dadams/texas-borderlands
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

new appendix and writeup docs

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
dadams-AU
2026-02-21 09:10:29 -08:00
parent 373fff2867
commit 6cced896fa
4 changed files with 307 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

BIN
appendix.docx Normal file
View File

Binary file not shown.

127
appendix.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,127 @@
# Appendix
## A1. Data Construction and Scope
- Analysis window: 2015-2025.
- District-year panel size: 143 rows (13 districts x 11 years).
- Primary identifiers: `api_norm`, `district`, `year`.
- Border geometry includes TX-MX plus TX-NM, TX-OK, TX-LA boundary proximity.
### Build validation counts
| Metric | Value |
|---|---:|
| Wells loaded | 1,010,432 |
| Inspections (2015-2025) | 1,867,859 |
| Violations (2015-2025) | 191,762 |
| Border-exposed wells (any 50 km border) | 169,520 |
| Panel observations | 143 |
| Districts | 13 |
### Border subtype counts (50 km)
| Border subtype | Wells |
|---|---:|
| TX-MX | 40,339 |
| TX-NM | 81,567 |
| TX-OK | 19,643 |
| TX-LA | 29,675 |
## A2. Supplementary Equations
### Border-type FE interaction model
$$
Y_{dt} = \alpha_d + \gamma_t + \sum_k \lambda_k(Post2019_t \times Type_{kd}) + \sum_k \phi_k(PostTrend_t \times Type_{kd}) + \varepsilon_{dt}
$$
where $k \in \{\text{TX-MX}, \text{TX-NM}, \text{TX-OK}, \text{TX-LA}\}$.
### Continuous exposure FE interaction model
$$
Y_{dt} = \alpha_d + \gamma_t + \eta_1(Post2019_t \times ShareBorder_{dt}) + \eta_2(PostTrend_t \times ShareBorder_{dt}) + \varepsilon_{dt}
$$
### Cutoff-specific exposure
$$
ShareBorder^{(c)}_{dt}, \quad c \in \{25,75,100\}
$$
substituted into the same FE interaction framework.
## A3. Main FE Interaction Table (RQ2)
| Outcome | post_2019 x border | p-value | post_trend x border | p-value | N |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| inspection_intensity | -0.1191 | 0.0753 | -0.0052 | 0.8181 | 143 |
| violations_per_inspection | 0.0040 | 0.8881 | -0.0012 | 0.8350 | 143 |
| avg_days_to_enforcement | -74.5893 | 0.0156 | -1.1587 | 0.9252 | 143 |
| resolution_rate | 0.0404 | 0.4520 | -0.0186 | 0.3404 | 143 |
## A4. Border-Type Timing Interactions (Money Plot Companion)
| Term | Coefficient | p-value |
|---|---:|---:|
| post_2019:has_tx_mex | 4.0900 | 0.9062 |
| post_2019:has_tx_nm | -18.7442 | 0.6013 |
| post_2019:has_tx_ok | -14.2446 | 0.8134 |
| post_2019:has_tx_la | -43.6598 | 0.6415 |
| post_trend:has_tx_mex | -0.0148 | 0.9991 |
| post_trend:has_tx_nm | 22.9067 | 0.0189 |
| post_trend:has_tx_ok | -16.7188 | 0.0794 |
| post_trend:has_tx_la | 0.6415 | 0.9551 |
## A5. Continuous Exposure Results
| Family | Outcome | Term | Coef | p-value | N |
|---|---|---|---:|---:|---:|
| RQ1 levels continuous | inspection_intensity | share_border_exposed_insp | 0.2095 | 0.4757 | 143 |
| RQ1 levels continuous | avg_days_to_enforcement | share_border_exposed_insp | 103.4683 | 0.5710 | 143 |
| RQ1 levels continuous | violations_per_inspection | share_border_exposed_insp | -0.1585 | 0.0144 | 143 |
| RQ1 levels continuous | resolution_rate | share_border_exposed_insp | -0.0420 | 0.8619 | 143 |
| RQ2 FE continuous | avg_days_to_enforcement | post_2019:share_border_exposed_insp | -109.4067 | 0.4449 | 143 |
| RQ2 FE continuous | avg_days_to_enforcement | post_trend:share_border_exposed_insp | 13.9623 | 0.7415 | 143 |
| RQ2 FE continuous | resolution_rate | post_2019:share_border_exposed_insp | -0.0322 | 0.8163 | 143 |
| RQ2 FE continuous | resolution_rate | post_trend:share_border_exposed_insp | -0.0979 | 0.0423 | 143 |
## A6. Cutoff Sensitivity (Timing-Focused Terms)
| Cutoff km | Term | Coef | p-value | N |
|---:|---|---:|---:|---:|
| 25 | post_2019:share_border_25km | -101.9283 | 0.7010 | 143 |
| 75 | post_2019:share_border_75km | -75.6591 | 0.5116 | 143 |
| 100 | post_2019:share_border_100km | -4.4795 | 0.9474 | 143 |
## A7. District Border-Type Profile
| District | Wells | Dominant type | TX-MX share | TX-NM share | TX-OK share | TX-LA share |
|---|---:|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| 01 | 31,898 | TX-MX | 0.2313 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| 02 | 17,099 | NONE | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| 03 | 16,700 | TX-LA | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.1166 |
| 04 | 20,973 | TX-MX | 0.6384 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| 05 | 9,938 | TX-OK | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0022 | 0.0000 |
| 06 | 24,422 | TX-LA | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0293 | 0.5235 |
| 08 | 105,931 | TX-NM | 0.0001 | 0.1905 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| 09 | 46,485 | NONE | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| 10 | 29,621 | TX-OK | 0.0000 | 0.0009 | 0.3020 | 0.0000 |
| 6E | 6,235 | NONE | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| 7B | 21,230 | NONE | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| 7C | 43,061 | NONE | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| 8A | 42,005 | TX-NM | 0.0000 | 0.4182 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
## A8. Figures and Output Artifacts
- Border exposure map: `analysis/output_borderlands/well_border_exposure_map.png`
- Border vs non-border trends: `analysis/output_borderlands/border_vs_nonborder_trends.png`
- Main timing figure: `analysis/output_borderlands/money_plot_timing_border_prepost2019.png`
- Timing CI table: `analysis/output_borderlands/money_plot_timing_ci_by_year.csv`
## A9. Optional Prior Artifact (Not Estimated in Current Causal Scope)
`analysis/output_borderlands/competition_asymmetry_results.csv` contains:
- `gap_pos` = 0.5837 (p < 0.001)
- `gap_neg` = 0.4993 (p = 0.0027)
These estimates are not part of the current notebook's identified model scope and should not be interpreted as a completed reaction-function test in this manuscript version.

BIN
intro_thoery_methods_analysis_results_discussion.docx Normal file
View File

Binary file not shown.

180
intro_thoery_methods_analysis_results_discussion.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,180 @@
# Introduction
Regulatory enforcement in borderlands jurisdictions is often expected to differ from interior jurisdictions due to administrative constraints, multi-jurisdictional exposure, and monitoring frictions. This manuscript analyzes Texas Railroad Commission district-year outcomes (2015-2025) to assess whether border-exposed districts show systematic enforcement gaps and whether those gaps changed after the 2019 disclosure reform.
The empirical design centers on two research questions from the notebook:
1. RQ1 (Border gaps): Do border-exposed Texas districts differ from non-border districts in enforcement intensity and pipeline outcomes?
2. RQ2 (Disclosure heterogeneity): Did the 2019 disclosure reform change enforcement outcomes differently in border districts versus non-border districts (level shift and post-policy trend differential)?
# Theory
We use a borderlands governance framing with two linked mechanisms: capacity asymmetry and transparency-throughput effects. The corresponding hypotheses are:
1. H1 (Border inspection gap): Border districts have lower inspection intensity than non-border districts.
2. H2 (Border pipeline disadvantage): Border districts show weaker enforcement pipeline outcomes (higher violations per inspection and/or slower timing and/or lower resolution rates).
3. H3 (Disclosure heterogeneity in levels): Post-2019 level shifts differ between border and non-border districts (`post_2019:border`).
4. H4 (Disclosure heterogeneity in trends): Post-2019 trend shifts differ between border and non-border districts (`post_trend:border`).
This yields a core empirical claim: post-2019 border effects should be strongest in enforcement timing rather than in inspection coverage or resolution outcomes.
# Methods
## Data and Unit of Analysis
- Unit: district-year.
- Coverage: 13 Texas RRC districts, 2015-2025.
- Source tables: `well_shape_tract`, `inspections`, `violations`.
- Sample in current run: 1,010,432 wells; 1,867,859 inspections; 191,762 violations; 143 district-year observations.
## Border Measurement: District Coding and Well Proximity
We use two complementary border constructions.
1. District-level baseline treatment (`border_district`): districts in the predefined border-adjacent set (`01`, `02`, `06`, `08`, `8A`, `09`, `10`) are coded 1; others are coded 0.
2. Well-level proximity treatment: each well is classified by spatial proximity to border segments, then rolled up to district-year exposure shares.
Well-level proximity was constructed from latitude/longitude and shapefiles as follows:
1. Texas-Mexico distance/flags from `WellAnalyzer` (`within_25km_texmex`, `within_50km_texmex`).
2. Additional state-border segments (TX-NM, TX-OK, TX-LA) built from Texas county boundary geometry and seed lines.
3. Distances computed in projected CRS (EPSG:5070), then threshold flags generated at 25 km and 50 km.
4. Composite exposure indicators created:
- `within_50km_state_border_any`
- `well_border_exposed` (1 if within 50 km of TX-MX or any TX-state border segment).
District-year well-proximity exposure is measured as:
$$
ShareBorder_{dt} = \frac{BorderExposedInspections_{dt}}{Inspections_{dt}}
$$
and an alternative district treatment is defined as `border_exposure_district = 1` when `ShareBorder_{dt} \ge 0.25`.
## Outcomes
$$
InspectionIntensity_{dt} = \frac{Inspections_{dt}}{UniqueWells_{dt}}
$$
$$
ViolPerInsp_{dt} = \frac{Violations_{dt}}{Inspections_{dt}}
$$
$$
DaysToEnf_{dt} = \frac{1}{N_{dt}} \sum_{i=1}^{N_{dt}} (EnforcementDate_i - ViolationDiscoveryDate_i)
$$
$$
ResolutionRate_{dt} = \frac{CompliantOnReinspection_{dt}}{Violations_{dt}}
$$
## Exposure Definitions
- Baseline treatment: `border_district` (binary district border status).
- Additional robustness exposures:
1. Border-type indicators (`TX-MX`, `TX-NM`, `TX-OK`, `TX-LA`)
2. Continuous exposure share:
$$
ShareBorder_{dt} = \frac{BorderExposedInspections_{dt}}{Inspections_{dt}}
$$
3. Cutoff sensitivity with 25/75/100 km thresholds.
## Estimating Equations
RQ1 levels:
$$
Y_{dt} = \alpha + \beta_1 Border_d + \beta_2 \log(UniqueWells_{dt}) + \gamma_t + \varepsilon_{dt}
$$
RQ2 FE interaction:
$$
Y_{dt} = \alpha_d + \gamma_t + \theta_1(Post2019_t \times Border_d) + \theta_2(PostTrend_t \times Border_d) + \varepsilon_{dt}
$$
$$
Post2019_t = \mathbb{1}[t \ge 2019], \quad PostTrend_t = \max(0, t-2019)
$$
Inference uses district-clustered standard errors (13 clusters), with emphasis on effect size and consistency across specifications.
## Tests Run in Notebook
The notebook estimated the following test families:
1. Descriptive border-gap tests:
- Border vs non-border means for inspection intensity, violations per inspection, days to enforcement, and resolution rate.
2. RQ1 levels regressions (border gaps):
- Outcomes: `inspection_intensity`, `violations_per_inspection`.
- Specification: `border_district + log_unique_wells + C(year)`.
3. RQ2 FE interaction regressions (post-2019 heterogeneity):
- Outcomes: `inspection_intensity`, `violations_per_inspection`, `avg_days_to_enforcement`, `resolution_rate`.
- Specification: `C(district) + C(year) + post_2019:border_district + post_trend:border_district`.
4. Border-type robustness tests:
- District profiles for `TX-MX`, `TX-NM`, `TX-OK`, `TX-LA` exposure.
- RQ1-style levels with `has_tx_*` indicators.
- RQ2-style FE interactions with `post_2019:has_tx_*` and `post_trend:has_tx_*`.
5. Continuous-exposure robustness tests:
- Replace binary border indicator with `share_border_exposed_insp` in both RQ1-style and RQ2-style specifications.
6. Cutoff-sensitivity tests:
- Recompute proximity exposure from minimum distance to any border at 25 km, 75 km, and 100 km.
- Estimate RQ1-style models for inspection intensity and RQ2-style timing interaction models.
7. Visualization and reporting tests:
- Border/non-border trend plots.
- Main timing figure with district-year group means and 95% confidence intervals.
8. Competition/reaction-function scaffolding (not estimated as causal model):
- District-to-competitor jurisdiction link table and template generated for future interstate stringency integration.
# Analysis
## Descriptive Border Gaps
| Outcome | Non-border | Border |
|---|---:|---:|
| Inspection intensity | 1.515 | 1.329 |
| Violations per inspection | 0.098 | 0.130 |
| Mean days to enforcement | 122.8 | 145.2 |
| Mean resolution rate | 0.596 | 0.543 |
Descriptively, border districts show weaker enforcement conditions across coverage, detection conditional on inspection, timing, and follow-through.
## Main Regression Evidence
| Model | Coefficient | p-value | N |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| RQ1: `border_district` on `inspection_intensity` | -0.1755 | 0.0999 | 143 |
| RQ1: `border_district` on `violations_per_inspection` | 0.0434 | 0.0949 | 143 |
| RQ2: `post_2019:border` on `inspection_intensity` | -0.1191 | 0.0753 | 143 |
| RQ2: `post_2019:border` on `violations_per_inspection` | 0.0040 | 0.8881 | 143 |
| RQ2: `post_2019:border` on `avg_days_to_enforcement` | -74.5893 | 0.0156 | 143 |
| RQ2: `post_2019:border` on `resolution_rate` | 0.0404 | 0.4520 | 143 |
The most stable differential post-2019 effect is a border-specific improvement in enforcement timing.
# Results
## Hypothesis Tests
| Hypothesis | Test evidence | Decision (current run) |
|---|---|---|
| H1: Border districts have lower inspection intensity | RQ1: `border_district -> inspection_intensity` = -0.1755, p = 0.0999; descriptives 1.329 (border) vs 1.515 (non-border) | Partial support |
| H2: Border districts have weaker pipeline outcomes | Descriptives: 0.130 vs 0.098 violations/inspection, 145.2 vs 122.8 days, 0.543 vs 0.596 resolution; RQ1 `border_district -> violations_per_inspection` = 0.0434, p = 0.0949 | Supported descriptively, mixed regression support |
| H3: Border-specific post-2019 level shift | RQ2 `post_2019:border -> avg_days_to_enforcement` = -74.5893, p = 0.0156; other outcomes null | Supported for timing only |
| H4: Border-specific post-2019 trend shift | RQ2 `post_trend:border` terms: inspection p = 0.8181, violations p = 0.8350, timing p = 0.9252, resolution p = 0.3404 | Not supported in baseline model |
The hypothesis tests indicate the clearest inferential signal is a border-specific post-2019 timing level shift, consistent with "faster pipeline, not wider pipeline."
## Figure Callouts
Figure 1 (group trends): `analysis/output_borderlands/border_vs_nonborder_trends.png`
Figure 2 (main timing figure with CI): `analysis/output_borderlands/money_plot_timing_border_prepost2019.png`
Figure 2 uses district-year means with equal district weighting:
$$
\bar{Y}_{gt} = \frac{1}{n_{gt}} \sum_{d \in g} Y_{dt}, \quad
CI_{95\%} = \bar{Y}_{gt} \pm 1.96 \cdot \frac{s_{gt}}{\sqrt{n_{gt}}}
$$
# Discussion
The findings are consistent with a transparency-throughput mechanism: disclosure-era pressure appears to accelerate processing where baseline constraints are stronger, but this does not map cleanly to expansion of enforcement reach or follow-through. The strongest claim supported by this design is "faster pipeline, not wider pipeline."
The contribution is a boundary condition argument: transparency reforms can produce uneven administrative effects across territorial governance contexts, with timing responsiveness exceeding capacity expansion.
The design does not identify interstate strategic competition. A full Neil Woods-style test requires district-year competitor stringency series and explicit enforcement-gap dynamics. That's the next step in the research agenda, but the current analysis provides a necessary first step by establishing the presence of border-specific enforcement gaps and their heterogeneous response to disclosure reform.