For our analysis, we creating new industry sectors by re-purposing existing sectors that have zero output. The new sectors represent portions of other existing sectors. For example, we are creating a new sector representing Walnut Farming and are subtracting the output from the new Walnut Farming sector from the pre-existing Tree Nut Farming. For our basic model, we are using 2013 data for six counties in California, including El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba. The issue that we are encountering has to do with the industry trade flows. Continuing with the Tree Nut Farming and Walnut Farming example, the default data for Tree Nut Farming shows a total commodity supply of ~$37.3 million, with foreign exports of ~$15.3 million, and a net commodity supply of ~$22.0 million. After reducing the output value of Tree Nut Farming from ~$443.35 million to ~$107.78 million, total commodity supply drops to ~$105.74 million, with foreign exports of ~$105.74 million, and a net commodity supply of ~$0.0 million. This seems to be driven by some minimum foreign export value, but I can't find the data that indicates how this is being calculated or a method for resolving the imbalance. Having a foreign export value equal to 100 percent of supply clearly doesn't make sense in this case. This brings up a similar issue for us, which is the question of whether the model is applying similar export assumptions to the new industry sectors based on the underlying data for the original industries. For example, we re-purposed the Tobacco Farming sector to create the Walnut Farming sector. Is this the case? Is there a reasonable method for resolving these inconsistencies?
Please sign in to leave a comment.