Output Table 1982/3. The Shetland Industrial Survey, Fraser of Allander Institute, University of Strathclyde. MORRISON, W. I. (1973) The development of an urban interindustry model. Environment and Planning, 5, 369-383,433-460, 545-554. MORRISON, N. I. and SMITH, P. (1977) Input-output methods in urban and regional planning: A practical guide. Progress in Planning, 7, 59-151. NEVIN, E., ROE, A. R. and ROUND, J. I. (1960) The Structure of the Welsh Economy. University of Wales Press. PULLEN, M. J., PROOPS, J. L. R., BOOTH, 1. M. and FISHMAN, L. (1981) An Input-Output Study of North Staffordshire. Department of the Environment. PULLEN, M. J. and PROOPS, J. L. R. (1982) The North Staffordshire regional economy: An input-output assessment. Regional Studies, 16, 191-200. SMITH, P. S. and MORRISON, W. I. (1974) Simulating the Urban Economy. Pion, London.

5. A Selection of Regional other parts of the World

and Urban Models

As the title of this section implies this list contains

from

only a sample of overseas

models.

BULMER-THOMAS, V. (1982) Input-Output Analysis in Developing Countries. Wiley, New York. CAVALIERI, A., MARTELLATO, D. and SNICKARS, F. (1983) A model system for policy impact analysis in the Tuscany region. Papers of the Regional Science Association, 52, 105-124. COPELAND, J. R. (posthumously) and HENRY, E. W. (1975) Irish Input-Output Multipliers 1964-1968. Paper No. 82, Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin. HANSEN, W. L. and TIEBOUT, C. M. (1963) An intersectoral flows analysis of the California economy. Review of Economics and Statistics, 45, 409-418. HAVEMAN, R. H. (1976) Evaluating the impact of public policies on regional welfare. Regional Studies, 10, 449-463. JOHNSTON, M. H. and BENNETT, J. T. (1981) Regional environmental and economic impact evaluation: An input-output approach. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 11,215-230. McGILVRAY, J. W. (1977) Linkages, key sectors and development strategy. In: Leontief, W. (Ed.) 49-56. Structure, System and Economic Policy. University Press, Cambridge. MILLER, R. E. (1957) The impact of the aluminium industry on the Pacific Northwest: A regional inputoutput analysis. Review of Economics and Statistics, 39, 200-209. OOSTERHAVEN, J. (1983) Evaluating land reclamation plans for Northern Friesland: An interregional cost-benefit and input-output analysis. Papers of the Regional Science Association, 52, 125-137. POLENSKE, K. (1980) The United States Multi-Regional Input-Output Models. Lexington. PHIBBS, P. J. and HOLSMAN, A. J. (1982) Estimating input-output multipliers - A new hybrid approach. Environment and Planning A, 14, 335-342. SMITH, C. (1986) An empirically implementable integrated multi-regional model for Australia. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 16, 181-196.

Progress

208

6. Some

in Planning

Useful Surveys,

Reviews

and Bibliographies

BATEY, P. W. J. (1985) Input-ouput models for regional demographic-economic analysis: Some structural comparisons. Environment and Planning A, 17,13-99. BOUDEVILLE, J. R. (1960) A survey of recent techniques for regional economic analysis. In: Isard, W. and Cumberland, J. H. (Ed.) pp. 377-398. Regional Economic Planning: Techniques for Analysis, Paris. CLARK, B. D., BISSET, R. and WATHERN, P. (1980) Environmental Impact Assessment: A Biblrograph) with Abstracts. Mansell, London. Bowker, New York. CLIFFORD, S. (1975) Impact Analysis: A CriticalReview ofExperience in Britain. Mimeo, School of Environmental Sciences, University College, London. LANE, T. (1966) The urban base multiplier: An evaluation of the state of the art. I.andEconomics, 42, 339-347.

LEISTRITZ, F. L., CHASE, R. A. and MURDOCK, S. H. (1984) Socioeconomic Impact Models: A Review of Analytical Methods andPolicy Implications. Paper presented to the Regional Science Association, University of Kent at Canterbury. MEYER, J. R. (1966) Regional economics: A survey. In: Surreys qfEconomic Theories, Chap. 8, Volume II. Macmillan, London. MOORE, R. (1976 and 1977) International Register of Research on the Social Impacts of OffshoreOil Development. First issued 1976, additions and amendments and 2nd edition 1977. Department of Sociology, Edward Wright Building, Dunbar Street, Old Aberdeen, Aberdeen. NIJKAMP, P. (1986) 25 Years of Regional Science: Retrospect and Prospect. Vrije Universiteit, Ekonomische Faculteit Research Memorandum 1986-3, Amsterdam. THE PLANNING EXCHANGE (1978) The Social Impacts of Large Scale Industrial Developments: A Literature Review. The Planning Exchange, Glasgow. PLEETER, S. (Ed.) (1980) Economic Impact Analysis: Methodology and Applications. Martinus Nijhoff. Amsterdam. RICHARDSON, H. W. (1982) Input-Output and Regional Economics. Weidenfeld and Nicolson. London. RICHARDSON, H. W. (1985) Input-output and economic base multipliers: Looking backward and forward. Journal of Regional Science, 25, 607-661. ROUND, J. I. (1983) Nonsurvey techniques: A critical review of the theory and evidence. Znternatronal Regional

Science

Review, 8, 189-212.

SHIELDS, M. A. (1974) Social Impact Assessment: An Analytic Bibliography. Prepared for the Institute of Water Resources (Army) U.S.A. Distributed by National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce. UNIVERSITY OF OSLO (1976) Prosjektrapport. Sosiale Konsekvenser av Oijeviksomhet: Skottland. University of Oslo, Oslo. Bibliography and research register relating to oil-related development in Scotland. Mainly in English.

7. Additional Survey

References

included

in the Literature

BACHARACH, M. (1970) BiproporiionalMatrices and Input-Output Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. BALLARD, K. and GLICKMAN, N. J. (1977) A multiregional econometric forecasting system. Journal ofRegional Science, 17, 161-177. BARKER, T. S. (Ed.) (1976) Economic Strucrure andpolicy. Cambridge Studies in Applied Economics 2. Chapman and Hall. BATEY, P. W. J. (1980) Comparison Between Type II and Type IV Income Multipliers: A Working Note. Department of Civic Design, University of Liverpool. BOPP, R. and GORDON, P. (1977) Agglomeration economies and industrial linkages: A comment. .Journal of Regional Science. 7, 125- 129. BRAMHALL, D. F. (1962) Markets for California’s products: Analysis of sources of demand. .Journa/ of Regional

CLAPP,

Science,

4, 102- 104.

J. M. (1977) The relationship among regional input-output, analysis. International Regional Science Review. 2, 78-89.

intersectoral

flows and rows only

Economic

209

Impact Analysis

CROW, R. T. (1973) A nationally linked regional econometric model. Journal ofRegionalScience, 13, 187-204. CZAMANSKI, D. and CZAMANSKI, S. (1977) Industrial complexes: their typology, structure and relation to economic development. Papers of the Regional Science Association, 38, 93-11 I. DORFMAN, R. (1954) The nature and significance of input-output. Review of Economics and Sfatistics, 36, 121-133

DRAKE,

R. L. (1976) A short-cut to estimates of regional input-output Review, 1, l-17. GIARRATANI, F. (1980) A note on a neglected aspect of intersectoral

multipliers.

International

Regional

Science

Science,

20, 5 13-5 15. N. J. (1977) Econometric

GLICKMAN, HIRSCH, W. Z. (1959) Interindustry

Analysis of Regional

relations

flows analysis.

Journal

of Regional

Systems.

of a metropolitan

Academic Press. area. Review of Economics

and Statistics,

41, 360-369.

HOARE, A. G. (1975) Linkage flows, local evaluation and industrial geography: A case-study of Greater London. Environment and Planning, I, 41-58. HOYT, H. (1937) Basic data on Northern New Jersey housing market. Quoted in Meyer, J. R. (1966) Regional Economics: A Survey, Ch. 8. In: Surveys of Economic Theories, Vol. II, McMillan. As one of the earliest uses of the economic base principle. ISARD, W’. (1951) Interregional and regional input-output analysis: A model of a space economy. Review of Economics

and Statistics,

33, 3 18-328.

KAHN, R. F. (1931) The relation of home investment to unemployment. Economic Journal, 41. KEYNES, J. M. (1936) The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. Macmillan, London. LEONTIEF, W. (1936) Quantitative input and output relationships in the economic system of the United States. Review of Economics and Statistics, 18, 105-125. LEONTIEF, W. (1966) Inpuf-Output Economics. Oxford University Press. MIERNYK, W. H., SHELLHAMMER, K. L. et al. (1970) Simulating Regional Economic Development. Lexington. MOORE, F. T. and PETERSON, J. W. (1955) Regional analysis: an inter-industry mode1 of Utah. Review of Economics

MOSES,

and Statistics,

37, 363-383.

L. N. (1955) The stability

Economic

of inter-regional

trading

patterns

and input-output

analysis.

American

Review, 45, 803-833.

POLENSKE, K. (1972) The implementation of a multi-regional input-output model for the United States. In: Brody, A. and Carter, A. P. (Eds.) Input-Output Techniques. North Holland Publishing Company. RICHTER, C. E. (1969) The impact of industrial linkages on geographical association. Journal of Regional Science,

9, 19-28.

TAYLOR, M. J. (1973) Local linkage, external economies and the iron foundry industry of the West Midlands and East Lancashire conurbations. Regional Studies, 7, 387-400. TIEBOUT, C. M. (1969) An empirical regional input-output projection model: The state of Washington 1980. Review of Economics and Statistics, 51, 334-40. TILANUS, C. B. (1967) Marginal versus average input coefficients in input-output forecasting. Quarterly Journal

of Economics,

140-145.

G. I. (1980) Design of a multi-regional policy analysis model. Journal of Regional Science, 20, 191-206. WEIMER, A. M. and HOYT, H. (1939) Principles of Urban Real Estate. Ronald Press, New York. YAN, C. S. (1969) Introduction IO Input-Output Economics. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. TREYZ,