The long-term trend toward lower-quality jobs in the United States continued between 2001 and 2004. Industrial job quality fell 1.6 percent nationally between 2001 and 2004. The decrease in occupational job quality was not quite as great at 0.9 percent. Thus, overall U.S. job quality dropped 2.5 percent during the three years, causing the U.S. average wage to be 2.5 percent less than it otherwise would have been. Arizona’s job quality fell between 2001 and 2004 at a pace worse than the national average. Relative to the national average, the industrial and occupational job mixes each slipped a bit more than 0.3 percent during the three years, for an overall decline of 0.7 percent. In Arizona, job quality in 2004 was 2.0 percent below the national average, but Arizona ranked 23rd among all states.

The best way to evaluate job quality would be to analyze a dataset that presents both occupational and industrial data, but the only dataset of this nature available by state comes from the decennial census. It is severely limited by small sample size, the latest data are for 1999, and the 1999 data are not consistent with the 1989 data. Thus, the initial work by the Seidman Institute on job quality ("Job Quality in Arizona", March 2005, presented data on Arizona job quality from several sources of either industrial or occupational data. "Job Quality in Arizona Compared to All States" is an extension of the March 2005 report. Arizona’s job quality in the latest year and its change over time is compared to the national average and is ranked among the 51 “states” (including the District of Columbia).

The analysis of the value of higher education contained in this report represents an important dimension of the P3 research agenda since measuring the value of educated workers can provide empirical context for understanding the importance of an educated and skilled workforce in a modern economy. In this report, the increases in individual earnings realized from enhanced educational attainment are measured and the benefits to the economy and society in general that are provided by a highly educated workforce are examined.

The report includes original articles by Arizona policy practitioners and observers, reprints of pertinent articles by experts beyond Arizona, and a list for further reading. Articles of varying lengths and complexities are purposefully included so as to offer something to readers with different levels of interest in and knowledge of the subject matter.

The Governor's Strategic Partnership for Economic Development has identified 12 industry clusters in Arizona that collectively drive the economy. The term "cluster" refers to a geographic concentration of interdependent companies, suppliers, products, labor pool, and institutions that together constitute an important competitive advantage for a region. Tourism is recognized as one of Arizona's 12 industry clusters. In northern Arizona it ranks as the dominant cluster.

Much of the analysis in this report is based on the concept that industry clusters act as primary growth influences on local economies. Strong clusters produce goods or services that can be sold to consumers outside the region, creating a flow of revenue into the region. This influx of revenue stimulates economic activity in other areas of the local economy such as the retail, real estate, or constructions sectors.

This report profiles the tourism cluster in Coconino County with special focus on the Page area. It examines the cluster's composition, relative size, and importance to the regional economy, and it addresses the cluster's dynamics and requirements for growth. In its conclusion, it presents a menu of options for strengthening the cluster in the Page area.

The state government general fund shortfall in the current fiscal year is projected to be between about $550 million and $1 billion. This shortfall will need to be eliminated through spending cuts and/or revenue enhancements. The Legislature has demonstrated a preference for spending cuts. However demand does not decline during a recession for most public-sector services, including university services. Any reduction in funding for universities will have a negative and direct effect. A reduction in state government spending for universities of around $200 million would cause direct and indirect job losses of approximately 4,000. A substantial decrease in state government funding for universities will have negative consequences beyond these short-term effects.