J U L Y

1 9 9 8

IS A BUBBLE
DEVELOPING?
Marshall J. Vest
Forecasting Project Director
June 1, 1998

The economy is on a tear. Nationally,
real GDP grew by 4.3% in the first
quarter following gains averaging
3.8% over the past two years. That’s
the best two-year performance in nine
years and far above the economy’s
long-run growth potential. Even so,
inflation remains nearly absent with
overall domestic inflation increasing
at less than a one percent annual rate
in the first quarter. Producer prices
were actually lower than one year
ago. The “new economy” is alive and
well... or so it seems. Today’s economy
is highly liquid, and a huge supply
of money is bidding up asset prices,
mostly visible in financial markets and
in real estate. The burning question
is whether a “bubble” is developing,
which might eventually pop.

T

he first quarter’s advance was propelled by strong consumer spending, a
surge in residential construction and
spending on high-tech equipment. In this
environment, business managers’ main worry
is finding skilled workers suited for today’s
high-tech jobs. The nation’s unemployment
rate fell to only 4.3% in April, the lowest since
February 1970. With tight labor markets,
wages are accelerating — average hourly
earnings were up 4.4% in March compared
to last year’s reading.
These same trends also are evident in
Arizona. After a brief slowdown in 1996
and early 1997, the pace has accelerated in
recent months. Although growth rates remain

S U M M E R

I S S U E

EXHIBIT 1
Manufacturing Jobs
are Surging Again

EXHIBIT 2
Demand for Temps
is Strong

Manufacturing Employment Growth, AZ

Manpower, Inc.’s Net Hiring Strength

below those of 1994-95, Arizona’s economy
is growing quite rapidly once again.
Consumers have been buying everything in
sight in recent months. Consumer spending,
as measured by year-over-year sales gains at
retail stores, is running at a much faster clip
than last summer. Nationwide, retail sales
increased at an 8.1% annual rate in the first
quarter. For the 12-month period ending in
February, sales in Arizona were 7.4% higher
than a year earlier. That compares to a
gain of only 5.0% recorded in May of 1997.
Historically, consumers spend little (only
four percent) of gains in wealth from a rising
stock market. There is some evidence that
consumers are using more of their stock
market gains to finance current spending.
We doubt that they can continue spending

at this pace and we project a gain in Arizona
retail sales of 6.8% for all of this year.
So far, the Asian crisis doesn’t appear to
be affecting Arizona’s export industries. The
manufacturing sector, which is primarily
high-tech oriented, added nearly 12,000 jobs
during the past year. That is the strongest
advance since 1994 (Exhibit 1). Arizona’s
exports surged last year to $13.5 billion, up
from $9.9 billion in 1996. So far, only Intel
(1,100 job reduction, 600 net) and Motorola
(10% company wide, which if applied evenly
means 2,000 in Arizona) have announced
reductions due to the Asian crisis. We have
allowed for a loss of 6,000 jobs by mid-1999
in our BASE forecast.
After reaching a low last summer, job
growth has been accelerating. In the first

I N S I D E
FORECAST TABLES ................5
PRODUCE INDUSTRY
IN NOGALES, AZ .................6
ARIZONA ECONOMIC
INDICATORS ......................12

ELLER GRADUAT E SCHOOL OF MANAGE MENT • COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRAT ION

EXHIBIT 3
Total Income is Accelerating
Personal Income Growth, AZ

quarter, wage & salary employment was 4.8%
higher than the year before. That’s about
94,000 new jobs. Two separate surveys show
that demand for labor remains strong. The
Conference Board’s Help Wanted Index rose
sharply in the first quarter to its highest point
of the decade. And, Manpower, Inc.’s survey
of Net Hiring Strength for the second quarter
in Metro Phoenix rose to its highest level
since late 1993 (Exhibit 2). Net Hiring
Strength is the percentage of employers
who plan to increase payrolls minus the
percentage planning to decrease payrolls.
In the Tucson metro area, this index peaked
in last year’s second quarter and has fallen
to a low reading of only 10.
Personal income also is accelerating.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis recently
released new Arizona personal income
estimates for 1997. In this release, quarterly
figures were revised for the entire period
from 1969 to 1997. According to the new
numbers, Arizona personal income grew by
7.7% in 1997, slightly slower than the 8.1%
gain registered the year before. However,
personal income growth was accelerating
during last year’s second half. By the fourth
quarter, it was growing at an 8.4% annual
rate. That compares to a 6.8% annual rate
in last year’s second quarter, the low point
for the year (Exhibit 3). Accelerating wages
and strong job growth will keep personal
income growing briskly during the remainder
of this year. We expect a 9.0% increase in
1998.
The new data also show that wages and
salaries per employee accelerated sharply
during the fourth quarter. Overall wages were
six percent higher than one year earlier
(Exhibit 4). That’s the fastest increase since
PAGE TWO

EXHIBIT 4
A Tight Labor Market
is Boosting Wages

EXHIBIT 5
Investment in Non-Residential
Structures Matches the Mid 80’s

Wages and Salaries per Employee, AZ

Real Non-Residential Building, AZ

the end of 1992, which was an anomaly in the
data. We expect wage gains to average five
percent over 1998-99. The largest increases
will be in FIRE (finance, insurance and real
estate), manufacturing, services and TCPU
(transportation, communications and
public utilities).
Buoyed by a strong job market and
increasing real wages, consumer confidence
in Arizona rose to an all-time record high of
115.5 in April. The index is compiled by the
Behavior Research Center for Stockton
Capital Management & Trust of Scottsdale.

IS TOO MUCH MONEY
FLOWING INTO REAL ESTATE?
The major concern in this currently happy
environment is that the economy is awash
with too much money, and that asset prices

SEVEN OF THE
10 LEAST-AFFORDABLE
HOUSING MARKETS
IN THE COUNTRY
ARE IN
CALIFORNIA,
AND TWO
ARE IN OREGON.

are being driven too high. Surging prices
in the stock market is an obvious example.
Real estate prices also are moving up sharply
across many parts of the nation. Anecdotal
evidence continues to mount that too much
money is available: real estate investment
trusts (REITs) paying far too much for existing properties, borrowers qualifying for
mortgages who would not have qualified a
year or two ago and new loan programs for
those entwined in foreclosure proceedings!
More recently, REIT money is being committed to new construction on projects that have
no pre-leased tenants. This is reminiscent of
the 1980’s when too much money was turned
into a decade’s worth of empty buildings.
This not the 1980’s, in which building was
spurred to frenzied excess by tax inducements
and a flow of financing from a misregulated
savings and loan industry. Nevertheless, real
estate markets are beginning to take on the
feel of that prior period, and this is the kind
of behavior one normally sees in the late
stages of the building cycle.
A review of several measures shows that
real estate markets are soaring high. Nonresidential building rose last year to the
highest inflation-adjusted level since 1986,
during the height of the tax-induced building
boom (Exhibit 5). Nearly $10 billion of
construction awards were made during 1997,
according to F. W. Dodge. Nearly 73% occurred in Maricopa County, and Pima County
accounted for 12%. Recent large projects
in the Phoenix area include the Bank One
Ballpark, Arizona Mills regional shopping
center, new semiconductor “fab” plant projects by Intel, Motorola, Sumitomo, Microchip
Technology and others. An estimated 1.8
million square feet of office space and eight
ARIZONA'S ECONOMY

EXHIBIT 6
The Resale Home
Market is Surging
Existing 1-Family Home Sales (SAAR)

million square feet of industrial are to be
built in the Phoenix area this year. According
to CB Richard Ellis, industrial vacancies stood
at 7.8% in Phoenix in the fourth quarter compared to 8.4% nationwide. In Tucson, it is
11.7%. Office vacancies are 9.4% in Phoenix,
7.3% in Tucson and 9.9% nationwide.
Resale housing markets, as measured by
the number of homes sold, skyrocketed in
recent months. Nationwide, sales shot up to
a 4.9 million annual rate in early 1998. That
was mirrored in the Phoenix market, where
52,000 units at an annual rate changed hands,
an all-time record (Exhibit 6). In Tucson
the rate also rose to the highest level (a 9,000
unit annual rate) since a surge in early 1994.
The median price of homes sold during the
first quarter was 7.1% higher than last year
in metro Phoenix. Comparable increases
were 5.4% nationwide and 5.0% in Tucson.
These measures do not adjust for the
changing composition of size and quality
of homes sold, and therefore overstates the
appreciation of any given home. According
to the Arizona Real Estate Center at ASU’s
College of Business, appreciation of homes
in the Phoenix area that have sold more than
once between 1981 and 1997 was 2.9% in
1997. Although same-home increases are
smaller than the often-sited measure, this is
still the largest increase during the 1990’s.
Currently, homebuilders are very confident.
The National Association of Home Builders
each month surveys attitudes and expectations of 450 builders. Their Housing Market
Index incorporates measures of current
sales, buyer traffic and expectations for sales
of single-family detached homes. The index
ranges from 0 to 100, with 50 as average.
ARIZONA'S ECONOMY

EXHIBIT 7
Builders’ Expectations Soar
Housing Market Index, U.S.
(NAHB Builders Survey)

If all respondents say that their sales are
“good” (or “high” for traffic), the index is
100. If all respondents say “poor” (or “low”
for traffic), the index is 0. In February and
March, the index stood at the highest level
(67) since late 1993 (Exhibit 7).
Optimism on the part of homebuilders,
coupled with strong market fundamentals,
led to a spurt of new homes authorized by
building permits during the first quarter.
Nationally, mild weather was sighted as a
primary factor for the rise to a 1.6 million
annual rate, the highest this decade. In
Arizona, the number of units rose to a 60,000
annual rate. That’s the strongest since 1986
(Exhibit 8). Our forecast for 1998 calls
for the same number as last year, roughly
56,000 units. A 10-15% decline is expected
for 1999.

HOMEOWNERSHIP:
UP NATIONWIDE,
DOWN IN ARIZONA
Nationwide, home ownership climbed to
an all-time record high in recent months.
Nearly 66% of households own their own
home. Homeownership in Arizona, however,
has declined since the beginning of the
current expansion. From a high of 69.2%
in 1992 homeownership declined to 63.0%
last year (Exhibit 9). Why has homeownership trended downward in one of the hottest
economies in the nation? Rapidly growing
numbers of people who are unable to afford
to buy a home, a changing income distribution, and depressed wage rates are the most
likely explanations. It is noteworthy that
homeownership rates are much higher in

EXHIBIT 8
Residential Permits
Back to Cycle High
Housing Permits, Total (SAAR)

Metro Phoenix (65.5%) than in Tucson
(54.4%) or (apparently) the outlying areas
of the state.
Is affordability the cause of declining
homeownership? Housing affordability
remains at high levels, at least in Metro
Phoenix. According to ASU’s Real Estate
Center, affordability of resale homes stood at
135 in last year’s fourth quarter. That’s higher
than the nationwide figure of 130 and a high
level compared to the end of the1990-91
recession (Exhibit 10). The National Association of Realtors compiles the nationwide
index. An index of 100 indicates that a
median-income household is able to qualify
for a median-priced home. An index of 130
means that the same household has 130%
of the income needed. Affordability has
remained high because lower mortgage
rates have offset large increases in median
home prices.
Another measure, computed differently,
comes from the National Association of Home
Builders. Their Housing Opportunity Index
(HOI) measures the percentage of homes
sold that a family earning the median income
in that market could afford to buy. It is the
only index that ranks city-by-city housing
affordability, and considers the distribution
of homes for sale. In last year’s fourth
quarter, a Metro Phoenix family earning the
median income of $47,500 could afford to
buy 66.0% of the homes offered. That ranks
Phoenix 123rd of some 193 metro areas.
Tucson, with lower housing prices but much
lower incomes, ranks 142nd with an HOI of
61.5. Flagstaff, with an index of 50.2, is one
of the least-affordable housing markets in
the country, ranking 175th. See Exhibit 11.
PA GE TH RE E

EXHIBIT 9
Why is Homeownership
Declining in Arizona?

EXHIBIT 10
Affordability Remains High

EXHIBIT 12
Population Growth is Slowing

Housing Affordability, Resale Homes

Homeownership Rates: 1984 -1997

Sources: NAR and Arizona Real Estate Center, ASU

Residential Electrical Customers
TEP, SRP and APS Service Areas

The least affordable housing market in the
country is San Francisco, where a median
income family can afford only 18.7% of the
homes sold. Seven of the 10 least affordable
are from California (which imposes large
impact fees). Two of the least-affordable
(Portland and Salem) are in Oregon, the
state with extensive growth control measures.

financial part is over and the real effects
lie ahead. Student demonstrations, social
unrest, and new governments add to
uncertainty. Japan also appears unable to
help itself recover from a mountain of bad
loans and corruption. U.S. exports have
held up well so far but could tank in the
months ahead.
• Inflation has passed its low point for
this business cycle. Energy prices have
bottomed and are moving higher. Airline
ticket prices increased 37% during the
first three months of the year. Health
care costs are accelerating. It would
be unreasonable to expect the dollar to
continue climbing (and for import prices
to continue falling).
• Corporate profits are due for a squeeze
in the face of rising unit labor costs and
no pricing power due to cheap imports.
• The U.S. has been blessed recently with
large inflows of private capital, which have
kept interest rates low. Again, these flows
cannot continue.

WHY WORRY WHEN THE
ECONOMY IS SO GOOD?
Perhaps the biggest concern at this stage
is the lack of concern. An analogy to the
stock market may be helpful. The market is
known to “climb a wall of worry.” And when
market participants become complacent,
bubbles develop which eventually pop. At
this point both consumers and business
people are quite optimistic — maybe even
euphoric. That in its self poses a risk. As any
well-trained economist will tell you, there
are plenty of things to worry about.
• The Asian crisis has a long way to go,
maybe years before recovery resumes. The

EXHIBIT 11
In Arizona, Affordability Ranks Poorly
Housing Opportunity Index (HOI)
HOI
1997 Q4

1997 Median Family
Income ($000)

Median Sales
Price ($000)

National
Rank

Flagstaff, AZ-UT MSA

50.2

40.8

128

175

Phoenix-Mesa MSA

66.0

47.5

120

123

Tucson MSA

61.5

40.1

111

142

National

64.8

43.5

127

—

Note: The HOI measures the percentage of homes sold that a family earning the median income in that market could afford to buy.
Source: National Association of Home Builders.

PA GE F OU R

• Asset prices are now very high. When will
the bubble burst?
To that list, one needs to add an Arizonaspecific risk — that population flows (and
imported labor) may retreat. Gains already
appear to be slowing. The number of new
residential utility customers (a proxy for
population growth) has fallen from its peak
exceeding 50,000 near the end of 1996 to
roughly 43,000 (Exhibit 12). The Tucson
Electric Power service area accounts for
over half, or nearly 4,000, of the reduction.
The economy has been too good for too
long, and its recent reacceleration has raised
the possibility that this expansion may come
to an unceremonious end. In the months
ahead, we’ll need to keep an eye on population, manufacturing job growth and last
but not least, the debate concerning growth
controls. If passed, the Baron Initiative will
induce a jump in developed real estate prices,
which will drastically reduce affordability
and overall growth rates. $
S P O N S O R S
Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee
Arizona Portland Cement
Arizona Public Service Company
Bank One Arizona
CB Richard Ellis
City of Tucson
Coldwell Banker Success Realty
Elliott D. Pollack and Company
Estes Homes/Kauffman & Broad
Pima County
Salt River Project
Territorial Newspapers
Tucson Electric Power Company
Tucson Newspapers
U S WEST Communications
U S WEST Dex
ARIZONA'S ECONOMY

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

1997
101,907.0
7.7
22,294.2
4.6
42,966.5
6.3
4,571.0
3.0
90.9
1,981.3
4.7
351.6
3.4
129.8
2.9
207.5
3.8
1,629.7
5.0
483.6
4.1
599.8
6.9

1998
111,063.9
9.0
23,627.0
6.0
45,582.4
6.1
4,700.7
2.8
94.3
2,090.0
5.5
368.1
4.7
136.9
5.5
217.1
4.6
1,721.9
5.7
509.1
5.3
644.5
7.4

1999
120,493.8
8.5
24,921.7
5.5
48,462.5
6.3
4,834.9
2.9
89.4
2,170.7
3.9
366.6
-0.4
136.8
-0.1
215.7
-0.7
1,804.1
4.8
531.8
4.5
686.4
6.5

2000
130,392.8
8.2
26,293.9
5.5
51,547.4
6.4
4,959.0
2.6
82.7
2,245.4
3.4
369.6
0.8
135.7
-0.8
219.5
1.8
1,875.8
4.0
553.1
4.0
724.6
5.6

2001
140,288.5
7.6
27,612.9
5.0
54,714.3
6.1
5,080.5
2.5
81.6
2,319.1
3.3
373.6
1.1
135.3
-0.3
223.9
2.0
1,945.5
3.7
574.0
3.8
762.7
5.3

2002
150,207.2
7.1
28,878.0
4.6
57,863.9
5.8
5,201.4
2.4
81.0
2,390.8
3.1
378.6
1.3
136.9
1.1
227.2
1.5
2,012.2
3.4
593.3
3.4
800.2
4.9

2003
160,595.7
6.9
30,176.8
4.5
61,041.6
5.5
5,321.8
2.3
81.3
2,465.3
3.1
384.1
1.5
139.4
1.8
230.3
1.3
2,081.2
3.4
611.6
3.1
839.1
4.9

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

1997
70,666.0
9.8
24,792.1
6.4
29,301.0
7.2
2,850.3
3.2
61.3
1,388.6
5.8
267.0
6.4
97.1
7.6
163.5
5.9
1,121.6
5.7
340.6
4.6
433.8
7.6

1998
77,670.1
9.9
26,373.2
6.4
31,055.5
6.0
2,945.0
3.3
65.3
1,465.2
5.5
280.9
5.2
102.0
5.0
172.6
5.6
1,184.3
5.6
357.6
5.0
462.8
6.7

1999
84,336.7
8.6
27,779.3
5.3
33,102.2
6.6
3,035.9
3.1
60.1
1,518.7
3.6
281.0
0.0
100.9
-1.0
173.7
0.6
1,237.7
4.5
372.8
4.3
488.8
5.6

2000
90,896.7
7.8
29,136.3
4.9
35,330.0
6.7
3,119.7
2.8
52.0
1,560.0
2.7
278.5
-0.9
98.5
-2.4
173.7
0.0
1,281.5
3.5
387.2
3.8
509.8
4.3

2001
97,644.5
7.4
30,497.3
4.7
37,435.1
6.0
3,201.7
2.6
49.5
1,602.5
2.7
278.5
-0.0
96.7
-1.8
175.5
1.0
1,324.0
3.3
400.9
3.5
530.3
4.0

2002
104,678.0
7.2
31,865.0
4.5
39,489.5
5.5
3,285.0
2.6
50.2
1,646.7
2.8
280.3
0.6
96.9
0.2
177.0
0.9
1,366.4
3.2
414.0
3.3
551.5
4.0

2003
112,085.0
7.1
33,261.0
4.4
41,559.9
5.2
3,369.9
2.6
51.0
1,693.0
2.8
283.7
1.2
99.0
2.2
178.2
0.7
1,409.4
3.1
426.8
3.1
572.6
3.8

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

1997
16,863.1
7.0
21,211.5
4.5
6,937.2
5.3
795.0
2.3
13.6
316.9
3.2
50.5
2.0
19.6
2.3
28.5
1.5
266.4
3.4
68.6
2.5
100.6
5.1

1998
18,089.1
7.3
22,236.6
4.8
7,288.1
5.1
813.5
2.3
14.3
329.6
4.0
52.4
3.9
20.2
3.3
29.5
3.8
277.1
4.0
70.6
2.8
106.7
6.1

1999
19,467.4
7.6
23,381.3
5.1
7,727.5
6.0
832.6
2.4
15.0
341.1
3.5
54.5
4.0
21.2
4.6
30.4
2.7
286.5
3.4
72.7
3.0
112.4
5.4

2000
20,886.9
7.3
24,557.3
5.0
8,232.0
6.5
850.5
2.2
13.7
350.6
2.8
56.0
2.7
21.8
2.8
31.0
2.1
294.6
2.8
75.2
3.4
117.2
4.2

2001
22,309.6
6.8
25,718.1
4.7
8,708.6
5.8
867.5
2.0
12.7
359.5
2.5
57.0
1.7
22.0
1.2
31.6
2.0
302.5
2.7
77.5
3.1
122.1
4.1

2002
23,720.9
6.3
26,843.1
4.4
9,162.2
5.2
883.7
1.9
12.0
367.4
2.2
57.7
1.3
22.2
0.7
32.2
1.8
309.7
2.4
79.4
2.6
126.9
3.9

2003
25,150.6
6.0
27,961.5
4.2
9,593.7
4.7
899.5
1.8
11.6
375.3
2.1
58.5
1.3
22.3
0.7
32.8
1.7
316.8
2.3
81.2
2.2
131.5
3.6

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

AR IZ ON A' S E CO N OMY

PAGE FIVE

FRESH PRODUCE
INDUSTRY IN
NOGALES, ARIZONA
Vera K. Pavlakovich, Ph.D.
Office of Economic Development
Alberta H. Charney, Ph.D.
Economic and Business Research
Program, College of Business and
Public Administration
June 1, 1998

The fresh produce industry in Nogales,
Arizona is part of a unique transborder agricultural production
complex that links growers in Mexico
with shippers in Nogales, Arizona.
The complex contains a network of
elaborate organizational structures
that include financing, growing,
picking, packing, selling, warehousing
and truck loading.

W

ith roots going back as early as the
turn of the century, the industry’s
development into a major supplier
of winter fresh produce for North American
markets has depended upon close family ties
and networks of friends that transcend the
international boundary. It is these traditional
ties and the complexity of doing business
in a border context that make the Nogales
fresh produce industry unique and different
from other regional agricultural production
complexes such as those in South Florida
and Southern California.
In the 1995/96 season, approximately
$1 billion worth of Mexican-grown fresh
produce was imported into the United States
through the Nogales Custom District, which
includes six border ports of entry in the
Arizona-Sonora section, one of which is
Nogales. The City of Nogales is the dominant
entry port for Mexican produce. The top
eight commodities — tomatoes, cucumbers,
peppers, squash, melons, watermelons, mangoes and grapes — account for more than
three-quarters of all imported fresh produce
(tonnage) through Nogales (Figure 1).
Recent attention on the Nogales fresh
produce industry has been due largely
to continuing trade disputes with Florida
growers, with whom the Mexican winter
PAGE SIX

ONE FAMILY’S STORY
My great-grandfather, an Irishman, moved to Nogales sometime in the 1920’s to begin
a produce importation business. The industry was just beginning in those years. His sons
continued the business. The oldest, my grandfather, turned the business into a brokerage.
He spent six months in Nogales and the other six on the Los Angeles Produce Market
Exchange, located in downtown Los Angeles.
His wife, my grandmother, was born in Nogales in 1919. She spent a part of her childhood living in Culiacán, where her parents sold Fords. When the two met in Los Angeles,
the Nogales link proved to be a strong draw. My grandfather often flew his small plane
to Guaymas and Culiacán for business — to meet with produce growers in Mexico, etc.
My mother’s Los Angeles wedding included Mexican produce families that my grandfather was linked with for many years.
Later, my grandmother remarried another Nogales produce industry player — my
current grandfather, who, with his father, started a Nogales customs brokerage in the 1930s.
All the grandfathers played a lot of golf with each other. All three of my grandparents
speak (spoke) Spanish. This was an aid for doing business and entertaining. My family’s
ties to Nogales continue; almost all of the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the
original settler live today in Tucson one hour north of the border.
produce (mainly tomato) growers compete.
The competition between Florida- and
Mexican-growers grew in intensity after 1962
when the United States imposed the trade
embargo on Cuba. Until that time, Cuba had
been a major supplier of winter vegetables to
the United States. The Mexican government
sensed this gap and encouraged the expansion
of export farm production with funding and
expert advice from abroad. The Florida
produce industry, concentrated mainly in
Dade County and the Palmetto-Ruskin areas,
also took off at this time.
Florida growers have filed numerous
unfair-trade complaints with U.S. legislators
and U.S. courts, the most recent in the early
1990s. Florida growers do not have the high
transportation-related costs of the Mexican
growers, nor do they have to pay duties or
other import fees. However, Mexican labor/
production costs are generally lower than
Florida’s, although growing rapidly. The
most recent round in the battle was won by
Florida, in conflict with the spirit of NAFTA.
Contrary to popular opinion, NAFTA did
not instantly remove all duties on Mexican
products. Those products most in direct
competition with U.S. products, such as
tomatoes, are on gradual tariff-reduction
schedule that will take up to 15 years

(from the passage of NAFTA) to complete.
In addition, there are seasonal quota on
tomatoes, onions, eggplants, chile peppers,
squash and watermelon coming from Mexico
and added duties if this quota is exceeded.
Nogales grower-distributors are responding to Florida’s complaint in several positive
ways: voluntarily signing the new price floor
agreement; expanding market shares and
expanding the season by diversifying (selling
products such as mangoes and grapes in the
summer, for example); branding out growing
operations to Baja California and California,
to become less geographically dependent
on Sinaloa’s fertility; and extending their
production into the non-winter markets.
The availability of new Spanish and Israeli
technologies have aided expansion to create
less costly and better quality products, some
from greenhouses.
Growers in Mexico and Florida compete
primarily in the North Central region.
Mexican-grown tomatoes, for example,
dominate retail sales in the West, while
those in the East are dominated by Florida
growers. Some studies have suggested that
consumers in the North Central and West
regions have benefited from increased
competition between Florida and Mexican
growers by enjoying relatively lower produce
prices and improved product quality.
ARIZONA'S ECONOMY

FIGURE 1
Principal Produce Imports Through Nogales

Source: USDA
Agricultural
Marketing
Service, 1997

ECONOMIC AND REVENUE
IMPACTS ON THE ARIZONA
ECONOMY
The primary goal of this analysis is to
ascertain the economic impact of the produce
industry on the economy of Arizona. The
produce industry generates direct employment in warehousing, trucking, brokering
and associated services, including federal and
state inspection offices. Arizona businesses
also supply seeds, fertilizers, equipment and
other inputs to growers in Western Mexico.
A portion of Mexican growers’ income
is spent in Arizona, creating indirect and
induced jobs in addition to the multiplier
effects from the above mentioned sources.
A significant amount of revenue is generated
through various direct, indirect, and induced
taxes at local and state levels that add to the
total economic impact on the state’s economy.
Nogales’ produce industry originates in
Northern Mexico, mainly in the state of
Sinaloa, with lesser ties to the states of
Sonora, Nayarit and Jalisco. The vast majority
of export tomatoes and winter vegetables
are grown in Sinaloa. Mexican growers tend
to have large operations (median of 400-500
hectares, or about 900-1200 acres) that
employ local employees to work the fields.
AR IZ ON A 'S E CON O MY

APPROXIMATELY
$1 BILLION WORTH
OF MEXICAN FRESH PRODUCE
WAS IMPORTED DURING FISCAL
YEAR 1995/96
THROUGH THE NOGALES
CUSTOMS DISTRICT.
BY THE TIME IT REACHED
RETAIL STORES ON
THE WEST COAST AND
THE MIDWEST, THE TOTAL VALUE
WAS ALMOST FOUR TIMES
ITS CUSTOMS IMPORT VALUE
AT THE BORDER —
AN ESTIMATED $3.8 BILLION.

It is difficult to ascertain which came first:
U.S. based financing for growing operations
or Mexican-based export farms. Today, most
Mexican growers are completely finance by
U.S. based produce distributorships, which
are about 70% Mexican-owned, as opposed
to 20 years ago, when approximately 95%
of distributorships were American-owned.
This shift in ownership has created a vertically integrated situation where Mexican
businessmen finance Mexican growers with
U.S. dollars and U.S.-bought inputs.
During the winter season (from November
through March/April) the City of Nogales,
with barely 20,000 residents, turns into a
major marketing center for fresh produce.
Each season, 136,000 Mexican trucks bring
Mexican-grown produce to 60-70 Nogalesbased warehouses, and some 200,000 U.S.
trucks pick up the produce for distribution
to markets in the United States and Canada.
The produce may stay in Arizona (only
about 5%), go to Los Angeles (70%) for
redistribution, or to other destinations,
transshipment to Canada or the West Coast
shipping cities of Portland and Seattle. In a
normal (i.e., non-freeze) year, about 70%
of the produce stays west of Arizona, while
30% is shipped east of the state (Figure 2).
Capturing the financial aspects of the produce industry is difficult because of complex
P AG E SE VE N

FIGURE 2
Main Transportation Routes for Mexican Produce into US
Source: University of Arizona. Community Affairs and Economic Development, based on various sources.

Produce Through Nogales BPOE - 1996
Value ($)

1,047,536,029

Total Weight (kg)

1,506,392,658

Shipments (#)

133,132

Source: US Census imports of Merchandise, 1996

inter-firm relationships, pronounced
seasonality of the production process, and
increasing diversification, both by product
and region. Profits and losses are spread
over seasons and products, between growers
and shippers. Profits may be realized even if
a season for a particular product is bad;
conversely, losses may be incurred even if the
season is good for another product. The
complexity of a binational context — two
currencies, different accounting systems,
cross-border interactions, the roles of the two
customs services, drug and food inspections,
different and disconnected transportation
(trucking) systems, close family ties, different
business cultures — make an exact estimate
of economic impacts extremely difficult.
Except for a few basic numbers, such as
customs figures on the imported value of
shipments or import duties, most of the
information used in this analysis was not
readily available. Estimates presented in this
analysis reflect a combination of different
data sources and a set of assumptions
representing the common wisdom of people
involved in the industry and knowledge
gained by the research team in the process
of investigation. Data apply to fiscal year
PAGE EIGHT

1995/96. Where fiscal year figures were not
available, combined values from 1995 and
1996 are used instead.1
First, direct impacts will be presented,
followed by a discussion of impacts by major
economic activity, i.e., marketing services,
export of agricultural equipment and supplies,
and outshopping. These impacts are then
shown as total economic and revenue impacts.
Approximately $1 billion worth of Mexican
fresh produce was imported during fiscal
year 1995/96 through the Nogales Customs
District. By the time it reached retail stores
on the West Coast and the Midwest, the total
value was almost four times its customs
import value at the border — an estimated
$3.8 billion. An outline of the importation
process and marketing services with the
associated fees is shown in Figure 3.
Table 1 shows the estimated direct dollar
impact that was generated in Arizona, totaling
about $552 million during the 1995/96
season. Inspection fees are collected by the
State’s inspection agencies (the Departments
of Agriculture and Transportation). Included
in these figures are dollars earned in Arizona
either through the actual marketing of fresh
produce, through exports of agricultural
equipment and supplies to growers in Northwest Mexico, and a portion of growers’
income that returns to Arizona through transborder outshopping. Tables 2 through 5
present the economic impact of these three
activities, including the multiplier effect, i.e.,
the effect after direct dollars are respent in
the economy through purchases of goods and
services from other Arizona-based businesses.
Marketing Services: Marketing services
are broadly defined as services needed to
bring Mexican-grown fresh produce across
the border to Nogales-based warehouses,
and from there to distributors and retailers
in North American markets. It is estimated
that in the 1995/96 season, marketing
services directly generated $377 million in
Arizona. Through the multiplier effect, marketing services generate more than 6,000 jobs
(direct, indirect, and induced) in Arizona’s
economy, earning $159 million in wages,
and contributing over $21 million in state
revenues. Total sales, which includes wages
and taxes (and other components of value
added), amount to $588 million (Table 2).
Export of Agricultural Equipment and
Supplies: An estimated $134 million of
Arizona-produced farm equipment and
supplies (fertilizers, pesticides, seeds,
A RI ZO NA'S EC O NO M Y

TABLE 1
Direct Impact of Mexican-Grown
Fresh Produce on Arizona’s Economy

THE PRODUCE INDUSTRY GENERATES

1995/96 Season in Millions of $

Marketing services
Inspection fees
Customs brokers’ fees
Out-of-state truckers’ spending
Produce brokers’ fees
Trucking brokers’ fees
Shippers' commission (marketing)
Share of marketing spread

$ 377
$ 5
$ 7
$ 10
$ 18
$ 23
$ 125
$ 189

DIRECT EMPLOYMENT IN WAREHOUSING,
TRUCKING, BROKERING AND ASSOCIATED SERVICES,
INCLUDING FEDERAL AND STATE
INSPECTION OFFICES.
ARIZONA BUSINESSES ALSO SUPPLY
SEEDS, FERTILIZERS, EQUIPMENT AND

Outshopping by Mexican growers

$

41

Export of agricultural supplies

$ 134

TOTAL

$ 552

OTHER INPUTS TO GROWERS
IN WESTERN MEXICO.

Source: The University of Arizona, various sources

TABLE 2
Arizona Total Impacts of Marketing Services for $1 Billion Mexican-Grown Fresh Produce
(1995/96 Season)
Imported via Nogales Customs District

• 6,052 jobs

• $159 million in wages

• $588 million in total sales

• $21.4 million in state revenues

TABLE 3
Arizona Total Impacts of Exports of Agricultural Equipment and Supplies
from Arizona to Production Fields in Sinaloa & Sonora
(1995/96 Season)

• 4,010 jobs

• $75.3 million in wages

• $300.3 million in sales

• $3.5 million in state revenues

TABLE 4
Arizona Total Impacts of Outshopping by Mexican Business People and Families
(1995/96 Season)

• 918 jobs

• $10.3 million in wages

• $88.6 million in sales

• $3.3 million in state revenues

TABLE 5
Total Impacts of the Mexican-Grown Fresh Produce Industry on the Economy of Arizona
(1995/96 Season)

Sum of the impacts of Marketing Services, Exports of Agricultural Equipment and Supplies, and Outshopping in Arizona.
• 4,010 jobs

• $75.3 million in wages

• $300.3 million in sales

• $3.5 million in state revenues

Source for tables 2 - 5: The University of Arizona, based on Input-Output and Revenue Models

ARIZONA'S ECONOMY

PAGE NINE

F O R E C A S T

T A B L E S

FIGURE 3
Mexican Produce Imported Through Nogales:
Markups from Grower-Shipper to Retailer

III

$3,780,285,500

Retail Value of Produce

To the
US Retailer

Marketing Spread

II

$ 189,307,240

Arizona Portion of Marketing Spread

$

22,500,000

Nogales Truck Broker Fees

$

18,000,000

Produce Broker Fees

=

$1,256,188,900

Shipping Point Price

+

$ 124,487,190

Shipper’s Commission

=

$1,131,701,800

Shipper’s Import Cost

+

$

8,160,000

Border Inspection Charges Customs, DOT, USDA, etc.

+

$

7,000,000

US Customs Brokers

+

$

33,906,900

US Import Duties

+

$

82,634,910

Mexican Export Charges
(i.e., insurance, customs, freight)

To the
US Shipper

I
To the
US/Mexico
Border

PAGE TEN

CIF

$1,000,000,000

Customs Value of Produce

AR I ZO NA 'S EC ONO M Y

machinery and parts) are exported to the
Mexican agriculture industry. These exports
generate approximately 1,845 direct jobs in
Arizona in the following industries: paperboard containers and other packaging
materials, farm machinery and parts, fertilizers, pesticides and other agricultural
chemicals, wholesale machinery and farm
supplies. Through the multiplier effect, an
additional 2,165 indirect and induced jobs
are generated in other sectors. Total direct,
indirect and induced effects are in Table 3.
Outshopping by Mexican Businessmen
and their Families: Border location and
familial and business ties make Arizona a
popular shopping destination for Mexican
visitors. A portion of growers' income from
exports of fresh produce to North American
markets (an estimated $41 million) returns
to Arizona and is spent in Arizona’s stores.
An earlier study (Hopkins 1992) suggests
that approximately 32% is spent in department stores, 25% in grocery stores and
restaurants, 21% in the purchasing of
business supplies, and the remaining 21%
is for various other categories, including
medical services. Approximately 918 jobs in
Arizona depend directly or indirectly upon
those purchases (Table 4).
Summary of Total Impacts: When all
estimated impacts are summed up, the total
employment impact (including the multiplier
effect) is 10,980 jobs in Arizona, an estimated
$244.6 million in wages, and $976.9 million
in sales in 1995/96. With the multiplier
effect included, the benefits to Arizona’s
economy is approximately $1 billion dollars
in total sales.
Impacts on Nogales/Santa Cruz Counties:
While the fresh produce industry affects
the economy of Arizona as a whole, a large
AR IZ ON A 'S E CO N OMY

portion of the economic impact is concentrated in Nogales/Santa Cruz County due to a
concentration of services at or close to the
border. The industry generates approximately
6,000 jobs in Nogales/Santa Cruz. More
than 3,200 jobs are directly involved with
the importation and marketing of Mexicangrown fresh produce, such as warehousing,
border inspection, customs and produce
brokerage, and freight arrangement. An
additional 2,500 jobs are generated through
the multiplier effect.
More than 4,000 jobs related to the
Mexican fresh produce industry occur in the
rest of the state. Thus, although the border
crossing and marketing services are concentrated in the border community of Nogales/
Santa Cruz County, the impacts are felt in the
rest of Arizona as well. Exports of agricultural
equipment and supplies to Sonora and Sinaloa
agribusinesses support substantial numbers
of employees in related manufacturing and
wholesale industries throughout Arizona.
While border communities, particularly
Nogales, receive a significant share of impacts
generated through transborder outshopping
due to proximity, the Phoenix and Tucson
metropolitan areas offer a better and more
diverse choice of consumer goods and are
more attractive for higher income Mexican
visitors. The state collected an estimated
$27 million in state taxes, and there were
additional millions of dollars in savings passed
on to consumers due to comparatively lower
retail prices of Mexican-grown produce. $
1

Additional information about the estimation
procedure and the underlying assumption(s) is
provided in the full report “Fresh Produce Industry
in Nogales, Arizona: Impacts of a Trans-border
Production Complex on the Economy of Arizona,”
which is available upon request.

ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Direct jobs are those that are directly
related to the fresh produce industry,
i.e., that receive wages/salaries related
directly to the importation and
handling of fresh produce, such as
customs inspectors, custom brokers,
workers in ware-houses, distributors,
and produce and trucking brokers.
Indirect jobs are generated through
inter-business purchases. Relatively
small numbers of indirect jobs reflect
the fact that as a service industry, the
importation of fresh produce requires
minimal or no inputs from manufacturing industries. Major inputs are
utilities (electricity, in particular),
communications (telephone services),
and various supplies.
The major multiplier effect occurs
through expenditures by employees
(direct and indirect jobs) as they spend
portions of their wages and salaries on
groceries, clothing, entertainment and
other items. Jobs that are generated
through employees’ spending are
referred to as induced jobs.
Associated with direct, indirect and
induced jobs are direct, indirect, and
induced wages. Sales include wages,
cost of materials and supplies, other
operating costs, rent, taxes and profits.
PAG E ELEVEN

A R I Z O N A

YUMA METROPOLITAN 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 & Bar
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
Construction
Manufacturing
Trans., Comm. & Publ. Util.
Trade
Finance, Ins. & Real Estate
Services
Government
Sales ($000s) ADOR
Gross Retail
Retail
Restaurants & Bar
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

DEC
97

JAN
98

FEB
98

MAR
98

APR
98

60,875
48,850
12,025
19.8

58,100
47,950
10,150
17.5

57,500
47,675
9,825
17.1

58,100
47,675
10,425
17.9

64,025
46,700
17,325
27.1

2.9
4.2
-0.7
-3.5

-6.0
-0.4
-18.5
-12.8

39,100
0
2,600
1,900
1,500
12,400
1,200
9,200
10,300

38,500
0
2,500
1,800
1,400
12,300
1,200
9,000
10,300

39,300
0
2,500
1,800
1,500
12,300
1,300
9,100
10,800

39,200
0
2,600
1,800
1,400
12,300
1,300
9,000
10,800

38,600
0
2,700
1,700
1,400
11,500
1,300
8,900
11,100

2.4
...
17.4
0.0
-6.7
-3.4
0.0
3.5
6.7

1.6
...
21.3
4.3
-13.7
-3.0
0.7
2.0
4.9

99,088
81,929
8,508
8,651
6,853
17,225

85,779
67,745
8,896
9,138
7,528
18,314

92,761
73,030
10,464
9,267
8,378
14,551

92,537
73,964
11,029
7,544
7,282
16,326

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

11.4
17.1
9.6
-23.1
-1.5
44.1

10.5
12.9
3.8
0.0
6.7
37.2

6,381
5,122
958
301

15,401
3,950
10,289
1,162

11,998
4,474
1,883
5,641

23,987
10,428
2,862
10,697

13,594
7,515
5,013
1,066

-45.1
4.3
-69.8
7.7

10.0
-7.3
4.4
91.9

64
64

49
49

46
46

116
116

94
94

10.6
10.6

-13.4
0.1

68,550
65,350
3,200
4.7

68,700
65,425
3,275
4.8

68,450
65,175
3,275
4.8

69,025
65,700
3,325
4.8

69,125
66,000
3,125
4.5

6.6
7.1
-2.3
-8.4

0.8
3.4
-31.6
-31.9

41,500
200
2,700
3,200
2,100
13,200
1,300
10,500
8,300

41,200
200
2,600
3,200
2,000
13,200
1,300
10,400
8,300

41,300
200
2,500
3,200
2,000
13,200
1,200
10,600
8,400

41,900
200
2,500
3,200
2,000
13,400
1,200
10,600
8,800

41,900
200
2,600
3,300
2,100
13,200
1,300
10,700
8,500

4.0
0.0
-13.3
0.0
0.0
6.5
-7.1
8.1
6.3

4.8
0.0
-5.8
0.8
10.2
6.7
-9.0
6.7
6.5

106,165
75,444
10,389
20,332
16,106
15,765

84,501
61,818
11,368
11,315
9,321
15,873

83,384
64,604
11,572
7,208
6,516
16,066

96,591
72,395
12,774
11,422
11,025
17,113

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

3.6
7.7
2.0
-15.3
8.4
-3.6

2.6
5.3
2.6
-9.0
-3.2
9.1

11,751
10,021
1,632
98

27,308
10,720
2,506
14,082

92,240
12,622
50,595
29,023

30,689
16,254
859
13,576

18,143
13,462
4,009
672

6.0
54.2
-41.7
-55.8

36.2
17.3
47.0
70.9

112
104

115
113

141
128

182
178

146
144

32.7
33.3

10.9
13.3

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

ARIZONA'S ECONOMY

A R I Z O N A

COCHISE-SANTA CRUZ 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 & Bar
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
GILA-GRAHAM-GREENLEE 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 & Bar
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

DEC
97

JAN
98

FEB
98

MAR
98

APR
98

54,425
49,450
4,975
9.1

53,675
48,925
4,750
8.8

53,225
48,700
4,525
8.5

53,525
48,850
4,675
8.7

53,100
48,800
4,300
8.1

1.8
4.1
-18.5
-19.9

-3.8
-0.2
-25.8
-22.7

42,900
0
1,900
2,200
2,400
12,300
800
9,700
13,600

42,000
0
1,900
2,200
2,400
12,100
800
9,100
13,500

42,500
0
1,900
2,300
2,400
12,200
800
9,100
13,800

42,900
0
1,900
2,300
2,400
12,300
800
9,200
14,000

42,700
0
1,800
2,300
2,400
12,200
800
9,200
14,000

2.4
...
-5.3
0.0
0.0
4.3
-11.1
3.4
2.9

2.4
-100.0
7.9
-0.4
-0.4
4.7
-18.0
4.2
1.6

86,923
71,852
8,317
6,754
5,350
11,155

62,047
48,002
8,697
5,348
4,405
12,428

64,263
51,253
8,922
4,088
3,696
9,971

74,877
58,699
9,231
6,947
6,706
9,653

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

5.3
7.1
8.5
-11.2
13.6
-17.4

9.1
10.6
7.9
-0.6
5.3
1.6

12,657
8,162
637
3,858

5,790
5,173
617
0

7,874
5,092
430
2,352

14,046
8,594
4,276
1,176

9,262
7,155
2,107
0

-33.5
-8.6
-10.6
-100.0

-31.1
3.8
-54.2
-73.7

81
77

57
57

59
57

90
85

79
79

-13.2
-7.1

-4.7
8.5

34,075
31,600
2,475
7.3

33,650
31,200
2,450
7.3

33,525
31,000
2,525
7.5

34,100
31,200
2,900
8.5

34,100
31,325
2,775
8.1

5.6
4.9
14.4
8.4

0.0
1.3
-13.5
-13.5

26,100
3,100
1,800
1,900
800
5,900
300
4,300
8,000

25,500
3,100
1,700
1,900
800
5,700
400
4,100
7,800

25,700
3,000
1,700
2,000
800
5,700
400
4,200
7,800

26,000
3,000
1,700
2,000
800
5,800
400
4,200
8,100

26,200
3,000
1,900
2,000
800
5,800
400
4,200
8,100

4.0
0.0
0.0
5.3
0.0
1.8
33.3
2.4
8.0

3.2
0.0
-6.4
3.1
-1.0
1.0
-6.1
2.4
10.4

48,943
39,977
4,747
4,219
3,342
10,289

38,033
29,606
4,963
3,464
2,854
13,244

36,078
28,596
4,764
2,718
2,457
11,566

41,096
32,998
4,903
3,195
3,084
12,132

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

32.8
53.7
-1.8
-28.9
-8.9
-3.4

2.5
3.9
3.3
-8.4
-3.1
-4.1

6,661
4,466
2,111
84

6,924
6,622
0
302

4,668
4,296
0
372

7,496
3,827
1,731
1,938

8,219
6,840
138
1,241

-33.1
-19.6
-96.3
...

-2.5
2.5
-26.4
12.1

42
42

83
34

40
40

42
42

57
57

-31.3
-14.9

7.8
7.3

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

P AG E THI R TEE N

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 & Bar
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 & Bar
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

DEC
97

JAN
98

FEB
98

MAR
98

APR
98

48,100
41,550
6,550
13.6

49,025
41,600
7,425
15.1

49,100
41,600
7,500
15.3

49,625
41,800
7,825
15.8

49,400
42,325
7,075
14.3

3.2
4.7
-4.7
-7.7

-3.1
-0.3
-15.5
-12.8

41,100
900
1,900
1,700
2,400
7,400
1,100
8,100
17,600

41,000
900
1,500
1,700
2,400
7,100
1,100
7,900
18,400

41,300
900
1,600
1,700
2,300
7,000
1,000
8,000
18,800

41,600
900
1,600
1,700
2,300
7,100
1,100
8,000
18,900

41,800
900
1,600
1,700
2,300
7,000
1,100
8,400
18,900

3.0
0.0
-11.1
13.3
-11.5
-2.8
0.0
0.0
13.2

2.0
0.0
-4.3
-0.0
-7.1
1.6
-2.9
1.3
5.5

65,902
52,106
4,759
9,037
7,158
9,612

53,326
42,041
4,555
6,730
5,545
9,721

47,347
37,960
4,411
4,976
4,499
6,146

52,228
42,607
4,335
5,286
5,102
7,305

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

7.9
17.2
-5.2
-29.4
-9.7
22.8

1.3
5.3
4.8
-19.4
-14.6
-10.9

5,721
3,432
284
2,005

4,763
2,893
1,870
0

7,900
2,748
5,152
0

16,218
4,341
9,479
2,398

8,698
6,423
1,100
1,175

-67.6
-57.3
-85.5
-72.4

-7.4
-31.1
51.4
-7.2

37
35

28
28

35
35

40
40

62
62

-57.2
-57.2

-24.0
-33.3

121,825
115,150
6,675
5.5

120,700
113,425
7,275
6.0

121,400
114,275
7,125
5.9

122,525
115,700
6,825
5.6

122,950
116,775
6,175
5.0

5.9
6.2
-0.8
-6.3

1.2
2.1
-11.5
-12.4

97,500
900
6,300
6,500
3,200
26,000
2,800
26,400
25,400

95,200
900
6,000
6,500
3,100
24,600
2,800
25,900
25,400

97,000
900
6,000
6,700
3,000
24,700
2,800
26,200
26,700

98,900
1,000
6,000
6,600
3,100
25,000
2,800
26,900
27,500

98,700
1,000
6,100
6,500
3,200
25,000
2,800
27,300
26,800

5.6
0.0
0.0
-1.5
3.2
0.0
3.7
7.9
13.1

5.4
2.7
2.8
1.4
5.2
2.4
8.3
7.1
8.5

182,223
143,222
24,616
14,385
11,395
40,955

133,277
99,575
22,788
10,914
8,991
31,065

134,872
102,345
24,067
8,460
7,649
29,163

157,584
119,684
27,458
10,442
10,079
33,010

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

-4.1
3.9
-12.8
-40.6
-24.0
-5.0

2.7
5.3
2.1
-13.6
-8.9
-14.0

31,177
23,503
4,938
2,736

32,233
20,817
9,135
2,281

30,409
16,214
3,856
10,339

41,961
28,235
9,084
4,642

49,883
30,819
12,994
6,070

23.5
64.2
-11.4
-12.9

0.8
6.1
-1.6
-10.7

217
207

226
195

175
167

336
269

284
264

83.2
70.3

15.3
26.6

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

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

DEC
97

JAN
98

FEB
98

MAR
98

APR
98

1,482.3
1,445.0
37.3
2.7

1,469.3
1,433.1
36.2
2.4

1,474.5
1,438.5
36.0
2.5

1,482.3
1,445.1
37.2
2.6

1,486.7
1,451.3
35.4
2.6

7.1
7.6
-8.5
-16.1

2.2
3.1
-22.5
-24.1

1,445.6
6.8
95.2
166.4
126.9
39.5
76.5
358.6
87.8
270.8
111.1
451.7
179.3

1,421.4
6.5
94.1
167.1
127.6
39.5
74.9
352.1
86.4
265.7
111.3
445.6
169.8

1,441.5
6.5
94.4
167.8
127.9
39.9
75.2
353.4
87.6
265.8
112.2
453.1
178.9

1,453.4
6.0
95.8
167.7
127.6
40.1
75.7
355.9
88.4
267.5
113.1
458.1
181.1

1,456.8
6.0
96.4
167.8
128.1
39.7
75.8
357.2
89.0
268.2
114.0
459.8
179.8

6.0
3.4
4.7
6.5
7.9
2.3
4.1
6.0
6.2
5.9
8.0
6.9
3.5

5.6
1.7
4.2
5.5
6.4
2.6
4.9
4.4
5.1
4.2
9.7
7.4
2.4

3,037,773
2,276,786
332,854
298,467
129,666
589,327

2,445,949
1,677,755
334,739
299,467
133,988
452,981

2,428,384
1,675,465
335,885
318,296
98,738
475,351

2,747,249
1,943,664
336,358
344,266
122,961
577,045

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

7.0
9.5
3.6
8.1
-17.2
24.6

7.0
8.4
6.0
6.7
-6.4
13.4

564,092
384,471
163,510
16,111

744,909
327,093
280,414
137,402

443,461
292,563
124,516
26,382

620,655
393,914
146,683
80,058

608,012
427,933
99,742
80,337

-25.7
-5.0
-40.8
-59.7

-6.9
-5.9
-1.7
-22.6

4,314
2,411
19
1,884

2,907
2,194
13
700

3,783
2,557
6
1,220

3,850
3,533
0
317

4,567
3,725
16
826

34.0
28.9
-38.5
67.5

18.8
14.8
-52.4
28.0

527,968
3,629
145,486

487,636
3,209
151,959

452,584
3,198
141,521

659,518
4,592
143,623

646,537
4,396
147,074

26.6
19.9
5.5

21.2
11.3
8.7

2,621,960
43,403

2,403,604
44,792

2,468,115
40,279

...
...

...
...

1.7
-3.2

-0.3
-0.5

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 ($mil, SAAR) EBR
Total Personal Income
Earnings by Place of Work
Less: Contributions for Social Insurance
Plus: Adjustment for Residence
Plus: Dividends, Interest & Rent
Plus: Transfer Payments
Per Capita Personal Income ($, SAAR) EBR

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

I
97

II
97

III
97

IV
97

98

2,816.4
6.7
12.1
5.4
15.3

2,838.8
6.8
12.1
5.4
15.6

2,862.0
6.9
12.3
5.4
16.3

2,885.8
7.0
12.4
5.4
16.7

2,909.5
7.2
12.6
5.5
16.6

3.3
6.9
4.8
2.1
8.3

3.3
5.3
3.2
0.7
2.4

68,059
49,740
3,448
-180
12,023
9,923
24,165

69,780
51,029
3,525
-175
12,327
10,123
24,581

71,529
52,354
3,603
-172
12,628
10,323
24,993

73,295
53,713
3,683
-172
12,919
10,519
25,399

75,044
55,062
3,762
-174
13,206
10,712
25,793

10.3
10.7
9.1
3.0
9.8
8.0
6.7

10.0
10.3
8.9
2.4
9.8
7.7
6.5

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

PAGE FIFTEEN

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
Total Units
Single Family Units
2-4 Unit Structures
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

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

DEC
97

JAN
98

FEB
98

MAR
98

APR
98

366.6
356.1
10.5
3.0

363.8
353.8
10.0
2.8

366.7
356.6
10.1
2.9

367.8
357.4
10.4
3.0

365.4
355.7
9.7
3.0

3.2
3.5
-7.6
-9.1

-1.0
-0.3
-17.4
-16.0

321.5
2.4
19.9
28.4
22.4
6.0
13.2
70.9
11.0
59.9
12.1
101.0
73.6

316.6
2.3
20.2
28.5
22.4
6.1
12.9
69.6
10.9
58.7
12.2
99.8
71.1

322.2
2.3
20.3
28.6
22.5
6.1
13.0
70.2
10.8
59.4
12.4
101.0
74.4

324.1
2.3
20.5
28.9
22.7
6.2
13.2
70.4
10.9
59.5
12.5
101.3
75.0

321.9
2.3
20.5
28.9
22.7
6.2
13.3
70.0
11.0
59.0
12.4
100.1
74.4

2.0
0.0
9.6
2.8
2.3
5.1
0.0
2.2
4.8
1.7
6.0
1.5
-0.1

2.1
3.2
4.2
1.0
0.3
3.6
-1.6
2.3
4.9
1.8
2.2
2.6
2.0

715,915
522,086
84,895
72,295
36,639
95,492

568,823
377,848
83,086
73,562
34,327
81,703

568,263
383,963
83,371
73,771
27,158
79,167

627,682
425,209
83,488
85,546
33,439
93,076

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

7.7
9.8
0.8
13.9
-11.7
12.3

5.7
7.2
3.5
8.3
-8.9
-2.5

75,384
52,195
19,368
3,821

96,590
44,697
43,561
8,332

64,005
39,912
17,606
6,487

85,954
47,505
26,975
11,474

81,355
59,028
16,864
5,463

-19.9
-8.9
-41.2
-32.9

-11.3
-14.1
-4.0
-15.6

602
345
4
253

250
236
14
0

426
426
0
0

494
474
20
0

527
521
6
0

-13.5
9.9
-66.7
-100.0

4.7
3.8
-10.6
17.8

90,244
675
133,695

78,589
585
134,339

77,296
602
128,398

115,009
833
138,066

...
...
...

20.8
13.2
6.7

8.1
5.3
2.6

302,968
18,225

279,396
22,178

294,153
19,396

341,553
21,839

315,201
22,223

-0.1
3.7

0.0
2.1

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 ($mil, SAAR) EBR
Total Personal Income
Earnings by Place of Work
Less: Contributions for Social Insurance
Plus: Adjustment for Residence
Plus: Dividends, Interest & Rent
Plus: Transfer Payments
Per Capita Personal Income ($, SAAR) EBR

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

I
97

II
97

III
97

IV
97

I
98

788.2
1.1
2.8
1.7
3.4

792.7
1.1
2.8
1.8
3.5

797.3
1.1
2.8
1.8
3.5

801.9
1.1
2.8
1.8
3.5

806.6
1.1
2.8
1.8
3.6

2.3
-3.3
0.0
2.2
4.3

2.3
-2.9
0.5
2.7
2.5

16,409
10,037
697
218
3,650
3,202
20,819

16,708
10,243
712
218
3,697
3,262
21,077

17,013
10,456
726
220
3,742
3,321
21,338

17,323
10,674
740
226
3,787
3,377
21,601

17,629
10,888
754
231
3,833
3,431
21,858

7.4
8.5
8.1
6.4
5.0
7.2
5.0

7.1
7.7
7.5
6.0
5.7
7.2
4.7

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
Copper Mining
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 - Real Property
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

DEC
97

JAN
98

FEB
98

MAR
98

APR
98

2,236.8
2,153.0
83.8
4.2

2,216.9
2,135.4
81.5
3.7

2,224.5
2,143.6
80.9
4.0

2,234.9
2,151.4
83.5
4.4

2,244.7
2,158.9
85.8
4.4

6.0
6.5
-5.9
-8.3

1.0
2.2
-20.5
-21.8

2,053.5
14.2
132.3
213.0
161.3
51.7
102.7
63.9
505.5
109.2
396.3
130.9
620.4
334.5
43.8
290.7
165.7
42.1

2,017.8
14.1
130.6
213.8
162.0
51.8
100.0
61.2
495.7
108.7
387.0
130.6
611.7
321.3
42.7
278.6
152.7
41.7

2,046.4
14.0
130.4
214.5
162.5
52.0
100.4
61.5
497.1
110.2
386.9
131.5
621.8
336.7
42.5
294.2
167.2
41.2

2,063.2
13.4
132.2
214.5
162.4
52.1
101.3
62.1
500.7
111.1
389.6
132.4
627.3
341.4
42.8
298.6
170.5
41.3

2,062.9
13.5
132.6
214.5
162.5
52.0
101.4
62.1
500.6
111.0
389.6
132.9
628.8
338.6
42.5
296.1
169.2
40.7

4.6
1.5
3.7
5.7
6.4
3.6
1.8
2.1
4.3
4.8
4.1
6.1
6.2
2.5
-2.7
3.2
2.7
-2.2

4.5
0.7
3.7
4.4
4.8
3.3
3.2
3.5
3.7
5.0
3.4
7.7
6.2
2.5
-0.6
3.0
1.9
-2.2

16.58
13.84
11.74
17.84
11.57
13.11

16.92
14.37
11.77
18.38
12.10
13.15

17.12
14.80
11.86
17.87
11.68
13.28

16.92
14.82
11.85
17.02
11.43
13.16

17.28
14.77
11.86
17.40
11.42
13.15

2.2
3.9
1.7
-3.8
-1.3
0.5

-3.6
8.6
1.3
-2.2
6.0
0.8

4,428,290
3,263,402
503,108
432,098
229,682
181,941
369,609
154,277
51,319
9,393
248,976
789,820
92,587
108,336

3,562,304
2,404,390
508,394
434,296
215,224
177,300
406,821
152,599
58,744
74,091
242,479
632,878
88,657
148,414

3,546,231
2,417,216
510,134
456,267
162,614
147,016
362,048
170,684
63,310
24,431
239,131
641,981
79,816
188,139

3,980,852
2,769,220
510,854
499,542
201,236
194,243
362,751
165,150
80,166
-56
259,419
765,660
97,601
209,593

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

6.9
9.8
4.1
7.3
-18.6
4.2
10.0
16.5
10.6
-100.0
9.5
19.7
-28.5
5.6

6.2
7.9
4.7
6.4
-7.7
-2.2
4.3
15.4
12.9
-74.7
7.2
9.6
-5.7
7.0

713,824
491,372
193,438
29,014

933,918
421,965
348,392
163,561

662,555
377,921
204,038
80,596

841,006
513,098
201,949
125,959

797,166
559,175
141,967
96,024

-24.5
-3.8
-43.0
-57.3

-6.1
-5.9
-1.2
-16.6

5,478
3,184
64
2,230

3,622
2,817
47
758

4,710
3,387
29
1,294

5,020
4,599
83
338

5,721
4,818
50
853

23.7
23.2
-39.0
34.8

14.4
11.2
-25.8
49.4

1,822
1,442
24
356

1,597
1,176
28
393

1,763
1,297
19
446

2,102
1,665
25
412

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

-3.0
0.3
4.2
-14.5

14.9
20.0
2.0
-0.9

See notes at bottom of Arizona - Quarterly table.
A R IZ ON A' S E CO N OMY

PAGE SE VE NT EE N

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 ($mil, SAAR) EBR
Total Personal Income
Earnings by Place of Work
Less: Contributions for Social Insurance
Plus: Adjustment for Residence
Plus: Dividends, Interest & Rent
Plus: Transfer Payments
Components of Earnings ($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

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

I
97

II
97

III
97

IV
97

I
98

4,521.5
9.1
18.7
9.6
23.9

4,554.5
10.2
19.0
8.8
22.8

4,587.0
9.8
18.7
8.9
22.1

4,618.9
9.9
19.0
9.1
22.1

4,651.2
9.9
19.1
9.2
22.8

2.9
8.3
2.2
-3.6
-4.6

2.9
4.4
0.9
-2.6
-6.8

99,123
68,284
4,732
258
18,213
17,100

100,813
69,519
4,802
259
18,487
17,350

102,701
70,959
4,884
261
18,784
17,582

104,991
72,805
4,989
262
19,093
17,819

107,534
74,710
5,117
263
19,430
18,248

8.5
9.4
8.1
2.2
6.7
6.7

8.0
8.5
7.6
3.7
6.9
6.9

55,713
5,713
6,843
461
6,382
21,923
28,127

56,739
5,787
6,995
507
6,488
22,135
28,299

58,130
5,886
7,104
488
6,616
22,390
28,728

59,898
5,985
7,142
394
6,748
22,731
29,266

...
...
...
...
...
23,119
...

10.5
6.5
5.9
-15.1
7.5
5.5
6.0

9.0
4.2
5.4
2.9
5.5
4.9
4.4

TRAVEL AND TOURISM

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

MAR
98

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

DEC
97

JAN
98

FEB
98

APR
98

739,255
75,533
259,052
404,670
189,843
42,768
135,320
11,755

859,714
88,359
253,429
517,926
261,844
58,794
182,511
20,539

955,610
94,825
225,946
634,839
309,329
75,856
206,560
26,913

1,300,369
161,014
386,168
753,187
442,884
88,263
313,355
41,266

...
...
...
...
...
...
...
49,621

-16.7
-22.6
-24.6
-10.4
-5.4
-8.7
0.3
16.0

-6.0
-7.3
1.5
-9.8
-8.0
-10.7
-7.4
-2.5

679,558
2,209,459
798,308

660,587
2,109,711
797,921

682,997
1,946,264
712,477

...
...
...

...
...
...

1.6
9.6
-0.3

-2.6
10.9
4.3

MEASURES OF INFLATION AND PRICES - MONTHLY DATA

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

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
ASBD: Arizona State Banking Department
ASPB: Arizona State Parks Board
ASU: Arizona State University, College of Business,
Research Centers
PAGE EIGHTEEN

DEC
97

JAN
98

FEB
98

MAR
98

APR
98

161.3
158.2

161.6
158.4

161.9
158.5

162.2
158.7

162.5
159.1

BEA: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S.
Department of Commerce
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

% change versus year ago for:
most
most
recent
recent
month
12-months
1.4
1.2

1.9
1.7

NSCCC: Nogales-Santa Cruz Chamber of Commerce
PSIA: Phoenix Skyharbor International Airport
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

Consumer Price Index (1982-84=100) ASU & BLS
Metropolitan Phoenix
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

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

I
97

II
97

III
97

IV
97

I
98

171.3
160.8
159.6
156.7

173.9
161.0
160.2
157.3

174.4
162.1
160.8
157.9

177.4
162.8
161.5
158.4

176.7
163.3
161.9
158.5

3.2
1.6
1.5
1.2

3.9
2.1
2.0
1.8

111.8
112.2

112.3
112.5

112.7
112.9

113.1
113.2

113.6
113.5

1.6
1.1

1.9
1.7

See notes at bottom of Arizona - Quarterly table.

NOTE: Because we changed the publishing schedule for Arizona’s Economy, we did not print a
summer issue in August 1997. During 1997, Arizona’s Economy was published February (Winter),
May (Spring) and September (Fall). From 1998 on, the printing schedule is set for January, April,
July and October — the first month of each quarter.

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
❑ $17.00 in the U.S., Spring 1998 and Fall 1998
❑ $23.00 (U.S.) international subscription, Spring 1998 and Fall 1998
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

ARIZONA'S ECONOMY IS PUBLISHED QUARTERLY BY THE KARL
ELLER GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT, COLLEGE OF
BUSINESS AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, THE UNIVERSITY
OF ARIZONA, TUCSON, ARIZONA 85721. 520-621-2155.

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

COPYRIGHT 1998 BY THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA.

Name: _______________________________________________________________________________________
Organization: ___________________________________________Title: __________________________________
Address: _____________________________________________________________________________________

REQUESTS FOR COPIES, PERMISSION TO REPRINT AND CHANGE
OF ADDRESS NOTICES SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE STAFF.
DEAN ...............................................................MARK ZUPAN
ASSOCIATE DEAN
OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS...................................LISA FAHEY
PUBLICATIONS DIRECTOR...............................DIANA HUNTER

City: ________________________________State: _____________________________Zip: ___________________
Country: _____________________________Telephone: (

) _________________________________________

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
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: __________________________________________

7/98

AR IZ ON A' S E CO N OMY

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS
RESEARCH PROGRAMS
520-621-2155
ECONOMIC IMPACT
& FISCAL ANALYSIS....................ALBERTA CHARNEY
621-2291
FORECASTING PROJECT .................MARSHALL J. VEST
621-4075
FREE TRADE STUDIES ......................ARTHUR L. SILVERS
621-4822
STATE DATA CENTER ...........................PIA MONTOYA
621-2523
DATA REFERENCE..................................VALORIE RICE
621-2109

PAGE NINETEEN