Elita Benga, Juris Hāzners, Zaiga Miķelsone


The core question to be answered in periodic evaluations of EU Member States Rural Development Programme (RDP) specific policy interventions is whether the stated objectives are accomplished by particular intervention (support or „treatment” provided to programme participants). Programme effects should normally be expressed in “net” terms, which means after subtracting the effects that cannot be attributed to the intervention, and by taking into account indirect effects (deadweight, leverage, displacement, substitution and multipliers). The level of the estimation of indirect effects (micro or macro level) depends on the size of the interventions and country specific issues. In the ex-post evaluation of the Latvian Rural Development programme 2007-2013, deadweight effects, leverage effects and multipliers are estimated at the individual measure (micro) level, while substitution and displacement effects are aggregated over the sets of measures. Multiplier effect is a secondary effect resulting from increased income and consumption generated by the public intervention. Multiplier effects are cumulative and take into account the fact that a part of the income generated is spent again and generates other income, and so on in several successive cycles. In each cycle, the multiplier effect diminishes due to purchases outside the territory. The existing study provides an assessment of the multiplier coefficients (multipliers) for the economic growth in terms of Gross Value Added and for the employment creation in terms of Annual Working Units. The research results show that total estimated programme secondary cumulative impacts on economic growth and employment over the entire economy are significant and positive.


policy evaluation; input-output analysis; secondary cumulative impact; multipliers; multiplier effects

Full Text:



EENRD, “Capturing the success of your RDP: Guidelines for the Ex post evaluation of 2007-2013 RDPs,” June 2014.

J. D’Hernoncourt, M. Cordier, and D. Hadley, “Input-Output Multipliers - Specification sheet and supporting material,” in Spicosa Project Report, Université Libre de Bruxelles - CEESE, Brussels, 2011.

W. Leontief, The structure of American economy, 1919-1929: an empirical application of equilibrium analysis. Harvard University Press, 1941.

W. Leontief, Studies in the Structure of the American Economy: Theoretical and Empirical Explorations in Input-output Analysis Harvard Economic Research Project. Oxford University Press, 1953.

W. Leontief, Input-Output Economics. 2nd ed., New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.

P.J.A. Konijn, “The make and use of commodities by industries; on the compilation of input-output data from the national accounts,” Faculty of Public Administration and Public Policy, University of Twente, Enschede, 1994.

R.E. Miller and P.D. Blair, Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions. Prentice Hall, 1985.

OECD, “Input - output analysis in an increasingly globalised world: applications of OECD’s harmonized international tables,” in STI/Working paper 2006/7. [Online]. Available: [Accessed January 12, 2017].

OECD Input - Output Tables. [Online]. Available: [Accessed January 12, 2017].

J. Oosterhaven, Interregional input-output analysis and Dutch regional policy problems. Gower, 1981.

D.J. Stynes, “Approaches to Estimating the Economic Impacts of Tourism: Some Examples,” Michigan State University, 1999.

C. Surugiu, “The economic impact of tourism. An input-output analysis,” Romanian Journal of Economics 29 (2), pp. 142-161, 2009.

M. Wilson, Sailing in the Clyde economic impact study, Scottish Enterprise Ayrshire, Glasgow, 2006.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

SCImago Journal & Country Rank