OCS Study 

MMS 2006-030 

 

Coastal Marine Institute 

Accounting for Socioeconomic Change 

from Offshore Oil and Gas: 

Cumulative Effects on Louisiana’s 

Coastal Parishes, 1969-2000 

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

19691970197119721973197419751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000

Number Employed

Coastal Non-Coastal

Cooperative Agreement

Coastal Marine Institute 

Louisiana State University 

U.S. Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 
U.S. Department of the Interior Cooperative Agreement 

Minerals Management Service Coastal Marine Institute 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region Louisiana State University 

OCS Study 

 MMS 2006-030 

Coastal Marine Institute 

Accounting for Socioeconomic Change 

from Offshore Oil and Gas: 

Cumulative Effects on Louisiana’s 

Coastal Parishes, 1969-2000 

Author 

Allan G. Pulsipher 

June 2006 

Prepared under MMS Contract 

1435-01-99-CA-30951-85252 

by 

Louisiana State University 

Center for Energy Studies 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70810 

Published by 
iii

DISCLAIMER 

This report was prepared under contract between the Minerals Management Service 

(MMS) and Louisiana State University’s Center for Energy Studies. This report has not 

been technically reviewed by MMS. Approval does not signify that the contents 

necessarily reflect the view and policies of the Service, nor does mention of trade names 

or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. It is, 

however, exempt from review and compliance with MMS editorial standards. 

REPORT AVAILABILITY 

Extra copies of the report may be obtained from the Public Information Office (Mail Stop 

5034) at the following address: 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Minerals Management Service 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

Public Information Office (MS 5034) 

1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard 

New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394 

Telephone Number: 1-800-200-GULF 

 1-504-736-2519 

CITATION 

Suggested citation: 

Pulsipher, A. G. 2006. Accounting for socioeconomic change from offshore oil and gas: 

Cumulative effects on Louisiana’s coastal parishes, 1969-2000. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New 

Orleans, La. OCS Study MMS 2006-030. 97 pp. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Hui (Kevin) Wang, a doctoral student in the Department of Economics at Louisiana State 

University, provided much of the data collection and transformation for the report and 

made substantive contributions to the analysis. Seth Cureington prepared most of the 

graphics, Marybeth Pinsonnault edited the manuscript, and Ric Pincomb prepared the 

final manuscript for publication and collected much of the information needed for the 

report. All are members of the Center for Energy Studies’ research staff. Participants at 

the Minerals Management Services’ Information Transfer Meeting in January of 2005 in 

New Orleans and the members of the Intra-University Colloquia on Socioeconomic 

Effects of Offshore Oil and Gas Development at Louisiana State University also made 

helpful comments and suggestions. 
v

ABSTRACT 

The objective is to see if the growth of offshore oil and gas development that took place 

between 1969 and 2000 resulted in cumulative economic effects that differentiate the 

economic experience and circumstances of residents in Louisiana’s coastal parishes from 

the residents of Louisiana’s non-coastal parishes. A comparison of the average rate of 

growth in per capita personal income in coastal and non-coastal parishes revealed 

remarkably little difference over the entire study period, or for any of the sub-periods 

considered separately. Comparing the components of the growth, however, shows this 

equality is misleading during the initial two phases of “energy boom” and “price 

collapse,” because the contributors to growth were different. Onshore production in 

coastal parishes peaked early in the 1970s and then fell rapidly. Offshore production was 

largely a stabilizing force which became relatively and absolutely much more important 

in the last half of the period. But during this latter period there are no discernable 

differences between the two groups of parishes and the implication is, that in a broad 

regional context, the effects of offshore development were temporary and transitory 

rather than cumulative or permanent. Demographic indicators in the parishes are 

consistent with this conclusion. 
vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................ ix 

LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................. xi 

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 1 

2. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 5 

3. ENERGY AND THE GULF COAST ECONOMY .................................................... 7 

4. THE STUDY AREA.................................................................................................. 17 

5. CHANGES IN PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME ............................................. 21 

6. THE EVOLUTION AND PERTURBATION OF OIL AND GAS MARKETS...... 29 

7. COMPONENTS OF CHANGE IN PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME ............. 33 

8. COMPONENTS OF PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME GROWTH IN THE 

 GULF COAST STATES ............................................................................... 35 

 8.1. Embargo, War and Rising Energy Prices: 1969-1980................................... 37 

 8.2. Eroding then Collapsing Energy Prices and Expectations: 1981-1985 ......... 37 

 8.3. Recovery from the Oil Price Collapse: 1986-1990........................................ 37 

 8.4. The Energy Lull: 1991-2000.......................................................................... 38 

 8.5. The Long-Term View .................................................................................... 39 

9. COMPONENTS OF PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME GROWTH IN 

 LOUISIANA’S PARISHES .......................................................................... 41 

 9.1. 1969 to 1980: Embargo, War, Rising Energy Prices and Expectations......... 42 

 9.1.1. Period Summary................................................................................. 42 

 9.1.2. Per Capita Personal Income (PCPI)................................................... 42 

 9.1.3. Industry Mix....................................................................................... 43 

 9.1.4. Relative Wage Effects........................................................................ 43 

 9.1.5. Labor Force Participation .................................................................. 43 

 9.1.6. Transfer Payments ............................................................................. 43 

 9.1.7. Property Income................................................................................. 44 

 9.2. 1981-1985: Eroding then Collapsing Energy Prices and Expectations ......... 46 

 9.2.1. Period Summary................................................................................. 46 

 9.2.2. PCPI ................................................................................................... 46 

 9.2.3. Industry Mix....................................................................................... 47 

 9.2.4. Relative Wage Effects........................................................................ 47 

 9.2.5. Labor Force Participation .................................................................. 47 
viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(continued)

Page 

 9.2.6. Transfer Payments ............................................................................. 47 

 9.2.7. Property Income................................................................................. 48 

 9.3. 1986-1990: Recovery from the Oil Price Collapse........................................ 50 

 9.3.1. Period Summary................................................................................. 50 

 9.3.2. PCPI ................................................................................................... 50 

 9.3.3. Industry Mix....................................................................................... 50 

 9.3.4. Relative Wage Effects........................................................................ 50 

 9.3.5. Labor Force Participation .................................................................. 51 

 9.3.6. Transfer Payments ............................................................................. 51 

 9.3.7. Property Income................................................................................. 51 

 9.4. Change in PCPI 1991-2000: The Energy Lull, Sustained But Slower 

 Growth ............................................................................................... 53 

 9.4.1. Period Summary................................................................................. 53 

 9.4.2. PCPI ................................................................................................... 53 

 9.4.3. Industry Mix....................................................................................... 53 

 9.4.4. Relative Wage Effects........................................................................ 53 

 9.4.5. Labor Force Participation .................................................................. 53 

 9.4.6. Transfer Payments ............................................................................. 53 

 9.4.7. Property Income................................................................................. 53 

10. COMPONENTS OF PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME GROWTH IN 

 COASTAL LOUISIANA’S METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS 

 (MSA) ............................................................................................................ 55 

11. PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME AND CHANGES IN POPULATION ......... 59 

 11.1. Population Change in Coastal and Non-Coastal Parishes.............................. 59 

 11.2. Net Migration in Coastal and Non-Coastal Louisiana Parishes..................... 61 

 11.3. Comparing Growth Rates of Population with Growth Rates of Per Capita 

 Personal Income................................................................................. 61 

12. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS................................................................. 71 

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 75 

APPENDIX A PARISH DATA............................................................................................. 79 

APPENDIX B STATE Z-SCORES....................................................................................... 91
ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Description Page 

1a. Oil Intensity in 1980: Barrels Consumed/$1,000 GSP ................................................ 8 

1b. Oil Intensity in 2000: Barrels Consumed/$1,000 GSP ................................................ 8 

2a. Natural Gas Intensity in 1980: MCF Consumed/$1,000 GSP ..................................... 9 

2b. Natural Gas Intensity in 2000: MCF Consumed/$1,000 GSP ..................................... 9 

3a. Total Oil Production in Louisiana, 1950-2003, Bar Graph ....................................... 11 

3b. Total Gas Production in Louisiana, 1950-2003, Bar Graph ...................................... 11 

4a. Total Oil Production in Louisiana, 1950-2003, Line Graph...................................... 12 

4b. Total Gas Production in Louisiana, 1950-2003, Line Graph..................................... 12 

5. Employment in Mining in Coastal and Non-Coastal Parishes in Louisiana, 

 1969-2000 ...................................................................................................... 14 

6. Net Migration for the State of Louisiana, 1970-2004................................................ 14 

7. Louisiana Refinery Crude Oil Input by Source ......................................................... 15 

8. Study Area – Coastal and Non-Coastal Parishes ....................................................... 17 

9. Personal Income for Coastal and Non-Coastal Parishes, 1969-2000 ........................ 19 

10. Comparison of PCPI for Various Regions as a Percent of U.S. Average.................. 27 

11. Comparison of PCPI for GOM States as a Percent of U.S. Average......................... 27 

12. Posted Price for West Texas Intermediate Beginning of the Month (in current 

 dollars) ........................................................................................................... 30 

13a. Rig Count – Gulf of Mexico and South Louisiana, Bar Graph ................................. 31 

13b. Rig Count – Gulf of Mexico and South Louisiana, Line Graph................................ 32 

14. Change in PCPI – 1969-1980 Compared to 1981-1985 ............................................ 45 

15. Change in PCPI – 1981-1985 Compared with 1986-1990 ........................................ 49 

16. Change in PCPI – 1986-1990 Compared with 1991-2000 ........................................ 52 

17. Annual Growth Rate of Per Capita Personal Income and Components for Coastal 

 and Non-Coastal Parishes, 1969-2000........................................................... 54 

18. Change in Population and PCPI for Louisiana Parishes, 1969-1980......................... 65 

19. Change in Population and PCPI for Louisiana Parishes, 1981-1985......................... 65 

20. Change in Population and PCPI for Louisiana Parishes, 1986-1990......................... 66 

21. Change in Population and PCPI for Louisiana Parishes, 1991-2000......................... 66 

22. Change in Population and PCPI for Louisiana Parishes, 1969-2000......................... 67 

23. Percent Change in Population and PCPI for the U.S., 1969-1980............................. 68 

24. Percent Change in Population and PCPI for the U.S., 1981-1985............................. 68 

25. Percent Change in Population and PCPI for the U.S., 1986-1990............................. 69 

26. Percent Change in Population and PCPI for the U.S., 1991-2000............................. 69 

27. Percent Change in Population and PCPI for the U.S., 1969-2000............................. 70 
xi

LIST OF TABLES 

Table Description Page 

1. Average Annual Percentage Change in Per Capita Personal Income for 

 GOM States, Louisiana Parishes and SMSAs, 1950 to 2000, for 

 Selected Periods............................................................................................. 22 

2. Per Capita Personal Income as a Percentage of U.S. Average for Selected 

 Years .............................................................................................................. 26 

3. Per Capita Personal Income in Gulf of Mexico States as a Percentage of the 

 U.S. Average for Selected Years ................................................................... 26 

4. Growth Rates of Personal Income and Its Components for Gulf Coast States, 

 1969-2000 ...................................................................................................... 36 

5. Changes in Per Capita Personal Income and Its Components, 1969-2000................ 41 

6. Change in Per Capita Personal Income and Its Components for Louisiana MSAs, 

 1969-2000 ...................................................................................................... 56 

7. Nominal Population Change for Coastal and Non-Coastal Louisiana Parishes, 

 1970-2000 ...................................................................................................... 60 

8. Net Migration Among Coastal and Non-Coastal Louisiana Parishes, 1970-2000 .... 61 

9. Type and Index of Economic Change by Business Cycles for LA Parishes, 

 1969-2000 ...................................................................................................... 63 

A.1a. Growth Rate and Components of Percentage Change in Per Capita Personal 

 Income for Coastal Parishes (1969-1980)...................................................... 81 

A.1b. Growth Rate and Components of Percentage Change in Per Capita Personal 

 Income for Non-Coastal Parishes (1969-1980) ............................................. 82 

A.2a. Growth Rate and Components of Percentage Change in Per Capita Personal 

 Income for Coastal Parishes (1981-1985)...................................................... 83 

A.2b. Growth Rate and Components of Percentage Change in Per Capita Personal 

 Income for Non-Coastal Parishes (1981-1985) ............................................. 84 

A.3a. Growth Rate and Components of Percentage Change in Per Capita Personal 

 Income for Coastal Parishes (1986-1990)...................................................... 85 

A.3b. Growth Rate and Components of Percentage Change in Per Capita Personal 

 Income for Non-Coastal Parishes (1986-1990) ............................................. 86 

A.4a. Growth Rate and Components of Percentage Change in Per Capita Personal 

 Income for Coastal Parishes (1991-2000)...................................................... 87 

A.4b. Growth Rate and Components of Percentage Change in Per Capita Personal 

 Income for Non-Coastal Parishes (1991-2000) ............................................. 88 

A.5a. Growth Rate and Components of Percentage Change in Per Capita Personal 

 Income for Coastal Parishes (1969-2000)...................................................... 89 

A.5b. Growth Rate and Components of Percentage Change in Per Capita Personal 

 Income for Non-Coastal Parishes (1969-2000) ............................................. 90 
xii

LIST OF TABLES 

(continued) 

Table Description Page 

B.1. Growth Rates of Per Capita Personal Income and Its Components for States, 

 1969-1980 .......................................................................................................93 

B.2. Growth Rates of Per Capita Personal Income and Its Components for States, 

 1981-1985 ...................................................................................................... 94 

B.3. Growth Rates of Per Capita Personal Income and Its Components for States, 

 1986-1990 ...................................................................................................... 95 

B.4. Growth Rates of Per Capita Personal Income and Its Components for States, 

 1991-2000 ...................................................................................................... 96 

B.5. Growth Rates of Per Capita Personal Income and Its Components for States, 

 1969-2000 ...................................................................................................... 97 

 
1

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The oil and gas industry often is seen as the historical force driving economic activity 

along the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) from Louisiana to Texas. In capital-intensive industries 

populated by large companies substantial portions of the returns generated go to nonresident individuals and institutions. The objective of the study is to understand how the 

evolution of the offshore oil and gas industry, as it developed reserves under federal 

jurisdiction, affected incomes of people living in the coastal parishes of Louisiana. 

Specifically, did offshore development result in cumulative economic effects that 

differentiate their economic experience and circumstances from the residents of 

Louisiana’s non-coastal parishes? 

Growth in per capita personal income in 19 coastal parishes in Louisiana is compared 

with 45 non-coastal parishes over the 1969 to 2000 time period. The time period is 

divided into the 1969 to 1980 domestic “energy boom,” the 1981 to 1985 “price erosion 

and collapse,” the 1986 to 1990 “recovery” and 1991 to 2000 “energy lull.” 

Per capita personal income is decomposed into the components accounting for its rate of 

growth—improvements in industry mix, changes in relative wages, participation in the 

labor force, receipt of transfer payments, and property income for each of the four phases 

of the 1969 to 2000 period. The decomposition is a way to compare systematically the 

economic experience of the residents of coastal parishes with the experience of those 

farther removed but still affected by the same changes in the regional and national 

economies. This same format was used to compare the five states bordering on the Gulf 

of Mexico and to compare Louisiana’s eight metropolitan areas. 

There is remarkably little difference between the average growth rates of the coastal and 

non-coastal parishes over the entire study period, or for any of the sub-periods considered 

separately. 

Comparing the components of the growth, however, shows this equality is misleading 

during the initial two phases of “energy boom” and “price collapse.” During the initial 

“boom” incomes in coastal parishes grew more from increased labor force participation 

(2.4 percentage points v. 0.5 percentage points) while in non-coastal parishes the 

contribution from transfer payments was much larger (1.75 percentage points v. 0.04 

percentage points). Conversely, during the “collapse” the shock to incomes of coastal 

residents was transmitted through decreased labor force participation with little change in 

non-coastal parishes (−2.59 percentage points v. −0.03 percentage points) while incomes 

in coastal parishes were sustained by growth in transfer payments at twice the rate 

observed in non-coastal parishes (2.01 percentage points v. 0.91 percentage points). 

During the “recovery” and “lull” phases of the period the components as well as the total 

growth rates for the two groups were very similar to each other. Over the entire 31-year 

period, they are nearly identical. This same pattern is observed when the petroleum 

intensive states (Louisiana and Texas) are compared to the other Gulf Coast States 
2

(Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi) and when the metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) 

in coastal Louisiana are compared to the MSAs in non-coastal Louisiana. 

Rates of change in population and net migration are compared within this same 

chronological framework and no consistent patterns were found that distinguished the 

coastal parishes from the non-coastal parishes. 

Relating changes in per capita income very precisely to the development of offshore oil 

and gas resources is complicated. First, there were major changes in the energy markets 

and institutions during the study period. World energy prices quadrupled and domestic 

prices of oil and gas not subject to regulations rose rapidly, national oil companies 

became dominant producers, and energy markets became less regulated and more 

transparent. 

Secondly, and more central to our study, the temporal pattern of production of oil and gas 

from onshore reserves is quite different from the pattern of offshore production during 

the study period. Specifically: 

• Onshore production of oil from Louisiana’s coastal parishes peaked in 1970 when 

it was selling for about $2/barrel. 

• After reaching this peak, onshore production fell extremely rapidly—dropping by 

600 percent in 10 years—despite escalating crude oil prices. 

• In contrast, offshore production peaked only temporarily in 1970 and fell only 

slowly until 1982, at which time it began once again to grow. 

• Offshore production began a steady growth in 1990 and by the end of the study 

period in 2000 was twice as large as its post-1970 low and 50 percent above its 

1970 peak. 

• Onshore and offshore gas follows a roughly similar pattern. 

Further, measures such as employment in oil and gas exploration, the number of rigs 

drilling and net migration appear to have been impervious to the precipitous slide of 

onshore production in the 1970s, but responded sharply to the erosion and collapse of the 

international crude oil price in the first half of the 1980s. 

In addition to the simulative effects of offshore activity being obscured or 

counterbalanced by the rapid decline in onshore activity, other factors may explain the 

apparently limited economic effects observed. 

• Important technological and structural changes in the national economy had 

similar consequences for both coastal and non-coastal parishes. The rise of 

scientific agriculture and migration of agricultural workers to urban areas, 

affordable air conditioning, the interstate highway system and the spreading of 

branch plant manufacturing all had very major impacts on the south and the state. 

• Transition in the national economy—slow-down in the mid-1970s; stagflation in 

the late 1970s early 1980s; mild recession, slow growth, low inflation, low 
3

interest rates, stagnating wages in the 1990s—affected all parts of the national 

economy including coastal and non-coastal parishes in Louisiana. 

• The unusual “seven (or 14) days on, seven (or 14) days off” work schedules used 

on many offshore drilling rigs and production platforms facilitate more offshore 

workers residing outside of coastal parishes (or the state) and dilutes the 

secondary economic effects of offshore employment on coastal parishes. 

Untangling the factors interacting exceeds the scope of the study, but the implications for 

the more limited analytical objectives of this essay are: 

• Offshore production was largely a stabilizing force counterbalancing the sudden 

decline in onshore production during the 1970s and the serious deterioration of 

the oil and gas industry after the collapse of world oil prices in 1985. 

• If one wants to look for the type of “boom-town” or cumulative economic effects 

that might be caused by offshore production, specifically; the relevant period 

would be the mid-1980s to the end of the 1990s—not the energy boom and bust 

of the 1970s and early 1980s. 

• And, to reiterate, there is no discernable difference in the patterns of change in the 

components of per capita income or of population between coastal and noncoastal parishes observable during this latter period. In other words, the 

differential economic and social effects of the offshore oil and gas industry on the 

residents of the coastal parishes of Louisiana appear to have been temporary and 

transitory rather cumulative or permanent. 

 
5

2. INTRODUCTION 

The vicissitudes of the oil and gas industry usually are seen as the driving if not 

dominating force in the evolution and performance of the economy spread along the Gulf 

of Mexico (GOM)—especially in Louisiana and Texas. Some give oil and gas much of 

the credit for these states’ economic successes, for others the cumulative effect of the 

industry’s activity has been to create not only environmental but also economic and 

social problems.1

 

As exploration and production in the region have shifted to the petroleum resources 

located offshore on the outer continental shelf (OCS) under federal rather than state 

jurisdiction, the socioeconomic effects of OCS development on coastal economies and 

communities have become a relevant incarnation of this controversy. The Minerals 

Management Service, which manages OCS development for the federal government, 

includes such effects in the periodic assessments it is required to make of the 

consequences of its major policies, plans, and actions. 

To understand the magnitude and duration of the effects that OCS development may have 

had on the Gulf Coast economy, other changes in the national and regional economy 

affecting the region need to be accounted for and made comparable. Without a 

comprehensive perspective that accounts for changes in the wider regional and national 

economy, the relationship between changes in the offshore energy sector and changes in 

the economies of coastal states and communities can be distorted. A narrow, two-sided 

comparison of trends and events on the OCS and trends and events in coastal states and 

communities can result in an illusion of causality inconsistent with either economics, 

history, or, occasionally, common sense. 

Finding consistent patterns by objectively comparing the experiences of a wide range of 

localities and jurisdictions is the method used in this study. The method is not 

theoretically or statistically complex. However, applying it to data from the last third of 

the past century gives results at variance with conventional wisdom, namely, that the 

energy sector’s economic importance to, or dominance of, coastal communities on the 

Gulf Coast has been exaggerated. 

The energy perturbations set off by the Arab oil embargo of 1974, and the collapse of 

global oil prices and expectations in the mid 1980s, disproportionately affected coastal 

economies in oil and gas producing states like Louisiana and Texas, but probably not by 

as much as is generally believed. Since that time, however, long-term or cumulative 

effects of energy development seem weak or non-existent even in localities closely tied to 

the development of offshore oil and gas resources. 

 

1

 The term “cumulative effects” has several dimensions. As pointed out by Richard Hildreth at a Minerals 

Management Socioeconomic Workshop (Hildreth, 2004), the relevant legal requirement is that “an EIS 

cumulative-effects study must identify (1) the area in which the effects of the proposed project are felt; (2) 

the impacts that are expected in that area; (3) other actions—past, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable—

that have or had been expected; (4) the impacts or expected impacts [that] are allowed to accumulate; and 

(5) the overall impact that can be expected if the individual impacts are allowed to accumulate; (Fritiofson 

v. Alexander, 772 F.2d 1225 (5th Cir. 1985) p. 52.” 
6

Evaluating the performance of the national economy over roughly the same period we 

consider here, William Nordhaus (2004) concluded: 

But the past is not prologue, and the 1970s productivity slowdown has 

over the last decade been overcome by a productivity growth rebound 

originating primarily in the new-economy sectors. As the economy made 

the transition from the oil age to the electronic age, the aftershocks of the 

energy crises have died off and productivity growth has attained a rate 

close to its historic norm. 

The application or implication of Nordhaus’ conclusion for the Gulf Coast economy is 

that the repercussions of the energy boom and collapse of the 1970s and 1980s should not 

be confused with the cumulative economic effects of the exploration and production of 

oil and gas from the federal OCS. Louisiana is the nation’s most energy intensive state 

and although it may still be closer to the oil than to the electric age, twenty years later the 

coastal parishes of Louisiana don’t seem to be any worse off or any better off than the 

rest of the state now that the energy adjustments have been made. Louisiana’s economy 

lags the rest of the country in economic and social improvement, but offshore oil and gas 

development clearly has mitigated rather than reinforced this unfortunate trend. 
7

3. ENERGY AND THE GULF COAST ECONOMY 

There is little doubt that the energy sector is very important on the Gulf Coast. As figures 

1a and 1b and 2a and 2b illustrate, the “energy intensity,” measured as units of oil or gas 

consumed per $1,000 of Gross State Product (GSP), is higher for the five GOM states—

Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida—than for any other contiguous 

regional configuration of states. Figures 1a and 1b compare the oil intensity of the states 

in 1980 and 2000 and Figures 2a and 2b make the same comparison for natural gas. Oil 

intensity in each of GOM states exceeded the national average in both years. Louisiana 

was more “oil intense” than any other state. Comparing 1980 to 2000 shows intensity has 

declined substantially in all states, but less so in Louisiana. Relative to the other states, 

Louisiana’s oil intensity has increased. 

The picture for natural gas is similar, but the relative discrepancy among states is greater. 

In 2000, Alaska replaced Louisiana as the most “gas intense” state, but the relative 

difference between those two states and the other 48 widened. Florida is the only GOM 

state whose gas intensity is below the national average. 
8

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Intensity (Bbl/$1,000 GSP)

US

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

D.C.

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Source: USDOC, BEA. 2006b & USDOE, EIA. 2006. 

Figure 1a: Oil Intensity in 1980: Barrels Consumed/$1,000 GSP. 

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Intensity (Bbl/$1,000 GSP)

US

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

D.C.

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

 Source: USDOC, BEA. 2006b & USDOE, EIA. 2006. 

 Figure 1b: Oil Intensity in 2000: Barrels Consumed/$1,000 GSP. 
9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Intensity (MCF/$1,000 GSP)

US

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

D.C.

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Source: USDOC, BEA. 2006b & USDOE, EIA. 2006. 

Figure 2a: Natural Gas Intensity in 1980: MCF Consumed/$1,000 GSP. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Intensity (MCF/$1,000 GSP)

US

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

D.C.

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Source: USDOC, BEA. 2006b & USDOE, EIA. 2006. 

Figure 2b: Natural Gas Intensity in 2000: MCF Consumed/$1,000 GSP. 
10

Despite their energy intensity, the economic effects of the development of oil and gas 

resources from the federal OCS on GOM states are difficult to isolate. First, as Figures 3a 

and 3b depict, the production of oil and gas from “on-shore” fields—including those 

located offshore but in the “state waters” that extend roughly three-miles out from 

Louisiana’s eroding coast, peaked in 1970. The figures divide the state’s on-shore 

production between 19 coastal parishes and 45 non-coastal parishes and then compare 

them to OCS production. Production of oil and gas in non-coastal parishes declined 

slowly but steadily throughout the 53-year period shown, while production from the 

coastal parishes rose rapidly from 1950 to 1970 and then declined even more rapidly. 

Figures 4a and 4b show the same data but on a disaggregated, rather than combined or 

“stacked” basis, a format that makes it easier to compare production from the three 

regions shown. 

There is a common misperception that oil and gas production from the federal offshore 

and the state onshore jurisdiction boomed throughout the 1970s and early 1980s and then 

collapsed when the price of oil fell off its widely presumed path to $50 dollars a barrel in 

the mid-1980s. 

As Figures 4a and 4b show, the state and OCS production behaved differently during the 

period. The rapidity of the drop in oil produced in the coastal parishes is exemplified by 

the fact that 10 years after its 1970 peak production, it had fallen back almost to its 1950 

level—a rise and fall of approximately 600 percent. Policy changes as well as geologic 

factors are reflected in these oscillations, but as Figure 4a shows, although production of 

oil from the federal OCS also declined, it did so much more slowly. Further, as can be 

seen in Figure 4b, gas produced on the OCS continued to increase at a healthy rate, 

without pausing—in contrast to declining onshore gas production that fell almost as 

rapidly as oil. 

Tyler Priest (2004) provides a concise explanation of the principal forces driving offshore 

production, many of which were different than those affecting on-shore production. 
11

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1950

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

Millions of Barrels

 NON-COASTAL TOTAL COASTAL TOTAL OCS

Source: LA, DNR. 2006(a & b). 

Figure 3a: Total Oil Production in Louisiana, 1950-2003, Bar Graph. 

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

1950

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

Billion Cubic Feet

NON-COASTAL TOTAL COASTAL TOTAL OCS

 Source: LA, DNR. 2006(a & b). 

Figure 3b: Total Gas Production in Louisiana, 1950-2003, Bar Graph.
12

 NON-COASTAL TOTAL

COASTAL TOTAL

OCS

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1950

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

Millions of Barrels

 NON-COASTAL TOTAL COASTAL TOTAL OCS

Source: LA, DNR. 2006(a & b). 

Figure 4a: Total Oil Production in Louisiana, 1950-2003, Line Graph. 

NON-COASTAL TOTAL

COASTAL TOTAL

OCS

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

1950

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

Billion Cubic Feet

NON-COASTAL TOTAL COASTAL TOTAL OCS

Source: LA, DNR. 2006(a & b). 

Figure 4b: Total Gas Production in Louisiana, 1950-2003, Line Graph. 
13

Oil and gas produced on the OCS each exceeded their corresponding coastal counterparts 

in 1976 and since then have accounted for a steadily increasing share. In 1997, oil 

produced on the OCS exceeded its previous 1970 peak and has continued to increase 

through 2003. This pattern of steady increase in production from the federal offshore 

since well before the drastic decline in world oil markets in 1985, in the case of gas, and a 

much less precipitous decline following the 1970 peak and then a subsequent renewal of 

growth in 1982, in the case of oil, suggests that economic activity attributable to 

development of the federal offshore has been a steady source of stability for the Gulf 

Coast economy for the past two decades. 

The apparent disconnect between production, as shown in Figures 4a and 4b and 

measures of oil and gas activity, such as energy sector employment depicted in Figure 5 

(and the rig count illustrated later in Figures 13a and 13b), underscores the importance of 

perceptions and expectations in explaining oil and gas activity on the Gulf Coast. 

On-shore peak production occurred when oil was selling for a little more than $2 per 

barrel—as it had been doing for the preceding two decades, but as uncertainty spread and 

prices rose with the 1974 oil embargo, activity on the Gulf continued unabated in the face 

of a historically steep and sudden decline in production. This phenomenon is illustrated 

in Figure 5, showing employment in mining (which in Louisiana is almost exclusively to 

oil and gas exploration and production) in both coastal and non-coastal parishes over the 

1969 to 2000 period. Employment peaked in 1980 and fell steeply in 1985--after 

marching through the 1970 peak in production and subsequent historically steep decline 

without even a discernable pause. 

Similarly, Figure 6 shows net migration for Louisiana on an annual basis from 1969 to 

2000. The state gained from migration from 1969 to 1983 with the exception of a small 

loss in 1973. Starting in 1983, however, migrants left the state at an increasing rate that 

exceeded 100,000 in 1987. The negative net migration diminished thereafter, nearly 

becoming positive in 1992, but since then remaining modestly but consistently negative. 

A contributing factor that may be partly responsible for this misperception is the public 

awareness of the importance of oil and gas revenues, such as severance taxes and 

royalties, to the state’s budget. In 1970, about 50 percent of Louisiana’s undedicated state 

revenues came from special taxes levied on the petroleum industry (Richardson and 

Scott, 1988, page 128). Special taxes means paid only by them, i.e., it does not include 

general taxes like sales or corporate income taxes. The negative effects of the post 1970 

production slide on public revenues were to some extent offset when prices began to rise 

in 1974. The effect was at first muted by the conglomeration of price regulations 

classifying oil as “old” or “new,” but this effect weakened as the decade progressed. 
14

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

19691970197119721973197419751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000

Number Employed

Coastal Non-Coastal

Source: USDOC, BEA. 2006b. 

Figure 5: Employment in Mining in Coastal and Non-Coastal Parishes in 

 Louisiana, 1969-2000. 

-120,000

-100,000

-80,000

-60,000

-40,000

-20,000

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

1970197119721973197419751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000

# of Persons

Source: USDOC, CB. 2006.

Figure 6: Net Migration for the State of Louisiana, 1970-2004. 
15

Another major shift that complicates the analysis is the greatly increased reliance on 

imported crude oil by Louisiana’s refineries, as illustrated in Figure 7. Today only about 

8 percent of the state’s refinery input is produced within its own jurisdiction, with 17 

percent coming from the federal offshore and 41 percent imported from other countries. 

Presumably, oil produced within its own jurisdiction or on the federal OCS could have 

been replaced by imported oil but at a somewhat higher cost. If imports were to have 

replaced OCS production, the consequence would have been many fewer jobs in 

petroleum exploration, production, and service sectors as well as in their support 

industries. Higher input and feedstock prices similarly would have resulted in fewer 

refineries and chemical plants. Estimating more precisely the impact of using imports 

rather than developing the OCS on coastal economies and communities, however, would 

be a substantial analytical undertaking. 

Similar conceptual complications are created by structural shifts with the oil and gas 

industry such as increased centralization of technical, research, and managerial functions 

in Houston—with a shift of personnel from New Orleans and other locations along the 

coast; increased use of migratory contractors for construction, maintenance, and 

operation of offshore facilities—globally as well as in the GOM; and the ability to control 

many offshore operations and facilities by remote control and management. 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Million Barrels

Foreign 174 250 274 336 423 435 433 428 446 450 461 479 477 481 481 476 491 493 509

Federal OCS 126 135 141 130 121 115 128 127 130 176 176 171 187 201 249 216 210 265 273

Louisiana 213 209 192 169 159 154 157 159 160 151 122 134 132 121 106 100 101 90 88

Other States 125 112 114 91 58 52 51 58 61 68 43 44 40 47 35 47 45 57 32

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Source: LA, DNR. 2006b. 

Figure 7: Louisiana Refinery Crude Oil Input by Source. 
16

Rather than try to disentangle 40 or 50 years of such trends, discontinuities and whatmight-have-beens, the approach followed here is a simpler one of comparing economic 

activity in coastal areas associated, both historically and geographically, with the 

development of the federal offshore, with areas further removed and presumably less 

affected. By making these comparisons over an extended time period during which there 

were major perturbations within the oil and gas sector, the goal is to identify and 

understand how the response by the industry has affected coastal economies, whether any 

effects were cumulative or transitory, as well as how coastal economies were affected by 

changes in public policy and the larger economy. 
17

4. THE STUDY AREA 

Nineteen coastal parishes and 45 non-coastal parishes in Louisiana and the Metropolitan 

Statistical Areas they contain are the primary geographic units most closely studied and 

compared. The two groupings are shown in Figure 8 and production of oil and gas from 

them is shown in Figures 3a, 3b, 4a, and 4b previously discussed. Both include urban, 

suburban, and rural communities. The coastal parishes include the urban areas centered 

on New Orleans2

, Lafayette, and Lake Charles. The non-coastal parishes include urban 

areas centered on Alexandria, Baton Rouge, Monroe, and Shreveport. 

Figure 8: Study Area - Coastal and Non-Coastal Parishes. 

The 19 coastal parishes as defined here differ from the 19 Louisiana parishes designated 

as in the “coastal zone” for the purposes of coastal zone management (CZM). The CZM 

designation is based largely on geographic and ecological criteria unrelated to petroleum 

 

2

 Over the study period, the parishes located on the northern shore of Lake Pontchartrain, especially St. 

Tammany parish, became more like suburban extensions of New Orleans and popular residences for many 

oil and gas executives. St. Tammany and the other north shore parishes, however, are regarded as noncoastal here. The New Orleans metropolitan area is the only one that is split between the two groups. 

Vernon

Winn

Cameron

Rapides

Union

Allen

Sabine

Caddo

Vermilion

Grant

Bossier

De Soto

LaFourche

Calcasieu

Terrebonne

Natchitoches

Beauregard

B env l e

Acadia

Ibe ia

Avoye les

St. Landry

Tensas

Plaquem nes

Ibervi le

Caiborne

La Sal e

S . Mary

Frank in

Madison

Catahou a

Webster

Morehouse

Concordia

Ouach ta

Jackson

L ncoln

Tangipahoa

L v ngs on

Richland

Caldwe l

St Tammany

S . Mart n

Evange ine

Wash ngton

Je ferson Davis

Red River

Poin e Coupee

St. Helena

Eas Carro l

S . Bernard

Jef erson

St. Charles

Eas Fe iciana

Assump ion

West Carrol

Lafayette Ascension

West Fel ciana

Orleans

East Ba on Rouge

St James

S . John the Bapt s

West Baton Rouge
18

reserves or activity. The classification we use is intended to reflect economic activity 

related to oil and gas development. The principal differences are that the CZM 

classification includes three parishes on the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain that are not 

included in our group of coastal parishes, and our group includes Jefferson Davis, 

Acadia, and Lafayette parishes.3

 Lafayette is a major regional management center for 

offshore oil, and in our view clearly should be included in the group hypothesized to be 

affected by offshore activity. 

Figure 9 depicts total personal income for the coastal and non-coastal parishes over the 

study period. The land area and number of non-coastal parishes is considerably larger 

than the coastal parishes, but the proportion of total personal income received by 

Louisiana residents in the coastal and non-coastal parishes has been roughly equal over 

the study period, with a modest increase in the proportion received in non-coastal 

parishes over time. The share received by non-coastal parishes increased from 48 percent 

in 1969 to 52 percent in 2000, with the share of coastal parishes, of course, dropping 

from 52 percent to 48 percent over the same period. The trend was relatively steady with 

each group of parishes accounting for approximately 50 percent of the state’s personal 

income in 1985. 

 

3

 A pioneering effort to delineate and analyze the coastal economy by Lamar Jones and J. Randolph Rice 

(1972) for the purposes of coastal zone management reasoned that the coastal economy should extend up 

the Mississippi River to Baton Rouge, and the Highway 190 bridge that marks the limit of navigation for 

ocean going ships. 
19

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

19691970197119721973197419751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000

Personal Income ($MM)

Source: USDOC, BEA. 2006b. 

Figure 9: Personal Income for Coastal (solid) and Non-Coastal (striped) 

 Parishes, 1969-2000. 

The bulk of the analysis starts in 1969 and ends with the year 2000. The beginning date 

was decided partly by data availability. Detailed data for parishes is limited prior to that 

date. Although shorter than historians might prefer, this period includes the major 

perturbations of the petroleum market and includes more than enough variation in oil and 

gas activity to explore the economic response to it. The period is divided into four subperiods, 1969 to 1980, 1981 to 1985, 1986 to 1990, and 1990 to 2000, delineated by the 

regional business cycle. 
21

5. CHANGES IN PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME 

Income per person is a good measurement of an economy’s performance for regional 

analysis. Conceptually, it reflects more directly than production or employment measures 

how the fruits of economic activity change through time in a given area or jurisdiction. 

Personal income includes all residents’ wages, salaries, proprietors’ and partners’ 

earnings but excludes corporate profits and business taxes. Personal income is more 

comprehensive and more indicative of changes in individual economic well being than 

employment and earnings measures. It includes dividends and interest paid to individuals 

residing in the region of tabulation and it also includes income individuals receive from 

transfer payments, such as social insurance or public assistance, that are unrelated to 

participation in the labor force. Corporate profits and taxes, which are not included in 

personal income data, are not necessarily or usually received or paid in areas where the 

activity generating them occurs. 

For capital-intensive industries such as oil and gas, measures based on personal income 

can be significantly different than measures based on production or employment. Robert 

Barro and Xavier Sala-I-Martin (1991, pages 140-141), for example, found that: 

The correlation of the log of per capita GSP with the share of GSP 

originating in crude oil and natural gas rises because of the oil shocks 

from 0.1 in 1973 to 0.4 in 1975 and 0.7 in 1981 and then falls with the 

decline in oil prices to 0.1 in 1986. In contrast, the correlation of the log of 

per capita personal income with the share of personal income originating 

in oil and natural gas is −0.3 in 1970 and 0.0 in 1980. These divergent 

patterns reflect the distinction between the location of oil and gas facilities 

and the ownership of these facilities. 

Personal income is especially useful for local or regional analysis because it is available 

by residency but is not as subject to omissions to prevent disclosure of proprietary 

information within smaller areas, as frequently is the case with production and 

employment data.4

 Since location of residence and location of employment may differ 

considerably, ambiguities and anomalies occur with respect to individual parish 

jurisdictions, but the use of comparisons within and among multi-county or parish groups 

and metropolitan areas can identify or avoid many of them. 

 

4

 Disclosure problems do, however, affect the measurement of some of the components of the change in per 

capita personal income, which are used in the analysis. See, (Garnick and Friedenberg, 1982; Perloff ,1957; 

Latzko, 2001; Carlino and Mills, 1987; Terkla, 1991) for discussion of the concept and its use in regional 

analysis. 
22

Table 1 

Average Annual Percentage Change in Per Capita Personal Income for GOM 

States, Louisiana Parishes and SMSAs, 1950 to 2000, for Selected Periods 

Parish/ 

SMSA 

Parish 

1959/ 

1950a

1968/

1959 

1980/

1969 

1985/

1981 

1990/

1986 

2000/ 

1991 

2000/ 

1969 

2000/

1950 

U.S.b 3.8 4.7 8.1 5.3 4.8 4.0 6.4 5.8 

Louisiana 4.1 4.9 9.3 3.8 4.7 3.7 6.5 5.9 

Texas 3.6 4.7 9.0 4.6 4.1 4.6 6.7 5.9 

Mississippi 4.8 5.7 9.0 4.6 5.0 4.3 6.8 6.5 

Alabama 5.2 5.0 8.8 5.7 5.1 3.7 6.8 6.4 

Florida 4.3 4.8 8.3 5.5 4.7 3.7 6.4 6.0 

Coastal Par & SMSAsc d 4.7 5.1 10.0 2.4 4.6 3.6 6.5 6.2 

Non-Coast Par & SMSAs 4.2 5.2 9.0 4.7 4.7 3.6 6.6 6.3 

Coastal Parishes 

 Acadia 3.4 5.2 9.9 4.0 4.2 4.1 6.7 6.2 

 Assumption 5.1 3.5 10.7 2.2 4.7 4.2 6.8 6.4 

 Cameron 6.7 6.7 10.1 3.2 5.0 3.0 6.1 6.1 

 Iberia 4.1 5.1 10.9 0.8 4.4 3.6 6.6 6.0 

 Jefferson Davis 3.3 5.4 9.6 4.1 4.4 3.2 6.2 5.4 

 LaFourche 6.1 3.1 10.5 1.2 4.3 5.0 6.7 6.5 

 St. Charles 5.0 6.2 10.4 0.9 5.5 2.9 6.5 6.1 

 St. James 5.8 6.8 10.2 4.4 6.0 2.3 6.3 6.4 

 St. John the Baptist n.a n.a 10.1 1.5 5.8 2.8 6.7 n.a 

 St. Martin 1.7 5.7 10.7 1.5 4.8 4.0 6.8 6.6 

 St. Mary 6.1 6.4 9.9 1.8 4.2 4.5 6.4 6.4 

 Terrebonne 6.2 5.3 10.8 0.9 4.2 4.0 6.5 6.4 

 Vermillion 6.1 3.9 10.1 3.1 4.4 4.0 6.6 6.3 

Coastal SMSAs/Parish 

Lafayette 4.3 4.3 

 Lafayette 11.6 2.3 4.1 4.4 7.1 

Lake Charles 3.9 4.6 

 Calcasieu 9.6 1.7 5.6 3.3 6.3 

New Orleans 3.3 4.2 

 Jefferson 8.7 4.1 3.8 4.0 6.3 

 Orleans 8.5 4.5 5.1 3.3 6.3 

 Plaquemines 10.2 2.7 4.3 2.5 6.2 

 St. Bernard 8.5 2.9 3.2 3.8 5.9 

 St. Tammany 9.3 4.0 5.0 4.3 6.9 

 

a

 Data for 1959/50 and 1968/59 are taken from (Scott et al., 1971, pages 98-164). 

b

 Data for U.S and these states during the 1950-59 and 1959-68 are from (USDOC, BEA. 2006a). 

c

 St. Tammany is a part of the New Orleans Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) but not 

considered a coastal parish in this report and not included in the coastal parish average. 

d

 Averages for parish classifications are arithmetic means of each cell for which data is available. 
23

Table 1 (continued) 

Average Annual Percentage Change in Per Capita Personal Income for Louisiana 

Parishes, 1950 to 2000, for Selected Periods 

Parish/ SMSA 1959/ 

1950 

1968/

1959 

1980/

1969 

1985/

1981 

1990/

1986 

2000/ 

1991 

2000/ 

1969 

2000/

1950 

Non-Coastal Parishes 

and SMSAs 

 

 Allen 4.2 3.5 8.9 3.1 4.2 3.9 6.2 5.6 

 Ascension 5.0 10.5 9.8 3.3 6.2 4.0 6.8 7.1 

 Avoyelles 3.8 4.1 9.2 5.0 5.3 4.1 6.8 6.3 

 Beauregard 3.8 2.0 10.1 4.3 4.9 3.0 6.6 6.0 

 Bienville 5.4 3.2 9.3 4.8 3.5 3.5 6.6 6.6 

 Caldwell 2.0 4.9 9.9 5.7 4.9 3.5 6.9 6.0 

 Catahoula 1.9 7.0 9.4 2.9 5.5 3.8 7.0 6.2 

 Claiborne 4.3 4.9 9.0 4.4 3.3 3.8 6.4 6.1 

 Concordia 3.9 2.1 8.9 2.8 5.1 2.9 5.7 5.7 

 De Soto 4.3 3.5 9.5 3.6 3.2 4.6 6.6 6.5 

 East Carroll 8.6 3.8 9.0 4.2 5.3 1.6 6.3 6.2 

 East Feliciana 4.1 4.7 10.7 5.0 5.1 4.0 7.3 7.0 

 Evangeline 1.7 5.3 10.4 3.4 4.5 3.3 6.6 6.0 

 Franklin 2.8 8.0 8.9 5.1 6.4 3.3 7.0 6.2 

 Grant 5.4 3.5 8.5 4.9 5.0 4.1 6.5 6.5 

 Iberville 4.9 8.0 9.9 3.6 5.3 2.7 6.4 6.4 

 Jackson 4.8 3.4 8.8 5.0 3.5 5.1 7.0 6.4 

 LaSalle 3.4 1.8 9.9 6.6 4.7 2.8 6.6 5.6 

 Lincoln 5.1 4.0 9.2 5.3 5.3 3.0 6.6 6.3 

 Livingston n.a n.a 9.0 3.4 4.9 4.3 6.5 n.a 

 Madison 5.0 4.4 7.4 4.8 7.5 2.3 6.2 6.0 

 Morehouse 2.4 4.8 9.1 3.9 5.1 3.1 6.6 5.6 

 Natchitoches 4.6 5.7 8.5 5.8 4.1 4.0 6.7 6.6 

 Pointe Coupee 3.2 5.2 9.8 4.5 4.3 4.8 7.1 6.9 

 Rapides 4.1 4.6 8.7 5.6 5.2 4.2 6.8 6.3 

 Red River 3.7 6.8 7.8 4.9 4.6 3.0 5.9 6.4 

 Richland 3.0 7.3 9.9 3.8 4.8 3.1 6.8 6.4 

 Sabine 5.4 2.9 8.3 6.4 5.5 3.3 6.8 6.5 

 St. Helena 3.6 6.8 9.6 6.2 4.7 4.5 7.1 6.7 

 St. Landry 3.5 5.3 10.7 3.1 5.4 3.3 7.0 6.5 

 Tangipahoa 4.3 3.9 9.4 4.6 4.2 4.0 6.8 6.4 

 Tensas 6.2 4.9 8.5 3.5 6.1 3.1 7.1 6.8 

 Union 3.6 3.7 8.6 5.5 4.3 3.8 6.7 6.6 

 Vernon 4.9 12.8 5.2 7.3 3.7 3.1 5.4 6.8 

 Washington 4.6 2.1 8.6 4.2 3.7 3.5 6.1 5.5 
24

Table 1 (continued) 

Average Annual Percentage Change in Per Capita Personal Income for Louisiana 

Parishes, 1950 to 2000, for Selected Periods 

 Parish/ 

SMSA 

1959/

1950 

1968/

1959 

1980/

1969 

1985/

1981 

1990/

1986 

2000/ 

1991 

2000/ 

1969 

2000/

1950 

 Webster 3.7 7.6 8.2 5.2 3.2 3.6 6.0 5.6 

 West Baton Rouge 4.6 5.2 10.4 4.6 5.4 4.1 7.1 6.9 

 West Carroll 5.1 4.7 9.0 5.1 4.4 3.8 6.8 6.5 

 West Feliciana 1.6 11.3 10.9 7.0 1.9 5.4 7.2 6.4 

 Winn 4.2 5.6 8.8 5.6 4.8 2.8 6.3 5.9 

Non-Coastal 3.0 4.3 9.1 4.7 4.7 3.6 6.5 

 SMSA Parish 

Baton Rouge 3.5 4.0 

 East Baton Rouge 9.4 3.8 5.3 3.4 6.4 

Monroe 3.3 4.9 

 Ouachita 9.1 5.1 4.7 4.1 6.8 

Shreveport 2.1 3.9 

 Bossier 8.7 5.3 5.1 3.7 6.6 

 Caddo 8.8 4.7 4.2 3.6 6.3 

Table 1 summarizes the change in per capita personal income (PCPI) from 1950 to 2000. 

Over the 1950 to 2000 period, each of the Gulf Coast States grew more rapidly than the 

nation as a whole, although the differences were minimal in the case of the two most 

energy intensive states, Louisiana and Texas, and small for Florida. Mississippi and 

Alabama, starting from the lowest absolute level, grew at rates significantly faster than 

the nation. Over the first three sub-periods, Louisiana grew faster but during the next 

three sub-periods grew at a slower rate than the nation. Rates of growth for the individual 

states varied in the sub-periods, which we have defined to coincide with trends in the 

energy markets, but the variation even in the 1969-1980 “boom” and 1981-1985 “bust” 

are not as great as the conventional wisdom may assume. 

The averages for Louisiana’s coastal and non-coastal parishes are not comparable to the 

state averages, since they are simply un-weighted averages of each parish or, for the 

earliest two periods, SMSAs, for which data are available. Since some parishes such as 

Orleans are much more populous and during some periods have grown relatively slowly, 

the unweighted average for both groups of parishes can exceed the state average. Over 

the longer term, considered as either 1950 to 2000 or 1969 to 2000, there is remarkable 

little difference in the growth rates for the two groups—one-tenth of one percent in both 

cases. 

Regional differences in the change in per capita personal income over time have been 

studied for a number of reasons. One focus has been whether personal income was 

becoming more or less uniformly or equally distributed among the states or regions of the 

country. Another focus has been concerns about the economic future of regions as 
25

exemplified by terms like “Sun Belt” and “Rust Belt.” Economic theory would suggest 

that economic activity would migrate from higher cost regions to lower cost regions. 

Whether reality in fact followed this suggestion also has motivated a number of economic 

studies (Baro and Sala-I-Martin, 1991; Blanchard and Katz, 1992; Eff, 1999; Garofalo 

and Yamarik, 1999; Kim, 1998; Michener and McLean, 1999; Roback, 1988). 

From the 1940s to the 1980s there was a regional convergence in the average level of per 

capita personal income between the “richer” northeast, Midwest, and Far West states and 

the “poorer” south, plains, and mountain regions. In the 1980s, the convergence appeared 

to have stopped when incomes in the “richer” New England and Mideast states began 

again to increase relative to the national mean. Other higher-than-the-average regions, 

such the Far West and Great Lakes states, continued to approach the national average 

with the Great Lakes states falling slightly below the average in the mid-1980s. 

A similar divergence took place among the “poorer” states when convergence stopped 

and stabilized in the mid-1980s. The data are outlined in Table 2 and illustrated year-byyear in Figures 10 and 11. Figure 10 illustrates the converging and diverging regional 

trends for the eight major census regions for years in the 1969 to 2000 period that will be 

used in the study. 

Broad regional groupings can conceal important differences at the state level. Table 3 and 

Figure 11 show the trends in per capita income relative to the U.S. average for the five 

GOM states for the same periods. Texas and Louisiana, the principal oil and gas 

producers, show significant gains during the 1969 to 1980 boom, but ten years later had 

fallen back close to their 1969 levels. Mississippi and Alabama exhibit slower but 

steadier growth, while Florida hovered very close to the national average throughout the 

period. 
26

Table 2 

Per Capita Personal Income as a Percentage of U.S. Average 

for Selected Years 

Year 

Region 

1970 1980 1981 1985 1986 1990 1991 2000 2003 

Far West 115 115 114 111 111 109 108 107 105 

Mideast 113 108 108 111 112 116 116 114 114 

New England 109 105 105 112 115 117 115 121 121 

Great Lakes 103 102 100 99 99 98 98 99 99 

Plains 94 94 96 96 95 93 94 95 97 

Rocky Mtns 92 97 97 92 91 89 90 95 96 

Southwest 88 96 98 95 91 88 88 91 90 

Southeast 81 86 86 87 88 89 89 89 90 

Source: Calculated by author from BEA regional economic data 

Table 3 

Per Capita Personal Income in Gulf of Mexico States as a Percentage of the U.S. 

Average for Selected Years 

Year 

State 

1969 1980 1981 1985 1986 1990 1991 2000 2003 

Texas 88 98 101 97 92 89 90 95 92 

 Louisiana 75 87 89 82 78 78 80 77 83 

 Mississippi 64 69 70 67 66 67 76 70 74 

 Alabama 72 77 77 78 79 81 82 80 84 

 Florida 98 98 99 100 100 100 99 96 95 

Source: Calculated by author from BEA regional economic data, 1969 taken from (Garnick and 

Friedenberg, 1982) 
27

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002

% of U.S. Average

New England

Mideast

Far West

Great Lakes

Plains

Rocky Mountains

Southeast

Southwest

 Source: USDOC, BEA. 2006a.

Figure 10: Comparison of PCPI for Various Regions as a Percent of U.S. Average. 

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002

% of U.S. Average for GOM States

Texas

Alabama

Louisiana

Florida

Mississippi

 Source: USDOC, BEA. 2006a.

Figure 11: Comparison of PCPI for GOM States as a Percent of U.S. Average. 
29

6. THE EVOLUTION AND PERTURBATION OF OIL AND GAS MARKETS 

Prior to the embargo declared by the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting 

Countries (OAPEC) in the fall of 1973, prices in U.S. oil and gas markets were 

extensively “administered” or regulated by governmental agencies or industry 

organizations. The annual variation in nominal oil prices was recorded in pennies not 

dollars. Regulations evolved at the state and national level to guard against prices falling 

because of excess domestic capacity and the availability of cheaper imports. 

The Federal Power Commission regulated the price of natural gas moving between the 

states. Thus factors changing the demand or supply of either product were not 

automatically, nor necessarily, reflected in the prices paid for the commodity. 

Complicating the picture were import controls and the prorationing system that was in 

effect in the 1960s, the wage and price controls set up in 1972 by the Nixon 

Administration and excess profit taxes levied to prevent energy producers from reaping 

windfall profits from the escalation of prices internationally that began with the 1974 

Arab oil embargo and the gradual decontrol of U.S. prices in the 1980s. 

Figure 12 shows the posted price of the common benchmark West Texas Intermediate oil 

for the period 1950 to 2000. If the figure were extended to the left to1940 there would be 

little change in the stability of the 1950 to 1973 period. However, after the OAPEC 

embargo was announced in the Fall of 1973 the changes are dramatic, especially in the 

perspective with the near stability during the preceding decades. In retrospect, it seems 

clear that much of the oscillation in oil and gas prices and the inefficiencies that resulted 

were the consequence of counter-productive measures to respond to the perceived crisis 

kicked off by the Arab oil embargo in the early 1970s followed by the Iran/Iraq war at the 

decade’s conclusion. 
30

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

1950

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

Dollars per Barrel (in current dollars)

Source: Energy Statistics Sourcebook & USDOL, BLS. 2006. 

Figure 12: Posted Price for West Texas Intermediate Beginning of the Month 

 (in current dollars). 

Unrealistic expectations engendered by these events on the part of energy producers and 

consumers (and analysts), however, was probably the more consequential result: namely, 

the widespread assumption during the 1974 to 1980 run-up that price increases and 

shortages would continue unabated into the future. Fifty-dollar-a-barrel crude oil and 

two-dollar-a-gallon gasoline were the conventional expectations. 

Two stages to the erosion of expectations about the energy future can be seen in Figure 

12. Uncertainty about the consequences of war between two major Persian Gulf 

exporters, complicated by inefficient and distorting domestic allocation regulations in the 

U.S. and uncertainty and speculation in international markets, almost doubled oil prices 

between 1979 and 1980 from a little over $20 per barrel to about $40 per barrel. Then, for 

the following five years, prices declined in small, steady increments as the combined 

forces of: 1) more efficient energy use and conservation, 2) the extraordinary ability and 

willingness of Saudi Arabia to either make up oil market shortfalls or restrict its own 

exports to stabilize (high) prices, and 3) increased oil supplies from non Persian Gulf 

suppliers became apparent. 

Slowly eroding oil prices slipped into a full collapse in 1985, when Saudi Arabia decided 

to support them no longer. Saudi Arabia had cut back its own exports from about 8 

million barrels a day to 2 million barrels a day over the preceding ten years and finally 

decided “enough was enough” and began to return shut-in capacity to production. 
31

The effects on the oil and gas industries along the Gulf coast were by any measure 

dramatic. Most directly, as illustrated in Figures 13a and 13b, efforts to find and develop 

oil and gas reserves also collapsed. The number of drilling rigs active in South Louisiana 

and in offshore waters fell from its 1981 peak of nearly 500 to 150 by 1986. On the 

offshore alone the decline was from a 1981 peak of about 250 to about 100 rigs in 1986. 

The “unstacked” depiction in Figure 13b compares rigs in South Louisiana (roughly the 

same area we designate as Coastal Louisiana) with rigs active on the federal OCS. The 

two series track each other closely as the rig count increased from about 100 at the time 

of the 1974 embargo to around 230 at the 1981 price peak. Rigs steadily left both areas 

until the early 1990s with the OCS maintaining about 50 or so more active rigs than 

Coastal Louisiana. After bottoming out, the number of rigs on the OCS increased with the 

exploration and development of deeper water, reaching nearly 150 by the end of the 

decade. In South Louisiana the rig count remained close to its minimal value of 50 

throughout the period. 

 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Number of Rigs

Gulf of Mexico Rigs South LA Rigs

Source: Louisiana Energy Indicators & Baker Hughes. 

Figure 13a: Rig Count - Gulf of Mexico and South Louisiana, Bar Graph. 
32

The modest increase in offshore activity reflected in the figure does not, however, reflect 

an important change in the offshore industry—the movement to the “deep gulf.” Drilling 

in very deep waters without fixed platforms means that the size of drilling and 

development projects, and their associated budgets, has increased very significantly. 

Much larger platforms are involved in the deep gulf and many more wells are drilled 

from each platform. This development, however, did not start until the mid-1990s, thus 

although a simple “rig count” may tend to underestimate the recovery, the effect is 

probably limited to the last few years of the study period. 

Gulf of Mexico Rigs

South LA Rigs

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Number of Rigs

Gulf of Mexico Rigs South LA Rigs

Source: Louisiana Energy Indicators & Baker Hughes. 

Figure 13b: Rig Count - Gulf of Mexico and South Louisiana, Line Graph. 

The perturbations in oil and gas markets that occurred in the 1970s and 1980s and their 

repercussions on offshore activity provide an unusual context of “extremes” to study the 

effects of offshore oil and gas development on coastal economic activity and 

communities. Usually changes in economic and social data are more gradual and 

moderate. Using extremes in empirical economics has both analytical advantages and 

disadvantages. Larger and more frequent variations in data make it easier to be confident 

in differentiating causal relationships from stochastic ones. However, if as in our case, we 

are interested in understanding the longer-term, cumulative effects of industry activity on 

coastal economies and communities, extreme variation may confuse short-run 

adjustments to unusual events with long-term trends or relationships. 
33

7. COMPONENTS OF CHANGE IN PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME 

Edward Dennison and others developed “growth accounting” in the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce in the 1970s to better understand the 

slowing of the rapid economic growth experienced during the 1950s and 1960s. The 

technique is based on the following identity summarized mathematically as: 

(1) FI

TPI

E

FI

N

J

H

E

J

H

N

TPI = × × × × , 

Where TPI is total personal income, N is total population, H is hypothetical earnings—

essentially what earnings in the parish or metropolitan area would be if those employed in 

the sectors or industries in the region were to be paid the national average wage of that 

industry or sector, J is the number of jobs, E is earnings actually paid in the region, and 

FI is factor income (property income plus earnings). The comparisons used here are the 

percent change in these components which sum to the overall growth rate. These 

components are called: 

• The industry-mix (H/J) component measures the contribution to growth in per 

capita personal income attributable to industries paying higher wages growing 

faster relative to industries paying lower wages in the jurisdiction.5

• The relative wage component (E/H) measures the extent to which wages in the 

parish increased or decreased relative to the average wage paid nationwide, with 

the mix of industries kept constant. 

• Labor force participation (J/N) refers to changes in personal income attributable 

to changes in the proportion of the population that participates in the paid labor 

force. 

• Transfer payments (TPI/FI) include social insurance, public assistance, and other 

income supplements not dependent upon participation in the labor force. 

• Property income (FI/E) comes from payments to individuals from interest, rent, 

and dividends. 

The technique is useful because it divides the change in per capita personal income into 

components that are conceptually distinct and correspond to factors that are easily 

intelligible to non-specialists. In the following three sections, this technique is used to 

describe and to compare the economic performance of : 

 

5

 For individual parishes and metropolitan areas, industries are defined using the very broad one-digit 

standard industrial classification (SIC) that only divides economic activity into 13 broad sectors; 

agriculture, mining, construction, manufacturing, etc. For states, in addition to the one-digit classification, a 

two-digit SIC classification is available that distinguishes industries or sectors into a finer division; for 

example, it distinguishes petroleum refining from the chemical industry within the manufacturing sector, 

but does not distinguish chemical plants that make commodity chemicals such as chlorine from plants that 

manufacture pharmaceuticals. 
34

• The five Gulf Coast States of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and 

Texas. 

• The metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in Louisiana, four in the coastal 

parishes and four in the non-coastal parishes. 

• Louisiana’s 19 coastal parishes and the 45 non-coastal parishes. 
35

8. COMPONENTS OF PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME GROWTH IN THE 

GULF COAST STATES 

The five Gulf Coast states include about 13 percent of the nation’s land area and 17 

percent of the nation’s population. The composition of their economies differs 

significantly. Florida’s population has been growing rapidly with tourism, retirement, and 

services providing much of the impetus. The state’s population grew more than four 

times faster than Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana and almost twice as fast as Texas. 

Personal Income in the aggregate also grew at a faster rate in Florida, although the 

difference was not nearly as great—about twice as fast as Alabama and Mississippi, two 

and a half times as fast as Louisiana and about 40 percent faster than Texas. 

The relationship of growth in per capita personal income among the states, however, is 

reversed. Over the 1969-to-2000 time period per capita personal income in Florida grew 

at a rate of 6.4 percent—the lowest rate among the five Gulf States. Alabama and 

Mississippi grew at nearly 6.8 percent, Texas at 6.7 percent, and Louisiana at nearly 6.5 

percent. Comparing growth rates of the Gulf Coast states to the distribution for all 50 

states, only Alabama and Mississippi are more than one standard deviation from (above) 

the U.S. mean. 

Florida is a large energy consumer, but it has vigorously resisted oil and gas development 

in offshore areas as environmentally and economically threatening to its economic 

foundation of tourism, recreation and retirement. The manufacturing sector of Alabama’s 

economy has evolved from heavy primary industries like iron and steel to automobiles. A 

small but growing natural gas based energy sector has developed in Mobile Bay. 

Mississippi is the most rural of the five states, but gambling, manufacturing, and tourism 

have helped it grow in the later part of the period. It has a refining and chemical complex 

in Pascagoula. Louisiana is the most energy intensive state from both a production and 

consumption basis, but also has considerable manufacturing activity and, in New Orleans, 

a well developed tourism base. Texas is also an energy intensive state with Houston 

becoming the national center for oil and gas headquarters and technology. It has a more 

diversified economy than the other states, including a growing high-tech sector in Dallas, 

Austin and San Antonio. 
36

Table 4 

Growth Rates of Personal Income and Its Components for 

Gulf Coast States, 1969-2000 

Period: 

1969- 

 2000 

STATE 

∆Personal 

Income/Person 

Industry 

mix 

Relative 

wage 

effect 

Labor Force 

Participation 

Property 

Income 

Ratio 

Transfer 

Payment 

Ratio 

1969-1980 

Alabama 8.79 7.09 0.38 0.68 -0.27 0.92 

Florida 8.33 6.59 0.01 0.86 -0.13 0.99 

Louisiana 9.26 7.24 0.53 1.31 -0.24 0.41 

Mississippi 8.97 7.20 0.15 0.63 -0.48 1.47 

Texas 8.99 6.99 0.61 1.21 -0.31 0.49 

Mean 8.87 7.02 0.34 0.94 -0.29 0.86 

1981-1985 

Alabama 5.75 4.41 -0.03 0.96 0.05 0.36 

Florida 5.54 4.56 -0.41 1.33 -0.21 0.27 

Louisiana 3.81 3.86 -0.91 -0.73 0.36 1.22 

Mississippi 4.63 4.60 -0.49 -0.04 0.16 0.40 

Texas 4.59 3.86 -0.08 -0.06 0.18 0.69 

Mean 4.86 4.26 -0.38 0.29 0.11 0.59 

1986-1900 

Alabama 5.13 3.52 -0.17 1.53 0.11 0.15 

Florida 4.74 3.51 0.56 0.11 -0.08 0.64 

Louisiana 4.68 3.85 -1.01 1.69 0.18 -0.03 

Mississippi 5.00 3.67 -0.20 1.37 0.07 0.09 

Texas 4.07 3.66 -0.69 1.08 0.32 -0.30 

Mean 4.72 3.64 -0.30 1.15 0.12 0.11 

1991-2000 

Alabama 3.71 3.36 -0.72 0.79 -0.01 0.28 

Florida 3.66 3.65 -0.47 0.94 0.16 -0.62 

Louisiana 3.73 3.39 -0.77 1.03 0.03 0.05 

Mississippi 4.27 3.31 -0.14 1.03 0.02 0.05 

Texas 4.57 3.74 0.50 0.71 0.43 -0.81 

Mean 3.88 3.50 -0.40 0.90 0.13 -0.21 

1969-2000 

Alabama 6.77 5.44 -0.06 0.88 -0.07 0.57 

Florida 6.42 5.37 -0.14 0.81 -0.09 0.48 

Louisiana 6.49 5.42 -0.31 0.91 -0.03 0.50 

Mississippi 6.79 5.56 -0.10 0.75 -0.17 0.77 

Texas 6.66 5.42 0.31 0.79 0.06 0.07 

Mean 6.63 5.44 -0.06 0.83 -0.06 0.48 

Table 4 shows the growth rates per capita personal income and their components for the 

Gulf Coast states for the four divisions of the study period. Tables showing the same 

information for all the states and their respective “z-scores” are included in Appendix B. 
37

8.1. Embargo, War and Rising Energy Prices: 1969-1980 

During the initial period of the embargo, the Iran/Iraq war, and the end of administered 

and controlled energy prices, the two principal energy producing states, Louisiana and 

Texas, were among the states with the fastest rates of growth in per capita personal 

income, as was Mississippi with a much smaller energy sector—only eight percent of 

gross state product compared to 38 and 21 percent in Louisiana and Texas respectively in 

1980. During this period only Wyoming and Alaska grew faster than Louisiana, and the 

growth rates in Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi all were more than one standard 

deviation above the mean for all states. Only Wyoming and West Virginia gained more 

from improvements in industry mix than did Louisiana. Mississippi had the next largest 

improvement. Texas, however, had a more modest gain. 

Although an improving industry mix is by far the largest contributor in all of the Gulf 

Coast States, the contributions from other factors reveal significant differences among the 

roots of the growth. In Louisiana and Texas, increases in wages relative to the rest of the 

nation, and labor force participation were major factors. But in Mississippi and in Florida, 

after improvements in industry mix, the next largest contributor to growth was an 

increase in transfer payments. Although the increases in labor force participation in 

Louisiana and Texas were large in absolute terms and in comparison to the other Gulf 

States, this was a period of fairly rapid growth in labor force participation nationwide, 

and the contribution in neither state was more than one standard deviation above the 

mean. 

8.2. Eroding then Collapsing Energy Prices and Expectations: 1981-1985 

 

After oil prices peaked in 1980 and then slid steadily downward until their collapse in 

1985, Louisiana went from the third fastest to the third slowest growing state in the 

nation as measured in terms of the growth per capita personal income. Only Wyoming 

and Montana grew more slowly. In Louisiana, the contribution from relative wages went 

from a sizeable plus to a sizeable minus, with only two other energy-producing states, 

Wyoming and Oklahoma, experiencing larger relative declines. Louisiana’s energy 

misfortunes were partly offset by rising transfer payments, which accounted for one-third 

of the state’s growth in per capita personal income during the energy bust. The effects of 

the energy turmoil on the other Gulf Coast states—even Texas—were not distinguishable 

from the rest of the nation in the sense that in none did the growth rate for PCPI fall 

beyond one standard deviation below the mean for all states. The contribution from an 

improved industry mix, however, did fall in Texas to almost the same level as in 

Louisiana—a drop of nearly 50 percent. Although relative wages and participation also 

fell in Texas, the decline exceeded a standard deviation only in the case of participation. 

8.3. Recovery from the Oil Price Collapse: 1986-1990

Despite the severity of falling oil prices and evaporation of expectations of a permanent 

energy boom, remarkably few differences are apparent between the two energy intensive 
38

states and the other Gulf Coast states or between the energy intensive states and the other 

48 states during the post-collapse, “recovery” period from 1986 to 1990. Per capita 

personal income growth rates for all of the Gulf Coast states lie within one standard 

deviation of the national mean, with Louisiana and Florida almost exactly at the mean 

and Texas the only Gulf Coast state below the mean. Among the components of growth, 

Louisiana’s improvement in industry mix and retreating relative wages fell beyond the 

one standard deviation boundary, as did Florida’s (positive) transfer payments and 

(negative) labor force participation. The only other outlier was Texas’ property income. It 

might be argued that the severity of Louisiana’s decline should have produced a bigger 

bounce in the recovery, but the state’s growth rate was only slightly below Florida’s and 

above that of Texas. Growth rates in all of the Gulf Coast states except Texas exceeded 

the nation’s average. 

8.4. The Energy Lull: 1991-2000 

The expectation of the early 1980s that oil and gas prices would continue to escalate 

toward, and beyond, the $50 per barrel landmark were not realized. Within three years of 

the 1985 collapse, oil was selling for $15 a barrel and bounced between $15 and $25 for 

the rest of the 1980s and 1990s. In real or inflation corrected terms, energy prices fell and 

consumers needed to spend progressively less of their incomes for energy, especially for 

gasoline. 

The resulting plateau in oil and gas activity is reflected in the rig count data shown in 

Figures 13a and 13b. OCS activity, however, increased steadily driven by major 

improvements in technologies for finding (3D seismic) and developing (non-fixed 

platforms and sub-sea completions) resources, especially in very deep water as reflected 

in the oil and gas production levels shown in Figures 4a and 4b. 

The effects of this lull in the oil and gas sector on the economies of the Gulf Coast states 

were mixed and difficult to interpret. 

Texas grew the fastest during the period and was the only Gulf Coast state whose growth 

rate was one standard deviation above the national mean. Texas also was the only Gulf 

Coast state that grew faster in the 1990s (4.57 percent per year) than during the previous 

1986-1990 “recovery” (4.07 percent per year). The only states that grew faster than Texas 

were Colorado and Massachusetts. This suggests it may have been “new economy” or 

“high tech” rather than energy providing the momentum for Texas’ surge. This 

conjecture is supported by the fact that the improvement in Texas’ industry mix was 

exceeded only by Nevada. 

Florida’s improvement in industry mix ranked fourth in the nation, while the contribution 

from industry mix improvements in the other three Gulf Coast states was below the 

national mean. 

Relative wage growth in Texas was positive and one standard deviation above the mean 

but negative and below the national average in the other four Gulf Coast states. Per capita 
39

personal income in Louisiana grew at 3.73 percent per year, only about 80 percent as fast 

as Texas. 

Relative wages in Louisiana made a negative contribution to growth and were more than 

one standard deviation below the national mean. 

The only other components that fell beyond plus or minus one standard deviation from 

the national mean for the period were: (1) transfer payments, where negative 

contributions in Florida and Texas and a positive contribution in Alabama were outside 

that range; and (2) property income, where the positive contribution in Texas led the 

nation. 

8.5. The Long-Term View 

Looking at the change in per capita personal income over the entire 1969 to 2000 study 

period for the five Gulf Coast states suggests that the effects of oil and gas development 

were largely limited to the early embargo/war/deregulation cycle. During that period the 

two most energy intensive states, Louisiana and Texas, grew at faster rates than the rest 

of the nation and their pattern of growth was consistent with the economic stimulation 

coming from the energy boom. Similarly, both Louisiana and Texas were harder hit by 

the collapse of energy prices in the subsequent 1981 to 1985 cycle and the end of 

expectations that energy prices would continue to increase. The negative effects were less 

intense in Texas, however, with the drop in PCPI less than (or within) a standard 

deviation from the mean for all states. 

During the two cycles that comprise the second half of the study period, however, there is 

little to distinguish the energy intensive states from their neighbors—or from the other 45 

states of the union. Texas seems to have benefited more from the “high tech” and “new 

economy” trends and the differences among the five states were not consistently related 

to energy developments. Other economic factors offer more cogent explanations of 

differences in PCPI growth along the Gulf Coast than do energy effects. 

State-versus-state comparisons usually are not the best framework for regional economic 

analysis. States are political and administrative units and not economic entities. They are 

often of quite disparate sizes, geographical configurations, and even cultures. In large 

states, state-level data may “average out” or otherwise mask effects that are most relevant 

to the question or issue at hand. 

The next two sections apply the same methodology used in the previous section to 

compare changes in per capita personal income of the coastal and non-coastal parishes in 

Louisiana and the coastal and non-coastal Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). 
41

9. COMPONENTS OF PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME GROWTH IN 

LOUISIANA’S PARISHES 

Table 5 summarizes the growth rates for the 19 coastal parishes and 45 non-coastal 

parishes shown in Figure 8. The overall growth rate was allocated among its five 

components for each parish. A normalized standard deviation, or “Z score,” was 

calculated for each contributor in each parish based on the distribution of the value 

among all the parishes in the state. The means for the overall growth rate and for each of 

the five contributors were computed, and means for the group of 19 coastal parishes were 

compared to the corresponding means of the 45 non-coastal parishes for each of the four 

time periods. The results are summarized in the following table. 

Table 5 

Changes in Per Capita Personal Income and Its Components, 

1969-2000 

Period 

Group 

∆ Personal 

Income/ 

Person 

Improved 

Industry 

Mix 

Relative 

Wage 

Effect 

Labor Force 

Participation 

Transfer 

Payment 

Ratio 

Property 

Income 

Ratio 

1969-1980 

Coastal 10.04 7.49 0.60 2.38 0.04 -0.51 

Non-C 9.13 6.91 0.45 0.51 1.75 -0.68 

1981-1985 

Coastal 2.41 3.49 -1.31 -2.59 2.01 0.42 

Non-C 4.67 4.46 -1.04 -0.03 0.91 0.27 

1986-1990 

Coastal 4.63 3.70 -1.33 2.21 0.22 0.03 

Non-C 4.74 3.87 -0.62 1.24 -0.01 0.22 

1991-2000 

Coastal 3.62 3.54 -1.05 0.88 0.33 0.01 

Non-C 3.62 3.45 -0.91 1.12 0.22 -0.19 

1969-2000 

Coastal 6.47 5.43 -0.54 0.99 0.72 -0.16 

Non-C 6.61 5.45 -0.30 0.87 0.89 -0.20 

Tables A1a to A5b in Appendix A show growth rates and “z scores” for each parish for 

the same periods. Because the discussion is fairly detailed, a standardized format is used 

to discuss the pattern of differences among parishes in each of the four time periods. To 

further help the reader follow the analysis, a chart comparing changes observed during 

the period being discussed and the previous period is inserted between the discussions of 

each period—except the first. Following the detailed comparisons of the components of 

changes in per capita personal income in the next two sections, there is a brief discussion 

of net migration at the parish level for the same time periods. 
42

9.1. 1969 to 1980: Embargo, War, Rising Energy Prices and Expectations 

9.1.1. Period Summary: This period was one of exceptional improvement in both 

coastal and non-coastal parishes, but despite the similarity of their overall growth rates, 

the components of the growth were discernibly different in the two groups of parishes. 

About three-fourths of the growth was attributable to an improvement in industry mix, 

i.e., higher wage industries or sectors grew faster relative to lower wage sectors, using 

average national wage levels to define high- and low-wage sectors of the economy. This 

was true for both groups of parishes. 

The contribution of the other major factors differed significantly between the two groups: 

 Keeping the mix of industries constant, wages increased relative to 

the national average in both coastal and non-coastal parishes, but 

they increased in coastal parishes about 25 percent more rapidly 

than in the non-coastal parishes. 

 The regional wage effect was small relative to industry mix 

improvements, however, contributing about six percent of the total 

in coastal parishes and about five percent of the total in non-coastal 

parishes. 

 Change in the extent to which the population participated in the 

labor force contributed 2.4 percentage points to the growth rate of 

personal income in the coastal parishes (about a quarter of the total 

growth rate) but only 0.5 percentage points, or about six percent, in 

non-coastal parishes. 

 Conversely, changes in transfer payments contributed 1.75 

percentage points to the mean growth rate in non-coastal parishes 

(about 19 percent) but only 0.04 percentage points or 0.4 percent, 

in coastal parishes. 

Thus, increases in relative regional wages, and, especially, increased labor force 

participation increased growth rates in coastal parishes, while transfer payments offset 

much more modest regional wage and labor force participation gains in non-coastal 

parishes. 

 

9.1.2. Per Capita Personal Income (PCPI): The 10.06 percent per year average rate of 

growth for the coastal parishes was about one point faster in absolute terms and ten 

percent higher in relative terms than the average 9.14 rate for the non-coastal parishes. 

The range between the fastest and slowest growing parishes was wider among the noncoastal parishes with a low of 5.2 percent in Vernon Parish and a high of 10.9 in both St. 

Landry and West Feliciana Parishes. Seven of the coastal parishes, 37 percent, had 

growth rates at least one standard deviation (a “z score” of 1.0) faster than the mean 

compared to only seven percent of the non-coastal parishes. Among the coastal parishes, 

Lafayette and Iberia, both important staging and management areas for offshore 
43

development, were the growth leaders, while Orleans, St. Bernard, and Jefferson (all in 

the New Orleans metropolitan area) grew more slowly than the average of the noncoastal parishes. Only three non-coastal parishes grew at a rate greater than one standard 

deviation greater than the state average, and major construction projects are the most 

likely explanation in each instance. 

9.1.3. Industry Mix: The contribution of changes in the industry mix in the parish to the 

change in per capita personal income in the parish was about the same in the coastal and 

non-coastal parishes. The average contribution was about 7.5 percentage points in 

absolute terms or three-fourths of the total change in relative terms in coastal parishes 

compared to 6.9 percentage points, also about three-fourths in relative terms, in the noncoastal parishes. The contribution was at least one standard deviation greater than the 

mean in 59 percent6 of the coastal parishes compared to none of the non-coastal parishes. 

In 23 percent of the non-coastal parishes the contribution was at least one standard 

deviation below the mean. 

9.1.4. Relative Wage Effects: The contribution of changes in relative wages, keeping the 

industry mix constant, to the growth of per capita personal income was much smaller 

than the industry mix change, but the contribution was slightly larger in the coastal 

parishes, 0.6 percentage points compared to 0.4 respectively. The percentage of parishes 

exceeding the state average by one standard deviation was about 24 percent for the 

coastal parishes compared to 11 percent for the non-coastal group. The contribution of 

wages was at least one standard deviation below the state average for 12 percent of the 

coastal group, compared to only 23 percent of the coastal parishes. 

9.1.5. Labor Force Participation: Changes in the percentage of the population working 

was a major contributor to the change in per capita income in the coastal parishes, 

accounting for about a quarter of the total change, but changes in labor force participation 

made a smaller contribution in the non-coastal parishes—only about six percent. The 

contribution of increased labor force participation exceeded one standard deviation in 47 

percent of the coastal parishes compared to only six percent of non-coastal parishes. In 

the coastal parishes of Cameron, Iberia, Lafayette, Plaquemines, St. Charles, St. James, 

and Terrebonne, at least 30 percent of the growth in PCPI was attributable to increased 

labor force participation. 

9.1.6. Transfer Payments: Changes in transfer payments, such as social insurance, 

public assistance and various private income supplements not dependent on participation 

in the labor force were a much larger contributor in non-coastal parishes than in coastal 

parishes. They accounted for 1.75 points of the growth rate in non-coastal parishes, about 

20 percent, compared to only 0.04 points or 0.2 percent of the total change in the coastal 

parishes. 

 

6

 Data are not available for parishes in which more than 10 percent of the labor force works in another 

parish. For such parishes the contribution of industry mix, relative wages, and labor force participation, 

cannot be calculated. Two parishes, St. James and St. John the Baptist, in the coastal group and 10 parishes 

in the non-coastal group are in this category. The number of parishes for which data is available is used as 

the base of the percentage calculations, rather than the total number of parishes, for these components. 
44

In some non-coastal parishes, transfer payments accounted for more than half of the 

change in per capita personal income—54 percent in Franklin, 71 percent in Tensas, and 

60 percent in Webster. In six of the coastal parishes the contribution of transfer payments 

was at least one standard deviation below the average for all parishes in the state. 

9.1.7. Property Income: Income from property was a small net negative change in both 

groups of parishes. 
45

1969-1980 : Embargo, war and escalating energy prices

0.60

2.38

0.04

-0.51

7.49

10.04

-0.68

1.75

0.45 0.51

6.91

9.13

-1.00

1.00

3.00

5.00

7.00

9.00

11.00

PCPI Industry Mix Relative

Wages

Labor Force

Participation

Transfer

payment

Property

Income

Annual Growth Rate (%)

Coastal Non Coastal

1981-1985: Eroding then collapsing energy prices and 

expectations 

2.41

3.49

-1.31

2.01

0.42

4.67 4.46

-1.04

-0.03

0.91

0.27

-2.59

-3.00

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

PCPI Industry Mix Relative

Wages

Labor Force

Participation

Transfer

payment

Property

Income

Annual Growth Rate (%)

Source: USDOC, BEA. 2006b.

Figure 14: Change in PCPI - 1969-1980 Compared to 1981-1985. 
46

9.2. 1981-1985: Eroding then Collapsing Energy Prices and Expectations 

9.2.1. Period Summary: The collapse in world oil prices reduced growth rates in both 

coastal and non-coastal parishes, but the drop was almost twice as deep in the coastal 

parishes. The growth rate of per capita personal income was below the mean for the state 

by more than one standard deviation in 53 percent of the coastal parishes but none of the 

non-coastal parishes. Of the coastal Parishes, only Orleans, Jefferson, and St. James had 

growth rates above the state mean and none came close to the one standard deviation 

interval. 

The positive contribution of a better industry mix continued but declined in both groups 

of parishes. It added 3.5 percentage points to the growth of PCPI in coastal parishes and 

4.5 percent in the non-coastal group. 

The contributions of the other factors more or less reversed the relationships evident in 

the previous period of quite rapid growth. 

 Wages declined relative to the nation in both groups of parishes, 

subtracting 1.31 points from the growth of PCPI in coastal parishes 

and 1.04 in the non-coastal parishes. Among the coastal parishes, 

only Orleans experienced a small relative improvement. 

 Decreased labor force participation was a major factor holding 

down growth in coastal parishes, making a negative contribution of 

−2.59 percentage points relative to an overall rate of only 2.56. The 

decline in non-coastal parishes was very small, only −0.03 

compared to an overall rate of 4.7. 

 Transfer payments constituted a major source of support for 

personal income in the coastal parishes, adding 2.01 percentage 

points (79 percent) to the overall growth rate of 2.56. In noncoastal parishes the contribution of transfer payments was only 

about 20 percent of the total. 

Thus, falling relative wages and decreased labor force participation were principal 

avenues of adjustment to falling world oil prices in coastal parishes, their negative effects 

on income modified significantly by increases in transfer payments. In non-coastal 

parishes both the negative and positive contributors were much weaker and the overall 

growth rate was not quite twice as fast as it was in the coastal parishes. 

9.2.2. PCPI: Growth rate of personal income fell sharply in both groups, by about half in 

the non-coastal parishes and by three-quarters in the coastal parishes. The annual growth 

rate in Iberia, St. Charles, and Terrebonne parishes fell from more than 10 percent to less 

than one percent. Only Jefferson, Orleans and St. James parishes grew at a rate faster than 

four percent. None of the coastal parishes attained a growth rate of five percent. In 

contrast, 32 (71 percent) of the non–coastal parishes grew faster than four percent per 
47

year and 17 (38 percent) grew at 5 percent or faster. The growth rate in 10 of the 19 

coastal parishes (53 percent) was at least one standard deviation below the state mean and 

the growth rate in none of the coastal parishes was one standard deviation faster than the 

mean. None of the non-coastal parishes grew one standard deviation slower than the 

mean, and 18 percent of the parishes grew at least one standard deviation faster than the 

mean. 

9.2.3. Industry Mix: The contribution of higher paying industries to per capita income 

growth declined from the previous period, but not as much as the overall rate. The 

contribution to the growth rate declined by about 55 percent, from 7.5 to 3.5 in the 

coastal parishes, and by about 35 percent, from 6.9 percent to 4.46 percent in the noncoastal parishes. The contribution of industry mix was below that of the state mean in all 

of the 17 coastal parishes for which it can be calculated, and for ten of the 17, the 

difference exceeded one negative standard deviation. 

In the non-coastal parishes the contribution exceeded one standard deviation in 11 

parishes, Avoyelles, Concordia, East and West Carroll, East Feliciana, Madison, Red 

River, Richland, St. Helena, and Tensas. Several of these parishes are among the poorest 

in the state, and the apparent positive performance may reflect an initial low base. 

9.2.4. Relative Wage Effects: The contribution of changes in regional wages relative to 

the average wage paid in the same industry in the rest of the nation was negative for both 

groups of parishes. But the negative effect was about 30 percent larger in the coastal, 

−1.31 in the coastal parishes, and −1.04 in the non-coastal parishes. In those parishes for 

which data is available to make the calculation, wages declined relative to the nation in 

every coastal parish except Orleans, and in 30 of the 38 non-coastal parishes. 

9.2.5. Labor Force Participation: Changes in the extent of the participation of the 

population in the labor force was a significant negative contributor in the coastal parishes, 

on average subtracting about 2.6 points from the over-all growth rate. The contribution 

was negative in all coastal parishes except Jefferson and more than one standard 

deviation below the state average for 47 percent of the coastal parishes and greater than 

one standard deviation in only Jefferson. 

 

In non-coastal parishes it was not a major contributor to change, subtracting only 0.03 

points from the total growth rate. In about 20 percent of the non-coastal parishes, the 

contribution of increased labor force participation was more than one standard deviation 

above the state average. 

9.2.6. Transfer Payments: In the previous 1969-1980 period, transfer payments made a 

negligible contribution to the growth of per capita personal income in coastal parishes, 

0.04 points of a 10.04 total growth rate, but a significant contribution, 1.75 points of a 

9.14 rate, in the non-coastal parishes. The relationship was reversed in the 1981-1985 

time period with increases in transfer payments adding 2.01 points to an overall rate of 

2.41—a much larger contribution in relation to the total—while adding 0.91 points to a 

overall rate of 4.67 in the non-coastal parishes. In nine of the 19 coastal parishes 
48

(Assumption, Calcasieu, Cameron, Iberia, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. 

Mary, and Terrebonne) without the contribution of transfer payments the rate of growth 

of per capital personal income would have been negative as opposed to modestly 

positive. Among the 45 non-coastal parishes without transfer payments the overall 

growth rate would have been negative in only Catahoula and De Soto parishes. 

9.2.7. Property Income: Changes in income from property made a small positive 

contribution, as opposed to a small negative contribution in the previous period, for both 

groups of parishes. 
49

1986-1990: Recovery from the oil price collapse

4.63

3.70

-1.33

2.21

-0.22

0.03

4.74

3.87

-0.62

1.24

-0.01 0.22

-1.50

0.50

2.50

4.50

6.50

8.50

10.50

PCPI Industry Mix Relative

Wages

Labor Force

Participation

Transfer

payment

Property

Income

Annual Growth Rate (%)

1981-1985: Eroding then collapsing energy prices and 

expectations 

2.41

3.49

-1.31

2.01

0.42

4.67 4.46

-1.04

-0.03

0.91

0.27

-2.59

-3.00

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

PCPI Industry Mix Relative

Wages

Labor Force

Participation

Transfer

payment

Property

Income

Annual Growth Rate (%)

Coastal Non Coastal

Source: USDOC, BEA. 2006b.

Figure 15: Change in PCPI - 1981-1985 Compared with 1986-1990.
50

9.3. 1986-1990: Recovery from the Oil Price Collapse 

9.3.1. Period Summary: The effects of a “recovery” from the collapse of world oil 

prices are apparent only among the coastal parishes where the overall growth rate 

increased by about 90 percent from the depressed level of the previous period. Coastal 

parishes regained parity with non-coastal parishes, but both groups grew at only about 

half as fast as they had during the boom of the 1970s. 

Industry mix’s contribution to growth fell below levels exhibited during the bust for noncoastal parishes, 3.87 down from 4.46, but improved to a slightly faster rate in coastal 

parishes, 3.70 up from 3.49. 

Wages continued to be a modest negative relative to the rest of the nation in both groups 

of parishes, but subtracting twice as much from the PCPI growth rate in coastal parishes, 

−1.33 compared to −0.62 for the non-coastal group. 

Increased participation in the labor force was the principal evidence of recovery among 

the coastal parishes, adding 2.2 percentage points to the 4.6 overall growth rate. The 

contribution in non-coastal parishes was positive but only half as large. 

Transfer payments did not make nearly as large a contribution as they did in the previous 

two periods for either group of counties. The contribution was negative but negligible in 

non-coastal parishes and slightly larger and negative in the coastal parishes. 

Property income made a small positive contribution in the non-coastal parishes and a 

negligible but positive contribution in the non-coastal parishes. 

9.3.2. PCPI: The overall growth rate of per capita personal income recovered in coastal 

parishes to rough equality with non-coastal parishes, but at a level less than half the oil 

and gas boom of the 1970s. The growth rate in the non-coastal parishes was only 0.07 

percentage points faster than the level maintained during the previous 1980-1985 period 

of collapsing oil prices (4.74 compared to 4.67). 

9.3.3. Industry Mix: Although the contribution of an improved industry mix during the 

“recovery” exceeded the contribution recorded during the preceding “bust” in 10 of the 

17 coastal parishes for which data are available, only in two parishes was the rate of 

improvement more than one standard deviation above the state average. The absolute 

gain was 0.17 percentage points, or less than 5 percent. The average contribution of the 

industry mix fell among non-coastal parishes from an average of 4.46 to 3.87, a drop of 

about 13 percent. 

9.3.4. Relative Wage Effects: Wages continued to fall relative to the nation in both 

groups of counties, but the relative decline averaged a little more than twice as deep in 

the coastal parishes. The contribution was negative in all of the coastal parishes, although 

it was more than one standard deviation in 15 of the 18 coastal parishes for which data 

are available. 
51

The distribution was also relatively compact among non-coastal parishes, with 5 parishes 

exceeding the state average by one standard deviation and 7 falling below the one 

standard deviation mark. 

9.3.5. Labor Force Participation: The primary locus of the recovery is the 2.2 percent 

increase in labor force participation in the coastal parishes. However, in only seven of the 

coastal parishes was the positive contribution during the recovery larger than the decline 

experienced during the preceding “bust.” The contribution was greater than 4 percentage 

points in the contiguous parishes of St. Charles and St. John the Baptist, and above 5 

percentage points in St. Martin parish. Among non-coastal parishes the contribution was 

also positive but smaller in magnitude, averaging 1.2 percent for the group. 

 

9.3.6. Transfer Payments: With recovery the effects of transfer payments were 

diminished in both groups of parishes. The average contribution was −0.22 in coastal 

parishes and −0.01 in non-coastal parishes. In two of the coastal parishes, St. James and 

St. Martin, the contribution fell by more than two percentage points—both of which also 

had significant increases in labor force participation. In only one coastal parish, St. 

Bernard, did transfer payments add at least one percentage point to the overall growth 

rate. Among the non-coastal parishes, transfer payments continued to be a significant 

source of growth for several of the poorer parishes, contributing more than one percent in 

11 of the 45 parishes. 

9.3.7. Property Income: As in the previous periods, property income was a minor 

contributor in both coastal and non-coastal parishes. 

Thus the recovery from the oil price collapse was moderate at best. Few divergences 

from the pattern evident during the collapse are evident for the non-coastal parishes, with 

the sizable increase in labor force participation being the principal avenue of 

improvement in per capita personal income for the coastal parishes. 
52

1986-1990: Recovery from the oil price collapse

4.63

3.70

-1.33

2.21

-0.22

0.03

4.74

3.87

-0.62

1.24

-0.01 0.22

-1.50

0.50

2.50

4.50

6.50

8.50

10.50

PCPI Industry Mix Relative

Wages

Labor Force

Participation

Transfer

payment

Property

Income

Annual Growth Rate (%)

Coastal Non Coastal

1991-2000 : the Energy Lull

3.62 3.54

-1.05

0.88

0.33 0.01

3.62 3.45

-0.91

1.12

0.22

-0.19

-3.00

-1.00

1.00

3.00

5.00

7.00

9.00

11.00

PCPI Industry Mix Relative

Wages

Labor Force

Participation

Transfer

payment

Property

Income

Annual Growth Rate (%)

 Source: USDOC, BEA. 2006b. 

Figure 16: Change in PCPI - 1986-1990 Compared with 1991-2000. 
53

9.4. Change in PCPI 1991-2000: The Energy Lull, Sustained But Slower Growth 

9.4.1. Period Summary: During the decade-long energy lull of the 1990s there are 

almost no analytically or statistically significant differences apparent between the two 

groups of parishes in terms of either the total growth rates or the components of the 

growth. The decline in the rates of growth observed in the previous two periods 

continued in the period. 

9.4.2. PCPI: The growth rates of PCPI in the coastal and non-coastal parishes were equal 

to the second decimal place during the decade of the 1990s. 

For both groups of parishes, the growth rate was more than a full percentage point 

slower, or 25 percent, than the rate of the previous period. 

9.4.3. Industry Mix: The industry mix components were also nearly identical, and their 

contributions accounted for more than 95 percent of the oval growth rate for both groups. 

In absolute terms, the contribution of an improved industry mix was slightly less than the 

previous period. 

9.4.4. Relative Wage Effects: In both groups of parishes, wages relative to the nation 

declined and made a negative contribution to the overall growth rate of about one 

percentage point. 

In relative terms, the negative contribution of relative wages was a little less than a third 

for the coastal parishes and about a quarter for the non-coastal parishes. 

9.4.5. Labor Force Participation: Increased participation in the labor force added a little 

more than one percentage point to the growth of per capita personal income in the noncoastal parishes (1.12) and a little less (0.88) in the coastal parishes. 

In coastal parishes the contribution was less than half that made in the previous period, in 

non-coastal parishes the contribution was only slightly lower—1.12 percentage points 

compared to 1.24. 

9.4.6. Transfer Payments: The contribution from transfer payments was modestly larger 

in both groups of parishes, 0.33 percentage points in coastal parishes and 0.22 in noncoastal parishes. 

9.4.7. Property Income: A negligible 0.01 percentage point positive contribution in 

coastal parishes and a small −0.19 negative percentage point contribution in non-coastal 

parishes. 
54

5.43

-0.16

0.72

0.99

-0.54

6.47

5.45

-0.20

0.87 0.89

-0.30

6.61

-1.00

1.00

3.00

5.00

7.00

9.00

11.00

PCPI Industry Mix Relative

Wages

Labor Force

Participation

Transfer

payment

Property

Income

Annual Growth Rate (%)

Coastal Non Coastal

Source: USDOC, BEA. 2006b. 

Figure 17: Annual Growth Rate of Per Capita Personal Income and 

 Components for Coastal and Non-Coastal Parishes, 1969-2000. 
55

10. COMPONENTS OF PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME GROWTH IN 

COASTAL LOUISIANA’S METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS (MSA) 

Data on per capita personal income growth and the components of that growth are 

available for the eight Louisiana MSAs during the 1969-2000 period. MSAs are defined 

by the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and used to allocate some types 

of federal grants and other expenditures. Compared to both states and parishes, MSAs 

have the analytical advantage of being defined by making use of economic relationships 

and criteria such as commuting patterns, rather than being purely historical, political, or 

administrative units defined for other purposes. 

Another analytical difference is, by definition, the MSA data is not as affected by rural 

parishes as are the coastal and non-coastal parish comparisons. Similarly, averages for 

each MSA reflect the relative distribution of population among the parishes of which they 

are composed. Thus, MSA comparisons provide a rough check on generalizations based 

on the arithmetic averages of parish-level data. 

Unlike parishes or states, however, the composition of an MSA can change over time. In 

Louisiana’s case, during the 1969 to 2000 study period, new MSAs were created, and the 

composition of others has changed. We were able to put together a consistent data set for 

the coastal MSAs by using parish-level historical data for the recently created HoumaThibodaux MSA. Baton Rouge is the only MSA for which we have not been able to 

construct a data set for all components for all periods. PCPE, transfer payments and 

property income are available but data required to calculate industry mix, relative wage, 

and labor force participation contributions are not available in the latter two periods. The 

following table summarizes the MSA data. 

The pattern of the MSA comparisons is consistent with the previous parish- and statelevel analysis. Over the entire 1969 to 2000 study period the MSA with the fastest PCPI 

growth was a coastal MSA, Lafayette (7.12 percent), but so was the slowest growing 

MSA, Lake Charles (6.31 percent). The average PCPI growth rate for the coastal MSAs 

(6.59 percent) was not significantly different than the average for the non-coastal MSAs 

(6.62 percent). 

During the 1969 to 1980 boom, both Lafayette and Houma/Thibodaux grew at doubledigit rates and the coastal MSAs as a group grew about a percentage point faster than the 

non-coastal MSAs. The major difference between the two groups was a considerably 

larger contribution from increased participation in the labor force in the coastal MSAs, as 

was the case in the parish-level comparisons. Unlike the parish-level comparisons, 

however, the contribution to PCPI from transfer payments in non-coastal MSAs was 

considerably more modest, accounting for only about 6.4 percent of the growth rate as 

opposed to nearly 20 percent in the parishes. 
56

Table 6 

Change in Per Capita Personal Income and Its Components for 

Louisiana MSAs, 1969-2000 

Period: 1969-

2000 

MSA 

∆Personal 

Income/ 

Person 

Industry 

Mix 

Relative 

Wage 

Effect 

Labor Force 

Participation 

Property 

Income 

Ratio 

Transfer 

Payment 

Ratio 

1969-2000 

Coastal MSAs 

 Houma/Thib. 6.58 5.43 -0.52 1.21 -0.19 0.65 

 Lafayette 7.12 5.54 -0.25 1.73 -0.16 0.25 

 Lake Charles 6.31 5.25 -0.50 1.21 -0.11 0.46 

 New Orleans 6.34 5.24 -0.21 0.84 0.14 0.33 

Non-Coastal 

 Alexandria7 6.80 5.33 -0.06 0.84 -0.06 0.74 

 Baton Rouge 6.54 n.a. n.a. n.a. -0.08 0.36 

 Monroe 6.76 5.37 -0.19 1.18 0.02 0.38 

 Shreveprt/Boss. 6.38 5.36 -0.13 0.83 -0.03 0.35 

Coastal Average 6.59 5.37 -0.37 1.25 -0.08 0.42 

Non-Coast Ave 6.62 5.35 -0.13 0.95 -0.04 0.46 

1969-1980 

Coastal MSAs 

 Houma/Thib. 10.63 7.50 0.86 2.59 -0.48 0.16 

 Lafayette 11.49 7.80 0.77 3.47 -0.58 0.03 

 Lake Charles 9.58 7.00 1.05 1.99 -0.25 -0.22 

 New Orleans 8.78 6.87 0.55 1.30 -0.02 0.07 

Non-Coastal 

 Alexandria 8.71 6.81 1.03 -0.03 -0.16 1.06 

 Baton Rouge 9.54 6.84 0.82 1.79 -0.19 0.29 

 Monroe 9.01 6.79 0.67 0.78 -0.21 0.97 

 Shreveprt/Boss. 8.80 7.12 0.55 1.25 -0.11 -0.02 

Coastal Average 10.12 7.29 0.81 2.34 -0.33 0.01 

Non-Coast Ave 9.02 6.89 0.77 0.95 -0.17 0.58 

1981-1985 

Coastal MSAs 

 Houma/Thib. 1.05 3.30 -2.25 -2.74 0.45 2.29 

 Lafayette 2.18 3.10 -0.80 -1.29 0.23 0.93 

 Lake Charles 1.72 3.62 -2.04 -2.80 0.53 2.41 

 New Orleans 4.01 3.67 -0.45 -0.77 0.43 1.13 

Non-Coastal 

 Alexandria 5.56 4.48 -0.44 0.66 0.48 0.37 

 Baton Rouge 3.80 4.09 -1.37 -0.17 0.21 1.03 

 Monroe 5.17 4.22 -0.63 1.06 0.42 0.11 

 Shreveprt/Boss 4.71 3.97 -0.69 -0.07 0.11 1.39 

Coastal Average 2.24 3.42 -1.39 -1.90 0.41 1.69 

Non-Coast Ave 4.81 4.19 -0.78 0.37 0.31 0.73 

 

7

 Data for Alexandria are not reported for all periods. Data for Rapides Parish which are nearly identical are 

used. 
57

Table 6 (continued) 

Change in Per Capita Personal Income and Its Components for 

Louisiana MSAs, 1969-2000 

Period 1969-

2000: 

MSA

∆Personal 

Income/ 

Person 

Industry 

Mix 

Relative 

Wage 

Effect 

Labor Force 

Participation 

Property 

Income 

Ratio 

Transfer 

Payment 

Ratio 

1986-1990 

Coastal MSAs 

 Houma/Thib. 4.23 3.42 -1.02 1.56 -0.13 0.40 

 Lafayette 4.22 3.90 -1.68 2.19 0.08 -0.27 

 Lake Charles 5.60 3.56 -1.08 3.24 -0.09 -0.03 

 New Orleans 4.53 3.54 -0.93 1.57 0.33 0.01 

Non-Coastal 

 Alexandria 5.22 3.57 0.32 1.33 0.32 -0.31 

 Baton Rouge 5.25 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.70 -0.32 

 Monroe 4.63 3.68 -0.34 1.37 0.31 -0.38 

 Shrevprt/Boss 4.33 3.57 -0.54 0.52 0.33 0.46 

Coastal Ave 4.65 3.61 -1.18 2.14 0.05 0.028 

Non-Coast Ave 4.86 3.61 -0.19 1.07 0.42 -0.14 

1991-2000 

Coastal MSAs 

 Houma/Thib. 4.50 3.94 -1.08 2.12 -0.13 -0.34 

 Lafayette 4.38 3.90 -0.75 1.11 0.28 -0.16 

 Lake Charles 3.24 3.36 -1.35 1.20 -0.09 0.13 

 New Orleans 3.70 3.48 -0.84 0.85 0.21 -0.01 

Non-Coastal 

 Alexandria 4.19 3.31 -1.24 1.62 0.20 0.70 

 Baton Rouge 3.58 n.a. n.a. n.a. -0.12 0.15 

 Monroe 4.08 3.57 -1.23 1.78 -0.06 0.02 

 Shrvert/Boss 3.63 3.47 -0.72 1.19 0.09 -0.40 

Coastal Ave 3.96 3.67 -1.01 1.32 0.07 -0.10 

Non-Coast Ave 3.87 3.45 -1.06 1.53 0.03 0.12 

The Houma/Thibodaux MSA was the hardest hit by the 1981-1985 collapse, with its 

PCPI growth rate falling from over 10 percent to barely above one percent for the period. 

PCPI growth rates in the Lafayette and Lake Charles MSAs were also very low, but the 

New Orleans MSA, the least energy intensive coastal MSA, grew at about the same rate 

as the non-coastal MSAs. The contribution from increased transfer payments mitigated 

the decline, equaling more than twice the overall growth rate in Houma/Thibodaux and 

exceeding the overall growth rate in Lake Charles. In Lafayette, however, the 

contribution from transfer payments, while accounting for almost half the overall growth 

rate, was smaller than in New Orleans, Baton Rouge, or the Shreveport/Bossier City 

MSAs. 

During the 1986 to 1990 recovery from the oil price collapse, Lake Charles was the 

fastest-growing MSA (5.60 percent) attributable largely to a very high contribution from 

increased labor force participation—3.24 percent that accounted for 58 percent of the 
58

growth in PCPI. However, Houma/Thibodaux and Lafayette were the slowest growing 

MSAs at 4.23 and 4.22 percent respectively, largely as a consequence of falling relative 

wages. 

Houma/Thibodaux and Lafayette were the fastest and second fastest growing MSAs 

during the “energy lull” of 1991 to 2000, but Lake Charles fell from the fastest to the 

slowest growing MSA. These two MSAs also experienced significantly better-thanaverage improvements in industry mix and healthy, but only about average, increases in 

labor force participation. This combination of contributors suggests stimulus from the 

steadily increasing activity on the federal offshore—more specifically the development of 

the “deep gulf” resources—may have been impacting these two MSAs 

disproportionately. Petroleum exploration and development and its associated managerial 

and service industries, including shipbuilding, are prominent in their economies. Lake 

Charles and Baton Rouge, where petroleum refining and petrochemical manufacturing 

are more important, on the other hand, were the two slowest growing MSAs. This 

probably is a reflection of higher natural gas prices and competition for commodity 

chemicals in export markets. The overall effects, however, were relatively modest. The 

coastal MSAs did grow faster than the non-coastal MSAs, but by less that one-tenth of a 

percentage point. 
59

11. PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME AND CHANGES IN 

POPULATION 

In the newspaper and at meetings of rotary clubs and chambers of commerce, economic 

growth is usually closely, if implicitly, associated with a growing population. Economists 

have argued among themselves about the direction of causation, but they also often 

assume a direct and positive link between the two phenomena. Economic development 

practitioners, and the regional business and civic leaders that support them, usually justify 

public policies to encourage economic activity in a state or locality as necessary to 

provide jobs for a growing population who other wise would migrate out of the region.

The benefits from more jobs will be evidenced as increases in retail sales of goods and 

services, as well as state and local taxes, which will benefit the existing population as 

well. 

The following section of this essay explores the relationship between population and per 

capita personal income in Louisiana’s coastal and non-coastal parishes using the same 

time periods used in the previous discussion of the components of change in per capita 

personal income. First, population changes and net migration into and out of Louisiana’s 

coastal and non-coastal parishes is described. Then a more detailed descriptive 

framework developed by Paul Gottlieb (2002) to characterize some implications of the 

relationship between growth rates in per capita personal income and population growth is 

applied to coastal and non-coastal parishes. 

11.1. Population Change in Coastal and Non-Coastal Parishes 

Population growth in coastal and non-coastal parishes is consistent with the pattern of the 

growth of per capita personal income when measured over the time periods used in the 

previous analysis. Table 7 shows the change in population in coastal and non-coastal 

parishes during the four periods of the energy boom of 1970 to 1980, the collapse of 1980 

to 1985, the recovery from 1986 to 1990 and the energy lull of 1991 to 2000. 

Over the entire 1970 to 2000 period non-coastal parishes gained 556,485 people, an 

increase of 29 percent over 1970 levels, while coastal parishes added 293,731 an increase 

of 15 percent. The comparison is distorted, however, by the fact that Orleans Parish, the 

state’s largest, tends not only to dominate the total for coastal parishes but also exhibits a 

different pattern of growth, or more accurately, a pattern of decline. Over the period 

Orleans parish lost 116,999 individuals, a decline of 18 percent. If coastal parishes were 

considered without Orleans parish, their gain would be 410,730; an increase of 32 

percent. 
60

Table 7 

Nominal Population Change for Coastal and Non-Coastal Louisiana Parishes, 

1970-2000 

1970-

1980 

1981-

1985 

1986-

1990 

1991-

2000 

1970-

2000 

Coastal 242,713 69,223 -107,912 71,782 293,731 

% change from respective base year 13.6 1.9 -4.7 3.1 15.4 

Orleans parish -34,157 -9,209 -54,268 -11,513 -116,999 

% change from respective base year -5.8 -1.9 -8.8 -1.6 -18.4 

Coastal—Orleans removed 276,870 78,432 -53,644 83,295 410,730 

% change from respective base year 23.1 3.3 -3.2 4.7 32.2 

Non-Coastal 330,179 115,789 -81,021 178,254 556,485 

% change from respective base year 17.7 3.9 -3.9 7.4 29.2 

Statewide 572,892 185,012 -188,933 250,036 850,216 

% change from respective base year 15.7 2.9 -4.3 5.4 22.4 

The comparisons show roughly the same pattern over the four periods. Orleans parish 

declined in population by about 6 percent during the 1970 to 1980 boom and the increase 

in population of coastal parishes was about 14 percent if Orleans were to be included and 

23 percent if it was not. During the collapse and slow recovery of the 1980s, like the 

coastal parishes and the rest of the state, Orleans parish lost population, but not as fast as 

the coastal parishes. During the energy lull of the 1990s, Orleans lost population, but 

much more slowly. 

The changes in the population of Orleans parish are a component of the spread of its 

population into the surrounding suburbs and bedroom communities, a phenomena 

occurring in most of the nation’s metropolitan areas during this time period. Trying to 

isolate or account for this phenomena in an attempt to measure the impact of the oil and 

gas cycle is complicated by the fact that although Jefferson, St. Bernard and Plaquemines 

parishes are included in the coastal group, St. Tammany parish which became an 

important residence for New Orleans commuters during the study period is in the noncoastal group. 

A more detailed study could sort population effects out more precisely, but it would 

extend the analysis beyond the resources available for this study. However, the more 

general conclusion is strengthened by the more limited comparison presented here. No 

differential effects are apparent in the coastal parishes compared to non-coastal parishes 

when changes in population are considered. That is, like changes in personal income, 

population does not show a differential impact from development of the offshore oil and 

gas reserves in coastal Louisiana. Over the entire 1970 to 2000 period, coastal parishes 

without Orleans parish included in the group grew by 32.2 percent while non-coastal 

parishes grew by 29.2 percent. 
61

11.2. Net Migration in Coastal and Non-Coastal Louisiana Parishes 

Since the change in the population of a parish comes about through the natural increase 

caused by births and deaths and migration into or out of the parish jurisdiction, a 

somewhat more precise indicator of differential economic effects on population might be 

to concentrate only on migration into or out of the parish. Subtracting the natural increase 

from the change in population yields net migration—the change in population accounted 

for by persons entering or leaving the parish by means other than the biological routes of 

birth or death. Regional differences in birth rates, death rates, and the age structure of the 

parish population can be substantial, and using net migration rather than the nominal 

change in population can remove such differences from the comparisons. 

Table 8 records net migration for Louisiana’s coastal and non-coastal parishes for the 

1970 to 2000 time period divided into the same intervals used in the previous analysis. 

Over the entire period, net migration for the state was a loss of 370,998 persons. 

Table 8 

Net Migration Among Coastal and Non-Coastal Louisiana Parishes, 1970-2000 

1970-

1980 

1981-

1985 

1986-

1990 

1991-

2000 

1970-

2000 

Coastal 50,226 -49,142 -205,992 -114,551 -322,413 

Orleans parish -71,721 -31,058 -73,907 -67,589 -256,017 

Coastal—Orleans removed 121,947 -18,084 -132,085 -46,962 -66,396 

Non-Coastal 149,876 806 -177,982 -14,440 -48,585 

Statewide 200,102 -48,336 -383,974 -128,991 -370,998 

Of this total, 256,017 or 69 percent were attributable to net migration from Orleans 

Parish. If net migration from the coastal parishes calculated without Orleans Parish is 

compared to the non-coastal parishes, the coastal group accounts for 17.9 percent of the 

net migration and the non-coastal parishes account for the 13.1 percent. 

11.3. Comparing Growth Rates of Population with Growth Rates of Per Capita 

Personal Income 

As Paul Gottlieb and other regional analysts have pointed out, however, the association 

between improvements in economic well being as measured by increasing per capita 

personal income and an increasing population is weak. In a recent working paper on the 

relationship between the two in the 100 largest metropolitan areas, Gottlieb says: 

“Statistical analysis reveals a very weak positive relationship between per capita income 

and population growth. Not only is this relationship weak, if Austin, Texas, and Las 
62

Vegas, Nevada, were removed from the sample it would disappear. To a statistician, this 

is little better than having no relationship at all, since the relationship that exists depends 

on only two cases” (Gottlieb, 2002, page 3). 

Moreover, for the existing resident, population growth may have important negative as 

well as positive impacts. Congestion, pressure on public facilities and service, increased 

labor supply eroding wages, and similar effects can create both public and private 

disamenities in jurisdictions experiencing rapid population growth. The quality of life in 

a jurisdiction with an increasing level of per capita personal income with a stable 

population may be better than in a jurisdiction with the same rate of growth of per capita 

personal income but a growing population—with the associated disamenities. Many 

factors can affect the rate of change of both per capita income and the population, but as a 

generalization, more wealth without more congestion (or other population-related 

disamenities) seems preferable to more wealth but more population- or congestion-related 

dismaneities. 

Gottlieb suggests a four-part classification dependent on the relationship of the growth in 

population and growth in per capita personal income to their respective medians. In order 

of their presumed correlation with changes in the quality of life, he labels jurisdictions in 

which: 1) PCPI grows faster than the median, but population more slowly than the 

median as “wealth-builders;” 2) jurisdictions in which PCPI grows faster than the median 

but so does population as “high growth traditional;” 3) those in which both PCPI and 

population grow more slowly than the median as “low growth traditional;” and, 4) 

jurisdictions in which PCPI grows more slowly than the median but population grows 

faster than the median as “population magnets.” 

Figures 18 through 22 use a four-quadrant scatter diagram based on these criteria to 

compare the coastal and non-coastal parishes in Louisiana. Statewide median rates of 

growth of population and of PCPI are used to define the quadrants. Separate diagrams are 

constructed for the entire 1969-2000 period and each of the four sub-periods used in the 

study. Table 9 gives the specific classification for each parish for each of the periods 

shown. 

Figure 18 describes the distribution during the embargo/war/boom period from 1969 to 

1980. Almost 85 percent of the coastal parishes experienced PCPI growth at a rate above 

the state median, but only five, or 26 percent, also were “wealth builders” whose 

populations grew more slowly than the state median. Only a third of the non-coastal 

parishes experienced faster-than-the-median rates of growth in PCPI, but about 18 

percent of the non-coastal parishes were “wealth builders.” Forty percent of the noncoastal parishes were in the “low growth traditional” classification as opposed to only 

one, or 5.3 percent, of the coastal parishes—but the laggard is Orleans, the state’s most 

populous parish. 
63

Table 9 

Type and Index of Economic Change by Business Cycles for LA Parishes, 1969-2000 

Coastal Parishes 1969-1980 Index 1981-1985 Index 1986-1990 Index 1991-2000 Index 1969-2000 Index

Acadia WB 9.17 PM 3.40 LGT 5.40 WB 3.63 HGT 6.34

Assumption HGT 9.60 PM 1.48 PM 5.43 WB 3.90 HGT 6.26

Calcasieu HGT 8.29 LGT 1.42 HGT 5.99 PM 2.49 PM 5.58

Cameron HGT 8.85 PM 2.44 WB 6.33 PM 2.39 PM 5.41

Iberia HGT 9.89 PM -0.14 PM 4.97 PM 2.96 HGT 5.82

Jefferson PM 5.91 LGT 3.85 PM 4.47 WB 3.96 PM 5.27

Jefferson Davis WB 8.81 LGT 1.90 LGT 5.93 LGT 3.00 LGT 6.01

Lafayette HGT 8.91 PM 0.73 PM 4.65 HGT 3.20 HGT 5.43

Lafourche HGT 8.81 PM 0.73 PM 4.86 WB 4.61 HGT 5.87

Orleans LGT 9.12 WB 4.91 WB 6.88 LGT 3.54 LGT 6.93

Plaquemines WB 9.92 LGT 2.41 LGT 5.16 LGT 2.04 LGT 6.05

St. Bernard PM 6.24 PM 2.29 PM 3.66 WB 3.75 PM 4.90

St. Charles HGT 8.29 PM -0.78 HGT 5.30 PM 1.81 PM 4.88

St. James WB 9.46 WB 4.18 HGT 6.84 LGT 2.06 LGT 6.02

St. John the Baptist HGT 7.40 PM -1.84 HGT 5.90 PM 2.16 HGT 4.78

St. Martin HGT 8.81 PM -0.23 HGT 5.48 HGT 3.07 HGT 5.53

St. Mary WB 9.29 LGT 2.32 LGT 5.85 WB 5.27 LGT 6.80

Terrebonne HGT 8.79 PM 0.15 PM 4.85 HGT 3.40 PM 5.41

Vermilion HGT 9.04 PM 1.97 LGT 5.23 HGT 3.30 PM 5.84

Non-Coastal Parishes

Allen LGT 8.62 LGT 2.78 PM 4.62 HGT 2.40 PM 5.52

Ascension HGT 7.12 PM 1.00 HGT 6.30 HGT 1.32 HGT 4.45

Avoyelles LGT 8.42 WB 4.66 WB 6.78 HGT 3.44 WB 6.47

Beauregard HGT 7.83 HGT 3.42 WB 5.98 PM 2.27 HGT 5.42

Bienville LGT 9.09 WB 4.54 PM 4.15 LGT 3.75 LGT 6.63

Bossier PM 6.64 HGT 4.19 HGT 5.88 HGT 2.40 PM 5.19

Caddo LGT 8.06 HGT 3.99 LGT 5.52 LGT 3.36 LGT 6.07

Caldwell HGT 8.69 WB 5.78 WB 6.81 PM 2.73 HGT 6.50

Catahoula LGT 9.01 LGT 3.02 WB 7.08 WB 4.01 WB 7.22

Claiborne LGT 8.94 WB 4.18 PM 3.93 WB 4.05 LGT 6.42

Concordia LGT 8.70 LGT 2.72 WB 7.17 LGT 3.14 LGT 6.03

De Soto HGT 8.42 PM 3.02 LGT 4.45 WB 4.43 HGT 6.28

East Baton Rouge PM 7.11 PM 3.09 HGT 5.59 PM 2.78 PM 5.22

East Carroll LGT 9.82 WB 5.11 WB 7.77 LGT 1.72 LGT 7.30

East Feliciana WB 10.17 HGT 4.39 HGT 5.88 HGT 3.13 HGT 6.70

Evangeline WB 9.94 PM 2.76 LGT 5.61 PM 2.73 WB 6.27

Franklin LGT 8.85 WB 5.57 WB 7.66 LGT 3.70 WB 7.43

Grant PM 6.73 HGT 4.22 HGT 5.32 HGT 3.44 PM 5.53

Iberville WB 9.54 LGT 3.58 WB 6.25 PM 2.03 LGT 6.14

Jackson LGT 8.07 WB 5.17 LGT 4.95 WB 5.24 WB 7.10

La Salle HGT 7.81 WB 7.80 LGT 7.67 LGT 2.35 LGT 6.36

Lincoln PM 7.71 HGT 4.51 HGT 5.65 LGT 3.02 PM 5.84

Livingston PM 4.82 PM 0.84 HGT 4.87 HGT 1.76 PM 3.55

Madison LGT 7.14 WB 5.90 WB 10.27 PM 1.25 LGT 6.52

Morehouse LGT 8.54 LGT 4.26 WB 6.15 LGT 3.34 LGT 6.73

Natchitoches PM 7.46 WB 6.17 LGT 5.28 HGT 3.47 WB 6.35

Ouachita PM 7.38 HGT 4.59 PM 5.30 WB 3.86 HGT 5.98

Pointe Coupee WB 9.04 WB 4.48 LGT 5.52 WB 4.68 WB 6.95

Rapides PM 7.55 WB 5.47 HGT 5.98 WB 4.58 WB 6.58

Red River PM 6.69 WB 5.83 LGT 6.30 LGT 2.74 LGT 5.78

Richland WB 9.81 LGT 3.65 WB 6.42 LGT 2.80 WB 6.92

Sabine PM 5.73 WB 6.40 WB 7.80 PM 2.83 HGT 6.07

St. Helena WB 9.59 HGT 5.47 PM 5.29 HGT 4.07 WB 6.88

St. Landry WB 10.45 LGT 2.78 WB 6.84 PM 2.44 WB 6.71

St. Tammany PM 4.27 PM 0.78 HGT 4.52 HGT 1.80 HGT 3.26

Tangipahoa HGT 7.61 HGT 3.00 PM 5.03 HGT 2.51 HGT 5.45

Tensas LGT 9.72 LGT 4.27 WB 8.06 LGT 3.67 WB 8.31

Union PM 7.42 HGT 4.86 LGT 5.65 HGT 2.86 HGT 6.01

Vernon LGT 5.08 HGT 5.61 PM 3.70 LGT 5.11 LGT 5.46

Washington LGT 8.18 PM 3.55 LGT 4.85 LGT 3.24 LGT 5.97

Webster LGT 7.46 WB 4.80 LGT 4.39 LGT 3.47 LGT 5.88

West Baton Rouge HGT 9.02 HGT 3.72 HGT 6.22 HGT 3.14 HGT 6.32

West Carroll LGT 9.13 WB 5.37 PM 5.28 WB 3.67 WB 7.04

West Feliciana WB 10.21 HGT 5.68 PM 2.39 HGT 3.89 HGT 6.25

Winn LGT 8.34 WB 6.17 HGT 5.45 LGT 2.50 LGT 6.15

Type of Change:

 WB = Wealth Builder, growth rate of personal income per capita above Louisiana median, growth rate of population below median

 PM = Population Magnet, growth rate of personal income per capita below LA median, growth rate of population above the median.

 HGT = High Growth Traditional, growth rate of personal income per capita and growth rate of population above the LA median.

 LGT = Low Growth Traditional, growth rate of personal income per capita and growth rate of population both below LA median.

 Index = Growth rate of personal income per capita minus growth rate of population.
64

Although the distribution in Figure 18 suggests a weak positive association between 

population growth and PCPI, echoing Gottlieb’s observation cited above, the association 

appears to be a consequence of three or four “outliers.” 

The reversal of fortune that accompanied the 1981-1985 “collapse” is clearly illustrated 

in Figure 19. Nearly 90 percent of the coastal parishes slid into either the “low growth 

traditional” or “population magnet” categories as growth in PCPI fell below the state 

median rate. Only two coastal parishes, Orleans and St. James, qualified as “wealth 

builders,” but with PCPI growth rates barely above the median. Although the distribution 

is more dispersed than it was in the previous period, even with outliers there is no 

apparent association between population and PCPI growth. 

In both the “recovery” of 1986 to 1990 and “lull” from 1991 to 2000, depicted in Figures 

20 and 21, the observations are quite tightly packed around the intersection of the state 

medians with little if any association between the two organizing variables apparent in 

the distribution. 

Looking at the 1969 to 2000 period as a whole, in Figure 22, there is very little difference 

among the parishes and no apparent relationship between rates of growth in population 

and in PCPI. This pattern is consistent with the analysis of states, parishes and SMSAs in 

the previous section and supports the conclusion that although the energy boom of the 

1970s and the collapse in the early 1980s affected coastal areas of Louisiana moderately 

more than the rest of the state, these differences disappear quite soon thereafter. 
65

-3.50

-3.00

-2.50

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00

Average Annual Percent Change in Per Capita Personal Income

Average Annual Percent Change in Population

Coastal Parishes

Non-coastal Parishes

Population Magnet High Growth Traditional

Low Growth Tra ditiona l Wealth Builder

median = 0.89

median = 9.35 

Figure 18: Change in Population and PCPI for Louisiana Parishes, 1969-1980. 

-3.50

-3.00

-2.50

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00

Average Annual Percent Change in Per Capita Personal Income

Average Annual Percent Change in Population

Coastal Parishes

Non-coastal Parishes

Population Magnet High Growth Traditional

Low Growth Traditional

median = 4.16

Wealth Builder

median = 0.41 

Figure 19: Change in Population and PCPI for Louisiana Parishes, 1981-1985.
66

-3.50

-3.00

-2.50

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00

Average Annual Percent Change in Per Capita Personal Income

Average Annual Percent Change in Population

Coastal Parishes

Non-coastal Parishes

median = 4.73

median = -0.86

Population Magnet High Growth Traditional

Low Growth Traditional Wealth Builder

Figure 20: Change in Population and PCPI for Louisiana Parishes, 1986-1990. 

-3.50

-3.00

-2.50

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00

Average Annual Percent Change in Per Capita Personal Income

Average Annual Percent Change in Population

Coastal Parishes

Non-Coastal Parishes

median = 0.45

median = 3.65

Population Magnet High Growth Traditional

Low Growth Traditional Wealth Builder

Figure 21: Change in Population and PCPI for Louisiana Parishes, 1991-2000.
67

-3.50

-3.00

-2.50

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00

Average Annual Change in Per Capita Personal Income

Average Annual Change in Population

Coastal Parishes

Non-Coastal Parishes

median = 6.6

median = 0.34

Population Magnet High Growth Traditional

Low Growth Traditional Wealth Builder

Figure 22: Change in Population and PCPI for Louisiana Parishes, 1969-2000. 

In Figures 23 through 27, the same classification system is applied to the 50 states. 

Although conceptually less applicable or relevant to states because of the range among 

them in terms of economic diversity and population size, density and distribution the 

patterns are quite similar to those observed for Louisiana’s parishes. The principal 

empirical continuity throughout the period is that Florida and Texas consistently are 

greater than the median in terms of population growth, while Alabama, Louisiana and 

Texas are consistently slightly below the mean growth rate. 

All five GOM states fall above the median rate PCPI growth rate in the initial 1969 to 

1980 energy boom period, shown in Figure 23, but are distributed among the four 

quadrants quite evenly during the other three periods. Looking at the period as a whole, 

the GOM states cluster around the median PCPI with Florida and Texas doing 

significantly better in terms of population growth. 

For none of the periods does the distribution suggest a positive or negative association 

between the growth rates of population and per capita personal income. 
68

AL

FL

LA

MS

TX

-3.50

-3.00

-2.50

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00

Average Annual Change in Per Capita Personal Income

Average Annual Change in Population

Non-Gulf Coast States

Population Magnet High Growth 

Traditional

Low Growth Traditional Wealth Builder

median =1.4

median = 8.3 

Figure 23: Percent Change in Population and PCPI for the U.S., 1969-1980. 

AL

FL

LA

MS

TX

-3.50

-3.00

-2.50

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00

Average Annual Change in Per Capita Personal Income

Average Annual Change in Population

Non-Gulf Coast States

Population Magnet High Growth 

Traditional

Low Growth Traditional Wealth Builder

median =0.94

median = 5.2 

Figure 24: Percent Change in Population and PCPI for the U.S, 1981-1985.
69

AL

FL

LA

MS

TX

-3.50

-3.00

-2.50

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00

Average Annual Change in Per Capita Personal Income

Average Annual Change in Population

Non-Gulf Coast States

Population Magnet High Growth 

Traditional

Low Growth Traditional Wealth Builder

median =0.73

median = 4.6 

 Figure 25: Percent Change in Population and PCPI for the U.S., 1986-1990. 

AL

FL

LA

MS

TX

-3.50

-3.00

-2.50

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00

Average Annual Change in Per Capita Personal Income

Average Annual Change in Population

Non-Gulf Coast States

Population Magnet High Growth 

Traditional

Low Growth Traditional Wealth Builder

median =1.2

median = 4.01

 Figure 26: Percent Change in Population and PCPI for the U.S., 1991-2000.
70

AL

FL

LA MS

TX

-3.50

-3.00

-2.50

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00

Average Annual Change in Per Capita Personal Income

Average Annual Change in Population

Non-Gulf Coast States

Wealth Builder

Population Magnet High Growth 

Traditional

Low Growth Traditional

median =1.15

median = 6.5 

Figure 27: Percent Change in Population and PCPI for the U.S., 1969-2000. 
71

12. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 

Our goal is to understand the effects of the development of the reserves of oil and gas 

located on the Outer Continental Shelf under Federal jurisdiction on the economies of the 

communities located in the adjacent coastal parishes of Louisiana. Louisiana is the 

nation’s most energy intensive state. Our two principal methodological or analytical 

premises are: 

1) If cumulative economic effects of OCS development are not evident in 

Louisiana’s coastal parishes, they are not likely to be found in more distant, less 

energy intensive locations. 

2) In order to characterize the magnitude and duration of the effects that OCS 

development may have had on the Gulf Coast economy, other changes in the 

national and regional economy affecting the region must be accounted for and 

made comparable. If this is not done, an illusion of causality can be created 

simply by the limits of the analysis itself. 

The method used in the study to provide a consistent and comprehensive analytical 

framework is “growth accounting.” Growth accounting decomposes changes in per capita 

personal income into its basic conceptual components; namely, changes in per capita 

personal income attributable to changes in: 

• The mix of industries operating in the region, 

• Wages in the region in relation to wages in the nation, 

• The proportion of the population in the labor force, 

• Transfer payments, and, 

• Property income. 

These components of change were compared for the 19 coastal parishes and 45 noncoastal parishes in Louisiana, and, to provide context and as a kind of consistency check, 

also for the five states bordering on the Gulf of Mexico and Louisiana’s eight MSAs. 

The 1969 to 2000 period saw extreme fluctuation in energy prices and energy production. 

Oil and gas prices had been abnormally stable in the United States from the end of the 

Second World War until the Arab oil embargo in 1974. After the embargo, however, 

there was extreme variation by any historical standard—especially during the oil “boom” 

of the 1970s and the subsequent “bust” in the mid-1980s. 

Variation is an analytical advantage when trying to discern effects and relationships, but 

there are also analytical disadvantages that complicate the analysis. Major technological 

and structural changes in the industry occurred as a response to the extreme variation 

both by market forces and governmental policies. From our standpoint, however, the 

more serious problem is separating the effects of development on the OCS from the 

effects of on-shore trends and events. 
72

Production of oil and gas from within the state’s jurisdiction rose very rapidly by almost 

600 percent from 1950 to its peak in 1970. It then declined even more rapidly, falling 

back to 1950 levels by 1980. In contrast, offshore oil production declined only modestly 

during the 1970s, and offshore gas production continued to increase. Offshore oil 

production resumed growth in 1990 and is currently well above its previous peak 1970 

level (see Figures 4a and 4b). 

Despite such a precipitous drop in production, other measures of oil and gas activity like 

the rig count and energy extraction employment continued to rise throughout the 1970s. 

An implication of the divergent patterns of offshore production and onshore production 

(shown in Figures 4a and 4b) is that if the sort of cumulative effects usually associated 

with the traditional “boom town” conceptualization of economic effects are to be found, 

the 1990s, not the 1970s, would be the place to look for them. By 1990 the economic and 

social adjustments to the decline of onshore activity should have been made and the 

increase from 300 million barrels to over 500 million barrels that occurred in offshore 

production over the following decade should create the sort of pressure on public services 

and diseconomies for existing economic activity usually hypothesized by the “boom 

town” model of socioeconomic effects. We find no such evidence, at least in the behavior 

of per capita personal income and its principal components or in the association between 

per capita personal income and population growth. 

Thus, in a broader context, offshore production mitigated or had an opposing (positive) 

effect compared to onshore production. It was a source of stability and growth for coastal 

communities. It gave them partial relief from the economic consequences of nose-diving 

onshore production. Our analysis does not attempt to separate the mitigating or positive 

effects of offshore production from the negative effects of the onshore collapse. Why the 

precipitous drop in coastal, onshore production did not seem to affect the rest of the 

industry during the 1970s is an interesting question but is not a part of this study. 

The analysis of changes in per capita personal income among the 19 coastal Louisiana 

Parishes and 45 non-coastal Louisiana Parishes, the five Gulf States, and eight Louisiana 

MSAs, shows a consistent pattern. The economic effects of energy producing states and 

state jurisdictions in coastal parishes are limited to the 1974 to 1980 energy price 

explosion and the 1981 to 1985 energy price erosion and collapse. 

The analysis of the components of change during these two episodes shows that the 

effects were greater than the rate of change in per capita personal income considered 

alone would indicate. In the 1970 to 1980 boom, increases in relative wages and labor 

force participation accounted for more of the relative increase in energy producing 

jurisdictions, while increases in income from transfer payments made a much more 

substantial contribution in non-energy producing jurisdictions. As the cycle reversed and 

energy prices fell, transfer payments increased in energy producing jurisdictions and 

labor force participation and relative wages declined. The major longer-term driver 

accounting for changes in per capita personal income was the rate of improvement in 

industry mix. It mirrored the coastal/non-coastal dichotomy but at a much more modest 

level, increasing marginally during the boom in energy producing jurisdictions and 
73

decreasing modestly during the bust. But it was not nearly as much of an explanation as 

were changes in labor force participation and transfer payments. 

These effects seem limited, however, to these two periods. During the “recovery” of 1986 

to 1990 and what we term the “energy lull” from 1991 to 2000, there are no apparent 

differences between oil and gas producing jurisdictions and non-oil and gas producing 

jurisdictions. Changes observable among the Gulf States seem to be attributable to factors 

unrelated to their energy intensity or industrial composition. This also appears to be the 

case for Louisiana’s parishes and MSAs. 

This is consistent with broader views of the U.S. economy. Evaluating the performance 

of the national economy over roughly the same period we consider here, William 

Nordhaus (2004, page 30) concluded: 

But the past is not prologue, and the 1970s productivity slowdown has 

over the last decade been overcome by a productivity growth rebound 

originating primarily in the new-economy sectors. As the economy made 

the transition from the oil age to the electronic age, the aftershocks of the 

energy crises have died off and productivity growth has attained a rate 

close to its historic norm. 

The application or implication for the Gulf Coast economy is that the repercussions of the 

energy boom and collapse of the 1970s and 1980s should not be confused with the 

cumulative economic effects of the exploration and production of oil and gas from the 

federal OCS. Louisiana is the nation’s most energy intensive state, and although it may 

still be closer to the oil than to the electric age, twenty years later the coastal parishes of 

Louisiana don’t seem to be any worse off or any better off than the rest of the state now 

that the energy adjustments have been made. 

Looking at the experience of the five Gulf Coast states leads to a similar conclusion. 

Differential effects are evident during the 1970s and early 1980s, but no lasting, 

cumulative effects are in evidence. Energy is important but it is a part of a much larger 

national and global economy. Different regions and localities are affected by different 

factors, but there is little evidence of persisting, cumulative effects, either positive or 

negative, from oil and gas production. 
75

REFERENCES 

Baker Hughes Incorporated Oilfield Services. 2006. Baker Hughes Rig Counts. Internet 

website: http://www.bakerhughes.com/investor/rig/index.htm. 

Barro, R. and X. Sala-I-Martin. 1991. Convergence across States and Regions. Brookings 

Papers on Economic Activity Issue 1. 

Blanchard, O.J. and L.F. Katz. 1992. Regional Evolutions. Brookings Papers on 

Economic Activity Issue 1. 

Carlino, G.A. and E.S. Mills. 1987. The Determinants of County Growth. Journal of 

Regional Science 27(1). 

Carlino, G.A. and K. Sill. 2001. Regional Income Fluctuations: Common Trends and 

Common Cycles. Review of Economics and Statistics 83(3). 

Dekle, R. 2002. Industrial Concentration and Regional Growth: Evidence from the 

Prefectures. Review of Economics and Statistics 84(3). 

Eff, E.A. 1999. Myrdal contra Ohlin: Accounting for the Sources of U.S. County Per 

Capita Income Convergence Using a Flexible Decomposition Approach. Review 

of Regional Studies 29(1). 

French, M.T. and M. Lam. 1986. Oil and Gas Producing Industry in Louisiana: A Short 

History with Long Term Projections. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. 

Garnick, D. and H. Friedenberg. 1982. Accounting for Regional Differences in Per 

Capita Personal Income Growth, 1929-1979. Survey of Current Business 62(9). 

Garofalo, G.A. and S. Yamarik. 1999. Regional Convergence: Evidence from a New 

State-by-State Capital Stock Series. Review of Economics and Statistics 84(2). 

Glaeser, E.L., R. La Porta, F. Lopez-de-Silanes, and A. Shleifer. 2004. Do Institutions 

Cause Growth? National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series 

(NBER). Working Paper 10568. 

Gottlieb, P.D. 2002. Growth without Growth: An Alternative Economic Development 

Goal for Metropolitan Areas. A Discussion Paper Prepared for the Brookings 

Institution, Center for Urban and Metropolitan Policy. 

Hildreth, R.G. 2004. Legal Framework for Minerals Management Service Socioeconomic 

Studies in the Gulf of Mexico. Workshop on Socioeconomic Research Issues for 

the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region: Draft for Science Committee review.
76

Jones, L.B. and G.R. Rice. 1972. An Economic Base Study of Coastal Louisiana. Center 

for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. 

Kim, S. 1998. Economic Integration and Convergence: U.S. Regions, 1840-1987. 

Journal of Economic History 58(3). 

Latzko, D.A. 2001. Industry Mix, Wages, and the Divergence of County Income in 

Pennsylvania. RURDS, The Applied Regional Science Conference 13(2). 

Leven, C.L. 1985. Regional Development Analysis and Policy. Journal of Regional 

Science 25(4). 

Louisiana. Dept. of Natural Resources. 2006a. SONRIS Integrated Applications. 

Internet website:http://sonris-www.dnr.state.la.us/www_root/sonris_portal_1.htm. 

Louisiana. Dept. of Natural Resources. 2006b. Technology Assessment. Internet 

website: http://dnr.louisiana.gov/sec/execdiv/techasmt/. 

Louisiana State University Center for Energy Studies. 2006. Louisiana Energy 

Indicators. Center for Energy Studies, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, 

LA, [Database]. 

Mitchener, K.J. and I.W. McLean. 1999. U.S. Regional Growth and Convergence, 1880-

1980. Journal of Economic History 59(4). 

Nordhaus, W. 2004. Retrospective on the 1970s Productivity Slowdown. National 

Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series, Working Paper Number 

10950. 

PennWell Publishing Company. 1998. Energy Statistics Sourcebook. 13th ed. 

Perloff, H. 1957. Interrelations of State Income and Industrial Structures. Review of 

Economics and Statistics 39(2). 

Priest, T. 2004.The History of the Offshore Industry in the Gulf of Mexico. Workshop on 

Socioeconomic Research Issues for the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region: Draft for 

Science Committee review.

Richardson, J.A. and L.C. Scott, 1988. Mineral Taxes and Revenues and Budgetary 

Stability. Louisiana’s Fiscal Alternatives, (ed) J.A. Richardson, Louisiana State 

University Press. 

Roback, J. 1988. Wages, Rents and Amenities: Differences Among Workers and 

Regions. Economic Inquiry. 26: January. 
77

Scott, L.C., T.R. Beard, and J.W. Duggar. 1971. Economic Profiles and Personal 

Income and Earnings Data for Louisiana State Planning Districts, SMSA’s, and 

Non-SMSA Parishes in Louisiana. College of Business Administration, Louisiana 

State University, Baton Rouge, LA. 

Terkla, D.G. 1991. Explaining Variations in Employment Growth: Structural and 

Cyclical Change among States and Local Areas. Journal of Urban Area, 29. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2006a. Bureau of Economic 

Analysis: Regional Economic Accounts. Internet website: 

http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/statelocal.htm. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2006b. Bureau of Economic 

Analysis: U.S. Economic Accounts. Internet website: http://www.bea.gov/. 

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Census Bureau. 2006. Census Bureau Home Page. Internet 

website: http://www.census.gov/. 

U.S. Dept. of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2006. Energy Information 

Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government. 

Internet website: http://www.eia.doe.gov/. 

U.S. Dept. of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2006. Bureau of Labor Statistics Home 

Page. Internet website: http://www.bls.gov/. 
79

APPENDIX A 

PARISH DATA 
81

Table A.1a 

Growth Rate and Components of Percentage Change in Per Capita Personal 

Income for Coastal Parishes (1969-1980) 

Coastal Parishes

Parish PCPI Z 

Score

Industry 

Mix

Z 

Score

Wage 

Effect

Z 

Score

Participation Z Score Transfer 

Payments 

R ti

Z Score Property 

Income 

ti

Z 

Score

Acadia 9.90 0.50 7.31 0.50 0.56 0.10 0.31 -0.58 2.45 0.63 -0.73 -0.18

Assumption 10.69 1.29 8.34 2.93 1.47 1.64 1.96 0.61 0.05 -0.63 -1.13 -0.93

Calcasieu 9.55 0.15 6.93 -0.40 1.15 1.10 1.90 0.57 -0.20 -0.76 -0.22 0.77

Cameron 10.10 0.70 7.99 2.09 -0.25 -1.26 3.32 1.59 -0.33 -0.83 -0.62 0.02

Iberia 10.88 1.48 7.68 1.36 0.99 0.84 3.09 1.43 -0.32 -0.82 -0.56 0.14

Jefferson 8.71 -0.69 6.54 -1.33 0.43 -0.12 2.69 1.14 -0.90 -1.13 -0.04 1.12

Jefferson Davis 9.59 0.19 7.81 1.69 0.12 -0.64 0.39 -0.53 2.29 0.55 -1.02 -0.73

Lafayette 11.57 2.17 7.79 1.62 0.90 0.67 3.55 1.76 -0.21 -0.76 -0.45 0.34

Lafourche 10.49 1.08 7.29 0.45 0.55 0.08 1.55 0.31 1.54 0.16 -0.44 0.36

Orleans 8.52 -0.88 6.93 -0.39 0.63 0.23 1.31 0.14 -0.39 -0.86 0.03 1.24

Plaquemines 10.19 0.78 7.64 1.28 0.25 -0.43 5.11 2.89 -2.70 -2.08 -0.12 0.96

St. Bernard 8.45 -0.94 6.52 -1.38 0.34 -0.28 1.10 -0.01 0.54 -0.37 -0.04 1.11

St. Charles 10.42 1.02 7.21 0.26 1.11 1.04 4.73 2.62 -2.23 -1.83 -0.40 0.43

St. James 10.24 0.84 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 -1.29 -1.34 -0.54 0.18

St. John the Baptist 10.06 0.65 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 0.59 -0.35 -0.27 0.67

St. Martin 10.71 1.31 7.66 1.31 -0.91 -2.38 2.11 0.72 3.18 1.02 -1.33 -1.32

St. Mary 9.89 0.49 8.01 2.14 0.64 0.25 2.77 1.19 -1.21 -1.29 -0.32 0.58

Terrebonne 10.75 1.34 7.59 1.14 0.93 0.73 3.33 1.60 -0.64 -0.99 -0.45 0.34

Vermilion 10.13 0.73 8.01 2.16 1.27 1.31 1.19 0.05 0.62 -0.33 -0.96 -0.62

Mean 10.04 7.49 0.60 2.38 0.04 -0.51

Std. Error 0.81 0.53 0.59 1.38 1.52 0.39
82

Table A.1b 

Growth Rate and Components of Percentage Change in Per Capita Personal 

Income for Non-Coastal Parishes (1969-1980) 

Non-Coastal Parishes

Parish PCPI Z Score Industry 

Mix

Z Score Wage 

Effect

Z Score Participation Z Score Transfer 

Payments Ratio

Z Score Property 

Income ratio

Z Score

Allen 8.90 -0.50 6.71 -0.92 0.80 0.51 -2.33 -2.49 3.90 1.40 -0.19 0.83

Ascension 9.79 0.39 7.16 0.13 1.06 0.95 2.76 1.19 -0.68 -1.01 -0.51 0.24

Avoyelles 9.20 -0.20 6.71 -0.93 -0.44 -1.59 0.39 -0.53 3.72 1.30 -1.17 -1.02

Beauregard 10.13 0.73 6.72 -0.89 1.73 2.09 1.05 -0.05 1.09 -0.08 -0.46 0.32

Bienville 9.27 -0.13 7.33 0.55 1.07 0.96 0.78 -0.25 0.72 -0.28 -0.63 0.00

Bossier 8.70 -0.70 7.12 0.05 0.34 -0.27 0.33 -0.57 1.13 -0.06 -0.22 0.78

Caddo 8.82 -0.57 7.10 0.01 0.52 0.03 1.56 0.32 -0.31 -0.82 -0.05 1.10

Caldwell 9.88 0.48 6.86 -0.56 0.02 -0.80 0.82 -0.22 2.97 0.91 -0.79 -0.31

Catahoula 9.35 -0.05 7.11 0.03 -0.02 -0.87 1.81 0.50 1.96 0.38 -1.51 -1.66

Claiborne 9.03 -0.37 7.48 0.91 0.54 0.07 0.95 -0.12 0.59 -0.34 -0.54 0.17

Concordia 8.89 -0.51 6.72 -0.89 -0.57 -1.81 0.80 -0.23 2.71 0.77 -0.78 -0.28

De Soto 9.48 0.08 7.38 0.66 2.23 2.94 0.81 -0.22 -0.13 -0.72 -0.81 -0.34

East Baton Rouge 9.34 -0.06 6.63 -1.10 0.69 0.33 1.60 0.35 0.43 -0.43 -0.01 1.16

East Carroll 8.97 -0.42 6.71 -0.93 0.94 0.76 -0.33 -1.05 3.17 1.01 -1.52 -1.66

East Feliciana 10.72 1.32 7.02 -0.19 0.50 0.01 0.69 -0.31 2.95 0.90 -0.45 0.34

Evangeline 10.35 0.95 6.90 -0.47 0.69 0.33 0.30 -0.59 3.37 1.12 -0.92 -0.54

Franklin 8.91 -0.49 6.55 -1.29 -0.30 -1.36 -0.44 -1.13 4.74 1.84 -1.64 -1.89

Grant 8.46 -0.94 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 1.27 0.02 -0.80 -0.32

Iberville 9.95 0.55 7.49 0.91 1.15 1.10 3.26 1.55 -1.46 -1.42 -0.49 0.27

Jackson 8.79 -0.61 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 1.68 0.23 -0.25 0.71

La Salle 9.88 0.48 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 1.79 0.29 -0.33 0.56

Lincoln 9.15 -0.25 6.80 -0.71 0.13 -0.63 2.19 0.78 0.46 -0.41 -0.43 0.38

Livingston 9.00 -0.39 6.68 -1.00 -0.91 -2.39 0.16 -0.69 3.82 1.36 -0.75 -0.23

Madison 7.38 -2.01 6.18 -2.17 0.29 -0.35 -0.96 -1.50 2.89 0.87 -1.03 -0.75

Morehouse 9.11 -0.28 6.87 -0.53 0.53 0.05 0.27 -0.61 2.26 0.54 -0.82 -0.36

Natchitoches 8.52 -0.88 7.18 0.20 -0.11 -1.03 0.95 -0.12 1.52 0.15 -1.03 -0.74

Ouachita 9.05 -0.35 6.80 -0.70 0.66 0.28 0.86 -0.19 0.89 -0.19 -0.17 0.87

Pointe Coupee 9.79 0.39 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 0.36 -0.47 -1.35 -1.34

Rapides 8.71 -0.68 6.81 -0.68 1.03 0.90 -0.03 -0.83 1.06 -0.10 -0.16 0.89

Red River 7.76 -1.64 7.27 0.41 -0.82 -2.24 0.30 -0.59 2.34 0.58 -1.34 -1.32

Richland 9.94 0.54 7.00 -0.24 1.08 0.98 -0.10 -0.88 2.87 0.86 -0.90 -0.51

Sabine 8.26 -1.14 6.86 -0.57 -0.36 -1.46 -0.02 -0.82 2.23 0.52 -0.45 0.34

St. Helena 9.58 0.18 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 1.10 -0.08 -0.89 -0.49

St. Landry 10.86 1.46 7.35 0.59 0.92 0.72 1.35 0.17 1.91 0.35 -0.67 -0.06

St. Tammany 9.33 -0.07 6.57 -1.24 0.40 -0.17 0.64 -0.35 1.93 0.36 -0.20 0.81

Tangipahoa 9.38 -0.02 6.63 -1.11 0.06 -0.75 0.25 -0.63 3.06 0.95 -0.61 0.04

Tensas 8.48 -0.92 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 6.00 2.50 -3.04 -4.53

Union 8.62 -0.78 6.60 -1.19 0.34 -0.27 -0.32 -1.04 2.53 0.68 -0.53 0.19

Vernon 5.24 -4.14 7.06 -0.09 1.24 1.26 -3.27 -3.18 0.11 -0.60 0.10 1.37

Washington 8.61 -0.78 6.55 -1.30 -0.13 -1.06 0.04 -0.78 2.40 0.61 -0.24 0.73

Webster 8.23 -1.16 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 4.89 1.92 0.40 1.94

West Baton Rouge 10.14 0.74 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 -1.47 -1.43 -0.53 0.19

West Carroll 9.03 -0.37 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 3.10 0.98 -1.20 -1.06

West Feliciana 10.86 1.46 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 -3.92 -2.72 -0.76 -0.23

Winn 8.84 -0.56 7.03 -0.16 0.43 -0.12 0.61 -0.37 0.88 -0.19 -0.12 0.97

Mean 9.13 6.91 0.45 0.51 1.75 -0.68

Std. Error 0.96 0.30 0.69 1.21 1.83 0.58
83

Table A.2a 

Growth Rate and Components of Percentage Change in Per Capita Personal 

Income for Coastal Parishes (1981-1985) 

Coastal Parishes

Parish PCPI Z Score Industry 

Mix

Z 

Score

Wage 

Effect

Z Score Participation Z Score Transfer 

Payments 

Ratio

Z 

Score

Property 

Income 

ratio

Z 

Score

Acadia 3.97 -0.02 4.10 -0.08 -0.35 0.65 -1.64 -0.43 0.66 -0.27 1.21 1.28

Assumption 2.23 -1.17 3.96 -0.30 -3.07 -1.65 -3.90 -1.62 5.52 1.97 -0.28 -0.85

Calcasieu 1.65 -1.55 3.62 -0.85 -2.14 -0.87 -2.98 -1.14 2.59 0.62 0.56 0.36

Cameron 3.21 -0.52 3.44 -1.13 -0.20 0.78 -0.44 0.21 0.30 -0.43 0.10 -0.30

Iberia 0.84 -2.09 3.52 -1.00 -1.84 -0.61 -4.41 -1.90 3.30 0.95 0.28 -0.06

Jefferson 4.07 0.05 3.64 -0.81 -0.95 0.15 1.16 1.06 -0.30 -0.71 0.52 0.29

Jefferson Davis 2.18 -1.20 3.03 -1.77 -1.11 0.01 -3.07 -1.18 1.71 0.22 1.62 1.88

Lafayette 2.30 -1.12 3.01 -1.81 -0.72 0.34 -1.23 -0.21 0.99 -0.11 0.25 -0.09

Lafourche 1.19 -1.86 3.70 -0.71 -2.57 -1.23 -1.65 -0.43 1.26 0.01 0.44 0.18

Orleans 4.53 0.35 3.82 -0.53 0.47 1.35 -1.05 -0.12 1.00 -0.11 0.29 -0.04

Plaquemines 2.68 -0.87 3.31 -1.34 -0.18 0.80 -3.78 -1.56 2.83 0.73 0.50 0.26

St. Bernard 2.94 -0.70 3.04 -1.75 -3.05 -1.63 -1.77 -0.49 3.68 1.13 1.03 1.02

St. Charles 0.87 -2.07 3.35 -1.28 -2.07 -0.81 -7.92 -3.75 7.18 2.73 0.33 0.02

St. James 4.39 0.26 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 -1.34 -1.18 -0.20 -0.74

St. John the Baptist 1.51 -1.64 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 0.83 -0.19 0.05 -0.38

St. Martin 1.49 -1.65 4.02 -0.21 -1.57 -0.38 -1.70 -0.46 0.76 -0.22 -0.02 -0.48

St. Mary 1.81 -1.44 3.36 -1.26 -0.52 0.51 -3.50 -1.41 2.36 0.52 0.12 -0.28

Terrebonne 0.93 -2.03 3.07 -1.71 -1.93 -0.68 -3.50 -1.41 2.85 0.74 0.43 0.17

Vermilion 3.08 -0.61 3.40 -1.20 -0.46 0.56 -2.60 -0.93 1.99 0.35 0.75 0.62

Mean 2.41 3.49 -1.31 -2.59 2.01 0.42

Std. Error 1.21 0.35 1.07 1.98 2.00 0.47
84

Table A.2b 

Growth Rate and Components of Percentage Change in Per Capita Personal 

Income for Non-Coastal Parishes (1981-1985) 

Non-Coastal Parishes

Parish PCPI Z Score Industry 

Mix

Z Score Wage 

Effect

Z Score Participation Z Score Transfer 

Payments Ratio

Z Score Property 

Income ratio

Z Score

Allen 3.05 -0.63 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 -1.34 -1.18 1.22 1.31

Ascension 3.27 -0.48 3.71 -0.70 -2.78 -1.40 0.21 0.55 1.76 0.24 0.35 0.06

Avoyelles 4.99 0.65 5.03 1.38 -0.08 0.88 -1.11 -0.15 0.16 -0.49 0.99 0.98

Beauregard 4.32 0.21 4.53 0.59 -2.25 -0.95 1.58 1.28 0.17 -0.49 0.28 -0.05

Bienville 4.81 0.53 4.16 0.00 0.60 1.46 -0.86 -0.01 0.02 -0.56 0.90 0.84

Bossier 5.34 0.89 4.04 -0.19 -0.62 0.43 0.85 0.89 0.72 -0.24 0.36 0.06

Caddo 4.65 0.43 3.99 -0.26 -0.48 0.55 0.08 0.48 1.06 -0.08 -0.01 -0.46

Caldwell 5.72 1.14 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 -0.79 -0.93 -0.10 -0.60

Catahoula 2.91 -0.72 4.01 -0.23 -5.17 -3.43 -3.36 -1.34 8.02 3.12 -0.59 -1.30

Claiborne 4.35 0.23 3.28 -1.38 -0.21 0.78 -1.71 -0.46 2.19 0.44 0.80 0.69

Concordia 2.77 -0.81 5.02 1.36 -0.70 0.35 -1.32 -0.26 -0.10 -0.61 -0.13 -0.64

De Soto 3.62 -0.25 3.49 -1.05 -3.99 -2.43 -4.91 -2.16 7.83 3.03 1.19 1.26

East Baton Rouge 3.78 -0.14 4.15 -0.01 -1.61 -0.41 0.16 0.53 0.98 -0.12 0.10 -0.30

East Carroll 4.16 0.11 5.58 2.24 -2.57 -1.23 0.52 0.72 3.29 0.94 -2.66 -4.27

East Feliciana 4.97 0.64 5.12 1.52 -1.36 -0.20 2.30 1.66 -2.06 -1.51 0.97 0.94

Evangeline 3.38 -0.41 4.68 0.83 -0.91 0.18 -1.10 -0.14 0.58 -0.30 0.13 -0.27

Franklin 5.11 0.73 4.74 0.93 -0.17 0.81 -0.57 0.14 0.33 -0.41 0.78 0.67

Grant 4.93 0.61 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 -0.41 -0.76 0.15 -0.24

Iberville 3.59 -0.27 4.11 -0.06 -0.22 0.76 -2.73 -1.00 2.39 0.53 0.03 -0.41

Jackson 5.00 0.66 4.28 0.20 -0.52 0.51 0.36 0.63 0.41 -0.38 0.47 0.22

La Salle 6.60 1.72 3.81 -0.54 0.61 1.46 2.17 1.59 -0.06 -0.59 0.08 -0.34

Lincoln 5.29 0.85 4.63 0.75 -0.50 0.53 0.14 0.52 0.19 -0.48 0.82 0.73

Livingston 3.39 -0.40 4.67 0.81 -1.23 -0.09 2.54 1.79 -4.04 -2.42 1.44 1.62

Madison 4.75 0.50 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 3.24 0.92 -0.95 -1.81

Morehouse 3.88 -0.08 4.65 0.77 -1.64 -0.44 -0.77 0.04 1.15 -0.04 0.48 0.24

Natchitoches 5.76 1.16 4.63 0.75 -0.11 0.86 0.18 0.53 0.65 -0.27 0.41 0.14

Ouachita 5.14 0.75 4.19 0.06 -0.75 0.32 1.16 1.05 0.17 -0.49 0.36 0.07

Pointe Coupee 4.49 0.32 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 3.37 0.98 -0.42 -1.05

Rapides 5.56 1.03 4.48 0.51 -0.44 0.58 0.66 0.79 0.37 -0.40 0.48 0.24

Red River 4.94 0.62 5.19 1.63 0.33 1.23 0.65 0.78 -1.66 -1.33 0.42 0.16

Richland 3.84 -0.10 5.17 1.60 -2.44 -1.12 0.35 0.63 1.35 0.06 -0.60 -1.31

Sabine 6.44 1.61 4.42 0.41 0.19 1.11 1.50 1.23 -0.18 -0.65 0.52 0.29

St. Helena 6.21 1.46 5.41 1.97 -1.88 -0.64 0.24 0.57 1.75 0.24 0.70 0.56

St. Landry 3.13 -0.57 3.86 -0.47 -1.14 -0.02 -1.81 -0.52 1.58 0.16 0.65 0.48

St. Tammany 4.01 0.00 4.32 0.26 -0.95 0.15 1.39 1.18 -1.44 -1.23 0.68 0.53

Tangipahoa 4.56 0.37 4.50 0.55 0.09 1.03 0.02 0.45 -0.82 -0.94 0.76 0.64

Tensas 3.52 -0.32 5.64 2.34 -4.16 -2.58 0.00 0.44 3.66 1.11 -1.61 -2.77

Union 5.47 0.97 4.56 0.64 1.07 1.86 -0.09 0.39 -1.10 -1.07 1.03 1.03

Vernon 7.31 2.18 5.06 1.42 0.60 1.46 1.02 0.98 0.55 -0.31 0.08 -0.34

Washington 4.15 0.10 4.38 0.35 -0.98 0.12 -0.59 0.13 0.36 -0.40 0.98 0.95

Webster 5.15 0.76 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 -0.31 -0.71 0.06 -0.37

West Baton Rouge 4.60 0.40 3.26 -1.41 -1.28 -0.13 1.58 1.28 0.08 -0.53 0.95 0.92

West Carroll 5.06 0.70 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 3.70 1.13 -1.12 -2.07

West Feliciana 6.59 1.71 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 1.87 0.29 0.13 -0.26

Winn 5.55 1.02 4.28 0.19 -0.68 0.38 0.25 0.57 1.12 -0.05 0.58 0.38

Mean 4.67 4.46 -1.04 -0.03 0.91 0.27

Std. Error 1.07 0.59 1.38 1.54 2.18 0.77
85

Table A.3a 

Growth Rate and Components of Percentage Change in Per Capita Personal 

Income for Coastal Parishes (1986-1990) 

Coastal Parishes

Parish PCPI Z 

Score

Industry 

Mix

Z 

Score

Wage 

Effect

Z Score Participatio

n

Z 

Score

Transfer 

Payments 

Ratio

Z 

Score

Property 

Income 

ratio

Z 

Score

Acadia 4.20 -0.56 3.92 0.28 -1.82 -1.00 1.62 0.04 0.56 0.52 -0.07 -0.37

Assumption 4.70 -0.01 4.19 1.09 -1.79 -0.96 2.21 0.49 0.40 0.39 -0.32 -0.78

Calcasieu 5.63 1.03 3.55 -0.79 -1.06 -0.21 3.28 1.30 -0.03 0.03 -0.11 -0.45

Cameron 4.95 0.28 3.80 -0.07 -1.52 -0.68 2.88 1.00 -0.45 -0.31 0.24 0.12

Iberia 4.41 -0.33 3.82 0.00 -1.95 -1.13 2.09 0.40 0.22 0.24 0.24 0.12

Jefferson 3.80 -1.01 3.44 -1.09 -0.82 0.02 1.71 0.11 -0.79 -0.59 0.26 0.15

Jefferson Davis 4.44 -0.30 3.81 -0.02 -0.39 0.47 0.87 -0.52 -0.65 -0.48 0.80 1.03

Lafayette 4.11 -0.67 3.81 -0.01 -1.52 -0.68 1.78 0.17 -0.11 -0.03 0.14 -0.04

Lafourche 4.26 -0.50 3.58 -0.69 -0.31 0.55 1.25 -0.24 -0.28 -0.18 0.03 -0.22

Orleans 5.06 0.40 3.62 -0.59 -0.77 0.08 1.56 0.00 0.24 0.25 0.41 0.41

Plaquemines 4.28 -0.47 3.71 -0.32 -1.33 -0.49 0.83 -0.55 0.92 0.81 0.15 -0.02

St. Bernard 3.22 -1.66 3.31 -1.50 -2.01 -1.18 0.57 -0.75 1.42 1.22 -0.06 -0.37

St. Charles 5.53 0.93 3.17 -1.88 -1.44 -0.60 4.22 2.02 -0.41 -0.28 -0.01 -0.28

St. James 6.01 1.46 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 -2.93 -2.35 -0.29 -0.74

St. John the Baptist 5.84 1.27 3.61 -0.60 -1.02 -0.18 4.04 1.88 -0.65 -0.47 -0.14 -0.49

St. Martin 4.81 0.11 4.47 1.89 -1.86 -1.04 5.42 2.92 -2.54 -2.03 -0.68 -1.37

St. Mary 4.20 -0.56 3.79 -0.10 -2.11 -1.29 2.52 0.72 0.10 0.14 -0.08 -0.40

Terrebonne 4.20 -0.56 3.30 -1.51 -1.46 -0.62 1.79 0.17 0.81 0.72 -0.24 -0.66

Vermilion 4.36 -0.38 3.76 -0.17 -0.74 0.12 1.10 -0.35 0.01 0.07 0.23 0.11

Mean 4.63 3.70 -1.33 2.21 -0.22 0.03

Std. Error 0.72 0.31 0.56 1.31 1.06 0.32
86

Table A.3b 

Growth Rate and Components of Percentage Change in Per Capita Personal 

Income for Non-Coastal Parishes (1986-1990) 

Non-Coastal Parishes

Parish PCPI Z Score Industry 

Mix

Z Score Wage 

Effect

Z Score Participation Z Score Transfer 

Payments 

Ratio

Z Score Property 

Income ratio

Z Score

Allen 4.22 -0.55 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 -1.11 -0.85 -0.26 -0.68

Ascension 6.20 1.67 3.41 -1.20 -0.04 0.83 3.69 1.61 -0.98 -0.75 0.12 -0.07

Avoyelles 5.28 0.64 3.94 0.34 0.06 0.93 1.77 0.16 -0.18 -0.09 -0.31 -0.77

Beauregard 4.91 0.23 3.97 0.44 -0.86 -0.01 1.87 0.24 0.29 0.29 -0.35 -0.84

Bienville 3.45 -1.41 4.16 0.99 -2.31 -1.49 1.66 0.08 0.66 0.60 -0.73 -1.45

Bossier 5.11 0.45 3.56 -0.75 -1.02 -0.17 1.12 -0.33 1.32 1.14 0.12 -0.06

Caddo 4.20 -0.56 3.56 -0.74 -0.42 0.43 0.44 -0.85 0.28 0.29 0.35 0.30

Caldwell 4.89 0.21 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 0.21 0.23 -0.01 -0.27

Catahoula 5.50 0.88 4.17 1.04 0.33 1.20 0.11 -1.10 -0.70 -0.52 1.58 2.31

Claiborne 3.25 -1.63 4.04 0.65 -1.50 -0.66 0.03 -1.16 1.01 0.88 -0.33 -0.80

Concordia 5.05 0.39 4.17 1.04 0.65 1.54 1.06 -0.37 -1.80 -1.42 0.96 1.30

De Soto 3.24 -1.64 3.69 -0.38 -0.40 0.46 -0.33 -1.43 -0.77 -0.58 1.06 1.46

East Baton Rouge 5.28 0.64 3.71 -0.32 -0.34 0.52 2.36 0.61 -0.53 -0.38 0.08 -0.14

East Carroll 5.29 0.66 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 -0.65 -0.47 2.53 3.85

East Feliciana 5.07 0.41 4.06 0.71 1.04 1.93 -2.27 -2.90 1.91 1.63 0.32 0.26

Evangeline 4.54 -0.18 4.57 2.20 -0.59 0.27 2.67 0.84 -1.87 -1.48 -0.24 -0.66

Franklin 6.35 1.84 4.71 2.62 -1.42 -0.59 3.29 1.31 -0.49 -0.35 0.27 0.17

Grant 5.02 0.35 4.49 1.97 0.21 1.08 2.90 1.02 -2.84 -2.28 0.25 0.15

Iberville 5.32 0.68 3.32 -1.45 0.66 1.54 1.51 -0.03 -0.35 -0.23 0.18 0.02

Jackson 3.53 -1.32 3.56 -0.76 -1.25 -0.41 -0.37 -1.46 1.82 1.55 -0.23 -0.64

La Salle 4.65 -0.07 3.43 -1.13 -1.68 -0.85 1.09 -0.36 1.36 1.17 0.44 0.46

Lincoln 5.34 0.72 3.84 0.07 -0.60 0.26 2.34 0.59 0.11 0.14 -0.34 -0.82

Livingston 4.86 0.17 3.62 -0.58 -2.35 -1.53 0.90 -0.50 2.59 2.18 0.10 -0.10

Madison 7.52 3.15 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 -2.59 -2.07 1.97 2.94

Morehouse 5.09 0.43 4.09 0.78 -0.86 -0.02 2.25 0.52 -0.92 -0.70 0.54 0.61

Natchitoches 4.14 -0.64 3.73 -0.27 -0.91 -0.06 -0.40 -1.48 1.79 1.53 -0.07 -0.38

Ouachita 4.66 -0.05 3.68 -0.39 -0.18 0.68 1.21 -0.26 -0.47 -0.33 0.42 0.41

Pointe Coupee 4.29 -0.46 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 0.63 0.57 0.34 0.29

Rapides 5.22 0.57 3.57 -0.74 0.32 1.19 1.33 -0.17 -0.31 -0.20 0.32 0.25

Red River 4.59 -0.12 3.77 -0.14 -0.12 0.75 0.95 -0.46 -0.27 -0.16 0.26 0.17

Richland 4.83 0.14 4.02 0.59 0.79 1.68 1.95 0.30 -2.01 -1.60 0.08 -0.13

Sabine 5.48 0.87 4.05 0.69 -1.83 -1.00 2.50 0.71 0.86 0.77 -0.11 -0.44

St. Helena 4.65 -0.06 5.14 3.86 -0.96 -0.12 -2.05 -2.73 2.59 2.19 -0.06 -0.37

St. Landry 5.35 0.72 3.67 -0.44 0.02 0.89 1.25 -0.23 -0.06 0.01 0.47 0.50

St. Tammany 4.98 0.31 3.65 -0.49 -0.63 0.23 2.37 0.61 -0.90 -0.68 0.48 0.52

Tangipahoa 4.24 -0.52 3.64 -0.51 -1.44 -0.60 1.48 -0.06 1.00 0.88 -0.46 -1.01

Tensas 6.11 1.57 4.09 0.79 3.53 4.48 -1.59 -2.38 -1.95 -1.54 2.02 3.02

Union 4.32 -0.43 3.61 -0.61 -2.50 -1.69 2.78 0.93 1.33 1.15 -0.91 -1.75

Vernon 3.65 -1.19 3.64 -0.52 -1.72 -0.89 0.64 -0.69 1.29 1.12 -0.21 -0.61

Washington 3.73 -1.09 3.81 -0.01 -2.12 -1.30 1.52 -0.03 1.14 0.99 -0.62 -1.27

Webster 3.23 -1.65 3.57 -0.71 -1.56 -0.73 2.06 0.38 -0.58 -0.42 -0.26 -0.69

West Baton Roug 5.43 0.81 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 -0.62 -0.45 0.25 0.14

West Carroll 4.43 -0.31 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 0.57 0.52 0.29 0.20

West Feliciana 1.88 -3.16 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 -0.23 -0.13 -0.23 -0.64

Winn 4.75 0.05 3.62 -0.57 -0.77 0.08 1.90 0.26 0.15 0.18 -0.14 -0.50

Mean 4.74 3.87 -0.62 1.24 -0.01 0.22

Std. Error 0.96 0.39 1.16 1.39 1.28 0.70
87

Table A.4a 

Growth Rate and Components of Percentage Change in Per Capita Personal 

Income for Coastal Parishes (1991-2000) 

Coastal Parishes

Parish PCPI Z 

Score

Industry 

Mix

Z 

Score

Wage 

Effect

Z 

Score

Participatio

n

Z 

Score

Transfer 

Payments 

Ratio

Z 

Score

Property 

Income 

ratio

Z 

Score

Acadia 4.08 0.64 3.37 -0.42 -0.98 -0.04 1.57 0.73 0.25 0.00 -0.13 0.01

Assumption 4.22 0.83 2.94 -1.99 -0.58 0.82 -0.17 -1.61 1.57 1.06 0.45 1.26

Calcasieu 3.25 -0.52 3.35 -0.51 -1.39 -0.90 1.25 0.30 0.17 -0.06 -0.13 0.01

Cameron 3.04 -0.81 3.55 0.26 -0.70 0.56 0.41 -0.82 -0.70 -0.77 0.48 1.32

Iberia 3.58 -0.05 4.15 2.46 -0.94 0.05 1.14 0.16 -0.71 -0.77 -0.06 0.16

Jefferson 3.98 0.50 3.63 0.52 -0.73 0.49 1.66 0.86 -0.66 -0.74 0.09 0.48

Jefferson Davis 3.17 -0.63 2.99 -1.81 -1.46 -1.04 -0.26 -1.73 2.14 1.52 -0.24 -0.24

Lafayette 4.42 1.11 4.02 1.98 -0.83 0.28 1.28 0.35 -0.38 -0.51 0.32 0.97

Lafourche 5.03 1.97 3.54 0.19 -0.56 0.85 2.82 2.41 -0.87 -0.90 0.10 0.51

Orleans 3.31 -0.43 3.46 -0.11 -0.56 0.86 0.28 -1.00 -0.20 -0.37 0.34 1.02

Plaquemines 2.48 -1.59 3.49 0.03 -1.44 -0.99 -0.45 -1.98 0.95 0.57 -0.08 0.11

St. Bernard 3.79 0.23 3.19 -1.10 -1.58 -1.30 2.06 1.40 0.15 -0.08 -0.04 0.21

St. Charles 2.90 -1.00 3.60 0.44 -0.80 0.35 -0.62 -2.21 0.70 0.36 0.02 0.32

St. James 2.27 -1.88 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 0.40 0.12 0.11 0.53

St. John the Baptist 2.77 -1.19 3.42 -0.23 -1.33 -0.77 1.62 0.80 -0.93 -0.95 -0.02 0.25

St. Martin 4.02 0.55 2.91 -2.13 -1.25 -0.60 -0.63 -2.22 3.22 2.39 -0.23 -0.21

St. Mary 4.47 1.18 3.76 0.99 -1.04 -0.15 1.31 0.38 0.42 0.14 0.02 0.34

Terrebonne 4.02 0.56 4.25 2.83 -1.41 -0.93 1.56 0.72 -0.05 -0.24 -0.34 -0.44

Vermilion 3.98 0.50 4.12 2.33 -1.33 -0.77 0.97 -0.08 0.77 0.42 -0.54 -0.88

Mean 3.62 3.54 -1.05 0.88 0.33 0.01

Std. Error 0.73 0.40 0.35 1.00 1.08 0.26
88

Table A.4b 

Growth Rate and Components of Percentage Change in Per Capita Personal 

Income for Non-Coastal Parishes (1991-2000) 

Non-Coastal Parishes

Parish PCPI Z Score Industry 

Mix

Z 

Score

Wage 

Effect

Z Score Participation Z Score Transfer 

Payments Ratio

Z Score Property 

Income ratio

Z Score

Allen 3.86 0.33 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 -2.47 -2.19 -0.42 -0.61

Ascension 3.96 0.47 3.26 -0.82 -1.36 -0.84 0.64 -0.52 1.40 0.92 0.02 0.33

Avoyelles 4.05 0.59 3.59 0.37 -0.75 0.46 2.65 2.19 -1.06 -1.06 -0.38 -0.54

Beauregard 2.99 -0.88 3.51 0.08 -1.67 -1.47 1.22 0.26 -0.07 -0.26 -0.01 0.27

Bienville 3.47 -0.21 3.02 -1.71 -1.08 -0.24 1.37 0.46 -0.25 -0.41 0.41 1.18

Bossier 3.72 0.14 3.30 -0.70 -1.00 -0.08 2.10 1.44 -0.53 -0.63 -0.13 0.00

Caddo 3.55 -0.10 3.52 0.12 -0.69 0.58 0.90 -0.16 -0.29 -0.44 0.11 0.52

Caldwell 3.51 -0.16 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 1.02 0.62 -0.36 -0.50

Catahoula 3.82 0.28 3.32 -0.61 -0.57 0.83 1.16 0.18 0.03 -0.18 -0.11 0.05

Claiborne 3.75 0.18 3.65 0.60 -1.10 -0.28 0.72 -0.41 0.40 0.12 0.09 0.48

Concordia 2.94 -0.95 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 0.08 -0.13 -0.39 -0.55

De Soto 4.55 1.30 3.75 0.96 1.29 4.76 1.56 0.71 -2.79 -2.45 0.75 1.90

East Baton Rouge 3.40 -0.30 3.34 -0.55 -0.98 -0.02 1.47 0.60 -0.18 -0.35 -0.25 -0.25

East Carroll 1.56 -2.88 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 2.44 1.76 -1.49 -2.93

East Feliciana 4.00 0.52 3.26 -0.84 -0.69 0.59 0.04 -1.32 0.97 0.58 0.41 1.18

Evangeline 3.25 -0.51 3.12 -1.35 -0.66 0.64 0.36 -0.90 0.47 0.17 -0.03 0.22

Franklin 3.33 -0.41 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 1.34 0.88 -0.96 -1.79

Grant 4.12 0.69 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 0.68 0.35 -0.28 -0.31

Iberville 2.68 -1.31 3.34 -0.54 -1.06 -0.20 0.43 -0.80 0.01 -0.20 -0.03 0.22

Jackson 5.11 2.07 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 1.27 0.82 0.82 2.06

La Salle 2.75 -1.22 3.58 0.36 -1.92 -2.02 -0.03 -1.42 1.10 0.68 0.03 0.34

Lincoln 3.04 -0.81 3.28 -0.75 -0.97 -0.01 0.80 -0.30 0.10 -0.12 -0.17 -0.08

Livingston 4.29 0.93 3.50 0.05 0.13 2.32 1.75 0.97 -0.81 -0.85 -0.28 -0.32

Madison 2.34 -1.78 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 0.23 -0.02 -1.13 -2.16

Morehouse 3.12 -0.71 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 1.63 1.11 -0.64 -1.10

Natchitoches 4.04 0.58 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 -0.65 -0.73 -0.39 -0.55

Ouachita 4.13 0.70 3.51 0.09 -1.19 -0.47 1.76 0.99 0.09 -0.13 -0.04 0.20

Pointe Coupee 4.80 1.65 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 0.18 -0.06 0.43 1.21

Rapides 4.19 0.78 3.31 -0.66 -1.24 -0.58 1.62 0.80 0.70 0.36 -0.20 -0.15

Red River 2.98 -0.89 3.28 -0.75 0.06 2.16 0.36 -0.89 -0.50 -0.60 -0.22 -0.19

Richland 3.06 -0.79 3.37 -0.43 -1.64 -1.42 -0.11 -1.52 2.45 1.77 -1.01 -1.89

Sabine 3.30 -0.45 3.24 -0.92 -1.57 -1.28 0.67 -0.48 1.29 0.83 -0.31 -0.39

St. Helena 4.54 1.28 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 -2.76 -2.42 0.72 1.85

St. Landry 3.25 -0.51 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 0.97 0.58 -0.38 -0.53

St. Tammany 4.31 0.96 3.55 0.23 -0.44 1.10 2.23 1.62 -1.01 -1.02 -0.01 0.26

Tangipahoa 4.04 0.59 3.47 -0.07 -0.61 0.74 1.72 0.93 -0.49 -0.60 -0.03 0.21

Tensas 3.15 -0.65 4.05 2.09 -2.02 -2.21 1.83 1.08 0.38 0.11 -1.09 -2.07

Union 3.78 0.22 4.25 2.83 -1.19 -0.48 2.39 1.83 -1.14 -1.12 -0.53 -0.85

Vernon 3.14 -0.67 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 1.07 0.66 -0.01 0.26

Washington 3.51 -0.15 3.41 -0.27 -0.78 0.40 1.15 0.17 -0.35 -0.48 0.07 0.43

Webster 3.55 -0.10 3.34 -0.54 -0.86 0.23 -0.41 -1.92 1.36 0.89 0.12 0.54

West Baton Rouge 4.06 0.61 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 -2.15 -1.93 0.39 1.13

West Carroll 3.78 0.22 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 1.61 1.09 -1.35 -2.63

West Feliciana 5.41 2.49 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 3.65 2.74 0.25 0.82

Winn 2.83 -1.10 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 0.41 0.13 -0.60 -1.01

Mean 3.62 3.45 -0.91 1.12 0.22 -0.19

Std. Error 0.72 0.26 0.68 0.81 1.31 0.52
89

Table A.5a 

Growth Rate and Components of Percentage Change in Per Capita Personal 

Income for Coastal Parishes (1969-2000) 

Coastal Parishes

Parish PCPI Z 

Score

Industry 

Mix

Z 

Score

Wage 

Effect

Z 

Score

Participation Z 

Score

Transfer 

Payments 

Ratio

Z 

Score

Property 

Income 

ratio

Z 

Score

Acadia 6.73 0.43 5.53 0.64 -0.70 -1.06 0.55 -0.77 1.71 1.32 -0.35 -0.82

Assumption 6.82 0.67 5.66 1.63 -0.54 -0.51 0.07 -1.77 1.91 1.62 -0.28 -0.44

Calcasieu 6.32 -0.66 5.24 -1.48 -0.48 -0.28 1.21 0.62 0.46 -0.57 -0.11 0.41

Cameron 6.05 -1.39 5.42 -0.18 -0.83 -1.50 1.17 0.53 0.36 -0.73 -0.05 0.69

Iberia 6.60 0.09 5.70 1.90 -0.43 -0.12 1.11 0.41 0.48 -0.54 -0.26 -0.35

Jefferson 6.31 -0.69 5.13 -2.23 -0.29 0.35 2.03 2.34 -0.69 -2.32 0.13 1.62

Jefferson Davis 6.22 -0.92 5.40 -0.30 -0.80 -1.37 -0.15 -2.24 2.03 1.81 -0.26 -0.34

Lafayette 7.14 1.53 5.52 0.57 -0.17 0.77 1.74 1.73 0.14 -1.06 -0.09 0.53

Lafourche 6.74 0.45 5.39 -0.33 -0.52 -0.44 1.31 0.82 0.65 -0.28 -0.10 0.47

Orleans 6.25 -0.85 5.31 -0.94 0.11 1.71 0.55 -0.76 0.10 -1.11 0.18 1.86

Plaquemines 6.23 -0.92 5.38 -0.45 -0.36 0.13 1.37 0.95 -0.22 -1.61 0.06 1.27

St. Bernard 5.85 -1.92 4.89 -4.04 -1.21 -2.79 1.01 0.20 1.10 0.40 0.06 1.28

St. Charles 6.46 -0.29 5.30 -1.04 -0.31 0.28 1.18 0.56 0.43 -0.62 -0.14 0.27

St. James 6.26 -0.83 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 0.31 -0.80 -0.19 -0.02

St. John the Baptist 6.69 0.31 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 0.55 -0.43 -0.12 0.36

St. Martin 6.82 0.67 5.68 1.79 -1.29 -3.04 1.25 0.70 1.90 1.61 -0.73 -2.75

St. Mary 6.43 -0.38 5.57 0.92 -0.52 -0.42 0.97 0.11 0.53 -0.47 -0.12 0.37

Terrebonne 6.45 -0.33 5.45 0.07 -0.52 -0.44 1.13 0.45 0.65 -0.29 -0.26 -0.35

Vermilion 6.57 -0.01 5.76 2.34 -0.31 0.27 0.30 -1.29 1.30 0.70 -0.48 -1.47

Mean 6.47 5.43 -0.54 0.99 0.72 -0.16

Std. Error 0.31 0.22 0.35 0.57 0.75 0.21
90

Table A.5b 

Growth Rate and Components of Percentage Change in Per Capita Personal 

Income for Non-Coastal Parishes (1969-2000) 

Non-Coastal Parishes

Parish PCPI Z Score Industry 

Mix

Z Score Wage 

Effect

Z Score Participation Z Score Transfer 

Payments 

R i

Z Score Property 

Income ratio

Z Score

Allen 6.17 -1.07 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 0.42 -0.63 -0.13 0.33

Ascension 6.79 0.60 5.27 -1.21 -0.45 -0.20 2.03 2.34 0.09 -1.13 -0.15 0.20

Avoyelles 6.76 0.52 5.54 0.72 -0.50 -0.37 0.92 0.02 1.26 0.65 -0.46 -1.37

Beauregard 6.61 0.10 5.40 -0.28 -0.36 0.12 1.16 0.50 0.70 -0.21 -0.29 -0.50

Bienville 6.56 -0.02 5.57 0.92 -0.18 0.74 0.96 0.10 0.33 -0.78 -0.12 0.37

Bossier 6.56 -0.02 5.38 -0.40 -0.45 -0.20 1.12 0.42 0.63 -0.32 -0.11 0.38

Caddo 6.34 -0.62 5.35 -0.66 -0.07 1.11 0.79 -0.26 0.27 -0.85 -0.01 0.92

Caldwell 6.89 0.85 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 1.53 1.05 -0.41 -1.12

Catahoula 6.98 1.11 5.47 0.23 -0.11 0.98 0.64 -0.58 1.06 0.34 -0.08 0.56

Claiborne 6.37 -0.54 5.53 0.66 -0.44 -0.16 0.39 -1.10 1.06 0.34 -0.18 0.05

Concordia 5.70 -2.33 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 1.13 0.44 -0.44 -1.30

De Soto 6.63 0.17 5.62 1.32 0.54 3.20 0.52 -0.83 -0.04 -1.33 -0.01 0.91

East Baton Rouge 6.41 -0.43 5.23 -1.50 -0.42 -0.10 1.39 0.99 0.28 -0.84 -0.07 0.60

East Carroll 6.29 -0.75 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 1.46 0.94 -0.26 -0.36

East Feliciana 7.26 1.85 5.62 1.32 -0.27 0.44 0.51 -0.85 1.31 0.72 0.08 1.39

Evangeline 6.60 0.09 5.59 1.11 -0.59 -0.68 0.55 -0.76 1.59 1.14 -0.54 -1.79

Franklin 7.04 1.27 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 1.45 0.92 -0.31 -0.61

Grant 6.53 -0.12 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 0.91 0.12 -0.36 -0.89

Iberville 6.40 -0.46 5.50 0.43 0.11 1.73 1.12 0.44 -0.18 -1.54 -0.16 0.17

Jackson 7.00 1.15 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 1.28 0.67 0.16 1.77

La Salle 6.59 0.05 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 1.61 1.17 -0.11 0.42

Lincoln 6.58 0.04 5.42 -0.12 -0.36 0.13 1.44 1.11 0.25 -0.88 -0.18 0.04

Livingston 6.51 -0.16 5.41 -0.20 -0.90 -1.71 1.56 1.36 0.62 -0.33 -0.19 0.00

Madison 6.20 -0.98 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 1.05 0.33 -0.37 -0.94

Morehouse 6.58 0.03 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 1.27 0.66 -0.19 -0.02

Natchitoches 6.68 0.30 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 0.73 -0.16 -0.41 -1.13

Ouachita 6.77 0.53 5.35 -0.66 -0.18 0.72 1.19 0.57 0.38 -0.70 0.04 1.16

Pointe Coupee 7.06 1.30 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 1.10 0.40 -0.50 -1.60

Rapides 6.80 0.62 5.33 -0.78 -0.06 1.15 0.84 -0.16 0.74 -0.15 -0.05 0.70

Red River 5.89 -1.81 5.67 1.71 -0.42 -0.08 0.34 -1.22 0.85 0.03 -0.55 -1.86

Richland 6.78 0.58 5.57 0.97 0.03 1.46 0.15 -1.61 1.40 0.85 -0.37 -0.90

Sabine 6.79 0.58 5.35 -0.66 -0.69 -1.01 0.91 -0.01 1.43 0.90 -0.21 -0.12

St. Helena 7.09 1.40 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 0.88 0.06 -0.02 0.85

St. Landry 6.99 1.12 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 1.45 0.92 -0.21 -0.09

St. Tammany 6.85 0.75 5.28 -1.14 -0.33 0.21 1.75 1.75 0.18 -0.99 -0.03 0.80

Tangipahoa 6.80 0.61 5.38 -0.46 -0.33 0.22 0.96 0.10 1.06 0.34 -0.27 -0.41

Tensas 7.05 1.28 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 1.20 0.54 -0.45 -1.32

Union 6.68 0.30 5.57 0.98 -0.26 0.47 1.03 0.23 0.57 -0.41 -0.23 -0.21

Vernon 5.42 -3.07 5.45 0.04 0.33 2.46 -1.10 -4.23 0.75 -0.13 0.00 0.95

Washington 6.10 -1.25 5.27 -1.23 -1.04 -2.19 0.48 -0.91 1.43 0.89 -0.04 0.75

Webster 6.03 -1.45 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 2.29 2.20 0.11 1.52

West Baton Rouge 7.11 1.46 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 -1.25 -3.15 0.07 1.30

West Carroll 6.84 0.72 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 1.74 1.36 -0.57 -1.96

West Feliciana 7.15 1.54 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 0.60 -0.35 -0.23 -0.22

Winn 6.26 -0.84 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 n.a 0.00 1.02 0.28 -0.19 0.00

Mean 6.61 5.45 -0.30 0.87 0.89 -0.20

Std. Error 0.39 0.13 0.34 0.61 0.62 0.19
91

APPENDIX B 

STATE Z-SCORES
93

Table B.1 

Growth Rates of Per Capita Personal Income and Its Components for States, 

1969-1980 

State PCPI Z 

Score

Industry 

Mix

Z 

Score

Wage 

Effect

Z 

Score

Participation Z 

Score

Property 

Income 

ratio

Z 

Score

Transfer 

Payments 

Ratio

Z 

Score

Alabama 8.79 0.92 7.09 0.97 0.38 0.91 0.68 -0.75 -0.27 0.13 0.92 0.15

Alaska 9.47 2.20 7.11 1.04 0.74 1.77 1.75 1.80 0.06 0.96 -0.18 -1.60

Arizona 8.40 0.17 6.73 -0.29 0.01 0.01 1.14 0.34 -0.25 0.20 0.77 -0.08

Arkansas 8.85 1.02 6.97 0.55 0.41 0.99 0.66 -0.79 -0.47 -0.36 1.28 0.73

California 8.09 -0.41 6.55 -0.90 -0.16 -0.40 1.32 0.78 -0.02 0.77 0.39 -0.69

Colorado 8.93 1.18 6.83 0.06 0.32 0.77 1.72 1.75 -0.26 0.17 0.31 -0.81

Connecticut 7.82 -0.91 6.47 -1.21 -0.11 -0.28 1.22 0.55 -0.14 0.46 0.39 -0.69

Delaware 7.42 -1.66 6.89 0.29 -0.09 -0.22 0.51 -1.17 -0.37 -0.11 0.49 -0.54

District of Columbia 8.39 0.16 7.54 2.56 0.02 0.04 1.93 2.23 -0.03 0.73 -1.06 -3.00

Florida 8.33 0.05 6.59 -0.76 0.01 0.02 0.86 -0.31 -0.13 0.49 0.99 0.27

Georgia 8.20 -0.19 6.92 0.39 0.11 0.26 0.61 -0.93 -0.30 0.06 0.87 0.07

Hawaii 7.70 -1.14 6.58 -0.80 0.16 0.39 0.50 -1.18 0.15 1.18 0.30 -0.84

Idaho 8.18 -0.23 6.71 -0.36 0.12 0.27 0.80 -0.47 -0.50 -0.43 1.06 0.38

Illinois 7.75 -1.04 6.56 -0.87 0.10 0.22 0.49 -1.22 -0.16 0.41 0.76 -0.09

Indiana 7.78 -0.99 6.54 -0.95 -0.11 -0.28 0.48 -1.23 -0.24 0.21 1.11 0.46

Iowa 8.03 -0.52 6.52 -1.03 -0.36 -0.89 1.17 0.42 -1.01 -1.68 1.72 1.42

Kansas 8.59 0.54 6.92 0.39 -0.15 -0.37 1.54 1.32 -0.75 -1.04 1.03 0.32

Kentucky 8.49 0.34 7.07 0.90 0.31 0.74 0.63 -0.87 -0.28 0.13 0.75 -0.11

Louisiana 9.26 1.80 7.24 1.49 0.53 1.27 1.31 0.77 -0.24 0.23 0.41 -0.65

Maine 8.17 -0.25 6.81 0.00 -0.13 -0.33 0.81 -0.45 -0.17 0.39 0.86 0.06

Maryland 8.17 -0.25 6.66 -0.53 -0.05 -0.13 1.06 0.15 -0.21 0.29 0.72 -0.17

Massachusetts 7.71 -1.11 6.54 -0.96 -0.23 -0.56 1.18 0.44 -0.05 0.68 0.28 -0.87

Michigan 7.57 -1.39 6.55 -0.93 0.01 0.02 0.43 -1.35 -0.20 0.31 0.78 -0.06

Minnesota 8.35 0.08 6.44 -1.29 -0.23 -0.56 1.70 1.69 -0.39 -0.15 0.82 -0.01

Mississippi 8.97 1.25 7.20 1.35 0.15 0.36 0.63 -0.88 -0.48 -0.38 1.47 1.04

Missouri 8.01 -0.56 6.58 -0.81 -0.05 -0.14 0.69 -0.72 -0.26 0.18 1.04 0.35

Montana 8.47 0.31 6.85 0.13 -0.37 -0.91 1.25 0.61 -0.82 -1.22 1.56 1.18

Nebraska 7.85 -0.85 6.59 -0.77 -0.69 -1.67 1.31 0.77 -1.04 -1.76 1.68 1.36

Nevada 7.95 -0.67 6.60 -0.73 -0.51 -1.23 1.46 1.11 -0.18 0.37 0.57 -0.40

New Hampshire 8.08 -0.42 6.80 -0.05 -0.22 -0.55 1.05 0.13 -0.12 0.52 0.58 -0.39

New Jersey 7.95 -0.68 6.64 -0.59 -0.10 -0.26 1.06 0.15 -0.11 0.53 0.46 -0.57

New Mexico 8.78 0.89 7.06 0.88 -0.11 -0.28 1.31 0.75 -0.28 0.12 0.80 -0.03

New York 7.30 -1.89 6.54 -0.96 -0.03 -0.08 0.37 -1.48 0.02 0.87 0.39 -0.69

North Carolina 8.28 -0.05 6.93 0.43 0.17 0.41 0.50 -1.19 -0.33 -0.02 1.01 0.29

North Dakota 7.87 -0.82 6.91 0.36 -1.83 -4.41 1.74 1.79 -2.43 -5.19 3.47 4.22

Ohio 7.84 -0.87 6.54 -0.95 -0.13 -0.32 0.69 -0.73 -0.16 0.41 0.90 0.12

Oklahoma 9.07 1.45 7.11 1.07 0.48 1.14 1.29 0.71 -0.34 -0.03 0.53 -0.46

Oregon 8.46 0.29 6.55 -0.91 0.14 0.34 1.15 0.37 -0.24 0.23 0.85 0.04

Pennsylvania 8.11 -0.36 6.68 -0.46 0.19 0.44 0.50 -1.17 -0.13 0.49 0.87 0.08

Rhode Island 7.67 -1.19 6.68 -0.46 -0.32 -0.77 0.67 -0.77 -0.04 0.72 0.67 -0.24

South Carolina 8.44 0.25 7.13 1.12 0.10 0.22 0.56 -1.04 -0.27 0.14 0.92 0.16

South Dakota 8.22 -0.15 6.76 -0.18 -0.61 -1.48 1.00 0.02 -1.28 -2.35 2.35 2.43

Tennessee 8.59 0.53 6.82 0.03 0.47 1.11 0.58 -0.99 -0.20 0.31 0.92 0.16

Texas 8.99 1.28 6.99 0.64 0.61 1.44 1.21 0.51 -0.31 0.05 0.49 -0.53

Utah 8.43 0.23 6.88 0.25 0.23 0.55 0.81 -0.44 -0.23 0.24 0.73 -0.14

Vermont 7.82 -0.91 6.53 -1.00 -0.50 -1.21 0.98 -0.04 -0.14 0.46 0.96 0.21

Virginia 8.74 0.82 7.04 0.81 0.14 0.32 0.95 -0.10 -0.16 0.41 0.77 -0.08

Washington 8.13 -0.32 6.64 -0.61 0.30 0.70 0.81 -0.43 -0.17 0.40 0.55 -0.43

West Virginia 8.91 1.13 7.35 1.89 0.32 0.75 0.61 -0.92 -0.12 0.52 0.75 -0.12

Wisconsin 8.27 -0.06 6.46 -1.24 -0.02 -0.07 1.31 0.77 -0.25 0.19 0.78 -0.07

Wyoming 9.91 3.02 7.68 3.06 0.81 1.94 1.71 1.72 -0.42 -0.23 0.13 -1.11

Mean 8.31 6.81 0.00 0.99 -0.33 0.82

Std. Error 0.53 0.28 0.42 0.42 0.40 0.63
94

Table B.2 

Growth Rates of Per Capita Personal Income and Its Components for States, 

1981-1985 

State PCPI Z 

Score

Industry 

Mix

Z Score Wage 

Effect

Z 

Score

Participation Z Score Property 

Income 

Ratio

Z Score Transfer 

Payments 

Ratio

Z Score

Alabama 5.75 0.51 4.41 0.37 -0.03 0.31 0.96 0.28 0.05 -0.72 0.36 0.22

Alaska 4.08 -1.14 4.53 0.75 -2.31 -2.83 0.47 -0.36 0.88 3.62 0.52 0.56

Arizona 5.16 -0.07 4.08 -0.69 -0.90 -0.89 1.77 1.36 0.03 -0.84 0.20 -0.13

Arkansas 5.57 0.34 4.56 0.87 -0.48 -0.31 1.14 0.52 0.13 -0.31 0.22 -0.09

California 5.05 -0.18 4.51 0.71 0.28 0.73 0.34 -0.54 0.17 -0.10 -0.25 -1.10

Colorado 4.82 -0.41 4.18 -0.36 -0.63 -0.52 1.00 0.34 0.11 -0.39 0.16 -0.21

Connecticut 6.07 0.84 4.26 -0.10 0.92 1.61 1.26 0.68 -0.02 -1.08 -0.35 -1.30

Delaware 6.02 0.79 4.05 -0.77 0.04 0.41 1.90 1.55 0.27 0.42 -0.25 -1.09

District of Columbia 5.89 0.66 4.13 -0.51 0.43 0.94 0.75 0.00 -0.01 -1.05 0.59 0.72

Florida 5.54 0.31 4.56 0.86 -0.41 -0.21 1.33 0.78 -0.21 -2.06 0.27 0.03

Georgia 6.67 1.44 4.72 1.36 0.43 0.94 1.56 1.09 0.10 -0.44 -0.13 -0.85

Hawaii 4.89 -0.33 4.71 1.34 0.00 0.35 -0.09 -1.11 0.14 -0.24 0.13 -0.27

Idaho 4.30 -0.92 4.68 1.24 -0.77 -0.71 -0.17 -1.22 0.24 0.26 0.33 0.16

Illinois 5.00 -0.23 4.18 -0.37 -0.18 0.10 0.53 -0.29 0.19 -0.01 0.29 0.07

Indiana 4.89 -0.34 4.15 -0.46 -0.62 -0.50 0.82 0.10 0.32 0.70 0.22 -0.09

Iowa 4.34 -0.88 4.29 0.01 -1.32 -1.46 0.42 -0.44 0.28 0.47 0.67 0.90

Kansas 5.06 -0.17 4.26 -0.10 0.02 0.37 0.36 -0.51 0.47 1.47 -0.06 -0.67

Kentucky 4.97 -0.26 4.15 -0.47 -0.51 -0.35 0.67 -0.10 0.01 -0.90 0.65 0.84

Louisiana 3.81 -1.41 3.86 -1.37 -0.91 -0.90 -0.73 -1.97 0.36 0.89 1.22 2.08

Maine 6.24 1.00 4.57 0.90 0.17 0.59 1.35 0.81 0.37 0.97 -0.23 -1.06

Maryland 6.41 1.18 4.24 -0.18 0.29 0.74 1.68 1.24 0.17 -0.10 0.04 -0.47

Massachusetts 7.20 1.96 4.45 0.50 1.22 2.02 1.86 1.49 0.13 -0.28 -0.46 -1.55

Michigan 5.72 0.49 4.39 0.31 -0.55 -0.40 1.57 1.11 0.13 -0.33 0.18 -0.17

Minnesota 5.89 0.65 4.34 0.14 0.27 0.72 1.01 0.36 0.11 -0.41 0.16 -0.22

Mississippi 4.63 -0.60 4.60 0.99 -0.49 -0.32 -0.04 -1.05 0.16 -0.15 0.40 0.31

Missouri 5.86 0.63 4.49 0.65 -0.26 -0.01 1.27 0.70 0.12 -0.38 0.25 -0.02

Montana 3.07 -2.15 3.88 -1.31 -2.22 -2.70 0.15 -0.79 -0.27 -2.40 1.52 2.73

Nebraska 5.39 0.16 4.53 0.77 0.10 0.48 0.55 -0.25 0.43 1.24 -0.22 -1.02

Nevada 3.88 -1.34 4.30 0.02 -0.90 -0.89 -0.47 -1.62 0.23 0.23 0.72 1.00

New Hampshire 7.22 1.98 4.50 0.67 0.75 1.39 2.22 1.96 0.32 0.71 -0.57 -1.79

New Jersey 6.13 0.90 4.26 -0.09 0.43 0.94 1.78 1.38 0.10 -0.45 -0.44 -1.50

New Mexico 5.20 -0.03 3.91 -1.22 0.13 0.52 0.37 -0.50 0.29 0.53 0.50 0.52

New York 6.28 1.05 4.39 0.32 0.61 1.18 1.07 0.43 -0.06 -1.28 0.27 0.04

North Carolina 6.54 1.30 4.82 1.69 0.36 0.84 1.05 0.40 0.17 -0.10 0.14 -0.25

North Dakota 4.37 -0.85 4.40 0.34 -0.22 0.04 -0.23 -1.30 0.75 2.94 -0.32 -1.25

Ohio 5.36 0.13 4.07 -0.71 0.00 0.34 0.73 -0.02 0.18 -0.06 0.39 0.28

Oklahoma 3.91 -1.31 3.74 -1.78 -0.14 0.15 -0.79 -2.05 0.35 0.84 0.75 1.07

Oregon 4.48 -0.74 4.40 0.33 -1.30 -1.44 0.77 0.03 0.21 0.12 0.40 0.31

Pennsylvania 5.18 -0.04 3.88 -1.32 -0.20 0.07 0.53 -0.28 0.26 0.37 0.71 0.98

Rhode Island 6.11 0.87 4.33 0.13 0.67 1.27 0.98 0.31 0.26 0.36 -0.14 -0.85

South Carolina 6.05 0.82 4.73 1.40 0.01 0.36 0.77 0.03 0.07 -0.63 0.48 0.48

South Dakota 4.86 -0.37 4.52 0.72 -0.50 -0.34 0.74 0.00 0.34 0.79 -0.24 -1.08

Tennessee 5.88 0.65 4.31 0.04 0.36 0.85 0.90 0.20 0.19 0.04 0.12 -0.29

Texas 4.59 -0.63 3.86 -1.38 -0.08 0.24 -0.06 -1.07 0.18 -0.06 0.69 0.92

Utah 5.02 -0.21 4.01 -0.92 -0.56 -0.42 0.89 0.19 0.14 -0.27 0.55 0.63

Vermont 5.88 0.65 4.64 1.13 -0.31 -0.08 1.65 1.21 -0.01 -1.02 -0.10 -0.77

Virginia 6.17 0.94 4.50 0.65 0.47 0.99 1.54 1.07 0.05 -0.72 -0.39 -1.40

Washington 4.34 -0.88 4.40 0.34 -1.56 -1.79 0.74 0.00 0.20 0.04 0.57 0.67

West Virginia 4.21 -1.01 3.49 -2.57 -0.42 -0.23 -0.27 -1.36 0.24 0.25 1.18 1.98

Wisconsin 4.59 -0.63 4.34 0.14 -0.66 -0.56 0.61 -0.19 0.11 -0.41 0.20 -0.12

Wyoming 2.11 -3.10 3.36 -3.01 -1.46 -1.65 -1.20 -2.59 0.17 -0.08 1.24 2.11

Mean 5.23 4.29 -0.25 0.74 0.19 0.26

Std. Error 1.01 0.31 0.73 0.75 0.19 0.46
95

Table B.3 

Growth Rates of Per Capita Personal Income and Its Components for States, 

1986-1990 

State PCPI Z 

Score

Industry 

Mix

Z 

Score

Wage 

Effect

Z 

Score

Participation Z 

Score

Property 

Income 

Ratio

Z 

Score

Transfer 

Payments 

Ratio

Z Score

Alabama 5.13 0.73 3.52 -0.05 -0.17 0.07 1.53 0.29 0.11 0.17 0.15 0.52

Alaska 2.82 -2.65 3.60 0.32 -3.08 -3.28 1.47 0.20 -0.31 -1.79 1.14 3.09

Arizona 3.29 -1.96 3.40 -0.58 -0.81 -0.67 0.10 -1.62 0.01 -0.27 0.59 1.68

Arkansas 4.22 -0.60 3.59 0.25 -0.55 -0.37 1.34 0.03 -0.21 -1.32 0.05 0.28

California 4.05 -0.84 3.42 -0.50 -0.08 0.17 0.74 -0.76 0.01 -0.31 -0.04 0.05

Colorado 4.30 -0.48 3.57 0.18 -0.51 -0.32 0.88 -0.58 0.25 0.85 0.11 0.43

Connecticut 5.61 1.42 3.43 -0.43 1.40 1.88 0.53 -1.04 0.30 1.10 -0.07 -0.03

Delaware 4.97 0.50 3.89 1.60 -0.23 -0.01 1.49 0.23 0.01 -0.30 -0.18 -0.32

District of Columbia 6.62 2.90 4.14 2.72 0.25 0.55 2.72 1.86 0.08 0.03 -0.57 -1.31

Florida 4.74 0.15 3.51 -0.07 0.56 0.90 0.11 -1.61 -0.08 -0.69 0.64 1.79

Georgia 4.62 -0.01 3.42 -0.48 0.17 0.46 0.55 -1.02 0.08 0.05 0.40 1.17

Hawaii 6.07 2.10 3.36 -0.77 0.86 1.25 2.29 1.29 0.46 1.82 -0.89 -2.15

Idaho 5.49 1.25 3.59 0.26 -0.43 -0.23 2.80 1.97 0.34 1.28 -0.81 -1.93

Illinois 4.75 0.17 3.58 0.20 -0.03 0.23 1.55 0.30 -0.01 -0.36 -0.34 -0.73

Indiana 4.71 0.12 3.29 -1.07 -0.29 -0.07 1.81 0.66 -0.05 -0.55 -0.06 0.00

Iowa 4.18 -0.66 3.87 1.52 -0.90 -0.77 1.92 0.80 -0.52 -2.79 -0.19 -0.34

Kansas 3.73 -1.31 3.54 0.03 -0.75 -0.60 1.12 -0.26 0.05 -0.12 -0.21 -0.40

Kentucky 4.93 0.43 3.54 0.07 -0.49 -0.30 1.90 0.78 -0.18 -1.16 0.15 0.53

Louisiana 4.68 0.08 3.85 1.44 -1.01 -0.90 1.69 0.50 0.18 0.50 -0.03 0.06

Maine 5.06 0.62 3.41 -0.54 0.64 1.00 0.98 -0.44 -0.08 -0.69 0.10 0.41

Maryland 4.70 0.10 3.51 -0.10 0.53 0.87 0.77 -0.73 0.02 -0.23 -0.12 -0.17

Massachusetts 4.78 0.21 3.63 0.44 0.86 1.25 -0.06 -1.82 0.06 -0.05 0.28 0.87

Michigan 3.85 -1.14 2.69 -3.74 -0.52 -0.34 1.57 0.33 0.21 0.66 -0.10 -0.10

Minnesota 4.41 -0.33 3.67 0.64 -0.38 -0.18 1.32 0.00 -0.04 -0.53 -0.16 -0.26

Mississippi 5.00 0.53 3.67 0.64 -0.20 0.03 1.37 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.09 0.37

Missouri 3.78 -1.25 3.56 0.12 -0.55 -0.37 0.80 -0.69 -0.18 -1.17 0.15 0.52

Montana 4.28 -0.51 3.50 -0.13 -1.08 -0.98 1.94 0.83 0.05 -0.08 -0.13 -0.19

Nebraska 4.54 -0.14 3.63 0.46 -0.51 -0.33 1.85 0.70 0.09 0.10 -0.52 -1.19

Nevada 4.60 -0.05 3.60 0.29 0.31 0.62 0.93 -0.51 0.21 0.64 -0.45 -1.01

New Hampshire 3.78 -1.25 3.26 -1.22 1.05 1.47 -0.88 -2.91 0.02 -0.25 0.34 1.01

New Jersey 5.39 1.11 3.59 0.25 1.33 1.79 0.57 -0.99 0.19 0.55 -0.27 -0.56

New Mexico 3.87 -1.12 3.70 0.75 -1.97 -2.00 1.94 0.82 0.12 0.23 0.08 0.36

New York 5.40 1.12 3.68 0.66 0.97 1.38 0.46 -1.13 0.39 1.51 -0.10 -0.12

North Carolina 4.93 0.43 3.53 0.02 -0.01 0.25 1.19 -0.17 0.05 -0.08 0.16 0.56

North Dakota 3.87 -1.11 3.79 1.17 -1.61 -1.58 1.91 0.78 -0.26 -1.56 0.04 0.24

Ohio 4.52 -0.17 3.36 -0.76 -0.33 -0.12 1.43 0.15 0.21 0.64 -0.15 -0.23

Oklahoma 3.92 -1.05 3.68 0.67 -1.40 -1.34 1.53 0.29 0.15 0.39 -0.06 0.00

Oregon 4.83 0.29 3.55 0.10 0.21 0.50 1.47 0.21 -0.01 -0.40 -0.39 -0.85

Pennsylvania 5.19 0.82 3.45 -0.33 0.34 0.65 1.56 0.32 0.25 0.84 -0.41 -0.90

Rhode Island 5.07 0.64 3.36 -0.76 1.14 1.58 -0.08 -1.85 -0.02 -0.42 0.67 1.87

South Carolina 5.23 0.88 3.51 -0.10 0.15 0.44 1.49 0.23 0.06 -0.05 0.02 0.19

South Dakota 5.03 0.58 3.91 1.67 -0.34 -0.12 2.25 1.23 0.19 0.58 -0.98 -2.39

Tennessee 4.95 0.46 3.51 -0.09 -0.06 0.19 1.34 0.03 -0.02 -0.41 0.17 0.60

Texas 4.07 -0.82 3.66 0.57 -0.69 -0.53 1.08 -0.32 0.32 1.18 -0.30 -0.63

Utah 3.65 -1.44 3.08 -2.00 -1.25 -1.18 2.52 1.59 -0.01 -0.39 -0.68 -1.62

Vermont 5.13 0.72 3.28 -1.10 0.99 1.40 0.70 -0.82 0.14 0.33 0.02 0.19

Virginia 4.50 -0.19 3.45 -0.36 0.00 0.26 0.87 -0.59 -0.07 -0.65 0.25 0.79

Washington 4.91 0.40 3.61 0.35 -0.45 -0.26 1.91 0.79 0.17 0.49 -0.33 -0.71

West Virginia 4.82 0.27 3.34 -0.83 -1.02 -0.91 2.25 1.24 0.18 0.50 0.06 0.31

Wisconsin 4.37 -0.39 3.54 0.05 -0.42 -0.22 1.49 0.22 -0.23 -1.40 -0.01 0.11

Wyoming 4.94 0.45 3.21 -1.43 -1.25 -1.17 2.15 1.11 0.83 3.57 0.00 0.14

Mean 4.63 3.53 -0.23 1.32 0.07 -0.06

Std. Error 0.68 0.23 0.87 0.75 0.21 0.39
96

Table B.4 

Growth Rates of Per Capita Personal Income and Its Components for States, 

1991-2000 

State PCPI Z 

Score

Industry 

Mix

Z 

Score

Wage 

Effect

Z 

Score

Participation Z 

Score

Property 

Income 

Ratio

Z 

Score

Transfer 

Payments 

Ratio

Z 

Score

Alabama 3.71 -0.63 3.36 -0.66 -0.72 -1.07 0.79 0.23 -0.01 -0.34 0.28 1.12

Alaska 2.54 -3.08 3.31 -1.01 -1.81 -2.93 0.05 -1.93 0.03 -0.08 0.97 3.01

Arizona 3.97 -0.08 3.68 1.48 0.13 0.36 0.74 0.08 0.15 0.68 -0.74 -1.69

Arkansas 3.71 -0.61 3.44 -0.13 -0.52 -0.73 0.83 0.34 -0.15 -1.22 0.11 0.66

California 4.01 0.00 3.54 0.50 0.27 0.60 0.42 -0.86 0.16 0.72 -0.37 -0.68

Colorado 5.04 2.17 3.63 1.12 1.01 1.84 0.77 0.18 0.27 1.39 -0.63 -1.39

Connecticut 4.48 0.99 3.46 0.04 0.75 1.41 0.42 -0.85 0.36 1.98 -0.51 -1.06

Delaware 3.35 -1.38 3.22 -1.59 -0.21 -0.21 0.57 -0.42 -0.06 -0.67 -0.16 -0.10

District of Columbia 3.83 -0.37 3.32 -0.93 1.13 2.05 -0.45 -3.37 0.09 0.28 -0.25 -0.35

Florida 3.66 -0.73 3.65 1.22 -0.47 -0.65 0.94 0.66 0.16 0.74 -0.62 -1.36

Georgia 4.38 0.78 3.49 0.22 0.51 1.00 0.60 -0.34 0.12 0.48 -0.34 -0.59

Hawaii 2.16 -3.88 3.47 0.08 -1.55 -2.48 -0.39 -3.19 0.10 0.38 0.52 1.78

Idaho 4.07 0.13 3.39 -0.48 -0.19 -0.18 0.80 0.26 -0.18 -1.38 0.25 1.02

Illinois 4.17 0.34 3.56 0.64 0.02 0.18 0.73 0.04 0.07 0.19 -0.21 -0.23

Indiana 4.18 0.36 3.42 -0.26 0.04 0.20 0.77 0.15 0.10 0.37 -0.15 -0.06

Iowa 4.00 -0.02 3.48 0.13 -0.06 0.04 0.81 0.27 -0.20 -1.50 -0.03 0.26

Kansas 3.97 -0.08 3.51 0.31 -0.13 -0.08 0.88 0.49 -0.10 -0.86 -0.19 -0.19

Kentucky 4.13 0.25 3.36 -0.66 0.03 0.20 0.91 0.58 0.03 -0.10 -0.20 -0.22

Louisiana 3.73 -0.59 3.39 -0.46 -0.77 -1.17 1.03 0.91 0.03 -0.08 0.05 0.49

Maine 3.93 -0.15 2.95 -3.30 0.07 0.26 0.62 -0.28 -0.06 -0.63 0.35 1.30

Maryland 3.85 -0.32 3.50 0.29 -0.11 -0.04 0.54 -0.49 0.11 0.41 -0.20 -0.19

Massachusetts 4.77 1.61 3.49 0.22 0.97 1.78 0.90 0.54 0.04 -0.02 -0.63 -1.38

Michigan 4.25 0.51 3.45 -0.03 0.12 0.33 0.99 0.81 0.04 0.01 -0.36 -0.63

Minnesota 4.57 1.18 3.55 0.59 0.47 0.94 0.74 0.08 -0.03 -0.45 -0.16 -0.10

Mississippi 4.27 0.56 3.31 -0.98 -0.14 -0.10 1.03 0.92 0.02 -0.13 0.05 0.49

Missouri 3.95 -0.12 3.43 -0.21 -0.08 0.00 0.84 0.38 0.06 0.13 -0.30 -0.48

Montana 3.40 -1.27 3.22 -1.53 -1.02 -1.58 1.08 1.08 -0.28 -2.02 0.39 1.42

Nebraska 4.00 -0.02 3.41 -0.29 -0.35 -0.45 0.89 0.51 -0.36 -2.50 0.40 1.44

Nevada 3.83 -0.38 3.83 2.41 -0.51 -0.72 0.41 -0.87 0.26 1.37 -0.17 -0.11

New Hampshire 4.55 1.14 3.51 0.32 0.56 1.09 1.12 1.17 0.07 0.19 -0.71 -1.60

New Jersey 4.35 0.71 3.54 0.55 0.26 0.58 0.47 -0.69 0.19 0.94 -0.12 0.00

New Mexico 3.48 -1.10 3.49 0.23 -0.69 -1.04 0.49 -0.66 -0.08 -0.77 0.28 1.11

New York 3.76 -0.52 3.51 0.33 0.58 1.12 0.18 -1.55 0.11 0.40 -0.62 -1.34

North Carolina 4.26 0.54 3.60 0.90 0.01 0.15 0.61 -0.29 0.00 -0.27 0.05 0.47

North Dakota 4.33 0.68 3.57 0.72 -0.18 -0.17 1.25 1.56 0.00 -0.28 -0.30 -0.49

Ohio 3.90 -0.22 3.41 -0.31 -0.32 -0.40 1.00 0.83 0.09 0.29 -0.28 -0.43

Oklahoma 3.88 -0.26 3.62 1.04 -0.78 -1.18 0.99 0.79 0.29 1.57 -0.24 -0.30

Oregon 4.17 0.33 3.48 0.12 0.26 0.58 0.76 0.15 -0.12 -1.02 -0.22 -0.25

Pennsylvania 3.82 -0.39 3.47 0.06 -0.31 -0.39 0.83 0.34 0.07 0.15 -0.23 -0.29

Rhode Island 3.77 -0.51 3.38 -0.49 -0.08 0.00 0.61 -0.31 0.09 0.27 -0.23 -0.28

South Carolina 4.08 0.16 3.50 0.29 -0.33 -0.42 0.58 -0.38 0.15 0.65 0.18 0.83

South Dakota 4.28 0.57 3.64 1.21 -0.38 -0.50 1.14 1.22 -0.37 -2.57 0.25 1.02

Tennessee 4.11 0.22 3.45 -0.04 0.00 0.14 0.81 0.29 0.24 1.22 -0.39 -0.73

Texas 4.57 1.18 3.74 1.82 0.50 0.99 0.71 0.00 0.43 2.39 -0.81 -1.87

Utah 4.33 0.67 3.48 0.11 -0.06 0.04 1.15 1.25 0.11 0.45 -0.35 -0.62

Vermont 4.31 0.64 3.22 -1.53 0.15 0.39 0.82 0.31 0.03 -0.10 0.09 0.59

Virginia 3.95 -0.11 3.39 -0.43 0.28 0.61 0.64 -0.23 0.09 0.29 -0.44 -0.87

Washington 4.29 0.60 3.37 -0.59 0.89 1.65 0.16 -1.61 -0.14 -1.12 0.01 0.36

West Virginia 3.72 -0.60 3.09 -2.40 -0.64 -0.94 1.09 1.08 0.00 -0.24 0.18 0.83

Wisconsin 4.32 0.65 3.55 0.59 0.00 0.13 0.90 0.55 -0.02 -0.40 -0.11 0.05

Wyoming 4.21 0.43 3.58 0.78 -0.81 -1.24 0.80 0.27 0.17 0.77 0.48 1.65

Mean 4.01 3.46 -0.08 0.71 0.04 -0.13

Std. Error 0.48 0.15 0.59 0.34 0.16 0.37
97

Table B.5 

Growth Rates of Per Capita Personal Income and Its Components for States, 

1969-2000 

State PCPI Z Score Industry 

Mix

Z Score Wage 

Effect

Z 

Score

Participation Z Score Property 

Income 

Ratio

Z Score Transfer 

Payments 

Ratio

Z Score

Alabama 6.77 1.06 5.44 0.73 -0.06 0.09 0.88 -0.04 -0.07 0.13 0.57 0.69

Alaska 5.73 -2.56 5.45 0.76 -1.00 -2.63 0.64 -1.20 0.07 1.17 0.58 0.73

Arizona 6.25 -0.76 5.35 -0.05 -0.22 -0.37 0.89 0.03 -0.07 0.10 0.29 -0.41

Arkansas 6.66 0.69 5.47 0.98 -0.10 -0.02 0.93 0.21 -0.21 -0.96 0.56 0.67

California 6.16 -1.08 5.29 -0.52 0.02 0.31 0.72 -0.81 0.03 0.91 0.09 -1.22

Colorado 6.89 1.50 5.40 0.35 0.25 0.97 1.20 1.53 -0.03 0.41 0.08 -1.26

Connecticut 6.72 0.89 5.22 -1.12 0.60 1.99 0.82 -0.34 0.07 1.21 0.00 -1.56

Delaware 6.08 -1.34 5.39 0.27 -0.30 -0.61 0.94 0.24 -0.11 -0.17 0.17 -0.91

District of Columbia 6.87 1.41 5.77 3.42 0.51 1.73 1.09 1.02 0.02 0.77 -0.52 -3.66

Florida 6.42 -0.15 5.37 0.12 -0.14 -0.16 0.81 -0.40 -0.09 -0.04 0.48 0.33

Georgia 6.83 1.28 5.48 1.06 0.38 1.34 0.70 -0.95 -0.04 0.38 0.31 -0.34

Hawaii 5.73 -2.57 5.34 -0.10 -0.37 -0.83 0.36 -2.58 0.08 1.27 0.32 -0.32

Idaho 6.27 -0.68 5.37 0.16 -0.37 -0.81 0.90 0.08 -0.25 -1.21 0.60 0.83

Illinois 6.26 -0.71 5.26 -0.77 -0.02 0.20 0.75 -0.69 -0.02 0.47 0.29 -0.40

Indiana 6.24 -0.79 5.19 -1.37 -0.25 -0.46 0.85 -0.17 -0.08 0.05 0.52 0.51

Iowa 6.20 -0.94 5.31 -0.37 -0.48 -1.12 1.06 0.85 -0.43 -2.61 0.73 1.34

Kansas 6.42 -0.15 5.38 0.23 -0.19 -0.29 1.10 1.06 -0.26 -1.34 0.39 -0.04

Kentucky 6.60 0.48 5.39 0.32 -0.07 0.06 0.95 0.29 -0.15 -0.49 0.48 0.33

Louisiana 6.49 0.11 5.42 0.51 -0.31 -0.63 0.91 0.11 -0.03 0.44 0.50 0.43

Maine 6.61 0.52 5.21 -1.23 0.08 0.47 0.82 -0.35 -0.08 0.06 0.59 0.78

Maryland 6.56 0.34 5.29 -0.55 0.13 0.63 0.90 0.05 -0.03 0.44 0.27 -0.49

Massachusetts 6.86 1.40 5.31 -0.40 0.63 2.05 0.93 0.23 0.01 0.70 -0.01 -1.61

Michigan 6.13 -1.18 5.15 -1.72 -0.20 -0.33 0.93 0.21 -0.04 0.38 0.29 -0.43

Minnesota 6.69 0.78 5.28 -0.61 0.02 0.31 1.21 1.61 -0.19 -0.82 0.37 -0.11

Mississippi 6.79 1.16 5.56 1.66 -0.10 -0.05 0.75 -0.70 -0.17 -0.64 0.77 1.48

Missouri 6.35 -0.39 5.29 -0.49 -0.18 -0.26 0.83 -0.27 -0.09 -0.02 0.49 0.38

Montana 6.08 -1.35 5.23 -1.02 -0.81 -2.09 1.15 1.29 -0.26 -1.32 0.77 1.49

Nebraska 6.39 -0.24 5.32 -0.25 -0.33 -0.71 1.12 1.16 -0.35 -2.03 0.64 0.96

Nevada 5.97 -1.74 5.42 0.57 -0.49 -1.14 0.59 -1.45 0.04 0.99 0.39 -0.01

New Hampshire 6.85 1.34 5.34 -0.11 0.39 1.37 0.97 0.40 0.01 0.71 0.14 -1.01

New Jersey 6.69 0.79 5.32 -0.29 0.37 1.33 0.85 -0.17 0.03 0.91 0.11 -1.14

New Mexico 6.34 -0.43 5.39 0.27 -0.53 -1.26 0.97 0.42 -0.11 -0.17 0.62 0.87

New York 6.34 -0.43 5.30 -0.45 0.47 1.59 0.42 -2.28 0.08 1.29 0.07 -1.31

North Carolina 6.84 1.31 5.55 1.61 0.16 0.72 0.69 -0.97 -0.10 -0.09 0.53 0.55

North Dakota 6.56 0.34 5.51 1.26 -0.62 -1.52 1.38 2.43 -0.47 -2.94 0.77 1.47

Ohio 6.17 -1.04 5.17 -1.51 -0.30 -0.61 0.90 0.07 -0.02 0.51 0.41 0.06

Oklahoma 6.35 -0.40 5.39 0.28 -0.27 -0.52 0.90 0.08 -0.02 0.50 0.35 -0.20

Oregon 6.37 -0.34 5.27 -0.67 -0.16 -0.20 0.96 0.37 -0.13 -0.32 0.42 0.09

Pennsylvania 6.42 -0.16 5.21 -1.20 -0.01 0.23 0.75 -0.70 0.02 0.80 0.45 0.22

Rhode Island 6.33 -0.46 5.27 -0.73 0.11 0.57 0.47 -2.08 0.02 0.77 0.47 0.31

South Carolina 6.75 1.02 5.57 1.81 -0.03 0.17 0.67 -1.09 -0.05 0.27 0.60 0.80

South Dakota 6.71 0.85 5.52 1.39 -0.37 -0.80 1.23 1.71 -0.44 -2.69 0.75 1.42

Tennessee 6.82 1.23 5.37 0.15 0.24 0.95 0.84 -0.24 0.00 0.66 0.36 -0.14

Texas 6.66 0.69 5.42 0.52 0.31 1.15 0.79 -0.46 0.06 1.13 0.07 -1.28

Utah 6.39 -0.27 5.27 -0.67 -0.17 -0.25 1.15 1.29 -0.07 0.10 0.21 -0.73

Vermont 6.58 0.41 5.20 -1.30 -0.06 0.08 1.01 0.62 -0.09 0.00 0.51 0.47

Virginia 6.78 1.10 5.46 0.91 0.27 1.04 0.90 0.04 -0.05 0.25 0.20 -0.78

Washington 6.41 -0.17 5.29 -0.52 0.12 0.60 0.75 -0.66 -0.08 0.05 0.33 -0.28

West Virginia 6.44 -0.08 5.21 -1.23 -0.30 -0.62 0.82 -0.32 -0.02 0.52 0.73 1.35

Wisconsin 6.35 -0.40 5.26 -0.76 -0.26 -0.50 1.10 1.03 -0.17 -0.67 0.43 0.13

Wyoming 6.49 0.10 5.43 0.65 -0.50 -1.18 0.98 0.48 -0.07 0.16 0.64 0.96

Mean 6.46 5.35 -0.09 0.89 -0.09 0.40

Std. Error 0.29 0.12 0.35 0.20 0.13 0.25
The Department of the Interior Mission

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility 

for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering 

sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; 

preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; 

and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses 

our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best 

interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. 

The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities 

and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. 

The Minerals Management Service Mission 

As a bureau of the Department of the Interior, the Minerals Management Service's (MMS) 

primary responsibilities are to manage the mineral resources located on the Nation's Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS), collect revenue from the Federal OCS and onshore Federal and Indian 

lands, and distribute those revenues. 

Moreover, in working to meet its responsibilities, the Offshore Minerals Management Program 

administers the OCS competitive leasing program and oversees the safe and environmentally 

sound exploration and production of our Nation's offshore natural gas, oil and other mineral 

resources. The MMS Minerals Revenue Management meets its responsibilities by ensuring the 

efficient, timely and accurate collection and disbursement of revenue from mineral leasing and 

production due to Indian tribes and allottees, States and the U.S. Treasury. 

The MMS strives to fulfill its responsibilities through the general guiding principles of: (1) being 

responsive to the public's concerns and interests by maintaining a dialogue with all potentially 

affected parties and (2) carrying out its programs with an emphasis on working to enhance the 

quality of life for all Americans by lending MMS assistance and expertise to economic 

development and environmental protection.