The Arizona Board of Regents annually prepares an analysis of the financial condition of Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University, and The University of Arizona using data from the universities’ audited financial statements. This Assessment of Financial Strength uses the methodology developed by KPMG, BearingPoint, et al. and used by university governing boards and accreditation agencies across the country. The methodology employs four financial ratios and a single indicator of financial health—the Composite Financial Index—and provides a scale against which to benchmark our universities. The analysis is for each university’s entire enterprise, which includes their component units.

This paper provides a capsule perspective on the lessons economists have learned from investigating growth and income gaps across countries. After providing the lessons for growth and development across countries, the paper asks whether these lessons can be extended to growth and income differentials between regions or states of the United States. It should be stressed that applying to regional growth what is known about country growth is partly untested at this time, and hence merely suggestive.

This paper complements a detailed assessment of job quality, based on analysis of industrial and occupational mix, recently completed by the Seidman Institute’s Center for Business Research. The overall conclusions in this report are consistent with those of the more extensive CBR research. Arizona’s economy grows very rapidly, but per person or per worker measures of wages, compensation, incomes, and gross state product are below the national average. No evidence exists that the situation is improving appreciably (or deteriorating). Indeed, the state appears to be creating income, wealth and quality jobs at rates that are similar to those displayed by other states. Arizona is a job-generating marvel and is among the nation’s leaders in aggregate growth. If the state is successful at improving the quality of its labor force and creating higher-quality jobs, its per worker and per person comparisons will improve.

Growth in the stock of knowledge has been the most important factor behind the dramatic rise in living standards in the United States and other countries over the past 100 years. Systematic efforts made by firms, universities, governments, and other organizations to increase the stock of knowledge are referred to as research and development (R&D). The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the entire system of R&D in the United States—or as it is sometimes called, the national innovation system. Special emphasis will be placed on basic research. This is the component of R&D that is most likely to be underprovided by the private sector and the one that figures most prominently in public policy toward science and technology. The report also emphasizes the role of universities that, in the United States, perform the lion’s share of basic research.

The report provides a variety of basic statistical indicators of R&D effort and identifies recent trends in sources of R&D funding. The report also reviews classic arguments on the appropriate role of government in supporting R&D and the strengths and weaknesses of universities as performers of R&D. The U.S. national innovation system is compared with those in other major industrialized countries.

This paper provides a review of studies that examine the extent to which university research promotes local economic growth and development. The primary focus of the paper is on economic impacts that derive from the innovative outputs of faculty. this paper evaluates Arizona State University and the Phoenix metropolitan area in terms of factors that enhance the local economic impact of university research. The potential for local impacts from ASU’s research and graduate programs is greatly aided by the fact that ASU is located in a major metropolitan area with a climate and other natural amenities that mobile professional workers find attractive.

This plan is an action agenda that avoids the long-term strategic planning platitudes and broad generalizations that sound good but do not achieve a great deal. The steps presented in this document are ones we can take in the near term, over the next two years or so, that will provide the foundation for long-term economic growth and stability.