THE ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

A Report from the Office of the University Economist

October 2008

Kent Hill, Ph.D.
Research Professor, Department of Economics;
and Principal Research Economist, L. William Seidman Research Institute
Dennis Hoffman, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Economics; Director, L. William Seidman Research Institute;
and Director, Office of the University Economist
Tom Rex, M.B.A.
Associate Director, Center for Competitiveness and Prosperity Research;
and Manager of Research Initiatives, Office of the University Economist

Center for Competitiveness and Prosperity Research
L. William Seidman Research Institute
W. P. Carey School of Business
Arizona State University
Box 874011
Tempe, Arizona 85287-4011
(480) 965-5362
FAX: (480) 965-5458
EMAIL: Dennis.Hoffman@asu.edu or Tom.Rex@asu.edu
wpcarey.asu.edu/research/competitiveness-prosperity-research
economist.asu.edu

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary of the Effects of a Reduction in University Funding and the Delay of the Construction
Stimulus Program
Short-Term Effects of a Reduction in University Funding of $200 Million
Short-Term Effects of Delaying the Construction Stimulus Program
Long-Term Effects of a Funding Reduction for Universities

1
3
7
9

LIST OF TABLES
1. Illustrative Effects of a $200 Million Reduction in University Spending

i

5

SUMMARY OF THE EFFECTS OF A REDUCTION IN UNIVERSITY FUNDING
AND THE DELAY OF THE CONSTRUCTION STIMULUS PROGRAM
The state government general fund shortfall in the current fiscal year is projected to be between
about $550 million and $1 billion, after considering the transfers of monies from other funds.
The high projection represents 10 percent of the state’s general fund appropriations.
This shortfall will need to be eliminated through spending cuts and/or revenue enhancements.
The Legislature has demonstrated a preference for spending cuts. However, unlike much of the
private sector, demand does not decline for most public-sector services during a recession. In
some government programs, demand rises. Thus, imposed decreases in public spending during
recessions come at the same time that demand for public services is stable or rising, resulting in a
reduction in the quantity and/or quality of government services. For the most disadvantaged of
those consuming public services, real hardship can ensue.
Spending reductions by governments during recessions also worsen economic conditions. In
addition to reducing demand for private-sector goods and services, cutting the public-sector
workforce causes public-sector revenues to decline. Further, the savings to state government of
not paying the former workers’ salaries and benefits are partially offset by rising payments to the
ex-workers for unemployment insurance and other public welfare programs.
The reduction of government spending during a recession has the effect of trying to balance the
public budget on the backs of a relatively small share of the state’s residents and businesses —
primarily the laid-off workers, and secondarily the private-sector companies (and their
employees) at which the laid-off workers shop.
The demand for university services also does not drop during recessions. Therefore, any
reduction in funding for universities will have a negative and direct effect on students.
Significant reductions in state funding, if not substantially offset by higher tuition, likely will
result in the elimination of programs, reductions in the quality of other programs, enrollment
caps, fewer course offerings, larger class size, and the loss of scholarship aid.
A reduction in state government spending for universities of around $200 million would cause
direct and indirect job losses of approximately 4,000. For perspective, the Arizona Department of
Commerce projects an annual average loss of 34,000 jobs in Arizona in calendar year 2008 and
an additional 13,500 in 2009. Thus, a job loss of 4,000 resulting from a decline in university
spending is significant relative to the overall decline in employment projected for 2009 and
would noticeably worsen the state’s recession.
If the employment effect from a reduction of $800 million in the remainder of state government
were proportional to the effect of the reduction in employment from a cut in university spending,
then a total of approximately 20,000 workers (8,000 state government and university workers
and 12,000 others) would lose their jobs. Thus, the result of state spending cuts of $1 billion
would be to very significantly worsen and lengthen the economic recession.
A substantial decrease in state government funding for universities will have negative
consequences beyond these short-term effects. Lowered student retention and a declining number
1

of students earning degrees will threaten the state’s future economy. To remain competitive,
Arizona must transition with the rest of the United States to a knowledge-based economy in
which science- and technology-based jobs will be key drivers of the economy.
As demonstrated by the severity in Arizona of the current economic downturn, further
diversification of Arizona’s economy is desirable. Knowledge-based industries, which include
high-technology manufacturing as well as services, are the activities with growth potential and
the ability to drive the Arizona economy.
An essential feature of the knowledge economy is the importance of a highly skilled workforce,
trained in new technologies. In particular, college graduates are of more importance in the new
economy than in the old economy. A large number of college graduates with a range of skills are
essential to companies in the knowledge economy. Thus, any action — such as budget cuts —
that undermines the success of the state’s universities also impairs the state’s economy.
Spending reductions are not the only way to balance the budget. The short-term aggregate
economic effect from a tax increase would be equal to that of a governmental spending decrease.
However, the negative effect of a tax increase would be spread throughout the state. Individual
households and businesses would suffer slightly, in contrast to the substantial negative effects on
a relatively small number of individuals and businesses that would result from a government
spending reduction.
For perspective, a tax increase of $1 billion that affected individuals only and was not exported
(for example, to tourists) still would equate to only about $150 per Arizona resident, or $400 per
household. Arizona still would rank as a low tax state at 37th, just lower than Mississippi,
according to the National Tax Foundation. A tax increase of this magnitude would offset only
one-third of the state tax cuts implemented between 1993 and 2008 and would be considerably
less than the federal tax rebates distributed in May.
The delay in the construction stimulus package that already passed the Legislature also will harm
the state’s economy in the short term. One way that state and local governments can improve
economic conditions in the local economy is to finance capital outlays for physical infrastructure
projects through long-term debt. The use of long-term debt postpones the vast majority of the
debt repayment to a period after the end of the current economic downturn. Yet the benefits of
the construction funding begin to accrue as soon as the funding is released.
The delay will not help to resolve the projected budget deficit for the current fiscal year since
debt service during this year would be only $1 million. The delay, however, will prevent $210
million from entering the Arizona economy during the year. If the planned cash flow of $515
million in the next fiscal year also did not occur, the negative effects would be much larger.
Employment, for example, would be 8,000 less than if the stimulus package had proceeded as
originally planned. Thus, the stimulus package alone would offset a significant portion of the
forecasted job losses during 2009.

2

SHORT-TERM EFFECTS OF A REDUCTION IN UNIVERSITY FUNDING
OF $200 MILLION
Background
Arizona’s economy currently is in recession, in large part due to the real-estate bust. The
economic downturn in the state likely will be prolonged and worsened by what appears to be
increasing evidence of a deepening national and even global downturn.
During a recession, the demand for goods and services provided by many private-sector
companies declines, as consumers experience job losses, wage reductions, investment losses, or
simply become more cautious in their spending. As a result, companies need fewer employees
and employment in the private sector falls.
Unlike much of the private sector, the demand for most public-sector services does not decline
during a recession. For example, children continue to attend school, workers continue to use
roads and highways, households continue to produce trash and wastewater, and needs for fire
protection do not abate. In some government functions, the demand for public services is
countercyclical, rising during an economic recession. The demand for public safety rises since
crime tends to increase during hard economic times. The demand for unemployment benefits,
food stamps, and other public assistance is higher during recessions due to increases in the
number of unemployed and to reductions in income among those still working.
To appreciate the severity of the current economic downturn, following a significant budget
deficit in the prior fiscal year, projections of the state government’s general fund budget deficit
in the current fiscal year range from $800 million to $1.3 billion. Some of this deficit will be
made up by monies currently in other funds. In addition to the $120 million balance in the rainyday fund, the Governor’s budget management plan released on October 1, 2008 assumes that $50
million is available to transfer from other funds, and at least $75 million is available from
revenue enhancements. Considering these funds, the range of the general fund shortfall is
reduced to between about $550 million and $1 billion.
If the state government shortfall (after fund transfers) turns out to be the high figure of $1 billion,
this represents 10 percent of the state’s general fund appropriations for the current fiscal year.
The general fund budget for fiscal year (FY) 2009 is just short of $10 billion, with the
universities/Board of Regents portion close to $1.1 billion.
The shortfall will need to be eliminated through spending cuts and/or revenue enhancements.
The Legislature has demonstrated a preference for spending cuts. However, imposed decreases in
public spending during recessions come at the same time that demand for public services is
stable or rising, resulting in a reduction in the quantity and/or quality of government services.
For the most disadvantaged of those consuming public services, real hardship can ensue.
Spending reductions by governments during recessions not only negatively affect those being
served, but also worsen economic conditions. The spending cuts take the form of reductions in
government employment and in government purchases of goods and services from the private
sector. The latter obviously has a detrimental effect on those private-sector companies selling

3

directly to the public sector. Governor Napolitano’s directive of October 8, 2008 to freeze
contracts in excess of $50,000 is the first step in this process.
Government workers laid off during a recession have little hope of finding another job in
Arizona in the near term. If unemployed workers leave Arizona to seek employment
opportunities in a state less hard hit by the recession, then all of the expenditures that the former
workers made at private-sector companies will be lost to the Arizona economy, as will the sales
taxes and other public-sector taxes and fees paid by the former workers.
If unemployed government workers remain in Arizona, their spending will decline, negatively
affecting the companies at which the former workers shop, and also adversely affecting the
collection of sales taxes, on which Arizona’s governments are disproportionately dependent.
Thus, in addition to reducing demand for private-sector goods and services, cutting the publicsector workforce will cause public-sector revenues to decline.
Further, laid-off government employees will be eligible for unemployment insurance payments
and may qualify for other public welfare, such as food stamps. Thus, the savings to state
government of not paying the former workers’ salaries and benefits will be partially offset by
rising payments to the ex-workers for unemployment insurance and other public welfare
programs.
The reduction of government spending during a recession has the effect of trying to balance the
public budget on the backs of a relatively small share of the state’s residents and businesses —
primarily the laid-off workers, and secondarily the private-sector companies (and their
employees) at which the laid-off workers shop.
The Effects on Universities
Declines in funding for universities will result in short-term negative effects similar to those of
spending cuts elsewhere in state government. As with most government functions, the demand
for university services does not drop during recessions. In fact, university enrollments tend to
rise at a slightly accelerated pace during recessions as some unemployed workers use their free
time to further their education. Thus, any reduction in funding for universities will have a
negative and direct effect on students. Significant reductions in state funding, if not substantially
offset by higher tuition, likely will result in the elimination of programs, reductions in the quality
of other programs, enrollment caps, fewer course offerings, larger class size, and the loss of
scholarship aid.
Laid-off university employees face the same dilemma as other unemployed government workers.
They are likely either to remain unemployed until the recession ends or to leave the state.
Private-sector companies serving laid-off university employees and selling goods and services
directly to the universities are negatively impacted in the same way as companies doing business
with the rest of the public sector.
Because 45 percent of the state’s general fund is protected from budget reductions, any state
government spending reductions are likely to disproportionately affect the universities, which are
not protected. Thus, if the shortfall is $1 billion, instead of a 10 percent reduction in the overall

4

general fund, the reduction would have to be more than 18 percent of the unprotected
appropriations. This would equate to a funding decrease of approximately $200 million to the
university system. Even before considering such a possible funding reduction during FY 2009,
the share of general fund appropriations going to the universities (including the Board of
Regents) has dropped from nearly 15 percent in FY 1992 to less than 11 percent.
In order to assess the economic effects of a reduction in university spending of $200 million, the
IMPLAN model was used. It measures the effects of an economic change on three measures:
gross domestic product by state, labor income, and employment. The effects consist of the direct
effects on the universities and the multiplier effects — the effects, primarily on the private
sector, that occur as the decline in spending ripples through the economy.
The IMPLAN results should be viewed as illustrative only, since the specific means by which the
universities would reduce spending by $200 million is unknown. In particular, the distribution of
the cuts between employee compensation and other types of expenditures is highly speculative.
Thus, the labor income and employment effects might be substantially different than those
shown in the following table. The effects shown in the table are annual declines in economic
activity that will persist until the spending cuts are offset by a subsequent increase in state
government funding.
A reduction in state government spending for universities of around $200 million would result in
direct and indirect job losses of approximately 4,000. For perspective, the Arizona Department of
Commerce projects an annual average loss of 34,000 jobs in Arizona in calendar year (CY) 2008
and an additional 13,500 in CY 2009. Thus, a job loss of 4,000 resulting from a decline in
university spending is significant relative to the overall decline in employment projected for
2009 and would noticeably worsen the state’s recession.
If the employment effect from a reduction of $800 million in the remainder of state government
were proportional to the effect of the reduction in employment from a cut in university spending,
then a total of approximately 20,000 workers (8,000 state government and university workers
and 12,000 others) would lose their jobs. Thus, the result of state spending cuts of $1 billion
would be to very significantly worsen and lengthen the economic recession.

TABLE 1
ILLUSTRATIVE EFFECTS OF A $200 MILLION REDUCTION
IN UNIVERSITY SPENDING

Direct Effects
Multiplier Effects
Total

Gross Product
(in Millions)
$109
191
300

5

Labor Income
(in Millions)
$103
105
208

Employment
1,598
2,426
4,024

Spending Reductions Compared to Revenue Increases
Spending reductions are not the only way to balance the budget. The Governor’s Budget
Management Plan released on October 1, 2008 includes revenue enhancements, though no
details are presented in the plan. In any case, nontax revenue enhancements will not be adequate
to close most of the likely shortfall (after fund transfers) in the state government general fund.
Conceptually, additional funding also would be available by increasing tax rates, though
politically this option has not been raised as a possible solution to the budget deficit. An increase
in taxes was one of the methods used to balance the budget during the lengthy economic decline
of the late 1980s and early 1990s, another economic downturn disproportionately caused by the
boom-bust cycle in real estate.
The overall tax burden in Arizona currently is well below the national average. The relative tax
burden on individuals is even lower, given that some taxes on businesses are high relative to
other states. Assuming that little of any tax increase would be levied on businesses, the shortterm aggregate economic effect from a tax increase would be equal to that of a governmental
spending decrease. In order to reduce the effect on lower-income individuals, any tax increase
could be made to be highly progressive.
The primary negative effect of a tax increase that largely spares lower-income households would
be that middle- and upper-income households would have less money to spend in the private
sector. But the effect would be spread throughout the state. Individual households and businesses
would suffer slightly, in contrast to the substantial negative effects on a relatively small number
of individuals and businesses that would result from a government spending reduction. Further,
individuals — whether state government employees or the disadvantaged who are highly
dependent on public assistance — would not be devastated in the tax increase option.
For perspective, a tax increase of $1 billion that affected individuals only and was not exported
(for example, to tourists) still would equate to only about $150 per Arizona resident, or $400 per
household. According to the National Tax Foundation rankings for 2008, even with an increase
of this magnitude Arizona still would retain its low-tax status. Assuming no changes in the tax
burdens of other states, Arizona’s rank would be 37th, one spot lower than Mississippi. A tax
increase of this magnitude would offset only one-third of the state tax cuts implemented between
1993 and 2008. If the shortfall turns out to be only $550 million, then the tax increase would be
less than $100 per Arizona resident and about $225 per household.
Even at the higher figure, such a tax increase would be considerably less than the rebate in
federal taxes that most Arizonans received in May. Further, any increase in Arizona taxes would
be deductible from the federal income tax, lowering the after-tax impact on disposable incomes.

6

SHORT-TERM EFFECTS OF DELAYING
THE CONSTRUCTION STIMULUS PROGRAM
The national and state economies are highly cyclical. When a cyclical economic downturn
occurs, the federal government historically has made an effort to offset some of the negative
economic effects by stimulating the economy. Methods of spurring on the economy have varied,
but a stimulus frequently employed has been an increase in federal government spending. In the
past, the federal government experienced budget surpluses during economic expansions that
funded these countercyclical spending increases. More recently, however, the federal
government has run deficits even during economic expansions, limiting its ability to stimulate
the economy during downturns.
State and local governments have a limited ability to stimulate the economy due to balancedbudget requirements. An adequately funded rainy-day fund helps to smooth out the cyclical
variations but does not act as a true stimulus. One way that state and local governments can
improve economic conditions in the local economy is to finance capital outlays for physical
infrastructure projects through long-term debt. The use of long-term debt postpones the vast
majority of the debt repayment to a period after the end of the current economic downturn. Yet
the benefits of the construction funding begin to accrue as soon as the funding is released.
Using long-term debt to finance infrastructure that will be used for many years results in
intergenerational equity, by spreading both the benefits and costs of the infrastructure across
current and future taxpayers. Further, investments in projects that yield clear economic benefits
that offset the prevailing cost of capital are economically efficient. Borrowing when interest
costs are low, as in a recession, is optimal. Construction costs also are lower during recessions.
Public-sector debt in Arizona as a share of gross product currently is relatively low compared to
other states and compared to prior years in Arizona. Adding a moderate amount of long-term
debt will not impair the state’s economic growth.
In the case of the stimulus package passed by the Legislature in spring 2008, the benefits take the
form of contracts with construction companies that are experiencing a lull in operations due to
the general economic malaise. The work for the universities means that these companies will not
need to lay off additional employees, and some unemployed workers may be rehired. These
workers therefore will be paying more in income taxes than if they were not working. They also
will be spending more, supporting other local companies as well as contributing additional tax
revenues via the sales tax. In addition to the benefits from employing more workers, a sizable
portion of the construction funding will be used for purchases of materials, benefiting other local
companies. In this way, the stimulus monies ripple through the economy, creating an economic
benefit greater than the original amount of the stimulus package.
As passed by the Legislature in spring 2008, the stimulus package was $1 billion, with the funds
to be released primarily over three years (FYs 2009 through 2011). A little more than one-fourth
of the funds were scheduled to be issued during FY 2009, with a cash flow of $210 million
planned. A little more than half of the bond issuance and cash flow was scheduled for FY 2010,
with the remaining issuance and nearly all of the remaining cash flow occurring in FY 2011. In
contrast, the debt service was scheduled to be only $1 million in FY 2009 and $13.5 million in

7

FY 2010. After that, payments would rise to $41 million in FY 2011 and $56 million in FY
2012. Even these higher payments represent only a fraction of 1 percent of the state government
budget.
Not moving forward with the construction stimulus package that already passed the Legislature
will not help to resolve the projected budget deficit for the current fiscal year (FY 2009), since
debt service during this year would be only $1 million. The delay, however, will prevent $210
million from entering the Arizona economy during FY 2009.
Using the IMPLAN model, the total effects of the construction stimulus package aggregate to
nearly $1.4 billion in gross product, $1.0 billion in labor income, and 22,200 jobs. In order to
determine the effects on an annual basis requires using the scheduled cash flows by year and
making an assumption as to the length of each project. The stimulus monies are planned to be
spent on a mix of new construction and renovation to existing buildings. An average project is
assumed to take two years to complete.
By delaying the stimulus package, the cash flow of $210 million in FY 2009 will not occur.
Assuming that only half of these funds would be actually spent in material purchases and
employee wages in FY 2009, this would have a direct effect of reducing the state’s gross product
by $62 million, lowering labor income by $53 million, and reducing employment by nearly
1,100. Including the multiplier effects, the reduction is $144 million in gross product, $106
million in labor income, and more than 2,300 in employment. If the planned cash flow of $515
million in FY 2010 also did not occur, the negative effects would be much larger. Employment,
for example, would be 8,000 less than if the stimulus package had proceeded as originally
planned. Thus, the stimulus package alone would offset a significant portion of the state’s job
losses forecast by the Arizona Department of Commerce during CY 2009.
Economic forecasts suggest that the Arizona economy likely will remain weak through most of
calendar year 2009, but then begin a recovery. Thus, government revenues are likely to begin to
recover during FY 2010, but another budget deficit may be present. The scheduled $13.5 million
in debt repayment from the stimulus package still will be very small compared to the size of the
overall budget. By mid-2010 (the beginning of FY 2011), however, the economy is expected to
be expanding at a healthy pace. The state government budget is likely to look much better in FY
2011. The higher debt repayment in that year and in subsequent years will be very small
compared to the size of the overall budget.

8

LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF A FUNDING REDUCTION FOR UNIVERSITIES
A substantial decrease in state government funding for universities will have negative
consequences beyond the short-term effects discussed above. Unless largely offset by very
substantial increases in tuition, such large cuts would result in elimination of programs,
reductions in the quality of other programs, enrollment caps, fewer course offerings, larger class
size, and the loss of scholarship aid. This set of conditions almost certainly would lead to
lowered student retention and a declining number of students earning degrees.
Assuming that enrollment and/or graduation rates are negatively affected by a reduction in state
funding, then the state’s future economy is threatened. Underlying this statement are the
economic changes occurring worldwide. In particular, as previously third-world countries such
as China and India industrialize, Arizona no longer can compete on the basis of low costs — a
primary strategy of its economic development during the 20th century. Instead, to remain
competitive, Arizona must transition with the rest of the United States to a knowledge-based
economy in which science- and technology-based jobs will be key drivers of the economy.
As demonstrated by the severity in Arizona of the current economic downturn, further
diversification of Arizona’s economy is desirable. A high-growth state like Arizona is
disproportionately reliant on growth-related pursuits, which tend to be highly cyclical. In
contrast, basic economic activities — those that sell goods and services to consumers outside
Arizona — frequently have different cycles than those of the population-serving industries and
thus help to smooth out the overall economic cycle. Traditional basic activities include
agriculture, mining, manufacturing, and tourism, but most of these activities are in the mature or
declining stages of their life cycle and cannot be expected to be economic drivers in the 21st
century. Instead, knowledge-based industries, which include high-technology manufacturing as
well as services, are the activities with growth potential and the ability to drive the Arizona
economy.
An essential feature of the knowledge economy is the importance of a highly skilled workforce,
trained in new technologies. In particular, college graduates are of more importance in the new
economy than in the old economy. A large number of college graduates with a range of skills is
essential to companies in the knowledge economy and is a strong asset in the attraction of such
companies to the state. Thus, any action — such as budget cuts — that undermines the success of
the state’s universities also impairs the state’s economy.
Beyond the traditional economic impact discussed above, higher education provides three basic
benefits to individuals and society that will be lessened by a reduction in public funding. First, a
college education enables the individual achieving the academic success to realize a considerable
financial benefit — those with college degrees earn substantially more than those with less
educational attainment. In turn, an individual with higher earnings spends more, benefiting
private-sector companies that provide goods and services. Further, an individual with higher
income and higher spending pays more in taxes, benefiting the public sector and other taxpayers.
The earnings of an individual with a bachelor’s degree average $17,000 per year higher than
those with only a high school diploma, even after netting out the cost of tuition and foregone
earnings while in college. Over a working life of 44 years, this cumulates to $750,000. If just

9

1,000 individuals earned a bachelor’s degree instead of stopping their education earlier, at the
end of their working life earnings in Arizona would be nearly $750 million higher.
Approximately 18,500 individuals per year graduate from the state’s universities with a
bachelor’s degree; another 7,600 receive a higher degree. If reductions in university funding
cause the number of graduates to fall rather than rise, then a negative impact on the state’s
economy would occur comparable to the positive effect of increasing the number of degree
holders.
Second, a concentration of highly educated, high-income earners causes wages of other workers
to be higher. Enrico Moretti has demonstrated that a 1 percent increase in the proportion of
college-educated workers in an area raises wages by 1.9 percent among those with less than a
high school degree, 1.6 percent among high-school graduates, 1.2 percent among those with
some college, and 0.4 percent among college graduates (beyond the increase in wages realized
by new university graduates).
Based on the size of the Arizona workforce and existing earnings per worker, overall earnings in
Arizona would be $2.1 billion (1.7 percent) per year higher if a 1 percentage point increase in the
share of workers with a university degree were achieved. Funding reductions at universities will
make this increase of more than 30,000 university graduates unlikely. Instead, the share of the
Arizona population with a university degree may fall, preventing the state from achieving a gain
in prosperity for all.
An increase in university graduates could be achieved by attracting migrants to Arizona with
higher educational attainment as well as by increasing the number of graduates from the state’s
universities. As a desirable and growing state, a significant portion of Arizona’s workforce was
not educated in Arizona, instead moving to the state after completion of their education. A heavy
dependence in the future on imported labor, however, is a risky strategy given the competition
for highly qualified workers. Further, if a high percentage of those growing up in Arizona do not
achieve high educational attainment, Arizona runs the risk of creating an underclass. In addition,
it will not have a workforce attractive to knowledge-based companies and will not be perceived
as being a desirable location by highly educated potential migrants.
Third, university research produces economic benefits through the economic impact of financial
grants and awards that originate from outside the state. Further, university research leads to
private-sector startups, spinoffs, and the licensing of university technology by the private sector.
University research also leads to other spillovers and a large multiplier effect. Reduced spending
for universities almost certainly will cause research funding from other sources to decrease.
Empirical evidence from Jaffe indicates that for every $10 million spent to support public
research, up to $40 million of private research and development expenditures take place. So,
reductions in public research may impede private-sector R&D investments that will be essential
to diversifying the Arizona economy.

10