The document provides an economic analysis of Colorado's competitiveness compared to other states. It includes a snapshot of Colorado's position on indicators of prosperity, productivity, labor mobilization, innovation, and cluster strength. Colorado ranks in the top quintile for productivity and labor mobilization, and in the middle quintiles for prosperity, innovation, and cluster strength. The analysis also compares Colorado to other states on economic performance indicators over the long term from 1999-2009 and short term from 2007-2009.

1. Colorado Competitiveness:
State and Cluster Economic Performance
Prepared for Governor John Hickenlooper
Professor Michael E. Porter
National Governors Association Winter Meeting
February 26, 2011
NGA 2011 – Colorado 1 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

2. Colorado Performance Snapshot
Position Trend
Prosperity
Productivity
Labor Mobilization
Top quintile
Innovation 2nd quintile
3rd quintile
4th quintile
Cluster Strength Lowest quintile
• Business Services
• Distribution Services
Leading Clusters • Entertainment
• Oil and Gas Products and Services
• Aerospace Vehicles and Defense
NGA 2011 – Colorado 2 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

3. State Comparative Performance
NGA 2011 – Colorado 3 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

4. Colorado Competitiveness
Overall Economic Performance Indicators
Prosperity Cluster
Gross State Product per capita, 2009 Share of State Traded Employment in Strong Clusters, 2008
• In Colorado: $50,283 Rank: 14 • In Colorado: 44.4% Rank: 17
• In the US: $46,093 • In the US: 41.8%
• State difference to US: 9.1%
Change in Share of National Employment in Strong Clusters, 1998-2008
Growth in Gross State Product per capita, real annual rate, 1999-2009 • In Colorado: 0.42% Rank: 7
• In Colorado: 0.82% Rank: 31 • In the US: -0.06%
• In the US: 0.86%
Share of Employment in Traded Clusters, 1998-2008
• In Colorado: 28.8% Rank: 18
• In the US: 27.4%
Productivity
Gross State Product per labor force participant, 2009 Change in Share of Employment in Traded Clusters, 1998-2008
• In Colorado: $95,539 Rank: 16 • In Colorado: -0.2% Rank: 9
• In the US: $92,382 • In the US: -2.2%
• State difference to US: 3.4%
Labor Mobilization
Growth in Gross State Product per labor force participant*, 1999-2009
• In Colorado: 1.44% Rank: 19 Population, 2009
• In the US: 1.09% • In Colorado: 5,024,702 Rank: 22
• % of US: 1.64%
Average private wage, 2008
• In Colorado: $42,972 Rank: 14 Population growth, annual rate, 1999-2009
• In the US: $42,435 • In Colorado: 1.75% Rank: 7
• State difference to US: 1.3% • In the US: 0.96%
Private wage Growth, annual rate, 1998-2008 Labor Force Participation, 2009
• In Colorado: 3.45% Rank: 20 • In Colorado: 71.0 Rank: 9
• In the US: 3.32% • In the US: 65.4
Employment, 2010 (December)
• In Colorado: 2,431,887 Rank: 22
Innovation Output
• % of US: 1.75%
Patents Per 10,000 Employees, 2009
• In Colorado: 8.09 Rank: 11 Employment growth, annual rate, 2000-2010 (December)
• In the US: 6.83 • In Colorado: 0.47% Rank: 14
• In the US: 0.11%
Growth in total patents, annual rate, 1998-2009
• In Colorado: -0.18% Rank: 20 Unemployment, 2010 (December)
• In the US: 0.23% • In Colorado: 8.8% Rank: 27
• In the US: 9.4%
Traded establishment formation, annual growth rate, 1998-2008
• In Colorado: 3.11% Rank: 6 Change in Unemployment, 2000-2010 (December)
• In the US: 1.79% • In Colorado: 6.1% Rank: 43
• In the US: 5.5%
Note: Ranks are among the 50 US states plus the District of Columbia. Growth calculated as compound annual growth rate. *Real annual Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter
4 rate.
NGA 2011 – Colorado

5. Long Term State Prosperity Performance
1999 to 2009
$70,000
U.S. GDP per Capita Wyoming
Delaware
Real Growth Rate: 0.86%
High but declining Alaska High and rising
$65,000 versus U.S. Connecticut prosperity versus U.S.
$60,000
Gross Domestic Product per Capita, 2009
New York
New Jersey Massachusetts
$55,000
Virginia
Washington California Hawaii
$50,000 Maryland North Dakota
Nevada Illinois Colorado Minnesota
U.S. GDP per Nebraska Iowa
South Dakota
Capita: $46,093 Louisiana
Texas New Hampshire Rhode Island
$45,000 Kansas
Pennsylvania Oregon
North Carolina Wisconsin
Indiana Oklahoma
Ohio Utah Vermont
$40,000 Georgia Missouri Florida
Tennessee Arizona Maine
Michigan Kentucky Montana
New Mexico Alabama
$35,000 West Virginia Arkansas Idaho
South Carolina
Low and declining Mississippi
Low but rising versus U.S.
versus U.S.
$30,000
-1.0% -0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0%
Gross Domestic Product per Capita Real Growth Rate, 1999 to 2009
Notes: Real GDP figures in 2005 chained US dollars from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Growth rate is calculated as compound annual growth rate. D.C. excluded
NGA 2011 – Colorado 5 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

6. Near Term State Prosperity Performance
U.S. States, 2007 to 2009
$70,000
High but declining versus U.S. Wyoming
Delaware
Alaska High and rising
$65,000 Connecticut prosperity versus U.S.
U.S. GDP per Capita
Real Growth Rate: -1.87%
$60,000
Gross Domestic Product per Capita, 2009
New York New Jersey
Massachusetts
$55,000
Washington Virginia
California Hawaii
Maryland North Dakota
$50,000 Colorado Minnesota
Nevada Illinois Nebraska
Iowa South Dakota
Texas Louisiana
New Hampshire U.S. GDP per
$45,000 Rhode Island Kansas
Pennsylvania
Capita: $46,093
Oregon
North Carolina Wisconsin
Indiana Oklahoma
Ohio Vermont
Georgia Utah Missouri
$40,000 Florida
Arizona
Tennessee Maine
Michigan Montana
New Mexico
Kentucky
$35,000 Alabama Arkansas
South Carolina Idaho West Virginia
Mississippi
Low and declining versus U.S. Low but rising versus U.S.
$30,000
-6.0% -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0%
Gross Domestic Product per Capita Real Growth Rate, 2007 to 2009
Notes: Real GDP figures in 2005 chained US dollars from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Growth rate is calculated as compound annual growth rate.
NGA 2011 – Colorado 6 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

7. State Private Sector Wage Performance
1998-2008
$60,000
High but declining versus U.S. High and rising wages
relative to U.S.
New York
U.S. Average Wage
Growth: 3.32%
$55,000
Connecticut
Massachusetts
New Jersey
$50,000
Alaska
Average Wage, 2008
California
Illinois
Washington
$45,000 Delaware Maryland
U.S. Average Minnesota Virginia
Wage: $ 42,435 Colorado Texas
Pennsylvania New Hampshire
Michigan Rhode Island
$40,000 Oregon Georgia Wyoming
Ohio Wisconsin Arizona
Missouri Nevada Louisiana
North Carolina Kansas
Tennessee Florida
Indiana Utah
Hawaii Oklahoma
Maine Nebraska
$35,000 Kentucky New Mexico
Iowa Vermont
South Carolina
Idaho Arkansas North Dakota
Alabama
West Virginia South Dakota
Low and declining versus U.S. Mississippi Montana Low but rising versus U.S.
$30,000
2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% 5.5%
Wage Growth (CAGR), 1998-2008
Source: Census CBP report; private, non-agricultural employment. Growth is calculated on nominal wage levels.
NGA 2011 – Colorado 7 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

8. Long Term State Labor Productivity Performance
1999-2009
$150,000
High but declining versus U.S. U.S. GDP per Labor Force
Participant Real Growth: 1.09% Highly productive and
Delaware productivity rising versus U.S.
Gross Domestic Product per Labor Force Participant, 2009
$140,000
$130,000
Alaska Wyoming
Connecticut
$120,000
New York
$110,000
New Jersey Massachusetts
Hawaii
Louisiana California
$100,000 Virginia
Washington Illinois Maryland U.S. GDP per Labor Force
Colorado
Nevada Texas Participant: $92,382
$90,000 North Carolina Minnesota Nebraska North
Pennsylvania Oklahoma
Utah Dakota
Georgia Indiana Rhode Island Iowa South Oregon
Arizona Alabama
Ohio Tennessee Wisconsin Kansas Dakota
$80,000 Missouri
Florida West Virginia
New Mexico
Michigan New Hampshire Mississippi
Kentucky
Arkansas
South Carolina Maine Montana Idaho
$70,000 Vermont
Low and declining versus U.S. Low but rising versus U.S.
$60,000
-0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5%
Gross Domestic Product per Labor Force Participant Real Growth Rate, 1999-2009
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis. Notes: District of Columbia: $xxx,xxx, %x.x. Growth rate calculated as compound annual growth rate (CAGR).
NGA 2011 – Colorado 8 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

9. Near Term State Labor Productivity Performance
2007-2009
$150,000
High but declining versus U.S.
Highly productive and
$140,000
Delaware productivity rising versus U.S.
U.S. GDP per Labor Force
Gross State Product per Labor Force Participant, 2009
Participant Real Growth: -0.97%
$130,000 Wyoming
Alaska
$120,000 Connecticut
New York
$110,000 Massachusetts
New Jersey
California Hawaii
$100,000 Virginia Louisiana
Washington Maryland
Illinois U.S. GDP per Labor Force
Texas Colorado
Nevada Participant: $92,382
$90,000 Minnesota South
North Carolina Pennsylvania Nebraska Dakota Oklahoma North Dakota
Oregon
Georgia Indiana Utah Iowa
Rhode Island Alabama
Arizona Wisconsin West Virginia
$80,000 Florida Ohio
Missouri
New Mexico
Michigan Arkansas
South Carolina Kentucky Mississippi
Maine
Idaho Montana
$70,000 Vermont
Kansas
Tennessee
Low and declining versus U.S. New Hampshire Low but rising versus U.S.
$60,000
-8.0% -6.0% -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0%
Gross State Product per Labor Force Participant Real Growth Rate, 2007-2009
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis. Notes: District of Columbia: $xxx,xxx, %x.x. Growth rate calculated as compound annual growth rate (CAGR).
NGA 2011 – Colorado 9 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

10. Long Term State Job Growth
2000 to 2010
9,000,000
California (15,945,558) New York Texas (11,202,388)
Florida
8,000,000
U.S. Average Growth Rate: 0.11%
7,000,000
6,000,000 Illinois
Number of Jobs 2010
Pennsylvania
Ohio
5,000,000
Michigan Georgia
New Jersey North Carolina
4,000,000 Virginia
Massachusetts
Washington
3,000,000 Indiana
Wisconsin Maryland Arizona
Tennessee Minnesota
Missouri
Colorado
Louisiana
2,000,000 Alabama Kentucky South Carolina
Oregon
Connecticut
Iowa Kansas
Mississippi Oklahoma Arkansas Nevada Utah
1,000,000 Nebraska
New Hampshire New Mexico
West Virginia Rhode Island Maine Hawaii Idaho
Delaware Montana North South Dakota
Vermont Dakota Alaska
Wyoming
0
-2.0% -1.5% -1.0% -0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0%
Losing Jobs Job Growth Rate (CAGR), 2000-2010 Gaining Jobs
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
NGA 2011 – Colorado 10 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

11. Near Term State Job Growth
2007 to 2010
9,000,000 California (15,945,558) Texas (11,202,388)
New York
Florida
8,000,000
U.S. Average Growth Rate: -1.52%
7,000,000
6,000,000 Illinois
Number of Jobs 2010
Pennsylvania
Ohio
5,000,000
Michigan Georgia
North Carolina
New Jersey Virginia
4,000,000
Massachusetts Washington
3,000,000 Wisconsin Arizona
Indiana Minnesota
Missouri Tennessee
Maryland
Colorado
2,000,000 Alabama Kentucky
South Carolina Oregon Louisiana
Oklahoma Connecticut
Utah Arkansas Iowa
Nevada Kansas
Mississippi
1,000,000 West Virginia
New Mexico
Idaho Nebraska New
Hawaii Maine
Delaware Hampshire North Dakota
Montana Rhode Island
South DakotaVermont Alaska
Wyoming
0
-4.0% -3.5% -3.0% -2.5% -2.0% -1.5% -1.0% -0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0%
Losing Jobs Job Growth Rate (CAGR), 2007-2010 Gaining Jobs
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
NGA 2011 – Colorado 11 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

12. Long Term State Unemployment Rate
2000 to 2010
%
3.0
Lower
unemployment North Dakota
Nebraska
South Dakota
%
5.0
New Hampshire
Vermont
Iowa Wyoming
Oklahoma Hawaii
Virginia Kansas
Unemployment Rate, 2010
%
7.0 Minnesota
Maine Maryland Montana
Wisconsin Utah
Massachusetts New York Arkansas Louisiana
Alaska
Delaware Texas
Colorado New New Mexico
Pennsylvania
% Jersey Alabama U.S. Average
9.0 Connecticut Illinois Washington
Missouri Unemployment Rate: 9.4%
Indiana Ohio Idaho West Virginia
North Carolina
Georgia Mississippi
Kentucky
Oregon Tennessee
South Carolina
%
11.0 Arizona
Rhode Island
Florida Michigan
California
%
13.0 Change in US Average
Employment Rate: 5.5%
Higher
Nevada unemployment Unemployment rising
%
15.0
%
10.0 %
9.0 %
8.0 %
7.0 %
6.0 %
5.0 %
4.0 %
3.0 %
2.0 %
1.0 %
0.0
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Change in Employment Rate, 2000 to 2010
NGA 2011 – Colorado 12 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

13. Near Term State Unemployment Rate
2007 to 2010
3.0
%
Below average Change in US Average
North
unemployment Employment Rate: 4.4%
Dakota
Nebraska
South Dakota
5.0
%
New Hampshire
Vermont
Wyoming Hawaii Iowa
Virginia
Unemployment Rate, 2010
Kansas
7.0
% Oklahoma Minnesota
Montana
Maine
Utah Maryland Wisconsin
Louisiana Arkansas
New York Alaska
Delaware Texas
New Mexico
New Jersey Pennsylvania Massachusetts
Colorado U.S. Average
9.0
% Alabama Connecticut
Unemployment Rate: 9.4%
Idaho Arizona Missouri Illinois
Tennessee
West Virginia Indiana Ohio
North Carolina
Georgia Mississippi
Oregon Kentucky
11.0 South Washington
%
Carolina
Rhode Island
Florida Michigan
California
13.0
%
Nevada Unemployment rising Above average
unemployment
15.0
%
%
10.0 %
9.0 %
8.0 %
7.0 %
6.0 %
5.0 %
4.0 %
3.0 %
2.0 %
1.0 %
0.0
Change in Employment Rate, 2007 to 2010
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
NGA 2011 – Colorado 13 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

14. Long Term State Patenting Performance
U.S. States, 1999 to 2009
14
High and declining Idaho
U.S. average Growth Rate
innovation of Patenting: -0.30% California
12
Vermont
Massachusetts Washington (+8.0%, 13.53)
Oregon (+4.9%, 10.31)
Patents per 10,000 Employees, 2009
10 Minnesota
Connecticut High and improving
8 Delaware New Hampshire
innovation rate versus U.S.
Michigan
New Jersey Colorado
New York
6 Texas Utah
Arizona U.S. average Patents per
Wisconsin 10,000 Employees: 5.96
Illinois
Pennsylvania Rhode Island
Ohio Maryland North Carolina
Iowa
4 Indiana
New Mexico Kansas Georgia
Florida Missouri
Virginia
Montana (-5.7%, 1.58) Nevada
South Carolina North Dakota
Louisiana (-6.0%, 1.34) Tennessee Nebraska Wyoming
2 Kentucky
Arkansas (-6.9%, 0.76) Oklahoma Maine
Alabama
West Virginia
Mississippi Hawaii
South Dakota Alaska
Low and declining innovation Low and improving innovation
0
-5% -4% -3% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2% 3%
Growth Rate of Patenting, 1999 to 2009
3,000 patents issued in 2009 =
Source: USPTO, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Note: Growth rate calculated as compound annual growth rate (CAGR).
NGA 2011 – Colorado 14 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

15. Colorado Patents by Organization
Patents Patents
Rank Organization Rank Organization
2005-2009 2005-2009
1 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, 1007 26 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 33
L.P.
2 Agilent Technologies, Inc. 371 27 Bison Designs, L.L.C. 31
3 Lsi Logic Corporation 238 28 Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. 28
4 Storage Technology Corporation 186 29 Ball Corporation 26
5 International Business Machines 161 29 Optical Communication Products, Inc. 26
Corporation
6 Seagate Technology, Llc 127 29 Heska Corporation 26
7 Xilinx, Inc. 121 29 Dot Hill Systems Corp. 26
8 Sun Microsystems, Inc. 106 33 Inphase Technologies, Inc. 25
9 Qwest Communications International Inc. 98 33 Pts Corporation 25
10 Maxtor Corporation 85 35 Bea Systems, Inc. 24
11 Avaya Technology Corp. 79 36 Kodak Polychrome Graphics, Llc 23
12 Hunter Douglas, Inc. 75 37 Gambro, Inc. 22
13 Sherwood Services Ag 74 38 Qualcomm, Inc. 21
14 Atmel Corporation 65 38 Lockheed Martin Corporation 21
15 First Data Corporation 64 38 Nautilus, Inc. 21
15 Dphi Acquisitions, Inc. 64 38 Verigy Pte Ltd 21
17 University Of Colorado, The Regents Of 57 42 Wolverine World Wide Inc. 20
18 Intel Corporation 56 42 Otologics Llc. 20
19 Quantum Corp. (Ca) 49 42 Spectra Logic Corporation 20
20 Eastman Kodak Company 47 42 Crocs, Inc. 20
21 National Semiconductor Corporation 45 42 Infoprint Solutions Company Llc 20
22 Avago Technologies General Ip 44 47 Aspen Pet Products, Inc. 19
(Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
23 Midwest Research Institute 38 47 Otter Products, Llc 19
23 Integral Technologies, Inc. 38 49 Woodward Governor Company 18
25 Johns Manville 37 49 Src Computers, Inc. 18
Universities and Research Institutions
Government Organizations
Source: Prof. Michael E. Porter, Cluster Mapping Project, Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness, Harvard Business School; Richard Bryden, Project Director.
NGA 2011 – Colorado 15 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

16. The Impact of Cluster Mix and Cluster Strength on Wages
U.S. States, 2008
State Traded State Traded
Wage versus Relative Wage versus Relative
National Cluster Mix Cluster National Cluster Mix Cluster
State Average Effect Wage Effect State Average Effect Wage Effect
New York +34,578 5,188 29,390 North Carolina -10,673 -5,131 -5,543
Connecticut +20,008 6,898 13,109 Missouri -10,953 -1,634 -9,319
Massachusetts +17,308 5,191 12,117 Rhode Island -11,089 -1,370 -9,719
New Jersey +12,157 4,638 7,519 Florida -11,780 -1,473 -10,307
California +9,597 121 9,476 Oklahoma -12,225 1,533 -13,758
Maryland +6,435 2,778 3,657 Alabama -12,301 -4,713 -7,588
Washington +4,827 3,058 1,769 Tennessee -13,063 -3,987 -9,076
Virginia +2,550 945 1,605 Vermont -13,095 -2,936 -10,159
Illinois +2,501 -61 2,562 Indiana -13,309 -5,495 -7,814
Alaska +2,386 -3,044 5,431 Nebraska -14,659 41 -14,699
Texas +1,400 2,796 -1,396 Utah -14,947 327 -15,274
Colorado +753 2,292 -1,539 South Carolina -15,256 -5,694 -9,562
Delaware +612 13,346 -12,733 Nevada -15,429 -2,829 -12,600
Louisiana -4,172 573 -4,745 Maine -15,826 -726 -15,100
Minnesota -4,404 43 -4,448 North Dakota -16,437 2,940 -19,378
Wyoming -4,423 1,408 -5,831 Iowa -16,963 -2,602 -14,361
Michigan -4,981 -2,534 -2,447 New Mexico -16,991 -125 -16,866
Pennsylvania -5,182 -1,064 -4,118 Kentucky -17,303 -5,013 -12,291
New Hampshire -6,359 1,224 -7,584 West Virginia -17,357 -4,290 -13,067
Georgia -7,262 -1,923 -5,338 Arkansas -17,616 -5,171 -12,445
Arizona -8,662 1,557 -10,219 Hawaii -18,103 -14,124 -3,980
Kansas -8,828 1,820 -10,648 Idaho -18,636 -1,567 -17,069
Ohio -9,766 -1,436 -8,330 Mississippi -20,859 -6,165 -14,694
Oregon -9,774 -2,355 -7,420 South Dakota -21,211 955 -22,166
Wisconsin -10,479 -3,341 -7,138 Montana -22,488 -3,494 -18,994
Cluster mix: a region’s particular mix of lower and higher average wage clusters
Relative cluster wage: a region’s cluster wage relative to the average national wage in that cluster
The cluster mix and the cluster wage level effects add up to the total difference between a region’s average wage and the
national average wage. On average, the wage level effect is responsible for 76.3% of the total difference in state wages to the
national average.
NGA 2011 – Colorado 16 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

17. Effect of Urban and Rural Areas on Average State Wages
U.S. States, 2008
Average Average
Overall Overall
Wage Relative Relative Wage Relative Relative
Difference Metro- Metro Rural Difference Metro- Metro Rural
State to U.S. Rural Mix Wage Wage State to U.S. Rural Mix Wage Wage
New York + 15,412 982 14,078 353 Nevada -4,560 815 -5,752 377
Connecticut + 10,919 1,013 9,592 315 Louisiana -4,739 -630 -4,764 655
Massachusetts + 10,197 1,674 8,333 190 Kansas -5,371 -2,175 -2,535 -661
New Jersey + 8,488 1,631 6,765 92 North Carolina -5,505 -1,262 -3,796 -446
Alaska + 6,538 -1,438 5,158 2,818 Tennessee -5,992 -538 -4,973 -481
California + 5,584 1,476 3,844 265 Florida -6,132 -128 -6,074 70
Illinois + 3,427 411 3,277 -261 Indiana -6,225 -630 -5,665 70
Washington + 3,013 832 2,122 58 Oklahoma -6,501 -2,030 -4,496 25
Delaware + 2,664 -191 2,895 -40 Hawaii -6,583 -1,892 -4,871 179
Maryland + 2,201 1,159 775 267 Utah -7,054 169 -7,273 50
Virginia +1,182 509 709 -36 Vermont -7,280 -6,080 -968 -232
Minnesota +1,024 -903 2,130 -202 Nebraska -7,419 -2,652 -3,621 -1,146
Colorado +539 -110 -66 714 Alabama -7,544 -1,206 -5,701 -636
Texas +325 350 -234 209 Maine -7,697 -2,479 -5,243 24
New Hampshire -504 -2,856 924 1,428 Kentucky -7,978 -2,179 -5,285 -515
Pennsylvania -1,184 262 -1,480 34 Iowa -8,096 -3,123 -4,509 -464
Michigan -1,785 -165 -1,576 -44 New Mexico -8,531 -1,843 -6,548 -140
Rhode Island -2,143 1,720 -3,846 -17 South Carolina -9,137 -609 -8,203 -325
Wyoming -2,478 -6,929 -2,304 6,755 Arkansas -9,482 -2,207 -6,283 -992
Georgia -3,136 -120 -2,542 -475 Idaho -9,766 -1,928 -6,872 -966
Ohio -3,925 -224 -3,799 98 North Dakota -9,973 -2,963 -6,607 -403
Arizona -3,962 937 -4,897 -2 West Virginia -10,074 -3,104 -7,013 43
Oregon -4,116 -359 -3,505 -251 South Dakota -10,976 -3,811 -5,475 -1,690
Wisconsin -4,336 -910 -3,419 -7 Mississippi -11,446 -4,569 -5,493 -1,383
Missouri -4,540 -573 -3,103 -865 Montana -11,792 -5,468 -5,495 -829
Metro-rural mix: average wage impact from a state’s relative proportion of metro and rural regions
Relative metro wage: average wage impact from state relative performance in metro regions
Relative rural wage: average wage impact from state relative performance in rural regions
On average 66.3% of the average wage gap in a state is due to the metro wage effect.
Note: Data are based on private, non-agricultural employment.
Source: Prof. Michael E. Porter, Cluster Mapping Project, Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness, Harvard Business School; Richard Bryden, Project Director.
NGA 2011 – Colorado 17 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

18. Composition of the Colorado Economy
and Cluster Performance
NGA 2011 – Colorado 18 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

19. Composition of Regional Economies, United States
Traded Clusters
• Serve markets in other
regions and countries
• Free to choose location
• Exposed to competition
Local Clusters 27.4% of from other regions
employment
• Serve almost
37.3% of income
exclusively the
local market 71.7% of 96.4% of patents
employment
• Not exposed to
61.8% of income
cross-regional
competition for 3.5% of patents
employment Resource-based Clusters
• Location determined by
resource availability
• <1% of income,
Source: Michael E. Porter, Economic Performance of Regions, Regional Studies (2003); Updated via employment, and patents in
Cluster Mapping Project, Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness, Harvard Business School (2008)
the U.S.
NGA 2011 – Colorado 19 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

20. Overall Composition of the Colorado Economy, 2008
80%
70%
CO US
71.3% 71.7%
Private Employment
60%
50%
40%
Percent of Total
30%
CO US
20% 28.3% 27.4%
10%
CO US
0.4% 0.9%
0%
Traded Clusters Local Clusters Natural Endowment
Dependent
Note: Data throughout this section of the report are based on private, non-agricultural employment.
Source: Prof. Michael E. Porter, Cluster Mapping Project, Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness, Harvard Business School; Richard Bryden, Project Director.
NGA 2011 – Colorado 20 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

21. Composition of the Colorado Economy
Employment by Traded Cluster, 2008
Rank in US
Business Services 14 138,858
Hospitality and Tourism 12 56,580
Financial Services 20 42,595
Distribution Services 14 41,689
Education and Know ledge Creation 23 40,501
Heavy Construction Services 15 37,744
Entertainment 6 36,468
Transportation and Logistics 21 31,464
Processed Food 20 23,812
Information Technology 15 22,582
Oil and Gas Products and Services 5 21,526
Aerospace Vehicles and Defense 7 19,060
Publishing and Printing 19 15,880
Medical Devices 11 13,440
Analytical Instruments 22 8,626
Metal Manufacturing 31 7,965
Building Fixtures, Equipment and Services 29 6,738
Production Technology 27 6,251
Automotive 34 4,731
Plastics 34 4,410
Pow er Generation and Transmission 20 4,005
Heavy Machinery 32 3,030
Construction Materials 25 2,694
Agricultural Products 28 2,370
Textiles 19 2,188
Biopharmaceuticals 25 2,032
Chemical Products 39 2,022
Lighting and Electrical Equipment 31 1,563
Communications Equipment 29 1,511
Furniture 32 1,499
Sporting, Recreational and Children's Goods 16 1,327
Forest Products 44 1,025
Motor Driven Products 34 966
Prefabricated Enclosures 35 936
Leather and Related Products 31 933
Jew elry and Precious Metals 26 560
Apparel 32 440
Aerospace Engines 33 303 Colorado overall employment rank = 22
Footw ear 21 185
Fishing and Fishing Products 34 80
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000
Employment, 2008
Note: Ranks are among the 50 US states plus the District of Columbia.
Source: Prof. Michael E. Porter, Cluster Mapping Project, Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness, Harvard Business School; Richard Bryden, Project Director.
NGA 2011 – Colorado 21 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

22. Composition of the Colorado Economy
Specialization by Traded Cluster, 1998 to 2008
6.0%
Overall change in the Colorado Share
of US Traded Employment: +0.25%
Aerospace Vehicles and Defense
5.0%
Colorado’s national employment share, 2008
4.0%
Oil and Gas Products and Services
Entertainment
Medical Devices
3.0%
Heavy Construction Services
Information Technology
2.0% Power Generation and Transmission
Transportation Colorado Overall Share of US
Construction Materials
and Logistics Traded Employment: 1.85%
Analytical Instruments
1.0% Employment
Leather and Textiles 1998-2008
Related Products
Added Jobs
Lost Jobs
0.0%
-1.5% -1.0% -0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5%
Change in Colorado share of National Employment, 1998 to 2008 Employees 25,000 =
Source: Prof. Michael E. Porter, Cluster Mapping Project, Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness, Harvard Business School; Richard Bryden, Project Director.
NGA 2011 – Colorado 22 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

23. Composition of the Colorado Economy
Specialization by Traded Cluster, 1998 to 2008
3.0% Employment
1998-2008
Business Services
Added Jobs
Lost Jobs
2.5%
Colorado’s national employment share, 2008
Information Technology
Hospitality and
Tourism
Colorado Overall Share of
2.0% US Traded Employment: Financial Services Distribution Services
1.85%
Processed Food Sporting, Recreational and
Children’s Goods
Publishing and Printing
1.5%
Education and
Building Fixtures, Equipment
Knowledge Creation
and Services
Production Technology
1.0% Agricultural
Heavy Machinery Communications Products
Equipment Metal Manufacturing
Biopharmaceuticals
Lighting and Electrical Equipment
Furniture Plastics
Chemical Products
0.5% Prefabricated Enclosures Automotive
Forest Products Motor Driven Products Overall change in the
Colorado Share of US Traded
Employment: +0.25%
0.0%
-0.5% -0.4% -0.3% -0.2% -0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5%
Change in Colorado share of National Employment, 1998 to 2008 Employees 25,000 =
Source: Prof. Michael E. Porter, Cluster Mapping Project, Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness, Harvard Business School; Richard Bryden, Project Director.
NGA 2011 – Colorado 23 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter