IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sorede/v33y2022i2d10.1134_s1075700722020137.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intercountry Input–Output Table of the Eurasian Economic Union as a Component of the Tools for Analysis and Forecasting of Its Economy

Author

Listed:
  • L. A. Strizhkova

    (Center for Macroeconomic Forecasting and Structural Research, Institute for Macroeconomic Research, Russian Foreign Trade Academy)

  • G. R. Islamova

    (Macroeconomic Policy Department of the Eurasian Economic Commission)

  • S. I. Kashirskaya

    (Institute for Macroeconomic Research, Russian Foreign Trade Academy)

Abstract

— The article describes the analytical potential of EAEU intercountry input–output table (EAEU IIOT) and its model as well as the approaches to its enhancement. It also presents EAEU IIOT scheme, composition of its indicators, and IIOT model. An approach is proposed to eliminating the distorting effect of re-export on the coefficients of direct costs in the IIOT model, and the proportions of the EAEU economy for 2016 are estimated using this approach, as well as several effects multiplied by the trade ties of the EAEU countries. The limitations of the IIOT model are described and methods for improving the accounting of influencing factors in the model when assessing macroeconomic effects are substantiated.

Suggested Citation

  • L. A. Strizhkova & G. R. Islamova & S. I. Kashirskaya, 2022. "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, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 135-148, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:sorede:v:33:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1134_s1075700722020137
    DOI: 10.1134/S1075700722020137
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1134/S1075700722020137
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1134/S1075700722020137?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. A. A. Shirov, 2018. "Use of Input–Output Approach for Supporting Decisions in the Field of Economic Policy," Studies on Russian Economic Development, Springer, vol. 29(6), pages 588-597, November.
    2. Thomas Wiedmann & Richard Wood & Jan Minx & Manfred Lenzen & Dabo Guan & Rocky Harris, 2010. "A Carbon Footprint Time Series Of The Uk - Results From A Multi-Region Input-Output Model," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 19-42.
    3. E. Vinokurov & M. Demidenko & D. Korshunov., 2017. "Potential costs and benefits of monetary integration in the Eurasian Economic Union," VOPROSY ECONOMIKI, N.P. Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol. 2.
    4. S. Moiseev, 2016. "Adventures of the optimum currency areas theory," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, issue 2.
    5. E. Vinokurov & M. Demidenko & D. Korshunov, 2017. "Potential costs and benefits of monetary integration in the Eurasian Economic Union," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, issue 2.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ke Zhang & Xingwei Wang, 2021. "Pollution Haven Hypothesis of Global CO 2 , SO 2 , NO x —Evidence from 43 Economies and 56 Sectors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(12), pages 1-27, June.
    2. Albert, Osei-Owusu Kwame & Marianne, Thomsen & Jonathan, Lindahl & Nino, Javakhishvili Larsen & Dario, Caro, 2020. "Tracking the carbon emissions of Denmark's five regions from a producer and consumer perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    3. Li, Yilin & Chen, Bin & Li, Chaohui & Li, Zhi & Chen, Guoqian, 2020. "Energy perspective of Sino-US trade imbalance in global supply chains," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    4. Kucukvar, Murat & Haider, Muhammad Ali & Onat, Nuri Cihat, 2017. "Exploring the material footprints of national electricity production scenarios until 2050: The case for Turkey and UK," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 251-263.
    5. José M. Rueda-Cantuche & Tamas Revesz & Antonio F. Amores & Agustín Velázquez & Marian Mraz & Emanuele Ferrari & Alfredo J. Mainar-Causapé & Letizia Montinari & Bert Saveyn, 2020. "Improving the European input–output database for global trade analysis," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 9(1), pages 1-16, December.
    6. Xiaoxu, Xing & Qiangmin, Xi & Weihao, Shi, 2024. "Impact of urban compactness on carbon emission in Chinese cities: From moderating effects of industrial diversity and job-housing imbalances," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    7. Roberto Roson & Martina Sartori, 2015. "A Decomposition and Comparison Analysis of International Water Footprint Time Series," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-17, April.
    8. Mi, Zhifu & Zhang, Yunkun & Guan, Dabo & Shan, Yuli & Liu, Zhu & Cong, Ronggang & Yuan, Xiao-Chen & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2016. "Consumption-based emission accounting for Chinese cities," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 1073-1081.
    9. Julia K Steinberger & Fridolin Krausmann & Michael Getzner & Heinz Schandl & Jim West, 2013. "Development and Dematerialization: An International Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-11, October.
    10. Guo, Shan & Li, Yilin & Hu, Yunhao & Xue, Fan & Chen, Bin & Chen, Zhan-Ming, 2020. "Embodied energy in service industry in global cities: A study of six Asian cities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    11. Xiao, Hao & Sun, Ke-Juan & Bi, Hui-Min & Xue, Jin-Jun, 2019. "Changes in carbon intensity globally and in countries: Attribution and decomposition analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 235(C), pages 1492-1504.
    12. Sato, Misato, 2014. "Product level embodied carbon flows in bilateral trade," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 106-117.
    13. Jonas Bunsen & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2022. "An Introductory Review of Input-Output Analysis in Sustainability Sciences Including Potential Implications of Aggregation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-24, December.
    14. Byun, Jeongeun & Park, Hyun-woo & Hong, Jae Pyo, 2017. "An international comparison of competitiveness in knowledge services," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 203-213.
    15. Andrey Polbin & Mikhail Andreyev & Andrey Zubarev, 2018. "How Commodity Prices Influence the Members of the Eurasian Economic Union," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(2), pages 623-637.
    16. Zhang, Zengkai & Guo, Ju'e & Hewings, Geoffrey J.D., 2014. "The effects of direct trade within China on regional and national CO2 emissions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 161-175.
    17. Tian, Jing & Andraded, Celio & Lumbreras, Julio & Guan, Dabo & Wang, Fangzhi & Liao, Hua, 2018. "Integrating Sustainability Into City-level CO2 Accounting: Social Consumption Pattern and Income Distribution," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 1-16.
    18. Mohanakrishna, G. & Mohan, S. Venkata, 2013. "Multiple process integrations for broad perspective analysis of fermentative H2 production from wastewater treatment: Technical and environmental considerations," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 244-254.
    19. Liu, Yitong & Chen, Bin & Wei, Wendong & Shao, Ling & Li, Zhi & Jiang, Weizhong & Chen, Guoqian, 2020. "Global water use associated with energy supply, demand and international trade of China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 257(C).
    20. Bernhard Steubing & Arjan de Koning & Stefano Merciai & Arnold Tukker, 2022. "How do carbon footprints from LCA and EEIOA databases compare? A comparison of ecoinvent and EXIOBASE," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(4), pages 1406-1422, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:sorede:v:33:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1134_s1075700722020137. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.