INTERNATIONAL PRACTICES IN THE USE OF SUPPLY AND USE TABLES (SUT) AND INPUT–OUTPUT TABLES (IOT)

ANDRIAN TATARU
, Department of Econometrics and Economic Statistics Academy of Economic Studies of Moldova Chisinau, Republic of Moldova
ORCID: 0009-0003-6962-5156
Email: finstat.expert@gmail.com

ION PÂRȚACHI
, Academy of Economic Studies of Moldova Chisinau, Republic of Moldova
ORCID: 0000-0002-8042-983X
Email: ipartachi@ase.md

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24818/cike2025.79

Pages: 641–651

📄 Download PDF

Abstract

This paper explores the international practices in the construction and use of Supply and Use Tables (SUT) and Input–Output Tables (IOT) as fundamental tools for macroeconomic analysis, structural diagnostics, and evidence-based policymaking. The study examines both advanced economies—such as Finland, the Netherlands, France, Austria, and Germany—and transition or emerging economies, including Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, South Korea, Chile, and South Africa.

In advanced contexts, SUT/IOT have evolved into integrated frameworks underpinning computable general equilibrium (CGE) models, social accounting matrices (SAM), and environmentally extended input–output systems, supporting complex simulations of fiscal, industrial, and environmental policies. In transition and emerging contexts, despite institutional and statistical constraints, governments have adopted innovative approaches, such as data reconstruction methods, econometric interpolation, and collaborative inter-institutional platforms, to ensure the operationalization of these models in fiscal planning, convergence scenarios, and resilience strategies.

The comparative analysis highlights that SUT/IOT serve not only as statistical representations of economic structure but also as dynamic instruments for simulating reforms, assessing intersectoral dependencies, and anticipating the systemic effects of external shocks. The findings emphasize the importance of methodological flexibility, technological innovation, and transparent dissemination of results. Furthermore, they demonstrate that even under limited resources, adopting international standards and gradually implementing SUT/IOT-based models can provide economies in transition with robust analytical capacity, improved forecasting, and enhanced institutional credibility in policy design.

 

Keywords: Supply and Use Tables (SUT); Input–Output Tables (IOT); Economic forecasting; Policy simulation; Transition economies; Structural modeling; CGE models; Macroeconomic governance; Institutional reform

JEL Classification: D57, C68, E01

References

    1. Atkinson, G. and Hamilton, K., 2012. Sustainable development: A review of international experience with a focus on South Korea. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 6200.
    2. Breisinger, C., Diao, X., Thurlow, J. and Al-Riffai, P., 2011. Economic transformation in Africa: The role of input–output models and SAMs. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01096.
    3. Duchin, F., 1992. Industrial input–output analysis: Implications for industrial ecology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 89(3), pp.851–855.
    4. INSEE, 2022. Modèle INSEE-CGE – Documentation et applications récentes. [online] Available at: https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/modeles-cge
    5. Kymn, K.O., 2019. South Korea’s Industrial Policy and the Evolution of Input–Output Tables. Korea Institute for Industrial Economics and Trade.
    6. Lenzen, M., Geschke, A., Wiedmann, T., Fry, J., Malik, A. and Li, M., 2017. The Global MRIO Lab – Multi-region input–output databases and tools for policy. Economic Systems Research, 29(2), pp.158–186.
    7. Llop, M., 2007. Economic impact of alternative water policy scenarios in the Spanish production system: An input–output analysis. Ecological Economics, 60(2), pp.288–299.
    8. OECD, 2021. Input–Output Tables in the OECD countries – Framework and uses. [online] Available at: https://www.oecd.org/sti/inputoutputtables
    9. Park, S. and Lee, J., 2016. Green Growth and Input–Output Modeling in Korea: Carbon tax scenarios and policy impact. Journal of Environmental Policy, 24(1), pp.33–57.
    10. Pyatt, G. and Round, J.I., 1985. Social Accounting Matrices: A Basis for Planning. The World Bank.
    11. Schmidt, J.H. and Weidema, B.P., 2008. Shift in the marginal supply of inputs in consequential life-cycle modeling. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(1), pp.47–53.
    12. Statistics South Africa, 2020. Social Accounting Matrix and Input–Output Framework – Technical Report. Pretoria: Stats SA.
    13. TIPS (Trade and Industrial Policy Strategies), 2021. The Role of Structural Modeling in South Africa’s Inclusive Growth Strategy. [online] Available at: https://www.tips.org.za
    14. UN ECLAC, 2015. Chile: Post-earthquake reconstruction and fiscal impact modeling. Economic Survey of Latin America and the Caribbean, Chapter 3.
    15. Varga, J. and in ‘t Veld, J., 2011. A model-based analysis of the impact of structural reforms in the EU: An assessment using the QUEST model. European Economy Economic Papers, No. 424.
    16. Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M. and Barrett, J., 2009. Companies on the scale – Comparing and benchmarking sustainability performance using input–output analysis. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 13(3), pp.361–383.

     

Scroll to Top