This post describes the first step of comparing Census population data over time: studying documentation to determine the feasibility of variable comparison over time. See Comparing Census Population Data, Part One to get introduced to this project.

As described in the previous post, not all of the population tabulations that are available in the 2000 Decennial Census are available in the 2010 Decennial Census and American Community Survey. Additionally, questions can be asked in different ways, which can make them incomparable. 

In addition to determining data comparability, documentation must also be studied to determine variables names, table names and segment identifiers. In order to accomplish this task, I created a table with the following fields:
​

• Main Fields: American Community Survey Variable Name, Other Variable Name (If Different)
• Decennial Census 2000, Summary File 1: Table Number, Table Name, Table ID, Segment, Max Size, Universe, Lowest Level of Geography
• Decennial Census 2000, Summary File 3: Table Number, Table Name, Table ID, Segment, Max Size, Universe, Lowest Level of Geography
• Decennial Census 2010, Summary File 1: Table Number, Table Name, Table ID, Segment, Max Size, Universe, Lowest Level of Geography
• American Community Survey,  2010-2014: Table Number, Table Name, Table ID, Segment, Max Size, Universe, Lowest Level of Geography
• Notes: When Comapring 2012 ACS to 2000 DC, When Comparing 2012 ACS to 2010 DC, When Comparing 2012 ACS to 2011 ACS

Click here to access a template I created.

The next step was identifying each variable and writing down the information in the template. The table number, table contents, data dictionary reference name, segment, max size, and smallest summary file level is available in the technical documentation as described below:

• Decennial Census 2000 Summary File 1: Starts on page 227 (click here to access the document)
• Decennial Census 2000 Summary File 3: Starts on page 422 (click here to access the document)
• Decennial Census 2010 Summary File 1: Starts on page 183 (click here to access the document)
• American Community Survey 2008-2012 Summary File: Starts on page 46 (click here to access the document)

After checking the data documentation/code books to find the variable/table/segment details, I looked up the variables using the following three different Census tools and used the information to fill out the comparability notes in the table:

• https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/guidance/comparing-acs-data/2012.html
• https://www.census.gov/acs/www/guidance/comparing-acs-data/acscensus-table-lookup/index.php
• https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/relationship.html

After looking all the information up, in the comparability notes of the table, I highlighted the variables that have no comparability concerns as green, I highlighted the variables that have some comparability concerns as orange, and I highlighted the variables that are not comparable as red. Click here to access the completed table. 

In order to make information about what variables can be used and at what level, I made a simplified table with our variables of interest, if it can be broken down by race, if the variable can be measured using full population count data or sample data, if it is comparable, the smallest level of geography available, and associated notes. You can find this by clicking here.

This completed my first step of checking the documentation to determine feasibility of comparing variables over time. 

I am currently working on a project that is comparing Census population data from 2000 to 2010 for the entire United States at the lowest geographic level available, whether it be the Census block, the Census block group, or the Census tract (listed smallest to largest). We are using variables, such as the race of individuals and single mother households, that can be obtained using the 2000 and 2010 Decennial Census short form, which is required for 100% of the population and is available at the block-level. But we are also using variables, such as household income and poverty levels, which use the 2000 Decennial Census long form (which was about a 17% sample of the total population), and the  2008-2012 American Community Survey (which was about a 12.5% sample of the total population) and both the 2000 Decennial Census long form and the 2008-2012 American Community Survey tabulations are only available at the level of the block group or tract.

​As we attempt to develop comparable population estimates across space, we must be aware that pulling data from multiple data sets over different periods of time can create some issues with consistency. I discuss some of these issues below.

There are three common concerns when comparing Census population data at a low level of geography:

(1) Changes in Questions Asked- Some questions that are asked in one decade might not be asked in the same way or it might not event be asked at all. Furthermore, the categories, coding scheme, etc., for the answers to the questions might not be the same.  These differences create challenges when comparing data over time. 

(2) Changes in Tabulations that are Publicly Available- While, in order to maintain confidentiality, individual micro-data is only available to approved researchers for approved projects within a restricted Federal Statistical Research Data Center (FSRDC), for the general public data is available as a series of tabulations (summed totals or averages) by block or block group or tract or whatever level of geography. While in one decade, Census might release a table for a particular variable for one decade (such as number of households in a block group that are Hispanic and in poverty), that table and information is not guaranteed to be available in another decade. 

(3) Changes in the Geographic Space included in a Block/Block Group/Tract- The United States Census breaks up the geographic space of the United States in a hierarchy of polygons representing a specific geographic space. Blocks are small geographic areas contained by visible boundaries, such as streets and railroad tracts. Block groups are clusters of blocks representing anywhere from 600-3,000 people (in 2010). Tracts are clusters of block groups representing anywhere from 1,2000 to 8,000 people (in 2010). Counties are clusters of tracts. States are clusters of counties. However, since blocks, block groups and tracts are established based on the number of people within the area, there are significant changes in areas where there are large population changes. For example, say you are looking at an area in rural Arizona in 2000 that is relatively remote. This space might be made up of one tract and a few block groups and blocks. Then you might look at this same area in 2010, but there were a bunch of retirement homes built in the area and it is now a populated suburban area. This space might now be made up of four tracts and numerous block groups and blocks. Since Census blocks, block groups, and tracts do not consistently represent the same geographic space, we face further challenges when comparing community data.

In order to deal with these concerns, I followed the processes described below.

In order to compare Census data over time, several different steps were taken.

1. Studying Technical Documentation to Determine Feasibility of Variable Comparison
2. Downloading Bulk Data from Census FTP using Python
3. Reading Census Data to Stata
4. Preparing Data for Census Crosswalk
5. Developing the Crosswalk
6. Completing the Crosswalk
7. Assessing the Crosswalk

​I will describe these steps in more detail, provide the documentation necessary to replicate my research, and describe things I would have done differently in future posts.

Texas A&M University hosts the largest GIS Day in Texas. I was selected as one of the five finalists for the GIS Day 2017 Paper Competition. I am very excited to obtain feedback from people in different disciplines about my research. Below you will find my paper presentation which I will present today, November 14 at 1:15 in the Evans Library Annex Room 405C. 

I am getting deeper into my dissertation research and understanding the data. I found out that the Production Data Query Dump file is only half of the data the Texas Railroad Commission has on venting and flaring volumes. Apparently there is another file that will cost me over $375 regarding venting and flaring volumes at processing plants (but details on what would be included have yet to be made available). Luckily, my recent research has focused on venting and flaring volumes at the oil and gas extraction facility (i.e., the producing well). 

Although there are bumps in the road and it is taking longer than I thought, I am making progress on achieving my output goals.  First of which is a map associated with one of the papers that will emerge from my dissertation research regarding the characteristics of communities most exposed to Texas oil and gas venting and flaring volumes (at extraction facilities; not processing plants). You can visit the web application I built by clicking here or seeing the map below. 

Tomorrow I am guest lecturing for Dr. Morris' organizational sociology course. You can find the slides for my lecture below.

For my dissertation, I am merging together various files from the Texas Railroad Commission.

This took a lot of time and work, but I was able to finally complete the task last week. You can find a map of data connections at http://prezi.com/albf920zd5jf/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy or view it below:

Today at 10 at the Texas Federal Statistical Research Data Center (TXRDC), I will be making a presentation about my proposal to access Census and IRS restricted data at the TXRDC (click here for more information about the event). This presentation will be useful to graduate students interested in using RDC datasets for their dissertation research. I provide some insight on the type of dissertation research that is conducted at an RDC, understanding Census terms for business data, research timelines, and other tips.

If you cannot make it, you can find my presentation below. 

I am in the early stages of my dissertation, but am finally developing some output. 

I received a research grant from Texas A&M's Department of Sociology to purchase a series of files from the Texas Railroad Commission. I linked the data and developed the map writing a series of Stata and Python commands. Click here for the code I wrote to transform the purchased dataset to be viewed in ArcGIS.

I was then able to develop my first ever mobile map, using ArcGIS and my affiliation with Texas A&M University's ArcGIS organization account. I still have some work to do in regards to checking the accuracy of geocodes, but I have developed my first draft of a mobile-friendly GIS of Texas gas well flaring and venting emissions in 2012. You can see my map below.

As you can see, there is a significant amount of variation in regards to the amount of gas Texas gas wells vented or flared in 2012. My dissertation will explain this variation by quantifying the effects of various organizational, community, and political-legal characteristics on Texas gas well venting and flaring emissions.

As a recipient of the Melbern G. Glasscock Center for Humanities Research 2015-2016 Glasscock Graduate Research Fellowship, I will be presenting my research this upcoming Tuesday. The details are as follows:

Corporate-State Relations and State Environmental Policy:
Texas Oil and Gas Flaring Regulations, 1890-2014

Tuesday, 9 February 2016, 4-5 p.m.
Glasscock Center Library, 311 Glasscock Building 
Texas A&M University
This colloquium is free and open to the public.
​
Click here for the program flyer.
Click here for a copy of the presentation.

​The prevalent ideology in the late 20th century changed from embedded liberalism to neoliberalism. Embedded liberalism is the ideology that in order to manage economic instability, economic markets should be moderated by the political/legal system. Embedded liberalism, prevalent during the post-WWII period, was supported by Keynesian economics. Keynesian economics popularized the idea that governments could stabilize economic markets by managing aggregate demand through state expenditures. However, Keynesian economics lost its popularity in the 1970s when the United States faced stagflation. Keynsesian economics fails to explain stagflation, since government spending cannot manage a situation where you have inflation without economic growth. As a result, during this period, Keynsianism fell as the prevailing ideology and neoliberalism began to rise. Neoliberalism is the idea that government interference is harmful to economies. As such, neoliberalism significantly contrasts with embedded liberal ideology. The rise of neoliberalism has a major impact on current market conditions.

Neoliberalism, the prevailing ideology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, emerged alongside three other distinct but interrelated phenomena: (1) corporate efforts to dismantle the social contract, (2) emphasis on increasing shareholder value, and (3) the spread of financialization.  These phenomena are not distinct to the United States, but have also occurred in other advanced capitalist countries to an extent.

The late 20th century is marked by increased corporate efforts to dismantle the social contract. The social contract, a term first introduced by Hobbes, is the idea that cooperation in society is not coerced, but induced by self-interest. Society is unified through a social contract. Individuals voluntarily give up their power to an authority under the assumption that cooperation will result in social benefits. However, modern corporations have increasingly focused on maximizing capital accumulation at the expense of social benefits. They have politically mobilized to dismantle social welfare policies, minimize corporate taxes and accumulate capital regardless of social benefit. This has resulted in increased inequality and the fall of the American middle class. 

The mechanism underlying corporate efforts to dismantle the social contract is economic stagnation and the fall of corporate embedded liberalism as the prevailing ideology. According to Mizruchi (2013), the fall of corporate embedded liberalism is the result of a fracturing of the corporate elite. Due to decreased cohesion of the capitalist class, when the United States faced stagflation, corporations mobilized to pursue their immediate self-interest and dismantle the social contract rather than act in the long-term interest of the capitalist class as a whole (which relies on the continued legitimacy of the social contract). In short, historical conditions (like stagflation and the fracturing of the American corporate elite) created incentives for corporations to politically mobilize and influence pulbic policy to dismantle the social contract and take back social benefits workers achieved after World War II. 

Corporate efforts to dismantle the social contract occurred not only in the United States, but in other advanced capitalist countries, like the United Kingdom. During the 1980s, companies in both the United States and the United Kingdom politically mobilized to overcome problems with capital accumulation by lobbying for public policy which dismantles the social contract. As a result, both President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher pushed forward neoliberal public policy. Just as the late 20th and early 21st centuries in the United States was characterized by tax cuts, increased privatization, and social welfare roll-backs, the United Kingdom was also characterized by similar neoliberal public policy. 

Emphasis on increasing shareholder value emerged along with the dismantling of the social contract. They occurred in relation to each other such that emphasis on increasing shareholder value justified corporate dismantling of the social contract. Empahsis on shareholder value was supported by Milton Friedman's shareholder theory. From this perspective, it is the social responsibility of the company to increase profits. Friedman's efforts were so widely embraced, that he received the 1976 Nobel Prize. Friedman's perspectives greatly influenced the neoliberal polices pushed forward by both Reagan and Thatcher.

Change in ideology (from embedded liberalism to neoliberalism) is the primary mechanism underlying increased shareholder value. Like neoliberalism, Friedman's shareholder theory idealizes profits over general social welfare. As such, neoliberal ideology perpetuated Friedman's shareholder theory. As a result of changed ideology, managers have become increasing dependent on shareholder value to maintain their value and status. Since the professional success of managers depends upon increasing shareholder value, managers have used their power to increase shareholder value, regardless of social costs.

Although you see increased emphasis on shareholder value in other advanced capitalist countries, you see it to a lesser extent. Still there is evidence that large British companies have skirted social responsibility in the pursuit of increasing shareholder value. For example, HSBC, a large British financial services company, was caught money laundering and committing financial malfeasance in the pursuit of increasing shareholder value. However, emphasis on shareholder value is not as prevalent in Britian as it is in the United States. For example, whereas shareholder theory is the prevailing form of thought in the United States, the United Kingdom adopted the 2006 Companies Act, which emphasized stakeholder theory over shareholder theory. Stakeholder theory, a thoery prevalent in Europe, is the idea that corporations are responsible to numerous stakeholders, not just shareholders. As such, in Europe, although shareholder value is considered important, corporate social responsibility is considered even more important. 

The late 20th and early 21st century was also characterized by increased financialization. Financialization is the influence of finance on the economy. Finance is part of the secondary circuit of capital. The primary circuit of capital is the productive circuit. The production capitalist uses capital to buy the means of production and labor power to create value and surplus value. The surplus value is reinvested, and there is another circuit of capital, continuing the production process. As long as there is surplus value you can feed back into the system, production can continue. However, capitalism doesn't always expand, which is why there is the secondary circuit of capital. The secondary circuit of capital is the credit system. The finance capitalist uses capital to loan money to the production capitalist, under the assumption that the production capitalist will make enough profit to pay off the loan with interest, so the finance capitalist can reinvest and make more profit. Not only are production capitalists involved in the credit market, so are consumers. The rise of financialization can be seen in the expansion of the credit market (by finding new participants and inventing new financial markets) in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. 

The rise in financialization occured in relation to the rise of shareholder value. In fact, neoliberalism, the rise of shareholder value and economic stagnation were the primary mechanisms underlying increased financialization. Neoliberal ideology perpetuated the deregulation of financial markets. Whereas previous policy limited the risky financial market to investment banks, neoliberal public policy deregulated and opened up the financial market to non-banks. Increased emphasis on shareholder value put corporate managers in a bind in the 1980s, as they had trouble increasing shareholder value during a period of economic stagnation. To generate profit during a period of decline, corporate managers attempted to expand capital accumulation by developing new markets to expand into. One example is the creation of derivate products. Derivatives are paper contracts that are derived from an underlying real commodity. For example, the futures market for farmers is a derivative used by farmers to hedge their market risk. From the farmer's perspective, they are investing a large amount of money but are not sure of the price of their crop in the future; they want to be guaranteed a particular price.  Futures contracts are agreements by investors to pay a set future price for the commodity. If, once the farmer grows their crop, the price of the crop is more than the price agreed in the futures contract, the investor will make a profit. However, the derivative market is risky. Unregulated, reckless derivative trading, facilitated by neoliberalism, resulted in the 2007-2008 economic collapse. 

Increased financialization (and its consequences) is not distinct to the United States. It is prevalent in other advanced countries and around the world. For example, derivative markets have spread not only in the United States, but in other countries as well. Just like what occurred in the United States, an under-regulated derivative market rapidly grew in the 1990s in Europe. As a result, the 2007-2008 economic collapse not only affected U.S. companies, but companies in Europe and around the world.

In conclusion, neoliberalism is the primary mechanism underlying three major changes in the late 20th and early 21st centuries: (1) corporate efforts to dismantle the social contract, (2) emphasis on increasing shareholder value, and (3) the spread of financialization.  Neoliberalism is not distinct to the United States. Other advanced capitalist countries have also adopted neoliberal ideology, to different extents. As a result, you also see similar changes in other advanced capitalist societies.