data issues between 2009 and 2010

Comments

5 comments

  • Avatar
    jenny
    IMPLAN Grain Farming consists of Food Grains + Feed Crops - Hay ERS Cash Receipts for each of these for 2010 were: 720,770,000 + 413,300,000 - 303,527,000 = 830,543,000 There is no data source for employment or income by commodity: • U.S. W&S income by commodity (from CEW) is divided by ERS output by commodity to get income per output by commodity at U.S. level. U.S. 2002 BM OPI by commodity (a proxy for proprietor income) is divided by 2002 ERS output by commodity to get OPI per output by commodity at U.S. level. These ratios are then applied to our estimates of state-level current ERS output to get income by commodity at state level. • One final control is applied to force the states output, employment and income to sum to the US totals. Some of the state farm sectors are subject to large adjustments when controlled to the national totals. This is a result of inconsistencies between sources. Since the agriculture data is, to a large extent, derived, analysts with local agriculture data are encouraged to use it when building their IMPLAN models. Going from IBT to taxes on production net of subsidy (a change we made a couple of years ago; the term IBT will soon be replaced by TOPI) allows for negative IBT. When negative, it means that government subsidy to this sector exceeded production taxes paid.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    jfutrell
    Hi - We have developed a definition for what we consider to be the energy industry in Southwestern Pennsylvania that uses 27 different IMPLAN sectors. While we use IMPLAN's employment number for 24 of the sectors we have developed estimates for the three remaining sectors. When we ran the model last year (using 2009 data) these 27 sectors accounted for 48,107 direct jobs, 48,562 indirect jobs and 60,738 induced jobs. I recently reran the model using 2010 data and noticed that while direct and induced employment remained relatively constant at 47,859 and 58,083, indirect employment fell dramatically to 25,002. I then reran the 2010 model using inputs from the 2009 data and while induced employment was nearly the same at 60,608, indirect was significantly less at 24,485. It looks like most of the difference could be found in sectors that could indirectly be tied to the natural gas industry. Did something change between the 2009 and 2010 versions? I have attached a comparison of the 2009 inputs run on both the 2009 and 2010 versions to show which IMPLAN sectors saw the greatest change. Thanks. [attachment=244]2009-2010 Model Comparison.xls[/attachment]
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    jenny
    In PA, sectors 20-Extraction of oil and natural gas and 29-Drilling oil and gas wells both experienced an increase in Value-Added per Ouput between 2009 and 2010 (you can check this for your region under Explore > Study Area Data). An increase in Value-Added per Ouput must be accompanied by a decrease in Intermediate Expenditures per Output since Output = Intermediate Expenditures + Value-Added. The Indirect Effects stem from Intermediate Expenditures, and thus will be lower per given level output in 2010. You can also go to Explore > Multipliers and select Employment Multipliers from the "View By" drop-down menu. You should see a decrease in the Indirect Multiplier for these industries from 2009 to 2010. We get our O&G employment and income from the BEA’s REA data (the REA data are lagged one year so we project it to the current year using CEW data). If there are O&G wage and salary workers (i.e., a corporation) in a particular place, our data should capture that. However, if the O&G operator is a proprietor, our data reflect where that proprietor lives, not necessarily where the well is. This is where we get national output data for O&G: • For natural gas production: http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/data.cfm#production, Table 27 – Natural Gas Plant Net Production • For natural gas prices: http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/data.cfm#prices, “Prices” table, wellhead price. These national output values are then distributed amongst the states and counties based on each state and county’s O&G employment and income (from REA and CEW as stated above).
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    jfutrell
    Thanks for the explanation. So am I understanding it correctly when I say that between 2009 and 2010 the proportion of proprietor employment in the sector dropped to be offset by an increase in W&S employment and since there is a greater indirect impact from proprietors that is why indrect impact fell?
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    jenny
    Not necessarily. Proprietor Income can fluctuate markedly across years and a change in Proprietor Income does not necessarily correspond to a change in the number of proprietors. In any case, the indirect effects stem from the intermediate purchases, which are unaffected by the proportion of W&S workers vs. proprietors. For Sector 20 (extraction of O&G): In 2010, the sector paid more EC and PI per $1 of Output than it did in 2009. This will result in higher induced effects. At the same time, the sector spent less on Intermediate Expenditures per $1 of Output than it did in 2009. This will result in lower indirect effects.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.