The Economic Impact of Shale Gas Development: A Natural Experiment along the New York / Pennsylvania Border

Cosgrove, Brendan M.; LaFave, Daniel; Dissanayake, Sahan T. M.; Donihue, Michael R.

doi:10.1017/s1068280500010200

Cited by 37 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…UOGE is a highly mechanized process, and perhaps mechanization limits the number of direct jobs and indirect benefits that it can provide. Further, there is some evidence that UOGE may crowd out other sectors (Cosgrove et al 2015). These problems may be most severe in rural areas with limited capacity to invest in infrastructure and with less-diversified economies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studying the Marcellus Shale region, Paredes, Komarek, and Loveridge (2015) observed employment growth but little indication that UOGE production has improved income-and the employment gains may be short-lived (Komarek 2016). Cosgrove et al (2015) provide another study of the Marcellus region by exploiting the New York statewide hydraulic fracturing ban as a "natural experiment"; the authors conclude the economic gains associated with UOGE, in the form of increased employment or higher wages, are concentrated in the oil and gas industry. That is, the researchers do not find evidence of significant multiplier effects from shale gas development in or for local economies.…”

Section: The Resource Curse Boomtowns and Unconventional Oil And Gamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cosgrove et al () provide another study of the Marcellus region by exploiting the New York statewide hydraulic fracturing ban as a “natural experiment”; the authors conclude the economic gains associated with UOGE, in the form of increased employment or higher wages, are concentrated in the oil and gas industry. That is, the researchers do not find evidence of significant multiplier effects from shale gas development in or for local economies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Fracking Fortunes: Economic Well‐being and Oil and Gas Development along the Urban‐Rural Continuum

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Oil and gas extraction, especially via unconventional means like hydraulic fracturing, is hailed as an economic boon by many commentators and political leaders. However, empirical evidence is limited. In this article, we consider the socioeconomic effects (particularly, related to poverty, employment, income, and wages) of unconventional oil and gas extraction using a national data set of U.S. counties. We use a novel between‐ and within‐county random effects modeling strategy to capture both resource curse and boomtown dynamics. Further, we allow the effect of oil and gas development to be conditioned by county rurality. Broadly, our findings suggest that oil and gas development has very complex effects at the county level. Within‐county growth in oil and gas production slightly improves most economic outcomes, but counties that specialize in oil and gas development tend to perform worse than other counties. We find that, in general, the effect of within‐county oil and gas production is not significantly moderated by county rurality.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Resource Curse Boomtowns and Unconventional Oil And Gamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fracking Fortunes: Economic Well‐being and Oil and Gas Development along the Urban‐Rural Continuum

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The impacts of natural gas extraction from the Marcellus Shale on the boomtowns of Pennsylvania are expected to be similar to what happened in the boomtowns of the U.S. West in some ways, but quite different in others (Jacquet and Kay 2014). As with earlier booms, changes likely to positively affect youth views of their community include perceptions of or actual new economic opportunities and jobs, such as expanded retail stores and services and jobs in the gas industry or supporting activities (Cascio and Narayan 2015;Considine, Watson, and Blumsack 2010;Cosgrove et al 2015;Kelsey, Metcalf, and Salcedo 2012;Kinnaman 2011;Schafft, Borlu, and Glenna 2013;Schafft et al 2014;Wrenn, Kelsey, and Jaenicke 2015). Youth who don't want to attend college and want to stay in the community may see gas-related blue collar jobs that don't require a college education as viable and attractive employment (Cascio and Narayan 2015;Schafft and Biddle 2015;Schafft et al 2013;Smith et al 2001).…”

Section: Youth Community and Extraction Of Natural Gas From Marcellmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Extraction Affect How Much Youth in Rural Pennsylvania Like Their Community?

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prior research on the impacts of boomtowns on youth provides mixed results. Recent qualitative work suggests youth are ambivalent about change associated with extraction of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale. The Rural Youth Education longitudinal study of youth in rural Pennsylvania provides a unique opportunity to examine youth views about their communities before and during development of the Marcellus Shale. We use two waves of data from 10 rural school districts to assess differences in youth reports of how much they liked their community pre‐Marcellus (2005) and during Marcellus activity (2009), creating a natural experiment. Youth characteristics, aspirations, perceptions of job and educational opportunities, and views about their community are included in multinomial multivariate logistic regression models to predict how much youth like their community. We find no difference in youth liking their community pre‐Marcellus, but a larger share of youth in communities experiencing Marcellus activity by 2009 like their community “a lot” than those in areas not affected. The Marcellus effect strengthens when controls for other factors typically associated with extraction activity and views of community are included in the model, suggesting other, unmeasured aspects of Marcellus‐related activity influence how much youth like their community.

show abstract

“…Proponents trumpet fracking as an economic "game changer" that creates jobs, personal wealth, tax revenues, rural revitalization, and energy independence from foreign oil. Other supporters, including some environmental groups, view natural gas fracking as providing a cleaner "bridge fuel" to a renewable energy future that will lower carbon emissions, as well as reduce the planetary risks posed by climate change (Cosgrove et al, 2015;Gold, 2014;Wright, 2012;Yergin, 2011). While these discursive claims have been challenged (Ladd, 2016;Ladd & Perrow, 2016), they represent some of the key hegemonic narratives that the fossil fuel industry and its allies have advanced over the past decade to legitimate the socio-environmental risks and profits associated with UGOD/HVHF.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hydraulic Fracking, Shale Energy Development, and Climate Inaction: A New Landscape of Risk in the Trump Era

Ladd¹,

York²

2017

HER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the recent election of Donald J. Trump to the Presidency, fossil fuel interests are poised to advance their entire energy agenda on a number of key fronts. Not only has Trump taken steps to increase oil and gas fracking, create more energy infrastructure projects, ramp up foreign fossil fuel exports, resurrect the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, and bring back coal production to Appalachian communities, but he has also worked to dismantle most of the signature policies of the Obama administration to fight the effects of climate change. More importantly, he has surrounded himself with cabinet members and advisors who are not just indifferent to environmental problems, but openly hostile to their remediation through government regulations and policy-making. In this critical essay, we draw on sociological research to highlight some of the ongoing technological risks and socio-environmental impacts surrounding unconventional gas and oil development (UGOD) and high-volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF) operations. We briefly address how these hazards are likely to be exacerbated by the policies and cabinet appointments of the Trump administration-as well as the larger congressional Republican energy and environmental agenda-over the coming months. Finally, we conclude with some observations on the future direction of US energy policy in the Trump era and the amplified risks posed by the prospects of a new Third Carbon era driven by fracking and other methods of unconventional energy production.

show abstract

The Economic Impact of Shale Gas Development: A Natural Experiment along the New York / Pennsylvania Border

Cited by 37 publications

References 10 publications

Fracking Fortunes: Economic Well‐being and Oil and Gas Development along the Urban‐Rural Continuum

Fracking Fortunes: Economic Well‐being and Oil and Gas Development along the Urban‐Rural Continuum

Does Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Extraction Affect How Much Youth in Rural Pennsylvania Like Their Community?

Hydraulic Fracking, Shale Energy Development, and Climate Inaction: A New Landscape of Risk in the Trump Era

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About