Employment and Compensation in the Marcellus Shale Gas Boom:What Stays Local?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much of the public interest about the recent boom in shale natural gas development is due to expectations that the activity generates significant economic benefits within host communities, such as increases in employment and compensation. Numerous studies have examined the economic impacts of this activity and generally find mixed results; some studies find such impacts, while other studies find little evidence of an economic boom. An equally important, but much less frequently asked question is what portion of employment and compensation benefits from shale gas development stays local. Sociological literature on uneven development and economic literature on the natural resource curse provide reasons to be skeptical and suggest that these benefits are distributed unevenly and are often dispersed to recipients outside of the community.In this case study, we compare federal and state employment, compensation, and business data from four Pennsylvania counties experiencing rapid Marcellus Shale development to consider what portion of these benefits stay within their respective counties and what is awarded to out-of-county recipients. We then draw on focus group data for individual community leader accounts of how benefits are distributed and the possible mechanisms that explain the trends identified in the employment, compensation, and business data. Our findings suggest that a substantial portion of employment and compensation benefits associated with natural gas extraction have gone to out-of-county recipients, suggesting much more limited direct benefits for residents than previously described in economic projections. We conclude that this outflow of benefits is a form of uneven development that may partially explain the natural resource curse. Keywords: natural gas; shale; Marcellus Shale; community development; natural resources; resource curse; uneven development ---------------------------------------------------- Titre: Emploi et compensation lors de l'essor de gaz de schiste de Marcellus: que reste-t-il aux locaux? Résumé La plupart de l'intérêt public dans l'essor récent du développement du gaz naturel de schiste est dû aux attentes que l'activité génère des bénéfices économiques significatifs au sein des communautés d'accueil, tel que des augmentations d'emplois et des compensations. De nombreuses études ont examiné les impacts économiques et trouvé des résultats généralement mitigés; certaines études ont trouvé de telles répercussions alors que d'autres n'ont que peu de preuves d'un essor économique. Une question toute aussi importante mais bien moins souvent posée est celle de la part d'emplois et de compensations résultant du développement du gaz de schiste qui reste locale. La littérature sociologique sur le développement irrégulier et la littérature économique sur la malédiction des ressources naturelles fournissent des raisons d'être septique et laissent entendre que ces bénéfices sont distribués de manière inégale et sont souvent distribués aux bénéficiaires extérieurs à la communauté. Dans cette étude, nous comparons l'emploi fédéral et celui de l'État , les compensations et les données commerciales de quatre comtés de Pennsylvanie qui vivent une croissance rapide du gaz de schiste de Marcellus afin de considérer la part des bénéfices qui reste dans les communautés respectives et celle attribuée aux bénéficiaires hors comté. Nous nous appuyons donc sur des données de groupes de discussions sur les rapports individuels des dirigeants communautaires sur la manière dont les bénéfices sont distribués et les mécanismes possibles qui expliquent les tendances identifiées dans l'emploi, les compensations et les données commerciales. Nos résultats suggèrent que les parts substantielles d'emploi et de bénéfices compensatoires associés à l'extraction de gaz naturels sont allées à des destinataires extérieurs au comté, suggérant des bénéfices directs bien plus limités pour les résidents que ceux décrits préalablement dans les projections économiques. Nous concluons que cette sortie de bénéfices est une forme de développement inégal qui pourrait expliquer la malédiction de la ressource naturelle.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".