Search

In the early 2000s, the United States energy landscape began a transformation driven by a dual boom in the expansion of renewable power installations and the extraction of natural gas and oil from shale plays through hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. In this paper, we discuss the multi‐level regulatory context in which these two forms of energy development occur and review how they affect local communities, environment, and infrastructure, as well as government income and spending. In comparing the two, we remark that long‐term employment effects are relatively low for both forms of development, but unconventional fossil energy development has a heightened boom/bust potential with a large influx of workers spending a short amount of time on each well before moving on. Renewable power plants on the other hand can offer a steadier stream of income and tax revenue. Renewable power plants also have longer lasting visual impacts but lower environmental risks than unconventional fossil energy development. Finally, we consider how communities will have to adapt to navigate legacy and infrastructure constraints that accompany the shift from fossil to renewable power generation and from conventional to shale oil and gas resources.

There is much debate about the employment effect of shale gas development, especially as it relates to extraction counties. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many of the jobs created are filled by nonresidents. We examine the impact shale gas development has on local employment in Pennsylvania using a data set that links workers to their personal residences. We find that activity in the Marcellus shale has had a modest positive impact on job growth. The impact is cut in half, however, when we use data for county residents only. Thus, traditional employment data may overestimate employment impacts from shale development.

Using data from a survey of Pennsylvania food processors, we investigate what firm-level characteristics make a processor more or less likely to buy agricultural inputs and ingredients though contracts. We find that over 20 percent of Pennsylvania processors use contracts, and over 44 percent of agricultural inputs (based on value) are purchased under contract. We also analyze the two related questions of what firm attributes, attitudes, or other factors make a firm more likely to use contracts at all, and what factors lead a processor who does contract to use them more intensively.

The growing American retired population increasingly is viewed for its economic development potential. The relationship between the elderly and local taxes may have a critical effect on this potential, however. This paper examines the local tax implications of an increasing elderly population in communities prohibiting tax referenda. In such communities, citizens have no direct role in tax decisions. The elderly's attitudes towards different local taxes are examined using telephone survey data, before using aggregate data to investigate the relationship between the elderly and the specific taxes used in communities. The results suggest that a high proportion of elderly do not affect the mix of local taxes, but that an increasing proportion does have an influence.

A telephone survey of all of the surviving families of people killed in farm accidents in New York between 1985 and 1987 (52 of 87 families interviewed, 60% response rate) found the average total annual present value of expected income foregone because of fatal farm accidents in New York is over $8.6 million (in 1987 dollars). Less than five years after the accidents, 67% of the families who operated the farms where the accidents occurred no longer operate them and 44% no longer live on the farms.

Economists evaluating policies frequently split the measurement of effects into two elements: efficiency, and the distribution of income. Traditional economic theory has focused primarily upon efficiency, under the assumption that efficiency alone avoids subjective judgments. Considerations of distribution, based on equity and involving subjectivity, are eschewed because of their normative nature. Efficiency is regarded as an objective function, as a mere description of observable reality which can be scientifically tested. It is perceived as existing in and of itself, unaffected by subjective sensibilities. Equity, in contrast, "has to do with justified or justifiable distributions of rights and privileges among people. An equitable distribution need not give everyone the same rights and privileges but it must be justified in some sense-legally, morally, by custom, by practicality or on some other basis." There are two perspectives on the relationship of efficiency and equity. One believes there is a tradeoff, while the other believes that any such tradeoff, if it exists, is too complex to discuss so haphazardly. Many economists in the United States believe that efficiency and equity are mutually exclusive, where increases in one are bought only at the expense of the other. The second view towards efficiency and equity believes that efficiency and equity are mutually determined. This paper argues that the second perspective is more accurate. Given the complexities and the normative nature of both efficiency and equity, it further argues that standard economic analysis must be changed to explicitly incorporate value judgments.

Economists evaluating policies frequently split the measurement of effects into two elements: efficiency, and the distribution of income. Traditional economic theory has focused primarily upon efficiency, under the assumption that efficiency alone avoids subjective judgments. Considerations of distribution, based on equity and involving subjectivity, are eschewed because of their normative nature. Efficiency is regarded as an objective function, as a mere description of observable reality which can be scientifically tested. It is perceived as existing in and of itself, unaffected by subjective sensibilities. Equity, in contrast, "has to do with justified or justifiable distributions of rights and privileges among people. An equitable distribution need not give everyone the same rights and privileges but it must be justified in some sense-legally, morally, by custom, by practicality or on some other basis." There are two perspectives on the relationship of efficiency and equity. One believes there is a tradeoff, while the other believes that any such tradeoff, if it exists, is too complex to discuss so haphazardly. Many economists in the United States believe that efficiency and equity are mutually exclusive, where increases in one are bought only at the expense of the other. The second view towards efficiency and equity believes that efficiency and equity are mutually determined. This paper argues that the second perspective is more accurate. Given the complexities and the normative nature of both efficiency and equity, it further argues that standard economic analysis must be changed to explicitly incorporate value judgments.