TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Bureau of Business Research• The University of Texas at Austin May 1973 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW VOL. XLVII, NO. 5, MAY 1973 Editor, Robert H. Ryan Managing Editor, Kathleen Luft Editorial Board: Robert H. Ryan, Chairman; Stanley A. Arbingast; John R. Stockton; Francis B. May; Robert 8. Williamson; Kathleen Luft. CONTENTS Articles 101 : The Business Situation in Texas, by Robert H. Ryan l 06: The Texas Broiler Industry, by Clyde Sommerlatte 109: Texas Construction: Transportation Facilities, by Charles Zlatkovich Tables 107: Selected Prices per Pound for Food Products in Austin, Texas, 1952-1973 108: Commercial Broilers: Production and Gross Income, Texas, 1967-1972 l09: Estimated Values of Building Authorized in Texas 110: Projected Transportation Capital Improvement Fund­ing in Texas 111 : Local Business Conditions Barometers of Texas Business (inside back cover) Charts l 01 : Texas Business Activity 102: Cost of Living in Texas Cities Compared with U.S. Average 102: Consumer Prices in Dallas and Houston l 02: Comparison of Consumer Prices and Wholesale Prices, United States l 03: Estimated Personal Income, Texas l 03: Business-Activity Indexes for Twenty Texas Cities 106: Weighted Average, High and Low Price, 1955-1972 l 07: Per Capita Consumption of Poultry 108: Functions of a Typical Integrated Broiler Firm COVER DESIGN BY MARY LANGRIDGE Reprints of feature articles are available from the Bureau at ten cents each. The Bureau of Business Research is a member of the Association for University Business and Economic Research. US ISSN 0040-4209 BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH Business Research Council: Vernon M. Brigg.5, James R. Bright, Robert T. Green, Darwin D. Klingman, George Kozmetsky, George M. Scott, Lee A. Tavis Director: Stanley A. Arbingast Assistant Directors: Florence Escott, David L. Karney Statistician: John R. Stockton Consulting Statistician: Francis B. May Cooperating Faculty: C. P. Blair, Charles T. Clark, Law­ rence L. Crum, Clark C. Gill, Gary L. Holstrum, Robert K. Holz, Lorrin G. Kennamer, Jerry Todd, Ernest W. Walker, Robert B. Williamson Administrative Assistant: Margaret Robb Energy Specialist and Coordinator of Radio Programs: Ro)::>ert M. Lockwood Transportation Specialist: Charles P. Zlatkovich Coordinator of Special Projects and of Television Pro­grams: Robert H. Ryan Research Associates: J. Bryan Adair, Charles Adams, Connie Cone, Christine Fox, Ida M. Lambeth, Kathleen Luft, Thomas A. Taylor, Barbara Terrell Computer Programmer: Marilyn Smith Statistical Associate: Mildred Anderson Statistical Assistant: Constance Cooledge Statistical Technician : Kay Davis Cartographers: James Buchanan, Alice Lo Librarian: Merle Danz Administrative Secretary: Mary Ann Greatly Administrative Clerks: Armour Goodman, Maureen Meehan Senior Secretary: Clintsy Sturgill Senior Clerk Typists: Jennifer Brewster, Susan Cox, Ag­ nes Marie Sullivan Senior Clerks: Robert Jenkins, Salvador B. Macias Printing Coordinator: Daniel P. Rosas Print Shop Foreman: Robert L. Dorsett Published monthly by the Bureau of Buaineu Retearch, Graduat• School of Buaineu, The Univenity of Texu at Auetin, Auetln, 1•: 78712. Second-clua poatqe paJd at Auatln, Te:ua. Contento publication is not copyriahted and may be reproduced freely~ acknowledgment of aource will be appreciated. The viewa expr by authon are not neceaaarily tho1e of the Bureau of Buala• Research. Subscription, $4.00 a year; individual copiet 35 cente. THE BUSINESS SITUATION IN TEXAS Robert H. Ryan Texans can congratulate themselves on the fact that as recently as fall 1971 their overall living costs were low in comparison with family budgets in other parts of the United States. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has announced that the Austin Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) was the least expensive place to live among forty SMSA's across the nation. Dallas and Houston were among the five lowest. No information has been released on other Texas cities. The BLS study is heavily qualified and may not represent any particular family. It examines budgets for a family of four : a 38-year-old husband, a wife whose age is discreetly unmentioned, a boy of 13, and a girl of 8. The wife does not work outside the home. The family is examined under three sets of circumstances: first with a minimum budget of about $7,000, second with an intermediate budget of $10,000 to $11,000, and third with a higher budget in the $16,000-plus range. These budgets vary from city to city, for the purpose of the study is to determine how much money is needed to maintain equivalent living standards in various places. For example, an Anchorage, Alaska, family must spend $20,577 to buy the same necessities and comforts that cost $14,620 in Dallas, $14,213 in Houston, and $13,600 in Austin. The chart at the bottom of the next page compares the three Texas SMSA's with the national average for an intermediate-budget family. The national figures include small nonmetropolitan cities. In Austin the intermediate budget totals $9 ,408; in Dallas, $I 0,056; and in Houston, $9,894. Actually the three cities are somewhat closer in their consumer-market prices than those figures suggest. Austin is lower partly because the family living there is given a lower income-tax burden, presumably because their lower budget implies that they rece.i.ve less income. There is no doubt that many places in Texas offer less expensive living than do Austin, Dallas, or Houston; the average budget for nonmetropolitan cities in the southern region lies well below the figures for these three cities. Among consumption items, food and especially clothing are shown to be rather evenly priced nationwide, while housing costs vary radically. The Anchorage family has to pay more than twice as much as the Austin family for "equivalent" housing. On the other hand, family transportation costs more in Texas cities than in cities with more extensive public-transit networks, such as New York. Medical care also tends to be expensive in Texas, especially in Dallas, where the intermediate-budget family must pay higher medical bills (including insurance) than in any other city east of the Pacific Coast. Even in Austin family medical costs are higher than in some much larger cities. such as Buffalo, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh. Texas cities also offer comparatively low living costs for a hypothetical retired couple, according to a second BLS analysis, also based on fall 1971 price levels. The retired couple's budgets do not differ greatly from city to city, especially in the South. At the minimum level, Baton Rouge and Atlanta living costs are less than those in the three Tex as SMSA's. Since late 1971 , the base period for the BLS study, family financial patterns have been seriously disarrayed by the inflation of consumer prices, which have risen an average of 6 percent. The intermediate budget for the four-member Austin family, then, has gone from $13,600 to about $14,400, and any family whose income has advanced by less than that ratio is probably materially worse off than it was nineteen months ago. Prices in Dallas, Houston, and most cities across the nation have advanced at about the same rate, though not MAY 1973 IOI COMPARISON OF CONSUMER PRICES AND WHOLESALE PRICES, UNITED STATES 13 Index Adjusted fw Soasonal Variolion-1967=100 -t----1r---t---r...---t SOURCE: Bureau of labor Sta tistics, U.S. Department of La bor. exactly. The quick march of inflation is charted at the top of this page in terms of price indexes for Dallas, Houston, and the United States. (Indexes for the two Texas cities are posted only quarterly.) National figtires indicate that consumers are indulging in an alarming wave of buying that may well give further thrust to inflation. There is no comprehensive measure of Texas retailing, for sales taxes exempt food and drugs, and sales tax receipts are not reported currently. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas does turn out estimates of department store sales in five Texas SMSA's, which indicate that Texans may be holding back from any extravagant spending splurge. Department-store sales in the Austin, Dal­las, El Paso, Houston, and San Antonio SMSA's were up only 7 percent from March 1972 to March 1973. On a national basis retail sales were up 16 percent over the same period. The Bureau of Business Research estimates of personal income in Texas show a gain of barely more than 6 percent from the first quarter of 1972 to the first quarter this year. SOURCE: Bureau of labor Statistics, U.S. Deportme nt of Labor. This gain is not a great deal more than the increase in consumer prices. Most Texas families, then, are only marginally better off this year than last, and they are well advised not to attempt upgrading their living standards. It is fairly certain that Texans have recently lost ground in their long race to catch up with other Americans in terms of average income. Nationwide, income payments to indi­viduals have gone up about half again as rapidly as they apparently have in Texas. Wage controls, suggested as a possible means of snaffling inflation, might tend to perpetuate the existing income disadvantage of Texans. More stringent retail price controls, on the other hand, might benefit Texans more than residents of some other states. All this is not to say that the Texas economy has not thrived in the past year. The widespread gains are reflected in the statistical barometers tabulated inside the back cover of this issue. One of the most favorable aspects of the Texas economy has been the labor situation. Employment oppor­ 120 110 Q) Cl ro ..... Q) > <( 100 u) :J ...... 90 0 ..... c Q) u ..... 80 Q) a.. 70 10 2 COST OF LIVING IN TEXAS CITIES COMPARED W ITH U.S. AVE RAGE (Based on an Intermediate Budget) Medical Transportation Care t AUSTIN SMSA TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW BUSINESS-ACTIVITY INDEXES FOR TWENTY TEXAS CITIES 250 200 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 AMARILLO BUSINESS ACTIVITY Index Ad1usted for Seasonal Yoriotion-J967:::JOO OL--,-,19~6765=-'"~1~96~6-'-~19~6~7--'-~19~6°8_._l~9~69;;-'-~1~97~0,--'-~1~97~1--'-~19~72;;-'-~1~97~3,--' 4-'-~197 tunities have increased more rapidly than the labor force, and unemployment has dropped sharply since early 1972. Only in the Rio Grande border cities and in Texarkana is unemployment still notably high. Increases in Texas employment have not by any means been distributed equally among industrial categories, ac­cording to Texas Employment Commission estimates. One of the major increases has occurred in wholesale and retail trade payrolls, which added 46,700 workers from March 1972 to March 1973. Texas is likely to have a work force of more than one million in trade by the end of this year. Among the smaller industrial groups, real estate and medical and health services have expanded significantly within the past year. On the contrary, some of Texas' most important basic industries have cut back employment. Oil and gas produc­tion workers are declining in number. If the present trends continue there will soon be more real estate personnel than petroleum production workers. Parallel declines have been seen in oil-refining and chemical-manufacturing workers. The business-activity indexes charted on the following pages represent the best measure of growth in individual Texas urban centers. They show the course of total bank debits deflated to remove the influence of inflation and adjusted to offset the effects of seasonal variation. Most of the indexes reflect impressive long-term growth; only Beaumont, Port Arthur, and Texarkana have shown little economic expansion since 1967. 250 200 150 100 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 SOURCE: Quarterly data from the Office of Business Economics, U.S. Deportment of Commerce; intervening monthly data from the Bureau of Busine ss Research. In the shorter-range view, Austin alone lost ground from the first quarter of 19 72 to the first quarter this year, though some other cities did not make substantial gains. Among the largest cities, Houston has maintained its impressive growth rate more effectively than any other during the past year. Cities that have shown stronger expansion than the state as a whole include Abilene, Amarillo, Corsicana, El Paso, Houston, Laredo, Lubbock, San Angelo, Tyler, and Waco. The fact that the Texas economy has not shown extreme fluctuations in the past fifteen months suggests a stability that may provide some insurance against disappointment during the remainder of 1973 at least. MAY 1973 103 DALLAS BUSINESS ACTIVITY HOUSTON BUSINESS ACTIVITY Index Adjusted for Seasonal Voriotion-1967=100 Index Adjusted for Seasonal Voriation-1967=100 196• 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 196• 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 EL PASO BUSINESS ACTIVITY LAREDO BUSINESS ACTIVITY Index Adju sted for Seasonal Voriolion-1967=100 Index Adjusted for Seasonal Yoriafion-1967=100 0'-;;19~6~,--'-~19~65.-'-'1°'96u6-L'°19~6•1-'--~19~68.-1-'1~96~9c-1-~19~7~0_J_~19~7~1..L.,1~97~2,--L_19=7~3~ 196• 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 CORPUS CHRISTI BUSINESS ACTIVITY Index Adjusted for Seasonal Voriotion-1967=100 196• 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 CORSICANA BUSINESS ACTIVITY Index Adjusted lor Seasonal Voriotion-1967=100 196• 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1972 1973 FORT WORTH BUSINESS ACTIVITY Index Adjusted for Seasonal Voriofion-1967=100 GALVESTON BUSINESS ACTIVITY Index Adjusted for Seasonal Voriofion -1967=100 OL..,.1~96~.c--'-~1~9~65=--1-1~9~66.,.-1---,,19~6=7-'-~1~96~8:-1-~1~9~69=--1-1~9=70=-'""""""19~7~1-'-~19~7•2-'-1~9~73:--' TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW WACO BUSINESS ACTIVITY SAN ANGELO BUSINESS ACTIVITY Index Adjusted for Seasonal Voriofion -1967=100 Index Ad1us ted for Seasonal Vorio tion-1967=100 196• 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 196• 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 250 SAN ANTONIO BUSINESS ACTIVITY Index Adjusted for Seasonal Voriotion-1967=100 200 150 100 50 LUBBOCK BUSINESS ACTIVITY Index. Adjusted for Seasonal Voriotion-1967=100 196• 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 250 200 TEXARKANA BUSINESS ACTIVITY Index Adjusted for Seasonal Voriotion-1967=100 196A 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 TYLER BUSINESS ACTIVITY Index Adiusted for Seasonal Voriotion-1967=100 196• 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 SOURCE: Based on bank debits reported by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and adjusted for seasonal variation and changes in the price level by the Bureau of Business Research. F ROM: Bureau of Business Research, The University of Texas at Austin. MAY 1973 105 THE TEXAS BROILER INDUSTRY Clyde Sommerlatte Despite the sharp rise in food prices-particularly meat prices-ct uring recent months, broiler chickens remain a good buy for the consumer. Growers and others associated with the broiler industry have by no means been immune to the widespread squeeze, however: increased costs of con­struction and labor have caused production costs to skyrocket, and prices of feed in many cases have more than doubled. These increases, compounded by high transporta­tion and distribution ·costs, are passed on to the consumer, causing broiler prices to rise at a faster rate than a year ago. Still the retail price of broiler chickens does not exceed the 195 2 level-although, in general, farm production costs went up more than 1 00 percent in the 19 52-19 72 period.1 Broiler-chicken growers in Texas have steadily observed a decrease in the prices they receive, in spite of attempts to cut costs of production. Poultrymen are deeply troubled about the future of the industry. The poultryman's worst enemies, however, may be his fellow poultrymen. Many observers attribute part of the farmers' current problems to a long absence of cooperation within the broad-based poultry industry, which includes the production of eggs, broilers, hens, pullets, and turkeys. In the past, farmers considered each of these five areas of production to be separate from and unrelated to the others, and this insistence on independence contributed to the fluctuations in the fortunes of each area. Poultrymen were slow to realize the benefits that could result from increased integration and cooperation in the highly competitive and rapidly changing industry. The poultry industry in Texas, which now generates approximately 7.5 percent of the average yearly income of the state's farmers, has come a long way since the turn of the century, when the average farmer kept a few chickens, hogs, and co ws. Since the 1940s, change has come especially swiftly to the broiler industry, once characterized by small farms with production capacities of 500-5,000 birds per run. In 1972 the average Texas farm had a capacity of 40,000-100,000 per run, and gross inco me from commercial broiler production totaled $93,790,000. Thirty years ago , processing plants were small and numerous, located near the sources of live broilers. Just a few years ago, over fifty broiler-processing plants were still operating in the state. In 1973, however, the number has shrunk to o nly seventeen, six of which account for over 50 percent of all commercial broiler processing in Texas.2 Broilers were first gro wn on a commercial basis in East Texas. to supply the Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston markets. and that region still ranks first in terms of production. Second in importance is South Central Texas, whcrl' hroilns for the Austin and San Anto nio market areas are produced. Among Texas counties, Nacogdoches, in East Texas, leads in broiler production; Gonzales County, in South Central Texas, ranks second. Competition is fierce, not only within the state, but nationwide. With 6 percent of total U.S. broiler output, Texas ranks seventh nationally, behind Arkansas, Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina, Missis­sippi, and Maryland. Unlike the highly seasonal turkey industry, the broiler industry experiences only slight shifts in monthly produc­tion-an indication of continuous annual production. The effects of what seasonal variation there is are greatly reduced by use of the "deep chill" process. When demand decreases, the processed birds can be preserved, not by being frozen , but by being placed in a state of deep chill-28 to 30 degrees Fahrenheit. At such temperatures the meat remains soft to the touch, and the color and shelf 3 life of the bird are extended. As markets spread and transportation costs rise, the deep-chill, or ice-pack, process is gradually being supplanted by the C02 pack. Many shipping cartons, formerly filled half with ice, half with meat, now contain only meat-and virtually weightless C02 gas. The cost of transportation is greatly reduced by the more economical gas process. Despite technological innovations and greater economies at the production end, growers seem beset with problems. One county agricultural agent outlines some of the diffi­culties fa cing Texas broiler growers: 1. Security-a precondition for growth-is lacking. 2. Growers are inadequately paid, and they have not shared in the country's general prosperity. Figure 1 WEIGHTED AVERAGE, HIGH AND LOW PRICE, 1955-1972 Price 30~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--.~~, SOURCE : T~xas PrietJS RtJCtJived and Prices Paid by Farmers, publication of Texas Department of Agriculture, 1972. 10<> TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW SELECTED PRICES PER POUND FOR FOOD PRODUCTS IN AUSTIN, TEXAS, 1952-1973 July 1972 March 1973 March 1973 (converted to weighted (converted to Item 1952 July 1972 1952 dollars)• average)** 1952 dollars) Fryers $ .48 $ .38 $.24 $ .49 $.30 Eggs (Grade A large) .31 .49 .31 . 71 .44 Chuck roast .49 .79 .so 1.23 .76 Bacon .39 .75 .48 1.08 .67 Swiss steak n.a. .95 .60 1.44 .89 Rib steak n.a. 1.09 .69 1.38 .85 * July 1972 converted prices based on yearly average of 1972 Consumer Price Index. •• March 1973 converted prices based on February 1973 Consumer Price Index. n.a. Not available. 3. Growers have no control over the quality of the feed and birds received. 4. Growers have no control over the growth of the industry. 5. Growers believe that many integrators mishandle the birds and equipment. Because of the depressed state of the industry, financing is also a problem. Currently the average broiler grower makes $50-65 per thousand birds-less than $.02 per pound. A farm with a capacity of fifty thousand birds earns only about $3,250 per run. With an average of four or five runs annually, the grower's income, before expenses and taxes, totals $13,000-16,520. Out of that amount he must pay increasing costs of operation and a mortgage payment on an average investment of $50,000. The pay-back period is thirteen years for a grower averaging $ 72 per thousand birds; it jumps to thirty years when the average drops to $62 per thousand. Overproduction is a major cause of the skids in retail quotes for broiler chickens. Egg surpluses have been enormous in recent years, and broiler production too has been surging upward. One factor in this swelling supply of chickens and eggs has been the development and use of a new vaccine for Marek's disease, a cancerous malady that Figure 2 PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF POULTRY Pounds 60 50 Turkeys Broilers 10 Farm Chickens 1964 1965 1966 1967 ·1968 1969 1970 1971 SOURCE : Poultry and Egg Situation , Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 1971 . used to kill up to 20 percent of all chicks hatched each year.4 Use of the vaccine has reduced the mortality rate to 5 percent. The cancer scare that hit the poultry industry in the 1960s also contributed to the problems of the farmers. Placement of the disease in the national spotlight created a nightmare for poultrymen, who , until the vaccine for Marek's proved successful in the 1970s, had to cope not only with overproduction but also with a sharp downturn in consumption. Competition-often ruthless-for control of the market has also led to overproduction. As research in poultry f>hysiology, nutrition, genetics, medicine, technology, and management made possible increased production of better birds, supply began to outweigh demand. Many growers apparently based their operations on the theory that "the more you produce, the more you earn." Fierce price wars resulted, along with a steady decrease in profits for all areas connected with the industry. In an attempt to reverse the trend of depressed market prices during the 1960s, the U.S. Department of Agricul­ture (USDA) recommended output levels for broiler pro­duction. But, according to John F. Yarbrough, publisher of the Southwestern Poultry Times, "the broiler industry does not pay very much attention to USDA's Broiler Marketing Guide. "5 In 1969, for example, growers apparently ignored the USDA guidelines: a 3-percent increase in production was recommended for the third quarter of the year, but the actual increase totaled almost 6 percent. For 19 70, the recommended quarterly figures were +5, +6, +7, and -10 percent; the figures actually recorded-+13.6, +12.8, +9.9, and +4.1 percent-ranged from 8.6 to 14 percent above the government's recommendations. 6 Further problems in recent years were caused by the "cheap" price image of chicken, an image created by everyday low pricing and specialty pricing. The use of broilers as price leaders failed to bring about increased per capita consumption, for status-conscious consumers pre­ferred to buy higher-priced red meat. Consumption of chicken in the United States remained almost static for many years. People who purchased broilers for fryers generally bought the same amount, with the same fre­quency, whether chicken was on sale or not. Ironically, the "cheapness" of chicken recently led, at long last, to an increase in per capita consumption, due to increased MAY 1973 107 Figure 3 FUNCTIONS OF A TYPICAL INTEGRATED BROILER FIRM Ready-to-Cook Broilers Hatching-Egg Farms: Contract Company SOURCE : Fred L. Faber and Ruth J. Irvin, "The Chicken Broiler Industry: Structure, Practicrs and CoSf1," U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 1971, p. 3. purchases by consumers who no longer can afford the luxury of red meat at today's prices. In the long run, however, it is likely that only changes in marketing philosophy and techniques can increase consumption rates on a continuing basis. The industry has changed dramatically from small flocks scattered over the state to concentrated clusters of produc­ tion, and gradual integration has resulted in vertical coordination, the linking together of successive stages of production and marketing through ownership or contract­ ing. A typical integrated firm owns a hatchery, a feed mill, and a processing plant, and depends almost entirely on co ntract production. Not all firms are fully integrated, but most combine two or more of these major functions. Horizontal integration is also on the increase: some firms own more than one processing plant, feed mill, or hatch­ery.? Fluctuations in the poultry industry should lessen in intensity as the trend toward centralization, consolidation, and integration becomes more firmly established. That trend seems irreversible, despite some resistance on the part of broiler growers, the least-integrated segment of the industry. Some contract growers, feeling that their ultimate survival is threatened, recently made attempts to band together, enter the market as a group, and organize a grower-oriented broiler business. Such measures come twenty years too late, however: long ago the growers relinquished what control they had and accepted whatever terms they could get, fearing reprisals from powerful integrators. It appears that only consolidation can save the ailing industry, can enable firms to improve marketing and distribution capabilities, broadening the market for poultry by moving into new geographic areas of distribution or into new types of markets, especially the huge prepared-foods and institutional markets. Consolidation does, however, have potentially disadvantageous aspects, for both con­sumers and growers. Since the integrator controls all the variables on which grower contracts are based, growers have no haq!aining base from which to obtain a fair share of the I OX profits. Further, the consumer may be at the mercy of a small number of operators with complete control of the industry at all levels of production. One factor favoring growth and return to stability and prosperity in the broiler industry is the fact that food production in many countries is not improving fast enough to keep pace with the rise in population, let alone improve the quality of substandard diets. Poultry, high in protein, can help to meet that shortage, along with fish and soybeans. Further, more chicken can be raised per square foot-and at lower cost-than other meats. Better times for the poultry industry may not be too far away. Secretary of Agriculture Earl L. Butz has urged that food prices be kept down by finding ways to decrease the costs of processing and distributing, not by continuing to cut away at the portion of the consumer's food dollar received by the farmer. The U.S. government is now selling grain from government-owned stocks, which will make more feed available for poultry and thus hold feed prices down. Millions of acres of land idled under federal crop-control programs are being brought back into produc­tion. In the long run, the relative cheapness of American grain for feed , in combination with the high quality of American poultry and the simplification of work by technology, should be significant pluses as U.S. farmers strive to find a solution to their problems by becoming more competitive in the international marketplace. COMMERCIAL BROILERS: PRODUCTION AND GROSS INCOME, TEXAS, 1967-1972 Price Average Price Gross Number per live weight Pounds per income produced head per broiler produced pound (thousand Year (thousands} (cents) (pounds} (thousands} (cents) dollars) 1967 161,434 45.2 3.4 548,876 13.3 73,001 1968 161,940 50.4 3.5 566,790 14.4 81,618 1969 170,574 54.2 3.5 597,009 15.5 92,536 1970 184,053 49.0 3.6 662,591 13.6 90,112 1971 171,732 50.8 3.6 618,235 14.1 87,171 1972 178,511 52.5 3.7 660,491 14.2 93,790 Source: Texas Poultry Statistics, Texas Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service, 1972. 1John C. White, Commissioner, Texas Department of Agriculture, speech, Southern Regional Marketing Service Workshop, Dallas, April 4, 1972. 2Mike Walton, Market News Service, Texas Department of Agriculture, interview, March 24, 1972. 3u.s. Department of Agriculture, Shipping Fresh Poultry, Washington, D.C., 1971. 4"What's Coming First? Higher Chicken 'n' Egg Prices or Bankruptcy," Wall Street Journal, November 11, 1971, p. 14. 5John F. Yarbrough, "Broilermen Don't Follow USDA Marketing Guide," Southwestern Poultry Times, May 27, 1972, p. 30. 6"Poultry is Big Business," San Antonio Express and Ne ws, p. 11 G, October 29, 1969. 7John C. White, Commissioner, Texas Department of Agriculture, .. cech, Southern Regional Marketing Service Workshop, Da1las April 4, 1972. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW TEXAS CONSTRUCTION TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Charles P. Zlatkovich Construction of transportation facilities, especially high­ways, is big business in Texas. During the years 1969-1972 the expenditure of the Texas Highway Department for construction averaged over $426 million per year. Compari­son with the estimated value of building authorized in Texas for the same four years shows that the dollar value of highway construction alone is equal to more than 15 percent of the dollar value of all building construction reported to the Bureau of Business Research. Highway construction is not included in the Bureau construction statistics, but it is nevertheless a significant portion of the overall Texas construction industry. Debate in Washington and elsewhere over the future of the highway program and especially of the Highway Trust Fund has been much in the news in recent months. Because of the amount of money involved and the importance of transportation to the state of Texas, examination of the outlook for highway and transportation facility construc­tion is appropriate. The current controversy centers around an Administra­tion-backed proposal that would allow use of a portion of the Highway Trust Fund for nonhighway purposes, particu­larly urban mass transit. The Highway Trust Fund was established in 19 56 to facilitate construction of the Interstate Highway System, now about 80 percent com­plete. Income for the fund is derived mainly from the four-cent-per-gallon federal tax on motor fuel and from various other highway-related taxes. The Administration proposal would allow states and local areas to use a portion of the fund for other purposes at their discretion. Backers of the proposal claim that too much emphasis has been placed on highway transportation and that states and local areas need greater flexibility to solve their transportation problems. Opponents of the plan point out that the fund, since it is financed wholly by highway users, should not be diverted to benefit nonhighway purposes and that consid­erable improvement of the existing highway system is needed as the Interstate project is brought to completion. At this writing, the controversy has not yet been resolved. During 1972 the U.S. Department of Transportation sent to Congress a major report on the present status and future alternatives of public investment in transportation programs. Examination of the report, which included input from all states and many urban areas, can provide an insight into the outlook for transportation facility construction in Texas, regardless of the outcome of the Highway Trust Fund controversy. Each state contributed to the report a statement of the total transportation needs of the state and its co1nponent local areas, and the probable course of action it would take under various federal funding alternatives. From the report it is possible to determine the range of possihk future expenditures for transportation facilities during the c·oming years. The total price tag for total lransportation "'needs" for the period 1970-1 990 came to over $6 70 billion nationwide and over $42 billion in Texas in terms of constant 1969 dollars, used throughout the report. Both totals are far in excess of the fiscal capability of the nation and the state. In this context, the "needs" may be viewed more as an upper limit of candidate transportation projects for funding. More significantly. each state was asked to indicate its probable course of action in transportation capital improve­ment programs under three federal funding alternatives. These were (I) continuation of current modal federal transportation funding programs (i.e., highways from the Highway Trust Fund, etc.), at one half the present level, with the present trend projected into the future, (2) continuation of the same modal programs at the current ESTIMATED VALUES OF BUILDING AUTHORIZED IN TFXAS* Percent change Jan-Mar 1973 Mar Jan-Mar Mar 1973 from 1973 1973 from Jan-Mar Classification (thousands of dollars) Feb I 973 1972 A ll permits 399,5 53 976,289 46 5 New construction 370,325 894,865 48 5 Residential (housekeeping) 177,384 486,770 23 3 One-family dwellings 108,561 290,283 14 5 Multiple-family dwellings 68,823 196,487 40 16 Nonresidential buildings 192,941 408,095 81 9 Hotels, motels, and tourist courts 17,172 28,224 100 29 Amusement buildings 3,032 8,875 6 16 Churches 3,086 10,425 -5 23 Industrial buildings 14,625 34,024 34 52 Garages (commercial and private) 501 4,318 -3 -80 Service stations 1,686 3,478 134 -7 Hospitals and institutions 40,870 63,957 181 329 Office-bank buildings 39,202 83,795 66 -26 Works and utilities 8,554 13,828 159 -6 Educational buildings 20,539 37 ,473 219 -24 Stores and mercantile buildings 37' 139 101 ,772 43 17 Other buildings and structures 6,535 17,926 13 93 Additions, alterations, and repairs 29,228 81,424 24 -1 SMSA vs. non-SMSA Total SMSAt 365,456 896,308 45 5 Central cities 281 ,483 672,922 61 14 Outside central cities 83,973 223,386 .8 -15 Total non-SMSA 34,097 79,981 53 3 10,000 to 50,000 population 18,353 46,781 21 Less than 10,000 population 15,744 33,200 120 7 • Only building for which permits were issued within the incorporated area of a city is included. Federal contracts and t public housing are not included. As defined in 1970 Census. Source: Bureau of Business Research in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. MAY 1973 109 PROJECTED TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDING IN TEXAS (Millions of 1969 dollars) 1974-1978 1974-1990 alternatives alternatives Major program Low High Flexible Low High Flexible Highways 2,489.6 3,402.7 3,402.7 11,678.8 17,063.4 17,063.4 Urban highway-related facilities 693.5 721.2 721.5 2,453.9 2,481.6 2,481.6 Urban public transportation 176.2 352.5 352.5 630.5 1,261.1 1,261.1 Airports 471.5 515.2 515.2 1,496.6 1,642.4 1,642.4 Other intercity transportation 128.2 128.2 128.2 315.1 315.1 315.1 Total 3,959.0 5,119.8 5,119.8 16,574.9 22,763.6 22,763.6 Source: 1972 National Transportation Report, U.S. Department of Transportation. level, with the recent trend projected into the future, and (3) the current amount of federal transportation funding made available to all modes of transportation at state and local option at the current level, with the recent trend projected into the future. These may be summarized as the "low-funding alternative," the "high-funding alternative," and the "flexible-funding alternative," respectively. The Texas plans under the high-funding and flexible-funding alternatives are virtually identical, that is, no significant shift in transportation funding in Texas is anticipated, whether modal federal funding programs such as the Highway Trust Fund are continued or not. The projected Texas transportation funding plans are summarized in an accompanying table. The projected capital improvement funding of transpor­tation projects in Texas averages out to a low of $792 MARCH BUILDING STATISTICS IN REVIEW Following a rather lackluster showing in February, the Bureau of Business Research index of total construction authorized in Texas made substantial gains in March, reaching an all-time high of 232.0. The strong March showing represented a gain of 50 percent over February and 20 percent over March 1972. The estimated value of construction authorized in the first quarter of 1973 reached $976 million. Houston leads the state's twenty-five SMSA's with $252 million, followed by Dallas with $184 million, Fort Worth with $80 million, Austin with $67 million, and San Antonio with $64 million. These five leading SMSA's account for nearly two thirds of all construct ion in Texas during the first quarter. Two SMSA's, Abilene and Waco, have more than doubled last year's construction total for the same period. Nineteen of the twenty-five SMSA's have posted increases over 19 72 levels, while six are trailing the prior year's figures. million per year from 1974 through 1978 and a high of $ l ,024 million per year for the same period. For the longer period 1974-1990, average annual funding ranges between $975 million and $1,339 million, all in constant 1969 dollars. Highways take the largest amount of funding, accounting for about 63 percent of the projected low estimate and about 66 percent of the projected high estimate for the 1974-1978 period. Average annual highway capital improvement funding works out to $498 million for the low estimate and $681 million for the high estimate during the 1974-1978 period. The estimates may be compared to the $662 million average annual total expenditure of the Texas Highway Department for 1969-1972. Of this total expenditure, an average of about $491 million, or 74 percent, went for capital improvements (construction and right-of-way), with $426 million, or 64 percent of the total department expenditure and 87 percent of the capital improvement total, going for actual construction. Assuming that a highway percentage allocation to construction of 87 percent of total capital improvements can be maintained in the future, average annual expendi­tures for highway construction could be expected to range from $433 million under the low alternative to $592 million under the high-and flexible-funding alternatives for 1974-1978 (stated in 1969 dollars). For the longer period 1974-1990 the figure would range from $598 million to $873 million. The annual averages are slightly misleading in that the actual figures would probably increase over time, but they do provide an indication of things to come. If the same ratio of actual construction expenditures to overall capital improvement expenditures could be main­tained in the other transportation programs, total public expenditure for construction of transportation facilities in Texas could be expected to total between $3.4 billion and $4.5 billion for the 1974-1978 period and between $14.4 billion and $19 .8 billion for 1974-1990, all stated in terms of 1969 dollars. Even under the low-funding alternative, transportation facility construction in Texas will be a big business in the years to come. Texas farm production of meat animals in 1972-5.3 billion pounds-was 9 percent over the 1971 level. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Statistical data compiled by Mildred Anderson, statistical associate, technician. Business conditions are reported in the following tables first by metropolitan areas, second by counties and cities. Standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA's) are defined by county lines and include the counties listed. All SMSA's are designated as such by the U.S. Bureau of the Census except one, the Longview­Marshall area, which is now a significant metropolitan node. Population figures represent the 19 70 Census counts except where otherwise noted. The population estimates not taken from the Census are generally based on utility connections and are subject to substantial error. Building-permit values are collected from municipalities by the Bureau of Business Research in cooperation with the Bureau of the Constance Coo/edge , statistical assistant, and Kay Davis, statistical Census. They represent only building intentions within city limits, since construction permits are not issued except by incorporated cities in Texas. The building data also exclude federal contracts and public works projects, such as highways, waterways, and reservoirs. The bank debit statistics for SMSA's and most central metropolitan cities are collected by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Most other bank debits figures shown are collected from cooperating banks by the Bureau of Business Research. Employment estimates are compiled by the Texas Employment Co mmission in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Footnote symbols are explained on pages 112 and 120. INDICATORS OF LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS FOR STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS Percent change Percent change from from Mar Feb Mar Mar Feb Mar Reported area and indicator 1973 1973 1972 Reported area and indicator 1973 1973 1972 ABILENE SMSA CORPUS CHRISTI SMSA Jones and Taylor Counties; population 113,959 Nueces and San Patricio Counties; population 284,832 Urban building permits 3,796,674 369 27 Urban building permits (dollars) 6,012,846 -11 -SS Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 260,S 19 7 19 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 64S,433 -4 s Nonfarm employment 40,200 1 1 Nonfarm employment 101,000 ** •• Manufacturing employment S,82S 1 8 Manufacturing employment 11,090 ** s Unemployed (percent) 2.3 8 -28 Unemployed (percent) 3.S -3 -30 AMARILLO SMSA DALLAS SMSA Potter and Randall Counties; population 144,396 Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Kaufman, and Urban building permits (dollars) 3,849,017 S3 29 Rockwall Counties; population 1,555,950 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 786,l S2 11 37 Urban building permits (dollars) 69,14S,7 SO 48 11 Non farm employment S9,700 1 -1 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 14,131,112 2 lS Manufacturing employment 8,240 2 1 Nonfarm employment 773,SOO •• s Unemployed (percent) 2.S -14 -42 Manufacturing employment 160,3SO •• 6 Unemployed (percent) 2.0 11 -23 AUSTIN SMSA Travis County; population 295,516 FORT WORTH SMSA Urban building permits (dollars) 34,S9S,670 101 42 Johnson and Tarrant Counties; population 762,086 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 1,110,977 1 12 Urban building permits (dollars) 30,820,SS2 4 48 Nonfarm employment 1S6,800 1 6 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 2,76 S,491 s 16 Manufacturing employment 13,460 1 s Nonfarm employment 30S,100 1 2 Unemployed (percent) 2.0 •• s Manufacturing employment 73,300 •• 2 Unemployed (percent) 3.3 •• -23 BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR-ORANGE SMSA Jefferson and Orange Counties; population 315,943 SOUTHWEST METROPLEX: DALLAS/FORT WORTH Urban building permits (dollars) 3,9S0,66 I s 1 Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 6S2,S02 2 IS Rockwall, and Tarrant Counties; population 2,318,036 Nonfarm employment 124,700 2 2 Urban building permits (dollars) 99,966,302 31 20 Manufacturing employment 38,400 2 3 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 16,896,603 3 IS Unemployed (percent) 4.3 9 -19 Nonfarm employment 1,078,600 • • 4 Manufacturing employment 233,650 ** s BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN-SAN BENITO SMSA Unemployed (percent) 2.3 • • -26 Cameron County; population 140,368 Urban building permits (dollars) 3,222,390 -49 •• EL PASO SMSA Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 247,770 12 20 El Paso County; population 359,291 Non farm employment 4S,000 •• 6 Urban building permits (dollars) 12,902,321 8 71 Manufacturing employment 7,960 1 11 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 901,364 16 Unemployed (percent) 6.4 -16 -16 Nonfarm employment 132,400 4 Manufacturing employment 27,450 4 BRYAN-COLLEGE STATION SMSA Unemployed (percent) 4.6 12 Brazos County; population 57,978 Urban building permits (dollars) 2,223,603 166 131 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 111,449 •• s (Monthly employment reports are not available for the Bryan-College Station SMSA). MAY 1973 111 Percent change Percent change from from Mar Feb Mar Mar Feb Mar Reported area and indicator 1973 1973 1972 Reported area and indicator 1973 1973 1972 GALVESTON-TEXAS CITY SMSA ODESSA SMSA Galveston County; population 169,812 Ector County; population 91,805 Urban building permits (dollars) 3,577,610 140 138 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,387,908 4 116 Bank debits, seas, adj. ($1,000) 300,154 2 26 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 171,470 4 7 Nonfarm employment 62,000 I I Nonfarm employment 60,100 •• -3 Manufacturing employment 11,050 2 -2 Manufacturing employment 5,61 5 2 6 Unemployed (percent) 4.4 •• -33 Unemployed (percent) 2.6 -4 -26 (Employment data are reported for the combined Midland and HOUSTON SMSA Odessa SMSA's since employment figures for Midland and Ector Brazoria, Fort Bend, Harris, Liberty, and Counties, composing one labor-market area, are recorded in com­ Montgomery Counties; population 1,985,031 bined form by the Texas Employment Commission.) Urban building permits (dollars) 105,263,499 58 4 SAN ANGELO SMSA Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 13,585,791 7 20 Nonfarm employment 920,300 2 I Tom Green County; population 71,047 Manufacturing employment 154,600 I 3 Urban building permits (dollars) 624,170 -44 -39 Unemployed (percent) 2.6 8 -13 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 155,764 -9 13 Nonfarm employment 24,850 •• 4 KILLEEN-TEMPLE SMSA Manufacturing employment 4,285 4 2 Bell and Coryell Counties; population 159,794 Unemployed (percent) 3.1 -9 -9 Urban building permits (dollars) 4,770,896 64 81 SAN ANTONIO SMSA Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 186,218 -2 18 (Monthly employment reports are not available for the Killeen-Bexar and Guadalupe Counties; population 864,014 Temple SMSA.) Urban building permits (dollars) 25,849,974 56 so Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 2,130,314 I 16 LAREDO SMSA Nonfarm employment 316,100 •• 8 Webb County; population 72,859 Manufacturing employment 34,950 2 -I Urban building permits (dollars) 6,711,426 1,884 1,172 Unemployed (percent) 2.9 -3 -22 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 115,227 9 24 Nonfarm employment 24,900 •• 1 SHERMAN-DENISON SMSA Manufacturing employment 1,625 I 6 Grayson County; population 83,225 Unemployed (percent) 11.2 -3 9 Urban building permits (dollars) 887,239 25 37 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 131,422 6 7 LONGVIEW-MARSHALL METROPOLITAN AREA Nonfarm employment 32,900 I 3 (formerly Longview-Kilgore-Gladewater Metropolitan Area) Manufacturing employment 10,680 •• 3 Gregg and Harrison Counties; population 120,770 Unemployed (percent) 3.2 -6 14 -(formerly only Gregg County; population 75,929) TEXARKANA SMSA Urban building permits (dollars) 3,903,435 27 57 Bank debits ($1,000) 197,092 11 7 Bowie County, Texas, and Miller County, Arkansas; Non farm employment 51,000 • • 2 population 101,198 Manufacturing employment 15,440 ** 8 Urban building permits (dollars) 610,757 106 27 Unemployed (percent) 3.3 -6 -28 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 163,871 I 10 (Building permits and bank debits are included for those portions of Nonfarm employment 40,500 -2 2 Kilgore and Gladewater in Rusk County and Upshur County.) Manufacturing employment 8,940 -7 Unemployed (percent) 5.9 34 4 LUBBOCK SMSA (Since the Texarkana SMSA includes Bowie County in Texas and Lubbock County; population 179,295 Miller County in Arkansas, all data, including population, refer to Urban building permits (dollars) 11,537,018 133 132 the two-county region.) Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 680,273 17 44 Nonfarm employment 75,500 •• 8 TYLER SMSA Manufacturing employment 8,360 •• 6 Smith County; population 97,096 Unemployed (percent) 1.9 •• -24 Urban building permits (dollars) 3,972,407 89 169 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 246,714 2 II McALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG SMSA Nonfarm employment 41,800 I 4 Hidalgo County; population 181,535 Manufacturing employment 13,600 I 8 Urban building permits (dollars) 7,114,355 110 98 Unemployed (percent) 3.5 5 3 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 262,520 7 27 Nonfarm employment 47,200 I 6 WACO SMSA Manufacturing employment 5,130 5 21 McLennan County; population 147,553 Unemployed (percent) 8.1 4 -10 Urban building permits (dollars) 7,339,201 216 133 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 366,980 -4 IS MIDLAND SMSA 4 Midland County; population 65,433 Nonfarm employment 62,900 •• Manufacturing employment 13,880 -2 10 Unemployed (percent) 2.4 Urban building permits (dollars) 647,889 -78 -89 -17 -2S Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 211,288 •• 14 Nonfarm employment 60,100 •• -3 WICHITA FALLS SMSA Manufacturing employment 5,615 2 6 Archer and Wichita Counties; population 127,621 Unemployed (percent) 2.6 -4 -26 Urban building permits (dollars) 2,470,732 19 S9 (Employment data are reported for the combined Midland and 14 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 279,975 6 Odessa SMSA's since employment figures for Midland and Ector 3 Nonfarm employment 45,400 •• Counties, composing one labor-market area, are recorded in com­ Manufacturing employment S,870 3 IS bined form by the Texas Employment Commission.) Unemployed (percent) 2.5 -7 -17 • • Absolute change is less than one half of I percent. Urban building-permit data are preliminary and subject to revision. 11 2 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW INDICATORS OF LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL MUNICIPALITIES Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population Mar 1973 (dollars) Percent change from Feb Mar 1973 1972 Mar 1973 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Feb Mar 1973 1972 ANDERSON Palestine 2'.7,789 14,525 85,350 -40 -35 26,075 7 6 ANDREWS Andrews 10,372 8,625 14,250 203 - 64 10,105 4 12 ANGELINA Lufkin 49,349 23,049 414,190 -75 -72 ARANSAS Aransas Pass (see San Patricio) 8,902 ATASCOSA Pleasanton 18,696 5,407 7,316 24 •• AUSTIN Bellville 13,831 2,371 677,000 396 9,403 20 10 BAILEY Muleshoe 8,487 4,525 21,514 26 31 BASTROP Smithville 17,297 2,959 26,000 5 -50 3,929 21 26 BEE Beeville 22,737 13,506 700,025 330 756 26,766 7 14 BELL (In Killeen-Temple SMSA) Bartlett (See Williamson) Belton Killeen Temple 124,483 8,696 35,507 33,431 259,250 2,759,328 1,302,915 60 151 24 50 241 23 43,986 95,166 - 1 22 12 20 BEXAR (In San Antonio SMSA) San Antonio 830,460 654,153 25,175,604 57 56 2,097,422 12 13 BOWIE (In Texarkana SMSA) Texarkana 67,813 52,179 547,307 122 14 139,102 5 9 BRAZORIA (In Houston SMSA) Angleton Clute Freeport Pearland 108,312 9,770 6,023 11,997 6,444 207,450 600 72,450 748,900 148 414 55 --- 58 98 74 6 23,486 6,934 42,571 9,826 - 1 26 19 6 - 20•• 23 10 BRAZOS (Constitutes Bryan-College Station SMSA) Bryan College Station 57,978 33,719 17,676 807,641 1,415,962 105 221 10 522 95,373 15,293 6 6 4 6 BREWSTER Alpine 7,780 5,971 3,500 -92 -99 6,536 6 8 BROWN Brownwood 25,877 17,368 193,307 -89 -33 BURLESON Caldwell 9,999 2,308 5,176 8 13 BURNET Marble Falls 11,420 2,209 8,962 17 21 CALDWELL Lockhart 21, I 78 6,489 614,163 494 11,720 6 18 MAY 1973 113 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population Mar 1973 (dollars) Percent change from Feb Mar 1973 1972 Mar 1973 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Feb Mar 1973 1972 CALHOUN Point Comfort Port Lavaca Seadrift 17,831 1,446 10,491 1,092 7,800 150,030 0 -17 449 2,438 24,611 504 - 50 14 6 -7 -56 CAMERON (Constitutes Brownsville­Harlingen-San Benito SMSA) Brownsville Harlingen La Feria Los Fresnos Port Isabel San Benito 140,368 52,522 33,503 2,642 1,297 3,067 15,176 982,053 2,007,273 22,600 131,340 66,074 -81 431 12 685 -89 -40 47 -88 26 100,800 98,253 3,495 2,261 7,915 11,229 29 14 -8 6 58 20 30 6 II 8 73 14 CASTRO Dimmitt 10,394 4,327 34,321 30 24 CHEROKEE Jacksonville 32,008 9,734 306,850 - 6 237 33,224 4 33 COLEMAN Coleman 10,288 5,608 91,800 25,783 38 26 COLLIN (In Dallas SMSA) McKinney Plano 66,920 15,193 17,872 991,445 3,944,000 38 306 69 18,725 30,979 23 1 30 22 COLORADO Eagle Lake 17,638 3,587 5,840 -3 -2 COMAL New Braunfels 24,165 17,859 550,900 17 -72 31,863 13 16 COOKE Gainesville Muenster 25,471 13,830 1,411 561,230 0 105 660 27,953 4,700 12 7 19 18 CORYELL (In Killeen-Temple SMSA) Copperas Cove Gatesville 35,311 10,818 4,683 448,553 -24 7 8,292 14,508 22 27 SS 37 CRANE Crane 4,172 3,427 800 - 87 3,224 11 17 DALLAS (In Dallas SMSA) Carrollton Dallas Farmers Branch Garland Grand Prairie Irving Lancaster Mesquite Richardson Seagoville 1,327,321 13,855 844,401 27,492 81,437 50,904 97,260 10,522 55,131 48,582 4 ,390 2,946,850 32,630,828 804,190 3,982,970 2,981,072 6,015,378 612,760 2,423,158 3,402,536 130,264 -8 52 -77 -20 -39 168 -30 -35 49 228 -38 57 -49 -42 -72 327 56 451 -68 24,916 13,288,154 24,957 86,541 44,881 119,761 12,929 34,994 90,252 10,840 -1 13 4 -lS 19 16 2 5 6 23 22 II -6 16 14 17 28•• -8 36 DAWSON Lamesa 16,604 11,5 59 24,700 -63 106 34,116 11 22 DEAF SMITH Hereford 18,999 13,414 321 ,900 212 35 DENTON (In Dallas SMSA) Denton Justin Lewisville Pilot Point 75,633 39,874 741 9,264 1,663 1,377,291 20,000 91 ,000 52 -29 -35 88,657 1,900 33,995 2,975 14 16 15 -1 22 2S 32 -10 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population Mar 1973 (dollars) Percent change from Feb Mar 1973 1972 Mar 1973 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Feb Mar 1973 1972 DEWITT Yoakum (See Lavaca) 18,660 EASTLAND Cisco 18,092 4,160 7,S93 10 41 ECTOR (Constitutes Odessa SMSA) Odessa 91,80S 78,380 1,387,908 4 116 169,831 11 14 ELLIS (In Dallas SMSA) Midlothian Waxahachie 46,638 2,322 13,4S2 439,7SO 10S,9SO 490 -33 864 24 4,692 30,284 3S 21 SS 19 EL PASO (Constitutes El Paso SMSA) El Paso 3S9,291 322,261 12,902,321 8 71 961,S3S 21 10 ERATH Stephenville 18,191 9,277 128,300 -44 4 20,173 9 24 FANNIN Bonham 22,70S 7,698 191 ,200 68 39 20,088 32 20 FAYETTE Schulenburg 17,6SO 2,294 8,500 -69 -80 FORT BEND (In Houston SMSA) Richmond Rosenberg S2,314 S,777 12,098 346,900 333,396 113 133 13 87 14,S69 13,717 - 16 16 21 44 GAINES Seagraves Seminole ll,S93 2,440 S,007 26,000 33,7SO -10 -1 812 4,333 16,794 s 6 2S S4 GALVESTON (Constitutes Galveston-Texas City SMSA) Dickinson Galveston La Marque Texas City 169,812 10,776 61,809 16,131 38,908 2,324,026 1,329,660 120 207 3S7 63 19,352 18S,740 20,302 38,8SS 20 9 9 8 - 1 32 s ** GILLESPIE Fredericksburg 10,SS3 S,326 109,400 -21 30 23,45S 17 18 GONZALES Nixon 16,37S 1,92S 24,700 -39 GRAY Pampa 26,949 21,726 84,000 -28 76 S0,664 16 19 GRAYSON (Constitutes Sherman-Denison SMSA) Denison Sherman 83,22S 24,923 29,061 310,280 49S,9S9 93 -4 133 -3 36,127 77,S49 16 12 6 28 GREGG (In Longview-Marshall Metropolitan Area) Gladewater Kilgore Longview 75,929 S,S74 9,49S 4S,S47 136,210 296,600 2,2SO,OOO 17S 189 s - 33 38 19 7,346 26,8S9 123,21S 24 17 9 4 17 4 GUADALUPE (In San Antonio SMSA) Schertz Seguin 33,S54 4,061 1 S,934 S7 ,00J 44,200 -74 -81 -95 -63 2 ,908 32 ,S34 57 9 33 13 HALE Plainview 34,137 19,096 108,100 -lS -86 87 ,682 JS 24 MAY 1973 1 I 5 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population Mar 1973 (dollars) Percent change from Feb Mar 1973 1972 Mar 1973 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Feb Mar 1973 1972 HARDEMAN Quanah 6,795 3,948 182,500 -40 8,281 10 23 HARDIN Silsbee 29,996 7,271 17,364 26 12 HARRIS (In Houston SMSA) Baytown Bellaire Deer Park Houston Humble La Porte Pasadena South Houston Tomball 1,741,912 43,980 19,009 12,773 1,232,802 3,278 7,149 89,277 11,527 2,734 317,243 1,617,770 3,290,886 89,709,735 215,300 303,700 2,664,953 414,541 -23 977 819 67 -59 88 -64 904 -67 134 58 -30 253 -63 58 85,379 78,981 19,682 12,842,852 15,137 5,571 142,974 26,171 15 5 -5 20 8 39 -3 -8 s -3 9 17 4 11 -8 23 HARRISON (In Longview-Marshall Metropolitan Area) Hallsville Marshall 44,841 1,038 22,937 l,220,62S 56 602 1,899 37,773 10 13 •• 13 HASKELL Haskell 8,512 3,655 12,000 167 -60 6,993 14 HAYS San Marcos 27,642 18,860 1,165,300 18,509 5 IS HENDERSON Athens 26,466 9,582 419,000 110 10 23,824 19 24 HIDALGO (Constitutes McAllen-Pharr-Edinburg SMSA) Alamo Donna Edinburg Elsa McAllen Mercedes Mission Pharr San Juan Weslaco 181,535 4,291 7,365 17,163 4,400 37,636 9,355 13,043 15,829 5,070 15,313 13,625 433,611 1,983,683 21,050 3,243,266 35,900 345,900 1.56,945 880,37S -38 617 561 204 -35 47 -90 -56 181 147 -45 42 24 223 33 623 3,982 S,697 35,300 10,296 106,447 11,796 36,572 9,904 6,859 22,671 9 4 5 7 17 12 42 16 17 3 -27 -17 -16 S7 33 11 38 19 SS -13 HOCKLEY Levelland 20,396 11,445 130,690 760 - 68 35,654 - 3 17 HOOD Granbury 6,368 2,473 4,769 19 28 HOPKINS Sulphur Springs 20,710 10,642 183,700 26 -38 40,094 16 13 HOWARD Big Spring 37,796 28,735 309,435 216 335 67,970 - 4 •• HUNT Greenville 47,948 22,043 117,400 -33 -71 38,086 15 7 HUTCHINSON Borger 24,443 14,195 11,675 -86 -99 JACKSON Edna 12,975 5,332 186,950 360 609 10,008 4 10 JASPER Jasper Kirbyville 24,692 6,251 1,869 1,200 -98 -95 22,735 4,297 9 19 19 2S 11 6 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population Mar 1973 (dollars) Percent change from Feb Mar 1973 1972 Mar 1973 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Feb Mar 1973 1972 JEFFERSON (In Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange SMSA) Beaumont Groves Nederland Port Arthur Port Neches 244,773 115,919 18,067 16,810 57,371 10,894 2,197,812 180,237 168,969 792,581 312,924 -25 20 -5 107 -14 -11 83 -22 430,554 22,592 16,728 99,785 21,144 11 12 3 10 6 16•• 31 4 3 JIM WELLS Alice 33,032 20,121 457,437 76 -22 57,103 12 5 JOHNSON (In Fort Worth SMSA) Burleson Cleburne 45,769 7,713 16,015 272,916 580,750 577 399 - 5 32 11,543 29,435 10 13 30 39 KARNES Karnes City 13,462 2,926 600 6,441 13 30 KAUFMAN (In Dallas SMSA) Terrell 32,392 14,182 264,632 -14 - 1 KIMBLE Junction 3,904 2,654 4,029 - 16 34 KLEBERG Kingsville 33,166 28,711 294,007 -34 -62 27,185 •• - 13 LAMAR Paris 36,062 23,441 219,352 31 - 5 LAMB Littlefield 17,770 6,738 13,218 5 - 3 LAMPASAS Lampasas 9,323 5,922 52,150 -62 -61 15,2 36 14 21 LAVACA Hallettsville Yoakum 17,903 2,712 5,755 48,875 9,900 59 -81 118 -89 6,523 15,116 6 4 20 8 LEE Giddings 8,048 2,783 260,923 10,764 16 43 LIBERTY (In Houston SMSA) Dayton Liberty 33,014 3,804 5,591 97,300 94,400 678 97 39 82 I 0,941 19,731 33 11 14 9 LIMESTONE Mexia 18,100 5,943 35,475 -14 24 12,473 15 15 LLANO Kingsland Llano 6,979 1,262 2,608 24,500 -36 10,343 11,191 67 14 - IO 87 LUBBOCK (Constitutes Lubbock SMSA) Lubbock Slaton 179,295 149,101 6,583 11,482,018 55,000 136 81 134 118 619,871 9,409 18 18 38 14 LYNN Tahoka 9,107 2,956 59,260 137 9,812 4 43 McCULWCH Brady 8,571 5,557 87,100 115 28 13,481 12 28 McLENNAN (Constitutes Waco SMSA) McGregor Waco 147,5 53 4,365 95,326 23,000 6,644,951 -44 248 -9 123 8,092 341,498 11 3 18 15 MAY 1973 11 7 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population Mar 1973 (dollars) Percent change from Feb Mar 1973 1972 Mar 1973 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Feb Mar 1973 1972 MATAGORDA Bay City 27,913 11,733 79,77S -S2 46 28,623 2 12 MAVERICK Eagle Pass 18,093 IS,364 204,370 312 27S 17,929 8 •• MEDINA Castroville Hondo 20,249 1,893 S,487 60,94S 34 -S6 1,923 7,0SO - 27 24 11 29 MIDLAND (Constitutes Midland SMSA) Midland 6S,433 S9,463 647,889 -78 -89 207,488 10 10 MILAM Cameron Rockdale 20,028 S,S46 4,6SS 18,982 -60 393 10,07S 9,634 13 s 9 2 MILLS GoldthwaHe 4,212 1,693 9,329 29 44 MITCHELL Colorado City 9,073 S,227 8,704 16 10 MONTGOMERY (In Houston SMSA) Conroe 49,479 11,969 l,332,37S 117 43 70,S67 20 - 12 MOORE Dumas 14,060 9,771 3S3,700 39 80 NACOGDOCHES Nacogdoches 36,362 22,S44 2,307,2S7 108 - Sl NAVARRO Corsicana 31,l so 19,972 217,S49 -36 -26 43,981 6 20 NOLAN Sweetwater 16,220 12,020 121,027 -68 23S 30,138 19 9 NUECES (In Corpus Christi SMSA) Bishop Corpus Christi Port Aransas Robstown 237,S44 3,466 204,S2S 1,218 11,217 4,289,0SS S8,407 -31 -48 -67 -62 3,468 S60,028 1,014 19,864 9 3 3 10 -- 37 6 11 3 ORANGE (In Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange SMSA) Orange 71,170 24,4S7 23S,S38 173 so 64,364 PALO PINTO Mineral Wells 28,962 18,411 74,931 -44 S7 3S,727 2S 19 PANOLA Carthage lS,894 S,392 338,800 346 7,S32 2 IS PARKER Weatherford 33,888 ll,7SO 10S,4SO 33 -21 33,061 12 PARMER Friona 10,S09 3,111 48,SOO -S4 23 46,061 41 49 PECOS Fort Stockton 13,748 8,283 SS,4SO S3 -S2 21,076 12 73 POTTER (In Amarillo SMSA) Amarillo 90,S 11 127,010 3,612,S67 4S 22 767,648 18 33 11 8 TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population Mar 1973 (dollars) Percent change from Feb Mar 1973 1972 Mar 1973 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Feb Mar 1973 1972 RANDALL (In Amarillo SMSA) Amarillo (See Potter) Canyon REEVES Pecos REFUGIO Refugio RUSK Henderson Kilgore (See Gregg) SAN PATRICIO (In Corpus Christi SMSA) Aransas Pass Sinton SAN SABA San Saba SCURRY Snyder SHACKELFORD Albany SHERMAN Stratford SMITH (Constitutes Tyler SMSA) Tyler STEPHENS Breckenridge SUTTON Sonora TARRANT (In Fort Worth SMSA) Arlington Bedford Burleson (See Johnson) Euless Fort Worth Grapevine North Richland Hills White Settlement TAYLOR (In Abilene SMSA) Abilene TERRY Brownfield TITUS Mount Pleasant TOM GREEN (Constitutes San Angelo SMSA) San Angelo TRAVIS (Constitutes Austin SMSA) Austin UPSHUR Gladewater (See Gregg) S3,88S 8,333 16,S26 12,682 9,494 4,340 34,102 10,187 47,288 S,813 S,S63 S,S40 2,SSS 1S,760 11,171 3,323 1,978 3,6S7 2,139 97,096 S7,770 8,414 S,944 3,l 7S 2,149 716,317 90,643 10,049 19,316 393,476 7,023 16,Sl4 13,449 97,8S3 89,6S3 14,118 9,647 16,702 8,877 71,047 63,884 29S,516 251,808 20,976 236,4SO 412,S4S 22,000 141,433 1,348,300 64,349 7SO 9S,4SO 0 41,700 3,866,407 43,800 92,100 6,3Sl,974 S47,430 108,680 18,497,500 860,109 7SS,370 4S,264 3,7S4,l 74 8S,OOO 168,700 624,170 34,510,670 809 113 S9 -9S 22 61 90 S6 737 -43 -36 -81 S8 383 27 344 368 114 2 -44 103 844 -72 -13 16 -77 -S6 -73 163 59 360 -25 -57 -S6 179 323 119 -69 37 -16 -s -39 42 20,196 31,633 S,6S9 28,929 12,466 10,236 12,160 24,307 3,342 34,804 222,114 4,292 136,082 13,IOS 2,375,991 11 ,724 25,206 8,632 224,390 36,184 152,973 1,120,9SI -- 26 14 7 12 18 IS 18 2 60 7 7 10 4 IS 3 10 ** 14 7 2 2 60 12 13 19 4 9 46 18 -8 13S 6 13 4 12 88 IS 13 18 14 9 12 MAY 1973 11 9 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population Mar 1973 (dollars) Percent change from Feb Mar 1973 1972 Mar 1973 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Feb Mar 1973 1972 UPTON McCamey 4,697 2,647 2,139 -13 -7 UVALDE Uvalde 17,348 10,764 556,985 37 122 36,336 15 38 VAL VERDE Del Rio 27,471 21,330 450,424 -39 13 32,516 14 28 VICTORIA Victoria 53,766 41,349 2,758,647 481 219 142,261 19 20 WALKER Huntsville 27,680 17,610 632,900 -39 92 32,l so -3 -s WARD Monahans 13,019 8,333 144,872 195 927 13,586 7 -s WASHINGTON Brenham 18,842 8,922 484,463 215 292 33,713 13 22 WEBB (Constitutes Laredo SMSA) Laredo 72,859 69,024 6,711,426 122,552 26 24 WHARTON El Campo 36,729 8,563 128,817 -20 18 26,373 17 IS WICHITA (In Wichita Falls SMSA) Burkburnett Iowa Park Wichita falls 121,862 9,230 5,796 97,564 312,339 4,700 2,153,693 4 295 -94 54 11,690 4,576 247,647 24 -s 10 6 -12 12 WILBARGER Vernon l 5,35 s 11,454 329,100 666 31 44,451 17 37 WILLACY Raymondville l 5,570 7,987 104,500 47 -57 14,407 18 6 WILLIAMSON Bartlett Georgetown Taylor 37,305 1,622 6,395 9,616 110,025 l 52,240 -63 359 -72 -56 1,843 14,712 18,857 30 17 14 JO 17 23 WINKLER Kermit 9,640 7,884 5,300 -82 657 WISE Decatur 19,687 3,240 1,624,500 9,080 18 37 YOUNG Graham Olney 15,400 7,477 3,624 66,005 l 53,952 -88 -76 -61 378 23,066 9,783 20 29 43 29 ZAVALA Crystal City 11,370 8,104 21,800 990 - 58 9,406 10 28 •• Absolute change is less than one half of l percent. ... No data, or inadequate basis for reporting. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS (All figures are for Texas unless otherwise indicated.) All indexes are based on the average months for 1967=100 except where other specification is made; all except annual indexes are adjusted for seasonal variation unless otherwise noted. Employment estimates are compiled by the Texas Employment Commission in cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. The symbols used below impose qualifications as indicated here: p-preliminary data subject to revision; r-revised da ta; *-dollar totals for the fiscal year to date; t-employment data for wage and salary workers only. Year-to-date averageMar Feb Mar 1973 1973 1972 1973 GENERAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY Texas business activity (index) ................................ I 71.1 167.6 165.5 171.3 160.5 Estimates of personal income (millions of dollars, seasonally adjusted) ....................... $ 4, 113p $ 4,039 $ 3,888 $ 4,072 $ 3,836 Income payments to individuals in U.S. (billions, at seasonally adjusted annual rate) ............................. $ 1,00l.2p $ 994.5p $ 913.6r $ 993.9 $ 907.0 Wholesale prices in U.S. (unadjusted index) ...................... 129.7 126.9 117.4 127.0 117.0 Consumer prices in Dallas (unadjusted index) .................. 127.7 Consumer prices in U.S. (unadjusted index) ...................... 129.8 128.6 124.0 128.7 123.7 Business failures (number) ................................... 57 73 74 Business failures (liabilities, thousands) ......................... $ $ 3,290 $ 28,138 $ $ 18,625 Sales of ordinary life insurance (index) ......................... 184.2 179.3 168.3 183.7 161.3 PRODUCTION Total electric-power use (index) ............................... 159.9p 165.7p 149.3r 161.8 148.8 Industrial electric-power use (index) ........................... !42.5p 145.8p 135.5r 142.9 137.1 Crude-oil production (index) ................................. 112.6p 112.6p 113.8r 113.8 109.5 Average daily production per oil well (bbl.) ...................... 19.1 19.1 18.6 19.1 18.0 Crude-oil runs to stills (index) ................................ 123.9 117.8 117.7 120.8 115.0 Industrial production in U.S. (index) ........................... 121.7P 120.9p 111.2r 120.8 110.0 Texas industrial production-total (index) ....................... 136.3p 136.9p 129.9r 135.4 126.4 Texas industrial production-total manufactures (index) ............ 139.8p 140.9p 132.0r 138.8 128.6 Texas industrial production-durable manufactures (index) .......... 154. 5P 154.1 p 138.7r 152.5 137.1 Texas industrial production-nondurable manufactures (index) ....... 129,3P 131.3P 127.2r 129.0 122.4 Texas industrial production-mining (index) •..........•......... 117.4p 117.7p 116.5r 117.0 1'14.2 Texas industrial production-utilities (index) ..............•...... 175.1 p 173.1 p 161.9r 173.9 I 53.1 Urban building permits issued (index) .......................... 232.0 165.7 192.9r 198.2 188.2 New residential building authorized (index) .................... 213.1 193.0 216.1r 220.2 212.7 New residential units authorized (index) ....................... 172.4 131.9 181.7 171.6 169.0 New nonresidential building authorized (unadjusted index) ........ 264.8 146.4 168.0 186.7 171.4 AGRICULTURE Prices received by farmers (unadjusted index, 1910-14=100) ......... Prices paid by farmers in U.S. (unadjusted index, 1910-14= 100) ...... 443 506 413r 496r 327 444r 414 487 334 438 Ratio of Texas farm prices received to U.S. prices paid by farmers 88 83r 74r 85 77 FINANCE Bank debits (index) Bank debits, U.S. (index) Bank commercial loans outstanding (index) 221.9 154.3 212.6 216.5 150.9 193.9 188.4 128.2 217.5 150.7 187.8 188.4 126.0 Reporting member banks, Dallas Federal Reserve District Loans (millions) Loans and investments (millions) Adjusted demand deposits (millions) Revenue receipts of the state comptroller (thousands) Federal Internal Revenue collections (thousands) $ $ $ $ $ 9,274 13,316 4,158 289, 158 981,696 $ $ $ $ $ 9,058 13,025 4,239 437,582 857,559 $ 7,615 $ 11,153 $ 3,801 $ 304,512 $1,029,765 $ 9,058 $ 13,105 $ 4,215 $ 352,456 $7,305",838* $ 7,482 $ 10,965 $ 3,698 $ 315,784 $6,495,689* Securities registrations-original applications Mutual investment companies (thousands) $ 40,682 $ 58,691 $ 25,734 $ 303,154* $ 167,786* All other corporate securities Texas companies (thousands) $ 19,999 $ 13,517 $ 24,608 $ 187,455* $ 178,457* Other companies (thousands) $ 15,976 $ 13,609 $ 32,906 $ 148,381 * $ 259,790* Securities registration-renewals Mutual investment companies (thousands) $ 38,157 $ 25,057 $ 23,855 $ 288,125* $ 246,880* Other corporate securities (thousands) $ 47 $ 0 $ 3,038 $ 1,407* $ 10,284* LABOR Total nonagricultural employment in Texas (index)t 123.3p 123.lp 117.8r 123.0 117. I Manufacturing employment in Texas (index)t 115.2p 115.6p 109.6r 115.4 109.3 Average weekly hours-manufacturing (index)t 99.oP 99.8p 98.8r 97.1 98.7 Average weekly earnings-manufacturing (index)t 135.5P 136.6p 128.2r 132.5 127.1 Total nonagricultural employment (thousands)t 3,978.1 p 3,959.6p 3,799.7r 3,960.5 3,770.0 Total manufacturing employment (thousands)t 761.4p 759,9P 727.5r 758.7 720.2 Durable-goods employment (thousands)t Nondurable-goods employment (thousands)t 414.6p 346.8p 414.1 p 345.8p 389.lr 338.4r 412.8 346.0 384.6 335.6 Percent of total labor force unemployed 2.8 2.8 3.5 2.9 3.7 Total civilian labor force in selected labor-market areas (thousands) 3,734.2 3,667.1 3,576.8 3,688.9 3,561.6 Nonagricultural employment in selected labor-market areas (thousands) 3,543.9 3,494.7 3,367.0 3,505.5 3,352.2 Manufacturing employment in selected labor-market areas (thousands) 640.1 627.8 596.6 631.2 593.4 Total unemployment in selected labor-market areas (thousands) 110.7 108.0 131.7 111. 5 133.5 Percent of labor force unemployed in selected labor-market areas 3.0 2.9 3.7 3.0 3.8 BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH TIIE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN RETURN REQUESTED AUSTIN, TEXAS 78712 SECOND-CLASS POSTAGE PAID AT AUSTIN, TEXAS INTERNATIONAL TOURISM AND LATIN AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT by Walter Krause and G. Donald Jud with Hyman Joseph Studies in Latin American Business No. 15 In the 1970s developing countries are proving to be a powerful lure to tourists. In Latin America, some areas-Mexico and the Caribbean in particular-have long been popular vacation sites, but, as mankind's search for exotic and colorful places continues, less heavily traveled regions, too, are beginning to feel the impact of the boom in tourism. What · does the prospect of rapidly increasing tourist business mean to a developing country? How can a region gauge its chances for success as a tourist destination? In this study Walter Krause, G. Donald Jud, and Hyman Joseph, seeking answers to those questions and to others, analyze the potential demand for Latin American tourist facilities, explore the economic benefits of tourism, discuss the resource commitments necessary to make tourism part of general development strategy, and suggest ways in which Latin America can seek to realize its considerable potential. Walter Krause, John F. Murray professor of economics at the University of Iowa, has done extensive work on economic development, international economics and business, and the Latin American economy. G. Donald Jud, an assistant professor of economics at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, has done research relative to Latin America, including work on the measurement of tourism potential. Hyman Joseph, an associate professor of economics at the University of Iowa, is experienced in research on assorted theoretical and applied subjects. (Texas residents add $.JO sales tax.) $2.00 xv+ c. 90 pp. Bureau of Business Research The University of Texas at Austin