# Why is there only 1,524 unique municipal values in the 2010 Brazil census data when there should be 5,560?

**URL:** <https://forum.ipums.org/t/why-is-there-only-1-524-unique-municipal-values-in-the-2010-brazil-census-data-when-there-should-be-5-560/1403>\
**Category:** INTERNATIONAL\
**Created:** [September 12, 2016, 6:19am UTC](https://forum.ipums.org/t/why-is-there-only-1-524-unique-municipal-values-in-the-2010-brazil-census-data-when-there-should-be-5-560/1403 "2016-09-12T06:19:00Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Chingun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/439d5e/32.png) [@Chingun](https://forum.ipums.org/u/Chingun)\
**Post date:** [September 12, 2016, 6:19am UTC](https://forum.ipums.org/t/why-is-there-only-1-524-unique-municipal-values-in-the-2010-brazil-census-data-when-there-should-be-5-560/1403/1 "2016-09-12T06:19:00Z")

</div>

Dear IPUMs,

I’m constructing a ethnic fractionalization variable at the municipal level using the 2010 Brazil census data. I looked up the amount of unique municipal values using the geo2\_brx in Stata and found it to be 1,524. I find this odd because I know that the number of municialities in Brazil in 2010 is around 5,560. Could anyone please tell me why is this is so?

Best,

Chingun

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![JeffBloem](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.ipums.org/jeffbloem/32/40_2.png) [@JeffBloem](https://forum.ipums.org/u/JeffBloem)\
**Post date:** [September 12, 2016, 5:03pm UTC](https://forum.ipums.org/t/why-is-there-only-1-524-unique-municipal-values-in-the-2010-brazil-census-data-when-there-should-be-5-560/1403/2 "2016-09-12T17:03:00Z")

</div>

Part of the process of data harmonization is regionalizing geographical units with relatively small populations. This process is done primarily for maintaining confidentiality procedures and also privileging contiguity and similarity in population density. The [Comparability](https://international.ipums.org/international-action/variables/GEO2_BRX#comparability_section) tab on the geo2\_brx variable states the following:

This variable does not account for boundary changes, but users should be aware that there might have been changes over time.

Where officially-defined municipalities have populations less than 20,000, they have been [regionalized](https://international.ipums.org/international/geography_variables.shtml) (combined) with neighboring municipalities.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Chingun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/439d5e/32.png) [@Chingun](https://forum.ipums.org/u/Chingun)\
**Post date:** [September 13, 2016, 3:56am UTC](https://forum.ipums.org/t/why-is-there-only-1-524-unique-municipal-values-in-the-2010-brazil-census-data-when-there-should-be-5-560/1403/3 "2016-09-13T03:56:00Z")

</div>

Ah okay. I understand now. Thanks a lot for the help.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Chingun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/439d5e/32.png) [@Chingun](https://forum.ipums.org/u/Chingun)\
**Post date:** [September 22, 2016, 10:14am UTC](https://forum.ipums.org/t/why-is-there-only-1-524-unique-municipal-values-in-the-2010-brazil-census-data-when-there-should-be-5-560/1403/4 "2016-09-22T10:14:00Z")

</div>

Hi Jeff. Thanks again for answering the question. I wanted to follow up and ask if there is way for me to access the unharmonized data? It would really help my research out. -Chingun