Calculating direct effects after ABP
We are modeling the impacts of the construction of a large organic chemical manufacturing facility (a three-year project). The construction is a bit unique in that the largest portion of their spending is going directly to equipment purchases, with a smaller portion being spent on the actual construction and site preparation.
The firm estimates that the entire project will cost $200 million, with approximately 55% of the costs going to equipment, 23% spent on wages, 13% on site prep and construction, and the remaining 9% on engineering and architecture.
The company provided a fairly detailed list of their equipment purchases, with a total (aggregate) LPP for equipment purchases of about 50%. They indicated that a few items that they thought, in particular, would be purchased locally. They also indicated that about 30% of the engineering / architecture costs would be spent locally, and about 90% of the workforce would be local.
Our team ran the impacts as follows:
• One Industry Spending pattern for all of the known equipment purchases, with some slight adjustments to LPPs so that the total purchased locally was around 50% and those items that the company indicated would be purchased locally were represented.
• One labor income change activity, adjusted to account for the non-local workforce using the commuting rate equation on your website
• One Industry Spending pattern in sector 53 to account for site prep and construction as well as engineering and architecture costs, with all of the “known” equipment sectors (previously mentioned) removed. The coefficient for the architecture / engineering commodity was adjusted so that it reflected the total amount spent on that item, and the LPP was changed to 30%.
My question is this… our results provided no direct effects, since all of our activities were run as industry spending pattern activities and/or labor income change activities. My initial thought was that the direct effects would be equal to the inputs provided by the company (250 employees, slightly less than $45 million in labor income adjusted to account for non-local workforce, and $200 million in output). Value added was calculated by doing an industry change activity using these inputs in sector 53.
However, now I’m second guessing our strategy here. Should I be reducing the direct effects to account for the % spent in the study area? The non-local spending is already being accounted for in the indirect and induced effects, but should they also be reduced in the direct effects? This would make the direct effects much smaller – total output would be somewhere around $128 million instead of $200 million. Thank you for your help!
Was this post helpful?
-
One follow up question… Our indirect and induced effects results are very large, relative to the direct effects, even without reducing the direct effects based on the LPP given. I assume this is the result of the very large amount of spending on equipment purchases, which are all being modeled as an industry spending pattern. Is that correct? Our jobs multiplier for the construction project, for example, is somewhere around 3.2, which is much higher than what I am used to. I just want to make sure I understand why that is happening.0
-
IMPLAN SupportHello Monica, Can you describe what is meant by "One Industry Spending pattern for all known equipment purchases"? Equipment purchases that the facility will use once construction is complete (capital expenditures) do not need to be treated like an imported spending pattern. These purchases are a Final Demand and can be captured through a standard Industry Change activity. It is important to know both where and how the items were purchased. • Purchases made locally create local impact and can be measured. Purchases made outside the region do not have a local impact and cannot be measured. While you could impact a sector for the full cost of a piece of equipment and adjust the LPP to the appropriate portion purchased locally, this is equivalent to simply entering only the locally purchased cost and leaving LPP at 100% (which we recommend). Using the Local Purchase Percentage Field http://support.implan.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=469 • Purchases made from a wholesaler or retailer need to be properly margined. See the links below for proper directions. Applying Margins to Retail and Producing Sectors http://support.implan.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=451 Margining: When the Item Being Purchased is Known http://support.implan.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=203 Margining: When the Item Being Purchased in Unknown http://support.implan.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=226 The construction sector spending pattern represents the expenditures related to the construction of the structure. Payments to equipment sectors represent equipment utilized in the construction of the structure, not equipment to be utilized by the structure. If the intent in removing the "known" equipment sectors was to not duplicate purchases from the expenditures on the manufacturing facility's equipment mentioned above, then removal of the equipment sectors in the spending pattern for construction is not required as they represent a different type of equipment. If you follow the steps mentioned above for the equipment purchases (utilizing an Industry Change activity), you will receive Direct Effects for that portion of your study (which we refer to as Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment). For your construction portion (the labor income change and the construction spending pattern), this is an Analysis-by-Parts (ABP). As an ABP begins at the first wave of Indirect Effects (Spending Pattern) and the first wave of Induced (Labor Income Change), there is no Direct Effect recorded by the model. The Basics of Analysis-By-Parts http://support.implan.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=359 Case Study: Analysis-By-Parts http://support.implan.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=386:386&catid=149:analysis-by-parts Output = Intermediate Expenditures (IE) + Value Added (VA) VA = Proprietor Income (PI), Employee Compensation (EC), Taxes on Production and Imports (TOPI), and Other Property Income (OPI). Note: Employee Compensation (EC) is wage and salary, benefits, and both employee and employer paid payroll taxes. You will need to determine your Direct Effect for the Construction portion of your study by taking note of your known values. Is your construction cost just the cost of expenditure and labor, or is it the total cost (does it include taxes and profit)? Based on your above mentioned equation (23% wage, 13% site prep and construction, and 9% Engineering and Architecture), you have a cost of $90 million for just the construction. However, the current split of this cost does not appear to include TOPI (taxes) or OPI (profits). If you were to use your current values, your current VA would equal your EC and your Output would equal your IE and VA (just EC in this case) combined. This is a situation that is typically only true with non-profits. Consider looking at the industry balance sheet for the sector and comparing the ratios of the different VA components to Output to your values. Also, is the employment number provided by the company related to the operations of the chemical plant, or are they the number of employees required for the construction project? It appears that you are only analyzing the impact of equipment purchases and structure construction, in which case the chemical plant's number of annual employees has no relevance. If you need to estimate an employment for the construction, you can create an Industry Change activity, create an event, select the construction sector, and enter your Employee Compensation value. This will estimate the amount of construction employment relevant to that level of Employee Compensation. It is not common that large equipment purchases are also locally produced. If you are seeing large amounts of employment related to the producers of your capital equipment, correctly following the margining articles linked above should improve your analysis. Regards, IMPLAN Staff0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
2 comments