J S Le Fanu's Ghostly Tales, Volume 4 by Joesph Sheridan Le Fanu
1 Does Economic Development Help the Poor? An IO-Type Model for Local Labor Market Analysis Joesph...
-
Upload
jasmin-shelton -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of 1 Does Economic Development Help the Poor? An IO-Type Model for Local Labor Market Analysis Joesph...
1
Does Economic Development Help the Poor? An IO-Type Model for Local
Labor Market Analysis
Joesph PerskyDanile Felsenstein
Project Support from the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research
2
The State of the Art
• Accurately account for all jobs attributable to project
• Expand direct impact by multiplier
• Relate to cost of project
• Convert jobs to earnings: using census proportions for industry i
3
Standard Impact Analysis:An Example BENEFITS AND COSTS: SciSource
0.220.34Cost/Earnings$ 26$ 40Cost/JobBENEFIT MEASURES:
$2,500$ 2,500TOTALCOSTS: (in thousands of 1992 $)
$11,453$ 7,362TOTALEarnings: (in thousands of 1992$)TOTALDIRECT
Overall Economic Impact9762NEW RESIDENT JOBS:
MinusDisplaced Local JobsEndogenous GrowthSuburban Commuters
--100PROJECT JOBS:TOTALDIRECT
Employment
4
Example ContinuedDISTRIBUTION OF Employment BY Earnings Group Absolute 1 2 3 4 5
Direct 2 5 21 29 5Total 5 8 31 40 13
Share 1 2 3 4 5Direct 3.4% 8.1% 33.3% 47.3% 7.9%Total 4.7% 8.6% 31.7% 41.7% 13.2%
DISTRIBUTION OF Earnings BY Earnings Group Absolute 1 2 3 4 5
Direct $699 $1,129 $2,891 $2,466 $177Total $1,519 $1,842 $4,266 $3,367 $460
Share 1 2 3 4 5Direct 9.5% 15.3% 39.3% 33.5% 2.4%Total 13.3% 16.1% 37.3% 29.4% 4.0%
5
The Problems
• No attention to opportunity costs of labor
• No real attention to welfare effects: are poor doing better than rich?
• No policy guidance: what kind of jobs to promote? High wage or low wage? For locals or commuters?
• No adequate model of local development
6
A Chain Model of Local Labor Markets
• Assume unemployment and underemployment – slack in labor market
• A new job, if filled by an employed worker, opens up a chain
• Workers move from job to job to improve their welfare
• New perspective on employment ‘multipliers’
7
Horizontal Multipliers
Backward LinkagesSuppliers:30 Indirect Jobs
Light Bulbs Inc.
Forward LinkagesHousehold-serving:20 Induced Jobs
Supermarket Stores
Instrument Plant100 Direct Jobs
SciSource
8
‘Horizontal’ Multipliers
InducedIndirect
Direct
9
Job Chains and Vertical Multipliers
New Job in SciSourceExisting
Similar Job in OptiSourceExisting
Related Job in InstruSource
In-Migrant to LocalArea Ms. Black
Terminates Chain
Job Changer:Mr. Jones
Job Changer:Ms. Dee
Vacancies
10
Job Chains and ‘Vertical’ MultipliersInduced
Chain Termination Job ChainsVacancies
IndirectDirect
11
Chain Literature• Housing Market Studies—
– Lansing J.B., Clifton C.W. and Morgan J.N. (1969)– Emmi and Magnusson (1994,1995)
• Organizational Studies —– Parishes: White (1970) – Orchestras: Abbot and Hrycak (1990)
• Hermit Crabs– Chase, Weissburg and DeWitt (1988)
• Labor Market Flows– Schettkat (1996)
• Economic Development– Webster (1979)– Robson, Bradford and Daes (1999) – Persky and Felsenstein (1999)
12
The Chain Model and the I-O Model
• Job chains= production chains in I-O
• Production chains estimated by average ‘input vector’ for each industry
• Job chains: estimate ‘input vector’ for each type of new job, by wage group.
• Chain length=size of employment multiplier
• Chains initiated by indirect and induced activity, not just direct.
13
Leontief Model of Job Chains
• (Q) : A square job flow matrix (origin-destination)
• qij, elements of Q which show the chance that a job
vacancy of a j-type position is taken by a worker currently in an i-type position.
• Notice that the sum of these elements over i for a given j will be less than one.
14
Termination of a Chain
• Unemployed worker (t1j)
• New entrant to the labor force (t2j)
• In migrant (t3j)
15
Three Major Outcome Measures
• Multiplier effects
---expected chain lengths
• Efficiency effects
• Distributional Effects
16
Chain Lengths
• Mn = 1/(1- qnn)
• Mn-1 = [1/(1- q(n-1)(n-1))] * [ 1 + qn(n-1) Mn ]
• Mn-2 = [1/(1- q(n-2)(n-2)) * ( 1 + q(n-1)(n-2) Mn-1
+ q(n(n-2) Mn )
17
Efficiency Effects
Vj = gains to locally employed workers moving up
chains
+ gains to unemployed, out of labor force and in-migrants
Vj = imij [(kqki *(wi-wk ) + hthi *(wi- chi)].
18
Opportunity Costs (w/c) for Unemployed, Out of Labor Force
and In-Migrants
Opp.Costs
1: $25.50 - $40.00 75%
2: $16.40 - $25.50 75%
3: $10.50 - $16.40 50%
4: $ 6.70 - $10.50 40%
5: $ 4.25 - $ 6.70 31%
19
Distributional Effects
• A Rawlsian measure:
Rj = mnj h thn *(wn – chn)
20
Data
• PSID 1987-1993 (heads and spouses only)
• 3500 distinct year-to-year job changes
• 1992 Real average wage gains for job changers
• Data for four regions and five earnings classes
21
Flows into Job Vacancies
Destination Job GroupOrigin Job Group 1 2 3 4 51: $25.50 - $40.00 41.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2: $16.40 - $25.50 25.0% 52.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%3: $10.50 - $16.40 4.8% 22.1% 46.6% 0.0% 0.0%4: $ 6.70 - $10.50 2.2% 1.5% 18.5% 47.3% 0.0%5: $ 4.25 - $ 6.70 0.0% 0.3% 2.4% 13.3% 34.5%Unemployed 2.9% 3.8% 9.7% 15.8% 24.7%Out of Labor Force 4.0% 3.8% 7.5% 13.5% 30.5%In-Migrant 20.1% 15.6% 15.4% 10.0% 10.2%Column Sum 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
22
Multiplier Effect
Class of New JobCreated Vacancies 1 2 3 4 51: $25.50 - $40.00 1.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002: $16.40 - $25.50 0.90 2.12 0.00 0.00 0.003: $10.50 - $16.40 0.52 0.88 1.87 0.00 0.004: $ 6.70 - $10.50 0.28 0.37 0.66 1.90 0.005: $ 4.25 - $ 6.70 0.08 0.12 0.20 0.39 1.53
Total Job Multiplier 3.48 3.48 2.73 2.28 1.53
23
Efficiency Effect
V/W
1: $25.50 - $40.00 0.43
2: $16.40 - $25.50 0.42
3: $10.50 - $16.40 0.56
4: $ 6.70 - $10.50 0.62
5: $ 4.25 - $ 6.70 0.69
24
Sensitivity Analysis
1 2 3 4 5
1 Basic Assumptions 0.43 0.42 0.56 0.62 0.69
2 .75 in-migs; .25 all others 0.41 0.39 0.47 0.54 0.62
3 .75 all in-migrants 0.51 0.51 0.57 0.63 0.67
4 .25 all non job-changers 0.74 0.72 0.74 0.74 0.75
Alternative Opportunity Cost Assumptions
Wage Group of Initial New Job
25
Distributional Effect
Wage Group of Initial New Job
1 2 3 4 5
V/w 0.43 0.42 0.56 0.62 0.69
Per job
Share to Job Changers 0.52 0.37 0.21 0.10 0
Per initial new job:
Dollars per yr to Lowest-R 397 550 960 1,888 7,202
Dollars per yr to Low 4,654 4,303 6,600 10,582 7,202
26
SciSource Example Revisited: JOBS
DISTRIBUTION OF Employment BY Earnings Group
New Jobs 1 2 3 4 5 SUMDirect 2 5 21 29 5 62Total 5 8 31 40 13 97
All Vacancies 1 2 3 4 5Direct 3 12 44 71 24 154Total 8 21 67 100 43 240
Share New Jobs 1 2 3 4 5Direct 3.4% 8.1% 33.3% 47.3% 7.9% 100%Total 4.7% 8.6% 31.7% 41.7% 13.2% 100%
Share Vacancies 1 2 3 4 5Direct 2.2% 8.0% 28.5% 45.8% 15.4% 100%Total 3.5% 8.9% 28.0% 41.7% 17.9% 100%
27
SciSource Example Revisited: EARNINGS
DISTRIBUTION OF Earnings BY Earnings Group (in '000 $)Earnings on New Jobs 1 2 3 4 5 SUM
Direct $674 $1,021 $2,741 $2,516 $268 $7,218Total $1,684 $1,633 $4,075 $3,470 $687 $11,558
Welfare Gains 1 2 3 4 5Direct $287 $430 $1,532 $1,566 $184 $3,999Total $718 $688 $2,279 $2,160 $478 $6,320
Share of Earningson New Jobs 1 2 3 4 5
Direct 9.3% 14.1% 38.0% 34.3% 3.7% 100%Total 14.6% 14.1% 35.3% 30.o 6.0% 100%
Share of WelfareGains on Vacancies 1 2 3 4 5
Direct 7.2% 10.8% 38.3% 39.2% 4.6% 100%Total 11.4% 10.9% 36.0% 34.2% 7.6% 100%
28
Conclusions
• Chain Effects:
• lengths comparable in magnitude to I-O type multipliers
• longer at the top, shorter at the bottom
29
Conclusions (Continued)
• Efficiency Effects :
• net discounting despite volume of vacancies
• V/W = 0.4 – 0.6, higher for low skilled new jobs
30
Conclusions (Continued)
• Distribution Effects :
• More people than first estimated are positively affected
• Overall benefits are substantially lower than ‘new earnings’
• ‘Trickle Down’ increases the proportion of benefits going to those starting in the two lowest earnings groups.
• Projects with mid-level jobs may create job chain effects for low-wage. Less so, for high level jobs.