best performing cities - milken institute...1 executive summary the milken institute best performing...
TRANSCRIPT
Best Performing Cities:
Where America’s Jobs are Created and Sustained
by Ross DeVol and Lorna Wallace with Armen Bedroussian and Junghoon Ki
November 2004
The Milken Institute is an independent economic think tank whose mission is to improve the lives and economic conditions of diverse populations in the U.S. and around the world by helping business and public policy leaders identify and implement innovative ideas for creating broad-based prosperity. We put research to work with the goal of revitalizing regions and finding new ways to generate capital for people with original ideas.
We do this by focusing on human capital – the talent, knowledge and experience of people, and their value to organizations, economies and society; financial capital – innovations that allocate financial resources efficiently, especially to those who ordinarily would not have access to it, but who can best use it to build companies, create jobs and solve long-standing social and economic problems; and social capital – the bonds of society, including schools, health care, cultural institutions and government services, that underlie economic advancement.
By creating ways to spread the benefits of human, financial and social capital to as many people as possible – the democratization of capital – we hope to contribute to prosperity and freedom in all corners of the globe.
We are nonprofit, nonpartisan and publicly supported.
© 2004 Milken Institute
I. Executive Summary .......................................................................................... 1
II. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 5
III. Keys to Becoming a Best Performing City ....................................................... 7
IV. Best Performing Cities: Largest 200 Cities List ............................................ 13
V. Best Performing Cities: Small Cities List ....................................................... 33
About the Authors .................................................................................................. 40
Table of Contents
1
Executive Summary
The Milken Institute Best Performing Cities index ranks U.S. metropolitan areas based upon their economic performance and their ability to create, as well as keep, the greatest number of jobs in the nation. Metros with low business costs and a knowledge-based economy demonstrate that new jobs can be created in America and need not move offshore. This index enables businesses, industry associations, economic development agencies, investors, academics, governments and public policy groups, to assess and monitor recent metro performance.
The Best Performing Cities index is outcomes-based. Its components measure job, wage and salary, and technology growth. It includes both five-year and one-year performance. The five-year growth (1998-2003) averages, smooth out the business cycle impacts, and therefore do not penalize a metro too heavily for weak performance in the latest year. The latest year’s performance (2003) provides a sense of the relative momentum among metropolitan economies around the country. The index also includes measures of the concentration and diversity of technology industries within the metros to quantify their participation in today’s knowledge-based economy.
Each business cycle has its unique characteristics that impact metropolitan areas differently because of their diverse economic structures. The current economic cycle evidenced:
• A subdued jobs recovery;• Severe information and communications technology equipment and services
retrenchment;• Rising health care and pension costs; • An elevated level of political and economic uncertainty due to wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, post-Sept. 11th terrorism concerns and corporate governance scandals; • Increased fiscal deficits;1
• Decreased value of U.S. currency;2 • Increased exports; and• Low interest rates that provided a boost to the housing and construction industries and
mitigated concerns regarding reductions in consumer spending.
Executive Summary Best Performing Cities
2
Top 20 Best Performing CitiesThe top 20 Best Performing Cities among the largest 200 metropolitan areas in the United States reflect an assorted group of communities. A common key attribute among this year’s listing is strength in services. A robust recovery in tourism is driving metro job growth in leisure and hospitality services. Growing populations and low U.S. interest rates support employment gains in home construction and related consumer industries; the growing populations of retirees are a catalyst for health care services.
Fort Myers-Cape Coral, Florida was the top-performing metropolitan area in 2004, up from third position last year. Descriptions of each of the remaining top 20 metros are detailed later in this report. A striking feature of this year’s top 20 metros is that seven of the 20 metros (35 percent) are located in the state of Florida. The state’s leadership should rightly feel a sense of pride amid the recent natural disasters. The state of California placed a total of seven metros on last year’s Milken Institute Top 20 Best Performing Cities, but managed only two in 2004.
Ten Largest CitiesIt is more difficult for mature or older metro areas with typically high-density populations and little land available for expansion to achieve rapid job growth than for early- and mid-stage growth cycle metros to do so. Therefore, America’s largest metropolitan areas were analyzed as a
Best Performing Cities
2004Rank
Rank, YearAgo Metro Index
1 3 Fort Myers-Cape Coral FL 100.002 2 Las Vegas NV-AZ 152.123 43 Phoenix-Mesa AZ 152.464 4 West Palm Beach-Boca Raton FL 154.335 116 Daytona Beach FL 157.096 41 Sarasota-Bradenton FL 157.447 1 Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers AR 161.078 20 Riverside-San Bernardino CA 167.559 29 Fort Lauderdale FL 176.3410 10 Monmouth-Ocean NJ 178.2611 19 Washington DC-MD-VA-WV 182.6512 27 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater FL 193.9913 72 Boise City ID 195.9514 N/A Portland ME 205.7515 23 Naples FL 208.3616 5 San Diego CA 209.6217 40 Tucson AZ 211.0018 9 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission TX 216.7719 110 Trenton NJ 218.2220 39 Albuquerque NM 219.02
Source: Milken Institute
Top 20 Best Performing Cities Composite Index, 2004
Executive Summary
3
Best Performing Cities
distinct class. Among America’s 10 largest cities, the Washington DC-MD-VA-WV metro ranked first, maintaining its 2003 position among the 10 largest metros. Its overall ranking rose from 19th on last year’s index to 11th in 2004. Atlanta ranked second among this year’s top 10 largest metros (72nd place overall). As job losses subside in telecommunication services, its economic fortunes should improve. The greater Philadelphia metro ranked third and is the most improved of the 10 largest metros, increasing its overall ranking from 107th place last year up to 84th on the Milken Institute 2004 listing of Best Performing Cities.
Of the 10 largest cities, Houston ranked fourth experiencing the greatest decline in overall ranking, falling from 25th place last year to 104th in 2004. This drop was largely attributable to weaknesses in manufacturing, construction and business services. Recent gains in Houston’s mining industry may improve the metro’s ranking on next year’s index. Dallas ranked fifth among the 10 largest metros, though it slipped from 78th overall in 2003 to 114th this year. Extensive losses in Dallas’ telecom industry over the past three years have put negative pressure on both employment and wages. The Los Angeles-Long Beach, California metro ranked sixth, dropping to 140th overall, down from 135th on last year’s best performing metro listing. Increased foreign trade and defense spending have aided its prospects.
Boston is just behind at seventh place among the 10 largest metros and 144th overall. However, a 2004 Milken Institute study showed the Boston metropolitan area to be the leading life-sciences hub in the U.S.3 Its large IT hardware and software sector was hammered during the downturn, but appears to be stabilizing. Chicago is eighth among the largest metros in the United States (166th overall). The lower U.S. dollar should aid its sizable electronic components and communications equipment sectors as exports recover.
Coming in ninth among the 10 largest metros, New York City, notwithstanding the devastation of 9/11 showed progress overall. It rose from 175th place on last year’s index to 169th in 2004. Despite renewed employment gains, the metro area’s employment is 4 percent below its peak, reached at the end of 2000. Financial services firms are adding cautiously to their payrolls again after substantial cuts. Detroit, Michigan closes out in 10th place position among the 10 largest metros. Automobile consumer purchase incentives may have peaked, limiting advances in sales. Detroit must diversify its economy.
Top Five Best Performing Small Cities Missoula, Montana is the best performing small city on our current ranking. Business cost advantages and a skilled labor force attract businesses to the Missoula metro. Las Cruces, New Mexico ranked second among smaller metropolitan areas in the U.S. largely due to government-sponsored economic development. Recent troubles at Santa Fe, New Mexico’s Los Alamos National Laboratory threaten this metro’s third-place ranking. Dover, Delaware and Casper, Wyoming are the fourth and fifth best performing small cities. The Dover metro is benefiting from the recent opening of a Wal-Mart distribution center in Smyrna. Casper’s metro is largely driven by employment in the retail, leisure, and business and professional services industries.
Executive Summary
4
5
Introduction
The 2004 Milken Institute Best Performing Cities: Where America’s Jobs are Created and Sustained index measures where:
• jobs are being created; • jobs are being maintained;• wages and salaries are increasing;• economies are growing; and • businesses are thriving in the U.S.
The index is constructed to provide businesses, industry associations, economic development agencies, investors, academics, and government and public policy groups with objective, research-based information to assess and monitor recent metro performance. It’s benchmarking also provides an opportunity to gain insight into the means of achieving improved economic performance and develop metro-specific strategies. The 2004 Milken Institute Best Performing Cities index applies the same methodology used previously and that published by Forbes in its annual Best Places for Business edition, thereby permitting a consistent performance evaluation with prior years.
This 2004 index edition Best Performing Cities: Where America’s Jobs are Created and Sustained reflects those metropolitan areas that recorded the best economic performance, and maintained as well as created, the most jobs over the recent past. We structured the index to allow individual metropolitan areas to shift position from year-to-year, but avoid mass migration within the rankings. Metros with low business costs and a knowledge-based economy demonstrate that new jobs can be created and sustained in America.
Milken Index is Outcomes-based, not Cost-basedThe 2004 Milken Institute index overall metro rankings are calculated using the components shown in the table below. The index includes measures of job, wage and salary, and technology output growth (Gross Metro Product or GMP) over the most recent five years (1998-2003) and the latest year’s performance (2003). We also incorporated the latest 12-month job growth performance.4 Employment growth receives the greatest weight because it is a critical factor in determining the vibrancy of America’s communities. Wage and salary growth measure the quality of the jobs being created. Technology output growth is included because of its critical role in determining the economic vibrancy of cities.
Introduction Best Performing Cities
6
The five-year growth averages smooth out the business cycle impacts and ensure that no city is penalized too heavily for weak performance in the latest year. The latest year’s performance provides a sense of the relative momentum among metropolitan economies in the United States.
Additional technology measures were included to reflect the concentration and diversity of technology industries in metropolitan areas. High-tech location quotients that measure the concentration of a technology industry in a particular metro relative to the nation as a whole were included as an indicator of a metro’s participation in the knowledge-based economy.5 Those metropolitan areas with a higher concentration of technology industries (out of a potential of 25) than the nation as a whole were also included.
The Milken Institute index is an outcomes-based measure as opposed to one that incorporates explicit input measures of business costs, cost-of-living components such as housing, and other quality-of-life measures such as crime rates. Such static input measures, although important, are subject to large variations (both inter-industry and intra-industry) and can be highly subjective, making them less meaningful than outcome measures. The motivations, reasons and rationales for business location decisions are many and varied. Examples abound of individual businesses that have chosen to remain in high-cost cities, even when lower-cost locations are available. The output measures used for this index include the benefit of situating in expensive locations.
In theory, a prospering region will raise wages as well as rents, as both human capital and land inputs are more fully utilized. Nevertheless, holding all other factors (such as the productivity associated with being in one location versus another) constant, a company will choose to locate where business costs are lower and their employees’ standard of living is higher.
Component WeightJob Growth (I=1998) 0.143Job Growth (I=2002) 0.143Wage & Salary Growth (I=1997) 0.143Wage & Salary Growth (I=2001) 0.143Short Term Job Growth (Apr '03 - Apr '04) 0.143Relative HT GDP Growth (I=1998) 0.071Relative HT GDP Growth (I=2002) 0.071High Tech GDP Location Quotient 0.071Number of High Tech GDP LQ>1 0.071Source: Milken Institute
2004 Milken Institute Best Performing CitiesComponents
Introduction Best Performing Cities
7
Keys to Becoming a Best Performing City
Cities must appreciate the criteria that will propel them forward and triangulate a course. Only then, can an effective, tailored strategy be formed and gains be achieved at minimum real cost. What is required to be a Best Performing City?
Economic Dynamism
SeattleRank = 8th
PortlandRank = 25th
SacramentoRank = 21st
San JoseRank = 23rd
Orange Co.Rank = 15th
San DiegoRank = 17th
RiversideRank = 12th
Las VagasRank = 1st
PhoenixRank = 5th
Salt Lake CityRank = 21st
DenverRank = 9th
Fort WorthRank = 14th
DallasRank = 11th
Austin Rank = 4th
San AntonioRank = 13th
HoustonRank = 16th
AtlantaRank = 2nd
CharlotteRank = 24th
RaleighRank = 17th
JacksonvilleRank = 9th
OrlandoRank = 3rd
TampaRank = 19thMiamiRank = 20th
West Palm BeachRank = 6th
Fort LauderdaleRank = 6th
Entrepreneurial ActivityTop 25 Metros, 2003
States.shp
RankingTop Five6th - 10th11th - 15th16th - 20th21st - 25th
Firms enter and exit geographic areas all the time. To borrow from Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass, it takes all the running you can do just to stay in the same place.6 Over the long haul, the key to regional sustainability is the diversity of its ecosystem. A metro must be able to innovate, start, grow and attract new firms continually to augment the diversity of its economic ecosystem and replace larger, older firms that may stagnate, exit or even disappear. Entrepreneurial capacity and behavior are prime drivers of economic growth and job creation. Entrepreneurs are necessary visionaries of the economic potential of new technologies and how to apply them to business concept innovations.
Regional economic dynamism is epitomized by fast-growing, entrepreneurial companies. For a metro area to be successful over the long haul, it has to have capable entrepreneurs. The very foundation of the theory of clustered economies rests upon the dynamic rejuvenation capability of the cluster. Over the long-term, cities with strength in entrepreneurship will be among our Best Performing Cities — large and small.
Best Performing CitiesKeys to Becoming a Best Performing City
8
Capital Access7
In the past, riskier, more innovative entrepreneurs faced great difficulty in obtaining early-stage funding. Currently, there is a high degree of access to credit. Low interest rates have made it easier to obtain capital to finance business ventures. The explosion in the availability of capital to entrepreneurs has supported new economic growth.8 However, this ease of access to capital has come with a price as default rates have increased. The ability of entrepreneurs to gain access to financial capital without discrimination and manage it well, are key components of sustainable regional economic development and prosperity.
Start-up businesses tend to require large amounts of external financing for an extended period of time before they can tap traditional debt or equity markets. Private equity from pools of individual investors (angels) or highly specialized venture capital (VC) firms attempt to fill this void. Venture capital funding represents a small share of the overall capital markets, but its true value cannot be measured in dollars. Venture capitalists assist in business plan development, become board members, lend management skills, suggest strategic partnerships and alliances, assist in expansion plans, and bring in key talent where needed. VC activity is an excellent way to assess whether financiers have confidence in the new ideas and entrepreneurial infrastructure of a region. Despite the current difficult environment for private equity, albeit somewhat improved over last year’s assessment, metros that develop deep private capital markets are poised for expansion.
Best Performing CitiesKeys to Becoming a Best Performing City
9
Human/Creative Capital
The availability of skilled workers is a crucial determinant in company location strategies, especially during periods of structural change. Structural change signals permanent contraction in certain industries. Economic theory suggests that job losses in declining industries are replaced with jobs in growing industries. However, it takes time for new jobs to be created and for workers to relocate and retrain. A population with higher skill levels is able to adapt more quickly. Metros with human capital capable of speedy adjustment have a competitive advantage over lower-skilled cities and will therefore suffer losses less severely and achieve gains more swiftly.
A region’s most important source of competitive advantage is the knowledge embedded in its people. The knowledge, skills, experience and innovative potential of talented individuals have greater value than capital equipment. A successful enterprise accesses, creates and utilizes knowledge to sustain competitive advantage. A successful metro will develop, nurture and support a growing knowledge-based economy.9
San FranciscoRank = 2nd
YoloRank = 19thOaklandRank = 15th
San JoseRank = 5th
Santa CruzRank = 17th
SeattleRank = 14th
Fort CollinsRank = 6th
BoulderRank = 1st
DenverRank = 17th
LincolnRank = 24th
MinneapolisRank = 23rd
AustinRank = 12th
MadisonRank = 4th
Ann ArborRank = 11th
TallahasseeRank = 12th
GainesvilleRank = 8th
RaleighRank = 7th
Washington D.C.Rank = 3rd
PortlandRank = 22nd
BurlingtonRank = 10th
BostonRank = 16th
New HavenRank = 21st
BergenRank = 25th
MiddlesexRank = 9th
TrentonRank = 20th
States.shp
RankingTop Five6th - 10th11th - 15th16th - 20th21st - 25th
Percent Adults with Bachelors DegreeTop 25 Metros, 2000
Best Performing CitiesKeys to Becoming a Best Performing City
10
Innovation Capacity
Strong clusters of innovative activity are key to competitiveness in today’s global economy. Because knowledge is generated and shared more efficiently in close proximity, economic activity based on new knowledge has a high propensity to cluster geographically. In leading clusters, fewer innovations escape to other regions or do so at a slower rate. The innovation capacity of a metropolitan area is an important component of its long term, sustainable economic development potential.
Research laboratories — private, government and university-based — are important drivers of economic development. Investment in R&D strengthens local research competency and attracts further investments by the private and public sectors in a process of dynamic feedback loops. Access to the latest innovations is attractive to companies because it provides them with an important source from which to create a competitive advantage over businesses without such proximity. Research capacity is a necessary, though insufficient factor in determining regional success. It’s not just about the research, but what is done with it that counts.
Globalization/International Integration AttributesGlobal economic integration is creating profound changes in the economic structure of businesses, industries, countries, regions and metropolitan areas. Technological advances have lowered transportation, telecommunications and computational costs, increasing the ease of global information flows. In our globalized economy, opportunities for success are strengthened by
San JoseRank = 1st
OaklandRank = 15th
San FranciscoRank = 14th
San DiegoRank = 19th
Boise CityRank = 2nd
Fort CollinsRank = 7th
GreeleyRank = 18th
BoulderRank = 5th
AustinRank = 6th
MinneapolisRank = 23rd
HamiltonRank = 20th
SaginawRank = 22nd
Ann ArborRank = 12th
RaleighRank = 17th
RochesterRank = 4th
BurlingtonRank = 9th
BostonRank = 25th
Santa CruzRank = 8th
WilmingtonRank = 21st
BinghamtonRank = 13rd
Dutchess Co.Rank = 3rd
New HavenRank = 24thMonmouthRank = 16thTrentonRank = 11th
MiddlesexRank = 10th
States.shp
RankingTop Five6th - 10th11th - 15th16th - 20th21st - 25th
Patents per 100,000 JobsTop 25 Metros, 1999
Best Performing CitiesKeys to Becoming a Best Performing City
11
a company’s ability to meet international quality standards, tap into multinational distribution networks, access cutting edge innovations and locate in those cities that provide the best environment to exploit international opportunities.
Regions must link to the global economy. Clusters linked to the outside world offer access to an industry’s best practices and latest developments. A metro area’s global orientation ensures expanding markets for its firms. Each city’s network of public and private institutions plays a key role in determining the locale’s competitiveness —maximizing the rate of return on assets. A “best performing city” values and nurtures all of these ingredients.
National Economic ConditionsThe U.S. is experiencing a relatively subdued jobs recovery, despite other economic measures that show underlying strength. Industrial production has risen by 5.2 percent over the past 12 months, investment in capital goods is up 13.9 percent, and exports and imports have increased by 11 percent. As of September 2004, the Establishment Survey shows that employment is nearly 600,000 below its cyclical peak reached in late 2000.
Possible explanations for weak job growth include:
• over-hiring during the boom of the 1990s;• Severe information and communications technology equipment and services
retrenchment;• increases in the costs of pension and health care benefits;• elevated levels of political and economic uncertainty due to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
Sept. 11th terrorism concerns, and accounting and corporate governance scandals;• productivity gains demanded by global competition;
20042003200220012000
103
102
101
100
99
Index Jan. 2000=100
Sources: BLS, Milken Institute
Establishment Survey vs. Household SurveyEmployment
Establishment SurveyHousehold Survey
Best Performing CitiesKeys to Becoming a Best Performing City
12
• international trade regimes (i.e., NAFTA, EU, WTO);10 • structural changes in the U.S. economy leading to more self-employment;• uncertainty from the tight 2004 U.S. federal election race; and • lingering concerns about the duration of the economic recovery.
America’s metropolitan areas, owing to their diverse economic structures and employment bases, respond very differently to changes in monetary and fiscal policies. For example, the last U.S. economic slowdown that occurred when the Internet bubble burst, impacted cities in strikingly different ways. Some cities, such as Silicon Valley and cities dependent upon interaction with it, continue to struggle to recoup losses. Yet fortunately for many of America’s communities, there have been some fortuitous dimensions to the current business cycle. One of those is the remarkably strong housing sector that is driving increases in consumer spending. The global economy, with the U.S. as its leading participant, presents opportunities to those geographic areas most able to respond quickly to both shocks and opportunities.
Best Performing CitiesKeys to Becoming a Best Performing City
13
Best Performing Cities
Best Performing Cities: Largest 200 Cities List
The top 20 best performing cities among the largest 200 metropolitan areas reflect an assorted group of communities. A common key attribute among this year’s list is strength in services, a sector in which the U.S. demonstrates high productivity. A robust recovery in tourism is driving metro job growth in leisure and hospitality services. Growing populations among metros support employment gains in home construction and related consumer industries. America’s aging population, especially the growing population of retirees, is a catalyst for health care services growth.
A somewhat unusual finding was that none of the top 20 American research universities are located in any of the 2004 top 20 best performing cities.11 A number of studies exist, including those of the Milken Institute,12 that stress both the desirability and necessity of a knowledge-based economy for geographic areas to grow and maintain long-term competitiveness. Because the Best Performing Cities index uses outcome components measured over time, there is a tendency for the data to emphasize job, wage and salary, and gross metro product (GMP) growth. Hence, previously high-flying tech centers such as Denver and Seattle, do not appear among the top 20 due to the late-2000 burst of the dot-com, technology and telecom bubbles. However, six metros on the top 20 Best Performing Cities index are located in the top 20 states for biopharmaceutical employment.13 The implication for the current best performing cities is that without a firm university R&D base and strong commercialization linkages with the private sector, their top standing may not be maintainable over time.
A striking feature of this year’s top 20 metros is that seven of the 20 metros (35 percent) are located in the state of Florida. Florida’s state leaders should rightly feel a sense of pride amid the recent natural disasters. Severe hurricane destruction in 2004 will constrain growth in some sectors of the economy as it propels growth in others. Reconstruction efforts and rising fuel prices will hinder tourism activities in the state. The net effect may be declines in next year’s ranking of Florida metros.
The state of California placed a total of seven metros on last year’s Milken Institute Top 20 Best Performing Cities index: San Diego (ranked 5th), San Luis Obispo-Atascadero (6th), Chico-Paradise (13th), Ventura (14th), Sacramento (15th), Vallejo-Fairfield-Napa (17th) and Riverside-San Bernardino (20th). Only two metros from the state made this year’s listing: Riverside-San Bernardino (8th) and San Diego (16th). California’s losses mean gains for lower-cost states/metros such as Las Vegas, Phoenix and Tucson. A rebound in high-tech exports and renewed domestic investment in IT and communications hardware and software should improve the position of several California metros in 2005.
Largest 200 Cities List
14
Fort Myers-Cape Coral, Florida was the best performing city this year, improving from third in 2003. The region’s economy has witnessed solid growth throughout the recent economic downturn, and accelerated during the recovery. The lowest annual employment growth was 3.2 percent in 2002, just a slight falloff from the cyclical peak of 4.5 percent in 2000. Most impressively, perhaps, it recorded job growth of 20.2 percent over the most recent 5-year period. According to recent data by the U.S. Census Bureau, Cape Coral’s city population grew by more than 16 percent from 2000 to 2003 placing it among the top 10 fastest-growing cities in the U.S. with populations greater than 100,000. Despite some recent indications of slowing, employment growth in 2003 was the third-fastest in the country. The Fort Myers-Cape Coral economy has a low dependence on manufacturing helping to insulate it from the sharp national downturn in that sector. Structural factors are bolstering its long-term growth prospects: it has low business and housing costs relative to the rest of southwest Florida and a diversified industrial mix for a smaller metro area.
2004Rank
Rank, YearAgo Metro Index
1 3 Fort Myers-Cape Coral FL 100.002 2 Las Vegas NV-AZ 152.123 43 Phoenix-Mesa AZ 152.464 4 West Palm Beach-Boca Raton FL 154.335 116 Daytona Beach FL 157.096 41 Sarasota-Bradenton FL 157.447 1 Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers AR 161.078 20 Riverside-San Bernardino CA 167.559 29 Fort Lauderdale FL 176.3410 10 Monmouth-Ocean NJ 178.2611 19 Washington DC-MD-VA-WV 182.6512 27 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater FL 193.9913 72 Boise City ID 195.9514 N/A Portland ME 205.7515 23 Naples FL 208.3616 5 San Diego CA 209.6217 40 Tucson AZ 211.0018 9 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission TX 216.7719 110 Trenton NJ 218.2220 39 Albuquerque NM 219.02
Source: Milken Institute
Top 20 Best Performing Cities Composite Index, 2004
Best Performing CitiesLargest 200 Cities List
15
Best Performing Cities
Lower housing costs are making Fort Myers-Cape Coral, Florida a more attractive destination for retirees. More than 25 percent of the metro area’s residents are 65 or over. This has helped fuel a surge in housing construction. Single-family permits rose more than 80 percent between 2000 and 2003, while multifamily permits advanced 45 percent over the same period. Construction is underway on five new residential towers along the city’s waterfront. Commercial construction is advancing at a healthy clip as developers expect the area’s rapid growth to continue. As an indication of the importance of construction to the region’s economy, construction employment represents 12 percent of total employment versus 5.2 percent for the nation. Well-off retirees bring pensions and transfer payments that support consumption activity.
Fort Myers-Cape Coral, Florida has become an increasingly popular tourism destination. Sanibel Harbour Resort is a major employer. Leisure and hospitality services have witnessed strong employment growth. As an indication of its dependence on travel and tourism, full-service restaurants are the largest employment category in the metro area. The Southwest Florida International Airport is among the national leaders in passenger growth and is undergoing a $438 million expansion.
With a booming retirement population, health care services are witnessing strong gains. Lee Memorial Health is the area’s top employer. Consolidation in the hospital sector may retard growth for a while, but health care employment should expand over the long term. Professional and business services employment has grown by over 38 percent during the past four years and many young professional families have migrated to the area. The metro’s fifth-place position nationwide in wage and salary growth over the past five years is an indication of the quality of jobs being created there. The Florida Gulf Coast Technology and Research Park will house an incubator for Florida Gulf Coast University. The area is beginning to experience growing pains as its infrastructure investment has not kept pace.
2003200220012000199919981997
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
Percent Change, Year Ago
Sources: Economy.com, Milken Institute
Annual Job GrowthFort Myers vs. United States
Fort MyersUnited States
Largest 200 Cities List
16
Las Vegas, Nevada retained its second place this year. Its travel and tourism sector displayed remarkable resiliency after the 9/11-induced downturn. Despite the impacts from 9/11, total job growth, over the latest five years as well as in 2003, placed it second in the nation. Recent figures provide additional encouragement as current year-over-year job growth is the fastest in the country. A very favorable business climate in Las Vegas is drawing companies from higher-priced areas, especially California, fueling growth and keeping the metro’s unemployment rate well below the national average.
Leisure and hospitality services account for 30 percent of total employment in Las Vegas, more than three times the national average. In recent months, gaming revenues witnessed gains of 14-16 percent from a year ago, and revenues on “the Strip” seem poised to break the record set in 2000. With higher tourist visitations, hotel occupancy is increasing and supporting additional room construction. Convention attendance hit a record in 2003 and booking trends appear very favorable this year. International visitation is recovering. Strong in-migration is fueling a building boom with single-family permits rising 22 percent in 2003, the highest growth rate in a decade. If current trends continue, Las Vegas may climb to first-place on next year’s Best Performing Cities index.
Phoenix, Arizona leapt to third position on the Best Performing Cities index, up from 43rd in 2003. Similar to other high-tech manufacturing centers, Phoenix suffered from the severe decline in activity in this sector, but substantially less than most others. Part of the explanation lies in Phoenix’s high dependence on defense- and homeland-security related industries that have received additional funding from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and post 9/11 security measures. General Dynamics, Raytheon and Boeing have large operations in Phoenix. General Dynamic’s Spectrum Astro group recently opened a leading-edge satellite and space systems facility.
The Phoenix metro is demonstrating employment growth in the financial services industry. Phoenix is an important regional financial services center with major operations including Well Fargo, American Express, Bank One and Discover Financial Services. Phoenix witnessed a housing
20042003200220012000
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
Percent Change, Year Ago
Sources: Global Insight, Milken Institute
Financial Activities EmploymentPhoenix vs. United States
PhoenixUnited States
Best Performing CitiesLargest 200 Cities List
17
boom with single-family permits up 19.7 percent in 2003 and 39.9 percent since 2000. Commercial markets appear to be stabilizing as business and financial services firms are expanding. The Translational Genome Research Institute is slated for completion later this year.
West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, Florida is fourth on the Best Performing Cities index, maintaining the same position it held on the 2003 index. Although its employment growth moderated in 2003, it ranked 10th among the 200 largest metros over the past five years. One of the area’s key advantages is that it attracts an affluent retirement population that fuels consumer purchases. Per capita income is 43 percent above the national figure.
Professional and business services are a major component of the West Palm Beach metro area economy; it is 50 percent more dependent on this sector than the nation as a whole. Over the past year, professional and business services have accounted for one-half of total job growth. Health care services continue to witness expansion. Columbia Palm Beach Healthcare and Tenet Healthcare Corp. are the region’s two top employers. Using an aggressive incentive package, the region successfully enticed the Scripps Research Institute to build its first biotech research facility outside of San Diego. This is a major bet that Governor Bush and local economic development officials hope will spawn biotech startup companies and pay dividends in high-wage jobs and future tax receipts.
Daytona Beach, Florida jumped to fifth this year, a remarkable improvement from its 116th rank in 2003. Part of this jump is attributable to upward employment revisions. The metro area is witnessing strong population growth and tourism is expanding. It is experiencing broad-based employment gains across sectors, with manufacturing being the only exception.
The area is becoming more attractive as a place to live due to its affordable housing as it draws migrants from more expensive Florida metros. Daytona recorded a 38.5 percent increase in single-family housing permits in 2003, the second fastest in the nation. There is increased resistance to
Best Performing Cities
20032002
20012000
19991998
19971996
19951994
19931992
19911990
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
US$ Thousands
Sources: Global Insight, Milken Institute
Existing Median Home PriceDaytona Beach vs. Florida, 1990-2004Q2
Daytona BeachFlorida
Largest 200 Cities List
18
new housing construction as exemplified by anti-growth activists’ attempts to place an initiative on the November 2 ballot. The region has a highly seasonal tourism market with NASCAR and Spring break activities. Health services are a major employer in the region with general medical and surgical hospitals, and offices of physicians, two of the top five employers in the metro. The metro area witnessed the fourth-fastest growth in employment in 2003.
A booming retirement market and recovering tourism activity propelled Sarasota-Bradenton, Florida to sixth, up from 2003’s 41st place. Well-off retirees find the metro area’s housing prices very attractive relative to Southeast Florida metros and are migrating at a high rate. Per capita income is 22.3 percent above the national average. With travel and tourism recovering, retail sales are growing aided by the brisk expansion in local payrolls, and wage and salary gains. Tourist-bed tax receipts are running at double-digit rates above their year-ago levels in recent months.
Professional and business services recorded large job gains and the relative contribution of this employment segment to the Sarasota-Bradenton, Florida economy is twice that of the U.S. Expansion at Port Manatee is expected to boost trade volume through the port. The metro sustained relatively minor damage during this year’s hurricane season, encouraging its further expansion as a data and IT recovery location. Sarasota-Bradenton is a high quality-of-life, high per-capita income metro.
Fayetteville, Arkansas (Northwest Arkansas) was the top performing metropolitan area in 2003, however, it slipped to seventh this year. Wal-Mart, its retail/distribution anchor firm, was a significant driver of growth, employing more than 10,000 people in the Fayetteville area. Basic infrastructure upgrading will help propel J.B. Hunt Transportation Services, one of the nation’s largest trucking firms located there. Employment growth continues ahead of the national pace, but it has dipped, partly attributable to declines in poultry and food processing. The University of Arkansas supports biotechnology development in the state directly with its research, and indirectly by strategically nurturing those education programs that feed targeted industrial development in the state such as Tyson Foods.14 Scientific Research and Development Services is the fourth largest employment sector in Northwest Arkansas, employing more than 4,000 people.
Riverside-San Bernardino, California ranked eighth on this year’s Best Performing Cities index, up from 20th place in the 2003 index. It is the fastest-growing metropolitan area in California. It has become one the West Coast’s largest transportation and logistics hubs as inbound cargo from Asia and outbound goods destined for Asian markets flow through its warehouses and distribution facilities. Stater Bros., a supermarket chain, believes that its new 2.1 million square foot distribution center will be the largest single facility in all of Southern California. The metro is capturing manufacturing operations that are migrating from other areas in the state. The strong housing market in Riverside-San Bernardino is showing no sign of faltering under increasing U.S. interest rates. Single-family housing permits rose 20.4 percent in 2003. Federal government spending increasingly drives its economy in both the defense industry and the metro’s expanding prison system.
Best Performing CitiesLargest 200 Cities List
19
The fifth Florida metro among the 2004 top 20 best performing cities is ninth-place Fort Lauderdale. Increasing trade between the U.S. and Latin America is generating job and wage growth in the area. Recent gains in employment are evidenced by banks and brokerage companies. The metro added jobs throughout 2001-2002 as most metros were shedding positions. Tourism is expanding and the metro set a new record for visitations for the second year in a row in 2003. Computer Systems Design & Related Services is the metro area’s leading high-tech industry.
200420032002200120001999
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
Percent Change, Year Ago
Sources: Global Insight, Milken Institute
Warehousing & Distribution EmploymentRiverside-San Bernardino vs. United States
Riverside-San BernardinoUnited States
Best Performing CitiesLargest 200 Cities List
200420032002
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
Percent Change, Year Ago
Sources: Global Insight, Milken Institute
Leisure & Hospitality Services EmploymentFort Lauderdale vs. United States
Fort LauderdaleUnited States
20
Monmouth-Ocean, New Jersey ranked 10th among the top 20 best performing cities, matching its ranking on the 2003 index. Tourism and tourism-related industries employed over 50,000 people in the metro contributing an estimated $3 billion each year to the area’s economy. Monmouth-Ocean’s increasingly diversified industrial base creates opportunities for strong long-term growth. The metro area is an attractive residential location for nearby workers in Middlesex and many New York commuters. Downsizing in the telecom sector negatively impacted employment in the metro given the presence of Lucent Technologies, AT&T and Verizon, but employment appears to have stabilized. Competitive commercial real estate prices have allowed the area to attract small research facilities such that its concentration of high-tech industries is 15 percent greater than the nation overall.
A highly educated workforce, aided by expanding federal government homeland security spending in Washington DC-MD-VA-WV has kept this metro among the top 20 cities, ranking 11th in 2004 up from its 19th place on last year’s index. The District of Columbia added more than 1,400 biopharmaceutical-related jobs between 1983 and 2003, representing an increase of more than 110 percent. The metro is home to Prestwick Pharmaceuticals, a product-based specialty pharmaceutical company, and Bayer Diagnostics. The National Institutes of Health and other government labs support the area’s biopharmaceutical cluster.15 Washington, D.C. is the fastest-growing major metro in the country. Population gains have been the strongest in its outer suburban areas. Loundoun County has witnessed the strongest population gains in the country since the 2000 Census. While the federal government is the region’s largest employer, Computer Systems Design & Related Services is the second-largest employer segment with nearly 100,000 knowledge workers. The Washington DC-MD-VA-WV’s economy is twice as dependent on high-tech activity as the nation and is 10th among all metropolitan areas.
200320022001200019991998
20
15
10
5
0
-5
Percent Change, Year Ago
Sources: Economy.com, Milken Institute
Computer Systems Design Svcs. Real OutputWashington D.C. vs. United States
Washington D.C.United States
Best Performing CitiesLargest 200 Cities List
21
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Florida ranked 12th on the 2004 Best Performing Cities index, up from last year’s 27th position. Financial services giants, Citigroup, JP Morgan and Raymond James are fueling payroll advances in the metro. American Collegiate Financial Services is relocating its corporate headquarters to Tampa. Job growth is accelerating as broad-based expansion appears to be underway. Increasing international trade is expanding its port operations, leading to greater transportation and warehousing operations. Global competition and foreign outsourcing to lower-cost regions challenge the Tampa metro’s relatively low cost advantages threatening future economic growth in the area.16
Boise City, Idaho’s economy is expanding at an impressive rate after a collapse in semiconductor, computer and peripheral sales harmed its growth rate over the past three years. It ranked 13th
on our Best Performing Cities index in 2004, up from 72nd last year. Boise lost more than 7,000 manufacturing jobs since reaching a peak in 2000. With recovering U.S. and global sales of chips and computers, Boise-based Micron Technology and HP’s printer division are expanding payrolls again. Boise’s costs of doing business are very low relative to other major western tech centers. Micron and HP are the largest employers in the metro area and are largely responsible for Boise having the fourth-highest dependence upon high-tech industries in the country. Boise holds the distinction of recording the highest growth in high-tech output over the last five years among the 200 largest metropolitan areas. Professional and business services grew throughout the economic downturn helping stabilize the metro’s economy.
Best Performing CitiesLargest 200 Cities List
20032002200120001999
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
Percent Change, Year Ago
Sources: Economy.com, Milken Institute
High Tech Output GrowthBoise City vs. United States
Boise CityUnited States
22
Portland, Maine is the first metro from the state to rank among the top 20 best performing cities on the index (14th place). Its coastal location and retail outlet stores fuel economic development in this popular tourist destination. Health care is a major economic engine for the metro, accounting for 15 percent of total employment. Health care payrolls are expanding at a 4 percent rate, boosting overall job growth. Activity at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in New Hampshire and the Naval Air Station Brunswick, two important national defense facilities located nearby, provide significant spillover gains to this metro. Although rising costs of doing business (taxes and energy costs) in the Portland metropolitan area threaten job growth, its highly skilled labor force will continue to attract companies demanding knowledge-intensive workers.
Yet another Florida-based metro, Naples, ranked among the top 20 best performing cities (15th) in 2004. The growing population of wealthy retirees drives demand for health care employment supporting the services industry and fueling payroll expansion in the retail, and leisure and hospitality sectors. Naples holds the distinction of recording the strongest growth among all metros in wages and salaries over the past five years. Tourism is recovering due to declines in the U.S. dollar against the Canadian dollar and the Euro, in addition to less apprehension over terrorism fears. Retirement income is poised to increase along with rising U.S. interest rates. Land scarcity, as a result of environmental restrictions to protect the Florida Everglades, is driving land and housing values upwards.
20042003200220012000
10
8
6
4
2
0
Percent Change, Year Ago
Sources: BLS, Global Insight, Milken Institute
Health Care EmploymentPortland vs. United States
PortlandUnited States
Best Performing CitiesLargest 200 Cities List
23
The San Diego metro topped the 2002 Best Performing Cities index, but slipped to fifth place in 2003, with its position eroding further to 16th on this year’s listing. San Diego holds the distinction of ranking first on the national 2004 Milken Institute biotech composite index, second on the 2004 Milken Institute overall life science composite index and it is in a virtual tie with Boston as the top biotechnology cluster in the country.17 The diversity of its technology sectors and a large military presence generate consistent strong economic performance. In addition to biotech, medical equipment, wireless telecom services, semiconductors and aerospace are important components of its technology base. Its leisure and hospitality sector are seeing renewed activity. The high quality of the jobs created in recent years is reflected in San Diego’s eighth–place position in wage and salary growth over the last five years.
The Tucson, Arizona metro ranked 17th on the 2004 Best Performing Cities index. Businesses that relocated from higher-cost southern California contributed to Tucson’s improved performance over last year’s 40th–place ranking. The metro’s heavy exposure to cycles in defense spending places it in a somewhat vulnerable position relative to other areas with a broader economic development base. Tucson’s largest employer is the Raytheon Aircraft Company (10,171 employees). The University of Arizona, which employs 10,078 workers, is a stabilizing presence in the area. Financial and business services are growing in the area with Citibank scheduled to open a large new call center.
Best Performing CitiesLargest 200 Cities List
AustinOrange
OaklandSan Fran.
L.A.San Jose
D.C.Philadelphia
RaleighSeattle
BostonSan Diego
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
Level
Source: Milken Institute
Biotech Research & Development AssetsTwelve Selected Metropolitan Areas, 2004
24
McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, Texas, is 18th slipping from ninth-place on last year’s index. McAllen-Edinburg-Mission has been able to capitalize on its low business costs by attracting a significant number of back-office operations. It experienced strong growth even as Texas border towns experienced a slowdown. Financial services and business services are recording vigorous gains in employment. Manufacturing activity is beginning to recover and maquiladora plants on the Mexican side of the border are increasing production as well. Improving the quality of jobs created in the metro will help reduce its dependence on federal government transfer payments.
The Trenton, New Jersey metro jumped up from 110th place on last year’s Best Performing Cities index to 19th. Government and state agency payrolls contribute to economic growth in the state’s capital city. A good transportation infrastructure contributes to Trenton’s ability to gain positive economic spillovers from the greater New York/Philadelphia areas. Excellence in education is furthered by the presence of Princeton, Rutgers and Rider Universities along with the increasingly competitive College of New Jersey in the metro. Trenton is also developing a reputation as a second-tier financial services center. Merrill Lynch employs 6,000 workers there and is Trenton’s largest private sector employer.
Best Performing CitiesLargest 200 Cities List
20042003200220012000
40
30
20
10
0
-10
Percent Change, Year Ago
Sources: Global Insight, Milken Institute
Professional & Business Services EmploymentMcAllen-Edinburg-Mission vs. United States
McAllen-Edinburg-MissionUnited States
25
Albuquerque, New Mexico ranked 20th overall in this year’s best performing metro index, up from its 39th position on last year’s listing. The presence of research institutions such as the University of New Mexico (which employs 19,377 workers) and The Sandia National Laboratories (with over 6,830 employees) attract highly skilled employees and fuel economic gains in the area. Albuquerque has the third highest concentration of high-tech output in the country and ranks 14th in growth in that category in the nation over the past five years. The Microsystems and Engineering Sciences Applications (MESA) facility, currently under construction, promises to propel its high-tech activity forward in the future. Sandia National Laboratories has been at the forefront in the design and manufacture of microelectronic devices.18 The metro struggles to rebound from declines in the telecom industry. Below average home prices and living costs, combined with rising per capita incomes are leading to increases in disposable income. However, limited water resource supplies contain Albuquerque’s capacity for expansion.
America’s Ten Largest Cities: PerformanceMetro areas in their mature stage with little land available for expansion and high density, face difficulty recording job growth as rapidly as metros in their early- and mid-stage growth cycles. Congestion-related problems add to costs forcing out lower value-added activities. For these reasons and others, we compare and analyze America’s largest metropolitan areas as a distinct class. For example, it is an unreasonable expectation for New York City, with the densest center in the U.S., to experience job growth at the same pace as Fayetteville, AR.
Among America’s 10 largest cities, Washington DC-MD-VA-WV is the top performing economy. Economic activities in the Washington, D.C. metro are discussed previously in this report because it also ranked 11th on the top 20 Best Performing Cities index. After data revisions, the regional economy is the only metro among the 10 largest in the country that did not experience an employment decline in any single year over the last five years. It is beginning to experience some of the symptoms of its success in its rapid home price appreciation. Nevertheless, strong growth continues in 2004.
NYCOWANCCAPANJCTMDMA
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
Level
Source: Milken Institute
State Biopharmaceutical Innovation IndexTop Ten States, 2004
Best Performing CitiesLargest 200 Cities List
26
Atlanta is the second ranking city among this year’s 10 largest metros (72nd place overall). Airline employment and travel through its Hartsfield airport, which declined due to fallout from 9/11, showed strong gains, especially in late 2003. However Delta Air Lines, which employs over 10,000 people in the area, is in a bleak financial situation. The increasingly high price of oil and jet fuel is taking its toll on the economy generally. The combination of weak employment gains and rising U.S. interest rates is hindering residential-construction growth in Atlanta, despite strong population increases in the city. Congestion-related infrastructure problems pose a challenge to the city’s economic vibrancy going forward. Although growth was subdued relative to the second half of the 1990s, it remains a regional hub for the Southeast. As job losses subside in telecommunication services, its economic fortunes should improve.
Philadelphia ranked third among this year’s 10 largest metros (84th overall). The city’s economy improved over last year (107th overall) largely due to strength in the leisure and hospitality industry, the fastest-growing segment of Philadelphia’s vibrant economy this past year. One of the largest segments of the greater Philadelphia economy is higher education which includes R&D activities in biopharmaceuticals and electronics. Continuing financial difficulties at US Airways, one of Philadelphia’s largest employers (5,500 workers), will curtail economic growth in the area. Housing prices, which have appreciated at a rapid pace, remain relatively affordable relative to other large eastern metro areas. The insurance industry aides service sector growth in the city. Philadelphia’s defense contractors (Boeing and Lockheed Martin) have benefited from increased procurement activities. Philadelphia’s health care cluster provides stability for its economy and should aid future growth.
20042003200220012000
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
Percent Change, Year Ago
Sources: Global Insight, Milken Institute
Air Transportation EmploymentAtlanta vs. United States
AtlantaUnited States
Best Performing CitiesLargest 200 Cities List
27
Houston ranked fourth among the 2004 10 largest metros. Its position as 104th on the Best Performing Cities index is down considerably from the city’s 25th place in 2003. Downward revisions to job figures in 2002 and a decline in payrolls harmed its placement. Houston’s economy is benefiting from rising crude oil prices even though energy exploration within Texas appears to be shifting to areas north of the city. Shell Oil Company and ExxonMobil Corporation combined employ over 35,000 people in the metro. Renewed confidence in corporate governance and energy industries is supporting growth gains in the area. Increasing international trade is leading to economic gains through the Port of Houston. The housing market is strong, illustrated by the 27.1 percent increase in housing permits in 2003.
Dallas is fifth among the 10 largest metros on our 2004 index. The Dallas metro slipped considerably in economic performance from 78th in 2003 to 114th on this year’s best performing index. Extensive losses in Dallas’ telecom industry over the past three years have put negative pressure on both wages and employment in the area. Weakness in manufacturing and business services is a drag on the city’s economy. Dallas is challenged in its struggle to gain competitive advantage over its Houston and Austin neighbors. The defense industry is a potential source of economic gain for Dallas. Potentially positive news can be found in Texas Instrument’s statement that it may accelerate scheduled construction of its new $3 billion chip plant, possibly breaking ground before the end of 2004.
20042003200220012000
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
Percent Change, Year Ago
Sources: Global Insight, Milken Institute
Leisure & Hospitality Services EmploymentPhiladelphia vs. United States
PhiladelphiaUnited States
Best Performing CitiesLargest 200 Cities List
28
Los Angeles ranked sixth among the 10 largest metros on the 2004 Best Performing Cities index. The Los Angeles economy, which experienced a severe contraction during the defense downsizing in 1990-1991, is now reaping gains from rising defense spending. The weaker U.S. dollar is fueling gains in the global entertainment industry and propelling economic growth at the world’s third-largest port center (Port of Los Angeles combined with the Port of Long Beach). Small businesses generate tremendous growth in the city and help diversify its economic base. Health care services and many high-tier universities are important anchors for the regional economy. California’s state budget woes may hamper growth in the metro. Leisure and hospitality is seeing renewed vigor. Arrivals at Los Angeles International Airport are at a record high, driving leisure and hospitality employment above year-ago levels by more than 4 percent.
2003200220012000199919981997199619951994
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
US$ Billions
Source: California Department of Finance
Trade Through Los Angeles-Long Beach PortsExports and Imports, 1994 - 2003
ExportsImports
Best Performing CitiesLargest 200 Cities List
2003200220012000199919981997
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
Percent Change, Year Ago
Sources: Economy.com, Milken Institute
Telecomm - Services & Equip. Mfg. EmploymentDallas, 1997-2003
Communications Equipment ManufacturingTelecomm Services
29
Boston remains ranked seventh among the 10 largest metro economies in 2004, although the city’s ranking on the overall index slipped from 136 in 2003 to 144 in 2004. The life sciences cluster, which contributes more to the metro area’s economy than any other metro in the nation, provides a tremendous boost to Boston’s overall economy.19 The city is home to world-leading advanced educational institutions. Boston’s success at raising venture capital also supports economic development, especially in entrepreneurial knowledge-based sectors. Consolidation in the financial services sector, especially Fleet’s absorption into Bank of America, is causing job losses. Its large IT hardware and software sector was hammered during the downturn, but appears to be stabilizing.
Chicago is the eighth-ranking city among the 10 largest metros, although its position on the overall index fell from 148 in 2003 to 166 this year. Growth in the city is hampered by congestion at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport, a problem that policy makers avoided addressing and as a consequence has been building for years. Airport infrastructure directly impacts metro companies such as United Parcel Service (19,063 workers), United Airlines (15,325 workers) and American Airlines (10,919 workers). The gaming industry is expanding in the city. Chicago has a well-educated labor force contributing to its high per-capita income. The lower U.S. dollar should aid its sizable electronic components and communications equipment sectors as exports recover.
New York remained ninth in 2004 among the 10 largest metros and improved its ranking on the index slightly from last year. The metro’s economy continues to demonstrate strength post 9/11 with gains in tourism-related enterprises, professional services and the information industry. The three largest employers in the city are New York Presbyterian Healthcare Network (29,721 workers), Citigroup (24,800 workers) and J.P. Morgan Chase & Company (23,400 workers). Despite renewed employment gains, the metro area’s employment is 4 percent below its peak, reached at the end of 2000. Financial services firms are adding cautiously to their payrolls again after substantial cuts. Budget deficits pose a threat to long-term economic expansion.
2003200220012000199919981997
5
0
-5
-10
-15
Percent Change, Year Ago
Sources: Economy.com, Milken Institute
Electronics Comp. & Comm. Equip. Mfg EmploymentChicago, 1997-2003
Best Performing CitiesLargest 200 Cities List
30
The Detroit metro area ranked 10th among this year’s 10 largest metros and remained in the same position as in 2003 and overall was 186th. Auto industry firms remain the metro’s top three employers with a combined total of almost 148,000 workers. Gaming is an established part of Detroit’s economy. The state of Michigan ranked 25th on this year’s Milken Institute State Technology and Science Index and scored well on many input measures.20 However, the state’s ability to attract venture capital lags behind comparable states, posing a threat to its longer-term competitive advantage. Construction gains will be realized as the metro prepares for the 2006 Super Bowl. The metro must diversify its economy by growing professional, financial and business services.
Top and Bottom Moving MetrosThe table below lists the 15 metros that demonstrated the largest gains in economic performance since the 2003 Best Performing Cities index. Bloomington, Indiana climbed the most in the nation. It rose 163 places from 292 in 2003 to 129 on this year’s index. Its rise was largely related to increases in government employment, particularly at Indiana University, the top employer in the metro with almost 7,000 workers. Glens Falls, New York was the number three climbing metro on our index, showing gains from a healthy tourism industry. The metro that demonstrated the fourth largest climb in index position (136 spots) was Spokane, Washington with most industries in the metro adding jobs at a slow, but steady pace. Common to all three cities were upward employment revisions, the presence of a college and service-dominated economies.
2003200220012000199919981997
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
Percent Change, Year Ago
Sources: Economy.com, Milken Institute
Job GrowthDetroit vs. United States
DetroitUnited States
Best Performing CitiesLargest 200 Cities List
31
The table below shows two Oklahoma state metros in the top five on our Fastest Falling Metros index. Tulsa, Oklahoma had the dubious distinction of recording the largest tumble (down 207 spots) from last year. The state of Oklahoma is also home to Enid, the fifth most declining metro. Brazoria, Texas dropped from 73rd last year down to 260 due to pervasive joblessness and an accompanying rise in bankruptcy filings. A new liquefied natural gas terminal is a sign of hope for the metro. Lafayette, Indiana slipped 167 spots to this year’s 267th place. Purdue University is, by far, the Lafayette metro’s largest employer with 12,250 workers. Lafayette ranked third among the fastest falling metros.
Metro2004Rank
2003Rank
SpotsClimbed
Bloomington IN 129 292 163Honolulu HI 82 234 152Glens Falls NY 120 272 152Spokane WA 73 220 147Daytona Beach FL 6 142 136Trenton NJ 40 152 112Pensacola FL 72 180 108Anniston AL 179 284 105St. Cloud MN 96 196 100Medford-Ashland OR 27 125 98Abilene TX 145 243 98Newark NJ 59 154 95Terre Haute IN 171 265 94South Bend IN 147 240 93Eau Claire WI 85 174 89Source: Milken Institute
2004 Milken Institute Best Performing CitiesFastest Climbing Metros, 318 Total Metros
Metro2004Rank
2003Rank
SpotsDown
Tulsa OK 300 92 208Brazoria TX 277 73 204Lafayette IN 264 100 164Enid OK 297 158 139Houston TX 164 34 130Albany-Schenectady-Troy NY 175 49 126Lexington KY 225 99 126Pueblo CO 308 182 126Monroe LA 218 95 123Lawrence KS 177 56 121Yuba City CA 165 45 120Wilmington NC 181 61 120Canton-Massillon OH 314 198 116Kalamazoo-Battle Creek MI 272 157 115Fort Worth-Arlington TX 153 40 113Source: Milken Institute
2004 Milken Institute Best Performing CitiesFastest Falling Metros, 318 Total Metros
Best Performing CitiesLargest 200 Cities List
32
33
Best Performing Cities: Small Cities List
Among America’s small cities, the table below shows that Missoula, Montana topped the 2004 Best Performing Small Metros index. Tourism, largely centered around nearby Bitterroot National Forest, is a major contributor to Missoula’s economic growth. Its low business costs (including energy, taxes, labor and especially office rents) combined with a very high-skilled workforce and college-town lifestyle attract businesses to the area. The health services industry is one of the largest employers in the metro.
Two small cities in New Mexico — Las Cruces and Santa Fe — demonstrate the second and third highest performance respectively, on our listing of best performing small cities. Both metros also ranked within the top five on the 2003 listing. The growing retiree population in these metros fueled economic expansion. The Las Cruces economy is susceptible to budget cutbacks as well as lower income growth due to its dependence upon government funding. Security difficulties at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, Santa Fe’s largest employer, threaten continued growth in this area.
Fourth of this year’s top five Best Performing Small Cities is Dover, Delaware, up from 29th in 2003. Economic gains are being realized in Dover’s trade and transportation industries as a result of the opening of a Wal-Mart distribution center in the metro. It is anticipated that the Dover Air Force Base, the metro’s largest employer with almost 4,600 workers, will survive the 2005 round of base closings.
Casper, Wyoming is the final and fifth 2004 best performing small city. Government employment, which is the highest in 20 years, accounts for the largest concentration of high-wage growth in the metro. The Wyoming Medical Center is the area’s largest employer with almost 1,200 workers. Continued economic expansion in the transportation industry, particularly at Casper’s Natrona Airport, is anticipated even with rising fuel costs. The booming energy sector is a key driver of economic growth in the Casper metro.
2004Rank
RankYear Ago Metro Index
1 N/A Missoula, MT 100.002 3 Las Cruces, NM 104.963 5 Santa Fe, NM 173.764 29 Dover, DE 202.845 23 Casper, WY 216.31
Source: Milken Institute
Top 5 Best Performing Small CitiesComposite Index, 2004
Best Performing CitiesSmall Cities List
34
2003
Ran
k20
04R
ank
MSA
Pop
ulat
ion
2003
Ove
rall
Inde
x20
03 V
alue
Ran
k20
03 V
alue
Ran
k20
02 V
alue
Ran
k20
02 V
alue
Ran
kG
row
thR
ank
2003
Val
ueR
ank
2003
Val
ueR
ank
2003
Val
ueR
ank
2003
Val
ueR
ank
(in
Tho
usan
ds)
31
For
t Mye
rs-C
ape
Cor
al F
L F
OM
116.
415
104.
063
117.
175
103.
805
3.42
%5
99.0
637
101.
9821
0.62
119
510
149
2.21
100.
002
2La
s V
egas
NV
-AZ
LA
S11
9.87
210
4.21
211
2.50
1010
2.66
114.
84%
190
.38
6810
4.53
100.
4117
71
186
1783
.63
152.
1243
3P
hoen
ix-M
esa
AZ
P
HO
107.
4726
101.
6134
109.
5516
100.
5688
2.80
%11
117.
2210
103.
2515
1.87
165
101
3593
.41
152.
464
4W
est P
alm
Bea
ch-B
oca
Rat
on F
L W
ES
111.
7810
101.
2645
114.
637
102.
999
1.74
%37
98.1
741
98.9
366
0.83
755
101
1216
.28
154.
3311
65
Day
tona
Bea
ch F
L D
AT
108.
2823
103.
124
101.
8363
103.
536
3.26
%8
111.
2716
99.2
660
0.72
984
126
530.
8715
7.09
416
Sar
asot
a-B
rade
nton
FL
SA
R11
1.23
1310
2.82
511
2.24
1110
5.19
22.
79%
1291
.47
6297
.20
118
0.53
143
510
163
3.60
157.
441
7F
ayet
tevi
lle-S
prin
gdal
e-R
oger
s A
R
FA
Y11
7.61
410
2.65
711
8.49
410
4.94
32.
99%
1082
.79
106
99.2
161
0.44
173
412
634
1.69
161.
0720
8R
iver
side
-San
Ber
nard
ino
CA
R
IV11
9.51
310
2.57
811
2.86
910
1.22
532.
07%
2793
.70
5210
1.41
260.
5513
84
126
3642
.33
167.
5529
9F
ort L
aude
rdal
e F
L F
OT
108.
6822
101.
8724
106.
6831
101.
5939
2.53
%19
93.9
350
98.3
192
0.75
907
6817
31.3
517
6.34
1010
Mon
mou
th-O
cean
NJ
MN
O10
7.56
2510
1.30
4410
4.09
4610
2.40
162.
41%
2084
.76
9598
.12
941.
1545
940
1178
.36
178.
2619
11W
ashi
ngto
n D
C-M
D-V
A-W
V
WA
S10
7.33
2810
0.93
6910
7.99
2110
0.19
108
2.76
%13
109.
8718
98.6
776
1.98
1016
752
32.4
818
2.65
2712
Tam
pa-S
t. P
eter
sbur
g-C
lear
wat
er F
L T
AM
106.
5533
101.
4340
108.
9118
102.
2821
1.60
%41
91.1
164
97.5
211
10.
9364
682
2531
.91
193.
9972
13B
oise
City
ID
BO
I10
9.55
1610
0.61
8010
8.82
1999
.78
131
3.51
%4
152.
021
121.
931
3.04
44
126
476.
6619
5.95
N/A
14P
ortla
nd M
E
PO
R10
4.77
4010
1.15
5410
2.57
5910
1.90
271.
29%
5510
5.76
2699
.85
420.
8672
854
270.
9220
5.75
2315
Nap
les
FL
NA
P11
5.83
610
2.54
912
2.01
110
2.55
142.
23%
2377
.24
135
99.4
854
0.30
194
118
628
6.63
208.
365
16S
an D
iego
CA
S
AN
108.
8819
101.
2348
112.
878
99.7
013
51.
13%
6394
.52
4810
1.05
321.
2835
1215
2930
.89
209.
6240
17T
ucso
n A
Z
TU
C10
3.44
5510
0.34
9510
3.83
4710
1.05
631.
44%
4813
3.69
510
2.60
181.
9611
1030
892.
8021
1.00
918
McA
llen-
Edi
nbur
g-M
issi
on T
X
MC
A12
1.29
110
4.50
110
8.16
2010
1.47
463.
31%
691
.61
6097
.41
112
0.34
187
019
563
5.54
216.
7711
019
Tre
nton
NJ
TR
E11
0.45
1410
2.02
1810
0.50
7310
1.60
381.
32%
5285
.14
9396
.28
145
1.02
5311
2436
1.98
218.
2239
20A
lbuq
uerq
ue N
M
ALB
103.
2456
100.
9170
99.2
088
101.
4844
1.39
%50
112.
0914
107.
415
3.05
37
6874
8.07
219.
0211
21A
ncho
rage
AK
A
NC
107.
3229
101.
6333
98.3
497
104.
294
1.79
%35
98.8
438
98.0
597
0.69
104
682
270.
9522
1.94
1522
Sac
ram
ento
CA
S
AC
111.
859
101.
5137
111.
6712
100.
0711
60.
60%
9991
.39
6398
.66
771.
0252
1215
1791
.77
233.
3617
23V
alle
jo-F
airf
ield
-Nap
a C
A
VA
L11
3.17
810
1.22
4911
5.46
610
0.92
721.
20%
5810
0.39
3610
3.54
130.
4317
53
149
543.
9423
4.86
824
Bro
wns
ville
-Har
linge
n-S
an B
enito
TX
B
RW
111.
4812
100.
4986
102.
2761
102.
3319
0.26
%12
612
0.68
710
3.39
140.
9855
682
363.
0923
7.50
7125
Mer
ced
CA
M
CD
104.
2046
102.
1616
103.
1653
105.
331
1.83
%34
79.6
112
010
0.50
380.
3319
03
149
231.
5724
6.39
2226
Ren
o N
V
RE
N10
6.13
3510
2.32
1310
5.96
3410
0.68
824.
10%
377
.90
129
100.
8833
0.40
179
314
937
0.85
254.
7911
727
Hun
tsvi
lle A
L H
UN
102.
9261
102.
2314
96.0
312
610
0.51
931.
59%
4298
.45
3998
.40
891.
9412
1215
357.
9125
6.45
728
Lare
do T
X
LAD
114.
937
102.
796
103.
6249
100.
9966
4.15
%2
89.1
576
97.7
410
80.
3019
60
195
213.
6225
8.02
4529
Orla
ndo
FL
OR
L10
7.08
3110
2.45
1010
7.63
2310
0.98
672.
16%
2571
.55
163
95.3
316
00.
7210
05
101
1802
.99
258.
4414
30V
entu
ra C
A
VE
N10
8.94
1810
0.95
6711
0.82
1399
.72
134
-0.2
8%15
510
9.36
2010
6.26
81.
7317
1314
791.
1325
8.52
7031
Mel
bour
ne-T
itusv
ille-
Pal
m B
ay F
L M
EL
103.
6052
101.
7030
100.
4274
101.
0662
2.55
%18
70.4
416
596
.74
130
1.30
329
4050
5.71
259.
7258
32T
acom
a W
A
TA
C10
2.43
6410
2.19
1599
.61
8410
0.80
782.
55%
1797
.74
4210
1.37
270.
4915
95
101
740.
9626
1.66
5133
Gre
en B
ay W
I G
RB
104.
0747
101.
6432
99.6
982
102.
6512
3.29
%7
76.2
514
398
.63
790.
4417
44
126
233.
8927
2.73
1234
Ral
eigh
-Dur
ham
-Cha
pel H
ill N
C
RA
L10
2.22
6810
0.02
113
108.
9517
99.5
314
01.
92%
3288
.96
7798
.75
731.
8915
172
1294
.69
281.
2731
35O
rang
e C
ount
y C
A
OR
G10
6.34
3410
1.87
2510
5.29
3998
.24
172
0.68
%90
82.5
910
710
0.11
401.
1941
159
2957
.77
284.
3148
36K
noxv
ille
TN
K
NO
105.
4437
102.
4511
99.6
583
102.
9910
1.61
%40
66.1
017
795
.53
156
0.51
154
682
712.
3728
7.84
103
37P
rovo
-Ore
m U
T
PR
V10
4.34
4510
0.77
7610
3.37
5299
.10
152
1.76
%36
97.0
146
97.3
511
61.
2736
1030
398.
0629
4.48
N/A
38N
ew L
ondo
n-N
orw
ich
CT
N
EL
105.
5736
101.
0861
93.4
615
110
0.26
101
0.91
%74
106.
6824
107.
216
1.52
218
5426
3.99
295.
0610
939
New
ark
NJ
NE
A10
1.23
9010
0.49
8710
0.28
7710
0.79
791.
21%
5693
.38
5599
.20
621.
4524
940
2069
.19
297.
3826
40S
tock
ton-
Lodi
CA
S
TO
111.
6811
101.
9221
104.
4745
100.
9469
0.56
%10
393
.25
5799
.50
530.
3319
12
170
632.
7629
9.86
127
41G
aine
svill
e F
L G
AI
104.
7341
101.
5038
98.9
090
101.
0365
3.13
%9
75.8
714
497
.81
104
0.50
157
682
223.
5830
1.06
137
42P
ensa
cola
FL
PE
N99
.67
109
102.
3612
97.0
111
710
2.39
172.
21%
2495
.39
4798
.33
910.
5115
24
126
428.
9830
1.53
2143
Mad
ison
WI
MA
D10
4.57
4210
0.96
6510
6.57
3210
3.23
80.
44%
112
74.8
515
195
.32
161
0.75
918
5444
9.38
301.
7587
44D
es M
oine
s IA
D
ES
99.2
212
110
0.18
104
100.
0279
101.
8131
2.67
%16
92.6
958
97.7
410
70.
7493
1215
476.
7530
2.15
6745
Nor
folk
-Virg
inia
Bea
ch-N
ewpo
rt N
ews
VA
-NC
N
OR
103.
7851
101.
5835
97.9
810
510
0.57
871.
70%
3998
.27
4098
.00
980.
6610
95
101
1630
.24
304.
16N
/A46
Pro
vide
nce-
War
wic
k-P
awtu
cket
RI
PR
O10
1.04
9410
0.99
6499
.83
8110
2.60
130.
67%
9188
.44
8199
.31
590.
6411
69
4099
0.23
304.
2732
47F
resn
o C
A
FR
E10
9.38
1710
1.42
4110
2.75
5810
1.54
410.
60%
9883
.89
9998
.57
820.
4317
64
126
983.
7930
7.28
4748
Jack
sonv
ille
FL
JAC
103.
2257
101.
1258
100.
3575
101.
4943
2.75
%15
84.1
098
94.7
116
90.
5813
15
101
1179
.48
307.
8760
49V
isal
ia-T
ular
e-P
orte
rvill
e C
A
VIS
108.
1224
100.
6181
103.
4351
101.
6933
0.30
%12
410
6.84
2310
3.98
120.
3318
83
149
390.
7930
9.08
4650
Cha
rlotte
-Gas
toni
a-R
ock
Hill
NC
-SC
C
HR
102.
4266
100.
0311
210
5.46
3710
1.63
371.
06%
6678
.26
124
98.4
885
0.65
112
854
1613
.47
313.
11N
/A51
Bar
nsta
ble-
Yar
mou
th M
A
BA
R10
8.76
2110
1.93
2010
7.24
2599
.82
129
0.32
%12
390
.22
6910
1.47
250.
6212
02
170
229.
5531
5.88
7552
Sav
anna
h G
A
SA
V10
1.45
8310
1.26
4799
.27
8610
2.16
221.
88%
3377
.64
131
94.8
916
70.
6611
06
8230
4.33
319.
3810
053
San
ta B
arba
ra-S
anta
Mar
ia-L
ompo
c C
A
SA
T10
3.50
5410
0.35
9310
1.22
6998
.88
154
1.57
%44
81.7
210
910
1.17
301.
0650
1124
403.
1332
2.77
6454
New
burg
h N
Y-P
A
NB
G10
6.66
3210
1.72
2997
.83
107
98.6
416
21.
93%
3180
.98
115
102.
4719
0.61
123
768
415.
3232
4.39
157
55S
poka
ne W
A
SP
O10
1.95
7310
1.48
3994
.68
139
99.2
514
81.
93%
3011
3.79
1398
.22
930.
9363
1030
431.
0332
7.77
9156
Bal
timor
e M
D
BA
L10
1.68
7810
0.00
115
102.
2860
101.
2451
0.63
%94
115.
9012
96.7
612
81.
0054
768
2616
.23
327.
9535
57C
harle
ston
-Nor
th C
harle
ston
SC
C
HS
104.
4643
100.
6279
105.
3038
101.
6834
2.04
%29
75.7
314
696
.64
132
0.46
167
217
057
1.63
328.
1163
58O
lym
pia
WA
O
LY10
3.16
5910
1.13
5710
1.79
6410
0.64
840.
82%
8210
8.09
2296
.69
131
0.52
148
768
221.
9532
8.64
2859
Tal
laha
ssee
FL
TA
L10
0.99
9510
1.15
5510
0.83
7110
1.03
641.
44%
4781
.26
112
99.5
251
0.64
115
412
628
7.71
330.
7410
160
Indi
anap
olis
IN
IND
101.
5979
100.
5684
99.0
689
100.
0811
40.
44%
111
94.3
849
100.
7334
1.49
229
4016
74.4
934
0.93
3461
Dut
ches
s C
ount
y N
Y
DU
S10
7.22
3010
1.22
5010
6.82
2998
.32
169
0.90
%76
73.7
515
796
.38
143
1.18
428
5429
0.89
341.
9468
62S
prin
gfie
ld M
O
SP
M10
1.08
9310
2.07
1798
.28
100
101.
6436
0.70
%87
80.3
511
799
.39
570.
5713
23
149
340.
4634
7.09
169
63H
onol
ulu
HI
HO
N10
1.50
8110
1.97
1991
.52
167
103.
337
2.76
%14
83.7
010
096
.46
137
0.49
161
314
990
2.70
347.
5159
64A
ustin
-San
Mar
cos
TX
A
US
105.
2538
99.3
814
811
8.90
397
.11
188
0.46
%11
092
.47
5998
.69
751.
9313
172
1377
.63
348.
3738
65La
ncas
ter
PA
LA
C10
1.39
8599
.95
119
97.7
510
810
1.89
281.
33%
5191
.08
6598
.38
900.
7687
412
648
2.77
356.
2897
66Ja
ckso
n M
S
JAM
99.3
611
710
1.22
5195
.49
132
102.
3120
2.12
%26
77.8
613
097
.04
121
0.60
128
682
453.
5435
7.01
9467
Lake
land
-Win
ter
Hav
en F
L LA
E10
3.90
5010
0.96
6610
1.60
6710
1.86
292.
24%
2275
.71
147
95.4
415
90.
3319
30
195
510.
4635
9.30
5368
Nas
hvill
e T
N
NA
H10
1.28
8710
1.58
3698
.82
9110
1.68
351.
41%
4977
.49
133
96.5
513
60.
5214
93
149
1288
.05
359.
8911
969
Ham
ilton
-Mid
dlet
own
OH
H
AM
105.
1039
101.
9022
101.
5468
100.
9370
1.04
%67
57.5
719
499
.18
630.
3319
21
186
343.
2136
0.98
133
70S
alem
OR
S
AE
99.2
012
310
0.44
8994
.22
142
100.
9371
1.18
%60
120.
578
112.
812
1.11
463
149
362.
9936
4.40
145
71A
mar
illo
TX
A
MA
100.
5510
010
1.86
2693
.92
145
100.
1811
00.
90%
7710
1.35
3399
.55
480.
6411
47
6822
4.67
365.
5177
72A
tlant
a G
A
AT
L10
2.42
6599
.85
127
107.
6422
99.5
813
80.
91%
7588
.32
8292
.11
191
1.22
3912
1544
64.2
036
6.00
2473
Mod
esto
CA
M
OD
107.
4427
101.
2646
105.
7936
99.9
812
00.
53%
106
93.5
454
98.5
981
0.30
195
118
649
2.23
367.
146
74S
an L
uis
Obi
spo-
Ata
scad
ero-
Pas
o R
oble
s C
A
SLO
110.
2915
99.9
312
110
6.71
3010
0.49
94-0
.39%
158
86.8
485
99.5
449
0.61
124
510
125
3.12
370.
2765
75W
ilmin
gton
-New
ark
DE
-MD
W
IL99
.13
125
99.9
312
299
.90
8098
.14
175
2.28
%21
112.
0915
101.
6523
0.89
718
5460
7.82
375.
0581
76W
aco
TX
W
AC
100.
2210
310
0.32
9795
.68
130
100.
2010
70.
69%
8810
4.01
3099
.47
551.
1544
940
219.
8137
8.14
5577
Mia
mi F
L M
IA99
.73
107
99.9
412
010
0.57
7210
1.07
610.
82%
8190
.20
7196
.55
135
0.74
949
4023
41.1
737
8.70
1878
San
Ant
onio
TX
S
AZ
103.
0560
99.9
811
610
1.03
7099
.22
150
0.85
%79
97.0
945
94.9
716
51.
1147
1215
1691
.77
378.
85
# of
HT
GD
P
LQ
s O
ver
1Jo
b G
row
th(A
pr 0
3 -
Apr
04)
5-yr
Rel
ativ
e H
T G
DP
G
row
th 1
998
- 20
031-
yr R
elat
ive
HT
GD
P
Gro
wth
200
2 -
2003
Hig
h-T
ech
GD
P L
Q5-
yr J
ob G
row
th19
98 -
200
31-
yr J
ob G
row
th20
02 -
200
35-
yr W
ages
& S
alar
ies
Gro
wth
199
7 -
2002
1-yr
Wag
es &
Sal
arie
s G
row
th 2
001
- 20
02
2004
Bes
t P
erfo
rmin
g C
itie
s L
arge
st 2
00 C
ities
Lis
t
Best Performing CitiesLargest 200 Cities List
35
2003
Ran
k20
04R
ank
MSA
Pop
ulat
ion
2003
Ove
rall
Inde
x20
03 V
alue
Ran
k20
03 V
alue
Ran
k20
02 V
alue
Ran
k20
02 V
alue
Ran
kG
row
thR
ank
2003
Val
ueR
ank
2003
Val
ueR
ank
2003
Val
ueR
ank
2003
Val
ueR
ank
(in
Tho
usan
ds)
N/A
79F
ort P
ierc
e-P
ort S
t. Lu
cie
FL
FO
P10
4.42
4410
1.10
6010
3.14
5410
1.33
480.
79%
8467
.31
173
96.9
312
40.
4117
82
170
348.
5737
8.97
5080
Linc
oln
NE
LI
N10
3.57
5399
.44
144
101.
7565
102.
3518
-0.5
0%16
585
.54
9195
.83
153
1.17
438
5426
1.00
381.
4985
81E
ugen
e-S
prin
gfie
ld O
R
EU
G97
.65
140
99.6
113
493
.84
147
100.
4496
1.72
%38
105.
1328
108.
414
1.44
257
6833
0.53
383.
2099
82M
inne
apol
is-S
t. P
aul M
N-W
I M
IN10
0.66
9910
0.38
9210
3.02
5699
.76
133
0.83
%80
84.9
494
96.2
514
60.
9267
1215
3083
.64
384.
9513
983
Cha
ttano
oga
TN
-GA
C
HT
102.
3167
100.
7277
94.7
413
810
0.88
750.
69%
8910
3.32
3110
6.32
70.
4716
53
149
473.
9738
5.50
107
84P
hila
delp
hia
PA
-NJ
PH
I10
0.46
102
100.
2510
099
.34
8510
1.12
580.
43%
114
82.1
710
896
.01
151
1.08
4811
2451
65.1
338
7.10
7985
Ode
ssa-
Mid
land
TX
O
DE
95.4
617
410
1.81
2891
.54
166
100.
8676
0.57
%10
211
6.23
1110
2.63
170.
7782
854
241.
3238
9.64
124
86M
ontg
omer
y A
L M
ON
98.4
313
110
0.35
9494
.81
137
101.
2254
0.98
%71
100.
7435
98.6
478
0.70
103
682
339.
1639
4.32
3687
Col
orad
o S
prin
gs C
O
CO
O10
2.85
6299
.35
150
105.
0541
96.6
819
10.
42%
115
108.
1721
97.1
012
02.
308
159
550.
4839
5.86
8488
Atla
ntic
-Cap
e M
ay N
J A
TA
101.
8674
101.
8823
91.6
016
510
1.37
472.
07%
2873
.96
156
96.9
412
30.
3818
32
170
365.
2640
4.15
114
89H
arris
burg
-Leb
anon
-Car
lisle
PA
H
AI
99.6
111
210
0.47
8895
.42
133
101.
5042
0.36
%11
983
.51
101
98.8
670
0.77
837
6864
0.12
406.
0642
90B
aker
sfie
ld C
A
BA
K10
8.78
2010
1.16
5298
.30
9910
0.11
112
0.58
%10
177
.56
132
98.9
665
0.45
169
118
671
3.09
408.
6786
91B
aton
Rou
ge L
A
BA
T10
1.58
8010
1.65
3197
.07
116
101.
1955
0.66
%92
61.4
718
998
.53
840.
5115
13
149
620.
6340
8.93
8892
Ash
evill
e N
C
AS
H98
.18
133
100.
9568
93.2
815
499
.91
123
1.16
%61
86.6
886
101.
2328
1.07
496
8223
2.53
410.
2712
893
Alle
ntow
n-B
ethl
ehem
-Eas
ton
PA
A
LL10
1.75
7510
0.31
9897
.25
114
100.
1810
90.
00%
137
85.8
689
98.9
168
0.85
7310
3065
8.82
411.
1713
894
Sea
ttle-
Bel
levu
e-E
vere
tt W
A
SE
A95
.88
167
99.3
115
110
3.77
4898
.05
179
1.30
%53
97.7
043
98.6
180
2.50
617
224
77.2
041
1.76
3395
For
t Wor
th-A
rling
ton
TX
F
TW
101.
7576
99.1
915
510
4.73
4398
.50
164
0.23
%12
891
.58
6198
.43
881.
3827
1030
1840
.74
415.
0166
96N
assa
u-S
uffo
lk N
Y
NA
S10
3.18
5810
0.91
7195
.98
127
97.9
118
31.
00%
6980
.35
118
96.5
913
40.
9857
1215
2807
.50
415.
3717
297
Sou
th B
end
IN
SO
U93
.94
184
100.
1410
990
.98
172
100.
6783
1.14
%62
102.
4132
103.
9911
1.32
308
5426
6.35
417.
9710
298
Oca
la F
L O
CA
102.
1769
101.
4242
100.
2278
101.
8330
1.12
%64
27.0
520
063
.02
200
0.14
200
118
628
0.29
418.
1092
99B
ould
er-L
ongm
ont C
O
BLD
104.
0348
96.4
119
811
9.94
294
.71
197
-0.5
8%16
812
1.82
697
.38
114
3.22
218
127
8.23
418.
6083
100
Long
view
-Mar
shal
l TX
LO
G98
.84
127
100.
5983
92.3
716
299
.14
151
1.30
%54
105.
8525
101.
0731
0.95
605
101
213.
6142
5.23
129
101
Mac
on G
A
MA
C98
.12
135
101.
8227
94.9
213
610
1.81
321.
21%
5772
.15
159
90.5
519
50.
5314
65
101
334.
9842
5.64
123
102
John
son
City
-Kin
gspo
rt-B
risto
l TN
-VA
JO
N97
.65
141
100.
8573
91.4
117
010
1.15
570.
40%
117
86.0
988
105.
779
0.73
966
8248
5.88
431.
3230
103
Oak
land
CA
O
AK
101.
7477
98.8
616
810
6.99
2798
.06
177
-0.6
6%17
189
.92
7499
.52
501.
3728
172
2462
.17
432.
5125
104
Hou
ston
TX
H
OU
101.
9572
99.5
413
610
6.18
3398
.72
159
0.35
%12
089
.93
7397
.79
105
0.96
594
126
4496
.84
434.
8582
105
Ann
Arb
or M
I A
NN
101.
9871
99.8
512
897
.46
110
98.4
016
71.
49%
4587
.50
8497
.70
109
0.77
845
101
612.
2344
0.10
111
106
Littl
e R
ock-
Nor
th L
ittle
Roc
k A
R
LIT
99.6
311
110
0.42
9096
.57
120
100.
9273
-0.1
9%15
277
.09
137
100.
1839
0.84
746
8260
0.90
441.
4457
107
Lubb
ock
TX
LU
B10
1.43
8499
.45
142
93.8
014
898
.21
174
0.33
%12
214
5.58
210
1.72
221.
3429
1030
250.
4544
1.67
108
108
Col
umbu
s G
A-A
L C
OL
96.1
815
710
0.80
7594
.96
135
100.
0811
5-0
.17%
151
109.
8019
97.8
910
11.
4823
1215
279.
9144
1.82
6110
9K
ansa
s C
ity M
O-K
S
KA
N96
.49
153
99.1
015
910
0.35
7699
.87
125
0.41
%11
611
0.07
1798
.80
721.
5620
768
1843
.55
445.
1944
110
Mid
dles
ex-S
omer
set-
Hun
terd
on N
J M
SH
99.5
811
398
.07
187
103.
0955
99.6
613
60.
93%
7381
.66
110
93.5
118
11.
7318
1411
1220
.86
448.
9214
611
1D
ulut
h-S
uper
ior
MN
-WI
DU
L99
.41
116
100.
3496
97.8
510
610
2.12
230.
43%
113
86.5
987
96.3
914
10.
4916
22
170
242.
8945
4.61
121
112
Sal
t Lak
e C
ity-O
gden
UT
S
AY
99.5
611
499
.82
130
98.0
010
498
.86
155
1.03
%68
82.8
910
597
.79
106
0.83
769
4013
85.6
745
5.42
154
113
Jers
ey C
ity N
J JE
R98
.35
132
97.1
019
610
5.90
3510
2.50
150.
77%
8681
.46
111
93.7
617
90.
5115
55
101
607.
4245
6.50
7811
4D
alla
s T
X
DA
L10
0.12
104
98.8
317
010
5.18
4096
.76
190
0.36
%11
893
.61
5395
.56
155
1.93
1414
1138
11.3
445
8.11
130
115
Cin
cinn
ati O
H-K
Y-I
N
CIN
97.8
213
810
0.71
7897
.34
112
100.
9668
0.98
%72
67.2
517
494
.42
174
0.74
954
126
1672
.87
466.
0713
111
6O
mah
a N
E-I
A
OM
A10
1.46
8298
.84
169
98.7
692
101.
5940
-0.6
2%16
976
.92
139
94.8
916
80.
9070
1124
742.
5946
6.44
4911
7W
ilmin
gton
NC
W
IM10
0.99
9610
0.21
101
102.
1062
100.
2410
3-0
.10%
147
75.4
814
898
.56
830.
6411
73
149
249.
6846
9.34
174
118
El P
aso
TX
E
LP99
.63
110
99.8
812
692
.70
157
99.8
712
60.
63%
9593
.35
5699
.75
430.
7686
412
670
5.44
477.
1917
911
9A
ugus
ta-A
iken
GA
-SC
A
UG
99.3
011
810
1.39
4393
.35
152
100.
5591
0.79
%83
74.0
715
596
.91
125
0.61
125
217
048
8.54
479.
7214
112
0P
ortla
nd -
Van
couv
er O
R-W
A
PO
T96
.05
160
98.9
916
396
.40
122
98.3
916
80.
03%
134
133.
964
110.
003
2.81
59
4020
29.9
747
9.93
5212
1S
anta
Ros
a C
A
SA
A10
1.14
9197
.30
194
110.
8214
97.9
518
1-1
.81%
194
101.
1934
97.9
599
1.44
268
5446
6.73
484.
2415
312
2B
rem
erto
n W
A
BR
E10
1.23
8910
1.11
5990
.22
178
99.9
812
10.
79%
8578
.13
125
96.0
614
90.
5115
36
8224
0.72
487.
3262
123
Lafa
yette
LA
LA
A99
.13
124
101.
0462
98.2
210
110
2.01
24-0
.47%
163
79.9
511
995
.46
158
0.39
181
217
039
2.44
487.
9995
124
Birm
ingh
am A
L B
IR97
.20
142
99.5
713
597
.24
115
101.
3149
0.49
%10
878
.08
126
93.7
318
00.
6810
67
6894
0.38
488.
9310
612
5R
ichm
ond-
Pet
ersb
urg
VA
R
IC10
2.11
7099
.45
141
99.2
587
99.4
914
10.
02%
135
83.4
610
296
.31
144
0.62
122
682
1033
.41
495.
2119
312
6Y
ork
PA
Y
OR
98.5
412
999
.62
133
94.0
714
310
0.91
741.
20%
5962
.49
185
99.5
152
0.53
142
314
939
4.92
496.
9018
412
7B
erge
n-P
assa
ic N
J B
PS
96.9
414
899
.45
143
96.1
812
410
0.79
800.
86%
7868
.90
169
92.7
618
70.
9365
940
1395
.93
497.
9890
128
Kill
een-
Tem
ple
TX
K
IL10
1.37
8699
.84
129
95.8
412
910
0.52
92-0
.19%
153
93.8
551
100.
5137
0.38
182
217
032
3.92
501.
4498
129
App
leto
n-O
shko
sh-N
eena
h W
I A
PP
99.9
610
699
.50
137
98.5
694
101.
9625
0.25
%12
774
.25
154
94.0
517
60.
5314
52
170
369.
2950
2.55
8913
0D
enve
r C
O
DE
N99
.02
126
98.0
918
610
7.03
2696
.06
195
-0.1
0%14
690
.06
7294
.61
170
1.57
1914
1122
48.0
150
5.53
3713
1A
lban
y-S
chen
ecta
dy-T
roy
NY
A
LA10
1.24
8810
0.16
105
97.0
011
897
.50
186
0.52
%10
777
.21
136
95.7
015
40.
8080
768
890.
0251
0.14
9613
2P
ittsb
urgh
PA
P
IT98
.68
128
99.1
815
696
.14
125
100.
2610
0-0
.57%
167
90.6
666
97.6
711
00.
9069
854
2338
.67
511.
9980
133
For
t Col
lins-
Love
land
CO
F
OC
101.
1192
98.7
617
210
6.93
2896
.57
193
-1.5
4%19
297
.61
4492
.76
186
1.25
379
4026
6.61
515.
0815
913
4M
emph
is T
N-A
R-M
S
ME
M99
.21
122
101.
1653
97.4
311
110
0.55
900.
34%
121
66.2
517
691
.68
192
0.35
186
412
611
68.1
851
8.31
181
135
John
stow
n P
A
JOH
95.9
916
510
0.14
108
90.4
817
610
0.05
117
0.23
%12
990
.60
6799
.74
440.
6511
16
8222
8.82
525.
3474
136
Cor
pus
Chr
isti
TX
C
OR
99.4
911
510
0.60
8293
.77
149
99.8
912
4-0
.74%
174
90.2
070
99.9
541
0.50
156
314
938
3.26
528.
2015
613
7M
obile
AL
MO
B96
.62
150
100.
0111
491
.47
168
100.
6386
0.62
%96
85.8
390
97.2
611
70.
6012
73
149
551.
5853
0.23
105
138
Col
umbu
s O
H
CO
U10
0.74
9899
.40
145
101.
6866
100.
2310
4-0
.62%
170
74.7
315
394
.36
175
0.69
105
412
615
97.2
753
4.41
118
139
Loui
svill
e K
Y-I
N
LOU
96.2
315
699
.40
147
98.6
593
100.
4695
-0.1
1%14
870
.00
168
102.
4720
0.52
147
412
610
44.3
453
8.97
135
140
Los
Ang
eles
-Lon
g B
each
CA
LO
S98
.06
136
99.4
014
696
.40
121
98.6
616
10.
01%
136
80.5
511
696
.45
139
1.29
348
5498
71.5
154
0.47
104
141
Gre
eley
CO
G
RL
102.
8263
99.3
614
910
7.51
2497
.93
182
-0.9
4%17
981
.07
114
90.5
719
40.
7110
13
149
211.
2754
2.79
113
142
Okl
ahom
a C
ity O
K
OK
L10
0.01
105
98.7
517
397
.60
109
99.6
413
70.
58%
100
63.0
918
398
.46
870.
5713
35
101
1120
.30
542.
9115
114
3G
rand
Rap
ids
- M
uske
gon
- H
olla
nd M
I G
RA
96.3
115
598
.06
188
92.4
116
099
.54
139
0.99
%70
81.1
211
399
.65
450.
7492
682
1123
.23
544.
5313
614
4B
osto
n M
A-N
H
BO
S97
.17
143
98.3
618
110
3.62
5097
.00
189
-1.2
0%18
784
.49
9796
.83
127
1.24
3817
261
58.2
554
7.16
164
145
Gal
vest
on-T
exas
City
TX
G
AL
95.8
616
810
0.83
7491
.34
171
100.
0211
8-1
.01%
183
105.
1727
103.
0916
0.51
150
314
926
6.77
548.
8576
146
Lexi
ngto
n K
Y
LEX
96.4
515
410
0.16
106
98.3
398
101.
2452
0.04
%13
354
.88
196
74.3
419
90.
4517
14
126
497.
0655
0.58
147
147
San
Jos
e C
A
SA
J86
.56
200
94.9
120
010
4.95
4291
.00
200
-2.0
2%19
510
4.85
2998
.91
673.
481
167
1678
.42
551.
8517
014
8S
cran
ton-
-Wilk
es-B
arre
-Haz
leto
n P
A
SW
B97
.86
137
100.
4191
92.8
515
599
.84
127
-0.5
7%16
675
.10
149
97.9
410
00.
7299
682
616.
7455
2.39
140
149
Syr
acus
e N
Y
SY
R98
.15
134
100.
0611
088
.83
189
97.4
218
70.
64%
9374
.74
152
97.1
511
90.
9266
1030
735.
9255
5.94
176
150
Shr
evep
ort L
A
SH
R95
.96
166
99.9
711
892
.54
158
100.
3998
1.59
%43
72.3
315
895
.27
162
0.49
163
314
939
3.75
556.
9218
615
1S
t. Lo
uis
MO
-IL
ST
L95
.71
169
99.1
515
894
.31
140
100.
5689
1.44
%46
46.0
619
884
.33
197
0.71
102
510
126
39.9
855
8.23
134
152
San
Fra
ncis
co C
A
SA
F91
.23
195
96.8
219
711
0.77
1593
.77
199
-1.1
3%18
611
8.57
996
.01
150
1.20
4011
2416
95.2
156
0.60
5-yr
Job
Gro
wth
1998
- 2
003
1-yr
Job
Gro
wth
2002
- 2
003
5-yr
Wag
es &
Sal
arie
s G
row
th 1
997
- 20
021-
yr W
ages
& S
alar
ies
Gro
wth
200
1 -
2002
Job
Gro
wth
(Apr
03
- A
pr 0
4)5-
yr R
elat
ive
HT
GD
P
Gro
wth
199
8 -
2003
1-yr
Rel
ativ
e H
T G
DP
G
row
th 2
002
- 20
03H
igh-
Tec
h G
DP
LQ
# of
HT
GD
P
LQ
s O
ver
1
2004
Bes
t P
erfo
rmin
g C
itie
s L
arge
st 2
00 C
ities
Lis
t
Best Performing CitiesLargest 200 Cities List
36
2003
Ran
k20
04R
ank
MSA
Pop
ulat
ion
2003
Ove
rall
Inde
x20
03 V
alue
Ran
k20
03 V
alue
Ran
k20
02 V
alue
Ran
k20
02 V
alue
Ran
kG
row
thR
ank
2003
Val
ueR
ank
2003
Val
ueR
ank
2003
Val
ueR
ank
2003
Val
ueR
ank
(in
Tho
usan
ds)
180
153
Akr
on O
H
AK
R96
.98
146
100.
3099
90.8
017
510
1.16
56-0
.03%
141
70.2
616
794
.58
172
0.56
137
510
170
1.64
561.
0793
154
Sal
inas
CA
S
AL
103.
9749
98.8
816
610
4.58
4499
.06
153
-3.0
4%19
975
.82
145
98.0
696
0.40
180
217
041
4.45
561.
6616
715
5F
ort S
mith
AR
-OK
F
OR
99.2
512
099
.65
131
98.4
596
101.
0860
0.20
%13
054
.50
197
83.2
619
80.
4616
81
186
212.
8856
4.42
162
156
Fay
ette
ville
NC
F
AE
99.2
511
910
0.18
103
92.3
816
110
0.26
102
-0.1
3%14
977
.38
134
98.8
969
0.35
185
217
030
3.95
565.
7716
015
7Ly
nchb
urg
VA
LY
N96
.81
149
98.4
917
890
.82
173
98.0
617
8-0
.50%
164
140.
423
101.
2029
2.02
95
101
217.
3356
6.67
144
158
San
ta C
ruz-
Wat
sonv
ille
CA
S
AX
96.5
015
297
.11
195
102.
9757
96.6
419
2-3
.19%
200
88.4
680
98.8
571
0.98
5610
3025
1.58
567.
4012
615
9C
harle
ston
WV
C
HW
97.0
414
599
.09
160
93.6
715
010
0.63
85-0
.38%
156
76.4
214
299
.09
640.
5414
05
101
248.
4557
0.05
150
160
Rea
ding
PA
R
EA
95.6
917
098
.38
180
90.8
217
410
0.23
106
0.61
%97
77.9
512
896
.97
122
0.91
687
6838
5.31
570.
4918
316
1E
vans
ville
-Hen
ders
on IN
-KY
E
VA
100.
9497
99.9
112
495
.40
134
100.
7681
-0.7
4%17
362
.87
184
94.0
217
70.
6710
82
170
298.
6457
5.22
5616
2B
razo
ria T
X
BR
Z10
0.50
101
99.2
015
492
.51
159
100.
2310
5-0
.38%
157
61.7
418
799
.45
560.
5413
93
149
263.
1558
3.53
155
163
Milw
auke
e-W
auke
sha
WI
MIL
95.1
917
699
.29
152
95.5
413
110
0.83
77-0
.05%
142
67.0
417
595
.25
163
0.59
129
768
1514
.31
586.
0018
216
4La
nsin
g-E
ast L
ansi
ng M
I LA
N99
.70
108
99.1
715
791
.76
164
100.
4497
-1.1
2%18
588
.93
7897
.38
115
0.54
141
314
945
5.84
590.
4615
816
5G
reen
sbor
o--W
inst
on-S
alem
--H
igh
Poi
nt N
C
GR
N94
.73
178
98.3
618
293
.91
146
100.
1111
3-0
.72%
172
85.2
292
100.
6135
0.72
975
101
1295
.44
591.
4314
816
6C
hica
go IL
C
HI
96.0
116
299
.26
153
96.3
112
398
.32
170
-0.0
1%13
978
.04
127
96.4
613
80.
8079
682
8491
.81
595.
2416
316
7N
ew O
rlean
s LA
N
EO
96.0
715
910
0.55
8591
.46
169
101.
2550
-0.8
8%17
767
.98
170
96.3
914
20.
4517
02
170
1338
.66
598.
4812
516
8U
tica-
Rom
e N
Y
UT
I98
.53
130
99.9
312
390
.05
182
97.6
318
5-0
.08%
145
82.9
610
494
.56
173
0.82
778
5429
8.08
600.
8717
516
9N
ew Y
ork
NY
N
EY
97.7
213
999
.03
161
98.4
895
94.0
619
80.
48%
109
76.8
814
094
.61
171
0.56
136
510
194
18.5
860
4.92
115
170
Kal
amaz
oo-B
attle
Cre
ek M
I K
AL
95.6
217
299
.47
138
87.6
519
210
1.48
45-1
.09%
184
71.0
916
489
.72
196
1.03
516
8245
9.17
605.
9715
217
1H
untin
gton
-Ash
land
WV
-KY
-OH
H
UT
95.9
916
410
1.04
6389
.30
187
101.
9326
-0.4
1%16
063
.33
181
92.6
918
80.
2619
80
195
313.
6660
7.56
143
172
Bilo
xi-G
ulfp
ort-
Pas
cago
ula
MS
B
IO90
.64
196
100.
8772
96.7
611
999
.80
130
0.56
%10
463
.14
182
96.0
914
80.
3019
70
195
368.
6960
8.26
161
173
Buf
falo
-Nia
gara
Fal
ls N
Y
BU
F96
.96
147
99.9
112
588
.17
190
98.4
716
5-0
.39%
159
75.0
415
096
.42
140
0.76
8810
3011
59.4
461
3.91
132
174
Gre
envi
lle-S
part
anbu
rg-A
nder
son
SC
G
RV
95.4
317
510
0.15
107
93.2
915
397
.97
180
-0.0
6%14
363
.62
180
98.7
574
0.60
126
510
199
4.56
619.
0319
917
5Y
oung
stow
n-W
arre
n O
H
YO
U90
.17
198
99.4
614
081
.80
199
99.8
312
81.
06%
6567
.59
172
99.6
446
0.44
172
314
958
4.97
619.
5319
217
6B
ingh
amto
n N
Y
BIN
95.6
817
198
.18
185
88.8
518
896
.06
196
0.18
%13
171
.65
162
101.
5824
1.29
339
4025
1.11
620.
76N
/A17
7N
ew H
aven
CT
N
EH
95.0
217
799
.03
162
98.2
010
298
.29
171
-1.2
8%18
970
.27
166
96.0
115
20.
9858
1030
1741
.02
622.
6114
217
8C
olum
bia
SC
C
OS
96.5
715
198
.95
164
97.3
111
310
0.01
119
-0.8
9%17
865
.04
178
99.5
747
0.49
160
118
655
8.63
626.
2918
917
9E
rie P
A
ER
I96
.03
161
98.8
816
789
.43
186
100.
1711
10.
54%
105
61.7
118
895
.00
164
0.53
144
768
279.
9762
7.24
168
180
Bea
umon
t-P
ort A
rthu
r T
X
BE
A94
.44
180
100.
0611
187
.52
193
99.4
414
4-0
.45%
162
89.3
475
97.3
911
30.
5613
54
126
382.
6362
9.04
166
181
Roa
noke
VA
R
OA
96.1
715
897
.54
193
94.0
514
499
.44
143
0.28
%12
576
.78
141
92.2
719
00.
9561
412
623
6.24
633.
5517
318
2R
oche
ster
NY
R
OH
96.0
116
399
.98
117
85.2
919
796
.31
194
-0.0
2%14
067
.89
171
92.9
718
41.
3131
940
1101
.22
634.
99N
/A18
3S
prin
gfie
ld M
A
SP
I97
.15
144
98.7
217
494
.30
141
98.4
316
60.
08%
132
78.7
912
296
.76
129
0.50
158
412
661
6.29
635.
0617
718
4Y
akim
a W
A
YA
K94
.48
179
99.4
713
992
.82
156
100.
3799
-0.8
4%17
588
.56
7993
.98
178
0.38
184
314
922
6.73
646.
4317
818
5D
aven
port
-Mol
ine-
Roc
k Is
land
IA-I
L D
AV
93.8
818
699
.64
132
88.0
119
199
.25
149
-0.1
7%15
076
.92
138
98.4
886
0.62
121
412
635
7.97
647.
0019
018
6D
etro
it M
I D
ET
94.3
018
298
.71
175
92.0
516
398
.64
163
-1.3
5%19
187
.92
8397
.83
103
0.94
625
101
4461
.65
650.
3719
418
7C
leve
land
-Lor
ain-
Ely
ria O
H
CLE
93.1
719
010
0.20
102
90.1
918
099
.45
142
-0.0
7%14
462
.20
186
96.1
014
70.
5813
04
126
2242
.63
652.
3318
818
8D
ayto
n-S
prin
gfie
ld O
H
DA
Y92
.31
194
98.8
317
186
.34
195
99.7
813
2-1
.20%
188
71.8
816
198
.07
950.
8178
940
947.
0366
1.81
7318
9T
ulsa
OK
T
UL
94.3
518
196
.30
199
98.0
910
398
.85
156
-1.3
5%19
064
.98
179
94.9
316
60.
7785
854
823.
3866
4.05
185
190
Peo
ria-P
ekin
IL
PE
O92
.97
192
98.9
216
590
.20
179
98.8
315
70.
00%
138
78.7
212
396
.60
133
0.67
107
412
634
6.76
666.
8319
119
1F
ort W
ayne
IN
FO
W93
.41
189
98.5
517
790
.30
177
101.
0959
-0.8
7%17
657
.67
193
91.1
819
30.
6511
35
101
512.
5866
8.15
171
192
Wic
hita
KS
W
IC93
.03
191
97.7
419
090
.14
181
98.2
417
3-0
.43%
161
72.0
316
093
.01
183
2.46
711
2455
7.53
671.
74N
/A19
3H
artfo
rd C
T
HA
R95
.53
173
98.5
617
695
.96
128
98.0
717
6-1
.74%
193
60.8
019
293
.36
182
0.80
816
8211
77.9
369
0.95
200
194
Gar
y IN
G
AR
94.2
118
310
1.15
5684
.30
198
98.8
015
8-0
.27%
154
60.8
219
192
.39
189
0.22
199
019
564
0.01
703.
7919
519
5T
oled
o O
H
TO
L93
.89
185
98.2
718
489
.44
185
99.4
114
5-2
.95%
197
83.3
810
399
.36
580.
4716
62
170
619.
6870
9.67
149
196
Can
ton-
Mas
sillo
n O
H
CA
N93
.43
188
97.7
219
190
.02
183
99.9
412
2-0
.95%
182
55.9
919
510
0.54
360.
3318
91
186
407.
1272
4.64
187
197
Hic
kory
-Mor
gant
own-
Leno
ir N
C
HIC
90.5
719
798
.04
189
89.4
618
497
.85
184
-2.2
6%19
679
.61
121
97.8
910
20.
6311
85
101
350.
1472
6.24
198
198
Flin
t MI
FLI
88.4
919
997
.65
192
76.3
820
098
.70
160
-0.9
4%18
084
.63
9695
.48
157
0.76
892
170
442.
2573
6.03
196
199
Sag
inaw
-Bay
City
-Mid
land
MI
SA
G93
.57
187
98.2
818
386
.78
194
99.3
514
6-2
.97%
198
61.3
119
096
.87
126
0.57
134
412
640
3.27
741.
4819
720
0R
ockf
ord
IL
RO
C92
.36
193
98.4
017
986
.17
196
99.3
114
7-0
.94%
181
45.3
419
992
.81
185
0.49
164
510
138
3.65
756.
53
5-yr
Job
Gro
wth
1998
- 2
003
1-yr
Job
Gro
wth
2002
- 2
003
5-yr
Wag
es &
Sal
arie
s G
row
th 1
997
- 20
021-
yr W
ages
& S
alar
ies
Gro
wth
200
1 -
2002
Job
Gro
wth
(Apr
03
- A
pr 0
4)5-
yr R
elat
ive
HT
GD
P
Gro
wth
199
8 -
2003
1-yr
Rel
ativ
e H
T G
DP
G
row
th 2
002
- 20
03H
igh-
Tec
h G
DP
LQ
# of
HT
GD
P
LQ
s O
ver
1
2004
Bes
t P
erfo
rmin
g C
itie
s L
arge
st 2
00 C
ities
Lis
t
Largest 200 Cities List Best Performing Cities
37
36
2003
Ran
k20
04R
ank
MSA
Po p
ulat
ion
2003
Ove
rall
Inde
x20
03 V
alue
Ran
k20
03 V
alue
Ran
k20
02 V
alue
Ran
k20
02 V
alue
Ran
kG
row
thR
ank
2003
Val
ueR
ank
2003
Val
ueR
ank
2003
Val
ueR
ank
2003
Val
ueR
ank
(in
Tho
usan
ds)
N/A
1M
isso
ula
MT
M
IS11
4.35
110
2.69
710
6.40
610
3.85
62.
45%
1211
6.77
810
2.18
190.
6737
713
98.6
210
0.00
32
Las
Cru
ces
NM
LS
C11
3.45
210
3.40
310
3.62
1610
5.33
31.
61%
2610
4.19
2010
9.76
51.
1014
89
182.
1610
4.96
53
San
ta F
e N
M
SF
E10
5.57
1710
2.21
1310
5.93
810
4.18
51.
66%
2583
.54
4610
4.56
110.
7333
619
155.
2317
3.76
294
Dov
er D
E
DO
V10
7.05
1110
3.14
497
.13
4910
5.37
22.
73%
913
1.77
311
0.58
40.
4475
354
134.
3920
2.84
235
Cas
per
WY
C
AS
108.
088
102.
2211
108.
774
105.
691
3.24
%5
103.
8621
96.6
764
0.37
882
7468
.21
216.
316
6Y
uma
AZ
Y
UM
110.
067
103.
542
101.
5924
103.
777
3.22
%6
105.
5719
97.5
755
0.46
732
7417
1.13
221.
99N
/A7
Fla
gsta
ff A
ZF
LA10
7.63
910
1.30
2910
0.71
3010
2.16
320.
98%
3719
3.80
110
5.04
92.
152
354
127.
3424
1.13
48
Bill
ings
MT
B
IL10
1.18
4410
1.19
3210
3.25
1810
3.50
122.
44%
1311
3.62
1210
2.84
150.
5849
532
133.
1924
5.39
129
Red
ding
CA
R
ED
112.
153
101.
6624
102.
2620
102.
3525
1.36
%30
93.2
729
102.
6316
0.53
603
5417
5.65
257.
4511
10S
ioux
Fal
ls S
D
SIU
107.
0312
101.
2230
108.
715
103.
1518
1.29
%32
84.1
544
100.
6326
0.54
574
4218
3.92
257.
452
11T
yler
TX
T
YL
104.
1224
100.
5851
100.
4531
101.
8040
2.13
%21
112.
4614
103.
9613
1.07
1510
218
4.02
268.
0931
12M
edfo
rd-A
shla
nd O
R
ME
D10
4.81
1910
2.21
1499
.77
3310
0.52
802.
27%
1713
1.21
410
9.36
61.
3010
354
190.
0828
3.69
113
Iow
a C
ity IA
IO
W10
3.08
3397
.79
112
109.
943
103.
618
5.17
%1
111.
4515
96.5
372
0.99
1813
111
5.55
297.
8716
*14
Hou
ma
LA
HM
T10
3.88
2510
2.58
810
4.29
1410
4.97
4-0
.24%
8411
2.81
1310
4.40
120.
4672
274
197.
3931
2.77
815
Che
yenn
e W
Y
CH
E10
3.64
2810
1.07
3510
1.01
2910
2.34
260.
73%
4212
7.61
696
.63
690.
7431
619
84.0
831
5.60
1316
For
t Wal
ton
Bea
ch F
L F
WB
103.
7626
102.
3310
101.
5126
102.
4424
2.02
%23
77.1
262
95.4
086
0.59
485
3217
8.10
316.
31N
/A17
Lew
isto
n-A
ubur
n M
E
LEW
105.
5816
100.
7843
103.
5817
103.
2414
0.65
%46
107.
2718
94.9
991
0.44
776
1910
6.12
338.
307
18P
unta
Gor
da F
L P
UG
110.
555
102.
1215
110.
072
102.
4823
1.81
%24
79.3
554
96.6
468
0.26
109
011
415
3.39
342.
5517
19R
apid
City
SD
R
AP
103.
3831
101.
0036
105.
2710
102.
9020
0.40
%54
92.9
730
101.
2522
0.54
562
7491
.88
343.
2619
20F
argo
-Moo
rhea
d N
D-M
N
FA
R10
3.69
2710
1.79
2210
2.13
2110
2.26
28-0
.09%
7694
.74
2697
.69
530.
6738
619
179.
1234
3.26
1021
Bis
mar
ck N
D
BS
M10
4.51
2010
2.36
910
1.58
2510
3.19
15-0
.19%
8187
.40
3796
.90
590.
6242
354
96.8
334
8.94
1822
Roc
hest
er M
N
RO
E11
0.22
610
1.52
2611
1.38
110
2.12
330.
34%
5957
.90
102
95.2
988
1.04
173
5413
1.38
362.
4141
23E
au C
laire
WI
EA
U10
1.02
4510
1.22
3198
.31
4010
3.55
112.
20%
1964
.81
8798
.05
480.
5850
442
150.
9636
8.09
2124
Yol
o C
A
YO
L11
1.44
410
3.13
599
.70
3598
.81
105
2.81
%8
76.6
365
101.
2123
0.55
532
7418
3.04
375.
18N
/A25
Bur
lingt
on V
T
BU
R10
2.87
3410
0.23
5810
4.63
1399
.98
911.
21%
3393
.39
2898
.17
461.
338
713
203.
5039
2.20
926
Bry
an-C
olle
ge S
tatio
n T
X
BR
Y10
6.61
1310
1.17
3310
2.63
1910
0.36
822.
86%
777
.40
6097
.79
510.
6044
196
159.
8339
6.45
3427
Vin
elan
d-M
illvi
lle-B
ridge
ton
NJ
VIN
99.6
654
101.
9017
92.5
879
103.
0219
0.33
%60
113.
7011
98.8
938
0.59
476
1914
9.31
406.
3845
28S
t. C
loud
MN
S
TC
104.
3822
99.9
172
106.
047
101.
7941
0.85
%40
71.9
875
97.6
354
0.49
646
1917
4.07
408.
5169
*29
Ric
hlan
d-K
enne
wic
k-P
asco
WA
R
IH10
2.56
3610
0.61
4810
1.38
2710
0.89
700.
30%
6172
.33
7310
0.51
271.
0516
102
209.
7942
6.95
2030
La C
ross
e W
I-M
N
LAR
100.
0651
100.
0169
97.0
950
102.
7221
3.34
%3
75.4
869
95.9
079
0.67
394
4212
8.59
437.
5954
*31
Myr
tle B
each
SC
M
YB
103.
5329
101.
8718
105.
809
101.
2960
1.56
%27
69.7
682
95.8
481
0.36
901
9621
0.76
450.
3528
32W
ausa
u W
I W
AU
102.
2639
100.
6944
97.0
651
102.
7222
0.43
%52
79.5
452
99.3
436
0.45
742
7412
7.17
462.
41N
/A33
Ban
gor
ME
B
AN
101.
5941
99.9
471
99.4
037
102.
0234
-0.3
8%89
119.
447
98.5
542
0.63
416
1914
6.98
463.
1252
34D
ubuq
ue IA
D
UB
97.2
074
101.
8719
90.1
496
102.
3127
2.33
%16
70.7
080
98.0
847
0.73
345
3290
.05
465.
9693
35B
loom
ingt
on IN
B
LM10
2.35
3810
4.54
191
.80
8310
0.11
883.
75%
253
.47
106
93.4
810
30.
8924
619
122.
9047
9.43
4236
She
boyg
an W
I S
HB
99.1
957
99.8
673
97.8
644
101.
9535
3.28
%4
82.0
748
94.8
895
0.49
654
4211
3.38
479.
4313
*37
Chi
co-P
arad
ise
CA
C
HO
105.
8115
100.
8740
101.
9123
101.
0568
0.57
%48
70.8
379
99.7
232
0.40
821
9621
1.01
480.
1424
38G
reen
ville
NC
G
VL
104.
4721
100.
3055
97.7
045
100.
6176
-0.0
1%74
88.2
534
95.6
783
1.32
98
913
8.69
480.
1432
39D
otha
n A
L D
OT
98.8
059
100.
1463
96.9
852
103.
1717
-0.1
8%80
116.
079
97.3
356
0.86
263
5414
0.71
487.
2340
40B
loom
ingt
on-N
orm
al IL
B
LO10
4.33
2398
.79
106
104.
7312
99.5
110
0-0
.65%
9311
1.44
1613
0.76
21.
604
89
156.
8849
5.74
3841
Poc
atel
lo ID
P
OC
101.
0046
100.
5852
95.0
462
100.
3484
0.26
%65
130.
145
198.
241
1.95
32
7475
.63
497.
1630
42C
harlo
ttesv
ille
VA
C
HV
100.
0949
100.
0267
104.
0615
99.9
892
1.40
%29
90.2
932
94.6
296
0.85
283
5416
6.69
506.
3869
43A
bile
ne T
X
AB
I96
.65
7810
1.70
2389
.25
101
101.
3258
2.14
%20
86.5
041
99.3
635
0.57
515
3212
5.34
509.
9315
44S
tate
Col
lege
PA
S
TG
101.
2743
99.1
295
97.3
847
101.
5951
0.27
%64
79.3
055
98.4
244
0.86
259
614
1.64
517.
7327
45A
then
s G
A
AT
H98
.29
6510
0.92
3897
.97
4210
0.57
77-0
.67%
9499
.88
2399
.28
370.
8527
713
158.
8551
9.15
112*
46C
lark
svill
e-H
opki
nsvi
lle T
N-K
Y
CLA
105.
4118
100.
4453
99.0
538
101.
7743
0.12
%69
85.2
243
96.9
060
0.34
931
9621
0.98
520.
57N
/A47
Hag
erst
own
MD
H
AS
105.
9014
100.
7842
96.5
555
102.
2029
0.46
%51
63.3
191
94.9
293
0.33
982
7413
6.80
523.
4046
48A
lexa
ndria
LA
A
LE98
.78
6010
0.79
4196
.59
5410
1.63
490.
35%
5779
.71
5110
1.10
250.
4866
274
127.
3952
3.40
7849
Gle
ns F
alls
NY
G
LF10
1.79
4010
3.02
687
.65
103
97.9
311
32.
40%
1467
.31
8496
.40
750.
9721
89
126.
5952
5.53
2550
Pan
ama
City
FL
PA
N99
.98
5210
1.83
2195
.92
5710
2.18
301.
51%
2860
.21
9896
.55
710.
3210
01
9615
5.19
525.
5382
51T
erre
Hau
te IN
T
ER
98.6
861
102.
0716
89.5
698
101.
0866
2.35
%15
57.6
410
495
.40
870.
9819
532
147.
8853
4.75
5452
Elk
hart
-Gos
hen
IN
ELK
96.6
677
102.
2212
93.2
774
103.
5810
2.63
%10
46.0
511
488
.94
113
0.48
691
9618
8.78
537.
5943
53C
ham
paig
n-U
rban
a IL
C
HA
102.
7635
100.
0168
98.9
839
99.5
010
2-1
.03%
101
109.
7317
109.
087
0.67
364
4218
6.80
561.
7035
54G
reat
Fal
ls M
T
GR
E95
.62
8810
0.88
3992
.47
8010
3.18
160.
56%
4992
.41
3110
1.32
210.
3110
21
9679
.56
563.
1214
55La
wre
nce
KS
LW
R10
3.39
3099
.19
9110
0.08
3297
.75
115
-1.9
2%11
314
8.84
210
0.48
281.
1912
102
102.
9857
1.63
5756
Gra
nd F
orks
ND
-MN
G
RF
100.
0750
101.
8420
89.3
210
010
1.57
520.
60%
4780
.70
5010
2.51
180.
3689
011
495
.64
573.
7662
57A
ltoon
a P
A
ALT
101.
3542
100.
9237
94.1
768
101.
3159
0.16
%67
64.0
288
96.6
667
0.53
613
5412
7.18
578.
7233
58S
an A
ngel
o T
X
SA
O96
.59
7999
.38
8595
.84
5899
.55
992.
06%
2279
.29
5695
.53
841.
545
96
103.
5359
3.62
8959
Ann
isto
n A
L A
NI
94.8
193
101.
3128
82.5
611
610
1.66
481.
00%
3693
.53
2799
.62
330.
3786
354
112.
0159
7.16
1660
Yub
a C
ity C
A
YU
B10
7.25
1099
.38
8410
4.95
1110
0.76
73-0
.94%
9977
.30
6110
1.56
200.
1711
61
9614
8.14
600.
7164
61C
olum
bia
MO
C
OM
98.1
367
100.
6150
97.9
643
100.
5678
0.29
%63
61.9
092
97.7
952
0.52
624
4214
1.12
602.
8422
62M
onro
e LA
M
OR
102.
4437
98.9
210
496
.87
5310
1.86
38-0
.67%
9585
.62
4296
.39
760.
7530
354
147.
9060
7.09
7563
Tus
calo
osa
AL
TU
S98
.57
6399
.58
7997
.31
4810
1.86
370.
73%
4381
.17
4993
.00
106
0.36
912
7416
6.45
609.
93N
/A64
Jone
sbor
o A
R
JOB
99.3
656
100.
1960
95.1
861
101.
4356
-0.1
0%77
52.9
610
710
5.99
80.
4180
354
84.6
361
6.31
8165
Tex
arka
na T
X-T
exar
kana
AR
T
EX
100.
5048
99.6
777
91.3
786
101.
5453
2.46
%11
72.9
571
96.8
261
0.34
941
9613
1.59
618.
4437
66La
wto
n O
K
LAT
100.
9547
100.
6247
94.5
164
103.
609
-2.2
5%11
676
.14
6710
2.58
170.
2411
20
114
113.
8962
1.28
5367
Bel
lingh
am W
A
BE
L95
.81
8610
0.26
5797
.45
4699
.57
97-0
.05%
7578
.17
5898
.32
450.
5555
713
176.
5763
3.33
3968
Jack
sonv
ille
NC
JA
S10
3.21
3210
0.68
4592
.63
7810
0.96
690.
36%
5679
.27
5796
.07
780.
1711
71
9614
7.52
643.
9786
69F
lore
nce
SC
F
LO94
.35
9510
0.68
4695
.95
5610
0.46
810.
37%
5573
.74
7098
.54
430.
4476
354
128.
3464
4.68
N/A
70A
ubur
n-O
pelik
a A
L A
UB
98.0
369
101.
0834
93.4
172
101.
7842
0.76
%41
39.7
211
875
.25
118
0.34
962
7411
9.56
653.
9051
71W
ichi
ta F
alls
TX
W
IH95
.36
9299
.07
9791
.15
8898
.35
109
0.68
%45
115.
5110
101.
1924
0.97
207
1313
8.45
658.
87N
/A72
Jack
son
TN
JA
T99
.82
5310
0.61
4994
.60
6310
1.39
570.
29%
6255
.47
105
91.6
811
00.
3495
354
109.
7266
0.99
8373
Alb
any
GA
A
LN93
.00
103
101.
4027
87.2
110
510
1.24
620.
53%
5071
.62
7794
.91
940.
7432
442
124.
0966
5.96
4474
Ken
osha
WI
KE
N98
.63
6210
1.61
2598
.23
4110
1.45
54-1
.46%
109
52.5
310
996
.52
730.
3110
52
7415
6.21
668.
7959
75W
illia
msp
ort P
A
WII
96.4
880
100.
3056
93.9
270
99.8
795
0.00
%73
75.5
168
96.7
762
0.57
526
1911
8.44
673.
0536
76V
icto
ria T
X
VIC
98.5
664
98.1
811
110
1.15
2899
.69
961.
08%
3586
.53
4094
.93
920.
4868
196
85.3
968
3.69
7077
She
rman
-Den
ison
TX
S
HE
96.2
481
100.
0865
94.1
269
98.9
210
4-0
.23%
8372
.48
7299
.50
341.
1313
442
115.
1568
4.40
9078
Lim
a O
H
LIM
95.3
791
100.
2359
92.8
276
100.
8772
1.31
%31
57.8
510
395
.71
820.
4181
354
154.
9869
3.62
5-yr
Job
Gro
wth
1998
- 2
003
1-yr
Job
Gro
wth
2002
- 2
003
5-yr
Wag
es &
Sal
arie
s G
row
th 1
997
- 20
021-
yr W
ages
& S
alar
ies
Gro
wth
200
1 -
2002
# of
HT
GD
P
LQ
s O
ver
1Jo
b G
row
th(A
pr 0
3 -
Apr
04)
5-yr
Rel
ativ
e H
T G
DP
G
row
th 1
998
- 20
031-
yr R
elat
ive
HT
GD
P
Gro
wth
200
2 -
2003
Hig
h-T
ech
GD
P L
Q
2004
Bes
t P
erfo
rmin
g C
itie
s Sm
all 1
18 C
ities
Lis
t
Best Performing CitiesSmall 118 Cities List
38
37
2003
Ran
k20
04R
ank
MSA
Pop
ulat
ion
2003
Ove
rall
Inde
x20
03 V
alue
Ran
k20
03 V
alue
Ran
k20
02 V
alue
Ran
k20
02 V
alue
Ran
kG
row
thR
ank
2003
Val
ueR
ank
2003
Val
ueR
ank
2003
Val
ueR
ank
2003
Val
ueR
ank
(in
Tho
usan
ds)
7479
Ben
ton
Har
bor
MI
BE
N92
.96
105
99.2
489
85.8
811
110
1.07
670.
87%
3960
.14
9910
5.00
100.
5946
619
162.
7770
6.38
120*
80C
edar
Rap
ids
IA
CE
D97
.29
7298
.77
107
101.
9722
100.
0489
-1.1
9%10
463
.34
9093
.48
102
1.40
77
1319
6.20
709.
22N
/A81
Pitt
sfie
ld M
A
PIS
98.0
668
99.4
183
91.7
985
100.
0190
-0.7
2%97
87.9
935
98.7
639
0.55
544
4213
3.31
720.
5755
82W
ater
loo-
Ced
ar F
alls
IA
WA
E95
.76
8799
.79
7590
.68
9110
2.17
310.
96%
3849
.00
110
89.8
611
20.
4279
274
126.
4272
2.70
N/A
83H
attie
sbur
g M
S
HA
T98
.22
6610
0.06
6695
.44
6010
1.86
39-0
.25%
8552
.79
108
91.7
110
90.
3399
274
116.
3472
4.82
122*
84S
prin
gfie
ld IL
S
PR
93.6
599
96.7
811
795
.49
5910
0.13
87-0
.27%
8687
.71
3696
.67
650.
7929
102
204.
4772
9.08
2685
Lafa
yette
IN
LAF
97.2
573
97.3
811
591
.80
8410
0.36
83-0
.31%
8771
.01
7899
.90
311.
2311
532
188.
8073
4.75
N/A
86C
orva
llis
OR
C
OV
85.6
611
810
0.12
6486
.14
109
98.6
210
6-0
.19%
8210
3.82
2211
1.51
33.
491
354
79.3
373
6.17
6387
Cum
berla
nd M
D-W
V
CU
M97
.89
7099
.66
7891
.04
8910
1.69
44-0
.65%
9265
.47
8699
.97
300.
3110
32
7410
0.82
736.
8816
5*88
Rac
ine
WI
RA
C93
.89
9799
.77
7686
.46
108
101.
6646
0.00
%72
45.0
111
597
.14
580.
5263
619
192.
2874
6.81
7389
Par
kers
burg
-Mar
ietta
WV
-OH
P
AR
97.4
871
98.9
710
187
.09
106
101.
6150
0.14
%68
60.5
095
97.2
057
0.39
844
4214
9.84
758.
8765
90Ja
ckso
n M
I JA
K98
.81
5899
.06
9992
.70
7710
0.56
79-0
.48%
9072
.29
7498
.03
490.
3787
354
162.
3275
8.87
7191
St.
Jose
ph M
O
ST
J92
.97
104
99.4
481
99.7
734
100.
7474
-0.8
7%98
61.1
694
95.0
490
0.48
673
5410
1.72
770.
9249
92O
wen
sbor
o K
Y
OW
E95
.38
9099
.43
8294
.23
6610
1.26
610.
70%
4448
.36
112
96.1
377
0.24
113
011
492
.54
781.
5676
93W
heel
ing
WV
-OH
W
HE
96.8
376
99.4
480
93.8
171
101.
8736
-1.6
5%11
058
.65
100
94.4
299
0.30
106
354
150.
3678
3.69
7794
Pin
e B
luff
AR
P
IN95
.45
8910
0.42
5491
.16
8799
.98
932.
25%
1846
.82
113
88.2
911
50.
2611
01
9682
.89
791.
4958
95La
ke C
harle
s LA
LA
K94
.73
9499
.21
9089
.33
9910
1.67
450.
35%
5876
.69
6495
.24
890.
3592
011
418
3.89
802.
1384
96Jo
plin
MO
JO
P96
.13
8310
0.18
6294
.24
6510
1.17
64-0
.13%
7841
.78
116
86.2
711
70.
3210
11
9616
2.15
804.
2691
97G
adsd
en A
L G
AD
90.5
511
697
.44
114
84.6
411
410
3.36
13-2
.86%
117
84.1
445
96.6
170
0.61
435
3210
3.04
807.
0950
98G
rand
Jun
ctio
n C
O
GR
J99
.40
5599
.26
8699
.50
3697
.58
116
-1.0
4%10
269
.33
8391
.54
111
0.38
852
7412
4.68
810.
6466
99D
ecat
ur A
L D
EZ
92.3
310
797
.32
116
94.2
367
99.4
810
3-2
.97%
118
89.2
033
98.7
540
0.72
356
1914
7.20
814.
8979
100
Kan
kake
e IL
K
AK
95.9
384
99.2
488
90.7
190
99.8
894
0.23
%66
58.0
010
187
.88
116
0.54
595
3210
5.63
817.
0260
101
Top
eka
KS
T
OP
96.1
982
97.7
311
392
.04
8296
.32
117
-0.6
9%96
98.2
324
88.9
311
40.
9523
619
170.
9082
2.70
8010
2S
haro
n P
A
SH
A97
.13
7598
.58
108
92.8
675
101.
1765
-1.0
0%10
083
.27
4796
.67
660.
2910
81
9611
9.90
824.
8272
103
Ste
uben
ville
-Wei
rton
OH
-WV
S
TE
93.5
410
010
0.19
6190
.24
9310
1.45
55-1
.98%
114
87.3
038
96.4
174
0.15
118
196
128.
5783
1.21
4710
4E
nid
OK
E
ND
91.4
111
198
.95
103
90.2
992
100.
8971
0.00
%71
71.8
276
103.
1614
0.19
115
274
57.1
183
3.33
9210
5Ja
nesv
ille-
Bel
oit W
I JA
N93
.12
102
99.8
374
86.4
910
710
0.67
75-0
.15%
7961
.45
9398
.02
500.
3110
42
7415
4.79
847.
5268
106
Gol
dsbo
ro N
C
GO
L93
.75
9899
.19
9292
.12
8199
.57
98-1
.14%
103
95.1
225
95.8
480
0.43
782
7411
3.10
851.
7796
107
Kok
omo
IN
KO
K91
.80
109
99.1
893
85.8
511
210
1.66
470.
40%
5376
.37
6693
.21
105
0.25
111
196
101.
3085
5.32
5610
8S
umte
r S
C
SU
T92
.72
106
99.9
570
89.6
597
100.
2685
-0.3
6%88
63.7
989
94.6
197
0.47
702
7410
5.96
866.
67N
/A10
9R
ocky
Mou
nt N
C
RO
M91
.67
110
99.0
798
90.2
194
99.5
110
1-1
.23%
105
60.3
197
94.4
010
01.
476
96
144.
6386
8.79
9411
0D
ecat
ur IL
D
EC
90.5
711
598
.58
109
87.3
310
498
.16
111
0.00
%70
79.5
353
95.5
185
0.65
405
3211
1.18
870.
9285
111
Dan
ville
VA
D
NV
95.8
685
99.2
687
85.5
711
398
.40
108
1.11
%34
65.7
585
92.2
810
80.
2011
41
9610
8.63
891.
4961
112
Sio
ux C
ity IA
-NE
S
IO90
.94
114
96.6
611
890
.17
9510
1.23
63-0
.64%
9186
.64
3992
.78
107
0.40
832
7412
3.71
897.
1648
113
Pue
blo
CO
P
UE
94.1
396
98.8
710
593
.38
7397
.95
112
-1.4
4%10
869
.95
8194
.60
980.
5458
442
148.
7589
8.58
8711
4M
ansf
ield
OH
M
AS
92.3
310
899
.10
9687
.95
102
100.
2086
-1.8
3%11
141
.47
117
93.4
210
40.
6045
532
174.
3692
4.82
8811
5E
lmira
NY
E
LM91
.27
112
99.1
394
86.1
211
095
.69
118
-2.1
8%11
548
.50
111
96.7
663
0.96
224
4290
.41
947.
5295
116
Mun
cie
IN
MU
N91
.07
113
98.9
610
282
.08
117
98.2
611
0-1
.24%
106
76.8
963
99.9
729
0.33
973
5411
7.49
949.
65N
/A11
7Ja
mes
tow
n N
Y
JAD
93.5
210
199
.03
100
84.0
211
597
.77
114
-1.2
9%10
760
.36
9693
.83
101
0.47
712
7413
7.65
1004
.26
6711
8F
lore
nce
AL
FLR
89.3
311
798
.43
110
78.3
411
898
.47
107
-1.8
7%11
277
.98
5998
.64
410.
2910
71
9614
1.50
1014
.89
# of
HT
GD
P
LQ
s O
ver
1Jo
b G
row
th(A
pr 0
3 -
Apr
04)
5-yr
Rel
ativ
e H
T G
DP
G
row
th 1
998
- 20
031-
yr R
elat
ive
HT
GD
P
Gro
wth
200
2 -
2003
Hig
h-T
ech
GD
P L
Q5-
yr J
ob G
row
th19
98 -
200
31-
yr J
ob G
row
th20
02 -
200
35-
yr W
ages
& S
alar
ies
Gro
wth
199
7 -
2002
1-yr
Wag
es &
Sal
arie
s G
row
th 2
001
- 20
02
2004
Bes
t P
erfo
rmin
g C
itie
s Sm
all 1
18 C
ities
Lis
t
*In
dica
tes
this
cit
y’s
posi
tion
on
th
e 20
0 la
rges
t m
etro
s lis
t in
200
3.
Small 118 Cities List Best Performing Cities
39
1 An interesting book on this topic is Running on Empty: How the Democratic and Republican Parties are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It, Peter G. Peterson, 2004.2 Gray, H. Peter. 2004. The Exhaustion of the Dollar: Its Implications for Global Prosperity. 3 DeVol, et. al., America’s Biotech and Life Science Clusters, Milken Institute, 2004.4 The latest 12-month job performance calculates the percentage change from the same month one year previous, e.g. the percentage change in jobs from April 2003 to April 2004. The 12-month percentage change is a measure of recent momentum and captures which metropolitan areas are improving their performance in recent months. The annual growth rate measures the percentage change from calendar year 2002 to 2003. Whereas the annual growth rate does not indicate whether high growth was achieved or diminished in the first part or latter half of the year, the 12-month growth rate captures that aspect.5 An industry’s location quotient (LQ) measures the level of employment concentration relative to the industry average across the U.S. in a given location, in this case, a city. A city with an employment LQ higher than 1.0 in a high-tech industry has a denser concentration of that industry than the nation, on average. It is an indication of how successful a city is in being home to an above-average mass of high-tech industries. Cities that exceed the national average in high-tech industry LQs, have an edge attracting and retaining high-tech firms due to their dense employment bases and other positive agglomeration factors.6 Gray, H. Peter and Lorna H. Wallace. 1996. New Jersey in a Globalizing Economy, CIBER Working paper Series No.96.003, Newark: Rutgers University. September.7 The Milken Institute produces an annual Milken Institute Capital Access Index (CAI) publication that scores the ability of entrepreneurs to gain access to financial capital in countries around the world. The CAI is an excellent source to ascertain a global perspective on the importance of capital access. See: www.milkeninstitute.org, MI Indexes (http://www.milkeninstitute.org/research/research.taf?cat=indexes).8 The term “entrepreneur” includes innovators, managers and owners in need of capital to start a new enterprise, expand a promising line of business, finance ownership change, or restructure a large multinational enterprise.9 Milken Institute 2004 State Technology and Science Index – Enduring Lessons for the Intangible Economy for a comprehensive ranking of the technology and science assets of the 50 U.S. states that can be leveraged to promote economic development. Additional recent Milken Institute research reports of interest at the state level include Arkansas’s Position in the Knowledge-Based Economy and California’s Position in Technology and Science.10 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), European Union (EU) and World Trade Organization (WTO).11 The Center. 2003. “The Top American Research Universities,” The Lombardi Program, November. 12 Please visit our web-site at www.milkeninstitute.org13 DeVol, et.al., 2004. Biopharmaceutical Industry Contributions to State and U.S. Economies, Santa Monica: Milken Institute, especially the ‘Innovation Pipeline’ section which discusses the direct positive correlation between the location of leading research universities and biopharmaceutical employment.14 A detailed analysis of Arkansas’ Position in the Knowledge-based Economy is the Milken Institute 2004 report by this name.15 DeVol, et.al., 2004. Biopharmaceutical Industry Contributions to State and U.S. Economies, Santa Monica:Milken Institute. 16 Zachary, G. Pascal. 2004. “Technology is Destiny,” The Milken Institute Review, Third Quarter, pp. 5-11.17 DeVol, et.al. 2004. America’s Biotech and Life Science Clusters, Santa Monica: Milken Institute.18 DeVol, Ross. 2000. Blueprint for a High Tech Cluster: The Case of the Microsystems Industry in the Southwest, Milken Institute Policy Brief.19 DeVol, et.al. 2003. The Economic Contributions of Health Care to New England, Santa Monica: Milken Institute.20 Milken Institute 2004 State Technology and Science Index – Enduring Lessons for the Intangible Economy for a comprehensive ranking of the technology and science assets of the 50 states within the U.S. that can be leveraged to promote economic development.
Best Performing CitiesEndnotes
40
Ross C. DeVol is Director of Regional Economics at the Milken Institute. He oversees the Institute’s
research on the dynamics of comparative regional growth performance, and technology and its impact
on regional and national economies. DeVol is an expert on the intangible economy and how regions
can prepare themselves to compete in it. He authored the ground-breaking study, America’s High-Tech
Economy: Growth, Development, and Risks for Metropolitan Areas, an examination of how clusters of high-
technology industries across the country affect economic growth in those regions. He also created the
Best Performing Cities Index, an annual ranking of U.S. metropolitan areas that shows where jobs are
being created and economies are growing. Prior to joining the Institute, DeVol was senior vice president
of Global Insight, Inc. (formerly Wharton Econometric Forecasting), where he supervised their Regional
Economic Services group. DeVol supervised the respecification of Global Insight’s regional econometric
models and played an instrumental role on similar work on its U.S. Macro Model originally developed by
Nobel Laureate Lawrence Klein. DeVol earned his M.A. in economics at Ohio University.
Lorna Wallace is a Project Consultant in Regional Economics at the Milken Institute, where she co-authored
Arkansas’ Position in the Knowledge-based Economy. Her expertise is in foreign direct investment—location
determinants, impacts, sources, mergers and acquisitions, strategy, public policy, competitive advantage
and FDI stock. Wallace has extensive work experience around the world in both the public and private
sectors; her award-winning research is widely published. Wallace was educated in Canada (B. Admin.)
and obtained her MBA and Ph.D. in International Business at Rutgers University, New Jersey.
with
Armen Bedroussian is a Research Analyst with the Milken Institute. Bedroussian has extensive graduate
training in econometrics, statistical methods and other modeling techniques. Before joining the Institute
he was an economics teaching assistant at U.C. Riverside where he taught intermediate micro and macro
economics to undergraduates. Since coming to the Institute, Bedroussian has contributed in several
projects including Butler County’s Economic Impact Assessment, The Impact of an Entertainment Industry
Strike on the Los Angeles Economy, Los Angeles Mayors Task Force Study on the Assessment of Post Sept.11
Economic Conditions. He also co-authored Manufacturing Matters: California’s Performance and Prospects
and The Economic Contributions of Health Care to New England. Bedroussian earned his bachelor of science
in applied mathematics and a master’s in economics at the University of California, Riverside.
Junghoon Ki is a Research Analyst in Regional Economics at the Milken Institute. His research
interests embrace history of technology, human capital development, location of high-tech business,
entrepreneurship strategy, and other urban planning related issues, especially in the planner’s perspective
and with spatial context. He is responsible for capturing, analyzing, interpreting and visualizing regional
economic data in order to create reasonable policy implications for the public. He wrote “The Role of
Two Agglomeration Economies in the Production of Innovation: A Comparison between Localization
Economies and Urbanization Economies,” Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies, 2001. His
recent publications at the Milken include Nebraska’s Position in Science and Technology, California’s Position
in Science and Technology, State Technology and Science Index and America’s Biotech and Life Science Clusters.
Ki was awarded a doctoral dissertation grant from National Science Foundation and earned his Ph.D. at
the University of Southern California.
About the Authors Best Performing Cities