Survey of Current Business
June 2018
Volume 98, Number 6
Regional Quarterly Report: GDP, personal income, and more...

PDF of this article

The statistics discussed in this Regional Quarterly Report include the following: (1) advance real state gross domestic product (GDP) statistics for 2017 and revised GDP statistics for 2014–2016, (2) regional price parities and real per capita personal income for 2016, and (3) Arts and Cultural Production Satellite Account statistics for 2015 and updated statistics for 2013 and 2014. For the first time, the Bureau of Economic Analysis included state-level statistics for value added by arts and cultural industries for 2001 to 2015.

Real state GDP grew 2.1 percent on average in 2017, ranging from 4.4 percent in the state of Washington to –0.2 percent in Connecticut and Louisiana according to the advance estimates of GDP by state. Washington’s growth rate accelerated in 2017 from its trend growth rate of 3.3 percent (the average annual percent change from 2011 to 2016). In both periods (2017 and 2011–2016), Washington grew at a faster pace than the nation (table 1) (the average annual growth rate from 2011 to 2016 for the United States was 2.0 percent). Retail trade contributed 1.4 percentage points to Washington’s real GDP growth rate in 2017, and information services contributed 1.0 percentage point. These industries each contributed 0.2 percentage point to growth nationally. California, Florida, Texas, and six other states also grew faster than the nation in both periods.

New York and 26 other states grew slower than the United States in both periods. Notably, the decline in Connecticut’s and Louisiana’s real GDP in 2017 was a continuation of the declines in those states over the previous five years. The finance, management, and state and local government industries in Connecticut reduced real GDP growth in 2017 by 0.8 percentage point. In Louisiana, nondurable goods manufacturing subtracted 0.9 percentage point from real GDP growth.1

Table 1. Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by State
[Percent change at annual rates]

States 2011 to 2016 2016 to 2017
Faster than U.S. growth in both 2011–2016 and 2016–2017    
California 3.4 3.0
Colorado 3.0 3.6
Florida 2.5 2.2
Georgia 2.4 2.7
Idaho 2.3 2.7
South Carolina 2.1 2.3
Tennessee 2.5 2.5
Texas 3.6 2.6
Utah 3.0 3.1
Washington 3.3 4.4
Slower than U.S. growth in both 2011–2016 and 2016–2017    
Alabama 0.8 1.2
Alaska −1.6 0.2
Arkansas 1.1 1.1
Connecticut −0.3 −0.2
Delaware 0.9 1.6
Hawaii 1.8 1.7
Illinois 1.1 1.2
Kansas 1.2 −0.1
Kentucky 0.7 1.8
Louisiana −0.1 −0.2
Maine 0.7 1.4
Maryland 1.2 1.5
Mississippi 0.8 0.3
Missouri 0.8 1.1
Montana 1.6 0.6
New Hampshire 1.6 1.9
New Jersey 1.1 0.9
New Mexico 0.6 0.8
New York 1.4 1.1
Ohio 1.6 1.9
Pennsylvania 1.8 1.8
Rhode Island 0.8 1.6
South Dakota 1.0 0.3
Vermont 0.5 1.1
Virginia 0.6 2.0
Wisconsin 1.6 1.7
Wyoming −0.9 2.0
Other states    
Arizona 1.7 3.2
Indiana 1.6 2.1
Iowa 2.8 0.5
Massachusetts 1.7 2.6
Michigan 1.9 2.3
Minnesota 2.0 1.9
Nebraska 2.0 0.6
Nevada 1.4 3.5
North Carolina 1.5 2.3
North Dakota 4.4 1.0
Oklahoma 2.9 0.5
Oregon 0.9 2.5
West Virginia −0.2 2.6

Note. The United States grew 2.0 percent (2011–2016) and 2.1 percent (2016–2017).

Revised GDP statistics for 2014–2016

The advance state GDP statistics for 2017 are based primarily on the national GDP statistics by industry and BEA estimates of earnings by state and industry.2 Substantially richer state source data are now available for earlier years and have been incorporated in revised GDP statistics for 2014–2016. In addition to a disaggregation by industry, the state GDP statistics for 2014–2016 show the distribution of income from production to labor (compensation), capital (gross operating surplus), and government (taxes on production and imports less subsidies).

Nominal GDP fell in 6 states in 2016—North Dakota (5.2 percent), Oklahoma (4.3 percent), Wyoming (3.9 percent), Alaska (3.6 percent), Louisiana (1.8 percent), and Texas (0.6 percent) (table 2). Real GDP fell in those states as well as in Delaware (1.0 percent), West Virginia (0.8 percent), Connecticut (0.3 percent), and New Mexico (0.1 percent).

In Alaska, taxes on production and imports accounted for almost half of the decline in nominal GDP in 2016 (table 3), reflecting a reduction in tax receipts from the mining industry. In Alaska’s mining industry, taxes on production and imports fell $933 million, gross operating surplus fell $603 million, and compensation of employees fell $514 million in 2016.

In Oklahoma, North Dakota, and Louisiana, in contrast, gross operating surplus accounted for most of the decline in nominal GDP. In Oklahoma, for example, GDP fell $8.1 billion, gross operating surplus fell $6.8 billion, and compensation of employees fell $1.5 billion in 2016. Taxes on production and imports rose $0.2 billion (table 3).

In Texas, compensation grew $10.1 billion and taxes on production and imports rose $3.0 billion in 2016. Nevertheless, nominal GDP fell $10.4 billion because of a $23.4 billion decline in gross operating surplus. In the mining industry alone, gross operating surplus fell $33.5 billion. Texas accounted for 43 percent of U.S. mining GDP in 2016.

The decline in Wyoming’s GDP was accounted for by compensation and gross operating surplus: GDP fell $1.5 billion, compensation fell $0.8 billion, and gross operating surplus fell $0.7 billion; taxes on production and imports less subsidies were essentially unchanged.

Table 2. Gross Domestic Product by State
[Percent change]

  Nominal Real
2015 2016 2015 2016
United States 4.0 2.8 2.7 1.5
Alabama 3.0 2.2 1.2 1.1
Alaska −9.9 −3.6 −1.6 −3.6
Arizona 4.4 3.8 2.1 2.0
Arkansas 1.0 1.8 0.4 1.0
California 6.4 4.4 4.6 3.0
Colorado 3.3 2.6 3.6 1.4
Connecticut 3.6 1.4 1.1 −0.3
Delaware 5.4 1.5 3.0 −1.0
District of Columbia 4.5 3.4 1.9 1.5
Florida 6.8 4.4 4.2 2.6
Georgia 5.5 5.3 3.0 3.4
Hawaii 6.3 3.7 3.6 2.0
Idaho 3.7 4.5 2.6 3.5
Illinois 3.6 2.4 1.2 0.9
Indiana 2.3 3.5 0.0 2.6
Iowa 5.3 3.2 3.8 2.1
Kansas 2.2 2.1 1.4 1.7
Kentucky 2.7 2.5 0.5 1.1
Louisiana −0.7 −1.8 1.1 −0.4
Maine 3.2 3.9 0.6 2.0
Maryland 4.0 4.3 1.5 2.5
Massachusetts 6.7 3.1 4.0 1.2
Michigan 5.6 3.5 2.6 1.9
Minnesota 2.7 3.8 0.8 2.7
Mississippi 1.6 2.7 0.1 2.0
Missouri 3.3 1.8 0.9 0.2
Montana 2.4 0.6 2.9 0.7
Nebraska 3.5 2.4 2.5 1.9
Nevada 6.8 4.3 4.1 2.1
New Hampshire 5.4 3.6 2.9 2.0
New Jersey 3.8 2.2 1.3 0.6
New Mexico −1.7 0.3 1.6 −0.1
New York 4.8 2.9 2.0 0.5
North Carolina 5.6 3.2 2.8 1.2
North Dakota −5.5 −5.2 −2.5 −4.9
Ohio 2.7 2.1 1.0 0.8
Oklahoma −4.5 −4.3 2.9 −3.8
Oregon 6.8 5.1 4.8 3.8
Pennsylvania 3.5 2.0 2.6 0.9
Rhode Island 4.6 2.3 1.9 0.5
South Carolina 6.1 4.0 3.2 2.2
South Dakota 3.5 3.0 2.5 1.6
Tennessee 6.2 4.7 3.3 2.8
Texas −0.1 −0.6 4.4 −0.4
Utah 6.0 5.3 4.2 3.3
Vermont 3.0 3.3 0.7 1.5
Virginia 4.4 2.4 1.8 0.5
Washington 6.1 5.2 3.8 3.9
West Virginia −1.6 0.0 0.2 −0.8
Wisconsin 4.3 3.4 1.9 1.9
Wyoming −4.9 −3.9 1.2 −3.4

 

Table 3. Change in State GDP and its Components for 2015 and 2016
[Millions of dollars]

  Gross domestic product Compensation of employees Taxes on production and imports Subsidies Gross operating surplus
2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016
United States 694,898 502,792 453,340 270,907 34,134 32,219 −833 4,542 206,591 204,209
Alabama 5,838 4,397 4,518 2,713 212 783 15 16 1,123 919
Alaska −5,744 −1,906 712 −735 −2,100 −885 −6 7 −4,364 −280
Arizona 12,249 11,039 6,904 6,805 253 626 17 88 5,109 3,696
Arkansas 1,128 2,194 1,871 1,855 173 321 −35 41 −951 60
California 151,247 109,472 87,472 55,608 7,555 2,702 107 911 56,327 52,073
Colorado 10,165 8,141 8,446 5,607 463 725 22 58 1,276 1,868
Connecticut 8,855 3,571 4,333 766 −8 320 −22 35 4,507 2,520
Delaware 3,595 1,034 1,169 153 174 66 −19 14 2,232 830
District of Columbia 5,288 4,183 3,435 2,860 346 127 11 85 1,519 1,281
Florida 56,761 39,491 31,230 20,891 1,829 2,737 92 172 23,795 16,035
Georgia 26,555 26,964 13,423 12,884 992 984 9 54 12,149 13,149
Hawaii 4,865 3,004 2,090 1,423 478 95 9 18 2,305 1,505
Idaho 2,361 2,946 1,925 2,138 115 246 12 65 332 627
Illinois 27,020 18,553 18,009 8,848 2,270 1,124 −168 269 6,572 8,850
Indiana 7,387 11,771 4,788 7,904 42 486 −110 102 2,446 3,484
Iowa 9,105 5,689 2,822 3,426 487 705 −56 70 5,741 1,627
Kansas 3,309 3,129 2,757 682 −62 462 −65 113 549 2,098
Kentucky 4,989 4,695 4,693 2,711 93 346 −20 17 182 1,655
Louisiana −1,588 −4,461 2,549 −1,493 −32 611 −50 43 −4,155 −3,537
Maine 1,786 2,233 1,331 1,127 280 143 −17 8 157 973
Maryland 14,115 15,643 8,302 6,270 888 632 −31 70 4,894 8,811
Massachusetts 30,628 15,287 17,308 7,738 1,211 843 −22 105 12,087 6,812
Michigan 25,036 16,585 13,980 11,058 381 1,256 11 51 10,685 4,322
Minnesota 8,573 12,525 8,186 7,421 986 771 −80 55 −678 4,387
Mississippi 1,637 2,827 897 1,435 124 434 −33 41 582 1,000
Missouri 9,229 5,310 7,931 2,104 −187 837 −134 89 1,352 2,458
Montana 1,078 299 943 597 −123 154 2 29 260 −424
Nebraska 3,941 2,834 2,176 1,842 208 212 15 108 1,571 889
Nevada 9,010 6,135 4,153 2,952 570 680 2 21 4,289 2,525
New Hampshire 3,860 2,681 1,817 1,083 300 286 −6 7 1,737 1,320
New Jersey 20,842 12,612 9,223 5,209 1,074 811 −45 101 10,500 6,693
New Mexico −1,592 255 1,227 769 −373 25 −13 34 −2,459 −505
New York 66,704 41,899 31,737 12,396 4,772 2,086 42 521 30,237 27,938
North Carolina 26,795 16,301 12,934 8,426 470 340 −28 115 13,364 7,648
North Dakota −3,265 −2,925 −473 −1,399 203 153 −108 122 −3,102 −1,559
Ohio 16,051 13,022 11,709 6,093 626 576 −91 53 3,625 6,405
Oklahoma −9,024 −8,132 2,180 −1,537 14 214 −15 23 −11,232 −6,787
Oregon 13,824 11,092 7,574 6,006 290 434 36 90 5,996 4,743
Pennsylvania 24,027 14,240 15,783 3,880 1,938 1,217 −103 97 6,204 9,239
Rhode Island 2,449 1,310 1,214 730 175 72 −3 14 1,057 522
South Carolina 11,658 8,069 6,136 3,841 384 427 −9 29 5,129 3,830
South Dakota 1,590 1,421 966 709 111 42 −77 55 436 725
Tennessee 18,522 14,769 8,535 7,909 1,346 625 −18 22 8,625 6,255
Texas −1,015 −10,441 38,396 10,073 2,843 2,967 71 130 −42,184 −23,351
Utah 8,425 7,889 4,732 5,276 155 374 11 15 3,549 2,255
Vermont 879 993 752 515 128 133 −6 7 −5 351
Virginia 20,427 11,552 13,638 4,592 841 855 −34 51 5,914 6,154
Washington 25,944 23,748 11,001 14,882 1,706 906 130 217 13,366 8,178
West Virginia −1,148 −14 378 −672 −325 181 −10 4 −1,210 481
Wisconsin 12,568 10,421 5,665 5,368 −44 950 −9 70 6,938 4,174
Wyoming −2,047 −1,549 −141 −831 −120 3 −2 10 −1,787 −711

Note. Gross domestic product equals compensation plus taxes on production and imports less subsidies plus gross operating surplus.

 

New source data

The updated state GDP estimates reflect the incorporation of newly available and revised state source data. The major source data incorporated as part of this year’s annual update are summarized in table 4; additional information is provided in the state GDP methodology on the BEA website.

The estimates of compensation of employees and gross operating surplus now incorporate the annual update of the state personal income statistics released in September 2017. Among other things, that update incorporated (1) complete Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) data for 2016 from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) into compensation and (2) new Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data for 2015 for the income of sole proprietorships and partnerships and for rental income of persons (components of gross operating surplus).

The estimates of taxes on production and imports now incorporate state government finance data (including general sales and gross receipts taxes) for fiscal year 2016 from the Census Bureau.3

Other estimates incorporate new oil, gas, and coal production and price data for 2016 from the Energy Information Administration, value added data for 2016 from the Census Bureau’s Annual Survey of Manufactures, air transportation finance data and railroad freight ton–miles data for 2016 from the Department of Transportation, income and expense data for 2016 from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and premium and loss data for 2016 from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC).

In general, for the goods producing industries, GDP, compensation, taxes on production and imports, and subsidies are estimated while gross operating surplus is derived as a residual. For the services producing industries, however, gross operating surplus is estimated and GDP is derived as the sum of the four components.

Table 4. Major New or Revised State Source Data Incorporated in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by State
Goods-producing industries
Component Source data
Gross domestic product Farm income and expenses from USDA; oil, gas production and prices, coal reports from EIA; mineral data from USGS; value added and payroll data from Census Bureau
Compensation of employees Compensation of employees from state personal income at BEA
Taxes on production and imports Government finance data, tax revenue data, building permits from Census Bureau; individual state’s departments of revenue and/or finance; coal mine price and production, refinery capacity from EIA; federal land usage from DOI
Services-producing industries
Component Source data
Compensation of employees Compensation of employees from state personal income at BEA
Taxes on production and imports Government finance, tax revenue from Census Bureau; individual state’s departments of revenue and/or finance; nuclear power generation, aviation data from EIA; air freight data, highway usage data from DOT; assessment data from FRB; mineral leases, revenues, rents, and royalties data from DOI
Gross operating surplus Proprietors’ income from state personal income at BEA; electricity revenue, natural gas delivery data from EIA; receipts, revenue, and payroll data from Census Bureau; transportation finance, passengers, and freight data from DOT; rail profits, interest, depreciation data from Amtrak; rail passenger data from NARP; income and expenses from FDIC, FRB, OTS, and FHLBB; premiums and losses from NAIC; Indian gaming revenue data from Casino City Press; mortgage activity data from Inside Mortgage Finance Publications; government finance data from Census Bureau to estimate surplus/deficit of government enterprises
BEA
Bureau of Economic Analysis
DOD
U.S Department of Defense
DOI
U.S. Department of Interior
DOT
U.S. Department of Transportation
EIA
Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy
FDIC
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
FHLBB
Federal Home Loan Bank Board
FRB
Federal Reserve Bank
NAIC
National Association of Insurance Commissioners
NARP
National Association of Railroad Passengers
OTS
Office of Thrift Supervision
USDA
U.S Department of Agriculture
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey

Regional price parities

In May 2018, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released 2016 regional price parities (RPPs) for states and metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs).4 RPPs provide a measure of the differences in price levels across each state and MSA relative to the national average for a specific year.5 For each area, BEA publishes an all items RPP that covers all consumption goods and services and three component RPPs that cover goods, rents, and other services—all of which are indexed to the U.S. all items RPP.

States

State all items RPPs for 2016 ranged from 118.4 for Hawaii to 86.4 for Mississippi (table 5). Hawaii’s price level is 18.4 percent higher than the national price level, and Mississippi’s price level is 13.6 percent lower. Price levels can also be directly compared across states by taking the ratio of the RPPs. Hawaii’s price level is 37.0 percent higher than Mississippi’s.

Among component RPPs, rents had the widest range (94.2 index points), from 63.2 in Alabama and West Virginia to 157.4 in Hawaii. Ranges were considerably narrower for goods RPPs (16.7 index points) and other services RPPs (21.9 index points). The wide range of rents RPPs across states is an important source of the variation in state all items RPPs (chart 1).

States with above average all items RPPs generally have rents RPPs that are higher than the other component RPPs. In addition, they generally have other services RPPs higher than goods RPPs. States like California, Connecticut, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia have higher average wages, consistent with having higher price levels for other services, compared with price levels for goods. Hawaii’s geographical isolation and added transportation and distribution costs led to a higher price level for goods, compared with the price level for other services.6

States with below average all items RPPs have rents RPPs that are lower than the other components. Additionally, these states’ other services RPPs are typically lower than their goods RPPs.

Table 5. State Real Per Capita Personal Income and Implicit Regional Price Deflator for 2015 and 2016 and Regional Price Parities for 2016

  Per capita personal income (dollars) Real per capita personal income (chained (2009) dollars) Implicit regional price deflator 1 Regional price parities 2016
2015 2016 Percent change 2015 2016 Percent change 2015 2016 Percent change All items Goods Services
Rents Other
United States2 48,429 49,204 1.6 44,235 44,412 0.4 109.5 110.8 1.2 100.0 99.4 101.2 100.0
                           
Alabama 38,238 38,918 1.8 40,356 40,689 0.8 94.7 95.6 1.0 86.6 96.2 63.2 93.3
Alaska 56,507 55,674 −1.5 48,949 47,831 −2.3 115.4 116.4 0.9 105.4 101.1 137.5 96.6
Arizona 39,731 40,546 2.1 37,889 38,265 1.0 104.9 106.0 1.0 95.9 97.4 91.8 97.2
Arkansas 39,060 39,722 1.7 40,967 41,371 1.0 95.3 96.0 0.7 86.9 94.7 63.8 93.3
California 54,664 56,308 3.0 44,022 44,562 1.2 124.2 126.4 1.8 114.4 103.6 148.4 106.8
Colorado 51,956 52,097 0.3 46,324 45,806 −1.1 112.2 113.7 1.3 103.0 99.8 117.6 98.5
Connecticut 68,155 69,094 1.4 57,380 57,554 0.3 118.8 120.1 1.1 108.7 104.5 115.3 109.1
Delaware 47,069 47,837 1.6 43,036 43,223 0.4 109.4 110.7 1.2 100.2 99.1 97.1 103.2
District of Columbia 73,834 75,756 2.6 57,609 59,163 2.7 128.2 128.0 −0.2 115.9 105.4 145.3 110.6
Florida 45,388 45,855 1.0 41,752 41,623 −0.3 108.7 110.2 1.4 99.7 98.3 106.1 97.0
Georgia 41,020 42,146 2.7 40,545 41,407 2.1 101.2 101.8 0.6 92.1 96.7 81.2 94.7
Hawaii 48,823 50,358 3.1 37,583 38,514 2.5 129.9 130.8 0.7 118.4 110.5 157.4 103.5
Idaho 38,931 39,543 1.6 38,148 38,477 0.9 102.1 102.8 0.7 93.0 98.1 77.6 97.5
Illinois 50,745 51,679 1.8 46,796 47,302 1.1 108.4 109.3 0.8 98.9 98.9 98.4 99.2
Indiana 41,862 43,091 2.9 42,269 43,180 2.2 99.0 99.8 0.8 90.3 96.8 73.9 93.5
Iowa 45,800 46,056 0.6 46,372 46,230 −0.3 98.8 99.6 0.8 90.2 95.2 75.1 91.8
Kansas 47,009 47,221 0.5 47,483 47,221 −0.6 99.0 100.0 1.0 90.5 95.8 74.6 93.7
Kentucky 38,504 38,934 1.1 39,805 40,161 0.9 96.7 96.9 0.2 87.8 94.3 67.1 93.1
Louisiana 42,835 42,257 −1.3 43,315 42,337 −2.3 98.9 99.8 0.9 90.4 96.5 76.2 93.3
Maine 42,875 44,094 2.8 39,772 40,570 2.0 107.8 108.7 0.8 98.4 98.5 94.4 100.5
Maryland 56,197 57,972 3.2 46,879 47,936 2.3 119.9 120.9 0.8 109.5 103.4 122.0 107.0
Massachusetts 62,755 64,122 2.2 53,529 53,860 0.6 117.2 119.1 1.6 107.8 101.1 122.9 105.8
Michigan 43,072 44,231 2.7 42,252 42,931 1.6 101.9 103.0 1.1 93.3 97.3 81.0 96.3
Minnesota 51,139 51,990 1.7 48,049 48,283 0.5 106.4 107.7 1.2 97.5 100.9 95.4 94.9
Mississippi 34,804 35,524 2.1 37,007 37,222 0.6 94.0 95.4 1.5 86.4 93.8 65.0 93.3
Missouri 42,406 42,939 1.3 43,325 43,445 0.3 97.9 98.8 0.9 89.5 95.3 73.1 92.6
Montana 42,637 43,107 1.1 41,025 41,457 1.1 103.9 104.0 0.1 94.1 98.9 80.9 95.6
Nebraska 49,572 50,016 0.9 50,052 50,043 0.0 99.0 99.9 0.9 90.5 95.6 76.2 92.0
Nevada 43,128 43,579 1.0 40,461 40,510 0.1 106.6 107.6 0.9 97.4 96.1 94.7 101.1
New Hampshire 54,543 55,945 2.6 47,310 47,837 1.1 115.3 116.9 1.4 105.9 100.4 118.3 104.4
New Jersey 60,069 61,240 1.9 48,567 48,984 0.9 123.7 125.0 1.1 113.2 102.7 132.5 113.4
New Mexico 37,938 38,393 1.2 36,910 37,145 0.6 102.8 103.4 0.6 93.6 97.0 80.2 99.8
New York 58,324 59,289 1.7 46,281 46,416 0.3 126.0 127.7 1.3 115.6 109.0 133.2 111.6
North Carolina 41,351 42,203 2.1 41,546 42,020 1.1 99.5 100.4 0.9 90.9 96.3 78.6 93.3
North Dakota 55,643 54,801 −1.5 55,110 54,213 −1.6 101.0 101.1 0.1 91.5 95.0 82.8 91.6
Ohio 43,803 44,561 1.7 44,825 45,176 0.8 97.7 98.6 0.9 89.3 96.1 72.8 91.9
Oklahoma 43,999 42,717 −2.9 44,879 43,458 −3.2 98.0 98.3 0.3 89.0 95.5 70.1 93.3
Oregon 44,424 45,482 2.4 41,112 41,266 0.4 108.1 110.2 1.9 99.8 98.9 106.0 97.2
Pennsylvania 49,815 50,730 1.8 46,458 46,672 0.5 107.2 108.7 1.4 98.4 99.4 88.8 102.7
Rhode Island 49,744 50,373 1.3 45,768 45,795 0.1 108.7 110.0 1.2 99.6 98.3 100.6 100.3
South Carolina 38,802 39,527 1.9 39,362 39,613 0.6 98.6 99.8 1.2 90.3 96.7 77.1 93.3
South Dakota 47,882 48,051 0.4 49,620 49,243 −0.8 96.5 97.6 1.1 88.3 94.9 69.3 91.5
Tennessee 42,156 43,338 2.8 42,980 43,496 1.2 98.1 99.6 1.5 90.2 96.2 75.8 93.3
Texas 46,787 46,204 −1.2 44,211 43,148 −2.4 105.8 107.1 1.2 96.9 97.2 93.7 98.6
Utah 39,775 41,018 3.1 37,657 38,142 1.3 105.6 107.5 1.8 97.3 96.7 94.3 100.3
Vermont 49,002 50,084 2.2 43,830 44,611 1.8 111.8 112.3 0.4 101.6 98.4 113.2 100.3
Virginia 52,189 52,941 1.4 46,544 46,856 0.7 112.1 113.0 0.8 102.3 99.6 109.7 100.8
Washington 53,119 54,632 2.8 46,304 46,863 1.2 114.7 116.6 1.7 105.5 103.7 116.1 101.9
West Virginia 36,566 36,673 0.3 37,734 37,906 0.5 96.9 96.7 −0.2 87.6 94.4 63.2 94.9
Wisconsin 46,025 46,809 1.7 45,202 45,679 1.1 101.8 102.5 0.7 92.8 95.9 84.8 93.4
Wyoming 56,322 55,172 −2.0 53,456 51,634 −3.4 105.4 106.9 1.4 96.7 98.7 92.9 96.1
                           
Maximum 73,834 75,756 3.2 57,609 59,163 2.7 129.9 130.8 1.9 118.4 110.5 157.4 113.4
Minimum 34,804 35,524 −2.9 36,910 37,145 −3.4 94.0 95.4 −0.2 86.4 93.8 63.2 91.5
Range 39,030 40,232 6.1 20,699 22,018 6.1 35.9 35.4 2.1 32.0 16.7 94.2 21.9

Note. Per capita personal income uses Census Bureau midyear population estimates available as of December 2017.

Metropolitan areas

All items RPPs for large metropolitan areas—MSAs with a 2016 population greater than 2 million—ranged from 124.7 for San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA, to 89.6 for Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN (table 6). San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA’s price level is 24.7 percent higher than the national price level, and Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN’s is 10.4 percent lower. Taking the ratio of the RPPs, San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA’s price level is 39.2 percent higher than Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN’s.

Among component RPPs for large MSAs, rents had the widest range (113.0 index points), from 77.9 in Cleveland-Elyria, OH, to 190.9 in San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA. Across large MSAs, the ranges were considerably narrower for goods RPPs (16.4 index points) and other services RPPs (25.0 index points). Rents RPPs and other services RPPs had wider ranges for large MSAs, compared with states, suggesting that price levels vary more for more detailed geographies (tables 5 and 6).

As was seen with states, large MSAs with higher all items price levels generally have other services RPPs that are higher than the goods RPPs (chart 2). Large MSAs with lower-than-average price levels generally have other services RPPs that are lower than the goods RPPs.

Table 6. Large Metropolitan Areas Real Per Capita Personal Income and Implicit Regional Price Deflator for 2015 and 2016 and Regional Price Parities for 2016

  Per capita personal income (dollars) Real per capita personal income (chained (2009) dollars) Implicit regional price deflator 1 Regional price parities 2016
2015 2016 Percent change 2015 2016 Percent change 2015 2016 Percent change All items Goods Services
Rents Other
United States2 48,451 49,246 1.6 44,255 44,450 0.4 109.5 110.8 1.2 100.0 99.0 101.7 100.1
United States nonmetropolitan portion 37,861 38,239 1.0 39,544 39,630 0.2 95.7 96.5 0.8 87.6 93.9 63.8 93.8
                           
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA 45,934 47,348 3.1 43,814 44,598 1.8 104.8 106.2 1.3 96.3 98.3 93.5 95.9
Austin-Round Rock, TX 51,128 51,566 0.9 47,171 46,820 −0.7 108.4 110.1 1.6 100.0 97.9 117.2 93.4
Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD 55,468 57,189 3.1 47,360 48,393 2.2 117.1 118.2 0.9 107.2 102.8 116.0 105.2
Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH 68,712 70,157 2.1 57,067 57,317 0.4 120.4 122.4 1.7 111.1 101.4 141.0 107.2
Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC 45,609 46,679 2.3 44,798 45,297 1.1 101.8 103.0 1.2 93.5 97.4 86.5 93.4
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI 54,518 55,621 2.0 48,177 48,625 0.9 113.2 114.4 1.1 103.8 100.1 114.8 102.2
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 47,787 48,668 1.8 48,836 49,278 0.9 97.9 98.8 0.9 89.6 94.6 78.7 90.9
Cleveland-Elyria, OH 48,019 48,968 2.0 48,829 49,292 0.9 98.3 99.3 1.0 90.2 95.9 77.9 90.9
Columbus, OH 46,904 47,725 1.8 46,335 46,550 0.5 101.2 102.5 1.3 93.0 96.9 84.2 93.4
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 51,062 51,099 0.1 46,868 46,270 −1.3 108.9 110.4 1.4 100.2 99.0 103.2 99.9
Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO 57,081 56,892 −0.3 49,837 48,728 −2.2 114.5 116.8 2.0 106.0 100.8 127.9 99.3
Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI 47,310 48,692 2.9 45,119 46,061 2.1 104.9 105.7 0.8 95.9 98.2 86.7 99.3
Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX 53,859 51,913 −3.6 48,845 46,378 −5.1 110.3 111.9 1.5 101.6 96.2 103.2 107.3
Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN 48,207 49,681 3.1 47,673 48,602 1.9 101.1 102.2 1.1 92.8 97.2 83.0 93.5
Kansas City, MO-KS 48,394 48,514 0.2 47,250 47,011 −0.5 102.4 103.2 0.8 93.7 96.5 82.4 97.1
Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV 41,915 42,284 0.9 39,216 39,247 0.1 106.9 107.7 0.7 97.8 95.4 96.5 102.0
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 55,585 57,160 2.8 43,409 44,087 1.6 128.0 129.7 1.3 117.7 104.8 165.4 107.4
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL 51,454 52,210 1.5 44,034 44,037 0.0 116.9 118.6 1.5 107.6 100.6 129.4 100.9
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 55,599 56,723 2.0 49,894 50,311 0.8 111.4 112.7 1.2 102.3 103.9 110.1 96.7
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA 64,679 65,846 1.8 48,846 48,992 0.3 132.4 134.4 1.5 122.0 109.9 154.9 115.9
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL 39,337 40,169 2.1 36,907 37,210 0.8 106.6 108.0 1.3 98.0 97.9 104.8 93.4
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 57,327 58,589 2.2 49,654 50,209 1.1 115.5 116.7 1.0 105.9 101.2 111.3 107.9
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 41,443 42,218 1.9 39,235 39,455 0.6 105.6 107.0 1.3 97.1 97.2 97.7 96.5
Pittsburgh, PA 50,622 51,187 1.1 49,296 49,264 −0.1 102.7 103.9 1.2 94.3 98.1 78.9 98.1
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA 49,217 50,489 2.6 44,660 45,034 0.8 110.2 112.1 1.7 101.7 99.0 117.7 97.5
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 35,762 36,807 2.9 30,619 31,088 1.5 116.8 118.4 1.4 107.4 101.6 117.6 106.8
Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade, CA 50,026 51,370 2.7 45,079 45,693 1.4 111.0 112.4 1.3 102.0 95.4 117.6 102.0
St. Louis, MO-IL 48,876 49,519 1.3 49,347 49,480 0.3 99.0 100.1 1.1 90.8 94.3 82.7 91.4
San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX 44,127 44,284 0.4 42,912 42,595 −0.7 102.8 104.0 1.2 94.4 97.5 90.2 93.4
San Diego-Carlsbad, CA 53,963 55,168 2.2 42,663 43,063 0.9 126.5 128.1 1.3 116.3 100.1 167.6 105.6
San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA 81,241 84,675 4.2 60,324 61,639 2.2 134.7 137.4 2.0 124.7 110.7 190.9 111.0
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 62,883 64,553 2.7 52,574 53,003 0.8 119.6 121.8 1.8 110.5 106.3 134.0 104.0
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 43,352 43,807 1.0 39,917 39,843 −0.2 108.6 109.9 1.2 99.8 96.5 103.5 101.8
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 65,155 66,733 2.4 50,150 50,861 1.4 129.9 131.2 1.0 119.1 105.4 166.4 110.7
                           
Maximum 81,241 84,675 4.2 60,324 61,639 2.2 134.7 137.4 2.0 124.7 110.7 190.9 115.9
Minimum 35,762 36,807 −3.6 30,619 31,088 −5.1 97.9 98.8 0.7 89.6 94.3 77.9 90.9
Range 45,479 47,868 7.8 29,705 30,551 7.3 36.8 38.6 1.3 35.1 16.4 113.0 25.0

Note. Per capita personal income uses Census Bureau midyear population estimates available as of March 2017.

 

Per capita personal income

Per capita personal income (PCPI) is nominal personal income divided by population. Estimating real PCPI for states and MSAs requires two price adjustments. The first adjustment estimates PCPI at RPPs by controlling for relative price differences across regions. The second adjustment uses the national personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index to control for price changes over time. The product of a region’s RPP and the PCE price index for a given year is the region’s implicit regional price deflator (IRPD). Change in the IRPD is an implicit measure of regional inflation. For a more detailed example of how real PCPI is estimated, see the box “Using Regional Price Parities (RPPs) to Estimate Real Personal Income.”

States

Charts 3, 4, and 5 show the impact of the two adjustments for the United States, Hawaii, and Mississippi for 2008 to 2016, respectively. The United States shows no difference between the PCPI and PCPI at RPPs, because the U.S. all items RPP—the average across all states and components—is 100.0 for all years. Hawaii’s 2016 PCPI at RPPs ($42,669) is lower than its PCPI ($50,358) because it has an RPP greater than 100.0 (table 7). Above average price levels yield a downward adjustment. By contrast, Mississippi’s 2016 PCPI at RPPs ($41,238) is higher than its PCPI ($35,524). Mississippi’s lower price level yields an upward adjustment. The application of the RPPs narrows the range of incomes across states from $40,232 for PCPI to $24,394 for PCPI at RPPs.

The difference between PCPI at RPPs and real PCPI for any state reflects the adjustment using the PCE price index. Charts 3 through 5 show no difference between the PCPI at RPPs and real PCPI in the base year 2009, because the PCE price index is 100.0. Hawaii’s 2016 PCPI is higher than its real PCPI ($38,514). Mississippi’s 2016 PCPI is lower than its real PCPI ($37,222). These relationships hold for every year from 2008 to 2016, reflecting each state’s relative price levels and national price levels over time. Adjusting state PCPI at RPPs with the PCE price index narrows the range to $22,018 for real PCPI.

Chart 4. Hawaii Price Adjusted Per Capita Personal Income 2008–2016, Bar Chart

[Click Chart to Expand]

Chart 5. Mississippi Price Adjusted Per Capita Personal Income 2008–2016, Bar Chart

[Click Chart to Expand]

Table 7. Per Capita Personal Income, Personal Income at Regional Price Parities (RPPs), and Real Personal Income for Select States, 2016
  Per capita
personal income
(current dollars)
Per capita
personal income at RPPs
(current dollars)
Real per capita
personal income
(chained (2009) dollars)
United States 49,204 49,204 44,412
       
Hawaii 50,358 42,669 38,514
Mississippi 35,524 41,238 37,222
       
Across all states      
Maximum 75,756 65,547 59,163
Minimum 35,524 41,153 37,145
Range 40,232 24,394 22,018

Notes. Real personal income data for all states are available on BEA’s website.
Per capita personal income uses Census Bureau midyear population estimates available as of December 2017.

Large metropolitan areas

The adjustment process for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward CA, and for Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN, for 2008 to 2016 are shown in charts 6 and 7, respectively. San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA’s 2016 PCPI at RPP ($68,289) is lower than its PCPI ($84,675) because it has an RPP above 100.0 (table 8). Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN’s 2016 PCPI at RPPs ($54,595) is higher than its PCPI ($48,668); its lower price level yields an upward adjustment. Across large MSAs, the application of the RPPs narrows the range from $47,868 for PCPI to $33,847 for PCPI at RPPs.

The difference between PCPI at RPPs and real PCPI for any MSA reflects the adjustment using the PCE price index. San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA’s 2016 PCPI is higher than its real PCPI ($61,639). Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN’s 2016 PCPI is lower than its real PCPI ($49,278). As with the state examples above, these relationships hold for every year from 2008 to 2016, reflecting their lower relative prices and national price levels over time. The application of the PCE price index narrows the range of incomes to $30,551 for real PCPI.

Chart 6. San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA Price Adjusted Per Capita Personal Income 2008–2016, Bar Chart

[Click Chart to Expand]

Chart 7.  Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN Price Adjusted Per Capita Personal Income 2008–2016, Bar Chart

[Click Chart to Expand]

Table 8. Per Capita Personal Income, Personal Income at Regional Price Parities (RPPs), and Real Personal Income for Select Large Metropolitan Areas, 2016
  Per capita
personal income
(current dollars)
Per capita
personal income at
RPPs
(current dollars)
Real per capita
personal income
(chained (2009) dollars)
United States 49,246 49,246 44,450
United States nonmetropolitan portion 38,239 43,906 39,630
       
San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA 84,675 68,289 61,639
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 48,668 54,595 49,278
       
Across large metropolitan areas      
Maximum 84,675 68,289 61,639
Minimum 36,807 34,442 31,088
Range 47,868 33,847 30,551

Notes. Real personal income data for all metropolitan areas are available on BEA’s website.
Per capita personal income uses Census Bureau midyear population estimates available as of March 2017.

On March 6, 2018, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released Arts and Cultural Production Satellite Account (ACPSA) data for 2015; it also released updated data for 2013 and 2014. With the most recent data release, BEA, for the first time, included state-level statistics for value added by arts and cultural industries for 2001 to 2015.

Value added is defined as the gross output of an industry or sector less its intermediate inputs. It measures the contribution of an industry or a sector to gross domestic product (GDP). Its usefulness lies in its ability to provide a broad measure of value created by a specific sector within the economy.

Nationally, ACPSA value added increased 6.3 percent in 2015 to $763.6 billion dollars (table 9). ACPSA value added can be split into two categories: (1) core arts and cultural production industries and (2) supporting arts and cultural production industries. The core industries increased 8.1 percent in 2015 to $153.0 billion dollars. The core industries consist of industries whose output is identified as primarily contributing to arts and culture. The supporting industries increased 5.9 percent in 2015 to $583.8 billion dollars. Supporting industries consist of industries whose output supports the core category through publication, dissemination of the creative process, or other supportive functions.

Table 9. Value Added by Arts and Cultural Production Industries
[Millions of dollars]
Industry 2014 2015 Dollar change Percent change
Total 718,555 763,569 45,014 6.3
Core arts and cultural production 141,558 152,954 11,396 8.1
Performing arts 48,278 52,942 4,664 9.7
Performing arts companies 16,627 17,801 1,174 7.1
Promoters of performing arts and similar events 9,045 10,453 1,408 15.6
Agents/managers for artists 2,496 2,706 210 8.4
Independent artists, writers, and performers 20,110 21,982 1,872 9.3
Museums 5,176 5,261 85 1.6
Design services 79,783 86,109 6,326 7.9
Advertising 31,198 33,099 1,901 6.1
Architectural services 15,288 17,168 1,880 12.3
Landscape architectural services 2,650 2,779 129 4.9
Interior design services 8,019 8,875 856 10.7
Industrial design services 1,707 1,791 84 4.9
Graphic design services 7,473 8,073 600 8.0
Computer systems design 3,132 3,430 298 9.5
Photography and photofinishing services 9,630 10,150 520 5.4
All other design services 687 743 56 8.2
Fine arts education 3,270 3,422 152 4.6
Education services 5,050 5,219 169 3.3
Supporting arts and cultural production 551,007 583,765 32,758 5.9
Art support services 107,149 110,652 3,503 3.3
Information services 341,331 363,051 21,720 6.4
Publishing 75,331 77,694 2,363 3.1
Motion pictures 93,091 99,280 6,189 6.6
Sound recording 13,398 14,854 1,456 10.9
Broadcasting 122,368 127,844 5,476 4.5
Other information services 37,144 43,379 6,235 16.8
Manufacturing 14,430 15,039 609 4.2
Construction 9,409 10,195 786 8.4
Wholesale and transportation industries 30,775 33,517 2,742 8.9
Retail industries 47,912 51,311 3,399 7.1
All other industries 25,991 26,851 860 3.3

Within the core arts, the performing arts and design services industries were the leading contributors to growth. Performing arts, which increased $4.76 billion dollars (9.7 percent) in 2015, includes performing arts companies, promoters of performing arts and similar events, and independent artists, writers, and performers. Performing arts companies increased $1.2 billion dollars (7.1 percent); promoters of performing arts and similar events increased $1.4 billion dollars (15.6 percent); while independent artists, writers, and performers increased $1.9 billion dollars (9.3 percent). Design services, which increased $6.3 billion dollars (7.9 percent) in 2015, was paced by increases in advertising and architectural services. The increase in supporting arts industries was led by increases in other information services and motion pictures, where both industries increased $6.2 billion dollars (16.8 percent and 6.6 percent, respectively) in 2015.

Performing arts

In terms of value added, California, New York, Florida, and Tennessee accounted for 63.6 percent of the national total for performing arts (table 10). Among the four states, Tennessee was the outlier as its economy was smaller than the other three. In terms of overall GDP in 2015, California, New York, and Florida were also among top four largest states while Tennessee ranked 18th.

Table 10. Performing Arts Value Added, Select States, 2015
  Millions of dollars Percent of U.S. performing arts companies total
United States 52,942 100.0
California 18,131 34.2
New York 10,217 19.3
Florida 2,749 5.2
Tennessee 2,557 4.8
Texas 1,879 3.5
Nevada 1,387 2.6
Illinois 1,188 2.2
Ohio 1,086 2.1
Massachusetts 1,084 2.0
New Jersey 1,025 1.9

Tennessee has played a critical role in the development of many forms of American popular music, including rock and roll, blues, country, and rockabilly. Beale Street in Memphis is considered by many to be the birthplace of the blues. Memphis is also home to Sun Records, where musicians such as Elvis Presley, Johnny Cash, Carl Perkins, Jerry Lee Lewis, Roy Orbison, and Charlie Rich began their recording careers and where rock and roll took shape in the 1950s. With Memphis being the birthplace of rock ’n roll and Nashville nicknamed “Music City” because it is considered the center of the country music recording industry, Tennessee’s performing arts industry is driven by its outsized role in the music industry.

The performing arts industry in Tennessee has seen large increases in value added, employment, and average compensation since 2012. Between 2012 and 2015, value added in Tennessee grew 75.5 percent from $1.5 billion to $2.6 billion dollars (chart 8). Within performing arts, from 2012 to 2015, value added for performing arts companies increased $589 million dollars (62.0 percent). Valued added for independent artists, writers, and performers grew $409 million dollars (133.2 percent) from 2012 to 2015.

Employment (the number of jobs) and the average compensation for those jobs in the performing arts industry have also experienced double-digit increases between 2012 and 2015. Employment increased from 6,225 to 7,326 (17.7 percent), while average compensation in those performing arts jobs increased from $99,390 to $135,480 (36.3 percent) (chart 9 and chart 10). The increase in employment was led by increases in employment in promoters of performing arts and similar events and performing arts companies with 37.8 percent and 9.5 percent growth, respectively, from 2012 to 2015. The increase in average compensation was led by significant increases in compensation in performing arts companies and independent artists, writers, and performers. From 2012 to 2015, average compensation in performing arts companies increased from $132,578 to $189,097. Average compensation for independent artists, writers, and performers increased from $85,806 to $143,049.

Chart 9. Tennessee Performing Arts Employment, Line Chart

[Click Chart to Expand]

Chart 10. Tennessee Performing Arts Average Compensation, Line Chart

[Click Chart to Expand]

Motion pictures

Unsurprisingly, California and New York account for 77.8 percent of the national total of value added for the motion pictures industry in 2015 (table 11). In 2015, motion pictures contributed $49.1 billion dollars to California’s economy, representing 2.0 percent of California’s total GDP. In New York, motion pictures contributed $28.2 billion dollars to the state economy, representing 1.9 percent of its economy. Louisiana, whose overall GDP is the 24th largest among states, had the third-largest share of value added in the motion pictures industry at $2.7 billion dollars (1.1 percent of its economy).

Table 11. Motion Pictures Value Added, Select States, 2015
  Millions of dollars Percent of U.S. motion picture total
United States 99,280 100.0
California 49,120 49.5
New York 28,150 28.4
Louisiana 2,699 2.7
Texas 2,122 2.1
Florida 1,624 1.6
Connecticut 1,583 1.6
Georgia 1,463 1.5
New Jersey 1,349 1.4
Tennessee 1,220 1.2
Pennsylvania 969 1.0

Several factors contribute to the development of motion pictures and film within a specific location. These factors include natural resources—such as the weather, landscape, and local scenery—as well as access to capital, such as the existing labor force (human capital) and production-related infrastructure (physical capital)—all of which impact the cost of production. New York was the center of early film production due to access to skilled labor and existing infrastructure. The growth in popularity of motion pictures contributed to the demand that necessitated year-round production, and California weather was uniquely suited to provide year-round production.

While advancements in digital effects have decreased the reliance of film production on a specific physical locale, the cost of production spending continues to be important in motion picture development. One way that states or localities have tried to attract motion picture production has been by providing financial incentives to mitigate the cost of production. These incentives include grants, rebates, or tax credits, with various additional requirements, such as minimum spender caps. The rationale for offering these incentives is not only to entice out-of-state production companies to film in-state and increase in-state spending but also to allow for the long-term development of the motion pictures industry, related infrastructure, and skilled labor within the state. Louisiana has actively provided financial incentives for the motion picture industry beginning in 2002. That year, the Louisiana state legislature established (1) an incremental 10 percent tax credit on both production spending and resident payroll for projects totaling $300,000–$1 million and (2) a 15 percent production spending tax credit and a 20 percent resident payroll tax credit for projects over $1 million.7

Since 2001, valued added in the motion pictures industry in Louisiana has increased significantly, and the industry has become a bigger part of the state’s economy. In 2001, the motion pictures industry contributed $79 million dollars to Louisiana’s economy, representing less than 0.1 percent of Louisiana’s total GDP (chart 11). From 2001 to 2015, valued added in the motion pictures industry has grown over 3,000 percent with jumps in growth in 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2015. In 2015, the motion pictures industry contributed 1.1 percent to the Louisiana economy.


  1. Real GDP in Louisiana’s petroleum and coal products manufacturing fell 23 percent in 2017.
  2. BEA estimates of wages and salaries by state and industry, rather than earnings, were used for mining and real estate. U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates of farm income and expenses by state were used to estimate agriculture GDP.
  3. In addition, new state and local government finance data for fiscal year 2015 for property taxes and severance taxes (among other things) from the Census Bureau were incorporated.
  4. The Office of Management and Budget defines MSAs as one or more counties with a high degree of social and economic integration, with a core urban population of 50,000 or more.
  5. RPPs are calculated for the 50 states and the District of Columbia, state metropolitan and nonmetropolitan portions, and metropolitan areas. Estimates for metropolitan areas include an estimate for the nonmetropolitan portion of the United States to provide complete coverage of all U.S. counties.
  6. See Bettina H. Aten, “Regional Price Parities and Real Regional Income for the United States,”
    Social Indicators Research 131.1 (2017): 123–143.
  7. Office of Entertainment Industry Development, Louisiana Department of Economic Development, Inc. (2003). The Economic Impact Analysis of Louisiana’s Entertainment Tax Credit Programs. Baton Rouge, LA: Loren C. Scott & Associates.