In May 1999, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
released the 1997 Local Area Personal Income for Counties, Metropolitan Areas, and
Nonmetropolitan Areas. This article draws on that release for its analysis. For
Connecticut, three metropolitan areas are designated, and defined by the BEA as New
England County Metropolitan Areas. The largest is the New
Haven-Bridgeport-Stamford-Waterbury-Danbury New England County Metropolitan Areas, which is also part of New York
City's Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area. However, only the
Connecticut portion will be discussed here. This New England County Metropolitan Areas is composed of Fairfield and New
Haven Counties. The second New England County Metropolitan Areas analyzed is the Hartford New England County Metropolitan Areas, which is made up of
Hartford, Tolland, and Middlesex Counties. The third New England County Metropolitan Areas in Connecticut is New
London-Norwich, composed entirely of New London County.
Before continuing, there are a couple of
definitions that must be discussed. The first is Earnings. Bureau of Economic Analysis defines earnings as
wages and salary disbursements, other labor income, and proprietor's income. Thus,
earnings are a broader measure of monetary compensation than wages and salaries. Employment
here is also that defined by Bureau of Economic Analysis. It includes not only employment covered under the
unemployment insurance program, but also the self-employed, those employed by religious
organizations, and other employment not picked up by the Covered Employment and Wages
(ES-202) program. There are also some methodological differences in Bureau of Economic Analysis' employment
series compared to that of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Thus, the Bureau of Economic Analysis series
will be much larger than that of BLS's ES-202 series.
Earnings Growth
The period of analysis covers the first four
years of Connecticut's recovery from the "Great Recession," 1993 to 1997.
Graph 1 on the front page shows the percent change in earnings and employment by major
Standard Industrial Classification division for that period.
Connecticut's services division had the
fastest growth in earnings over the 1993-97 period. In addition to services, earnings grew
faster than average in agriculture, transportation and public utilities (TPU), wholesale
trade, and finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE). The slowest growth in earnings was
in the mining and government divisions. Employment growth outpaced the overall industry
average in agriculture, construction, TPU, wholesale and retail trade, and services.
Mining, manufacturing, and FIRE lost jobs over the period, and government employment
growth over the period was flat. Save agriculture, employment growth lagged behind the
earnings growth for all of Connecticut's SIC divisions over the 1993-97 period.
The consequences of the growth rates of earnings
and employment over the first four years of recovery are presented in Graph 2 at the
bottom of this page. It shows the growth in the earnings-per-job, by SIC division,
over the 1993-97 period. The growth in earnings-per-job for the FIRE division, at 40.9%,
was double or more the growth in every other division, except mining. Mining,
manufacturing, and wholesale trade, all had growth in the earnings-per-job that surpassed
the average growth in all nonfarm earnings-per-job.
Earnings Growth |
Employment Growth |
Greater than U.S. |
Less than U.S. |
Greater than U.S. |
Agriculture |
TPU
Services Wholesale |
Less than U.S. |
|
Construction
Retail
Government
Mining*
Manufacturing*
FIRE* |
*employment
actually declined |
Table 1 above provides a summary
of the growth in employment and earnings for Connecticut over the 1993-97 period, compared
to the performance in the U.S. over the same period (keeping in mind that the U.S. came
out of its recession in 1991).
Table 1 is set up as a contingency table. The
column labeled "Earnings Growth" is divided between the top half, which
indicates that earnings growth in Connecticut's SIC divisions exceeded its
counterpart for the U.S., and the bottom half, indicating those divisions where growth
lagged behind that of the U.S. Across the top is the employment growth comparison. There
are two categories. "Greater than U.S." and "Less than U.S.,"
indicating that Connecticut employment in a given division grew faster or slower than its
counterpart at the U.S. level. This type of table is also used to compare metropolitan
area performance.
Table 1 shows that Connecticut's agriculture
division had faster earnings growth and faster employment growth over the 1993-97
period than did the U.S. agriculture division. Though the TPU, services, and wholesale
trade divisions had faster earnings growth over the period than their U.S. counterparts,
they lagged behind in employment growth. Connecticut's construction, retail trade,
and government divisions lagged behind their U.S. counterparts in both earnings
growth and employment growth. Mining, FIRE, and manufacturing in Connecticut's
also lagged behind their U.S. counterparts these areas, and experienced employment
declines. In the case of mining, both the Connecticut and U.S. divisions experienced job
losses; however, Connecticut's mining division suffered a greater decline.
Performance of the NECMAs
Following the form of Table 1, Tables 2, 3, and 4
compare the performance of earnings growth, employment growth, and earnings-per-job
growth, respectively, in Connecticut's NECMAs with that of Connecticut and the U.S.
Table 2 on the next page shows that the New Haven
- Bridgeport - Stamford - Waterbury - Danbury and the New London - Norwich NECMAs had
faster growth in nonfarm earnings than either Connecticut or the U.S. Further, these two
also had faster nonfarm earnings growth than either the Hartford NECMA, or the
nonmetropolitan portion of the State. The Hartford NECMA and the nonmetropolitan portion
lagged behind both Connecticut and the U.S. in nonfarm earnings growth over the 1993-97
period.
Earnings |
Greater than CT |
Less than CT |
Greater than U.S. |
New Haven-Bridgeport-Stamford- Waterbury-Danbury-New London-Norwich |
|
Less than U.S. |
|
Hartford Balance of State |
Table 3 below shows that
employment growth exceeded that for Connecticut, but lagged behind that for the U.S., in
the New Haven-Bridgeport-Stamford-Waterbury-Danbury and New London-Norwich NECMAs, and the
balance of the State (non-metropolitan portion). The Hartford NECMA lagged behind both the
U.S. and Connecticut in job growth.
Employment |
Greater than CT |
Less than CT |
Greater than U.S. |
|
|
Less than U.S. |
New Haven-Bridgeport-Stamford- Waterbury
Danbury - New London-Norwich
Balance of State |
Hartford |
Earnings Per Job |
Greater than CT |
Less than CT |
Greater than U.S. |
New Haven-Bridgeport-Stamford- Waterbury-Danbury |
New London -
Norwich |
Less than U.S. |
|
Hartford
Balance of State |
The comparison of the growth in
nonfarm earnings-per-job is depicted in Table 4 above. The New
Haven-Bridgeport-Stamford-Waterbury-Danbury NECMA was the only sub-state region to
outperform both the U.S. and Connecticut in the growth of nonfarm earnings-per-job over
the 1993-97 period. Though the New London-Norwich NECMA outperformed the U.S in
earnings-per-job growth, it lagged behind Connecticut's growth. Again, the Hartford
NECMA lagged behind both the U.S. and Connecticut. The non-metropolitan portion of the
State also lagged behind the U.S. and Connecticut nonfarm earnings-per-job growth.
Clearly, the New
Haven-Bridgeport-Stamford-Waterbury-Danbury experienced the strongest performance of
Connecticut's sub-state regions in terms of the growth in earnings and
earnings-per-job. Its performance was less stellar in the job-creation department, though
certainly not a laggard. This performance probably has something to do with this
area's connection to the greater New York City economy. The Hartford NECMA
experienced the most difficulty over the 1993-97 recovery period, at least based on its
comparative growth in nonfarm earnings, employment, and earnings-per-job. The New
London-Norwich NECMA did well in earnings growth, and had modest performance in employment
and earnings-per-job growth. The non-metropolitan portion of the State, though it
performed slightly better than the Hartford NECMA, was, like the Hartford NECMA,
struggling to jump-start nonfarm earnings and earnings-per-job during the first four years
of the State's economic recovery. The State itself lagged behind the U.S. in nonfarm
earnings and employment growth over 1993-97 (again, given that the U.S. recession was
shorter and less severe, and that its recovery began in 1991).
Earnings-Per-Job Growth by Industry for NECMAs
Why did the New
Haven-Bridgeport-Stamford-Waterbury-Danbury NECMA have the State's best performance, and
why did the Hartford NECMA lag behind the State? The following brief summary compares the
two NECMA's industry mix and the role it played in their different experiences over the
1993-97 recovery period.
The New
Haven-Bridgeport-Stamford-Waterbury-Danbury NECMA accounted for one-half to four-fifths of
the shares of the State's earnings-per-job growth for the three fastest growing divisions:
services, wholesale trade, and FIRE. The NECMA's growth in services earnings-per-job
matched that of the State, and ranked second behind the New London-Norwich NECMA. FIRE
earnings-per-job growth was faster than that for the State and the other two NECMA's.
Though the New Haven-Bridgeport-Stamford-Waterbury-Danbury NECMA lost jobs in FIRE, its
decline was only half that of the State's.
The Hartford NECMA experienced a decline in
earnings-per-job for FIRE. Further, the Hartford NECMA's job losses in FIRE were much
steeper than those for the State. The NECMA also lagged behind the State in
earnings-per-job growth in services. Though the Hartford NECMA lost fewer manufacturing
jobs than the other two NECMAs and had a decline that matched that of the State,
earnings-per-job grew very slowly, and lagged behind that for the State. Similarly,
Hartford's growth in construction earnings-per-job lagged behind the State's growth.
In the latest "Industry
Clusters Progress Report," the DECD's Industry Cluster and International
Division summarizes progress achieved with the various clusters organized to date. The
report's ten chapters start with the issue of "Cluster Activation."
Cluster activation is a critical first step
toward realizing the potential of a group of industries. Clusters are activated when
companies formally organized to collaborate, cooperate, and become competitive. Corporate
leaders drive the cluster's activities and the public sector's role is
support and facilitation. In Connecticut, BioScience, Aerospace Components Manufacturers,
and Software/Information Technology clusters are up and running.
The DECD has provided seed funds totaling
$425,000 to these three clusters and will leverage over $1 million in in-kind matches and
private investment. A focused study of Connecticut Marine commerce is underway.
Agriculture, Seafood, and Plastics are in the early stages, but progressing. Photonics is
in the exploratory phase.
The ongoing challenges are to maintain each
cluster's forward momentum while refining the program support elements appropriate to
each one's developmental stage. This includes identifying outcomes to be achieved,
meeting the State's goals by identifying and providing special attention required by
key clusters, and simultaneously supporting Connecticut's major clusters such as
finance/insurance/ reinsurance, medical devices, and health services.
Commissioner James F.
Abromaitis of the Connecticut
Department of Economic and
Community Development announced
that Connecticut communities
authorized 648 new
housing units in December 1999,
a 42.6 percent decrease compared
to December of 1998 when 1,129
units were authorized.
The Department further indicated
that the 648 units permitted
in December 1999 represent a
decrease of 36.7 percent from the
1,023 units permitted in November
1999. The year-to-date permits
are down 6.5 percent, from
11,541 through December 1998,
to 10,794 through December 1999.
"Despite the December totals,
1999 was a very strong year for
housing permit activity in Connecticut,"
said Commissioner
Abromaitis. "As a matter of fact,
the 10,794 permits authorized was
the second highest total in the
decade."
Hartford County documented
the largest number of new, authorized
units in December with 162.
Fairfield County followed with 121
units and New Haven County had
117 units. Manchester led all
Connecticut communities with 41
units, followed by Middletown with
22 and Tolland with 13.
The Connecticut coincident
and leading employment
indexes both increased with the
release of (preliminary) November
1999 data. The rise in the coincident
index reversed two consecutive
monthly declines while the
increase in the leading index was
the second monthly rise since its
large drop in September 1999.
The coincident index, a gauge
of current employment activity,
remains within hailing distance of
its recent peak in August 1999.
Focusing on its components, both
total and nonfarm employment
rose while both the total and
insured unemployment rates fell
on a month-over-month basis.
The leading index, a barometer
of future employment activity,
continues to dance along a plateau
established in late 1996. See the
accompanying chart. This month's
release continued the leading
index's rebound from its substantial
month-to-month decline in
September, primarily reflecting the
large increase in total housing
permits.
This month's release also
represents a landmark among
professional bean counters.
Nonfarm employment finally, fully
recovered all jobs lost during the
Great Recession. That is, nonfarm
employment rose to 1,678,600
jobs in November 1999, surpassing
the previous peak 1,678,300
jobs recorded in February 1989.
Now, this fact belies dramatic
shifts in the job mix - manufacturing;
wholesale and retail trade;
and finance, insurance, and real
estate jobs all dropped from their
February 1989 counts, but the job
increases in services (e.g., business
and health) and government
easily picked up the slack. (Remember
that the increase in
government jobs primarily reflects
Native American tribal activity.)
As we go to press, a major
unknown was what the Federal
Reserve will do with interest rates
at its February meeting. The
decision not to raise rates in their
last meeting before the new year
for a smooth Y2K transition
should not continue through the
February meeting, as many analysts
expect an interest rate
increase. The secret will be divulged
by the time this column
appears in print.
In summary, the coincident
employment index rose from 98.1
in November 1998 to 100.9 in
November 1999. All four components
of the index point in a
positive direction on a year-overyear
basis with higher nonfarm
employment, higher total employment,
a lower total unemployment
rate, and a lower insured
unemployment rate.
The leading employment index
rose from 89.4 in November 1998
to 89.9 in November 1999. Three
index components sent positive
signals on a year-over-year basis
with a lower short-duration (less
than 15 weeks) unemployment
rate, lower initial claims for unemployment
insurance, and higher
total housing permits. Two components
sent negative signals on a
your-over-year basis with a lower
average workweek of manufacturing
production workers and lower
Hartford help wanted advertising.
SOURCE: Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis, University of Connecticut. Developed by Pami Dua [Economic Cycle
Research Institute; NY, NY] and Stephen M. Miller [(860) 486-3853, Storrs Campus]. Stan McMillen, Kathryn Parr, and Hulya
Varol [(860) 486-3022, Storrs Campus] provided research support.
Return to Top
|