LEONTIEF TECHNOLOGY AND THE LOCATION OF THE FIRM IN A WEBER TRIANGLE–SPECIFIC LOCALIZATION THEOREMS*

In special cases of the Leontief technology's constant input-output coefficients, the general localization theorem that an interior location is a global optimum if every input or market vertex is not a local optimum [Kusumoto (1984)] is confirmed and strengthened. Sufficient conditions are proposed for the portion of a triangular space in which the firm will locate. Finally, it is shown that, if input substitution is permitted and its effects dominate spatial effects, the firm's total cost function will be monotone, as well as concave, hence the vertex is a global optimum if it is a local optimum.     

PRODUCT-MIX AND TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE WITHIN THE LEONTIEF INVERSE

ABSTRACT. Intertemporal differences in input-output coefficients can be attributed to technological change and to changes in the mix of products composing the aggregate sectors of input-output models. In this work, we develop the theoretical foundation necessary to separate these changes for both the structural and Leontief inverse matrices. Using this foundation, we examine the relative empirical importance of technological and product-mix change. The product-mix effect is then combined with RAS estimates of the technological effect to form updated estimates of the inverse. Results show that the accuracy of updated input-output coefficients can be improved in this manner.     

PHILOSOPHY AND GEOGRAPHY IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY: A REPLY

So far as I can make out, Sitwell's comment on my essay says little that is relevant to its content. In fact he goes so far as to declare that my essay can in large part be ignored, presumably for purposes of gaining an understanding, or getting at the essence, of Margarita Bowen's book. I assume that Sitwell is writing a book review, more or less of the conventional sort, since he remarks that he is undertaking 'a review of the type May chose not to write.' I do not pretend for one moment that what I wrote is a book review. Perhaps it should not even have been called a 'review essay.' But Sitwell is not unaware of this, since he remarks that my 'essay is almost bound to be taken as a review,' which he regards as 'unfortunate.' Despite the fact that the tasks we have each undertaken are substantially different, and hence that our respective papers have little in common, I nevertheless think a few comments are in order.