HARMONISING NATIONAL INPUT—OUTPUT TABLES FOR CONSUMPTION-BASED ACCOUNTING — EXPERIENCES FROM EXIOPOL

Abstract

Environmentally extended, multi-regional, input–output (MRIO) databases have emerged to fulfil the need for mapping the impacts of globalisation, following resource-intensive supply chains crossing country borders. EXIOBASE is one such data set designed for use in analysis relevant to resource use and European Union policy. It provides the most detailed harmonised sector classification in any MRIO and integrates data from a wide range of sources. We review the necessary steps in order to harmonise source data in MRIO databases, and describe methods to increase the product and industry detail of aggregate supply and use tables (SUTs) in order to provide a homogenous classification across countries that allows resource-specific modelling. We cover mathematical programming approaches used to reconcile data sets, and investigate some implications of reverse engineering symmetric input–output tables and disaggregating the SUTs. We focus particularly on the footprint multiplier at the product level, where policy formation is targeted.

Keywords:

• Supply Use Tables
• Multi-regional input—output analysis

Acknowledgments

This paper does not represent any official position or endorsement of the funding organisation. We further thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on this paper.

Funding

EXIOPOL was funded by the Project No. 037033 6th Framework Program of the European Commission (EC).

SUPPLEMENTAL DATA

Supplemental material for this article is available via the supplemental tab on the article's online page at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09535314.2014.960913

Notes

¹Non-EU countries included in EXIOBASE are: USA, Japan, China, Canada, South Korea, Brazil, India, Mexico, Russia, Australia, Switzerland, Turkey, Taiwan, Norway, Indonesia, and South Africa, as well as a residual ‘Rest of the World’.

²In the case of transportation, Denmark, Belgium, and Finland each have their own particularities. Denmark consists of many islands which complicates transportation logistics and is expected to increase costs. Belgium is relatively densely populated and centrally located within Europe which suggests that shipping costs may be comparatively low. Finland is sparsely populated and not centrally located which suggests that more shipping would be done by truck and at a higher cost. In the case of taxes and subsidies, it is also difficult to determine similarities between countries. For example, while Denmark and Finland might be considered to share similar tax and subsidy policy with other Scandinavian countries such as Norway and Sweden, consistency between government policy and the resulting incentives is in no way guaranteed. Once again as a small country, it is difficult to determine the generalisability of Belgium's taxes and subsidies. As many of their products are imported, information about taxes and subsidies for these industries is not present. Finally, the estimation of the use table in basic prices in this way does not allow for the recalculation of the SIOT that matches the original provided by Eurostat or the NSI.

³See website: http://faostat.fao.org/.

⁴Belgium, Czech Republic, Hungary, Ireland, and the UK.