Community input-output models for rural area analysis with an example from central Idaho

Abstract

In this paper we outline an I-O modeling approach tailored to the needs of rural area analysis. We cover four essential features. First, the rural area I-O model must convey an individual community focus. Second, the household sector must be defined in a manner that specifically captures the great openness of rural community economies. Third, the model should offer a degree of closure that provides an assessment of the community economic base. And finally, the rural community I-O model must be defined to include estimates of intercommunity trade, and intercommunity multiplier effects. Having laid the theoretical foundations, we identify subcounty data sources, and describe a collection of nonsurvey and hybrid approaches for estimating model components. The community I-O approach is illustrated next, with an empirical example from central Idaho. The paper closes with a discussion that considers the implications of community I-O in other contexts, including I-O analysis in less developed countries, and in addressing modeling issues in larger nonrural regions.

The contribution of organic farming to rural development: An exploration of the socio-economic linkages of organic and non-organic farms in England

“…However, the lowest spatial level of analysis associated with I-O models tends to be at a regional scale rather than a local scale. Therefore, this approach may need reshaping to reflect the needs of a more local, rural focus as opposed to a larger area analysis (Robison, 1997). Furthermore, there is a high cost associated with collecting data for the transactions matrices that I-O modelling relies upon (Armstrong and Taylor, 2000).…”

Revisiting interindustry employment requirements in nonmetropolitan economies

“…As a result, the service sector is somewhat larger than the other major industries addressed in the database. Second, steps should have been taken to recognize that some towns, especially central places, served a much wider hinterland than others, and that in those towns some local employment might be supported at substantially greater distances than the 20-mile threshold used throughout the various surveys (Chalmers et al 1978;Robison 1997). Consequently, a degree of bias will creep into the estimates of local employment in trade and possibly in services (see below).…”

Empirical estimation of agglomeration economies associated with research facilities

“…This approach is a descendent of earlier models of the Idaho economy [Robinson, 1997 andRobinson et al, 1994]. The four regions are multi-county areas with boundaries defined by the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) Economic Region Project [U.S. Department of Commerce, 1996]} The regions are eastern Idaho, southcentral Idaho, southwestern Idaho, and northern Idaho.…”