Alabama
Business
CULVERHOUSE COLLEGE OF COMMERCE AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
CENTER FOR BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH
Winter 2001 / Volume 70, Number 1
In this issue:
Economic Outlook: January 2001
3
Selected Economic Indicators
6
Alabama Socioeconomic Briefs
7
Alabama Retail Sales
9
Census 2000 Data Release Schedule
9
Alabamians’ Preferences for State
Budget Allocations: 1980 and 2000
10
THE UNIVERSITY OF
ALABAMA
B U S I N E S S
This report is also available in PDF format on the
Internet at
http://cber.cba.ua.edu
The Center for Business and Economic Research has
available at this site downloadable data on various
topics including population, retail trade, and
employment. Research briefs are also available.
CENTER FOR BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH
Alabama Business
Associate Dean for Research
and Technology
Carl Ferguson
Associate Director
Samuel Addy
Assistant Directors
Deborah Hamilton
Annette Watters
Authors
Ahmad Ijaz
Carolyn Trent
Lucinda Lee Roff
David L. Klemmack
Debra M. McCallum
Michael B. Conaway
Annette Watters
Graphic Design
Sherry O’Brien
Addtional Contributor
Sunja Park
Alabama Business is a quarterly publication of the
Center for Business and Economic Research,
Culverhouse College of Commerce and Business
Administration, The University of Alabama.
Articles reflect the opinions of the authors, but not
necessarily those of the staff of the Center, the
faculty of the Culverhouse College of Commerce, or
the administrative officials of The University of
Alabama.
All correspondence should be addressed to: Editor,
Alabama Business, Center for Business and Economic
Research, The University of Alabama, Box 870221,
Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0221.
For information on the Center for Business and
Economic Research, the Culverhouse College of
Commerce and Business Administration or The
University of Alabama:
http://cber.cba.ua.edu
http://www.cba.ua.edu
http://www.ua.edu
CBER
Economic Outlook:
January 2001
United States
Is there a recession looming on the horizon for the
U.S. economy, or is the Federal Reserve going to
achieve a soft landing? Although some economic
statistics point to a rapid deterioration—manufacturing employment is declining and consumer
spending is decreasing—on the other hand,
services-related businesses continue to add jobs. In
the fourth quarter of 2000, the U.S. economy grew
by 1.4 percent, significantly below the 8.3 percent
growth experienced in the fourth quarter of 1999.
Compared to recent years, the U.S. economy will
have slower growth, albeit still positive, during the
first half of 2001. In the second half of 2001, the
effects of interest rate cuts exercised by the Fed
should begin to show up, curtailing the economy
from spinning into a full-blown recession. The
sectors showing significant weakness include
manufacturing; consumer spending on big-ticket,
interest-sensitive items like automobiles; and
investment spending by businesses.
Gross Domestic Product
Seasonally Adjusted Annualized Rate of Change
10
($1996)
8
6
4
2
0
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2000
2001
1999
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce and Center for Business and Economic
Research, The University of Alabama.
Manufacturing. During the second half of 2000,
both industrial production and employment in
manufacturing firms declined steadily, mainly due to
inventory overhang and a sharp slowdown in
domestic demand. From July 2000 to December
2000, manufacturing industries lost almost 250,000
jobs, a decline of 1.6 percent. The National
Association of Purchasing Managers (NAPM) index
has indicated for the last five months conditions very
close to a recession in the manufacturing sector. The
index fell to 43.7 in December; a reading of 42.5 to
42.8 is typically seen during recessions. Almost all
basic industries, including steel, lumber, autos,
machinery manufacturing, paper, and chemicals are
showing weakness. A slowdown in these basic
industries is also causing a slowdown in major Asian
economies and the economies of other U.S. trading
partners and affecting the markets for exports from
the United States. The United States not only
exports to these countries, but many intermediate
products used in manufacturing are imported from
these countries. Because of this slowdown in both
domestic and international demand, manufacturing
activity is not expected to improve in 2001.
Manufacturing employment is expected to drop
further, and industrial production is expected to
increase only modestly.
Consumer Spending. After showing historically high
readings during the two previous years, the index of
consumer confidence fell sharply in December 2000
and again in January 2001. The drop in January was
the largest single-month drop since the 1990-91
recession. Consumer spending, accounting for
almost two-thirds of the U.S. economy and
increasing at an average annual rate of 5.1 percent
during the last three years, was up only around 3
percent in the fourth quarter. It is expected to
increase by a 1.6 percent annualized rate in the first
quarter of 2001. The most significant drop was
experienced in consumer spending on durable goods.
Expenditures on new automobiles declined by 20
percent in 2000Q4 and are expected to decline by 15
and 12 percent, respectively, during the first two
3
Consumer Spending
8
Seasonally Adjusted Annualized Rate of Change
($1996)
6
4
2
0
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
1999
2000
2001
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce and Center for Business and Economic
Research, The University of Alabama.
quarters of 2001. Overall, consumer expenditures are
expected to increase by 2.5 percent in 2001, but most
of that spending will be on nondurable items and
services. Household spending has been hurt by a fall
in stock market valuations, higher energy prices, a
significant increase in layoffs, and a slowdown in job
growth.
Investment Spending. Together with consumer
spending, investment spending also fell sharply in
the fourth quarter of 2000. Growth in gross private
domestic investment dropped from 13.4 percent in
the first half of 2000 to a loss of 1 percent during the
second half. Overall increases in investment
spending are expected to slow from 10.5 percent in
2000 to approximately 3 percent in 2001. Capital
spending in particular depends on future demand
prospects. If the demand for products is expected to
Gross Private Domestic Investment
25
Seasonally Adjusted Annualized Rate
($1996)
20
slow, businesses curtail future investments and
depend mainly on current investments and
inventories. Investment growth in equipment and
software is expected to drop from 14.5 percent in
2000 to around 7 percent in 2000. Corporate
spending increases on information processing
equipment are expected to slow from over 25 percent
in 2000 to 13.5 percent in 2001. Despite a decline in
mortgage rates in recent months, single-unit housing
sales will drop in 2001.
There are still some bright spots in the economy.
Services-related businesses continue to add jobs,
albeit at a slower pace than last year. And mortgage
rates, presently around 7 percent, continue to drop
gradually, thereby fueling an increase in mortgage
refinancing. Mortgage refinancings in December
2000 and January 2001 surpassed the historic
volumes of 1998 when the mortgage rate was slightly
below 7 percent. Refinancing strengthens consumer
balance sheets, adding to a homeowner’s disposable
income. With high levels of consumer debt, any
relief offered by lower mortgage payments could
bolster consumers’ confidence in the economy.
Interest rates on 3-month treasury bills are expected
to average around 5.5 percent, while 30-year, long
term treasury bonds are expected to average 5.6
percent.
15
10
5
0
-5
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2000
2001
1999
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce and Center for Business and Economic
Research, The University of Alabama.
4
Overall national economic growth is expected to be
around 2.7 percent in 2001, significantly below the
5.0 percent rate in 2000 and 1999’s 4.2 percent rate.
The unemployment rate is expected to increase from
4.0 percent in 2000 to 4.6 percent in 2001. The
inflation rate is expected to average 2.5 percent in
2001, compared to last year’s 3.4 percent.
Alabama
Employment. In 2001 Alabama’s employment will
increase only 0.6 percent, with the unemployment
rate inching up close to 5.0 percent during the first
two quarters of 2001. The unemployment rate will
probably decline to 4.8 percent by the year’s end.
From December 1999 to December 2000,
employment in Alabama increased a net of 1,400
jobs. Services-producing industries added 10,400
jobs, (“services-producing industries” include not
only the services sector, but also government, trade,
finance, real estate, transportation, communications,
and utilities) while goods-producing businesses
(mining, construction, manufacturing) lost jobs. Job
losses in mining cancelled job gains in construction.
Manufacturing industries lost 9,000 jobs—6,300 in
durable goods and 2,700 in nondurable goods. Most
lost job were concentrated in basic steel production,
Alabama Nonagricultural Employment
Annual Rate of Change
3
2.5
industrial machinery and equipment, and apparel
and other textile products. Contributing factors
included higher energy costs, global competition,
overcapacity, a strong U.S. dollar, and a generally
slowing economy. The tepid manufacturing climate
is expected to continue through the year. During
2001 employment in the state’s manufacturing
industries is expected to decline a little over 2
percent. Another 11,000 jobs will be lost.
However, the services sector in the state continues to
add jobs. From December 1999 to December 2000,
these businesses added 6,800 new jobs, and are
expected to add about 5,500 net new jobs in 2001.
The slowdown in consumer spending in the second
half of 2000 was obvious in retail trade employment.
From December 1999 to December 2000, retailing
firms added 600 new jobs, significantly below the
8,000 jobs added during the same period the
previous year. The outlook for employment in
retailing is not expected to change much in 2001.
Any increase in new jobs will probably not
materialize until the fourth quarter of 2001.
However, retailers could gain some relief if mortgage
refinancing continues to be popular, thereby adding
to consumers’ disposable income.
Tax Revenues. A slowdown in the state economy is
very visible in tax revenue collections. During the
first quarter of FY2000-2001, total state tax revenues
increased by 0.6 percent, significantly below the 5.5
percent increase during the first quarter of last fiscal
year. For the first quarter of FY2000-2001, individual
income tax collections increased 2.7 percent, versus
8.4 percent the previous year. Corporate income tax
receipts declined 42.2 percent, following a 37 percent
decline the previous year. Slower consumer
spending was also very much evident in sales tax
collections. During the fourth quarter of 2000, sales
tax revenues declined 0.7 percent. For the same
period the previous year, sales taxes had increased 2.2
percent.
2
For the current fiscal year, total tax revenues are
expected to increase 3.4 percent. Income tax
revenues will increase 4.3 percent and sales tax
revenues are forecasted to increase 2.5 percent.
1.5
1
0.5
Ahmad Ijaz
0
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
Source: Alabama Department of Industrial Relations and Center for Business and
Economic Research, The University of Alabama.
5
Selected Economic Indicators
United States
1999Q2
1999Q3
1999Q4
2000Q1
2000Q2
2000Q3
2000Q4
Gross Domestic Product (billions)
Percent Change
$8,783.2
3.8
8,905.8
4.3
9,084.1
5.0
9,191.8
5.3
9,318.9
6.1
9,369.5
5.2
9,446.2
4.0
30-Year Treasury Bond Rate
5.8
6.0
6.3
6.3
6.0
5.8
5.7
3-Month Treasury Bill Rate
4.5
4.7
5.0
5.5
5.7
6.0
6.1
166.2
2.1
167.2
2.3
168.4
2.6
170.2
3.2
171.7
3.3
173.0
3.5
174.2
3.4
1.6
1.2
1.7
1.9
1.7
-1.9
1.7
-1.6
1.6
0.9
1.5
-8.1
1.5
-9.4
133.2
1.5
133.5
1.5
134.2
1.5
135.2
1.6
135.2
1.5
134.9
1.1
136.0
1.4
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.0
4.3
1999Q2
1999Q3
1999Q4
2000Q1
2000Q2
2000Q3
1,923.4
0.8
1,925.6
1.5
1,950.0
1.8
1,938.1
2.2
1,954.4
1.6
1,938.1
0.6
Total Manufacturing
Percent Change
369.8
-2.8
367.8
-2.2
367.3
-2.3
366.2
-1.1
366.1
-1.0
363.3
-1.2
Durable Goods Manufacturing
Percent Change
197.8
-1.7
197.4
0.2
198.0
-0.3
197.0
0.5
197.3
-0.2
195.3
-1.1
Nondurable Goods Manufacturing
Percent Change
172.0
-4.0
170.4
-4.8
169.3
-4.4
169.2
-2.9
168.8
-1.9
168.1
-1.4
Trade Employment
Percent Change
443.2
1.3
448.4
2.0
457.7
3.1
449.2
3.2
453.1
2.2
453.4
1.1
Services Employment
Percent Change
458.1
1.8
461.3
2.5
463.6
3.3
461.1
3.5
467.7
2.1
468.8
1.6
4.9
4.8
4.7
4.4
4.2
4.6
Initial Benefit Claims (thousands)
19.8
23.3
22.5
29.6
18.9
25.7
Manufacturing Weekly Hours
41.9
42.0
42.2
41.8
42.1
41.4
Total Tax Revenues (millions)
Percent Change
$1,515.3
-0.3
1,449.5
9.9
1,353.9
4.8
1,578.1
10.5
1,683.4
11.1
1,441.1
-0.6
Income Tax Revenues (millions)
Percent Change
$720.1
-4.9
649.9
18.7
556.2
6.0
628.0
5.8
865.6
20.2
617.4
-5.0
Sales Tax Revenues (millions)
Percent Change
$379.4
5.7
374.5
4.1
384.0
2.9
383.5
8.0
384.4
1.3
378.2
1.0
Consumer Price Index
Inflation Rate
Housing Starts (millions)
Percent Change
Total Employment (millions)
Percent Change
Unemployment Rate
Alabama
Employment (thousands)
Total Nonagricultural
Percent Change
Unemployment Rate
Note: All percent changes indicate change over same period of the previous year.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Commerce, Alabama Department of Industrial Relations, Alabama
Revenue Department, and Center for Business and Economic Research, The University of Alabama.
6
Alabama Socioeconomic
Briefs
Census 2000 Population
graduates. An estimated 2.74 percent of all college
graduates living in Alabama in 1999 had resided in a
different state in 1998. On the other hand, 5.35
percent of resident college graduates moved out of
the state during the year. Overall, Alabama saw a net
loss of 2.61 percent of her college-educated residents
from 1998 to 1999. Nine states saw a higher
percentage net outflow of college graduates during
the year, including Colorado, Minnesota, Oklahoma,
Tennessee, and Washington.
State of Alabama and the South
Reapportionment numbers released in late December
2000 gave us a first look at Alabama’s actual
population growth in the 1990s. With an unadjusted
total population of 4,447,100 as of April 1, 2000,
Alabama has added 406,513 residents since the 1990
census. This 10.1 percent growth rate lagged the U.S.
gain of 13.2 percent and ranked Alabama twenty-fifth
among the 50 states on percent change in population
during the decade. Rapid growth in Arizona’s
population pushed Alabama’s total population
ranking down one notch to twenty-third.
Alabama’s economic progress over the 20 years from
1978 to 1997 was uneven, according to a recently
released MDC Inc. study, State of the South 2000.
Both the state’s population and the number of jobs
grew more slowly than the national average, with
metropolitan areas far outpacing rural gains. Among
14 southern states, Alabama ranked ninth on job
growth from 1978 to 1997. While 611,000 jobs were
created in the state during this period, about 730,000
would have been created if job growth had
progressed at the national rate.
[Population counts and rankings are
accessible at http://www.census.gov.]
Migration of College Graduates
More college graduates
moved out of Alabama
than moved in during
1999, according to a
recent study. Professors
Beth Ingram and George
Neumann of the
University of Iowa used
Bureau of Labor
Statistics and Census
Bureau data to calculate
state-level in- and
out-migration of college
The state made progress in improving its job mix,
although it remained more reliant on old economy
industries than most states. During the 20-year
period of the study, Alabama’s job growth flourished
in retail, business and health services, transportation,
and some durable manufacturing industries—
including industrial machinery, electrical equipment,
and motor vehicles. But above-average job
concentration in declining sectors—farming,
nondurable manufacturing, and federal government—
led to job losses. As old economy industries have
atrophied and new economy industries have grown,
7
lagging, mostly rural, areas to economic activity, with
the goal of pulling all its people into the skilled labor
force.
[The State of the South 2000 is available at
http://www.mdcinc.org.]
Alabama’s Digital Divide
Alabama moved toward the mainstream of modern
America. With 32 high-tech employees per 1,000
workers in 1997 (compared to 45 for the United
States), Alabama ranked twenty-ninth in the nation,
but above average for the South. Alabama’s 15.3 IT
jobs per 1,000 and 23.4 professional, scientific, and
technical services employees ranked in the top six
among 14 southern states.
Foreign capital was a major impetus for growth in
Alabama’s manufacturing sector. Between 1977 and
1997, the number of foreign-owned enterprises
jumped from about 100 to over 600 and employed
almost 11 percent of the state’s manufacturing
workers.
The State of the South report cautions that, while
Alabama has made progress in improving its business
mix, it must create more new economy enterprises if
the pace of job growth is to accelerate. And
Alabama, like all southern states, must connect its
8
An August 2000 survey found digital inclusion
increasing across states and the gap between the
highest and lowest states narrowing. Almost 770,000
(44.2 percent) of Alabama households owned
computers in August 2000, up from about 580,000
households (34.3 percent) in December 1998.
According to the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA), Alabama
households with Internet access at home increased
from 365,000 (21.6 percent) in 1998 to about
618,000 (35.5 percent) in 2000. For the nation as a
whole, 51 percent of all households owned
computers in 2000, while 41.5 percent had Internet
access. Alabama ranked forty-fourth among the 50
states on computer ownership and forty-third on
home Internet access.
[The complete report, Falling through the Net,
Toward Digital Inclusion, is on the Internet at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide.]
Carolyn Trent
Alabama Retail Sales
($1,000)
Jan.-June
1999
Jan.-June
2000
Food
2,837,117
3,221,209
384,092
13.5
General Merchandise
2,813,727
3,038,134
224,407
8.0
Apparel
758,756
780,413
21,657
2.9
Furniture
892,842
936,820
43,978
4.9
3,937,134
4,199,977
262,843
6.7
140,606
144,039
3,433
2.4
Hardware and Lumber
1,990,187
1,968,793
-21,394
-1.1
Eating Places
1,907,202
1,943,371
36,169
1.9
Miscellaneous Retail
1,650,844
1,753,954
103,110
6.2
Nonretail and Unclassified 2,444,021
2,413,845
-30,176
-1.2
19,372,436 20,400,555
1,028,119
5.3
Automotive
Gas Service Stations
Total
Change in Sales 1999-2000
Value
Percent
Source: Center for Business and Economic Research, The University of Alabama.
Alabama retailers saw sales increase
5.3 percent for the first six months of
2000 compared to the same period
in 1999. Measured in current
dollars, sales for January through
June 2000 totaled $20.4 billion, up
$1.03 billion over January through
June 1999. General merchandise
sales rose 8.0 percent, while automotive sales climbed 6.7 percent.
Food store sales jumped 13.5 percent, although this number may be
affected by significant changes in the
sector during the last two years.
Hardware and lumber sales, which
had shown strong growth in recent
years, were off slightly in the first
half of 2000. Note that due to
normal data reporting and processing lags, sales figures for the second
half of 2000 are not yet available.
Carolyn Trent
Census 2000 Data
Release Schedule
100 Percent Data
Sample Data
March-April 1, 2001: Census 2000 Redistricting Data
Summary File - State population counts by 63 races
and Hispanic or Latino (total, voting age) for legislative redistricting to voting district and block level.
December-March 2001: Demographic Profile - Demographic, social, economic, and housing characteristics in three tables to census tract level.
June-September 2001: Congressional District Demographic Profile - Population totals and selected population and housing characteristics to Congressional
District level.
December 2001-March 2002: Congressional District
Demographic Profile - Demographic, social, economic,
and housing characteristics in three tables for Congressional Districts.
June-September 2001: Demographic Profile - Population totals and selected population and housing
characteristics to census tract level.
June-September 2002: Summary File 3 - Population
counts for ancestry groups to census tract level; selected population and housing characteristics to
block group level.
June-September 2001: Summary File 1 (SF1) - Population counts for 63 races and Hispanic or Latino: selected population and housing characteristics to
block level.
October 2002-February 2003: Summary File 4 - Population and housing characteristics for detailed race
and Hispanic or Latino categories, American Indian
tribes, and ancestry groups to census tract level.
September-December 2001: Summary File 2 (SF2) Population and housing characteristics for many detailed races and Hispanic or Latino categories to census tract level.
2001-2003: Public Use Microdata Files - Information
for metropolitan areas (PUMS 1%). Information for
state and sub-state areas (PUMS 5%).
Annette Watters
9
Alabamians’
Preferences for State
Budget Allocations:
1980 and 2000
Alabamians’ highest priority for the use of state tax
dollars is providing support for elementary and
secondary schools, according to a recent study
conducted by UA’s Capstone Poll. Support for using
tax dollars to fund K-12 education has increased by
23 percent since results of a similar study were
published in 1980. Also, support for public schools
replaced support for benefits for older people as the
most popular use of state funds in the twenty-year
period. Clearly, calls for better funding of K-12
public education have had a major impact on the
attitudes of Alabama’s citizens since 1980.
Citizens also give significantly higher priority to
funding benefits for poor people and to funding
environmental protection efforts than they did two
decades ago. The popularity of benefits for poor
people rose 16 percent during the twenty-year period,
which was marked in the last five years by major
welfare reform that removed thousands of
Alabamians from the welfare rolls. Since a separate
question found that 51.2 percent of respondents to
the recent survey also believe there are fewer
undeserving people on welfare than there were ten
years ago, the higher priority given to benefits for
poor people may result from a perception that the
people remaining on welfare are those who truly
need and deserve help.
There was a 13 percent increase in support for
environmental protection. According to UA
professor and specialist in environmental studies, Ed
Passerini, greater support for environmental
protection may be tied, at least in part, to the passage
of the Forever Wild Act and significant purchases of
land for conservation throughout Alabama. State
government functions that lost priority during the
last 20 years were the judicial system, including
prisons (down 16 percent), support for mental health
centers and mental hospitals (down 16 percent) and
support for highways and roads (down 13 percent).
Results from the recent study do not seem to be
directly attributable to personal self-interest. Support
10
for elementary and secondary schools ranked first,
but only 33 percent of respondents had school-aged
children attending school in Alabama. Support for
programs for older people ranked second; yet only
21 percent of those responding had someone
sixty-five years old or older in their household.
Benefits for poor people ranked third, but fewer than
18.2 percent of the persons who responded had ever
received either food stamps or welfare benefits.
Support for K-12 education outranked support for
colleges and universities in both the 1980 and 2000
studies. Similarly, public support for K-12 education
has grown compared with support for higher
education in the twenty-year period. Citizens
thought it appropriate to allocate 55 percent of the
total education budget to elementary and secondary
schools in 1980 and 60 percent of the education
budget to K-12 in 2000.
Comparison of the 1980 and 2000 studies shows
remarkable consistency with a few noteworthy
changes in Alabamians’ preferences for how their tax
dollars should be distributed. The six highest rated
programs in 1980 were also the six highest rated
programs in 2000. Among these, elementary and
secondary schools, benefits for poor people, and
support for colleges and universities received higher
priority in 2000. Highways and roads, mental health
centers and mental hospitals, and benefits for older
people, received lower priority in 2000 than they did
in 1980.
Results of the recent study are from a telephone
survey of a probability sample of 467 adult
Alabamians completed in the late summer of 2000.
Respondents were asked how they would allocate a
hypothetical $100 of Alabama tax funds among ten
different programs/services that the state currently
funds. They were told they could allocate zero
dollars or as much as the full $100 to any program or
service. They were also told that they could divide
the $100 among the ten programs in any way that
they thought appropriate. The accompanying table
shows the average amount allocated to each program,
its rank among the ten programs presented for both
the current study and for the one conducted 20 years
ago, and the percentage change in the dollar
amounts allocated.
The 2000 study is a partial replication of a study
published by Alabama Business in 1980. The earlier
study, a mailed survey of 1,015 Alabamians, also
asked respondents to allocate a hypothetical $100 of
tax funds among state programs and services.
represent all current or potential uses of state
revenues. Public health, for example, is omitted.
Had it or another use of state dollars been included,
a different set of budget priorities might have
emerged. Second, this approach assumes a “fixed
pot” of state dollars. Since some of Alabama’s
programs are supported by special earmarked taxes,
in the real world these ten programs do not all
directly compete against each other in the annual
budget process. Finally, it is unlikely that
respondents had accurate knowledge of the relative
costs of state-supported programs and services. The
results are best viewed as indicative of priorities
rather than as well-informed judgments about exactly
how state dollars should be allocated.
The budget allocation methodology used in the two
studies has several limitations, which should be
considered as results are interpreted. First, the ten
program areas presented to respondents do not
Lucinda Lee Roff, David L. Klemmack,
Debra M. McCallum, Michael B. Conaway
Preferences for Alabama State Budget Allocations, 1980 and 2000
Programs and Services
1980
2000
Dollars
Rank
Dollars
Rank
Change
$14.20
1
$13.60
2
-4%
Support for elementary and
secondary schools
12.80
2
15.80
1
23%
Support for highways and roads
10.90
3
9.50
5
-13%
Support for mental health centers
and mental hospitals
10.70
4
9.00
6
-16%
Support for colleges and universities
10.50
5
10.70
4
2%
Benefits for poor people
9.60
6
11.10
3
16%
Support for programs to attract
industry to the state
9.10
7
8.60
7
-7%
Support for the judicial system,
including prisons
7.90
8
6.60
10
-16%
Support for environmental protection
7.20
9
8.10
8
13%
Support for recreation, including state
parks
7.20
10
7.20
9
0%
Benefits for older people
Sources: Capstone Poll, Institute for Social Science Research, The University of Alabama, 2000.
Durand, R. M., Klemmack, D. L., and Roff, L.L. (1980). “State budget priorities: The views of
Alabamians,” Alabama Business, 50, 9.
Note: Allocated dollars may not total to $100 due to rounding.
11
The Alabama Economic Outlook 2001 examines
current economic conditions and trends and their
likely effects on the national and Alabama
economies in the coming year.
The Alabama forecast focuses on the short term
outlook for output and employment in the state by
sector and presents a look at state revenues. Trends
in the state’s metropolitan areas are discussed.
The Alabama Economic Outlook 2001 is the 21st in an
annual series produced by the Center for Business
and Economic Research. Copies are $18 each.
Please make checks payable to The University of
Alabama and send with name and address to:
Center for Business and Economic Research
The University of Alabama
Box 870221
Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0221
The University of Alabama
Center for Business and Economic Research
Box 870221
Tusscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0221
Address correction requested.
Nonprofit Organization
U.S. Postage Paid
Permit Number 16
Tuscaloosa, AL 35401