July, 2016 Summer Issue

Arizona’s Economy
Economic and business research center

Tipping Point or More of the Same? Arizona Picks Up
Some Momentum
By George W. Hammond, Ph.D., EBR Director and Research Professor
income gains are expected to outpace the
nation during the forecast. However, on
a per capita basis, Arizona, Phoenix, and
Tucson are expected to make little or no
progress in closing the income gap with
the nation.

Arizona Recent
Developments

E

conomic growth in Arizona
accelerated last year, with faster job
and population gains. Employment
increased by 2.6% for the state, which
outpaced last year’s 2.0% rate. Population
growth rose modestly from 1.3% to
1.4% last year, while personal income
gains decelerated slightly from 4.7% to
4.6%, according to preliminary estimates.
The Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan
statistical areas (MSAs) posted better
growth across most indicators last year
as well.
Early returns for 2016 suggest even
stronger gains this year, with employment
increasing faster than the national rate
for the state, Phoenix, and Tucson. The
forecast calls for this initial strength to
be sustained through the year, generating
solid gains in 2016, 2017, and 2018,
assuming the national economy continues
to expand. Overall, job, population, and

Arizona’s nominal per capita personal
income hit $39,471 in 2015, according to
the latest preliminary estimates from the
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).
National per capita personal income was
$47,669. Arizona’s per capita personal
income rose 3.2% from 2014 to 2015,
before adjustment for inflation, a bit
below the national rate of 3.5%.
Arizona’s per capita personal income was
calculated using the Arizona Department
of Administration population estimate for
2015, so it differs a bit from the number
published by the U.S. BEA. Also, keep in
mind that the data is frequently revised.
If you’re reading this months after it was
completed, the current data may be a bit
different.
Overall, state per capita income remains
well below the national average and well
below per capita income in most states.
Indeed, Arizona’s income was 17.2% below
the U.S. average last year. As Exhibit 1
shows, Arizona’s per capita income ranked
42nd out of 50 states and the District of

June 1, 2016
Columbia. Arizona’s per capita personal
income was also well below that of most
western states, including California,
Washington, Colorado, Texas, Oregon,
and Nevada. Arizona’s per capita income
was above that of Utah, New Mexico, and
Idaho in 2015.
Arizona’s large per capita income gap
was driven primarily by low earnings per
employed resident, which accounted for
10.0 percentage points of the gap. The
next largest contributions came from low
dividends, interest, and rent per capita
(3.6 percentage points), the employmentpopulation ratio (3.6 percentage points),
and transfer payments per capita (0.2
percentage points).
Overall, the income gap is large because
wages are relatively low in Arizona.
That, in turn, is likely driven by some
combination of the state’s industry/
education mix, the attractiveness of the
state as a migration destination (both
domestic and international), and slow
gains in human capital accumulation
compared to the U.S.
Early returns so far in 2016 suggest a
surge in job growth for Arizona, the
Phoenix MSA, and the Tucson MSA. From
the first quarter of 2015 to the first
quarter of 2016, Arizona added 81,300
jobs. That translated into a rate of 3.1%,
which was well above average gains last
year. Many of the job gains over the year
were in education and health services;

In this issue
Tipping Point or More of the Same? Arizona Picks Up Some
Momentum Second Quarter 2016 Forecast Update . . . . . . . 1
The Mexican Avocado Rules: Nogales Loses the Throne to Texas
(or Holy Guacamole Texas Takes a Triple Dip). . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
She’s the Boss: Facts About Women-Owned
Businesses in Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Forecast Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Arizona Economic Indicators: State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Arizona Economic Indicators: Metro Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Arizona Economic Indicators: Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13
14
18
22

Arizona’s Economy

The baseline
(most-likely) projections
call for real GDP to rise
by 2.1% in 2016, slightly
slower than the 2.4%
rate posted last year.

professional and business services; trade,
transportation, and utilities; and financial
activities. These four sectors accounted for
76.8% of employment gains. Construction
jobs increased, as did manufacturing jobs.
Employment in government and natural
resources and mining declined.

Arizona Outlook
The outlook for Arizona, the Phoenix MSA,
and the Tucson MSA depends in part on
the performance of the U.S. economy.
Overall, the nation is expected to continue
to grow, with increasing real GDP, jobs,
income, and population. The baseline
(most-likely) projections call for real GDP
to rise by 2.1% in 2016, slightly slower than
the 2.4% rate posted last year. Much of
the slowdown arises from the weak first
quarter results (up 0.5% according to the
advance estimate). Real GDP is expected
to accelerate to 2.8% in 2017 and 2.7%
in 2018, before gradually settling back to
the 2.4% per year range. The near term
acceleration is driven by the gradual

drawdown of inventories, less drag from oil
producing states, less fiscal drag, and better
export performance.
U.S. growth sets the stage for continued
gains for Arizona, the Phoenix MSA, and
the Tucson MSA. The state is forecast to
add 78,600 jobs in 2016 (3.0% growth) and
to sustain that pace through 2018. Leading
sectors during the next three years are
expected to be professional and business
services; education and health services;
trade, transportation, and utilities; and
construction. The gains in construction
activity reflect (in part) stronger housing
construction activity, with total housing
permits rising from 31,850 in 2015 to
46,830 in 2018.
The forecast is similar for the Phoenix MSA,
with job growth rising from 3.3% in 2015
to 3.5% in 2016 and 2017, before softening
slightly in 2018
The Tucson MSA also accelerates in the near
term, with job growth rising from 0.8% last
year to 1.7% in 2016 and to 2.0% by 2018.

Exhibit 1: Arizona’s Per Capita Personal Income Is Well Below the U.S. Average

Nominal Per Capita Personal Income in 2015 By State
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000

U.S.
PCPI: $47,669

$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0

2

Economic and Business Research Center, Eller College of Management, The University of Arizona

Arizona
PCPI: $39,471
Rank: 42

July, 2016 Summer Issue

Exhibit 2: Little or No Improvement Expected in the Income Gaps for Arizona, Phoenix
MSA, and Tucson MSA

Percentage Gap With The U.S.

percent

0

-4

The state is
forecast to add 78,600
jobs in 2016 (3.0%
growth) and to sustain

-8

that pace through 2018.

-12
-16

Tucson
Phoenix
Arizona
90

95

-20
00

05

Population gains recover, after a weak year
in 2015, to hit 1.2% by 2018. Overall, Tucson
benefits from reduced federal fiscal drag.
Per capita income is forecast to rise during
the forecast for Arizona, the Phoenix MSA,
and the Tucson MSA. That is true even if we
adjust for the impact of inflation. However,
per capita income for Arizona and its two
largest metropolitan areas is not expected
to close the gap with the U.S. and may
well fall further behind. Thus, as Exhibit 2
shows, the per capita income gap with the
nation is expected to rise during the next

10

15

20

25

-24

10 years. For Arizona, the gap is forecast to
rise from 17.2% in 2015 to 18.9% by 2025.
The gap for the Tucson MSA is forecast to
rise from 19.7% in 2015 to 22.3% by 2025.
The gap for the Phoenix MSA is forecast to
fall modestly, from 11.6% in 2015 to 10.6%
by 2025.

Need to know more?
Contact George Hammond about the
benefits of becoming a Forecasting Project
sponsor!

Per capita income for Arizona and its two largest metropolitan areas is
not expected to close the gap with the U.S. and may well fall
further behind.

ebr.eller.arizona.edu

3

Arizona’s Economy

The Mexican Avocado Rules: Nogales Loses
the Throne to Texas (or Holy Guacamole
Texas Takes a Triple Dip)
By Vera Pavlakovich-Kochi, Ph.D.
While the total dollar value of Mexican
fresh produce imported through Nogales
has not actually decreased,1 the fact is that
the Nogales port did not gain either from
the overall growth of avocado production
south of the border, nor benefit from the
increasing demand for this healthy fruit
north of the border. As is often the case,
this shift in the volume and traffic patterns
of fresh produce travelling north may be
the consequence of more than a single
cause.

While the total
dollar value of Mexican
fresh produce imported
through Nogales has
not actually decreased,
...the Nogales port did
not gain either from
the overall growth of

W

Gradual Lifting of Restrictions
ho would have guessed in the
1990s, when Nogales, Arizona,
Under NAFTA
firmly held the dominant position
Beginning in the early 1900s, the U.S.
among all southern border ports as the
prohibited the import of Mexican-grown
main gateway for fresh produce from
avocados because of the possibility of
Mexico, that a scaly, dark green, more-likeintroducing harmful pests and diseases
a-vegetable-looking fruit would experience
into domestic avocado fields, which were
such a dramatic rise in popularity to
then concentrated mainly in California.
become king of Mexico’s fruit exports? Or,
These restrictions held even after NAFTA
that by 2015, the value of these exports
was inaugurated in 1994, but began to
would dethrone Nogales as the southern
incrementally break down under the
border’s number one port for fresh produce
pressure of possible trade retaliation by
tilting the ranking scale in favor of Texas?
Figure 1: Imports of Mexican Avocados Through Top Three Ports, 2005-2015

avocado production
south of the border,
nor benefit from the
increasing demand ...
north of the border.

Imports of Mexican Avocados

$ millions
800

2005-2015

Hidalgo, TX
Laredo, TX
Nogales, AZ

600

400

200

0
2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Source: AZMEX, based on U.S. Census via USA Trade Online

4

Economic and Business Research Center, Eller College of Management, The University of Arizona

2014

2015

July, 2016 Summer Issue

the Mexican government. First, in 1997,
import of avocados grown in the state of
Michoacán, in central Mexico, was allowed
into thirteen U.S. states. This group did
not include California, Florida, or Hawaii,
three domestic avocado-producing states.
In 2005, restrictions were lifted to allow
avocado imports to all of the U.S., but still
with the exception of California, Florida,
and Hawaii. Finally, in 2007, all restrictions
for the import of Mexican avocados were
lifted.2
The long lasting restrictions on the import
of Mexican avocados to California provided
an early advantage for Texas ports, as
reflected in data for 2005-2007 (Figure 1).
However, even after all restrictions were
lifted, it was the Texas ports, most notably
Hidalgo and Laredo, that established
themselves as the two primary entry points
for Mexican avocados.
In the last five years, from 2011 to 2015,
the value of imported avocados entering
the U.S. at Hidalgo and Laredo almost
tripled at both ports. To casual observers,
the rise in avocado imports remained
off the radar screen, being buried under
aggregated import statistics as “fresh
produce.” However, aggregated indicators 3

started showing a profound decline in
Arizona’s share of Mexican fresh produce
imports, this raised concerns about the
shifting roles among southern border ports
in favor of Texas.

In the last five
years, from 2011 to 2015,
the value of imported

Geography Matters:
Avocado-Growing Regions in
Mexico

avocados entering the

Mexico is the world’s number one avocado
growing country, accounting for more
than 30 percent of global production.4 The
growing fields are heavily concentrated
in the state of Michoacán in central
Mexico (Figure 2). One of the main
reasons for this geographic concentration
is the fruit’s “Goldilocks” attitude: the
evergreen tree does not like climate that
is too wet, too dry, too hot, nor too cold;
it does not tolerate cold wind or freezing
temperatures.5 Michoacán has the best
combination of climate and soil conditions
for commercially successful production
and currently accounts for more than
85 percent of total Mexican avocado
production.6 Avocados are also grown in
Morelos, the State of Mèxico, Nayarit, and
Jalisco. Currently, only avocados grown

both ports.

U.S. at Hidalgo and
Laredo almost tripled at

Figure 2: Avocado-Growing States in Mexico

Avocado-Growing States in Mexico

Source: AZMEX, based on U.S. Census via USA Trade Online

ebr.eller.arizona.edu

5

Arizona’s Economy

Table 1: Distance to Main Mexico-U.S. Border Ports
From Uruapan, Michoacán
to:

Miles

Duration
(hours)

Nogales, Sonora

1,177

21

704

12

Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas

Reynosa, Tamaulipas
671
12
Source: AZMEX based on http://distancecalculator.globefeed.com/
Mexico_Distance_Calculator.asp

Currently, only
avocados grown in
Michoacán are allowed
to be imported into the
U.S., whereas avocados
from other Mexican
states are exported
worldwide.

in Michoacán are allowed to be imported
into the U.S., whereas avocados from other
Mexican states are exported worldwide.
Among the more than 20 Michoacán
municipalities authorized to export
avocados to the U.S., one of the best
known is Uruapan. Centrally located within
Michoacán, Uruapan is used to calculate
average distances to the U.S.-Mexico border
(Table 1).
Clearly, the shortest distances from the
major avocado-producing region to the
U.S-Mexico border are via Nuevo Laredo
in Tamaulipas located across from Laredo
in Texas, and Reynosa, also in Tamaulipas
located across Hidalgo (McAllen), Texas. In
terms of estimated driving time, avocados
from Michoacán can reach the Texas border
in 12 hours, compared to more than the 21
hours needed to reach Nogales.

Demographics Matters: U.S.
Consumption of Mexican
Avocados, by State
In a 2014 report, a research team associated
with Texas A&M University estimated
the value of imported Mexican avocados
consumed in the U.S. by state.7 Using
avocado consumption data in combination
with states’ gross domestic product, the
report estimated that California and Texas
were two major markets for imported
avocados from Mexico, with about 14
percent each. The top ten states ranked by
value of imported Mexican avocados, after
California and Texas, include New York,
Washington, Florida, Colorado, Arizona,
Illinois, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina
(Table 2). As expected, seven of these
states – California, Texas, New York, Florida,
Colorado, Arizona, and Illinois (marked
with an ‘*’ in Table 2) – are also among
the top ten states based on the size of the
6

state’s Hispanic population, suggesting an
association with the traditional importance
of avocados in Mexican and Latino cuisine.
The absence of a statistically perfect
correlation, however, reflects the growing
popularity of avocados in mainstream
cuisine due to the increasing awareness of
the avocado’s many health benefits and
the impact of successful advertising of
guacamole during Super Bowl events.
Estimates for California’s consumption
of Mexican avocados, valued at about
$435 million in 2013, seems rather high
given that California is the main domestic
producer of avocados in the U.S. However,
the authors of the aforementioned report
did subtract domestic production from the
state’s total avocado consumption.
Assuming that the estimates on
consumption of Mexican avocados are
reasonable, California’s imports, especially,
raise some important questions for Nogales
in view of the actual volume of imports
through Arizona.

Nogales’ Share of
Hypothetical “Trade-Sheds”
For the purpose of this analysis, state-level
estimates of Mexican avocado consumption
are aggregated into two hypothetical “trade
sheds” based on proximity relative to (1)
Nogales in Arizona and (2) Texas’ ports
of Laredo and Hidalgo. These three ports
accounted for 99.8 percent of all imported
avocados from Mexico in 2013.
It is reasonable to hypothesize that the
port of Nogales is naturally positioned
to facilitate imports from Mexico that
are destined for the western portion of
the U.S., which includes, besides Arizona
and California, the following nine states:
Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New
Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and

Economic and Business Research Center, Eller College of Management, The University of Arizona

July, 2016 Summer Issue

Table 2: Top 10 States Ranked by the Value of Imported Mexican Avocados
(also showing % Hispanic population)

State

Value of
Imported
Mexican
Avocados
2013 ($ mill)

Mexican
Avocados as
% of Total
Imports

Hispanic
Population
as % of
Total

Hispanic
Population
2011 (mill)

California*

139.7

14.1

14.4

27.7

Texas*

136.5

13.8

9.8

18.9

New York*

49.6

5.0

3.5

6.7

Washington

Nogales’ share
of imported Mexican
avocados (5.1 percent)
appears extremely
low compared to the

44.8

4.5

0.8

1.5

estimated consumption

Florida*

41.2

4.2

4.4

8.5

Colorado*

32.7

3.3

1.1

2.1

in the Nogales trade-

Arizona*

31.8

3.2

1.9

3.7

Illinois*

2.1

4.0

30.3

3.1

Pennsylvania

24.7

2.5

0.8

1.5

North Carolina

24.2

2.4

0.8

1.5

436.4

44.0

12.3

23.7

Rest of U.S.

shed of Mexican
avocados (33.8 percent).

Total U.S.
991.9
100.0
51.9
100.0
* Among the top ten states ranked by percent of Hispanic population.
Sources: AZMEX based on G.W. Williams, O. Capps, and D. Hanselka, 2014; Pew Research
Center based on U.S. Census data

Wyoming. The rest of the U.S. falls within
the hypothesized Laredo-Hidalgo tradeshed that includes the mid-central, northcentral, south, south-east, and east-coast
regions.

When presented in terms of hypothetical
trade-sheds (Figure 3), the data reveal
a staggering finding: Nogales’ share of
imported Mexican avocados (5.1 percent)
appears extremely low compared to the

Figure 3: Imports Through Nogales and Estimated Consumption of Mexican Avocados

Trade Sheds
Nogales and Laredo/Hidalgo

Nogales trade-shed:
• 40.5% of U.S. Hispanic population*
• 33.8% of MX avocado consumption**
• 5.1% Nogales’ share of imports ***

Laredo/Hidalgo trade-shed:
• 59.5% of U.S. Hispanic population*
• 66.2% of MX avocado consumption**
• 94.7% Laredo/Hidalgo’s share of imports***

*Excluding Alaska and Hawaii; **Estimates based on G.W. Williams, O. Capps, and D. Hanselka, 2014; *** Based on
dollar value of imported Mexican avocados through all southern BPOE, 2013

ebr.eller.arizona.edu

7

Arizona’s Economy

Table 3: Distance From Michoacán to Los Angeles Via Selected Border Ports
Miles in
Mexico

Through the Port of:
Nogales/Nogales

Travel
Time in
Mexico
(hours)

Miles in
the U.S.

Travel
Time in
the U.S.
(hours)

Total
Miles

Total
hours

1,177

21

550

8

1,727

29

Nuevo Laredo/Laredo

704

12

1,410

21

2,114

33

Reynosa/Hidalgo (McAllen)

671

12

1,592

23

2,263

35

Source: AZMEX based on http://distancecalculator.glbefeed.com for Mexico and U.S.

estimated consumption in the
Nogales trade-shed of Mexican
avocados (33.8 percent). How do
Mexican avocados get to California
and the west coast region if not
through the Nogales port? In 2013,
according to U.S. Census data, 94.7
percent of all Mexican avocados were
imported through the ports of Laredo
and Hidalgo. All other U.S.-Mexico
border ports imported less than one
percent.8

Distances revisited:
Beyond Geography
If all factors, such as quality of
highways, security, check points,
wait times at the border, and border
inspection procedures are equal,

then the shortest distance from
Michoacán’s avocado-growing fields
to Los Angeles is, no doubt, through
Nogales (Table 3). Not counting
wait times at the border, it takes on
average an estimated 29 hours and a
trip of approximately 1,730 miles for
avocados to reach Los Angles from
Michoacán via Nogales.
However, if packers and shippers
prefer the shortest possible distances
traveled through Mexico, then
Laredo and Hidalgo obviously have
advantages compared to Nogales.
Even with the distance from the U.S.
border to Los Angeles almost three
times longer than from Nogales,
imports through Laredo and Hidalgo
may take only 4 to 5 hours more than
when shipped through Nogales. This

is without taking into consideration
wait times before actually reaching
the border and the time that it takes
for border inspections.
After all, maybe it makes sense
for Texas’ economic developers to
lure Nogales-based shippers and
distributors—who, over the course of
a century, developed unique expertise
in the trans-border fresh produce
business — to their border ports by
offering modern warehouses and
promising possibly shorter border
crossing wait-times.

Acknowledgements
Laurie Sheldon provided detailed
Mexican import data and Alan
Hoogasian created maps.

After all, maybe it makes sense for Texas’ economic developers to lure Nogales-based
shippers and distributors to their border ports by offering modern warehouses and
promising possibly shorter border crossing wait-times.
1
See “Nogales, AZ: The main gateway for produce from Mexico, or no more?” By V. Pavlakovich-Kochi, Arizona-Mexico Economic
Indicators, March 9, 2016, https://azmex.eller.arizona.edu

“Mexico praises lifting of last U.S. avocado import barriers,” The Associated Press, International Herald Tribune, Business Section,
February 2, 2007. https:web.archive.org 3/18/2016

2

3

See Arizona’s Trade and Competitiveness in the U.S.-Mexico Region, Annual Report 2015, p. 37 http://azmex.eller.arizona.edu

The U.S. produces about 7 percent of the world total, followed by Colombia, Brazil, and Peru. Source: Rhoda Richard and Tony
Burton, Geo-Mexico: the geography and dynamics of modern Mexico, Sombrero Books: 2010. http://geo-mexico.com/; Dulce Flores,
“Mexican avocado exports continue to grow,” GAIN Report No MX4079, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, November 26, 2014.
4

Arthur C. Gibson, “Plants and civilizations,” Class notes, UCLA. www.botgard.ucla.edu/html/botanytextbooks/economicbotany/index.
html 3/18/2016
5

Dulce Flores, “Mexican avocado exports continue to grow,” GAIN Report No.: MX4079, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, November
26, 2014.

6

7
G.W. Williams, O. Capps, and D. Hanselka, “Economic Benefits of the Expansion of Avocado Imports from Mexico: State-by-State
Impacts,” Research Report to the Asociación de Productores y Empacadores de Aguacate (APEAM, A.C.) and the Mexican Hass
Avocado Import Association (MHAIA), Forecasting and Business Analytics, LLC, College Station, TX, April 2014.
8

8

AZMEX based on U.S. Census via USA Trade Online https://azmex.eller.arizona.edu

Economic and Business Research Center, Eller College of Management, The University of Arizona

July, 2016 Summer Issue

She’s the Boss: Facts About Women-Owned
Businesses in Arizona
by Valorie Rice, Senior Specialist, Business Information

Industries

B

usinesses owned by women
experienced substantial growth in
recent years. They also play a dynamic
role in nearly every industry sector. Here are
some interesting facts concerning womenowned businesses in Arizona and the
U.S. from the Survey of Business Owners
produced every five years, the most recent
being 2012 (released December 2015).

Arizona Totals
The total number of businesses in Arizona
owned by women in 2012 was 182,425,
representing 36.5% of businesses in the
state. This was more than the percentage
nationally of 35.8%. Georgia, with 40.5%,
was the state with the largest percentage,
while at 29.2%, South Dakota had the
smallest. California was the state with the
largest number of women-owned businesses
in 2012. [Table 1]
A large majority of women-owned
businesses in Arizona were self-employed
individuals, only 10.4% having paid
employees. Of those that did have paid
employees, over half were small enterprises
with less than five workers. This held true
for the nation as well.

Female headed firms spanned nearly every
industry in 2012. The top industries for
female-owned businesses were the same
for both the U.S. and Arizona. Other
services (which includes hair salons and
repair shops) and the health care and social
assistance sector were the two industries
with the highest percentage of femaleowned businesses. Not only were these
two industries the most highly represented
among female-owned firms, but firms in
these two industries were also more likely
to be headed by women when compared
with all firms. The industries least likely to
have large numbers of women-owned firms
were utilities, management of companies
and enterprises (which include holding
companies and corporate offices), and
mining. [Table 2]
Arizona female-owned businesses followed
the same general industry mix as those in
the U.S., with one notable difference. The
industry where Arizona women-owned
businesses departed from the national
norm nationally was real estate. There was
a far higher percentage of women-owned
real estate businesses in Arizona (10.4%)
than in the U.S. (7.2%) overall. In fact, the
only state that had a higher percentage
of women-owned real estate businesses
was Nevada at 11.8%. There was a slightly
smaller percentage of women-owned
businesses in the health care and other
services sectors in Arizona compared to the
nation.

Female headed
firms spanned nearly
every industry in 2012...
Other services (which
includes hair salons and
repair shops) and the
health care and social
assistance sector were
the two industries with
the highest percentage
of female-owned
businesses.

Growth
Growth in the number of women-owned
businesses far outpaced total business
growth between 2007 and 2012. The change
in the total number of all businesses in
the U.S. was 2%, while female-owned
businesses grew 26.8% in the same time
period. This divergence was even greater
ebr.eller.arizona.edu

9

Arizona’s Economy

Table 1: States Ranked by Percent of All Firms That are Women-Owned
Percent

In Arizona, the
change in the total

Number

Percent

Number

Georgia

40.5

376,506

Missouri

33.1

162,616

Maryland

39.3

209,119

Massachusetts

32.8

199,210

32.7

75,962

New Mexico

39.0

59,044

Arkansas

number of all businesses

Florida

38.5

807,817

Connecticut

32.7

106,678

was 1.7% compared

Mississippi

37.9

89,159

Delaware

32.6

23,964

Hawaii

37.5

44,453

Alaska

32.5

22,141

Kansas

32.3

77,194

to a 32.1% increase

California

37.2

1,320,085

in women-owned

Michigan

36.8

306,986

Minnesota

32.2

157,821

businesses...

Alabama

36.8

137,630

Rhode Island

32.2

30,484

Illinois

36.8

417,500

Oklahoma

32.1

105,168

Texas

36.8

866,678

Kentucky

32.0

106,011

Arizona

36.5

182,425

New Jersey

31.9

252,944

Louisiana

36.5

151,114

Iowa

31.8

82,345

Nevada

36.3

82,508

Nebraska

31.7

51,936

Oregon

36.3

123,015

Montana

31.5

35,449

Virginia

36.2

236,290

Pennsylvania

31.2

304,803

New York

36.1

725,709

Wyoming

31.0

19,344

South Carolina

35.9

131,856

Wisconsin

30.9

133,859

US

35.8

9,878,397

Vermont

30.9

23,417

Revenues for
Arizona women-owned
firms grew 4.5%
between 2007 and 2012
compared to a 0.9%
increase in revenues for
all firms.

10

North Carolina

35.6

287,058

Idaho

30.8

45,121

Tennessee

35.6

195,694

Utah

30.3

76,269

Colorado

35.5

194,508

Maine

30.1

42,067

Washington

34.7

187,677

North Dakota

29.8

20,316

New Hampshire

29.3

38,525

South Dakota

29.2

23,722

West Virginia

34.1

39,065

Indiana

34.0

162,798

Ohio

33.9

306,824

in Arizona, where overall growth was 1.7%
compared to the 32.1% increase in womenowned businesses. Arizona had the tenth
highest percent change in the number of
women-owned firms over the five year
period out of all states. The state with the
largest growth was Louisiana while New
Hampshire had the least growth.
Women-owned businesses also experienced
faster revenue growth over the five-year
time period. Revenues for Arizona womenowned firms grew 4.5% between 2007
and 2012 compared to a 0.9% increase in
revenues for all firms. Nationally, womenowned firms had 18.7% increase in revenue
compared to 11.7% overall.

Arizona Counties
Maricopa County had the largest number
of women-owned firms, followed by Pima
County. This is not a surprise given the
size difference between Maricopa and
the other counties in the state. Apache
County had the highest percent of total
businesses run by women, with 40.6%.
Greenlee had the smallest at 13.1% as well
as the smallest number of women-owned
businesses. [Table 3]

Source notes
The Census Bureau conducts the Survey
of Business Owners in conjunction with

Economic and Business Research Center, Eller College of Management, The University of Arizona

July, 2016 Summer Issue

Table 2: Percent of Businesses Each Industry Sector Represents
Arizona

U.S.

All Firms

Femaleowned

All Firms

Femaleowned

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting

0.5

0.2

0.9

0.4

Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction

0.1

0.1

0.5

0.2

Utilities

0.1

0.0

0.1

0.0

had the largest number

Construction

8.8

2.2

10.6

2.7

of women-owned firms...
Apache County had

Maricopa County

Manufacturing

2.1

1.6

2.1

1.4

Wholesale trade

2.5

1.6

2.5

1.6

Retail trade

8.9

10.2

9.1

10.6

the highest percent of

Transportation and warehousing

3.6

1.7

4.4

1.6

total businesses run by
women, with 40.6%.

Information

1.3

1.1

1.4

1.2

Finance and insurance

3.9

2.5

3.5

2.2

Real estate and rental and leasing

12.7

10.4

9.7

7.2

Professional, scientific, and technical services

14.9

14.1

14.1

13.5

Management of companies and enterprises

0.1

0.0

0.1

0.0

Administrative & support & waste
management & remediation services

9.0

11.5

8.4

10.9

Educational services

2.5

3.6

2.4

3.7

Health care and social assistance

9.3

14.9

9.3

16.2

Arts, entertainment, and recreation

4.5

4.4

4.8

4.8

Accommodation and food services

2.6

2.1

3.0

2.7

12.9

17.8

13.2

19.1

Other services (except public administration)

Note: Crop and animal production not included in Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting.

the Economic Census every five years (those
ending on a 2 or a 7). It is a sample survey
that provides information on selected
economic and demographic characteristics
for businesses and business owners by
gender, ethnicity, race and veteran status.
Women-owned businesses have a woman

owning 51% or more of the equity, interest,
or stock of the business. The relative
standard of error for several of Arizona’s
smallest counties was rather high; therefore
caution should be taken when considering
the county-level data.

Table 3: Percent of Businesses Owned by Women, Arizona and Counties
Percent
Arizona

36.5

Number

Percent

182,425

Number

Maricopa

35.5

115,146

Apache

40.6

1,131

Mohave

38.7

4,826

Cochise

39.8

3,403

Navajo

36.1

2,155

Coconino

36.6

3,998

Pima

38.3

29,799

Gila

37.2

1,495

Pinal

38.1

6,560

Graham

28.3

528

Santa Cruz

33.9

1,737

Greenlee

13.1

41

La Paz

27.0

332

Yavapai

34.7

7,126

Yuma

39.6

4,298

ebr.eller.arizona.edu

11

Arizona’s Economy

>>Keeping Current
Arizona’s Economy is published quarterly by the Economic and Business Research Center in the Eller College of
Management. For continuous updates of Arizona’s economic indicators, check out our website’s Indicators page:
		www.azeconomy.org/data/economic-indicators/
There you can browse indicators by geography or topic and graph each series by clicking on the series title.

>>Subscribe
If you wish to be notified each quarter when a new issue of Arizona’s Economy is posted online, go to:
		www.azeconomy.org/subscribe/
We do not share our mailing list.

Follow the Economic and Business Research Center on
Twitter @Eller_EBRC and Facebook Eller.EBRC.
Economic data for Arizona at your fingertips - download the free AZ
Economy App today!
Search on “Arizona’s Economy” in the iTunes App Store or on Google Play and download the Arizona’s
Economy mobile app 2.0 for your iphone, ipad, or android phone today.

12

Economic and Business Research Center, Eller College of Management, The University of Arizona

July, 2016 Summer Issue

Forecast Tables
Arizona
Personal Income ($ mil)
  % Chg from Year Ago
Retail Sales ($mil)
  % Chg from Year Ago
Total Nonfarm Employment (000s)
  % Chg from Year Ago
Population (000s), July 1st estimates
  % Chg from Year Ago
Residential Building Permits (units)
  % Chg from Year Ago

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale MSA
Personal Income ($ mil)
  % Chg from Year Ago
Retail Sales ($ mil)
  % Chg from Prior
Total Nonfarm Employment (000s)
  % Chg from Year Ago
Population (000s), July 1st estimates
  % Chg from Year Ago

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

255,093

266,756

280,026

295,817

314,042

332,981

4.7%

4.6%

5.0%

5.6%

6.2%

6.0%

88,518

92,640

94,814

100,080

105,660

111,413

3.5%

4.7%

2.3%

5.6%

5.6%

5.4%

2,570.3
2.0%
6,667.2

2,636.1
2.6%
6,758.3

2,714.7
3.0%
6,867.7

2,795.1
3.0%
6,989.6

2,878.9
3.0%
7,117.4

2,954.6
2.6%
7,246.9

1.3%

1.4%

1.6%

1.8%

1.8%

1.8%

26,997

31,850

37,488

43,183

46,830

47,925

7.1%

18.0%

17.7%

15.2%

8.4%

2.3%

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

178,871

188,948

199,729

212,590

226,934

242,171

5.1%

5.6%

5.7%

6.4%

6.8%

6.7%

61,968

65,235

67,527

71,394

75,761

80,475

3.9%

5.3%

3.5%

5.7%

6.1%

6.2%

1,853.1

1,914.0

1,980.7

2,050.8

2,120.4

2,186.5

2.3%

3.3%

3.5%

3.5%

3.4%

3.1%

4,404.9

4,482.9

4,569.6

4,667.0

4,769.5

4,872.8

1.5%

1.8%

1.9%

2.1%

2.2%

2.2%

20,341

22,946

27,096

32,814

35,334

35,872

  % Chg from Prior

8.6%

12.8%

18.1%

21.1%

7.7%

1.5%

Tucson MSA

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Personal Income ($ mil)

37,199

38,629

40,212

41,971

44,117

46,408

  % Chg from Year Ago

4.0%

3.8%

4.1%

4.4%

5.1%

5.2%

Residential Building Permits (units)

Retail Sales ($ mil)

12,518

12,941

13,219

13,791

14,388

15,022

  % Chg from Year Ago

1.6%

3.4%

2.1%

4.3%

4.3%

4.4%

Total Nonfarm Employment (000s)

365.2

368.1

374.5

381.7

389.5

397.1

  % Chg from Year Ago

0.6%

0.8%

1.7%

1.9%

2.0%

2.0%

1,007.2

1,009.4

1,015.9

1,026.1

1,037.9

1,050.3

1.1%

0.2%

0.6%

1.0%

1.2%

1.2%

Residential Permits (units)

3,250

3,532

3,861

4,328

4,707

4,863

  % Chg from Year Ago

-6.9%

8.7%

9.3%

12.1%

8.8%

3.3%

Population (000s), July 1st estimates
  % Chg from Year Ago

>>Need More?
Do you need more detailed and comprehensive forecast data and analysis? Learn about the benefits of becoming a
Forecasting Project sponsor. Forecasting Project sponsorship allows your company or organization to access an in-depth
menu of economic forecasting and consulting services, as well as, quarterly forecast update meetings. Contact George
Hammond at ghammond@eller.arizona.edu or call 520.626.1679
The Forecasting Project is a community-sponsored research unit within the Economic and Business Research Center
producing quarterly economic forecasts for Arizona and its metro areas. These forecasts are recognized as among the
most accurate in the Western states.

ebr.eller.arizona.edu

13

Arizona’s Economy

Arizona Economic Indicators
Arizona - Labor Force and Employment, SA

Dec 2015

Jan 2016

Feb 2016

Mar 2016

Apr 2016

Persons (000s, seasonally adjusted), Local Area Unemployment Statistics, BLS
Civilian Labor Force
  % Chg from Year Ago
Employment
Unemployment
Unemployment Rate

3,167.3

3,187.6

3,212.5

3,233.8

3,245.0

1.3%

1.8%

2.5%

3.2%

3.5%

2,981.7

3,008.4

3,036.3

3,060.7

3,068.1

185.5

179.2

176.2

173.1

176.9

5.9

5.6

5.5

5.4

5.5

2,691.9

2,697.2

Employees on Nonagricultural Payrolls (000s, seasonally adjusted), Current Employment Statistics, BLS
Total

2,681.6

  % Chg from Year Ago
Total Private
  % Chg from Year Ago
Goods Producing
Mining and Logging

2,683.1

2,688.9

3.2%

3.0%

3.0%

3.0%

3.1%

2,273.7

2,279.9

2,281.4

2,283.5

2,288.9

3.9%
302.4

3.9%
305.2

3.7%
303.7

3.7%
305.1

3.7%
302.1

12.0

11.7

11.6

11.7

11.5

Construction

130.1

131.8

132.5

134.0

133.2

Manufacturing

160.3

161.7

159.6

159.4

157.4

122.1

122.3

120.3

120.3

119.8

Durable Goods
Non-Durable Goods
Service Providing
Private Service Providing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transportation and Utilities
Information
Finance and Insurance

38.2

39.4

39.3

39.1

37.6

2,379.2

2,377.9

2,385.2

2,386.8

2,395.1

1,971.3

1,974.7

1,977.7

1,978.4

1,986.8

93.7

95.2

95.4

95.1

96.4

326.4

324.5

324.9

326.3

327.7

93.1

92.6

92.8

91.9

91.4

46.9

48.1

47.5

47.7

48.2

149.9

152.1

152.6

153.4

153.8

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing

48.9

50.0

51.1

52.2

51.8

Professional and Business Services

412.6

411.6

411.5

406.8

412.8

134.8

134.4

133.5

130.6

132.2

32.4

32.2

32.2

31.8

32.0

245.4

245.0

245.8

244.4

248.6

Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
Management of Companies and Enterprises
Administrative and Support
Waste Management and Remediation Services
Educational Services
Health Care and Social Assistance
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Accommodation and Food Services
Other Services
Government
  % Chg from Year Ago
Federal Government
State Government
Local Government

14

62.1

64.1

63.2

64.1

64.1

343.8

343.8

345.9

346.3

347.0

40.2

40.1

40.4

40.2

39.9

264.2

263.1

262.9

265.0

264.8

89.5

89.5

89.5

89.4

88.9

407.9

403.2

407.5

408.4

408.3

-0.7%

-1.8%

-0.6%

-0.4%

-0.2%

54.4

54.2

54.3

54.7

53.6

86.1

86.0

86.3

86.7

87.2

267.4

263.0

266.9

267.0

267.5

Economic and Business Research Center, Eller College of Management, The University of Arizona

July, 2016 Summer Issue

Arizona Economic Indicators
Jan 2016

Feb 2016

Mar 2016

Apr 2016

23.25

23.55

23.70

23.72

23.93

3.4%

2.8%

3.0%

3.1%

3.8%

Construction

23.86

24.39

24.05

24.51

24.47

Manufacturing

24.38

24.01

24.12

24.34

24.28

Arizona - Earnings, Sales, Housing, Bankruptcy

Dec 2015

Average Hourly Earnings by Industry ($, not seasonally adjusted), BLS
Total Private
  % Chg from Year Ago

Financial Activities

27.09

26.76

27.36

27.13

27.07

Professional and Business Services

25.05

25.07

25.16

25.43

25.91

Trade, Transportation, and Utilities

21.57

22.22

22.33

22.56

22.93

Education and Health Services

25.22

25.28

25.16

25.44

25.69

Leisure and Hospitality

14.33

14.41

14.20

13.92

14.25

9,102,391.6

7,411,188.2

7,711,839.3

2.1%

5.1%

2.6%

Retail Sales

6,459,006.6

4,744,791.3

5,064,655.1

Food, EBRC**

1,089,761.3

1,091,745.7

1,094,934.4

Restaurants & Bars

Sales ($000s, accrual), ADOR
Aggregate Retail Sales, EBRC*
  % Chg from Year Ago

1,072,423.2

1,110,430.6

1,163,049.4

Gasoline, EBRC***

470,574.0

450,929.9

389,200.4

416,288.6

Gallons, ADOT

239,844.0

234,614.9

234,599.4

254,922.6

718,678.5

772,151.8

697,640.4

Communications

178,642.2

204,709.3

187,469.6

Amusements

105,849.6

159,366.6

103,480.8

Utilities

Rentals Personal Property

297,479.6

302,669.2

311,545.6

Contracting

852,672.7

649,039.9

749,444.9

Hotel/Motel

177,141.2

248,965.7

312,188.7

9,112.1

8,951.6

10,475.9

Mining Severance

51,400.7

38,296.6

37,759.4

Printing

18,843.4

18,917.5

19,387.3

Mining, Oil, & Gas Production

Publishing

7,737.6

11,537.3

9,128.7

483,467.3

440,956.0

450,695.3

2,727

2,773

2,387

2,553

2,577

  % Chg from Year Ago

-8.7%

62.0%

11.3%

-5.4%

-16.3%

Single Family Units

1883

1623

1857

2334

2230

27.8%

30.3%

29.1%

21.7%

3.5%

45

42

70

52

71

799

1108

460

167

276

Use Tax
New Housing Units Authorized, Census C-40
Total Units

  % Chg from Year Ago
2-4 Unit Structures
5-plus Unit Structures
Bankruptcy Filings, U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Arizona District
Total

1081

846

1031

1523

1409

-12.8%

-13.6%

-2.8%

-6.6%

-13.9%

Chapter 7

871

668

814

1274

1188

Chapter 11

25

8

10

12

10

  % Chg from Year Ago

Chapter 13
185
170
207
237
211
*EBRC estimates Aggregate Retail Sales by summing Retail Sales (ADOR), Food Sales estimated by EBRC (food is not taxable in Arizona),
Restaurant and Bar Sales (ADOR), and Gasoline Sales estimated by EBRC using number of gallons sold in Arizona (ADOT) and current tax
rate on gasoline (ADOR).
**estimated by EBRC.
***estimated by EBRC using gallons sold (ADOT) and tax rate (ADOR).

ebr.eller.arizona.edu

15

Arizona’s Economy

Arizona Economic Indicators
Arizona - Demographics and Vital Statistics

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

6,438.2

6,498.6

6,581.1

6,667.2

6,758.3

0.6%

0.9%

1.3%

1.3%

1.4%

85.2

85.7

85.0

86.6

84.9

13.2

13.2

12.9

13.0

13.1

47.5

48.5

49.1

51.1

53.0

10.9

34.2

48.5

53.0

66.2

Demographics and Vital Statistics (July 1st Estimates, 000s), ADHS, ADOA & EBRC
Population, ADOA*
  % Chg from Year Ago
Resident Births, ADHS
Birth Rate
Residents Deaths, ADHS
Net Migration, EBRC

*This population figure is from the Arizona Dept. of Administration, rather than the official Census population count. EBRC feels this
figure is more accurate.
**Birth rate and net migration are both calculated by EBRC using data from the Arizona Dept. of Health Services.

Arizona - Personal Income and Earnings
Per Capita Personal Income ($), EBRC*
  % Chg from Year Ago
Average Earnings per Job ($), BEA**
  % Chg from Year Ago

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

35,867.3

37,114.7

37,024.0

38,260.6

39,471.2

4.7%

3.5%

-0.2%

3.3%

3.2%

47,943

49,265

49,376

50,661

2.7%

2.8%

0.2%

2.6%

230,920.3

241,192.2

243,656.9

255,092.9

Personal Income Derivation ($ millions), BEA***
Total Personal Income
  % Chg from Year Ago

266,756.0

5.3%

4.4%

1.0%

4.7%

4.6%

156,700.8

163,693.4

167,827.3

175,367.2

182,517.3

15,873.2

16,423.0

19,165.5

20,056.3

20,749.4

1,243.5

1,334.5

1,281.9

1,365.2

1,453.7

Equals: Net earnings by place of residence

142,071.1

148,605.0

149,943.7

156,676.1

163,221.6

Plus: Dividends, interest, and rent

40,526.3

44,516.4

44,511.3

46,309.8

48,083.5

Plus: Personal current transfer receipts

48,322.9

48,070.8

49,201.9

52,107.0

55,450.9

Total Wages and salaries

113,662.6

119,041.4

122,598.2

127,815.2

133,073.1

  % Chg from Year Ago

4.0%

4.7%

3.0%

4.3%

4.1%

Supplements to wages and salaries

26,408.1

26,755.2

27,696.0

28,869.3

29,859.9

Proprietors' income

16,630.0

17,896.8

17,533.1

18,682.7

19,584.3

Earnings by place of work
Less: Contributions for government social insurance
Plus: Adjustment for residence

Components of Earnings ($ millions), BEA***

Farm
Nonfarm

542.8

318.6

675.6

559.2

689.5

16,087.2

17,578.2

16,857.4

18,123.5

18,894.7

*EBRC calulates per capita personal income using total personal income from BEA divided by population estimates from ADOA. ADOA
counts differ from official Census counts, but EBRC considers them more accurate.
**Average earnings per job is total earnings divided by total full-time and part-time employment. Earnings is the sum of three
components of personal income--wages and salaries, supplements to wages and salaries, and proprietors’ income. BEA employment series
for states and local areas comprises estimates of the number of jobs, full-time plus part-time, by place of work. Full-time and part-time
jobs are counted at equal weight. Both employment for wages and salaries and proprietors’ employment are included.
***for detailed definitions, see BEA table SA4 “Personal Income and Employment by Major Component”

16

Economic and Business Research Center, Eller College of Management, The University of Arizona

July, 2016 Summer Issue

Arizona Economic Indicators
Arizona - Travel and Tourism (monthly data)

Dec 2015

Jan 2016

Feb 2016

Mar 2016

Apr 2016

International Border Crossings, Bureau of Transportation Statistics
Pedestrians

1,945,854

  % Chg from Year Ago
Personal Vehicle Passengers

4.0%
6,044,401

  % Chg from Year Ago

0

Bus Passengers

156,528

Trains

Please see AZMEX.eller.ariozna.edu
for full data histories and detail.

514

  % Chg from Year Ago

-0.8%

Trucks

329,391

  % Chg from Year Ago

2.1%

Hospitality Employment (000s, not seasonally adjusted), BLS
Leisure and Hospitality
  % Chg from Year Ago
Accommodation

302.4

299.7

304.7

311.5

312.0

3.9%

2.6%

2.5%

2.6%

2.2%

44.5

44.2

45.4

45.9

46.2

-0.2%

0.2%

1.6%

0.2%

-0.2%

177,141.2

248,965.7

312,188.7

4.2%

-7.8%

4.5%

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

19,339.1

19,030.6

19,221.3

20,703.7

22,427.9

-3.7%

-1.6%

1.0%

7.7%

8.3%

16,856.6

16,552.4

16,626.2

18,027.4

19,531.4

-2.7%

-1.8%

0.4%

8.4%

8.3%

  % Chg from Year Ago
Sales ($000s, accrual), ADOR
Hotel/Motel
  % Chg from Year Ago

Arizona - Travel and Tourism, cont.
Visits (000s) Arizona State and National Parks, NPS & ASPB
Total Arizona
  % Chg from Year Ago
Northern Arizona
  % Chg from Year Ago
Historical

1,327.8

1,147.4

1,070.3

1,114.5

1,177.8

Scenic

6,190.5

6,369.7

6,521.0

6,933.8

7,670.8

Water-based

9,338.3

9,035.3

9,034.9

9,979.1

10,682.8

Southern Arizona

2,482.5

2,478.2

2,595.1

2,676.3

2,896.5

-9.8%

-0.2%

4.7%

3.1%

8.2%

438.1

382.2

359.4

384.8

425.4

1,726.3

1,729.7

1,869.3

1,903.1

2,059.9

318.1

366.3

366.4

388.4

411.2

Dec 2015

Jan 2016

Feb 2016

Mar 2016

Apr 2016

238.04

238.11

237.71

237.92

238.89

  % Chg from Year Ago
Historical
Scenic
Water-based

Inflation and Prices - United States
U.S. Consumer Price Indices (seasonally adjusted), BLS
All Urban Consumers: All Items
  % Chg from Year Ago
Western States - All Urban Consumers: All items
  % Chg from Year Ago
U.S. Producer Price Index for All Commodities
(seas. adj.), BLS
  % Chg from Year Ago

0.7%

1.3%

1.0%

0.9%

1.1%

243.43

244.60

244.82

245.40

246.59

1.8%

2.6%

2.1%

1.5%

1.8%

183.50
-6.9%

182.50
-5.0%

181.50
-5.0%

182.40
-4.8%

183.30
-4.0%

ebr.eller.arizona.edu

17

Arizona’s Economy

Arizona Economic Indicators - MSAs
Note our readers: For the MSAs and counties which follow, EBRC “taxable sales” (accrual basis) only run through May of 2015, hence that
line is currently blank. This is due to a delay in reporting from the Arizona Department of Revenue. We hope to have this remedied in the
next issue.

Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale MSA - Monthly Data
Civilian Labor Force (000s), BLS
Unemployment Rate
Total Nonfarm Employment (000s), BLS
Private
Government
Average Hourly Earnings, Total Private, $, BLS
Taxable Sales ($000s, accrual), ADOR*
Total New Residential Permits (units), Census C-40

Dec 2015

Jan 2016

Feb 2016

2,188.1

2,200.5

2,218.6

Mar 2016 Apr 2016
2,223.8

2,222.9

4.7

4.6

4.5

4.5

4.7

1,984.7

1,946.9

1,963.3

1,970.9

1,978.1

1,745.2

1,715.3

1,721.6

1,729.4

1,735.0

239.5

231.6

241.7

241.5

243.1

24.05

24.36

24.69

24.69

25.03

NA

NA

NA

2,114

2,235

1,777

1,880

1,951

*Total of all collection categories covered by Arizona's "Transaction Privilege Tax," does not include food or gasoline sales.

Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale MSA - Annual Data
Population, ADOA*
  % Chg from Year Ago
Total Personal Income ($000), BEA
  % Chg from Year Ago
Per Capita Personal Income ($), EBRC**
  % Chg from Year Ago

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

4,227,601

4,273,897

4,338,672

4,404,888

4,482,906

0.7%

1.1%

1.5%

1.5%

1.8%

160,086,328

168,757,726

170,239,926

178,871,199

5.8%

5.4%

0.9%

5.1%

37,866.9

39,485.7

39,237.8

40,607.4

0.05

0.04

-0.01

0.03

*Population counts as of July 1st. ADOA population estimates differ from official Census Bureau estimates. EBRC considers ADOA counts
to be the most accurate.
**BEA total personal income divided by ADOA population estimates.

Tucson MSA (Pima County)- Monthly Data
Civilian Labor Force (000s), BLS
Unemployment Rate
Total Nonfarm Employment (000s), BLS
Private
Government
Average Hourly Earnings, Total Private, $, BLS

Dec 2015

Jan 2016

Feb 2016

468,033

471,722

479,256

Mar 2016 Apr 2016
478,533

477,596

5.0

4.9

4.8

4.7

5.0

380.9

375.1

381.0

381.2

381.7

300.4

296.4

300.6

301.0

302.0

80.5

78.7

80.4

80.2

79.7

22.35

22.26

312

240

22.15

22.63

22.31

Taxable Sales: Total ($000s, accrual), ADOR*

NA

NA

NA

Total New Residential Permits (units), Census C-40

279

237

296

*Total of all collection categories covered by Arizona’s “Transaction Privilege Tax,” does not include food or gasoline sales.

Tucson MSA (Pima County) - Annual Data
Population, ADOA*
  % Chg from Year Ago
Total Personal income
  % Chg from Year Ago
Per Capita Personal Income ($), EBRC**
% Chg from Year Ago

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

986,081

990,380

996,046

1,007,162

1,009,371

0.5%

0.4%

0.6%

1.1%

0.2%

34,539,779

35,590,889

35,784,754

37,198,714

4.7%

3.0%

0.5%

4.0%

35,027

35,937

35,927

36,934

4.1%

2.6%

0.0%

2.8%

*Population counts as of July 1st. ADOA population estimates differ from official Census Bureau estimates. EBRC considers ADOA counts
to be the most accurate.
**BEA total personal income divided by ADOA population estimates.

18

Economic and Business Research Center, Eller College of Management, The University of Arizona

July, 2016 Summer Issue

Arizona Economic Indicators - MSAs
Flagstaff MSA (Coconino County) - Monthly Data
Civilian Labor Force (000s), BLS
Unemployment Rate
Total Nonfarm Employment (000s), BLS
Private
Government

Dec 2015

Jan 2016

Feb 2016

Mar 2016 Apr 2016

71.5

71.9

72.6

73.0

73.2

6.6

6.5

6.0

5.6

5.7

65.3

64.0

65.2

65.6

66.2

45.4

44.3

44.6

45.0

45.6

17.4

17.3

18.2

18.2

18.1

18.66

19.10

18.73

19.09

18.82

Taxable Sales: Total ($ Accrual), ADOR*

NA

NA

NA

Total New Residential Permits (units), Census C-40

37

11

21

24

32

Average Hourly Earnings, Total Private, $, BLS

*Total of all collection categories covered by Arizona's "Transaction Privilege Tax," does not include food or gasoline sales.

Flagstaff MSA (Coconino County) - Annual Data
Population, ADOA*
  % Chg from Year Ago
Total Personal Income ($000), BEA
  % Chg from Year Ago
Per Capita Personal Income ($), EBRC**
  % Chg from Year Ago

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

134,162

134,313

135,695

139,372

141,602
1.6%

-0.4%

0.1%

1.0%

2.7%

4,819,660

4,978,754

5,127,921

5,399,899

4.7%

3.3%

3.0%

5.3%

35,924.2

37,068.3

37,790.1

38,744.5

5.1%

3.2%

2.0%

2.5%

*Population counts as of July 1st. ADOA population estimates differ from official Census Bureau estimates. EBRC considers ADOA counts
to be the most accurate.
**BEA total personal income divided by ADOA population estimates.

Lake Havasu City - Kingman MSA (Mohave County) Monthly Data
Civilian Labor Force (000s), BLS
Unemployment Rate
Total Nonfarm Employment (000s), BLS
Private
Government
Average Hourly Earnings, Total Private, $, BLS

Dec 2015

Jan 2016

Feb 2016

78.3

79.0

79.6

Mar 2016 Apr 2016
80.1

79.7

7.5

7.3

7.1

6.8

6.9

47.9

47.1

47.5

48.2

48.0

40.0

39.5

39.8

40.3

40.1

7.9

7.6

7.7

7.9

7.9

19.46

20.36

56

66

19.34

19.43

18.83

Taxable Sales: Total ($000, accrual), ADOR

NA

NA

NA

Total New Residential Permits (units), Census C-40

44

49

52

*Total of all collection categories covered by Arizona’s “Transaction Privilege Tax,” does not include food or gasoline sales.

Lake Havasu City-Kingman MSA (Mohave County) Annual Data
Population, July 1st estimate, ADOA
  % Chg from Year Ago
Total Personal Income ($000), BEA
  % Chg from Year Ago
Per Capita Personal Income, EBRC
  % Chg from Year Ago

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

75,840

77,683

77,900

77,922

78,269
0.5%

0.8%

2.4%

0.3%

0.0%

5,219,541

5,347,552

5,396,628

5,633,946

1.5%

2.5%

0.9%

4.4%

26,043

26,333

26,507

27,617

1.3%

1.1%

0.7%

4.2%

*Population counts as of July 1st. ADOA population estimates differ from official Census Bureau estimates. EBRC considers ADOA counts
to be the most accurate.
**BEA total personal income divided by ADOA population estimates.

ebr.eller.arizona.edu

19

Arizona’s Economy

Arizona Economic Indicators - MSAs
Prescott MSA (Yavapai County) - Monthly Data
Civilian Labor Force (000s), BLS
Unemployment Rate

Dec 2015

Jan 2016

Feb 2016

97.0

97.9

99.9

Mar 2016 Apr 2016
100.6

101.2

5.0

5.1

5.0

4.8

4.9

62.2

61.3

62.6

63.0

63.9

Private

51.6

50.8

51.7

52.0

53.0

Government

10.6

10.5

10.9

11.0

10.9

20.03

19.70

95

79

Total Nonfarm Employment (000s), BLS

Average Hourly Earnings, Total Private ($), BLS

19.97

20.09

19.91

Taxable Sales: Total ($000, accrual), ADOR*

NA

NA

NA

Total New Residential Permits (units), Census C-40

95

76

85

*Total of all collection categories covered by Arizona's "Transaction Privilege Tax," does not include food or gasoline sales.

Prescott MSA (Yavapai County) - Annual Data
Population, ADOA*
  % Chg from Year Ago
Total Personal Income ($000), BEA
  % Chg from Year Ago
Per Capita Personal Income ($), EBRC**
  % Chg from Year Ago

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

211,247

211,583

213,294

215,357

217,778

0.2%

0.2%

0.8%

1.0%

1.1%

6,345,155

6,591,170

6,811,155

7,172,392

4.4%

3.9%

3.3%

5.3%

30,037

31,152

31,933

33,305

4.2%

3.7%

2.5%

4.3%

*Population counts as of July 1st. ADOA population estimates differ from official Census Bureau estimates. EBRC considers ADOA counts
to be the most accurate.
**BEA total personal income divided by ADOA population estimates.

Sierra Vista - Douglas MSA (Cochise County) Monthly Data
Civilian Labor Force (000s), BLS
Unemployment Rate
Total Nonfarm Employment (000s), BLS
Private
Government
Average Hourly Earnings, Total Private ($), BLS
Taxable Sales: Total ($000s, accrual), ADOR*
Total New Residential Permits (units), Census C-40

Dec 2015

Jan 2016

Feb 2016

49.0

49.2

49.5

Mar 2016 Apr 2016
50.7

50.2

6.6

6.6

6.5

6.2

6.5

34.4

33.5

33.8

34.5

34.3

22.6

21.9

21.9

22.6

22.4

11.8

11.6

11.9

11.9

11.9

21.58

21.72

22.21

21.73

21.63

23.0

21.0

NA

NA

NA

11.0

17.0

12.0

*Total of all collection categories covered by Arizona’s “Transaction Privilege Tax,” does not include food or gasoline sales.

Sierra Vista - Douglas MSA (Cochise County) Annual Data
Population, ADOA*
  % Chg from Year Ago
Total Personal Income ($000)
  % Chg from Year Ago
Per Capita Personal Income ($)**
  % Chg from Year Ago

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

50,893

50,908

51,269

51,104

50,914

-0.9%

0.0%

0.7%

-0.3%

-0.4%

4,736,361

4,678,914

4,593,193

4,679,941

3.6%

-1.2%

-1.8%

1.9%

36,284

35,785

35,088

36,103

4.3%

-1.4%

-2.0%

2.9%

*Population counts as of July 1st. ADOA population estimates differ from official Census Bureau estimates. EBRC considers ADOA counts
to be the most accurate.
**BEA total personal income divided by ADOA population estimates.

20

Economic and Business Research Center, Eller College of Management, The University of Arizona

July, 2016 Summer Issue

Arizona Economic Indicators - MSAs
Yuma MSA (Yuma County) - Monthly Data
Civilian Labor Force (000s), BLS
Unemployment Rate

Dec 2015

Jan 2016

Feb 2016

91.4

90.2

89.5

Mar 2016 Apr 2016
91.7

93.6

17.6

15.8

15.1

13.9

18.7

55.3

54.6

55.1

55.4

54.4

Private

40.2

40.0

39.9

40.1

39.3

Government

15.1

14.6

15.2

15.3

15.1

19.02

18.11

18.08

18.11

18.28

NA

NA

NA

60.0

72.0

66.0

72.0

84.0

Total Nonfarm Employment (000s), BLS

Average Hourly Earnings, Total Private ($), BLS
Taxable Sales: Total ($000s, accrual), ADOR*
Total New Residential Permits (units), Census C-40

*Total of all collection categories covered by Arizona's "Transaction Privilege Tax," does not include food or gasoline sales.

Yuma MSA (Yuma County) - Annual Data
Population, ADOA*
  % Chg from Year Ago
Total Personal Income ($000)
  % Chg from Year Ago
Per Capita Personal Income ($)**
  % Chg from Year Ago

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

60,522

61,500

63,007

63,718

64,180

0.8%

1.6%

2.5%

1.1%

0.7%

5,622,247

5,586,005

5,838,101

5,841,652

5.6%

-0.6%

4.5%

0.1%

28,051

27,226

27,890

27,553

3.4%

-2.9%

2.4%

-1.2%

*Population counts as of July 1st. ADOA population estimates differ from official Census Bureau estimates. EBRC considers ADOA counts
to be the most accurate.
**BEA total personal income divided by ADOA population estimates.

TABLES: SOURCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
ADHS: Arizona Department of Health Services
ADOA: Arizona Department of Administration, Office of Employment and Population Statistics
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
BLS: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor
Census C-40: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce
Micropolitan SA: Micropolitan Statistical Area must have
at least one urban cluster of at least 10,000, but less than
50,000 inhabitants.

EBR: The Economic and Business Research Center, The University
of Arizona.
MSA: Metropolitan Statistical Area must have at least one core
urbanized area of 50,000 or more inhabitants.
PSHIA: Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport
SAAR: Seasonally adjusted at annual rates
TAR: Tucson Association of Realtors
U.S. Bankruptcy Court: District of Arizona
USCBP: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security
BTS: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of
Transportation
NPS: National Parks Service

* All Aggregate Retail Sales figures reported by EBR include retail, food, restaurant & bars and gasoline sales.
Source: Economic and Business Research Center, Eller College of Management, The University of Arizona.

ebr.eller.arizona.edu

21

Arizona’s Economy

Arizona Economic Indicators - Counties
Dec 2015

Jan 2016

Feb 2016

Mar 2016

Apr 2016

Civilian Labor Force (000s), BLS

20.2

20.4

20.3

20.3

20.2

Unemployment Rate

12.6

12.1

11.6

10.9

11.0

Total Nonfarm Employment (000s), ADOA

18.2

18.0

18.0

18.1

18.1

7.6

7.6

7.5

7.6

7.5

10.6

10.5

10.5

10.5

10.6

NA

NA

NA

Apache County Summary - Monthly

Private
Government
Taxable Sales: Total ($000s, accrual), ADOR*

*Total of all collection categories covered by Arizona’s “Transaction Privilege Tax,” does not include food or gasoline sales.

Gila County (Payson Micropolitan SA) Summary
- Monthly
Civilian Labor Force (000s), BLS
Unemployment Rate
Total Nonfarm Employment (000s), ADOA

Dec 2015

Jan 2016

Feb 2016

Mar 2016

Apr 2016

20.7

21.0

21.1

21.2

21.0

7.6

7.7

7.5

7.1

7.4

14.9

14.7

14.8

14.8

14.8

Private

9.6

9.5

9.5

9.5

9.6

Government

5.3

5.2

5.2

5.2

5.2

NA

NA

NA

Taxable Sales: Total ($000s, accrual), ADOR*

New Residential Permits (units), Census C-40
7
6
3
8
*Total of all collection categories covered by Arizona’s “Transaction Privilege Tax,” does not include food or gasoline sales.

Graham County Summary - Monthly
Civilian Labor Force (000s), BLS

16

Dec 2015

Jan 2016

Feb 2016

Mar 2016

Apr 2016

14.6

14.5

14.8

14.9

15.0

Unemployment Rate

7.0

6.7

6.6

6.4

6.9

Total Nonfarm Employment (000s), ADOA

9.0

8.8

9.0

9.0

9.1

Private

5.8

5.7

5.8

5.8

5.8

Government

3.2

3.1

3.2

3.2

3.3

Taxable Sales: Total ($000s, accrual), ADOR*
NA
NA
NA
*Total of all collection categories covered by Arizona’s “Transaction Privilege Tax,” does not include food or gasoline sales.

Dec 2015

Jan 2016

Feb 2016

Mar 2016

Apr 2016

Civilian Labor Force (000s), BLS

3.9

4.0

4.0

4.0

3.9

Unemployment Rate

8.3

8.3

8.1

8.0

8.2

Total Nonfarm Employment (000s), ADOA

4.5

4.4

4.4

4.4

4.4

Private

3.9

3.8

3.8

3.8

3.8

Government

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

Greenlee County Summary - Monthly

Taxable Sales: Total ($000s, accrual), ADOR*
NA
NA
NA
*Total of all collection categories covered by Arizona’s “Transaction Privilege Tax,” does not include food or gasoline sales.

22

Economic and Business Research Center, Eller College of Management, The University of Arizona

July, 2016 Summer Issue

Arizona Economic Indicators - Counties
Dec 2015

Jan 2016

Feb 2016

Mar 2016

Apr 2016

8.3
6.9
5.4

8.4
6.8
5.4

8.3
6.6
5.4

8.8
6.1
5.4

8.5
6.3
5.4

Private

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

Government

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

La Paz County Summary - Monthly
Civilian Labor Force (000s), BLS
Unemployment Rate
Total Nonfarm Employment (000s), ADOA

Taxable Sales: Total ($000, accrual)*, ADOR
NA
NA
NA
*Total of all collection categories covered by Arizona’s “Transaction Privilege Tax,” does not include food or gasoline sales.

Navajo County (Show Low Micropolitan SA)
Summary - Monthly
Civilian Labor Force (000s), BLS
Unemployment Rate
Total Nonfarm Employment (000s), ADOA
Private
Government
Taxable Sales: Total ($000s, accrual), ADOR*

Dec 2015

Jan 2016

Feb 2016

Mar 2016

Apr 2016

40.4

40.4

40.6

41.2

41.7

9.2

9.2

8.8

8.1

8.2

27.7

27.1

27.3

27.8

28.4

18.0

17.7

17.7

18.2

18.7

9.7

9.4

9.6

9.6

9.7

NA

NA

NA

New Residential Permits (units), Census C-40
9
7
15
14
*Total of all collection categories covered by Arizona’s “Transaction Privilege Tax,” does not include food or gasoline sales.

13

Dec 2015

Jan 2016

Feb 2016

Mar 2016

Apr 2016

Civilian Labor Force (000s), BLS

19.6

19.7

20.0

20.0

19.8

Unemployment Rate

10.2

9.2

8.6

8.3

8.4

Total Nonfarm Employment (000s), ADOA

13.6

13.6

13.8

13.8

13.8

9.9

9.9

10.0

10.0

9.9

3.7

3.7

3.8

3.8

3.8

NA

NA

NA

Santa Cruz County Summary - Monthly

Private
Government
Taxable Sales: Total ($000s, accrual), ADOR*

New Residential Permits (units), Census C-40
4
6
2
11
*Total of all collection categories covered by Arizona’s “Transaction Privilege Tax,” does not include food or gasoline sales.

ebr.eller.arizona.edu

2

23

July, 2016 Summer Issue

Arizona’s Economy
Economic and business research center
McClelland Hall, Room 103
P.O. Box 210108
1130 E. Helen Street
Tucson, AZ, 85721-0108
George W. Hammond, Ph. D.
Director
(520) 626-1679
ghammond@eller.arizona.edu
Alberta Charney, Ph.D.
Senior Research Economist
(520) 621-2291
acharney@eller.arizona.edu
Alan Hoogasian
Research Economist
(520) 626-6439
ahoogasi@eller.arizona.edu
Daniel Kinnear
Specialist, Business Research
(520) 626-1673
dkinnear@eller.arizona.edu
Pia Montoya
Database Specialist
(520) 621-2523
pmontoya@eller.arizona.edu
Maile L. Nadelhoffer
Research Economist &
Webmaster
(520) 621-4050
mln@eller.arizona.edu
Vera Pavlakovich-Kochi, Ph.D.
Senior Regional Scientist &
Associate Professor of
Geography
(520) 626-0520
vkp@eller.arizona.edu
Heather Peterson
Technical Consultant
(520) 621-4050
thpeterson@comcast.net
Jennifer Pullen
Research Economist
(520) 626-4795
jkanipe@email.arizona.edu
Valorie Rice
Senior Specialist, Business
Information
(520) 621-2109
vrice@eller.arizona.edu

Phone: 520-621-2155
Fax: 520-621-2150
E-mail: ebrpublications@eller.arizona.edu

To subscribe to Arizona’s Economy or other Economic and Business Research Publications, visit:
www.azeconomy.org/subscribe/
Arizona’s Economy, published quarterly by the Economic and Business Research
Center at the Eller College of Management, is provided as an educational service by
The University of Arizona. Correspondence should be addressed to EBR Publications,
McClelland Hall Room 103, PO Box 210108, Tucson, Arizona 85721-0108.
Arizona’s Economy is available online at: azeconomy.eller.arizona.edu
As part of The University of Arizona’s public mission to improve quality of life for the
people of Arizona and the nation, the Economic and Business Research Center is dedicated
to providing Arizona citizens and decision makers with high quality economic
data and objective forecasts and analyses.
Copyright 2015 by The University of Arizona. Information contained in this publication
may be copied or reprinted with credit to the Eller College of Management at
The University of Arizona.

>> Visit us online at ebr.eller.arizona.edu!

Thank you to our community sponsors for their ongoing support
of Economic and Business Research Center programs.
Arizona Department of Transportation

City of Tucson

Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee

Elliott D. Pollack and Company

Arizona Public Service Company

JPMorgan Chase & Co.

BBVA Compass

Maricopa Association of Governments

CBRE

Maricopa County		

Central Arizona Project

Pima Association of Governments

City of Mesa

Pima County

City of Phoenix

Salt River Project

City of Tempe

Tucson Electric Power Company

Special thanks to
for its ongoing support of
the Economic and Business Research Center website!

ebr.eller.arizona.edu