Total Costs Coefficients in the Basic Input-Output Tables

The article presents the results of the author's research devoted to the improvements in domestic developments of Input-Output Tables (IO Tables), significantly increasing their analytical potential. According to the author, the level of development of Russian statistics in the field of Input-Output Tables is quite high – the basic accounts contain not only the symmetrical IO Tables, but also symmetrical tables of domestic products and imports that they are derived from. This is the main condition for implementing the methodology and methodological solutions described and elaborated in the article for compiling the tables with the coefficients of total costs of domestic products and the total need for import of intermediate imports estimates.
In the first part of the article, the author characterizes conceptually different versions of the intersectoral model with the features of the technological matrix corresponding to these versions – the basis for estimating the values of total costs coefficients in the national economy. Three «extreme» variants of the economy model representation of indicative country are studied. They define the economy as a part of a global economy within the framework of an inter-country model; in the form of a national model without the allocation of the import matrix in a symmetrical IO Tables (traditional method) and in the form of a national model with the possibility of such allocation (alternative method). The substantial differences in the values of total costs coefficients for the options are described and their preference for study of the country's economy is emphasized
The second part of the article presents the results of a quantitative analysis based on the basic IO Tables for 2016 data. It contains the estimates of the measure of discrepancy in total costs coefficients values according to traditional and alternative methods; the differences in the associated indicators of intermediate products total costs distribution by specific dimensions of final demand. The analytical possibilities of the alternative method are described, the estimates for the decomposition of final products cost into domestic and imported value added are provided.
The author explains the analytical relevance of total costs coefficients using an alternative method in forecasting practice and in the macroeconomic effects of management decisions assessment and proposes to supply the basic IO Tables for 2021 with tables with these coefficients and with the necessary methodological explanations

1. Miller R.E., Blair P.D. Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009. 784 p.

2. Shirov A.A., Iantovskii A.A. The Estimation of Multiplicative Effects in Russian Economy. Possibilities and Restrictions. ECO. 2011;3(2):40–58. (In Russ.)

3. ten Raa Т., Rueda-Cantuche J.M. The Problem of Negatives Generated by the Commodity Technology Model in Input-Output Analysis: A Review of the Solutions. Journal of Economic Structures. 2013;2:5. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-2409-2-5.

4. Mesnard L. Negatives in Symmetric Input-Output Tables: The Impossible Quest for the Holy Grail. The Annals of Regional Science. 2011;46(2):427–454. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-009-0332-5.

5. Soklis G. The Conversion of the Supply and Use Tables to Symmetric Input-Output Tables: A Critical Review. Bulletin of Political Economy. 2009;3(1):51–70.

6. Ustinova N.E. Russian Supply, Use and Input-Output Tables: Experience, Problems, Perspectives. Report on the Conference of European Statisticians. The Fifteenth Session, 17–20 May, 2016, Geneva. (In Russ.) Available from: https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/documents/ece/ces/ge.20/2016/ECE.CES.GE.20.11_Russia.pdf.

7. Masakova I.D. The Russian Practice of Compiling Input- Output Tables: Problems and Prospects of Development. Problemy Prognozirovaniya = Studies on Russian Economic Development. 2019;(2):14–26. (In Russ.)

8. Eidelman M.R. Input-Output Accounts of Social Product: Theory and Compiling Practice. Moscow: Statistika Publ.; 1966. 375 p. (In Russ.)

9. Dadaian V.S. et al., V.S. Dadaian (ed.) Modelling of National Economic Processes. Moscow: Economika Publ.; 1973. 479 p. (In Russ.)

10. Leontief W. Input-Output Economics. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986. 436 p.

11. Bykau A.A., Parkhimenka U.A., Mishchenko A.S. Construction Sector Economic Indicators’ Analysis Using Eora Multi-Regional Input-Output Tables. Journal of the Belarusian State University. Economics. 2021;(1): 46–56. (In Russ.)

12. Miller R.E., Temurshoev U. Output Upstreamness and Input Downstreamness of Industries/Countries in World Production. International Regional Science Review. 2017;40(5):443–475. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0160017615608095.

13. Antràs P. et al. Measuring the Upstreamness of Production and Trade Flows. American Economic Review. 2012;102(3):412–416. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3386/w17819.

14. Cattaneo O., Gereffi G., Staritz C. Global Value Chains in a Postcrisis World: A Development Perspective. Washington: The World Bank; 2010. 420 p.

15. Kondrat’ev V.B. Global Value Chains in Industries: Common and Specific Features. World Economy and International Relations. 2019;63(1):49–58. (In Russ.) Available from: https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2019-63-1-49-58.

16. Gudkova T.V. Global Chains of Added Value in Terms of Digitalization of the Economy. Zhurnal Economicheskoj Teorii [Russian Journal of Economic Theory]. 2020;17(1):53–64. (In Russ.) Available from: https://doi.org/10.31063/2073-6517/2020.17-1.4.

17. Strizhkova L.A., Islamova G.R., Kashirskaya S.I. Intercountry Input-Output Table of the Eurasian Economic Union as a Component of the Tools for Analysis and Forecasting of Its Economy. Studies on Russian Economic Development. 2022;33(2):135–148. (In Russ.) Available from: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1075700722020137.

18. Strizhkova L.A., Tishina L.I., Selivanova M.V. Structural Shifts in the Economy of the Russian Federation and Its Import Intensity in 2014–2019: Analysis of Macroeconomic Statistics. Voprosy Statistiki. 2021;28(5):5–27. (In Russ.) Available from: https://doi.org/10.34023/2313-6383-2021-28-5-5-2719.

19. Gotovsky A.V. Ensuring a Balanced Economic Growth of the Republic of Belarus. Belarusian Economic Journal. 2019;2(87):4–24. (In Russ.)

20. Ksenofontov M. Yu. et al. Assessing Multiplier Effects in the Russian Economy: Input-Output Approach. Studies on Russian Economic Development. 2018;29(2):109–115. (In Russ.)

21. Strizhkova L.A. On the Structure of the Cost of Final Domestic Products Based on the Inter-Sectoral Method. Economist. 2013;(6):61–71. (In Russ.)

22. Sayapova A.R. Regional Input-Output Tables. Studies on Russian Economic Development. 2020;31(1):31–35. (In Russ.)

23. Chepel A. A., Chernyavskiy A.V. Regional Input-Output Multipliers: Methodological and Informational Issues. HSE Economic Journal. 2022;26(1):37–68. (In Russ.) Available from: https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8691-2022-26-1-37-68.

24. Ponomarev Yu.Yu., Evdokimov D.Yu. Construction of Truncated Input-Output Tables for Russian Regions Using Location Quotients. Studies on Russian Economic Development. 2021;32(6):619–630. (In Russ.) Available from: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1075700721060125.

25. Lukin E.V. Sectoral and Territorial Specifics of Value-Added Chains in Russia: The Input-Output Approach. Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast. 2019;12(6):129–149. (In Russ.) Available from: https://doi.org/10.15838/esc.2019.6.66.7.