Abstract
A comment by Miller was published in the August 1989 issue of Environment and Planning A, which makes an intriguing comparison of a paper by Chen and Rose with one by myself. His comment concerns the uses of various terminologies in the literature on supply-driven and demand-driven input—output models and the claims to have defined terms such as ‘stability’, ‘joint stability’, and ‘consistency’. Further, generalizations are made on the basis of a specific set of aggregated data for the US economy to show that biproportional changes suggested in my theorem are unlikely to be observed in the real world. I will show that Miller adds no illumination to the issues of ‘stability’ or ‘consistency’, and that, in fact, his comment accomplishes nothing of import. His comment could also leave us with the impression that the USA is the only ‘real-world’ example worthy of comment.
Keywords