
Go To Current Index 1999 State Index Home
Introduction
Overview & Methodology
Overall Rankings
Summary of Results
THE INDICATORS
PART
I: KNOWLEDGE JOBS
Office Jobs

Managerial,
Professional, and Technical Jobs

Workforce
Education
PART II: GLOBALIZATION
Export Focus of Manufacturing

Foreign Direct Investment
PART III: ECONOMIC DYNAMISM
"Gazelle" Jobs

Job Churning

IPOs
PART IV: THE DIGITAL ECONOMY
Online Population

".com" Domain Name Registrations

Technology in Schools

Digital Government
PART V: INNOVATION CAPACITY
High-Tech Jobs

Scientists and Engineers

Patents

Industry Investment in R&D

Venture Capital
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
Data Sources
Weighting System
Endnotes
The Authors


|
 |

PART III: ECONOMIC DYNAMISM
Job Churning
The number of new start-ups and business failures,
combined, as a share of all companies in each state.
WHY IS
THIS IMPORTANT? Steady growth in employment masks the constant churning of job
creation and destruction, as less innovative and efficient companies downsize or go out of
business and more innovative and efficient companies grow and take their place. A total of
3.5 million private-sector jobs were added to the U.S. economy between 1994 and 1995, but
that was after new firms had created 5.7 million jobs, failing firms had eliminated 4.5
million jobs, expanding firms had added 10.5 million jobs, and contracting firms had
eliminated 8.2 million others. This churning has accelerated as the number of new
start-ups and existing business failures per year has grown. While such turbulence
increases the economic risk faced by workers, companies, and even regions, it is also a
major driver of economic innovation and growth.
THE
RANKINGS: Some fast-growing states (like Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, and Utah)
have seen a great deal of churning. In part, this is because fast-growing economies
produce more start-ups, especially in locally focused industries (such as restaurants, dry
cleaning, or accounting). But a high churn rate also reflects a dynamism that leads to the
death of old, outmoded firms and the creation of innovative new companies that sell
outside the state. States with slower overall growth rates, but with dynamic business
sectors, such as New Jersey, Maryland, and California, also see high rates of churn.

| STATES BY
RANK |
| Rank |
State |
Score |
| 1 |
Nevada |
4.1% |
| 2 |
California |
3.6% |
| 3 |
Colorado |
3.5% |
| 4 |
New Jersey |
3.4% |
| 5 |
Arizona |
3.3% |
| 6 |
Utah |
3.1% |
| 7 |
New York |
3.0% |
| 8 |
Georgia |
3.0% |
| 9 |
Maryland |
3.0% |
| 10 |
Hawaii |
2.9% |
| 11 |
Idaho |
2.9% |
| 12 |
Washington |
2.8% |
| 13 |
Texas |
2.8% |
| 14 |
Arkansas |
2.8% |
| 15 |
Oklahoma |
2.8% |
| 16 |
Florida |
2.8% |
| 17 |
Tennessee |
2.7% |
| 18 |
Massachusetts |
2.6% |
| 19 |
Pennsylvania |
2.5% |
| 20 |
Delaware |
2.5% |
| 21 |
Virginia |
2.5% |
| 22 |
New Hampshire |
2.5% |
| 23 |
New Mexico |
2.5% |
| 24 |
Illinois |
2.4% |
| 25 |
Kansas |
2.4% |
| 26 |
Oregon |
2.3% |
| 27 |
North Carolina |
2.3% |
| 28 |
Ohio |
2.3% |
| 29 |
Alabama |
2.3% |
| 30 |
Kentucky |
2.3% |
| 31 |
Michigan |
2.2% |
| 32 |
Indiana |
2.2% |
| 33 |
Maine |
2.1% |
| 34 |
South Carolina |
2.1% |
| 35 |
Wisconsin |
2.1% |
| 36 |
Missouri |
2.0% |
| 37 |
West Virginia |
2.0% |
| 38 |
Connecticut |
1.9% |
| 39 |
Wyoming |
1.9% |
| 40 |
Rhode Island |
1.9% |
| 41 |
Louisiana |
1.8% |
| 42 |
Alaska |
1.8% |
| 43 |
Nebraska |
1.8% |
| 44 |
Mississippi |
1.7% |
| 45 |
Minnesota |
1.7% |
| 46 |
South Dakota |
1.7% |
| 47 |
Vermont |
1.5% |
| 48 |
Montana |
1.5% |
| 49 |
Iowa |
1.4% |
| 50 |
North Dakota |
1.3% |
|
|
|
|
U.S. average16 |
2.7% |
|
|
| ALPHABETICALLY |
| State |
Rank |
Score |
| Alabama |
29 |
2.3% |
| Alaska |
42 |
1.8% |
| Arizona |
5 |
3.3% |
| Arkansas |
14 |
2.8% |
| California |
2 |
3.6% |
| Colorado |
3 |
3.5% |
| Connecticut |
38 |
1.9% |
| Delaware |
20 |
2.5% |
| Florida |
16 |
2.8% |
| Georgia |
8 |
3.0% |
| Hawaii |
10 |
2.9% |
| Idaho |
11 |
2.9% |
| Illinois |
24 |
2.4% |
| Indiana |
32 |
2.2% |
| Iowa |
49 |
1.4% |
| Kansas |
25 |
2.4% |
| Kentucky |
30 |
2.3% |
| Louisiana |
41 |
1.8% |
| Maine |
33 |
2.1% |
| Maryland |
9 |
3.0% |
| Massachusetts |
18 |
2.6% |
| Michigan |
31 |
2.2% |
| Minnesota |
45 |
1.7% |
| Mississippi |
44 |
1.7% |
| Missouri |
36 |
2.0% |
| Montana |
48 |
1.5% |
| Nebraska |
43 |
1.8% |
| Nevada |
1 |
4.1% |
| New Hampshire |
22 |
2.5% |
| New Jersey |
4 |
3.4% |
| New Mexico |
23 |
2.5% |
| New York |
7 |
3.0% |
| North Carolina |
27 |
2.3% |
| North Dakota |
50 |
1.3% |
| Ohio |
28 |
2.3% |
| Oklahoma |
15 |
2.8% |
| Oregon |
26 |
2.3% |
| Pennsylvania |
19 |
2.5% |
| Rhode Island |
40 |
1.9% |
| South Carolina |
34 |
2.1% |
| South Dakota |
46 |
1.7% |
| Tennessee |
17 |
2.7% |
| Texas |
13 |
2.8% |
| Utah |
6 |
3.1% |
| Vermont |
47 |
1.5% |
| Virginia |
21 |
2.5% |
| Washington |
12 |
2.8% |
| West Virginia |
37 |
2.0% |
| Wisconsin |
35 |
2.1% |
| Wyoming |
39 |
1.9% |
|
Source: Dun & Bradstreet, 1995-1996 data.
Go
to next indicator >>
State Index Home | Introduction
The Rankings | Summary
of Results
Development Strategies | Data Sources
Appendix | Endnotes
| The Authors
The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI)
Technology, Innovation, and New Economy Project
600 Pennsylvania Ave., S.E., Suite 400, Washington DC 20003
Phone: (202) 546-0007
www.ppionline.org
Website design by OnlineWorkshop.
|