Multipliers of Trade and Transport Services in the Social Accounts’ Matrix of Uzbekistan for 2018

The relevance of this study is determined, first of all, by the existing lack of research in the literature on the economy of Uzbekistan using social accounts’ matrices and the macroeconomic and sectoral multipliers constructed on their basis. This is due to the lack of available statistics for the supply-use and input-output tables for the entire period of independence of this Central Asian republic until 2018.

Purpose of research: develop a methodology for constructing a social accounts’ matrix for the economy of Uzbekistan based on incomplete official supply-use and input-output tables for 2018. Unlike most studies on other countries, this study also aims to explicitly identify trade and transport margins as a separate structural unit within the social accounts’ matrix, which will allow for a more detailed analysis of the multiplier effects arising in margin-generating sectors during external shocks. As a practical illustration, the response of gross output in the wholesale/retail trade and transport sectors to an exogenous increase in external demand is calculated, and the transmission channels of these effects are analyzed using Stone’s decomposition.

Materials and methods. The study is based on the official, but incomplete, supply-use and input-output tables of Uzbekistan for 2018, compiled according to the SNA standard of 1993. To reconstruct the complete dataset, the author applied the Eurostat methodology, having first determined that the transformation of supply-use tables into input-output tables was carried out according to model B in Eurostat terminology. This allowed the reconstruction of missing tables of the use of domestic and imported goods at basic prices. Particular attention was paid to the correct integration of Financial Intermediation Services Indirectly Measured (FISIM): instead of their redistribution to other accounts, as it is commonly done by most researchers, they were included in the social accounts’ matrix as separate accounts to maintain balance sheet consistency. The constructed matrix is 482x482 in size and includes dedicated blocks for trade and transport margins. Based on it, using Stone’s approach to constructing and decomposing multipliers, multiplier effects for the economy of Uzbekistan were estimated assuming exogeneity of the foreign trade accounts.

Results. The constructed social accounts’ table proved to be internally balanced with high accuracy and can be used for a wide range of applied problems. To illustrate the capabilities of this matrix, gross output multipliers were calculated for the trade and transport sectors under exogenous changes in external demand. It was shown that export-induced output in the trade sector is almost entirely converted into a trade margin, while in the transport sector, this effect is significantly weaker. Stone’s decomposition, which allows for identifying direct, indirect, and cross-channel influences, was used to interpret the results.

Conclusion. The obtained results confirm the analytical significance of explicitly accounting for margins when modeling foreign trade effects. Moreover, the author’s proposed solution is applicable not only to statistics within the system of national accounts of Uzbekistan, but also to any other country with a similar macroeconomic reporting structure.

1. Pyatt G., Round J. Accounting and fixed price multipliers in a social accounting matrix framework [Internet]. World Bank reprint series; no. REP 125. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank; 1979. Available from: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/317011468179066100.

2. Pyatt G., Round J. Social accounting matrices: A basis for planning [Internet]. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank; 1985. Available from: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/919371468765880931/pdf/multi-page.pdf.

3. Miller R.E., Blair P.D. Input-output analysis: foundations and extensions [Internet]. Cambridge university press. 2009. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511626982.

4. Nehmer N., Pérez J.G., Robinson D.J.S., Rambaud S.C. Algebraic models for accounting systems. New York: World Scientific; 2010. DOI: 10.1142/7445.

5. Stuttard N., Frogner M. Developing a pilot social accounting matrix for the United Kingdom [Internet]. Economic Trends. 2003; 594: 80-93. Available from: https://escoe-website.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/01233139/ET-594-Developing-a-Pilot-Social-AccountingMatrix-for-the-United-Kingdom-May-2003.pdf.

6. Santos S. Matrix representations of the national accounts’ transaction values [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://repositorio.ulisboa.pt/bitstream/10400.5/22524/1/MPRA_paper_109488.pdf.

7. Gromova O.V. Development of the regional accounts system: the matrix of social accounts. Neyrokomp’yutery: razrabotka, primeneniye = Neurocomputers: development, application. 2013; 2: 70-79. (In Russ.)

8. Makarov V.L., Ageyev A.I., Bakhtizin A.R., Bakhtizina N.V., Narayanan B., Steynbuks Ye., Khabriyev B.R. The matrix of financial flows – an instrument for implementing the country’s economic policy. Ekonomicheskiye strategii = Economic strategies. 2021; 4(23): 22-35. DOI: 10.33917/es-4.178.2021.22-35. (In Russ.)

9. Tatarinov A.A. Matrices of social accounts: problems and prospects of use in macroeconomic statistics. Voprosy statistiki = Questions of Statistics. 2023; 6(30): 5-20. (In Russ.)

10. Keuning S.J. Proposal for a social accounting matrix which fits into the next system of national accounts. Economic Systems Research. 1991; 3(3): 233-248.

11. Ellerman D. On double-entry bookkeeping: The mathematical treatment. Accounting Education. 2014; 5(23): 483-501. DOI: 10.1080/09639284.2014.949803.

12. Pyatt G. A SAM approach to modeling. Journal of policy modeling. 1988; 3(10); 327-352. DOI: 10.1016/0161-8938(88)90026-9.

13. Aray H., Pedauga L., Velázquez A. Financial Social Accounting Matrix: a useful tool for understanding the macro-financial linkages of an economy. Economic Systems Research. 2017; 4(29); 486-508. DOI: 10.1080/09535314.2017.1365049.

14. Bakhtizin A.R. Using CGE models to assess the effectiveness of management decisions. Problemy upravleniya = Problems of Management. 2008; 5: 36-42. (In Russ.)

15. Knobel’ A.Yu., Cedalishchev V.V. Risks and benefits for the EAEU from different integration scenarios in the Asia-Pacific region. Ekonomicheskaya politika = Economic Policy. 2017; 2(12): 72-85. (In Russ.)

16. Cedalishchev V.V. In memory of Leif Johansen: the world’s first CGE model and its demonstration on the example of Russia. Ekonomicheskaya politika = Economic Policy. 2023; 4(18): 108-137. (In Russ.)

17. Dixon P.B., Parmenter B.R., Sutton J., Vincent D.P. ORANI: a multisectoral model of the Australian economy. Economic Modelling. 1984; 1(1); 126-132. DOI: 10.1016/02649993(84)90015-4.

18. Eurostat Manual of Supply, Use and InputOutput Tables [Internet]. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. 2008. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3859598/5902113/KS-RA07-013-EN.PDF.pdf/b0b3d71e-3930-4442-94be70b36cea9b39?t=1414781402000.

19. Zalai E., Révész T. CGE Modelling: A training material. Budapest [Internet]. 2007. Available from: https://unipub.lib.uni-corvinus.hu/2124/1/CGE_traning_material.pdf.

20. Sudakov S.S., Zinchenko A.A. Development of a methodology for assessing export potential and its testing on the example of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Finansovyy zhurnal = Financial Journal. 2024; 1(16): 61-77. DOI: 10.31107/2075-1990-2024-1-61-77. (In Russ.)