J A N U A R Y

2 0 0 1

2000|2001
OUTLOOK
FOR THE
“NEW ECONOMY”
By Marshall J. Vest
Forecasting Project Director
November 30, 2000

B

usiness Week magazine has been
a leading proponent of the New
Economy for quite some time.
The amazing growth and prosperity
witnessed in recent years is often
explained with references to the New
Economy. What is the New Economy,
anyway, and do we need a new set
of economic theories to understand it?
What does the future hold for the
New Economy?
What exactly is the New Economy, anyway?
Numerous studies have appeared in recent
months addressing that question as well as
what is really “new” about the New Economy.
Here are some of the more salient perspectives. A number of these concepts are
measurable and provide valuable insights
into the outlook for the economy.
•Globalization has brought relentless
competition and zero pricing power for
U.S. producers. Wars are trade barriers
and therefore inflationary. Peacetime
allows trade barriers to fall, which frees
competitive forces and brings falling prices.
Since the end of the cold war a decade ago,
trade has surged worldwide and inflation
is dead.
•Productivity is the key feature of the New
Economy. During the decade of the 1990’s,
productivity rose 1.8% per year, on average,
only slightly better than during the 1980’s.
The pace accelerated, however, during

W I N T E R

I S S U E

the second half of
EXHIBIT 1
the decade. ThirdProductivity Accelerates
quarter productivity
Productivity: Nonfarm Business
rose 3.8%, a slowing from 6.3% the
second quarter and
the 8.0% gain in the
fourth quarter of
last year. Still, on a
year-over-year basis,
productivity has risen
nearly five percent,
the biggest increase
since 1983. No signs
of a slowdown here.
Productivity is important because it is
key to higher living
standards, i.e., rising
real incomes and
consumer spending.
Improving productivity sets a higher
rise in productivity is sustainable, i.e., it is
speed limit for the economy. It also is an
a secular shift (long-lasting), rather than a
important offset to rising compensation
cyclical (temporary) phenomenon. Trend
costs, i.e., wages and benefits, and that
growth in productivity currently is believed
allows producers to keep prices stable
to be about three percent. Combined with
(Exhibit 1).
one
percent growth in man-hours, that
•What we’ve been through during the past
means
that the economy’s new speed limit
five years is a “once or twice-in-a-century
is
four
percent,
nearly double what it was
surge in technology,” coupled with
a
few
years
ago.
federal budget surpluses that allowed for
funding of “productivity-enhancing and
•The productivity surge is in part related to
cost-reducing capital formation.” Fed
business spending on technology.
Chairman Alan Greenspan believes that the
Capital spending for high-tech equipment
I N S I D E
FORECAST TABLES ................8
ELLER COLLEGE
SPRING 2001 EVENTS..........9
ARIZONA 14TH IN
HOUSING PRICES ...............10
ECONOMIC INDICATORS ......11

ELLE R COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND PUBLIC ADMINIST RATION

T UCSON, ARIZONA

EXHIBIT 2
Tech Spending Doubles

EXHIBIT 3
Inflation Remains Subdued

Capital Spending: Equipment & Software

Core Price Inflation (less food and energy)

and software now accounts for 12.5% of
real GDP, double the rate of the 1980’s.
Moreover, high-tech spending now accounts
for nearly one-third of real GDP growth.
Again, there is no sign of slowing here
(Exhibit 2).
•The driving force of the New Economy is
the democratization of information, i.e.,
information is quickly becoming a commodity. As the cost of information falls toward
zero, it becomes accessible by all businesses and workers. The Information
Revolution truly is changing the way
business is conducted and the way we live
our lives. As an example, Cisco employees
never touch the majority of products Cisco
sells (products that hook together networks
of computers within companies and allow
those networks to connect to the Internet).
They outsource actual manufacturing and
shipping of these products. Cisco keeps
the engineering and marketing functions
in-house and coordinates with suppliers
using information technology (IT) systems.
•There is no such thing as “Old Economy”
and “New Economy.” The commoditization
of information affects all companies—it
is pervasive. It is not confined solely to
“dot-coms” or only to high-tech companies.
All businesses can improve usage of information to better manage relationships
with their customers and suppliers (supply
PAGE TWO

chain). Inventories (and associated holding
costs) are minimized as supplies arrive
“just in time.” Moreover, companies can
use customer information to identify who
is profitable and who is not, and thereby
choose which customers to serve. According to competitiveness expert Michael
Porter, “There is no such thing as lowtech industry. There are only low-tech
companies—that fail to use world-class
technology and practices to enhance
productivity and innovation.”
•One of the driving features of the New
Economy is speed. Conditions have created
a widespread sense of urgency that is
unparallel. New products have short life
cycles in an information-rich competitive
environment. Companies therefore face
an ever-shrinking amount of time to make
money from new ideas before competition
drives margins to zero. This has fed the
concept of first mover advantage: the idea
that companies must constantly innovate—
and do it now, before someone else does.
Collaborative technologies and the Internet,
of course, provide the means to speed the
innovative process as well as the entire
product cycle.
•The New Economy is more than a technological/information revolution—it is a
Financial Revolution as well. An explosion of risk capital, provided by venture

capital funds (VC) and other types of
young-company financing such as initial
public offerings (IPOs), has fueled the
tech boom. VCs are focused on finding and
funding innovation. VC funding soared from
about $5 billion a decade ago to roughly
$100 billion annually today, comprising
roughly 40% of total R&D spending. The
biggest barrier to market entry for a small
company is lack of financing, and VC
funding has largely eliminated that barrier.
Willingness of VCs to take on enormous
risk to finance entrepreneurs is a great
source of the New Economy’s creativity,
strength and productivity. Without access
to VC funding, the Information Age would
have arrived, but much more slowly.
•The stock market has also played a significant role, boosting household net worth by
trillions of dollars during the past decade.
Market capitalization of the Standard &
Poors 500 index is roughly $11.5 trillion
today, up from only $3 trillion in 1993. As
the market continued to soar, households
didn’t need to save as much—the stock
market did the saving for them. This allowed
households to allocate dollars to current
consumption that otherwise would have
gone to savings. Increases in housing prices
and proceeds from IPOs also boosted net
worth. Households cashed out some of
that wealth to buy second homes, expensive
ARIZONA’S ECONOMY

EXHIBIT 4
More Productive Workers Bring Lower Inflation

EXHIBIT 5
Sales Slowing But Strong

Age Wave and Inflation

Retail Sales Growth, U.S.

cars, etc. The consumer-spending boom
was boosted and prolonged by this wealth
effect.
•One of the hallmarks of the New Economy
is the economy’s ability to grow at high rates
for extended periods without generating
inflation. Recently, rises in energy prices
and in services—particularly health care—
have brought higher inflation. In October,
consumer prices stood 3.4% higher than
one year earlier, compared to a 2.2% gain
for all of 1999 and only a 1.6% increase
in 1998. Nevertheless, inflation remains
relatively subdued. After subtracting the
volatile food and energy components,
“core inflation” is running at 2.5%, up less
than one-half of one percent from 1999.
Chairman Greenspan prefers the personal
consumption deflator to the CPI, and that
measure is even lower. Core inflation using
this measure is only 1.7%, virtually unchanged over the past few years (Exhibit
3). The personal consumption deflator
recognizes that consumers change their
buying patterns in response to changes
in relative prices, while the CPI hold the
composition constant. Moreover, deflation
in business equipment and software remain
an important and powerful offset to inflationary pressures. With inflation subdued,
the Federal Reserve is content to leave
interest rates alone as they did at their
ARIZONA’S ECONOMY

November meeting. The Fed is still worried,
however, about recent surveys in which
businesses report a return of pricing
power—the ability to make price increases
stick for the first time in nearly a decade.
•One often-overlooked enabling factor in
the development of the New Economy is
the age wave. As the labor force aged
along with Baby Boomers, productivity
surged because Boomers are now in their
most productive years. They are in their
peak earning years, and consumers in the
45-64 age groups spend more than other
age groups. Delayed gratification is not
a strong trait of Boomers, and they have
provided extra fuel to the recent spending
boom. Ironically, they also have been able
to save like never before as retirement
approaches, which has been an important
ingredient in the stock market boom. Over
half of all households today own stocks
either directly or through their retirement
plan. The age wave’s effect on inflation is
shown in Exhibit 4. Inflation is shown
as a five-year moving average of annual
increases. The age wave is graphed as the
percentage of the labor force that is age
16-34. Boomers started entering that age
group in the mid 60’s—as inflation began
to move higher. The youngest boomers
today are 36, and no longer in the 16-34
group. Boomers will continue to exert a

beneficial effect on inflation through this
decade—an effect that will reverse as they
begin to have health problems.
•Consumers in the New Economy have
responded to increases in their standard
of living by going on a spending spree.
Aggregate retail sales, autos, and housing
remain very strong, although each is off
a bit from the frenzied pace earlier in the
year. Consumers remain quite willing to
spend—and they have plenty of money
to do so. Retail sales are still growing by
nearly eight percent nationwide, and that’s
very strong (Exhibit 5). Car and light
truck sales, which decelerated in October
to the slowest pace in a year, remain at high
levels as incentives and low financing costs
continue to bring consumers into showrooms. During the past 12 months, 17.5
million units have been sold (Exhibit 6).
Real mortgage rates shot up to very high
levels during the second half of 1999 and
have retreated only a little in recent months.
New and used home sales weakened
modestly in response, but sales remain at
high levels (Exhibit 7). Higher interest
rates, higher energy prices, and the weak
performance of equity markets have yet to
significantly affect consumer confidence,
which remains near historically high levels
(Exhibit 8).
PAGE THREE

EXHIBIT 6
Record Auto Sales Continue

EXHIBIT 7
Home Sales Remain at High Level

Car and Light Truck Sales, U.S. (seasonally adjusted annual rate)

Real Mortgage Rates and Home Sales

In summary, the New Economy is, first and
foremost, an Information Revolution.
The availability of information at near-zero
cost is truly changing the way business is conducted and the way we live. The New Economy
also is a Technology Revolution—a
surge of information-processing equipment
and applications that enable the management
and meaningful usage of the deluge of information. Investment in technology would
not have been possible without a Financial
Revolution as well—the rise of Venture
Capital (and IPO markets) as funding sources
for innovation. Investments in technology and
adoption of more efficient business models
have boosted productivity to new levels,
and that has brought a higher standard
of living. Globalization, competition, new
business models and outsourcing, urgency,
innovation, the age wave, and the wealth
effect all have played an important role in
the evolution of the New Economy. None of
these are new ideas, and we therefore do not
need a “new economics” to understand or
to predict where the economy is headed.

THE U.S. OUTLOOK
What are the prospects for the New Economy
going forward? The real side of the economy
is in great shape with activity slowing, but
still at high levels. Even so, the economy has
a different feel as year-end approaches, due
PA GE F OU R

to deteriorating financial conditions and a
squeeze on corporate earnings.
New Economy measures such as productivity, capital investment in high-tech, consumer
demand and inflation suggest that the
defining ingredients of the New Economy
remain in place. Interest rate hikes by the
Federal Reserve, higher oil prices and the
flattening of stock prices during the past
year have slowed consumer demand only
marginally, and business spending on hightech remains strong.
The financial side of the economy is not
so sanguine. Higher interest rates, a squeeze
on corporate profits, tighter bank lending
standards and a drying up of financing for
new companies has significantly raised the
cost (and availability) of capital to business.
Of course, that is exactly what the Federal
Reserve had in mind when it raised shortterm rates: a desire is to slow the economy
from recent excesses to below the “speed
limit.” The question is whether the Fed’s
actions are too little, too much, or just right.
From the perspective of businesses, the
cost of capital has risen significantly in
recent months. Banks have tightened credit
standards in response to earnings hits and
falling stock prices. In addition, recent
turmoil in the stock market has effectively
closed the IPO market, and VC funding has
become much more cautious as the “tech

wreck” unfolds. The NASDAQ has given back
most of the gains over the past year and was
below 2600 (down by nearly 25%) at the
end of November (Exhibit 9).
In retrospect, the NASDAQ, which primarily
trades stocks of high-tech companies,
experienced a huge “bubble” fueled by a
number of New Economy myths, such as:
•New Economy companies are different
from Old Economy companies—tech
companies aren’t subject to economic
forces such as a slower economy.
•Tech companies are immune from rising
interest rates, since demand for their
product is so strong and borrowing needs
so slight.
•Exponential Internet growth has just
begun and will accelerate. Ergo, there is
no price too high for a good tech company.
•Prospects are more important than
immediate earnings (i.e., profits don’t
matter).
Data provided by Venture Economics shows
that returns on venture capital funds fell
below four percent in the second quarter,
down from nearly 60% in last year’s fourth
quarter. Although VCs are still flush with cash,
financial market volatility, reduced returns,
and a rash of dot-com layoffs and shutdowns
will surely lead to more cautious lending.
Reduced availability of funding, of course,
ARIZONA’S ECONOMY

EXHIBIT 8
Consumers are Still Confident

EXHIBIT 9
The Tech “Bubble” Deflates

Consumer Confidence Index, U.S. (1985=100)

U.S. Stock Market Indexes

will slow the innovation process.
As companies say goodbye to free-flowing,
cheap money, and as markets reevaluate risk,
the sense of urgency is evaporating rapidly.
The key to the outlook may well be whether
productivity will continue to carry the day,
thus offsetting inflationary pressures and
keeping the Fed on the sidelines:
•Hawks argue that recent gains in productivity are concentrated among hightech producers. Although productivity in
high-tech is growing at the fastest pace in
the past four decades, the remainder of
the economy and non-tech sectors of
manufacturing has seen no acceleration.
Therefore, when the next “tech slump”
arrives, productivity gains will vanish.
Without productivity gains to offset rising
compensation costs, corporate earnings
will come under increasing pressure and
force companies to raise prices. Faced
with sagging productivity and rising prices,
the Fed would raise interest rates and the
economy would slow even further. With
technology comprising a much larger share
of the economy than ever before, a tech
slump could turn into full-blown recession.
•Optimists counter that it only makes sense
that high-tech producers are first to adopt
new productivity-enhancing technologies.
Just as it took years to fully incorporate
electrical machines into the production
AR IZ ON A ’S E CO N OMY

line or adopt the telephone as a major
means of communication, so too will it
take time for many businesses to embrace
information technologies. Businesses do
not have a choice, however, as they must
adopt cost-saving technologies to stay
competitive. Therefore, spending on technology will continue even in the face of a
slowdown in the economy. The Information
Revolution is still in its infancy, and it will
continue to boost productivity for years
to come.
The consensus among forecasters calls
for a slowdown from recent extremes but
no recession. In fact, boom conditions that
existed earlier this year appear to be history,
as six percent real growth moderated to
under three percent in the third quarter. The
economy has slowed a notch, but it is too
early to worry that it has slowed too much.
Forecasts of the WEFA Group, a worldwide
economic consulting and forecasting firm,
call for real GDP to slow to below the speed
limit and average 3.5% in 2001 and 2002,
compared to a heady gain of 5.3% this year
(Exhibit 10).
Both consumption and business fixed
investment will slow, while residential fixed
investment remains flat to marginally down.
Unemployment moves slightly higher,
approaching 4.5%, while inflation moderates
to 2.5% (CPI) and into the 1.5-1.9% range

for the personal consumption deflator.
Although the effects of a policy mistake or
unforeseen shock are greater now, the risk
of recession remains quite small, say 15%.

ARIZONA CONTINUES
TO LEAD NATION
A number of New Economy measures
referenced above are not available for states.
Productivity, business equipment spending,
financial market indexes and even consumer
prices are not available. We can look at
measures of consumer spending and confidence, however. What we find is that Arizona
and its two largest metro areas reflect the
same trends as seen nationwide—only
better. Arizona remains a growth leader by
virtually any measure, and it is an important
player in the New Economy.
Like their national counterparts, Arizona
consumers are still on a spending spree.
With data through September, retail sales on
a 12-month to 12-month comparison were
almost ten percent higher. Sales at motor
vehicle dealers recorded the largest increase,
15.4%, followed by “other stores, non-retail
categories” at 13.2%. Both building materials
and furniture stores, which had registered
double-digit increases earlier in the year,
have slowed, mirroring other measures of
building activity. Metro Phoenix continues to
excel, matching the statewide gain. Tucson
PAGE FIVE

EXHIBIT 10
Slower Growth Predicted (Real GDP Growth, U.S.)

sales registered a strong increase of nearly
nine percent (Exhibit 11).
Arizona consumer confidence remained
near record levels in the fourth quarter. So
far, consumers—both nationwide and in
Arizona—have largely ignored higher interest
rates and volatility in financial markets.
Interestingly, the gap between Phoenix and
Tucson has closed during the past two surveys.
Phoenix-based Behavior Research Center
conducts the Arizona poll under sponsorship
of Stockton Capital Management and Trust
Company of Scottsdale (Exhibit 12).
Arizona led the nation for job creation
during most of calendar year 2000. With
data through October, job growth was 4.5%,
compared to a gain of 4.1% for all of 1999.
Roughly 91,000 jobs were created during
the past 12 months, according to the Arizona
Department of Economic Security. Metro
Phoenix accounted for roughly 65,800 and
Metro Tucson for 16,600.
Tucson led the nation’s metro areas for
job creation through most of the year with
year-over-year growth approaching seven
percent in early 2000. Metro Phoenix ranked
17th during September (the most recent
month available as this is written). Tucson
has been growing faster than Phoenix since
late 1999 (Exhibit 13).
While not perceived to be a New Economy
state, Arizona ranks number twelve for
the proportion of jobs in high-technology,
PA GE S IX

according to a study from the Progressive
Policy Institute. Using a similar measure,
Tucson ranked 22nd and Phoenix 30th
among 315 metro areas, while Flagstaff
(due to one large employer) ranked 20th.
High-tech industries include electronics,
instruments, aircraft, space vehicles and
communications. The Phoenix area has a
large presence of electronics and semiconductor manufacturers such as Motorola,
Intel, Sumitomo, Honeywell and a host of
others. Tucson, known as Optics Valley for
its strong optics cluster of entrepreneurial
companies, also has a concentration in
aerospace with employers such as Raytheon,
Honeywell, Bombardier and Universal
Avionics. Texas Instruments and IBM are
other high-tech companies in Tucson.
Although Arizona lost nearly 7,000 manufacturing jobs during the 1998 Asian crisis,
job counts have been increasing since mid1999 and have nearly recovered earlier
losses. During the past 12 months, nearly
4,400 jobs have been added—2,400 of those
in the Tucson metro area.
Two additional measures suggest that
Arizona is doing better than nationwide. In
Arizona, both orders and production remain
solidly in positive territory with readings near
55, according to the Purchasing Management
Association. Nationwide, readings have fallen
below 50 in recent months. Help wanted
advertising also is holding up much better

in the metro Phoenix area compared to
nationwide, which has seen ads volume fall
to the lowest readings since 1994.
In October, unemployment in Arizona stood
at 3.7%, two-tenths lower than nationwide.
Unemployment in metro Tucson and PhoenixMesa both registered at only 2.5%, the
lowest readings in over thirty years. In order
to find workers, employers have had to
import them. According to estimates for
the College of Business at ASU, population
statewide grew 126,000 from mid-1999
to mid-2000. Comparable estimates for
Phoenix-Mesa and Tucson metro areas are
89,000 and 20,000, respectively.
Arizona personal income jumped in the
first quarter of 2000 before returning to
“normal” during the second (Exhibit 14).
During the first quarter, personal income
rose by a very strong 10.1% from prior year
levels. The second quarter gain measured
7.4%. Large bonuses paid in the services
industry (which rose nearly 21%) account
for the lion’s share of the first quarter jump.
Transportation, communications and public
utilities rose a strong 11.5%, and manufacturing was up nearly ten percent. The latter
resulted from a very weak first quarter
during 1999, however.
It is likely that the estimates for 1999 will
be revised significantly higher. In the meantime, our forecast for a gain of 8.1% for all
of 2000 appears quite reasonable. A 7.2%
AR I ZO NA ’S EC ONO M Y

EXHIBIT 11
Sales Strong in Tucson and Phoenix

EXHIBIT 12
Confidence Still High

Retail Sales Growth, Metro

Consumer Confidence Index (1985=100)

gain is expected for 2001.
The forecast for Arizona and the two large
metro areas calls for the pace to slow, but
still remain quite strong. The projected 3.6%
increase in nonag jobs during 2001 should
keep Arizona among the nation’s leading
growth states. Tucson should once again
out-pace its larger neighbor in 2001. A gain
of 3.2% and 3.9% is expected for metro
Phoenix and metro Tucson, respectively.
That means 51,000 new jobs for PhoenixMesa and 14,000 for Tucson (see Forecast
Tables on page nine).
Homebuilding activity statewide, as
measured by new units permitted, will likely
not reach 60,000 this year, compared to
nearly 63,000 during 1999. Arizona voters
rejected a Sierra Club-backed growth
management initiative that could well have
brought building activity to a halt. Therefore,
the forecast calls for another year of modest
slowing with roughly 50,000 new units.
34,000 of those will be in the Phoenix-Mesa
metro area. Tucson’s 8700 units will match
2000’s total, as boom conditions continue.
Consumer spending statewide is expected
to slow to a gain of a little over four percent
compared to eight percent in 2000. This
will still be a good year, since retail sales
have plummeted significantly during past
recessions.
All things considered, it will be another
stellar year for the Arizona economy. The
AR IZON A ’S ECON O MY

major challenge may be how Arizona leaders
deal with competitive issues such as 1) how
to change the perception that Arizona is not
a New Economy state, 2) obtaining better
results from public schools, 3) nurturing
and capitalizing on its knowledge assets,
4) providing access to technology for all
residents, and 5) providing a quality of life
that is attractive to knowledge workers. ■

EXHIBIT 13
Wage and Salary
Job Growth
Phoenix-Mesa and Tucson MAs

S P O N S O R S

Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee
Arizona Portland Cement Company
Arizona Public Service Company
Bank One Arizona
CB Richard Ellis
City of Mesa
City of Tucson
Compass Bank
Elliott D. Pollack and Company
Kaufman and Broad
Jim Click Automotive Team
Merrill Lynch
Northern Trust Bank of Arizona
Pima County
Qwest Communications
Qwest Dex
Salt River Project
Territorial Newspapers
Tucson Electric Power Company
Tucson Healthcare Council
Tucson Newspapers

EXHIBIT 14
Bonuses Propel
Income Growth
Personal Income Growth, Arizona

PAGE SEVEN

F O R E C A S T

Forecasts for Arizona
Personal Income ($ mill)
percent change
Per Capita Personal Income
percent change
Aggregate Retail Sales ($ mill)*
percent change
Population (000s, mid-year)
percent change
Net Migration (000s)
Wage & Salary Employment (000s)
percent change
Goods-Producing
percent change
Construction
percent change
Manufacturing
percent change
Service-Providing
percent change
Trade (Wholesale & Retail)
percent change
Services
percent change

T A B L E S

1999
121,391.3
7.5
25,096.4
4.5
49,897.7
10.2
4,837.0
2.8
90.1
2,161.1
4.2
377.3
1.3
153.9
7.1
211.9
-1.9
1,783.8
4.8
512.5
2.9
677.0
8.1

2000
131,221.6
8.1
26,440.0
5.4
54,262.3
8.7
4,963.0
2.6
92.2
2,261.7
4.7
386.4
2.4
157.9
2.6
218.3
3.0
1,875.2
5.1
536.6
4.7
720.2
6.4

2001
140,717.9
7.2
27,601.2
4.4
56,694.6
4.5
5,098.3
2.7
88.6
2,343.9
3.6
391.8
1.4
157.0
-0.6
224.4
2.8
1,952.0
4.1
562.4
4.8
754.3
4.7

2002
149,398.7
6.2
28,586.1
3.6
59,814.9
5.5
5,226.3
2.5
83.2
2,416.7
3.1
392.6
0.2
154.0
-1.9
228.1
1.6
2,024.1
3.7
590.1
4.9
785.5
4.1

2003
157,600.2
5.5
29,455.2
3.0
62,784.1
5.0
5,350.5
2.4
79.6
2,482.1
2.7
395.7
0.8
153.3
-0.4
231.8
1.6
2,086.4
3.1
611.6
3.6
813.2
3.5

2004
165,336.2
4.9
30,218.1
2.6
65,328.7
4.1
5,471.4
2.3
76.2
2,540.7
2.4
400.6
1.2
153.8
0.3
236.2
1.9
2,140.1
2.6
626.6
2.5
839.3
3.2

2005
172,630.6
4.4
30,882.0
2.2
67,605.6
3.5
5,590.0
2.2
74.1
2,595.0
2.1
406.1
1.4
155.2
1.0
240.3
1.7
2,188.9
2.3
637.2
1.7
864.8
3.0

Forecasts for Phoenix-Mesa Metro Area
Personal Income ($ mill)
percent change
Per Capita Personal Income
percent change
Aggregate Retail Sales ($ mill)*
percent change
Population (000s, mid-year)
percent change
Net Migration (000s)
Wage & Salary Employment (000s)
percent change
Goods-Producing
percent change
Construction
percent change
Manufacturing
percent change
Service-Providing
percent change
Trade (Wholesale & Retail)
percent change
Services
percent change

1999
84,056.0
7.5
27,582.9
4.1
34,362.9
10.5
3,047.4
3.2
66.1
1,525.3
4.6
286.3
2.1
113.4
7.6
168.4
-0.7
1,239.0
5.2
370.8
4.9
483.5
6.7

2000
90,825.0
8.1
28,962.1
5.0
37,405.0
8.9
3,136.0
2.9
63.0
1,593.3
4.5
292.7
2.2
116.2
2.5
173.1
2.8
1,300.6
5.0
382.5
3.2
515.1
6.5

2001
96,880.3
6.7
30,043.4
3.7
39,137.6
4.6
3,224.7
2.8
57.9
1,644.3
3.2
293.0
0.1
112.8
-2.9
176.7
2.1
1,351.3
3.9
396.2
3.6
538.4
4.5

2002
102,620.1
5.9
31,024.3
3.3
41,201.8
5.3
3,307.7
2.6
52.4
1,688.7
2.7
292.4
-0.2
109.2
-3.2
179.8
1.8
1,396.3
3.3
410.0
3.5
558.3
3.7

2003
109,431.3
6.6
32,292.7
4.1
44,200.1
7.3
3,388.7
2.4
50.7
1,732.2
2.6
293.1
0.2
107.1
-1.9
182.5
1.5
1,439.2
3.1
423.2
3.2
575.6
3.1

2004
115,643.1
5.7
33,336.4
3.2
46,400.4
5.0
3,469.0
2.4
49.9
1,773.5
2.4
296.2
1.1
107.0
-0.1
185.7
1.7
1,477.3
2.7
432.3
2.2
593.8
3.2

2005
121,445.9
5.0
34,231.3
2.7
48,154.7
3.8
3,547.8
2.3
48.5
1,811.0
2.1
299.7
1.2
108.4
1.2
187.9
1.2
1,511.2
2.3
438.7
1.5+
611.1
2.9

Forecasts for Tucson Metro Area
Personal Income ($ mill)
percent change
Per Capita Personal Income
percent change
Aggregate Retail Sales ($ mill)*
percent change
Population (000s, mid-year)
percent change
Net Migration (000s)
Wage & Salary Employment (000s)
percent change
Goods-Producing
percent change
Construction
percent change
Manufacturing
percent change
Service-Providing
percent change
Trade (Wholesale & Retail)
percent change
Services
percent change

1999
19,306.3
7.5
22,826.8
4.7
7,856.2
9.5
845.8
2.7
17.2
340.2
4.7
55.3
8.6
20.9
5.9
32.6
12.4
284.9
4.0
72.0
3.2
111.4
5.3

2000
21,033.5
8.9
24,288.1
6.4
8,523.8
8.5
866.0
2.4
19.8
358.6
5.4
59.7
7.8
21.8
4.3
36.2
11.0
299.0
4.9
75.1
4.3
118.6
6.4

2001
22,639.1
7.6
25,444.5
4.8
8,987.0
5.4
889.7
2.7
19.0
372.5
3.9
63.7
6.7
22.6
3.7
39.1
8.0
308.9
3.3
78.1
4.0
123.7
4.3

2002
24,195.3
6.9
26,549.3
4.3
9,477.5
5.5
911.3
2.4
16.7
385.4
3.5
66.3
4.2
23.1
2.0
41.2
5.4
319.1
3.3
81.0
3.8
129.0
4.3

2003
25,729.1
6.3
27,635.6
4.1
9,979.1
5.3
931.0
2.2
14.7
394.4
2.3
66.9
0.9
23.2
0.6
41.7
1.1
327.5
2.6
83.2
2.7
133.3
3.3

2004
27,064.7
5.2
28,542.9
3.3
10,401.5
4.2
948.2
1.8
12.1
401.0
1.7
67.1
0.4
23.0
-0.8
42.1
0.9
333.8
1.9
84.5
1.5
137.0
2.8

2005
28,310.2
4.6
29,362.9
2.9
10,784.5
3.7
964.1
1.7
10.7
406.7
1.4
67.4
0.4
22.8
-0.8
42.4
0.9
339.3
1.6
85.0
0.7
140.5
2.6

* Aggregate Retail Sales includes retail, food, restaurant & bars and gasoline sales.
Source: Economic and Business Research Program, Eller College of Business and Public Administration, The University of Arizona
PAGE EIGHT

ARIZONA’S ECONOMY

Eller
College
Executive
Education
and
Professional
Programs

9 & 10

JANUARY
Effective Teamwork
Use the principles of group dynamics to build highly productive,
creative, empowered teams

16 & 17

Project Management:
Basics of planning and coordinating people and resources
to meet your objectives in a timely manner

25 & 26

Instant Advantage
(Session I in our eBusiness series):
Leveraging Information Technology to improve your organization
and competitiveness

31

Dollars & Sense:
Basics of reading and using financial information
in organizations for non-finance managers

Spring 2001
8 thru 16

Get the skills

Time Management:
Accomplish what you need to—and truly want to—each day

21

needs to build

28 thru 3/3 Empowerment Institute:
Learn the art of facilitating human growth and developing people

results!

8 thru 16

22 & 23

For information
on any of these
programs,
please call:
(520) 621-2930

27 thru 29

3 thru 5

MARCH
Business Basics:
Fundamentals of business and general management
for technical professionals and managers
The 1:1 Advantage
(Session II in our eBusiness series):
Using technology and new processes to build stronger
ties with your customers
Negotiation:
Get what you want by helping others get what they want
APRIL
Leadership Lessons from Great Organizations:
Learn and apply the lessons from companies like Disney,
General Electric, and Southwest Airlines

11

Dollars & Sense:
Basics of reading and using financial information
in organizations for non-finance managers

19 thru 27

Business Basics:
Fundamentals of business and general management
for technical professionals and managers

1

10 & 11

MAY
Communicate with Impact!
Get your ideas across to others effectively, both
in writing and in spoken communication
Dot.Com Entrepreneur
(Session III in our eBusiness series):
Start a new, online business or transform your existing
company into a profitable dot.com venture

15 & 16

Effective Team Leadership:
Principles of leading productive and creative teams

22 thru 24

Managing Talent:
Learn to recruit, select and retain great talent for your organization

31

Time Management:
Accomplish what you need to—and truly want to—each day

AR IZ ON A ’S E CON O MY

The 2001 Fathauer Lecture
in Political Economy

FEBRUARY
Business Basics:
Fundamentals of business and general management
for technical professionals and managers

your company
business

The Karl Eller Center and
the Eller College of Business
and Public Administration
at the University of Arizona
present

“ SCHOOL CHOICE:
AN ECONOMIST’S
VIEW”
by:
Dr. Caroline M. Hoxby
Morris Kahn Associate
Professor of Economics
Harvard University
5:00pm Monday, January 29, 2001

The Berger Auditorium at
McClelland Hall
1130 E. Helen Street
A reception will follow the lecture
in the McClelland Hall Atrium.
The College is honored to continue this
tradition of excellence and dialogue,
made possible through insight and
generosity of Walter Fathauer and
Isabel Shattuck Fathauer.
RSVP’s for the reception are requested.
Please contact the Karl Eller Center
at (520) 621-2576 or
entrenet@bpa.arizona.edu

PAGE NINE

ARIZONA
RANKS 14th,
HOUSING
PRICES
UP 6.6%

EXHIBIT 1
Annual Percent Change in House Prices
OFHEO House Price Index, Period Ending June 30, 2000

By Heather Peterson
Research Specialist
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise
Oversight (OFHEO) calculates a “constant
quality” house price index (HPI) designed
to capture changes in the values of singlefamily homes across the nation. Indices for
the United States as a whole, the nine Census
Bureau subdivisions, individual states, the
District of Columbia, and a number of metropolitan areas are provided. The index tracks
repeat sales, which controls for differences
in the quality of houses.
Arizona’s 6.6% increase over the past year
(period ended June 30) is slightly lower
than the United States as a whole, which
had an increase of 6.8%. Other western
states in the top 15 were: Colorado, ranked
3rd, with an increase of 11.8%, California,
5th at 10.4%, and Texas, 10th at 7.9%
(Exhibit 1).
In the metropolitan areas, Tucson’s housing prices have increased 5% in the second
quarter (vs. a year ago), while the PhoenixMesa area has had a whopping increase of
7.5% (down a little from the first quarter’s
increase of 7.9%). The Flagstaff area saw
a modest 2.3% increase, while housing
prices in the Yuma MSA increased by 3.1%
(Exhibit 2).
OFHEO obtains quarterly information on
conventional conforming mortgage transactions for the past 25 years from Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac. This database provides
an enormous number of properties nationwide. Since the index controls for quality, it
is preferred to other sources, such as local
Multiple Listing Services (MLS). MLS data
reports a price for “homes sold” which varies
from one period to the next as the mix of
expensive and inexpensive homes changes.
The HPI index is updated quarterly.
For more information, visit OFHEO at:
http://www.ofheo.gov/house. ■
PAGE 1
T E0N

EXHIBIT 2
Housing Price Index, Arizona and MSAs

ARIZONA’S ECONOMY

A R I Z O N A

YUMA METROPOLITAN REGION
Civilian Labor Force, ADES
Employment
Unemployment
Unemployment Rate (%)
Employees on Nonagricultural Payrolls, ADES
Total
Construction
Manufacturing
Trans., Comm. & Publ. Util.
Trade
Finance, Ins. & Real Estate
Services
Government
Sales ($000s) ADOR
Gross Retail
Retail
Restaurants & Bars
Gasoline, EBR
Gallons (000s) ADOT
Contracting
Value of Construction Contract Awards ($000s) F.W. Dodge
Total
Residential Building
Non-Residential Building
Non-Building
Number of Dwelling Units Awarded, F.W. Dodge
Total
One Family Houses
MOHAVE-LA PAZ REGION
Civilian Labor Force, ADES
Employment
Unemployment
Unemployment Rate (%)
Employees on Nonagricultural Payrolls, ADES
Total
Mining (Mohave County only)
Construction
Manufacturing
Trans., Comm. & Publ. Util.
Trade
Finance, Ins. & Real Estate
Services
Government
Sales ($000s) ADOR
Gross Retail
Retail
Restaurants & Bars
Gasoline, EBR
Gallons (000s) ADOT
Contracting
Value of Construction Contract Awards ($000s) F.W. Dodge
Total
Residential Building
Non-Residential Building
Non-Building
Number of Dwelling Units Awarded, F.W. Dodge
Total
One Family Houses

E C O N O M I C

I N D I C A T O R S

% change versus year ago for:
most
most
recent
recent
month
12-months

JUN
2000

JUL
2000

AUG
2000

SEP
2000

OCT
2000

68,625
45,550
23,075
33.6

70,450
43,725
26,725
37.9

74,450
44,475
29,975
40.3

67,825
44,725
23,100
34.1

66,225
46,425
19,800
29.9

-5.6
-10.2
7.2
13.6

-6.4
-6.1
-7.1
-0.3

37,625
3,025
2,475
1,375
10,075
1,050
9,100
10,525

36,900
3,100
2,550
1,350
9,925
1,050
9,050
9,875

38,025
3,150
2,575
1,350
9,950
1,050
9,050
10,900

38,975
3,175
2,575
1,375
10,300
1,050
9,225
11,275

40,125
3,250
2,575
1,425
10,725
1,150
9,400
11,600

-5.3
12.1
10.8
-18.6
-6.3
-8.0
19.7
-21.8

-4.3
10.1
8.8
-15.8
-6.8
-8.5
12.2
-14.9

80,333
63,116
8,338
8,879
6,359
16,952

69,921
53,844
7,297
8,780
6,031
14,645

71,940
54,934
7,332
9,674
6,616
15,385

78,382
61,579
7,441
9,362
6,156
14,342

...
...
...
...
...
...

8.6
9.8
0.8
7.9
-17.1
-2.0

8.5
6.9
3.2
26.4
-0.8
0.3

19,547
7,714
3,366
8,467

15,022
4,781
5,463
4,778

9,697
7,299
858
1,540

9,583
5,636
180
3,767

20,226
17,627
2,105
494

4.7
206.0
-81.3
-78.3

-24.0
-3.9
-45.1
-37.0

90
90

60
60

88
84

64
64

96
96

50.0
50.0

-6.4
-6.8

72,400
69,025
3,375
4.7

72,775
69,525
3,250
4.5

73,425
69,975
3,450
4.7

73,075
70,250
2,825
3.9

72,950
70,225
2,725
3.7

2.0
2.4
-7.6
-9.4

3.1
3.8
-10.2
-13.0

45,025
100
3,700
3,850
2,325
13,525
1,600
11,450
8,475

44,625
100
3,700
3,850
2,325
13,475
1,600
11,475
8,100

45,525
100
3,725
3,825
2,350
13,600
1,575
11,500
8,850

45,925
100
3,725
3,800
2,350
13,675
1,550
11,625
9,100

46,275
100
3,800
3,800
2,350
13,750
1,550
11,725
9,200

4.6
0.0
5.6
6.3
8.0
3.8
1.6
4.0
5.1

4.7
9.1
5.8
4.3
7.3
3.2
3.5
5.6
5.3

111,975
83,202
13,058
15,715
11,256
39,700

107,118
78,299
12,109
16,710
11,477
26,924

103,394
74,104
13,256
16,034
10,967
31,825

100,398
74,620
11,647
14,131
9,292
34,187

...
...
...
...
...
...

10.4
10.6
0.6
18.9
-8.7
54.3

12.8
10.2
4.1
38.9
9.4
23.6

20,612
15,264
2,991
2,357

20,496
15,186
290
5,020

20,829
16,945
3,696
188

19,233
14,433
2,776
2,024

39,825
14,811
4,440
20,574

-28.6
8.6
-42.2
-40.2

-13.2
3.1
4.9
-51.6

153
151

151
147

170
166

141
141

145
143

7.4
7.5

6.8
-5.3

See notes at bottom of Arizona - Quarterly table.
AR IZON A ’S E CON O MY

PAG E ELEVEN

A R I Z O N A

COCHISE COUNTY
Civilian Labor Force, ADES
Employment
Unemployment
Unemployment Rate (%)
Employees on Nonagricultural Payrolls, ADES
Total
Construction
Manufacturing
Trans., Comm. & Publ. Util.
Trade
Finance, Ins. & Real Estate
Services
Government
Sales ($000s) ADOR
Gross Retail
Retail
Restaurants & Bars
Gasoline, EBR
Gallons (000s) ADOT
Contracting
Value of Construction Contract Awards ($000s) F.W. Dodge
Total
Residential Building
Non-Residential Building
Non-Building
Number of Dwelling Units Awarded, F.W. Dodge
Total
One Family Houses
SANTA CRUZ COUNTY
Civilian Labor Force, ADES
Employment
Unemployment
Unemployment Rate (%)
Employees on Nonagricultural Payrolls, ADES
Total
Construction
Manufacturing
Trans., Comm. & Publ. Util.
Trade
Finance, Ins. & Real Estate
Services
Government
Sales ($000s) ADOR
Gross Retail
Retail
Restaurants & Bars
Gasoline, EBR
Gallons (000s) ADOT
Contracting
Value of Construction Contract Awards ($000s) F.W. Dodge
Total
Residential Building
Non-Residential Building
Non-Building
Number of Dwelling Units Awarded, F.W. Dodge
Total
One Family Houses

E C O N O M I C

I N D I C A T O R S

% change versus year ago for:
most
most
recent
recent
month
12-months

JUN
2000

JUL
2000

AUG
2000

SEP
2000

OCT
2000

40,550
38,750
1,800
4.4

40,625
38,850
1,775
4.4

40,525
38,700
1,825
4.5

40,625
38,975
1,650
4.1

40,325
38,725
1,600
4.0

-1.3
-0.8
-12.3
-11.1

2.3
3.9
-22.6
-24.6

32,200
2,250
950
1,325
8,125
725
8,800
10,025

32,250
2,200
925
1,325
8,150
725
8,750
10,175

32,500
2,225
925
1,325
8,275
725
8,575
10,450

33,025
2,250
1,150
1,325
8,325
725
8,575
10,675

32,900
2,200
1,100
1,300
8,300
750
8,550
10,700

2.7
-5.4
2.3
4.0
5.1
3.4
1.8
3.4

5.8
3.4
-8.0
4.5
12.3
1.5
10.7
0.1

59,814
47,226
6,748
5,840
4,183
13,958

54,431
41,384
6,791
6,256
4,297
10,012

58,695
45,933
6,637
6,125
4,189
11,367

55,685
43,284
6,664
5,737
3,772
11,336

...
...
...
...
...
...

-2.4
1.0
6.4
-27.5
-44.3
-2.3

5.4
7.4
10.8
-10.2
-28.7
18.0

46,959
4,283
35,700
6,976

11,803
3,900
138
7,765

5,229
4,608
0
621

5,183
3,975
50
1,158

10,224
4,446
0
5,778

-68.6
-15.3
-100.0
7.5

-12.6
-13.0
1.0
-23.6

48
48

44
44

53
53

44
44

49
49

-2.0
-2.0

-0.8
-13.3

13,100
11,400
1,700
13.0

13,300
10,725
2,575
19.4

14,100
11,075
3,025
21.5

14,125
11,000
3,125
22.1

14,175
11,200
2,975
21.0

2.0
4.2
-5.6
-7.4

-2.3
1.7
-20.7
-19.4

11,800
350
850
1,225
4,550
200
1,650
2,975

11,075
375
825
1,125
4,175
175
1,600
2,800

11,575
375
850
1,150
3,975
175
1,650
3,400

11,625
375
850
1,175
3,950
175
1,675
3,425

11,875
375
875
1,225
4,050
200
1,700
3,450

8.0
0.0
2.9
6.5
4.5
14.3
9.7
14.0

3.5
-0.6
-4.2
4.4
0.0
-6.9
6.7
10.5

23,479
18,611
2,390
2,478
1,774
4,921

23,087
18,202
2,179
2,706
1,859
3,365

24,992
19,587
2,561
2,844
1,945
3,968

23,780
18,268
2,577
2,935
1,930
4,144

...
...
...
...
...
...

17.1
14.4
26.6
27.9
-1.7
-31.3

8.7
8.5
2.4
17.2
-7.2
-18.4

3,561
2,751
0
810

9,621
9,111
510
0

7,924
3,310
2,420
2,194

3,603
2,518
575
510

7,194
7,021
100
73

71.8
75.8
33.3
-38.7

22.7
32.8
-8.9
30.6

31
23

139
31

35
35

28
28

125
17

204.9
-46.9

53.3
-8.2

See notes at bottom of Arizona - Quarterly table.
PAGE TWELVE

ARIZONA’S ECONOMY

A R I Z O N A

E C O N O M I C

GILA COUNTY
Civilian Labor Force, ADES
Employment
Unemployment
Unemployment Rate (%)
Employees on Nonagricultural Payrolls, ADES
Total
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Trans., Comm. & Publ. Util.
Trade
Finance, Ins. & Real Estate
Services
Government
Sales ($000s) ADOR
Gross Retail
Retail
Restaurants & Bars
Gasoline, EBR
Gallons (000s) ADOT
Contracting
Value of Construction Contract Awards ($000s) F.W. Dodge
Total
Residential Building
Non-Residential Building
Non-Building
Number of Dwelling Units Awarded, F.W. Dodge
Total
One Family Houses
GRAHAM-GREENLEE REGION
Civilian Labor Force, ADES
Employment
Unemployment
Unemployment Rate (%)
Employees on Nonagricultural Payrolls, ADES
Total
Mining (Greenlee County only)
Construction
Manufacturing
Trans., Comm. & Publ. Util.
Trade
Finance, Ins. & Real Estate
Services
Government
Sales ($000s) ADOR
Gross Retail
Retail
Restaurants & Bars
Gasoline, EBR
Gallons (000s) ADOT
Contracting
Value of Construction Contract Awards ($000s) F.W. Dodge
Total
Residential Building
Non-Residential Building
Non-Building
Number of Dwelling Units Awarded, F.W. Dodge
Total
One Family Houses

I N D I C A T O R S

% change versus year ago for:
most
most
recent
recent
month
12-months

JUN
2000

JUL
2000

AUG
2000

SEP
2000

OCT
2000

18,150
17,175
975
5.4

18,250
17,275
975
5.3

18,425
17,425
1,000
5.4

18,200
17,275
925
5.1

18,050
17,125
925
5.1

1.8
3.3
-19.6
-21.0

-0.3
1.6
-24.5
-24.2

14,700
725
1,050
1,175
500
3,800
225
2,775
4,450

14,650
725
1,025
1,175
500
3,850
200
2,775
4,400

14,900
725
1,025
1,175
525
3,875
225
2,825
4,525

14,850
725
1,025
1,175
500
3,825
225
2,750
4,625

14,850
725
1,025
1,175
525
3,825
225
2,725
4,625

5.5
3.6
5.1
2.2
5.0
10.9
0.0
3.8
3.9

3.4
14.1
5.2
-8.2
-5.1
10.0
-6.4
3.3
1.4

28,502
20,287
4,356
3,859
2,764
6,068

26,473
18,779
4,294
3,400
2,336
6,885

27,008
19,409
4,137
3,462
2,368
7,631

25,593
18,530
3,603
3,460
2,275
8,149

...
...
...
...
...
...

3.4
6.2
-5.3
-1.3
-24.2
911.7

3.7
3.5
1.8
7.4
-14.4
26.7

13,709
4,857
0
8,852

7,979
4,252
0
3,727

28,089
4,646
86
23,357

5,697
3,401
282
2,014

2,885
2,792
0
93

-76.4
-51.1
-100.0
-97.8

11.5
0.6
-70.2
97.9

33
33

33
33

31
31

25
25

19
19

-47.2
-47.2

5.3
5.4

14,625
13,650
975
6.7

14,375
13,425
950
6.6

14,750
13,825
925
6.3

14,700
13,850
850
5.8

14,875
14,000
875
5.9

-1.5
0.5
-25.5
-24.4

-1.0
1.3
-24.5
-23.8

11,075
2,525
650
275
225
2,175
175
1,825
3,225

10,975
2,525
625
275
225
2,150
175
1,825
3,175

11,400
2,475
625
275
225
2,200
175
1,875
3,550

11,525
2,475
625
275
225
2,225
175
1,875
3,650

11,650
2,475
600
275
250
2,225
175
1,875
3,775

4.5
-3.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.7
7.1
13.5

2.4
-3.3
-1.7
2.3
-7.4
-2.9
3.8
7.0
9.9

20,268
16,760
1,827
1,681
1,204
4,002

19,241
15,684
1,766
1,791
1,230
2,444

15,012
11,336
1,840
1,836
1,256
4,076

23,152
19,757
1,717
1,678
1,103
2,730

...
...
...
...
...
...

28.4
33.2
10.9
1.7
-21.8
-35.1

10.0
10.3
0.7
16.7
-7.5
-9.3

1,535
1,135
400
2,969

2,735
735
2,000
2,680

838
838
0
1,862

2,158
658
1,500
5,512

908
681
227
272

144.7
83.6
...
...

-38.3
19.8
-64.5
102.3

13
13

7
7

9
9

8
8

8
8

60.0
60.0

38.4
-4.6

See notes at bottom of Arizona - Quarterly table.
ARIZONA’S ECONOMY

PAGE THIRTEEN

A R I Z O N A

APACHE-NAVAJO REGION
Civilian Labor Force, ADES
Employment
Unemployment
Unemployment Rate (%)
Employees on Nonagricultural Payrolls, ADES
Total
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Trans., Comm. & Publ. Util.
Trade
Finance, Ins. & Real Estate
Services
Government
Sales ($000s) ADOR
Gross Retail
Retail
Restaurants & Bars
Gasoline, EBR
Gallons (000s) ADOT
Contracting
Value of Construction Contract Awards ($000s) F.W. Dodge
Total
Residential Building
Non-Residential Building
Non-Building
Number of Dwelling Units Awarded, F.W. Dodge
Total
One Family Houses
COCONINO-YAVAPAI REGION
Civilian Labor Force, ADES
Employment
Unemployment
Unemployment Rate (%)
Employees on Nonagricultural Payrolls, ADES
Total
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Trans., Comm. & Publ. Util.
Trade
Finance, Ins. & Real Estate
Services
Government
Sales ($000s) ADOR
Gross Retail
Retail
Restaurants & Bars
Gasoline, EBR
Gallons (000s) ADOT
Contracting
Value of Construction Contract Awards ($000s) F.W. Dodge
Total
Residential Building
Non-Residential Building
Non-Building
Number of Dwelling Units Awarded, F.W. Dodge
Total
One Family Houses

E C O N O M I C

I N D I C A T O R S

% change versus year ago for:
most
most
recent
recent
month
12-months

JUN
2000

JUL
2000

AUG
2000

SEP
2000

OCT
2000

52,175
44,675
7,500
14.4

52,475
44,750
7,725
14.7

52,600
45,425
7,175
13.6

50,475
45,475
5,000
9.9

49,825
44,950
4,875
9.8

-5.1
-4.1
-13.7
-9.0

-3.9
-1.6
-18.2
-15.0

45,175
875
2,000
1,175
2,450
7,700
1,200
8,100
21,675

45,000
875
1,975
1,150
2,500
7,900
1,225
8,075
21,300

45,975
875
2,000
1,150
2,475
8,000
1,275
8,050
22,150

46,475
875
1,975
1,150
2,475
8,000
1,275
8,100
22,625

46,275
850
1,925
1,125
2,500
7,875
1,275
8,050
22,675

-1.9
-5.6
-10.5
-15.1
-2.9
0.3
4.1
-1.2
-1.3

0.4
-3.4
0.1
-12.3
0.6
-1.7
0.3
4.3
0.7

93,763
75,442
6,878
11,443
8,196
15,758

74,302
54,639
7,886
11,777
8,089
17,654

75,526
57,261
7,434
10,831
7,408
18,042

72,248
54,463
6,569
11,216
7,375
24,255

...
...
...
...
...
...

2.4
0.0
5.3
14.2
-12.3
74.5

21.5
21.0
7.6
33.9
7.8
24.9

34,871
8,325
2,778
23,768

19,069
11,315
0
7,754

31,882
26,022
2,658
3,202

13,944
8,733
175
5,036

40,520
8,171
21,947
10,402

111.1
0.9
246.8
118.1

25.0
19.9
10.6
62.4

67
67

84
84

235
235

62
62

71
71

1.4
1.4

1.2
6.2

132,025
125,900
6,125
4.6

132,200
125,925
6,275
4.7

130,050
124,275
5,775
4.4

130,300
125,825
4,475
3.4

130,950
126,550
4,400
3.4

0.8
1.4
-13.3
-14.0

1.8
2.6
-14.8
-16.4

106,950
975
7,300
5,725
2,875
26,675
2,625
31,775
29,000

106,425
925
7,425
5,775
2,900
26,650
2,600
31,875
28,275

106,250
925
7,450
5,775
2,950
26,775
2,600
31,850
27,925

108,500
950
7,325
5,725
2,900
26,900
2,625
31,700
30,375

109,700
925
7,450
5,725
2,950
27,000
2,650
32,100
30,900

4.2
-2.6
2.8
0.4
2.6
1.3
3.9
5.2
7.4

4.7
-1.7
2.1
-1.8
-2.8
1.9
-2.4
7.1
8.7

232,546
164,565
41,909
26,072
18,673
56,062

222,259
153,875
40,921
27,463
18,863
51,052

228,552
159,627
39,028
29,897
20,448
58,908

218,067
151,978
39,269
26,820
17,636
59,103

...
...
...
...
...
...

7.2
4.6
5.1
29.4
-0.6
-2.4

14.6
11.5
15.3
37.8
10.2
11.6

97,191
37,061
25,549
34,581

45,420
32,698
6,855
5,867

76,392
32,709
39,566
4,117

39,178
28,997
6,053
4,128

43,175
33,366
4,509
5,300

-48.5
-12.0
-73.3
-81.7

-5.5
-7.3
-12.5
9.2

268
252

230
217

239
233

205
187

227
223

-39.8
20.5

-16.5
5.4

See notes at bottom of Arizona - Quarterly table.
PAGE FOURTEEN

A RI ZO NA’S EC O NO M Y

A R I Z O N A

E C O N O M I C

PHOENIX-MESA METROPOLITAN REGION (MARICOPA AND PINAL)
Civilian Labor Force (000s) ADES
Employment
Unemployment
Unemployment Rate, Seas. Adj. (%)
Employees on Nonagricultural Payrolls (000s) ADES
Total
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Durable
Nondurable
Trans., Comm. & Publ. Util.
Trade
Wholesale
Retail
Finance, Ins. & Real Estate
Services
Government
Sales ($000s) ADOR
Aggregate Retail Sales
Retail
Food, EBR
Restaurants & Bars
Gasoline, EBR
Contracting
Value of Construction Contract Awards ($000s) F.W. Dodge
Total Awards
Residential Building
Non-Residential Building
Non-Building
New Housing Units Authorized, Census C-40
Total Units
Single Family Units
2-4 Unit Structures
5-plus Unit Structures
Housing Sales and Prices, ARMLS
Total Sales ($000s)
Total Units
Average Price ($)
Phoenix Skyharbor International Airport, PSIA
Total Passengers
Total Aircraft Movements

I N D I C A T O R S

JUN
2000

JUL
2000

AUG
2000

SEP
2000

OCT
2000

1600.4
1556.9
43.5
2.6

1602.4
1558.7
43.7
2.6

1600.4
1554.1
46.3
2.7

1611.7
1568.8
42.9
2.4

1614.9
1573.1
41.8
2.5

1.2
1.7
-12.9
-13.8

2.2
2.7
-11.5
-13.3

1572.6
2.9
115.8
165.8
128.1
37.7
85.0
376.1
89.7
286.4
124.5
527.8
174.7

1564.4
2.9
116.0
166.7
129.0
37.7
85.1
370.8
88.7
282.1
124.9
528.3
169.7

1573.9
2.9
117.2
166.8
129.0
37.8
85.2
372.3
88.4
283.9
125.2
529.1
175.2

1601.0
2.9
117.4
166.5
128.7
37.8
85.6
375.1
88.8
286.3
125.1
531.2
197.2

1616.5
2.9
118.7
166.6
129.1
37.5
86.7
379.0
89.1
289.9
126.3
535.1
201.2

4.2
0.0
2.7
1.1
1.7
-1.1
6.4
2.8
1.3
3.3
4.6
6.0
4.8

4.3
-36.9
3.0
0.0
0.1
-0.2
6.7
3.4
0.8
4.3
4.8
7.4
2.4

3,187,368
2,298,073
376,787
349,453
163,055
766,676

2,818,580
1,986,335
362,018
300,467
169,760
636,946

2,945,097
2,098,073
361,627
309,687
175,710
679,620

3,070,520
2,184,045
370,183
342,225
174,067
688,178

...
...
...
...
...
...

10.1
9.3
5.6
10.6
33.1
7.3

10.0
9.6
7.8
9.2
22.7
5.9

863,454
553,377
257,169
52,908

768,919
432,439
225,567
110,913

936,569
510,403
252,322
173,844

747,925
493,594
191,110
63,221

834,819
497,927
229,523
107,369

33.4
24.5
35.4
91.6

4.8
-0.7
17.7
5.4

3,677
2,994
93
590

3,306
2,548
47
711

3,964
2,932
91
941

4,077
2,853
50
1,174

3,373
2,517
68
788

16.3
5.2
119.4
65.2

-7.2
-11.8
85.9
6.2

909,213
5,201
174,815

871,443
5,096
171,005

842,674
4,901
171,939

787,771
4,591
171,590

754,360
4,461
169,101

-0.7
-9.7
10.0

7.9
-0.9
8.8

3,101,379
52,116

3,130,691
51,515

3,083,009
54,616

2,520,958
52,443

...
...

-0.3
15.8

8.7
12.8

PHOENIX-MESA METROPOLITAN REGION (MARICOPA AND PINAL) - QUARTERLY DATA

Demographics & Vital Statistics (000s, seas adj) ADHS & EBR
Population
Natural Increase
Births
Deaths
Net Migration
Personal Income by Source ($mil, SAAR) EBR
Total Personal Income
Earnings by Place of Work
Less: Contributions for Social Insurance
Plus: Adjustment for Residence
Plus: Dividends, Interest & Rents
Plus: Transfer Payments
Per Capita Personal Income ($, SAAR) EBR

% change versus year ago for:
most
most
recent
recent
month
12-months

% change versus year ago for:
most
most
recent
recent
quarter
4-quarters

III
1999

IV
1999

I
2000

II
2000

III
2000

3,058.1
7.5
13.3
5.9
15.0

3,080.4
7.5
13.4
5.9
14.9

3,102.7
7.5
13.5
5.9
14.7

3,124.9
7.5
13.5
6.0
14.7

3,147.1
7.6
13.6
6.0
14.6

2.9
1.7
2.3
2.9
-3.0

3.0
2.8
3.2
3.7
-9.9

84,796
63,763
4,017
-113
15,593
9,570
27,728

86,538
65,109
4,098
-113
15,857
9,782
28,093

88,287
66,466
4,180
-112
16,125
9,988
28,455

89,979
67,793
4,260
-112
16,361
10,196
28,794

91,671
69,120
4,340
-111
16,598
10,404
29,129

8.1
8.4
8.0
1.7
6.4
8.7
5.1

8.0
8.5
8.1
2.1
5.6
8.6
4.9

See notes at bottom of Arizona - Quarterly table.

ARIZONA’S ECONOMY

PA GE F IF TE EN

A R I Z O N A

E C O N O M I C

TUCSON METROPOLITAN REGION (PIMA)
Civilian Labor Force (000s) ADES
Employment
Unemployment
Unemployment Rate, Seas. Adj. (%)
Employees on Nonagricultural Payrolls (000s) ADES
Total
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Durable
Nondurable
Trans., Comm. & Publ. Util.
Trade
Wholesale
Retail
Finance, Ins. & Real Estate
Services
Government
Sales ($000s) ADOR
Aggregate Retail Sales
Retail
Food, EBR
Restaurants & Bars
Gasoline, EBR
Contracting
Value of Construction Contract Awards ($000s) F.W. Dodge
Total Awards
Residential Building
Non-Residential Building
Non-Building
New Housing Units Authorized, Census C-40 adjusted by EBR
Total Units
Single Family Units
2-5-plus Unit Structures
Housing Sales and Prices, TAR
Total Sales ($000s)
Total Units
Average Price ($)
Tucson International Airport, TAA
Total Passengers
Total Aircraft Movements

I N D I C A T O R S

OCT
2000

JUN
2000

JUL
2000

AUG
2000

SEP
2000

397.4
386.0
11.4
2.8

394.0
382.8
11.2
2.6

394.0
382.6
11.4
2.7

396.5
385.9
10.6
2.4

397.4
387.1
10.3
2.5

1.4
2.4
-25.4
-26.5

3.9
4.0
0.1
-2.5

351.4
1.8
22.1
33.4
27.8
5.6
12.3
73.8
11.0
62.8
13.7
119.4
74.9

346.2
1.8
22.3
33.5
28.0
5.5
12.5
72.8
11.0
61.8
13.8
118.6
70.9

349.2
1.8
22.4
33.7
28.1
5.6
12.4
73.9
11.1
62.8
13.9
119.2
71.9

354.6
1.8
22.3
33.7
28.1
5.6
12.4
74.4
11.1
63.3
13.7
119.3
77.0

358.4
1.8
22.3
33.7
28.1
5.6
12.3
75.5
11.2
64.3
13.9
119.8
79.1

4.9
0.0
0.0
7.7
9.8
-1.8
0.8
5.3
2.8
5.8
3.7
5.3
5.0

5.7
-8.9
5.2
11.1
14.4
-2.8
0.6
5.0
2.1
5.5
5.0
6.1
5.0

691,981
477,277
92,636
78,166
43,902
131,137

640,365
435,472
89,005
70,316
45,572
127,673

691,954
482,423
88,909
72,785
47,837
127,541

682,848
464,415
91,013
79,184
48,236
123,128

...
...
...
...
...
...

8.7
7.1
6.2
7.8
35.4
3.6

9.3
8.5
8.2
6.3
27.3
10.5

145,888
92,369
32,624
20,895

143,714
82,504
42,503
18,707

102,345
87,841
12,156
2,348

128,745
84,391
38,996
5,358

158,268
83,365
34,514
40,389

35.3
7.9
26.8
222.3

1.0
-7.7
7.5
36.5

735
652
83

629
573
56

698
557
141

637
596
41

...
...
...

-12.9
-4.5
-61.6

-4.2
-5.1
-1.5

176,401
1,073
164,400

140,966
897
157,153

154,760
1,002
154,451

131,695
835
157,718

119,212
788
151,284

-5.2
-10.6
6.0

0.4
-4.8
5.6

280,379
19,088

273,837
20,778

267,983
19,872

257,921
22,393

319,895
21,762

6.3
-6.3

1.2
-8.6

TUCSON METROPOLITAN REGION (PIMA) - QUARTERLY DATA

Demographics & Vital Statistics (000s, seas adj) ADHS & EBR
Population
Natural Increase
Births
Deaths
Net Migration
Personal Income by Source ($mil, SAAR) EBR
Total Personal Income
Earnings by Place of Work
Less: Contributions for Social Insurance
Plus: Adjustment for Residence
Plus: Dividends, Interest & Rents
Plus: Transfer Payments
Per Capita Personal Income ($, SAAR) EBR

% change versus year ago for:
most
most
recent
recent
month
12-months

III
2000

% change versus year ago for:
most
most
recent
recent
quarter
4-quarters

III
1999

IV
1999

I
2000

II
2000

848.1
1.2
2.9
1.7
3.9

853.2
1.2
2.9
1.8
4.0

858.4
1.2
2.9
1.8
3.9

863.4
1.2
2.9
1.8
3.9

868.5
1.2
3.0
1.8
3.9

2.4
-0.6
1.0
2.1
-0.5

2.4
0.9
1.3
1.6
-7.5

19,496
12,370
731
191
4,683
2,983
22,989

19,942
12,667
749
198
4,789
3,038
23,373

20,386
12,962
766
204
4,895
3,091
23,750

20,818
13,255
784
210
4,991
3,144
24,110

21,249
13,548
801
217
5,088
3,198
24,466

9.0
9.5
9.5
13.3
8.6
7.2
6.4

8.8
9.6
9.7
14.1
7.7
7.0
6.2

See notes at bottom of Arizona - Quarterly table
PA GE S IX T EEN

A RI ZO NA’S EC O NO M Y

A R I Z O N A

ARIZONA MONTHLY DATA
Civilian Labor Force (000s) ADES
Employment
Unemployment
Unemployment Rate, Seas. Adj. (%)
Employees on Nonagricultural Payrolls (000s) ADES
Total
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Durable
Nondurable
Trans., Comm. & Publ. Util.
Transportation
Trade
Wholesale
Retail
Finance, Ins. & Real Estate
Services
Government
Federal
State & Local
Schools
Hours Worked Per Week, Manufacturing, ADES
Average Hourly Earnings ($) ADES
Construction
Manufacturing
Utilities
Retail Trade
Wholesale Trade
Sales ($000s) ADOR
Aggregate Retail Sales
Retail
Food, EBR
Restaurants & Bars
Gasoline, EBR
Gallons (000s) ADOT
Utilities
Communications
Amusements
Rentals - Personal Property
Contracting
Mining - Metal, Oil & Gas
Hotel/Motel
Value of Construction Contract Awards ($000s)
Total Awards
Residential Building
Non-Residential Building
Non-Building
New Housing Units Authorized, Census C-40
Total Units
Single Family Units
2-4 Unit Structures
5-plus Unit Structures
Bankruptcy Filings, U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Total
Chapter 7
Chapter 11
Chapter 13

E C O N O M I C

I N D I C A T O R S

% change versus year ago for:
most
most
recent
recent
month
12-months

JUN
2000

JUL
2000

AUG
2000

SEP
2000

OCT
2000

2409.5
2309.0
100.5
3.8

2410.8
2305.7
105.1
3.7

2412.7
2301.8
110.9
3.9

2417.5
2322.1
95.4
3.5

2419.8
2329.4
90.4
3.7

1.0
1.6
-11.2
-14.0

2.1
2.8
-11.3
-13.5

2233.2
10.1
158.9
215.7
167.6
48.1
109.4
71.1
526.8
109.0
417.8
146.1
725.0
341.2
48.7
292.5
139.4
40.3

2217.0
10.1
159.4
216.6
168.5
48.1
109.6
71.2
520.6
107.9
412.7
146.5
724.9
329.3
49.5
279.8
124.5
40.2

2233.5
10.0
160.9
216.7
168.5
48.2
109.7
71.7
523.4
107.8
415.6
146.7
726.3
339.8
47.4
292.4
139.4
39.8

2270.7
10.1
161.1
216.7
168.4
48.3
110.0
72.1
527.4
108.4
419.0
146.3
728.2
370.9
46.5
324.4
172.8
39.9

2291.6
10.0
162.5
216.7
168.7
48.0
111.0
73.0
532.5
108.9
423.6
148.1
732.6
378.2
46.3
331.9
179.6
39.7

4.1
-1.0
2.8
2.1
3.2
-1.6
4.8
5.6
3.1
0.9
3.7
4.3
5.6
4.5
0.4
5.1
6.4
-2.7

4.5
-15.8
3.6
1.5
2.4
-1.7
5.0
4.9
3.4
-0.6
4.6
4.6
7.2
3.7
3.5
3.8
3.6
-0.2

15.06
12.79
19.09
11.48
13.79

15.42
12.75
19.57
11.56
14.17

15.52
12.57
19.97
11.39
14.00

15.37
12.78
20.16
11.56
14.36

15.43
12.74
20.19
11.48
14.04

7.7
0.4
13.7
0.3
5.5

4.1
1.1
6.0
-1.0
4.5

4,628,793
3,264,559
568,188
513,123
282,924
202,638
541,973
232,551
66,622
321,231
1,055,234
36,459
127,952

4,150,772
2,856,513
545,916
454,126
294,216
202,085
572,437
236,276
65,788
284,348
897,600
36,709
104,359

4,336,961
3,022,687
545,327
464,697
304,250
208,091
625,406
241,990
47,729
285,474
958,363
47,621
109,541

4,546,705
3,090,939
558,229
599,896
297,641
195,714
563,260
236,055
42,330
292,092
969,552
50,762
135,935

...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...

11.9
8.6
6.5
30.7
27.8
-1.8
4.3
20.8
-1.0
4.6
8.7
-32.8
13.9

10.4
9.6
8.0
10.5
24.6
-1.7
7.2
16.6
6.2
9.8
7.5
-42.0
10.0

1,250,296
727,136
360,577
162,583

1,047,458
596,921
283,326
167,211

1,221,656
694,621
313,762
213,273

980,761
646,336
241,697
92,728

1,158,316
670,207
297,365
190,744

19.4
20.1
12.9
28.2

3.1
-1.5
12.2
7.1

5,034
4,278
131
625

4,279
3,477
62
740

5,228
4,055
137
1,036

5,259
4,005
75
1,179

4,488
3,593
88
807

11.9
6.1
25.7
45.1

-6.6
-8.9
28.2
0.6

1,824
1,459
29
336

1,571
1,242
19
308

1,870
1,499
39
332

1,683
1,368
23
292

...
...
...
...

-6.1
-4.6
64.3
-15.1

-8.5
-9.6
53.7
-6.9

See notes at bottom of Arizona - Quarterly table.
AR IZ ON A ’S E CON O MY

PAGE SEVENTEEN

A R I Z O N A

E C O N O M I C

ARIZONA QUARTERLY DATA
Demographics & Vital Statistics (000s, seas adj) ADHS & EBR
Population
Natural Increase
Births
Deaths
Net Migration
Personal Income Derivation ($mil, SAAR) EBR
Total Personal Income
Earnings by Place of Work
Less: Contributions for Social Insurance
Plus: Adjustment for Residence
Plus: Dividends, Interest & Rents
Plus: Transfer Payments
Components of Earnings ($mil, SAAR) BEA
Wages and Salaries
Other Labor Income
Proprietor’s Income
Farm
Nonfarm
Per Capita Personal Income ($, SAAR) EBR
Average Wage Per Employee, Annual Rate ($) EBR

I N D I C A T O R S

III
1999

IV
1999

I
2000

II
2000

III
2000

4,853.0
10.6
20.1
9.5
21.4

4,884.5
10.1
20.0
10.0
20.9

4,916.0
10.6
20.2
9.7
21.4

4,947.5
11.2
21.1
9.8
23.4

4,980.2
10.6
20.5
10.0
23.7

2.6
-0.4
2.0
4.6
11.0

2.7
2.9
2.3
1.7
-3.5

122,975
87,035
5,328
399
24,769
16,100

125,656
88,977
5,427
406
25,422
16,277

127,576
90,567
5,545
412
25,802
16,341

130,355
92,666
5,652
420
26,220
16,701

132,204
94,021
5,721
425
26,385
17,094

7.5
8.0
7.4
6.6
6.5
6.2

8.3
9.0
8.2
7.6
7.8
5.2

69,991
7,255
9,140
409
8,731
25,340
31,716

71,052
7,317
9,431
505
8,926
25,725
31,906

74,225
7,517
9,535
402
9,132
25,951
32,845

73,924
7,515
9,867
484
9,383
26,348
32,342

...
...
...
...
...
26,546
...

7.1
4.4
9.4
-5.1
10.2
4.8
2.4

8.4
5.6
9.0
-2.3
9.6
5.4
3.9

TRAVEL AND TOURISM - MONTHLY DATA
JUN
2000
Visits to Parks & Other Recreational Areas, ADOT, NPS & ASPB
Northern Arizona
Historical
Scenic
Water Based Recreation
Southern Arizona
Historical
Scenic
Water Based Recreation
International Border Crossings, USINS & USCS
U.S. Citizens
Aliens
Vehicles

JUL
2000

AUG
2000

SEP
2000

OCT
2000

Sources and abbreviations:

ADES: Arizona Department of Economic Security
ADHS: Arizona Department of Health Services
ADOR: Arizona Department of Revenue
ADOT: Arizona Department of Transportation
ARMLS: Arizona Regional Multiple Listing Service
ASPB: Arizona State Parks Board
BEA: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department
of Commerce

PAGE EIGHTEEN

% change versus year ago for:
most
most
recent
recent
month
12-months

2,605,144
178,568
740,860
1,685,716
161,755
21,499
100,914
39,342

2,509,708
183,532
849,625
1,476,551
170,689
28,051
95,085
47,553

2,318,108
166,863
787,848
1,363,397
149,205
25,119
90,737
33,349

1,856,562
158,946
621,770
1,075,846
154,311
26,930
95,130
32,251

1,676,310
155,682
504,872
1,015,756
193,204
32,599
137,175
23,430

-1.2
-3.6
-7.1
2.5
-6.4
-17.4
4.1
-33.3

-0.6
-6.6
-3.0
1.6
6.8
-6.2
13.2
-2.6

769,596
2,043,281
877,638

778,357
2,002,660
879,910

809,646
2,278,147
901,103

792,851
2,199,928
880,523

791,869
2,098,382
914,920

9.0
4.7
4.0

1.7
4.3
2.5

MEASURES OF INFLATION AND PRICES - MONTHLY DATA

Consumer Price Index (1982-1984=100) BLS
U.S. - All Urban
U.S. - Wage Earners

% change versus year ago for:
most
most
recent
recent
quarter
4-quarters

JUN
2000

JUL
2000

AUG
2000

SEP
2000

172.4
169.2

172.8
169.4

172.8
169.3

173.7
170.4

BLS: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor
Census C-40, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department
of Commerce
EBR: Economic & Business Research Program,
The University of Arizona
F.W. Dodge, Division of McGraw Hill Information Systems
Co. (proprietary data provided by special permission)
NPS: National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
PSIA: Phoenix Skyharbor International Airport

OCT
2000
174.0
170.6

% change versus year ago for:
most
most
recent
recent
month
12-months
3.4
3.4

3.3
3.3

SAAR: Seasonally adjusted at annual rates
TAA: Tucson Airport Authority
TAR: Tucson Association of Realtors
USINS: U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service,
U.S. Department of Justice
U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Arizona
USCS: U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Department
of the Treasury

ARIZONA’S ECONOMY

A R I Z O N A

E C O N O M I C

I N D I C A T O R S

MEASURES OF INFLATION AND PRICES - QUARTERLY DATA

Consumer Price index (1982-84=100) BLS
Western Region (U.S.)
U.S. - All Urban Consumers
U.S. - Urban Wage Earners
Price Indexes (1992=100) BEA
Gross Domestic Product
Personal Consumption Expenditures

III
2000

% change versus year ago for:
most
most
recent
recent
quarter
4-quarters

III
1999

IV
1999

I
2000

II
2000

170.0
167.2
163.9

170.5
168.3
165.1

173.5
169.9
166.7

174.3
171.7
168.5

176.6
173.1
169.7

3.9
3.5
3.5

3.5
3.2
3.3

104.9
105.1

105.3
105.7

106.2
106.6

106.8
107.1

107.2
108.0

2.2
2.7

1.9
2.4

See notes at bottom of Arizona - Quarterly table

Visit our NEW web site!
e b r. e l l e r. a r i z o n a . e d u
Made possible through the support of Bank One

TO ORDER
Check the appropriate box below and include a check or money order, where applicable.
Arizona’s Economy
❑ free of charge in the United States ❑ $12.00 (U.S.) international subscription
Arizona Economic Indicators
❑ $19.00 in the U.S. (Fall 2000 & Spring 2001)
❑ $25.00 (U.S.) international subscription (Fall 2000 & Spring 2001)
❑ $10.00 single issue U.S. (specify issue) ❑ $13.00 single issue international (specify issue)
1990 Arizona Statistical Abstract, includes 1980 Census data.
❑ Quantity ordered:_______ $26.50 (includes $3 shipping and handling)
❑ Quantity ordered:_______ $30.00 (U.S.) international order
1993 Arizona Statistical Abstract, includes 1990 Census data.
❑ Quantity ordered:_______ $27.95 (includes $3 shipping and handling)
❑ Quantity ordered:_______ $36.00 (U.S.) international order
Name: _________________________________________E-mail: ________________________________________

ARIZONA’S ECONOMY IS PUBLISHED QUARTERLY BY THE
ELLER COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION,
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA, TUCSON, ARIZONA 85721.
520-621-2155.
COPYRIGHT 2000 BY THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA.
REQUESTS FOR COPIES, PERMISSION TO REPRINT AND CHANGE
OF ADDRESS NOTICES SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE STAFF.
DEAN ...............................................................MARK ZUPAN
DIRECTOR, ECONOMIC
AND BUSINESS RESEARCH ............................MARSHALL VEST

Title: __________________________________________Organization: ___________________________________

COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR......................DIANA HUNTER

Address: _____________________________________________________________________________________

PUBLICATIONS COORDINATOR......................MARSHA DEAN

City: __________________________________________State: ____________Zip:________________- _________
Country: _____________________Telephone: (

) ___________________Fax: (

) ___________________

Total amount enclosed: $ __________________________

❑ Address Change. Please fill in old address in shaded box.
Please make check or money order payable to: Economic and Business Research Program
Mail to: Publications Office
Eller College of Business
and Public Administration
McClelland Hall 204
PO Box 210108
The University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721-0108

Name: ______________________________________________

Organization: ________________________________________
Title: ______________________________________________
Address: ____________________________________________
City: ______________________________________________
State: ________________________ Zip: ________________
Telephone: __________________________________________

1/01

ARIZONA’S ECONOMY

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS
RESEARCH PROGRAMS
520-621-2155
ECONOMIC IMPACT
& FISCAL ANALYSIS ......................ALBERTA CHARNEY
621-2291
FORECASTING PROJECT .................MARSHALL J. VEST
621-4075
STATE DATA CENTER...........................PIA MONTOYA
621-2523
DATA REFERENCE..................................VALORIE RICE
621-2109
EBR WEBMASTER.......................MAILE NADELHOFFER
621-4050

PAGE NINETEEN