Thanks Kim! Yes, I agree. This is just the tip of the iceburg and more significant observations can be made by making honest assumptions. What is nice is that a sensitivity analysis can be incorporated to observe a range of assumptions.
Thanks for sharing your approach Ryan, it gives a useful snapshot of the foundations. Rather than relying on the flow-effect multpliers I sometimes add another component or two - such as estimated wages of forecast employees in commercial premises, or estimated local retail spend from the forecast residents of a housing development. Many assumptions are needed, but it’s usually possible to make a start on these based on current employment/residential patterns, and so these estimates can be more ’localised’ than is possible with the traditional multipliers.
Kim Houghton Strategic Economic Solutions (Australia)
Agreed. The purpose of the work is to begin to quantify economic impacts and provide a cheap and easy way to do so. The original article does speak to tax revenues. I argue taxes should be considered fiscal impacts because if you lable them as economic impact then incrasing tax rates could imply economic growth. In reality, increasing tax rates usually has a negative effect on economic growth. I think fiscal impact is very important to consider - I just would not lable it as economic impact because it is misleading.
Certainly not for the rigorous academic economic impact evaluation, but this is a methodology that gives some exposure to what has often been considered a black box to the public when working to quantify impacts of projects. The tax rates and public revenues from construction sales taxes, wage based government levies and forecasting such receipts are often important in getting public support for projects. The simplified model using RIMS II and the government BEA multipliers getting to the wages and total output is better than back of the envelope guesstimates. However, a more robust evaluation may still be necessary for proving value of projects or comparing on project to another. Scott Sigman, M.Sc. - LSE Trade and Transportation
4 comments
Comments 1 - 4 of 4 previous next Post a comment