May 22, 2008
Tracking Seventh District Manufacturing
By Emily Engel, Associate Economist
There is a greater concentration in manufacturing among the five states of the Seventh Federal Reserve District than in the nation. For example, as measured by the share of payroll jobs in manufacturing, Indiana ranked first among the 50 states in 2007; Wisconsin, second; Iowa, fourth; Michigan, seventh; and Illinois, 19th. For this reason, we at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago tend to closely watch the manufacturing sector. In fact, our watchfulness often becomes close scrutiny during times like the present when the U.S. economy shows signs of slowing. (Manufacturing activity has tended to be highly sensitive to general business downturns.)
The Chicago Fed Midwest Manufacturing Index (CFMMI) is a public statistical release that the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago has been producing since 1987. This monthly release tracks manufacturing output for the Seventh District states (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Iowa, and Wisconsin) and compares it to the manufacturing component of the Industrial Production Index (IPMFG) produced by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. The chart below, taken directly from the March release of the CFMMI, shows historical data comparing the CFMMI to the IPMFG. Over the decade, Midwest output growth has lagged the nation. During the current slowdown in national economic activity, both the IPMFG and the CFMMI have slowed and declined at a very mild rate in comparison with past episodes.
Industry concentration in specific industrial sectors influences economic performance among District states. In particular, transportation equipment and machinery are bellwethers of state economic performance in the District.
Since the beginning of this decade, the automotive-intensive states of Indiana and especially Michigan have experienced a softening of their labor markets relative to the national average.
Meanwhile, by the same measure, the machinery-intensive states of Illinois and Iowa have outperformed the nation. The remaining state, Wisconsin, deviates from this pattern, being a machinery-intensive state with an unemployment rate that has deteriorated relative to the national average.
The charts below compare these states’ concentration in both machinery and transportation equipment, respectively. Manufacturing activity in these industries is compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau’s Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM). Specifically, the Census data measure “value added” by manufacturing establishments within each state. Value added roughly corresponds to the value of shipments of manufactured establishments, net of intermediate inputs to production, such as fuel, materials, parts, and components that are purchased from other establishments. In this sense, value added is manufacturing output.
It takes much time and effort for the U.S. Census Bureau to compile these data, so that detailed information on output by specific industry sector and location are issued with a one or two year lag. The data above, for example, refer to 2005 and 2006.
To keep more current than the Census statistics allow, our CFMMI constructs sector-specific estimates of manufacturing output for the overall Seventh District. These estimates are primarily based on data reported on payroll hours worked in manufacturing establishments across the District, and these data are usually available with only one month’s lag. When complete data on value added are issued by the U.S. Census Bureau, we adjust or benchmark our CFMMI data series to correspond to that data.
There are four major sectors of the CFMMI: auto, steel, machinery, and resource. The CFMMI is made up of 15 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes of hours worked data. The breakdown of the NAICS codes is given under each graph (such as the one below) on the press release every month. The auto sector components are plastics & rubber products (326) and transportation equipment (336). Primary metal (331) and fabricated metal products (332) compose the steel sector. The machinery sector is made up of machinery (333), computer & electronic product (334), and electrical equipment, appliance, & components (335). There are five categories for the resource sector: food manufacturing (311), wood product (321), paper (322), chemical (325), and nonmetallic mineral product (327). The overall CFMMI is composed of the four sector components as well as these industries: printing & related support activities (323), furniture & related product (337), and miscellaneous manufacturing (339).
As seen by the two sector charts below, taken directly from the March CFMMI release, the District’s output growth paths in the machinery and auto sectors have diverged. While the machinery sector of the CFMMI is slowly outpacing the overall CFMMI, the auto sector of the CFMMI continues to fall below the overall CFMMI. Such developments can help us understand differences in economic performance around the Seventh District.
To see more information about the CFMMI, please check the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago’s website. Additionally, some of the other Federal Reserve Banks also have manufacturing indexes/surveys. Please see below for some of those links:
Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Business Outlook Survey
Federal Reserve Bank of New York Empire State Manufacturing Survey
Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Manufacturing Conditions Survey
Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Survey of Tenth District Manufactures
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Texas Manufacturing Outlook Survey
May 15, 2008
Foreign Direct Investment in the Midwest--Update
Americans sometimes harbor mixed feelings about investment in enterprises on U.S. soil that are owned and directed by companies domiciled abroad. Yet for the most part, investment from overseas represents a validation of the productive business climate in the domestic economy. Here, our system of law and contracts, along with productive workers and well-conceived public infrastructure, offer conditions that are conducive to value creation. In turn, foreign direct investment (FDI) activities can benefit our workers and households. New investment and ownership often bring new technology and ideas to American shores, thereby boosting our own growth, wages, and standards of living.
In recent decades, FDI has grown rapidly to comprise a larger share of the U.S. economy. As documented in our recent article, the share of employees working for all companies that are U.S. affiliates (those in which a foreign investor owns at least 10%) grew from 1.8% in 1979 to 4.7% in 2000. According to more recent data, this share has remained fairly constant through the middle of the current decade—now 3.9% by that estimate.
Much of recent growth in inbound FDI has resulted from accelerated globalization and rapid world economic growth. Due to a greater ease of communication and lower cost of personal travel and goods shipment, global breadth of enterprises has expanded. General Electric employs 316,000 worldwide, 155,000 outside of the U.S. General Motors employs 335,000 worldwide, 193,000 abroad.
In addition, although the U.S. has maintained its economic prominence in the world economy, the U.S. economy now comprises a smaller share of global production (27% as of 2006). And so, without any countervailing forces, this simple arithmetic would suggest more inbound FDI as a share of the U.S. economy. By one estimate, the U.S. share of global outbound FDI outflows have in fact declined from its 1970 value of 54% of global FDI to 18% in 2006.
While global economic growth is the largest generator of inbound FDI to the U.S., the exchange value of the U.S. dollar versus other currencies can also be influential. The value of the dollar has fallen by 25% since 2002, measured against a basket of currencies weighted by our trade with other countries. For this reason, investment in productive capacity on U.S. soil may look increasingly attractive to foreign-domiciled companies. For one, for those foreign companies that hold their earnings and assets in foreign currencies, the purchase price of physical capital in the U.S. such as real estate, intellectual property, and factories will be cheaper. For companies that now sell into the U.S. market from production facilities abroad, the shifting of production to the U.S. may be advantageous in generating production costs in the same currency as their sales.
Further, for those companies that use their U.S. facilities as a platform from which to export to markets outside of the U.S., earnings on sales will likely be denominated in foreign currency rather than in U.S. dollars. Recent developments in FDI in the U.S. automotive sector may be reflective of these considerations. Several European carmakers are currently considering setting up production in North America, among them Volkswagen and Audi. And exports of U.S.-produced light vehicles have been rising, according to Chicago Fed economist Thomas Klier. From 2002 to 2007, the share of U.S. production that is exported to non-NAFTA countries alone has risen from 3.0% to 11.6%.
In recent years, the state of Indiana has done well by FDI in automotive and other (mostly manufacturing) investments from abroad. The Business Research Center at Indiana University (BRC) has recently issued an extensive report that reviews the global environment for FDI with an emphasis on Indiana and surrounding Midwest states. According to U.S. government data as of 2005, Indiana’s economy ranks 8th in the nation and first in the region as measured by the ratio of FDI to state economic output. (Michigan also exceeds the U.S. average.) As measured by jobs, the United Kingdom and Japan were virtually tied as the number one source of FDI into Indiana, each accounting for 32,000 jobs.
The U.S. government data on FDI for states does not necessarily reflect new investment or added jobs. Rather, most FDI transactions are mergers and acquisitions. For this reason, and because government data are not very timely, the BRC also gathered information from a private vendor on announcements of FDI expansions and new facilities. Since these are announcements rather than completed transactions, we cannot be certain these investments will actually take place. But according to BRC estimates, Indiana will gain nearly 5,000 jobs from 2007 announcements, mostly in the automotive industry. The implication is that Indiana will widen its lead among Midwestern states in the FDI category. An appendix to the BRC report proudly maps the specific FDI projects in which Indiana’s state development agency has completed or participated.
Competing state and local development agencies throughout the Midwest will surely take note.