系统设计外文文献及译文 张所炜.doc

南 京 工 程 学 院英文文献及译文 作 者： 张所炜 学 号： 209100738 系 部： 经济与管理学院 专 业： 信息管理与信息系统 题 目： “投入产出分析系统”的设计与实现 指导者： 黄传峰 副教授 2014年 2月 Emerging challenging in regional input-output analysisGeoffrey J. D. HewingsUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign USAandRodney C. JensenUniversity of Queensland St. Luci AustraliaAbstract. The changing interests and focus of research in the field of regional input-output analysis is examined. After reviewing some of the recent trends and suggesting the tenor of the prevailing philosophy in the field, attention is focused on three, interdependent emerging trends. These are characterized as (1)the conceptualization of input-output within the traditions of econometric analysis;(2) the integration of input-output with other regional and interregional models and (3) attempts to link input-output analysis with regional growth and development theory.I. PrefaceTo our knowledge, Michael Mischaikows research interests have not directly encompassed regional input-output analysis. However, as Editor of the Annals, and as a highly respected statesman in regional science, he has had a significant influence in fostering the growth and development of many analytical techniques in regional analysis including input-output analysis. Several very important and influential articles have appeared in the Annals, many as the result of Mischaikows initiative and encouragement. He has been a firm, committed champion of our sub-field of regional input-output analysis. We are pleased to have the opportunity to offer this paper as part of his Festschrift , both as a mark of personal appreciation and encouragement, and to honor the outstanding contribution of a valued colleague.II. IntroductionThe field of regional analytical modelling is undergoing a significant new surge of interest and development. In this paper, some of these developments will be reported in the context of a set of emerging ehallenges in the field of regional input-output analysis. First, however, the current state of the art will be reviewed briefly. Thereafter, some general comments will be made about the prevailing philosophy in input-output analysis. The fifth section of the paper will address the emerging trends as a way of establishing a possible agenda for the future. The final part of the paper provides some concluding comments.III. The State of the Art in Regional Input-Output AnalysisWith several recent contributions under this umbrella (Miller and Blair, 1985; Richardson, 1985; Hewings and Jensen, 1986), the need for yet another comprehensive review of input-output at the regional level is not a high priority. The objective in this section is not to provide the detailed coverage that these papers and monographs have contributed, but rather a summary and overview of general trends and directions. This overview is intended to facilitate the discussion in later sections of the paper. Two important points need to be established as a preface to an overview of important developments in input-output. First, while regional input-output models have become an accepted and much-used part of the arsenal of analytical techniques, there is a strong suspicion that many analysts have a higher level of awareness of the models limitations than they have of its utility. This comment is made on the basis of casual empiricism derived from referees comments on input-output papers submitted to journals and commentary made on similar papers presented at professional meetings. We see this primarily as a result of the continued high level of debate, evaluation, and testing which has characterized the field of regional input-output, probably far more than most other fields of economic analysis. This healthy debate and critical introspection has been in the traditions of an academic and professional environment aimed at continued improvement and evaluation of existing analytical skills. It is no exaggeration to suggest that the most informed and consistent critics of aspects of the input-output methodology are those actively and diligently involved in research on the technique. As is so often the ease, the negative aspects of such activities tend to fUter through to those with marginal interest and knowledge of the technique, with more efficiency than positive aspects, creating in this ease an image of input-output which is less encouraging than that warranted by the reality of progress. In a sense, this situation provides evidence of a Greshams Law of Information-the bad driving out the good.Second, there is also an underlying perception that input-output models have not adapted well to the needs of the modern analyst; there appears to be some feeling that more modern methods are increasingly required in routine analytical situations, as the life cycle of input-output analysis proceeds past some peak of activity. We see such an attitude as extraordinary in light of the current unprecedented expansion in the use of input-output at the regional level where the technique is rapidly becoming routine in planning and impact studies, and obviously filling a need to an increasing extent. While it would be unfortunate if this paper devolved merely into a defense of the technique, some of these perceptions are widely held to be sound. Hence, some summary statement of the current status of the field and its developments appears to be appropriate and is provided below.An examination of the literature suggests that a number of important developments can be highlighted:(1) he rapid growth in the adoption of input-output analysis, for planning, forecasting and general impact analysis, at the regional level in countries of all political persuasions and levels of development, to the stage of routine application. Recent experience would appear to be counter to any suggestion that input-output analysis has reached and passed its zenith. In fact, input output appears to be entering a new stage of expanded routine application. In many ways, the challenges facing the construction and ultimate use of regional input-output models are as great as they were two or three decades ago, yet they are of a different kind. Of particular importance has been the gradual use of these models in developing economies, particularly in the context of integrated models (see below).(2) the decline in the attention given to the production of regional input output tables new input-output tables are appropriately regarded as routine rather than significant events. No special fanfare is accorded the production of regional input-output tables in the developed world-unless some novel accounting scheme, data collection method or particular application has been associated with their development. The process hasjbecorne routine, accelerated by the availability of several competing personal computer packages which will enable the construction of a regional input-output table with minimal regional data (for a partial review, see Sivitanidou and Polenske, 1987). Furthermore, there has been a greater recognition in the literature of the linkages between a number of important modelling paradigms. Thus, the bi-proportional or RAS technique which was first developed for updating input-output tables has been shown to be part of a broad family of matrix estimation techniques on the one hand (see Batten, 1982; Boyce and Batten, 19861 Nagurney, 19871 Willikens, 1981) and a special case of general error analysis in matrix systems on the other hand (see Sonis and Hewings, 1987). This recognition has lead to a great deal of shared expertise and an enriching of the analytical tools the flexibility afforded by entropy, contingency table and network approaches (such as those of Kadas and Klafsky, 1976 and the variational inequality proposals by Nagurney, 1987) to matrix estimation has provided the analyst with a choice of approaches which,for the most part, do not depend entirely on the data set available.(3) a movement towards the development of hybrid input-output tables, a compromise position between groups who advocated the construction of tables from survey data alone and those whose position is that nonsurvey techniques will produce tables of the requisite quality. Alternative approaches to the construction of regional tables dominated the literature for much of the 1970s. While extreme positions were taken in the earlier years, there would appear to have been significant mellowing of opinions and movements towards the center, the center being defined as the recognition that partial survey or hybrid tables would become the dominant construction technique. In part, this compromise was reached on both pragmatic and analytic grounds. In the former case, the recognition that the days of massive appropriation of funds by state, provincial and local government agencies for the de novo construction of input-output tables was over propelled researchers to ponder the alternatives. On the other hand, there was increasing evidence that the census mentality, namely that all entries in an input-output table had to be obtained from survey data, was probably misplaced. Notions of analytical importance began to provide the way for a compromise which would allow the investigator to maximize the quality of the effort involved in any data collection by focusing on garts of the system whose direct estimation was deemed critical. While debate now centers on the identification of these elements, few articles have appeared in the recent past which have ventured far from a notion of support for the development of hybrid.(4) a recognition that integrated and more specialized models, with the input-output model as one component, will be more important at the regional level in the coming years, and the development of operational models of this type. While Isards Channels of Synthesis chapter in Methods of Regional Analysis was considered by some as an unattainable goal, it was visionary and propitious in its ability to suggest a trend which appears to be dominating the development of regional analytical models in the 1980s. More attention wig be devoted to this issue in Section V.(5) the increasing attention which has been given to problems of errors and sensitivity in input-output models, a11owing reasonable perspectives of model robustness to be established. While some of the earlier input-output analysts raised questions about errors in the input-output model (in construction and in application), these issues were treated sotto voee by the profession for the most part. Only recently have some of these problems been revisited; rather than presenting major impediments to the use of the input-output model, a ease can be made that the raising of the issue has created some significant breakthroughs in the analytical utility of the model. Again, more discussion will be devoted to this issue in Section V.IV. The Prevailing Philosophy in Regional Input-Output AnalysisThis section presents some summary statements which describe our view of the prevailing philosophy in input-output analysis. In the preceding seetion, it was noted that over the last two decades, there has been a significant change in the focus of attention in regional input-output analysis. Three phases in the development may be articulated and these have led to the currently developing philosophy which many analysts in the field seem to share.First, the generation of regional input-output tables, a daunting challenge given computational and data resources, dominated the early phase of regional input-output survey-based work. For the most part, the tables which were constructed were influenced very heavily by the type of table constructed at the national level; concomitantly, most of the applications with the associated regional model mirrored the developments at the national level. In fact, during this period, the separation of regional and national analysts was relatively weak; thereafter, this separation increased to the point where, today, there appears to be little or no contact between the two groups.The second phase may be ascribed the label accuracy issues as debate centered on the acceptability of various (survey versus nonsurvey) methods for construction.The resolution on table construction saw movement towards a common ground aided by Jensens (1980) attempt to distinguish between holistic and partitive accuracy.This distinction, often misinterpreted as simply a choice between two operational views of accuracy (see Richardson, 1985), raised the notion that the integrity of the table as a whole as a portrait of an economy is perhaps a more worthy objective than attending to the accuracy of large numbers of analytically insignificant cells.The third phase has witnessed several different approaches to the construction of hybrid tables, as analysts sought to provide more explicit ways of identifying the set of entries for which superior data were required.Unresolved at the present time is the issue of the a priori identification of these critical data sets in cases in which no existing table is available.This dilemma has lead to two important new developments which provide not only substantial challenges for input-output analysis but for regional analysis in general.Essentially, these developments seek to view the matrix of transactions (broadly defined to include other than interindustry transactions) as a representation of the structure of the economy. With this representation, the second perspective then seeks to use these structures to establish a taxonomy of economies and suggest the development of possible theories about the evolutions of economies over time and space. While these ideas have been articulated in detail elsewhere (see Hewings, Jensen and West, 1987; Jensen, West and Hewings, 1987; Jensen et al. 1987), some of the implications will be reviewed here.The first point to note is that regional growth and development theory has, for the most part, ignored the issue of structure in the sense of the structure of the economy embodied in the input-output table and associated model. Attention has been focused on aggregate indicators such as the distribution of output, income or employment among major sectors but rarely on the interdependence existing among these sectors. While some parts of growth center theory have attempted to view regional growth in terms of the generation of linkages, the overall changes in the structure of the economy are rarely mentioned.Secondly, there exists a large number of input-output tables for regions of different sizes and at different stages of development. No attempt has been made to regard these as a sample of photographs of the structure of their economies at one point in time; while the photographic record is incomplete, the opportunity to view these as samples from a space-time development continuum appears to have been ignored. The need for some creative interpretive techniques to handle missing records (i.e., input-output tables for some regions or points in time) would appear to be paramount if this opportunity is not to be lost. While trying to avoid any suggestion of economic determinism, the third issue which arises focuses on our ability to use information about regional economic structures in building up a taxonomy of regional economies. It is felt that this taxonomy would be useful for a number of reasons-assisting the development of hybrid input-output tables for regions in which only limited information is available, providing guidance on possible development trends in regions undergoing change and, most importantly, testing for the existence of a fundamental economic Structure. Further discussion on this topic will follow in Section V.This change in philosophy reflects a sense in which the input-output model is now seen as part of the broader picture of regional growth and development rather than simply as an analytical tool designed to assist in providing answers for limited impact analyses. It is this broader picture which will be traced in more detail in the next section.V. Emerging Trends in Regional Input-Output AnalysisIn this section, the discussion will amplify many of the issues raised thus far, but wiU focus them more specifically to a set of three, interdependent, emerging trends. The term regional should be read as covering single-region, interregional and multiregional models and the term input-output should be considered very broadly (see Figure 1). The three trends may be labelled as (1) econometric input-output analysis; (2) integrated input-output modelling and (3) input-output and regional growth and development theory.5.1 Econometric Input-Output AnalysisScholars exposed to input-output analysis for the first time, are keenly aware of the fact that while conceptualized within conventional economics, it has been necessarily operationalized and developed, for the most part, outside the mainstream of rigorous econometric practice. While some early attempts were made to avoid this unfortunate distinction (see Jackson and West, 1987 and Sonis and Hewings, 1987 for a review), the fact remains that input-output analysis has often been presented, like much economic analysis, as more accurate than justified by available data sources. For example, little attention in the literature has been given to the sampling problems involved in data collection and the impact that errors in data might have on the models reliability. The prevailing view that data inconsistencies in many survey-based models were rather crudely arbitraged lead Gerking (1976a, 1976b, 1979) to initiate a renewed charge for more analytical rigor in the development of the tables. The subsequent debate with Miernyk (1976, 1979) is now wel