系统设计外文文献及译文 张所炜.docx

1、系统设计外文文献及译文 张所炜南 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.

2、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

3、. 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

4、 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 analytica

5、l 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. W

6、e 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

7、 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

8、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-Outpu

9、t 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 detail

10、ed 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 importa

11、nt 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

12、 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 wh

13、ich 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 ana

14、lytical 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

15、 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 Informa

16、tion-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

17、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 fillin

18、g 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

19、 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 an

20、d 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 chall

21、enges 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 mo

22、dels (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

23、-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-o

24、utput 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 develop

25、ed 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

26、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) t

27、o 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

28、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 app

29、ear 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

30、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 cen

31、sus 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 collec

32、tion 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 i

33、ntegrated 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