Why is GRP higher than BEA? Components of Value Ad
We are wondering why your GRP/Value Added estimates for the County of Oahu ($76,542,663,991) are so much larger than what are shown by BEA ($57,966,000,000). As a point of comparison, the BEA estimate for the whole state of Hawaii is $75,235,000,000. Are there adjustments we should be making or factors we should take into account for our model outputs for this area?
Secondly, using the 2012 model, we have found that Value Added = (Local purchase from Households, Government, Capital Invest.) - (Inventory Adjustments) - Intermediate Imports. However, in the 2013 model, this is no longer the case. What adjustments, if any, have been made that would account for this discrepancy?
Thank you.
Was this post helpful?
-
IMPLAN SupportHi Walker, Thank you for your post. In all 3 Honolulu County (our file name for Oahu County) models that we built, Total Value Added is the sum of Household Demand, S/L Gov Demand, Fed Gov Demand, Capital, and Exports, less Imports and Institutional Sales. I found this by exporting the Model Overview screen and checking the sum. Would you be able to send in your model so that we can take a closer look. You can email it into support@implan.com. Could you also please reference the post #19709. Thanks!0 -
Hello, We figured out the components of final demand issue on our end (internal model error) but thank you for your response. However, regarding our first question (why GRP in IMPLAN is so much larger than BEA figures for Honolulu County?), we have not developed a good explanation. Ostensibly these figures should be comparable as BEA data is one of the inputs for the IMPLAN model. We have found this same discrepancy in other jurisdictions as well (e.g. Merced County in CA). Are there further adjustments that might account for GRP/GDP being significantly higher in IMPLAN than BEA? Thank you, Walker0
-
IMPLAN SupportHi Walker, Thank you for your response. The BEA (as far as we know) only publishes these data for states and some select metropolitan areas, not counties. Also, the BEA GDP data we use are lagged one year when we do our first release of data, so we have to do our own projections on it. We are very interested to know where you obtained your county-level GDP figures. IMPLAN Group0 -
Hello, We were referencing 2013 BEA data by Metropolitan area (see link below). In Hawaii the Honolulu metro is the same as the County. So in this case we do have County data (we recognized this isn’t always the case in other metros). The issue is that the Implan estimate for Honolulu County is almost equal to the entire State of Hawaii. So clearly something is inconsistent. If anything the year lag would make it lower, not higher, given that the economy grew between 2012 and 2013. The link to the BEA data referenced is below: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_metro/gdp_metro_newsrelease.htm Thank you.0
-
IMPLAN SupportHello, As you noted, in the vast majority of cases, a metropolitan area <> a county so we do not use the metropolitan area data. The raw figure we had for the state of HI was a 2012 figure of $72,512. Based on EC growth between 2012 and 2013 we projected this number to $102,264. Honolulu County was given 75% of this value, which is in line with the 2013 BEA data which has Honolulu at 77% of the state value. [attachment=618]BEA_GDP_HI_and_Honolulu_2013.png[/attachment]0 -
Hello, Can you please explain what you're assumed 30% increase in GDP between 2012 and 13 is based on? This seems to us as a rather extraordinary increase for one year. Do you have any examples of other states or Hawaii experiencing that level of increase in the past? We are hesitant to publish a report that has this level of discrepancy between Implan reported GNP and actual (BEA). It will likely be questioned on this assumption alone. Can you provide a recommendation on how best to adjust the final numbers to more closely reflect the reported BEA GDP? Thank you.0
-
IMPLAN SupportHello, There are two reasons for the large jump in the data: 1. There was an extra boost in GDP in all regions in the 2013 data set due to the BEA's redefinition of GDP to include intangibles - see these articles: http://www.bea.gov/faq/index.cfm?faq_id=1028 and http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/04/nipa_revisions_bea_will_treat_intangibles_as_capital_goods_and_boost_gdp.html. 2. We also discovered a problem in the estimation of OPI (and consequently GDP, which includes OPI) for a few select sectors in certain areas in the 2013 data sets. We are in the final stages of a second release of the 2013 data, which should be out by the end of this week, at which point you can call in and we will replace your current data set. In the meantime, if you want to adjust your current data set, the new HI GRP is about 19% lower than the version you have. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience this has caused you - please let us know if there is anything else we can do.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
7 comments