Reconciling county and state impact results
We are running an analysis in which we know the nunmber of jobs created in a county by sector. We need to report the impact of these job on the County's economy and on the State's economy.
Naturally, the county- and state-level indirect and induced impacts do not match. The difficulty is the direct effects also do not match.
I understand why the direct effects do not match but I am wondering if there is a better way to run this type of analysis.
Was this post helpful?
-
How are you introducing the impacts? If as number of jobs, then do not use the deflater - ie, keep as year of data set, this will allow the software to use the study area output per worker. If as a value you may need to edit the study area data for the industry so that the industry output per worker matches your firm. See Case Study 4b.0
-
How are you introducing the impacts? If as number of jobs, then do not use the deflater - ie, keep as year of data set, this will allow the software to use the study area output per worker. If as a value you may need to edit the study area data for the industry so that the industry output per worker matches your firm. See Case Study 4b.0
-
My question may have been too vague. Let me try again. * 100 jobs were created in Sector 394 in Center County * I need to estimate the impact of these jobs on the County and on the State. * I create a county model, input the number of jobs (no deflator) and get the impact results. * I create a state model, input the number of jobs (no deflator) and get the impact results. The difficulty is the labor income and output direct effects from the county analysis do not match those from the state analysis. I understand why, but I am wondering if there is a way to run the State-Level analysis such that I obtain the county direct effects (since those seem to be the most accurate) but state-level indirect and induced effects. One thought was to run the county analysis to determine the amount of output generated by the 100 employees, then plug this output value into the state model to estimate state-level indirect and induced effects. The direct effects reported for both county and state analyses would always be the county-level direct effects since this is where the jobs were created.0
-
My question may have been too vague. Let me try again. * 100 jobs were created in Sector 394 in Center County * I need to estimate the impact of these jobs on the County and on the State. * I create a county model, input the number of jobs (no deflator) and get the impact results. * I create a state model, input the number of jobs (no deflator) and get the impact results. The difficulty is the labor income and output direct effects from the county analysis do not match those from the state analysis. I understand why, but I am wondering if there is a way to run the State-Level analysis such that I obtain the county direct effects (since those seem to be the most accurate) but state-level indirect and induced effects. One thought was to run the county analysis to determine the amount of output generated by the 100 employees, then plug this output value into the state model to estimate state-level indirect and induced effects. The direct effects reported for both county and state analyses would always be the county-level direct effects since this is where the jobs were created.0
-
You will need to edit the state model so that the ratios (output/worker, emp comp/worker, proprietor income/worker) matches that of the industry for the county you are comparing to. Otherwise the state industry is essentially a different industry than the county's even though it is the same sector.0
-
You will need to edit the state model so that the ratios (output/worker, emp comp/worker, proprietor income/worker) matches that of the industry for the county you are comparing to. Otherwise the state industry is essentially a different industry than the county's even though it is the same sector.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
6 comments