Alabama
Business
CULVERHOUSE COLLEGE OF COMMERCE AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
CENTER FOR BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH
Fall 2002 / Volume 71, Number 4
In this issue:
Economic Outlook—Quarterly Update
Fall 2002
3
Selected Economic Indicators
7
Alabama Development 1990 - 2000
8
BLCI: 2002 in Review
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
CENTER FOR BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH
Alabama Business
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.
Associate Dean for Research
and Technology
Carl Ferguson
Associate Director
Samuel Addy
Assistant Directors
Deborah Hamilton
Annette Jones Watters
Authors
Samuel Addy
Ahmad Ijaz
Carolyn Trent
Graphic Design
Sherry Lang
Addtional Contributors
Deborah Hamilton
Sunja Park
Mark Your Calendars!
S
M
January 2003
T W T
F
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
The University of Alabama’s Center
for Business and Economic Research
will hold its 2003 Economic Outlook
Conference on January 16, 2003 in
Montgomery, Alabama.
For additional information:
Phone: (205) 348-6191
Email: [email protected]
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
Fall 2002
United States
Overview. Judging by the financial markets, one
would assume that the national economy is again
dipping into a recession. But in reality, the economy
is recovering. Overall economic growth for 2002 is
now expected to be around 2.5 percent, with growth
of about 3 percent anticipated for 2003. Actually,
gains in the first three quarters of this year were
much more robust than the first three quarters after
the 1990-91 recession, when growth averaged only
1.8 percent.
Two reasons why the economy does not seem like it
is improving are the lack of job creation and the lack
of business commitment to investment spending.
Despite a lack of new jobs, consumer spending and
housing markets are keeping the economy from
falling into another downturn. Although consumer
spending has slowed, it is still expected to increase
modestly for the second half of 2002. Consumers
are spending on household furnishings, related
durable goods, and real estate.
In September housing starts surged by 13.3 percent
to an annualized rate of 1.8 million units, the highest
rate seen since 1986. Construction of single-family
homes increased by 18.2 percent, a level not seen
since 1978, primarily due to low mortgage rates and
consumers’ expectations that housing values will
increase. In the third quarter of 2002, consumer
spending, particularly on durable goods, was increasing. However, consumers are now noticing their
increased debt burdens, the weak job market, and
their mounting losses in stock and retirement portfolios. There is a risk that consumers could decide to
take a spending breather.
Federal government spending is expected to remain
healthy throughout the remainder of the year and
into 2003. But the current situation produces a
tough environment for private business. Excess
capacity and weak demand will keep downward
pressure on prices.
The economic recovery is being driven right now by
four factors—consumer spending, housing markets,
automobile sales, and federal government spending.
Some of these may not continue to grow at the same
pace in the near future. With few jobs being created
and consumer debt at very high levels, retailers may
have to sell at deep discounts to get the consumer to
make purchases. And in recent weeks, mortgage rates
have been creeping up, which could affect housing
markets. With capacity utilization for industrial
firms at fairly low levels, business investment is not
expected to grow much. Nonresidential commercial
and industrial construction investment and equipment spending are at a standstill and will continue so
in the near future. Bankruptcies and layoffs have
created substantial excess capacity, which will have to
be absorbed before businesses begin to spend again.
In order for the economic recovery currently underway to feel more like a recovery, business investment
will have to increase, which in turn will add to payrolls.
3
Manufacturing. After growing for seven straight
months, industrial activity began to slow in August.
The strong housing market and demand for automobiles made it seem like the manufacturing sector was
well on its way to recovery, but instead, the manufacturing sector appears to be going back into recession.
The Institute of Supply Management’s Survey of
Purchasing Managers Index dropped to 49.5 in
September. A reading below 50.0 indicates contraction in industrial production. However, things may
not be as bad as they seem. After two months of
decline, hours worked in manufacturing actually
went up in September.
Both industrial and electrical goods output have not
shown any signs of recovery since the manufacturing
sector dipped into a recession almost two years ago.
In the manufacturing sector, the weakest industry has
been communication equipment manufacturing.
From year ago levels, communication equipment
output is down almost 20 percent. Some good news
is that new orders for defense-related capital goods
increased in the first half of 2002 from year ago
levels. But the rest of manufacturing, particularly
nondefense capital goods, will continue flat at least
through the rest of the year. Orders for nondefense
capital goods fell 6.6 percent in September, the
biggest decline since September 2001. Without an
increase in capital spending, the manufacturing sector will remain weak.
Employment. As long as investment spending and
consumer demand are weak, there is no reason for
firms to hire new workers. In the previous recession
(1990-91) there was also a very weak recovery coming
out of the recession. Then, the employment situation did not begin to improve until the recovery was
almost 15 months old. In September 2002 job losses
in manufacturing, retailing, and transportation outweighed any impact of new jobs added in health
care, real estate, and other services-related businesses.
Employment in financial services and real estate
increased, while manufacturing lost more jobs.
Manufacturing continues to be haunted by overcapacity, cheaper imported goods, and a lack of domestic and global demand. The overall manufacturing
sector has lost jobs every month for 25 consecutive
months.
Even though consumers continue to spend, competition in retailing is adversely affecting retailing’s
employment growth. After cutting close to 44,000
4
jobs in August, retailers cut almost 16,000 jobs in
September. Retailers are still suffering from overbuilding the sector in the late 1990s.
Consumer Spending. Consumer spending slowed
in the first and second quarters but probably
increased in the third quarter of 2003, primarily
because of an increase in automobile sales. That was
temporary. There is a probability that consumer
spending will significantly slow down in the fourth
quarter. The University of Michigan’s Consumer
Sentiment Index fell for the fifth consecutive month
in October, bringing consumer sentiment to an eight
year low. Yet, consumers continue to play an important role in keeping the economy afloat.
One of the major concerns is the sharp increase in
consumer debt. During recent years, consumer debt
has grown much faster than income. Furthermore,
the decline in stock market valuations has substantially devalued consumers’ net worth. According to
Federal Reserve Bank statistics, consumer debt has
increased from $1.28 trillion in 1997 to $1.73 trillion
at present, an increase of almost 36 percent. Debt
repayments as a percent of disposable income are
now at their highest level since 1992, when consumers took on unprecedented levels of debt.
A factor that has helped consumers is increased
home prices and low interest rates. Consumers have
been able to refinance their existing home mortgages
at lower rates. In some cases people have taken out
home equity loans and in other cases they have
transferred high-interest credit card debt to tax
deductible home equity loans. Consumer spending
on household items and automobiles has remained
healthy in recent months. Consumer purchases of
durable goods items, which traditionally see a decline
during recessions, have also remained strong.
Another sector where spending has been high is
computer and software sales. There is a possibility
that expenditures during the fourth quarter will not
be as robust as in recent months; however, as the
economy improves, computers could pick back up in
the first and second quarters of 2003.
Business Investment. Business investment has been
the weakest link in the economy. Nonresidential
fixed investment declined by an average annual rate
of almost 3 percent in the first three quarters of
2002. Industrial construction has experienced a
severe decline since 1998 and is showing no signs of
revival. With high vacancy rates in office space,
commercial construction is also at a standstill.
Business investment in communication equipment
has experienced the most severe decline. It is expected to continue its decline in the fourth quarter and is
not expected to pick up at least until the middle of
next year. Business investment initially led the economy into a recession, and until firms increase their
spending on capital goods, the economic recovery
will remain weak.
Alabama
Employment. From August 2001 to August 2002,
the only two Alabama sectors that gained significant
numbers of jobs were local government and transportation equipment. Most job gains were in local
government, particularly education, while the
increase in the transportation industry was primarily
in motor vehicle production-related industries. All
other sectors of Alabama’s economy experienced job
losses. Even with this disheartening news, the economy is indeed showing signs of improvement over last
year. The rate of decline in job losses from August
2001 to August 2002 was substantially lower than the
declines experienced from August 2000 to August
2001, when most of the manufacturing sector was
experiencing a recession. A cautionary note is that
slower consumer spending is affecting the services,
retail, and wholesale trade sectors.
Although residential construction has remained
strong throughout the most recent economic downturn, both commercial and industrial construction
have experienced significant declines. The manufacturing sector, which now has been in a recession for
almost two years, continues to lose jobs. Within
5
manufacturing, the exception is Alabama’s transportation equipment industry, which has experienced
healthy growth mainly due to continuing high
demand for automobiles and the incentives being
offered by auto manufacturers. Almost every other
manufacturing group in the state has lost jobs. The
sectors losing significant numbers of jobs include primary and fabricated metals, apparel and other textile
products, chemicals and allied products, rubber and
plastic products, and both industrial and electrical
machinery manufacturing.
A slow and uneven recovery is now beginning in the
services sector. Although health services is adding
jobs, overall the sector has not yet begun to show
positive employment gains.
Tax Revenues. During the fiscal year that just ended
(FY2001-02), Alabama’s tax revenues increased by 2.2
percent. Total tax receipts amounted to approximately $6.1 billion, almost $130 million over last fiscal
year’s tax receipts. Sales tax revenues, which largely
depend on consumer and business spending,
increased by 2.5 percent, approximately $37 million
over the previous year. Although consumer spending has remained strong throughout the most recent
downturn, lack of business spending has constrained
growth in sales tax revenues. Traditionally, business
spending contributes anywhere from one third to
one half of the receipts in sales tax revenues.
The state’s individual income tax revenues have suffered a decline, the first such decline in recent history, due to three factors: the lack of any increase in
payroll employment, several layoffs in recent
months, and severe erosion in capital gains.
Individual income tax revenues, which account for
almost 40 percent of total tax receipts, declined by
almost $38 million over the previous year. Individual income tax revenues totaled approximately $2.4
billion, a decline of 1.6 percent over the previous fiscal year.
Appropriations made to the Alabama Education
Trust Fund during the fiscal year ending in
September 2002 increased by 1.2 percent, or almost
$46 million, giving the Trust Fund a total of $4.05
billion. However, appropriations made to the state’s
General Fund declined by 4.05 percent, or about $46
million, giving the General Fund a total of approximately $1.1 billion.
Outlook. The state’s economy is expected to grow
1.8 percent in 2002, with output totaling $113 billion. Real output of all sectors will increase, except
for the mining industry whose output is estimated to
decline by 3.0 percent. Employment will decline by
0.5 percent. The manufacturing sector is forecasted
to remain weak at least through the first quarter of
2003. Most growth will be in metro areas of the
state. For 2003 the state’s economy is expected to
grow by 2.2 percent, with an improving manufacturing sector, while the state’s employment will increase
by 0.8 percent. For the remainder of 2002 and 2003,
most employment growth will be in services-producing rather than goods-producing sectors.
Construction and motor vehicle-related industries are
the only goods-producing sectors that will add any
significant number of jobs. Both commercial and
industrial construction will remain weak.
Ahmad Ijaz
Alabama Nonagricultural Employment
Change in Number of Jobs
Total Nonagricultural
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Durable Goods
Lumber Products
Primary Metals
Fabricated Metal
Industrial Machinery
Electrical Machinery
Transportation Equipment
Stone, Clay and Glass
Nondurable Goods
Food Products
Textile Mill Products
Apparel
Paper and Allied Products
Printing & Publishing
Chemicals
Rubber and Plastics
TCPU
Wholesale & Retail Trade
FIRE
Services
Hospitals
Total Government
Federal Government
State Government
State Education
Local Government
Local Education
August 2000August 2001
August 2001August 2002
-23,700
-100
-1,000
-16,900
-11,000
-2,200
-2,700
-1,000
-1,900
-700
-600
-300
-5,900
400
-2,900
-2,000
-300
-200
-900
100
-1,600
-6,300
-300
1,200
-400
1,300
-900
2,300
1,900
-100
-1,500
-18,900
0
-300
-9,600
-2,100
0
-1,100
-500
-1,900
-1,100
2,800
0
-7,500
-300
-200
-3,200
-700
-800
-800
-1,400
-3,100
-4,700
-500
-1,900
200
1,200
-300
100
-600
1,400
1,000
Source: Alabama Department of Industrial Relations.
6
Selected Economic Indicators
United States
Gross Domestic Product (billions)
Percent Change
30-Year Treasury Bond Rate
3-Month Treasury Bill Rate
Consumer Price Index
Inflation Rate
Housing Starts (millions)
Percent Change
Total Employment (millions)
Percent Change
Unemployment Rate
Industrial Production Index
Percent Change
Alabama
Total Nonagricultural
Employment (thousands)
Percent Change
Total Manufacturing
Employment (thousands)
Percent Change
Durable Goods Manufacturing
Employment (thousands)
Percent Change
Nondurable Goods Manufacturing
Employment (thousands)
Percent Change
Total Wholesale and Retail Trade
Employment (thousands)
Percent Change
Total Services Employment (thousands)
Percent Change
Alabama Unemployment Rate
Initial Benefit Claims (thousands)
Manufacturing Weekly Hours
Total Tax Revenues (millions)
Percent Change
Total Income Tax Revenues (millions)
Percent Change
Total Sales Tax Revenues (millions)
Percent Change
2001/Q1
2001/Q2
2001/Q3
2001/Q4
2002/Q1
2002/Q2
9,229.9
1.5
5.5
4.8
175.9
3.4
1.6
-2.9
135.8
0.6
4.2
119.9
-1.6
9,193.1
-0.1
5.7
3.7
177.3
3.4
1.6
2.4
135.2
0.0
4.5
118.1
-1.5
9,186.4
-0.4
5.5
3.2
177.6
2.7
1.6
6.6
134.8
-0.1
4.8
116.7
-1.2
9,248.8
0.1
5.3
1.9
177.5
1.9
1.6
1.9
134.3
-1.0
5.4
114.7
-1.7
9,363.2
1.4
5.5
1.7
178.1
1.2
1.7
7.1
133.9
-1.4
5.8
115.4
0.7
9,389.6
2.1
5.6
1.7
179.6
1.3
1.7
2.7
134.1
-0.8
6.0
116.7
1.1
2001/Q1
2001/Q2
2001/Q3
2001/Q4
2002/Q1
2002/Q2
1,906.9
-0.4
1,920.1
-1.0
1,909.3
-1.1
1,917.9
-1.2
1,891.7
-0.8
1,900.2
-1.0
346.7
-4.2
341.0
-6.3
337.1
-6.4
334.8
-5.7
330.9
-4.5
329.5
-3.4
186.1
-4.8
183.4
-6.6
180.8
-6.5
180.2
-5.5
179.9
-3.3
179.7
-2.0
160.6
-3.4
157.6
-6.0
156.4
-6.3
154.5
-5.9
151.0
-6.0
149.7
-5.0
435.3
-0.9
473.0
2.2
4.9
37.0
41.1
1,471.2
-6.8
621.2
-1.1
370.2
-3.5
442.0
-0.8
481.8
2.1
5.1
28.0
40.6
1,730.5
2.8
832.2
-3.9
381.2
-0.8
440.2
-1.0
484.9
1.4
5.4
29.1
41.1
1,452.0
0.8
622.7
0.9
380.3
0.6
441.8
-1.7
483.0
1.1
5.9
31.5
40.9
1,323.4
-2.1
522.4
-3.6
389.7
2.2
430.5
-1.1
477.2
0.9
5.5
33.9
40.8
1,480.9
0.7
670.4
7.9
371.4
0.3
436.0
-1.3
482.7
0.2
5.5
23.8
40.8
1,716.7
-0.8
833.7
0.2
394.1
3.4
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 Department of Revenue, and Center for Business and Economic Research, The University of Alabama.
7
wage manufacturing is replaced by low wage service
activity. Wages per dollar of output dropped one
cent in Alabama to 57 cents in 2000 while rising by a
cent to 58 cents for the nation.
Alabama
Development
1990 - 2000
Many interested parties have been looking at recent
federal statistical data to see the latest detailed demographic, social, economic, and housing data on
Alabama. One use of the data is to see how far we
have come over the last decade. This short article
uses six selected socioeconomic variables from two
different federal agencies to gauge the state’s
progress: output per worker (the value of goods and
services produced in the state), average wage, per
capita income, population growth, child poverty, and
educational attainment.
From 1990 to 2000, Alabama output per employee,
average wage, and per capita income increased. This
is very good news, isn’t it? To measure our development, growth in these variables must be compared to
those of the nation, or some other state. Compared
to national averages, all three economic measures
fell. This retrogression cannot be attributed solely to
the state’s slower population growth. True, more
people can mean stronger demand, more business
startups, a larger labor force, and so on. However,
the relative fall in the economic variables is largely
due to the change in economic structure, as high
On the plus side, although child poverty and educational attainment in Alabama are still worse than
national averages, they showed better improvements.
The percentage of Alabama children in poverty
dropped by 2.9 percent, from 24.1 percent in 1989 to
21.2 percent in 1999, compared to a drop of 0.9 percent for the nation. Educational attainment, based
on the percentage of the population age 25 and over,
shows an 8.4 percent increase for the state and a 5.4
percent increase for the nation.
Of course, a comprehensive study of the state’s
development must consider many more economic,
social, demographic, and institutional indicators.
State-level data often hide stark differences at more
detailed geography, such as county levels. Alabama
has pockets with high levels of economic activity and
large expanses with very low levels of economic
activity where both public and private services are
lacking for many. The selected indicators show
mixed development for Alabama. But with strong
leadership, a highly productive workforce, and the
recent successful recruitment of automotive and
related industries, this author is very optimistic about
the state’s prospects.
Samuel Addy, Ph.D.
Alabama - United States Comparisons
Output per Employee ($)
1990
2000
United States
Alabama
Percent of U.S.
40,929
34,706
85%
59,365
49,365
83%
Population Growth
1990-2000 Percent Change
United States
Alabama
Percent of U.S.
13.2
10.1
76%
Average Wage ($)
1990
2000
23,322
20,107
86%
34,652
28,280
82%
Child Poverty Rate (%)
1989
1999
17.9
24.1
135%
17.0
21.2
125%
Per Capita Income ($)
1990
2000
19,572
15,826
81%
Educational Attainment
(HS+,%)
1990
2000
75.2
66.9
89%
Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census of Population and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Regional Economic Information System. Special tabulation by the Center for Business and
Economic Research, The University of Alabama.
8
29,469
23,521
80%
81.6
75.3
92%
How Alabama Compares to the United States
Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census of Population and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Regional Economic Information System. Special tabulation by the Center for Business and
Economic Research, The University of Alabama.
9
BLCI: 2002 in Review
As we approached 2002 with the inaugural Alabama
Business Leaders Confidence Index (BLCI) survey,
completed in December 2001, the economy was
beginning to recover from the downturn of 2001 and
the recent impact of terrorism. The BLCI registered
54, with panelists cautiously optimistic that the economy would show improvement in the first quarter of
2002.
port shutdown. GDP growth for the third quarter
came in at 3.1 percent. In this atmosphere of continuing economic turmoil, Alabama business leaders
pulled back their expectations with a fourth quarter
2002 BLCI of 56, four points below the third quarter
number. Although still weighted toward continuing
economic recovery, panelists are likely convinced
that the recovery will plod along slowly for some
time. As we entered the fourth quarter, consumers
were spending more cautiously, residential construction was beginning to weaken, and jobs remained in
short supply.
BLCI Indicators
Seven economic indicators are measured in the quarterly BLCI survey. The following graphs present projected change on each indicator from the previous
quarter for the four quarters of 2002. While the survey captures responses on a five-part scale, categories
of strong decrease and moderate decrease are combined into decrease, while moderate increase and
strong increase are collapsed into increase on these
annual graphs.
In fact, economic gains during the quarter turned out
to be stronger than anticipated, with GDP increasing
by 5.0 percent. As the second quarter dawned, economists were touting the strength of the recovery and
predicting sustained healthy gains. Inventories were
turning around, layoffs had ebbed, and consumer
and business spending were relatively robust. The
second quarter BLCI reflected the optimism of
March 2002 with a 63 reading, up 9 points from the
first quarter.
However, the second quarter did not play out as
expected. Corporate scandals and bankruptcies
mounted, business confidence fell, corporate restructuring and productivity gains depressed job growth,
and financial markets tumbled. Second quarter GDP
growth wound up a weak 1.3 percent. Given this
atmosphere, Alabama business leaders were less confident in their overall expectations for third quarter
2002. The BLCI of 60 was just 3 points below the
second quarter, however, reflecting optimism that at
least a weak recovery was likely to be sustained.
But the U.S. economy continued to reel from repeated shocks, including the new threat of war with Iraq
and resulting higher oil prices and the West Coast
10
Pessimism about the course of the U.S. economy was
highest on the first quarter 2002 survey, when 46 percent of panelists felt economic activity could decline
from fourth quarter levels. By second quarter, over
75 percent felt economic activity was on the
upswing. This optimism pulled back in both the
third and fourth quarter surveys. By fourth quarter,
only 50 percent of respondents were forecasting
improvement, while 21 percent expected a decline—
still more optimistic than first quarter results.
change in interest rates climbed steadily across quarters to 70 percent in the fourth quarter survey.
Panelists generally found it less likely that the
Alabama economy would slip. The exception was
the second quarter when 10.7 percent predicted a
decline in the state economy versus 7.7 percent in
the national economy. Expectations pulled back
sharply in the fourth quarter, dropping to about 44
percent expecting an increase compared to close to
60 percent in both the second and third quarters.
The share of panelists forecasting flat economic activity rose from 19.5 percent in the first quarter to 36.5
percent in the fourth.
After the Federal Reserve dropped interest rates in
fourth quarter 2001, the federal funds rate held
steady through October. Given uncertainty that a
recovery was underway leading into the first quarter,
almost 44 percent of respondents expected interest
rates to decline. This share fell to 5.6 percent in the
second quarter and then rose to 16.2 percent in the
fourth. The percentage of panelists predicting no
Industry sales have been the strongest indicator of
economic recovery across the four quarters of 2002.
The percentage of panelists forecasting sales increases
was above 50 percent on each quarterly survey.
Expectations of sales gains peaked at 72.2 percent in
the second quarter, then retrenched to 51.7 percent
in the fourth. Amid indications of weakening consumer spending and continuing weakness in business
investment, the share of business leaders forecasting
declining sales rose to 16.9 percent in the fourth
quarter.
Boosted by productivity gains and cost-cutting measures, profits were rebounding in the first quarter of
2002. As the year progressed, however, corporate
profit outlooks were mixed as the recovery progressed slowly. More than half of Alabama BLCI
panelists were optimistic that profits would improve
11
during each of the first three quarters of 2002.
While sentiment continued to be stronger for
increase rather than decrease in the fourth quarter,
the share of respondents forecasting rising profits in
their industry fell sharply to 42.6 percent.
The recovery of 2002 has been dubbed the “jobless”
recovery. Still, from second quarter 2002 forward,
Alabama business leaders have been more likely to
feel that their industry will add rather than cut jobs.
As uncertainty about the strength of the recovery
grew, however, the share expecting to add jobs fell
from 33 percent in the second quarter to 25 percent
in the fourth. Throughout the four quarters of 2002,
most expected to maintain the status quo on hiring.
The University of Alabama
Center for Business and Economic Research
Box 870221
Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0221
Address service requested.
While capital spending got off to a strong start in
2002, slumping business confidence and a glut of
underutilized capital adversely affected expenditures.
Alabama business leaders were less likely to think
capital spending in their industry would increase as
the year progressed. The share forecasting a gain fell
steadily from 44 percent in the first quarter of 2002
to 36 percent in the fourth. Still, far fewer panelists
anticipated decreasing rather than increasing spending.
Carolyn Trent
The BLCI is developed in partnership between Compass Bank
and the Center for Business and Economic Research.
Complete results can be found at blcindex.cba.ua.edu.
Nonprofit Organization
U.S. Postage Paid
Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
Permit No. 16