Comparing 2001 to 2009 data

We completed a shift-share analysis utilizing the Industry Detail data for a county in arizona. the analysis was 2001 compared to 2009. there are many implan sectors that have 0 employment in 2001, such as general merchandise, etc. this does not seem accurate. in addition, things like "bowling centers" had hundreds employed in 2001 and only double digits in 2009. in this rural county it is unlikely that there was hundreds employed in bowling centers and there were certainly general merchandise employment in 2001. there are many more than i can describe here. is there a reason for these discrepancies?
Was this post helpful?
0 out of 0 found this helpful

Comments

7 comments

  • If you could tell us which county you are dealing with, we can look at our data and see if we can't sort this out. Thanks!
    0
  • Pinal County 2001/2009
    0
  • Check your bridge of the 2001 Implan sectoring (509 sectors) to the 2009 Implan sectoring (440). My Pinal "General Merchandise" shows ~1200 jobs in 2001 and one job in "Bowling" in 2001.
    0
  • Where can i download this "re-sectoring crosswalk"?
    0
  • All of our bridges can be found here: http://implan.com/v4/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=145&Itemid=7 The one you will be interested in is the IMPLAN 509 to IMPLAN 440 with Ratios.
    0
  • i have the bridge and it seems to work except for: 508 Inventory valuation adjustment this has no location or place in the bridge. please advise
    0
  • It was defined away by the new benchmark I-O table. It was a change in OPI and has no employment or income associated with it. It was actually a change in the NIPA definitions for calculating GDP. Since it represents a change in asset value, it can not be considered a change in GDP resulting from economic activity. The net change in inventory valuation is now a transfer payment to or from capital.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.