On the limited usability of the inoperability IO modelFootnote^*

* This article is a revision of an earlier working paper (Oosterhaven, Citation2015) that benefited from the critical comments by an anonymous proponent of the IIM and by Bart Los, the acting editor of this journal. The revision furthermore incorporates the IIM critique by Dietzenbacher and Miller (Citation2015), which was published at the same time as the working paper.

References

• Albala-Bertrand, J.M. (2013) Disasters and the Networked Economy. Oxon, Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, C.W., J.R. Santos and Y.Y. Haimes (2007) A Risk-based Input–Output Methodology for Measuring the Effects of the August 2003 Northeast Blackout. Economic Systems Research, 19, 183–204. doi: 10.1080/09535310701330233
   Google Scholar
• Barker, K. and Y.Y. Haimes (2009) Assessing Uncertainty in Extreme Events: Applications to Risk-based Decision Making in Interdependent Infrastructure Sectors. Reliability Engineering and Systems Safety, 94, 819–829. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2008.09.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barker, K. and J.R. Santos (2010) Measuring the Efficacy of Inventory with a Dynamic Input–Output Model. International Journal of Production Economics, 126, 130–143. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.08.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouwmeester, M.C. and J. Oosterhaven (forthcoming) Economic Impacts of Natural Gas Flow Disruptions Between Russia and the EU. Energy Economics.
   Google Scholar
• Crowther, K.G. and Y.Y. Haimes (2005) Application of the Inoperability Input–Output Model (IIM) for Systemic Risk Assessment and Management of Interdependent Infrastructures. Systems Engineering, 8, 323–341. doi: 10.1002/sys.20037
   Google Scholar
• Dietzenbacher, E. and R.E. Miller (2015) Reflections on the Inoperability Input–Output Model. Economic Systems Research, 27, 478–486. doi: 10.1080/09535314.2015.1052375
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galea, S., J. Ahern, H. Resnick, D. Kilpatrick, M. Bucuvalas, J. Gold and D. Vlahov (2002) Psychological Sequelae of the September 11 Terrorist Attacks in New York City. The New England Journal of Medicine, 346, 982–987. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa013404
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghosh, A. (1958) Input–Output Approach in an Allocation System. Economica, 25, 58–64. doi: 10.2307/2550694
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenberg, M., C. Haas, A. Cox Jr., K. Lowrie, K. McComas and W. North (2012) Ten Most Important Accomplishments in Risk Analysis, 1980–2010. Risk Analysis, 32, 771–781. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01817.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haimes, Y.Y. and P. Jiang (2001) Leontief-based Model of Risk in Complex Interconnected Infrastructures. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 7, 23–27. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2001)7:1(1)
   Google Scholar
• Hallegate, S. (2008) An Adaptive Regional Input–Output Model and Its Application to the Assessment of the Economic Cost of Katrina. Risk Analysis, 28, 779–799. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01046.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kujawski, E. (2006) Multi-period Model for Disruptive Events in Interdependent Systems. Systems Engineering, 9, 281–295. doi: 10.1002/sys.20057
   Google Scholar
• Kullback, S. (1959) Information Theory and Statistics. New York, Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Leontief, W.W. (1951) Input–Output Economics. Scientific American, 185, 15–21. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican1051-15
   Google Scholar
• Lian, C. and Y.Y. Haimes (2006) Managing the Risk of Terrorism to Interdependent Infrastructure Systems Through the Dynamic Inoperability Input–Output Model. Systems Engineering, 9, 241–258. doi: 10.1002/sys.20051
   Google Scholar
• Muldrow, M. and D.P. Robinson (2014) Three Models of Structural Vulnerability: Methods, Issues and Empirical Comparisons (Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Regional Science Association, San Antonio, TX).
   Google Scholar
• Okuyama, Y. and J.R. Santos (2014) Disaster Impact and Input–Output Analysis. Economic Systems Research, 26, 1–12. doi: 10.1080/09535314.2013.871505
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oosterhaven, J. (1988) On the Plausibility of the Supply-driven Input–Output Model. Journal of Regional Science, 28, 203–217. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9787.1988.tb01208.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oosterhaven, J. (1996) Leontief Versus Ghoshian Price and Quantity Models. Southern Economic Journal, 62, 750–759. doi: 10.2307/1060892
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oosterhaven, J. (2012) Adding Supply-driven Consumption Makes the Ghosh Model Even More Implausible. Economic Systems Research, 24, 101–111. doi: 10.1080/09535314.2011.635137
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oosterhaven, J. (2015) On the Doubtful Usability of the Inoperability IO Model (SOM Research Report 150008-EEF, University of Groningen).
   Google Scholar
• Oosterhaven, J. and M.C. Bouwmeester (2016) A New Approach to Modelling the Impact of Disruptive Events. Journal of Regional Science, 56, 583–595. doi: 10.1111/jors.12262
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oosterhaven, J. and G.J.D. Hewings (2014) Interregional Input–Output Models. In: M.M. Fischer and P. Nijkamp (eds.) Handbook of Regional Science. Berlin, Springer, 875–901.
   Google Scholar
• Oosterhaven, J. and K.R. Polenske (2009) Modern Regional Input–Output and Impact Analyses. In: R. Capello and P. Nijkamp (eds.) Handbook of Regional Growth and Development Theories. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 423–439.
   Google Scholar
• Oosterhaven, J. and J. Többen (forthcoming) Regional Economic Impacts of Heavy Flooding in Germany: A Non-linear Programming Approach. Spatial Economic Analysis.
   Google Scholar
• Oosterhaven, J., E.C. van der Knijff and G.J. Eding (2003) Estimating Interregional Economic Impacts: An Evaluation of Nonsurvey, Semisurvey, and Full-survey Methods. Environment and Planning A, 35, 5–18. doi: 10.1068/a3569
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paelinck, J., D.J. de Caevel and J. Degueldre (1965) Analyse Quantitative de Certaines Phénomènes du Développment Régional Polarisé: Essai de Simulation Statique d’itérarires de Propogation. In: Problèmes de Conversion Économique: Analyses Théoretiques et Études Appliquées. Paris, M.-Th. Génin, 341–387.
   Google Scholar
• Rose, A. (2004) Economic Principles, Issues, and Research Priorities in Hazard Loss Estimation. In: Y. Okuyama and S.E. Chang (eds.) Modeling Spatial and Economic Impacts of Disasters. New York, Springer, 13–36.
   Google Scholar
• Rose, A. and G.-S. Guha (2004) Computable General Equilibrium Modelling of Electric Utility Lifeline Losses from Earthquakes. In: Y. Okuyama and S.E. Chang (eds.) Modeling Spatial and Economic Impacts of Disasters. Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 119–141.
   Google Scholar
• Rose, A. and D. Wei (2013) Estimating the Economic Consequences of a Port Shutdown: The Special Role of Resilience. Economic Systems Research, 25, 212–232. doi: 10.1080/09535314.2012.731379
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santos, J.R. (2006) Inoperability Input–Output Modelling of Disruptions to Interdependent Economic Systems. Systems Engineering, 9, 20–34. doi: 10.1002/sys.20040
   Google Scholar
• Santos, J.R. and Y.Y. Haimes (2004) Modeling the Demand Reduction Input–Output (I–O) Inoperability Due to Terrorism of Connected Infrastructures. Risk Analysis, 24, 1437–1451. doi: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00540.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santos, J.R., K.D.S. Yu, S.A.T. Pagsuyoin and R.R. Tan (2014) Time-varying Disaster Recovery Model for Interdependent Economic Systems Using Hybrid Input–Output and Event Tree Analysis. Economic Systems Research, 26, 60–80. doi: 10.1080/09535314.2013.872602
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strassert, G. (1968) Zur Bestimmung Strategischer Sektoren mit Hilfe von Input–Output Modellen. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, 182, 211–215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Theil, H. (1967) Economics and Information Theory. Amsterdam, North-Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Tsuchiya, S., H. Tatano and N. Okada (2007) Economic Loss Assessment Due to Railroad and Highway Disruptions. Economic Systems Research, 19, 147–162. doi: 10.1080/09535310701328567
   Google Scholar