Hello There, Guest!  

[OQSPS] Inequality across prefectures in Japan is different

#4
Hi Emil,

Thanks for the comments.

I like your idea of adjusting the variables for population density. Something else might be to conduct the analysis on only the high population or high population density prefectures and then on only the low population or low population density prefectures. Maybe also conduct the analyses on only the northern prefectures and then on only the southern prefectures. These will be only exploratory analyses, but these disaggregated analyses might provide a sense of what it is about the Japan prefectures that makes them different from other countries in terms of the S factor.

It's correct that some of the variables are not clearly desirable or undesirable (e.g., marriage), and some might even have complicated desirabilities (e.g., too little and too much are both undesirable). But I'm wondering whether the finding of the lack of an S factor across the Japan prefectures might be strengthened by a model that included only those factors that are clearly desirable or undesirable, reflecting the idea that -- if there is no S factor across Japan prefectures in that model -- then it's really clear that there is no S factor there.

Along those lines, the Mexico and Brazil S factor studies seemed to have a higher percentage of variables that were more clearly desirable or undesirable, and the Mexico and Brazil studies respectively had only 21 and 32 variables, so maybe an analysis with the 20 to 30 most obviously desirable and undesirable variables from Japan would be more convincing and provide a more even comparison. The analyses that you have already reported suggest that Japan is different than Mexico and Brazil in terms of the S factor, but I think it would strengthen the analyses to rule out the larger number of variables in the Japan analysis as a source of the difference between the Mexico/Brazil and Japan studies.

Something else to consider is whether a relatively low variation in some variables might make measurement error a larger problem in this dataset. For example, income per person might need adjusted for cost of living in a prefecture, and divorce rate might need adjusted for marriage rates: in the 2013 data, Shiga-ken and Nara-ken have the same divorce rate (1.64) but the marriage rate is 5.27 in Shiga-ken and 4.44 in Nara-ken, so it's possible that a higher percentage of persons get divorced in Nara-ken and thus that the 1.64 divorce rate in Nara-ken is worse than the 1.64 divorce rate in Shiga-ken. Maybe a divorce-to-marriage ratio might be a better measure than individual marriage and divorce rates. (I'm assuming that the divorce rate is measured per 1,000 persons and not per 1,000 married persons.)

One way to avoid post-hoc coding biases is to identify ahead of time in general terms the obviously-desirable-or-undesirable variables that should be included in an S factor analysis, and then limit the variables in the main analyses to that set of pre-identified variables, such as measures of health, crime, unemployment, education, income, and dependency. Something like percentage farmers in the Brazil study would not fit in one of those categories, so it's not necessary to consider whether percentage farmers is a desirable or undesirable measure. Infrastructure reflects another set of variables in your S factor studies; this would be a good variable for a cross-national study, but I'm not sure that is always a good idea for subnational studies if, for instance, the quality of infrastructure in a subnational region largely reflects decisions made at the national level.

Hope this is helpful. It's a really interesting study.
 Reply
 
Messages In This Thread
[OQSPS] Inequality across prefectures in Japan is different - by Emil - 2015-Dec-17, 20:39:57
RE: [OQSPS] Inequality across prefectures in Japan is different - by ljzigerell - 2015-Dec-18, 06:40:56
RE: [OQSPS] Inequality across prefectures in Japan is different - by Emil - 2015-Dec-18, 07:43:46
RE: [OQSPS] Inequality across prefectures in Japan is different - by ljzigerell - 2015-Dec-18, 18:38:52
RE: [OQSPS] Inequality across prefectures in Japan is different - by Emil - 2015-Dec-23, 06:06:58
RE: [OQSPS] Inequality across prefectures in Japan is different - by ljzigerell - 2015-Dec-23, 09:31:09
RE: [OQSPS] Inequality across prefectures in Japan is different - by Kenya Kura - 2015-Dec-23, 19:09:56
RE: [OQSPS] Inequality across prefectures in Japan is different - by Kenya Kura - 2015-Dec-21, 17:43:59
RE: [OQSPS] Inequality across prefectures in Japan is different - by Emil - 2015-Dec-23, 11:17:58
RE: [OQSPS] Inequality across prefectures in Japan is different - by Emil - 2015-Dec-23, 15:57:40
RE: [OQSPS] Inequality across prefectures in Japan is different - by Emil - 2015-Dec-23, 23:05:40
Proofreading - by Emil - 2015-Dec-27, 22:08:17
RE: [OQSPS] Inequality across prefectures in Japan is different - by bpesta22 - 2016-Jan-25, 18:27:51
RE: [OQSPS] Inequality across prefectures in Japan is different - by Emil - 2016-Jan-25, 22:23:50
RE: [OQSPS] Inequality across prefectures in Japan is different - by bpesta22 - 2016-Jan-29, 19:56:06
Reply to Pesta - by Emil - 2016-Jan-30, 11:50:54
RE: [OQSPS] Inequality across prefectures in Japan is different - by NoahCarl - 2016-Apr-04, 16:44:02
RE: [OQSPS] Inequality across prefectures in Japan is different - by Emil - 2016-Apr-05, 23:29:41
RE: [OQSPS] Inequality across prefectures in Japan is different - by NoahCarl - 2016-Apr-06, 12:00:22
RE: [OQSPS] Inequality across prefectures in Japan is different - by Emil - 2016-Apr-06, 19:18:35
 
Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)