Harvard Business School Professor Michael E. Porter National Governors Association Winter Meeting February 26, 2011

1. New Mexico Competitiveness:
State and Cluster Economic Performance
Prepared for Governor Susana Martinez
Professor Michael E. Porter
National Governors Association Winter Meeting
February 26, 2011
NGA 2011 – New Mexico– Rich Bryden 1 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

2. New Mexico Performance Snapshot
Position Trend
Prosperity
Productivity
Labor Mobilization
Top quintile
Innovation 2nd quintile
3rd quintile
4th quintile
Cluster Strength Lowest quintile
• Education and Knowledge Creation
• Hospitality and Tourism
Leading Clusters • Oil and Gas Products and Services
• Entertainment
• Information Technology
NGA 2011 – New Mexico– Rich Bryden 2 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

3. State Comparative Performance
NGA 2011 – New Mexico– Rich Bryden 3 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

4. New Mexico Competitiveness
Overall Economic Performance Indicators
Prosperity Cluster
Gross State Product per capita, 2009 Share of State Traded Employment in Strong Clusters, 2008
• In New Mexico: $37,221 Rank: 42 • In New Mexico: 50.0% Rank: 8
• In the US: $46,093 • In the US: 41.8%
• State difference to US: -19.2%
Change in Share of National Employment in Strong Clusters, 1998-2008
Growth in Gross State Product per capita, real annual rate, 1999-2009 • In New Mexico: 0.04% Rank: 25
• In New Mexico: 0.63% Rank: 37 • In the US: -0.06%
• In the US: 0.86%
Share of Employment in Traded Clusters, 1998-2008
• In New Mexico: 24.4% Rank: 46
• 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 New Mexico: $77,961 Rank: 42 • In New Mexico: -0.9% Rank: 15
• In the US: $92,382 • In the US: -2.2%
• State difference to US: -15.6%
Labor Mobilization
Growth in Gross State Product per labor force participant*, 1999-2009
• In New Mexico: 0.41% Rank: 45 Population, 2009
• In the US: 1.09% • In New Mexico: 2,009,661 Rank: 36
• % of US: 0.65%
Average private wage, 2008
• In New Mexico: $34,734 Rank: 41 Population growth, annual rate, 1999-2009
• In the US: $42,435 • In New Mexico: 1.06% Rank: 17
• State difference to US: -18.1% • In the US: 0.96%
Private wage Growth, annual rate, 1998-2008 Labor Force Participation, 2009
• In New Mexico: 3.63% Rank: 14 • In New Mexico: 61.6 Rank: 46
• In the US: 3.32% • In the US: 65.4
Employment, 2010 (December)
• In New Mexico: 875,985 Rank: 38
Innovation Output
• % of US: 0.63%
Patents Per 10,000 Employees, 2009
• In New Mexico: 4.73 Rank: 26 Employment growth, annual rate, 2000-2010 (December)
• In the US: 6.83 • In New Mexico: 0.76% Rank: 8
• In the US: 0.11%
Growth in total patents, annual rate, 1998-2009
• In New Mexico: -1.12% Rank: 27 Unemployment, 2010 (December)
• In the US: 0.23% • In New Mexico: 8.5% Rank: 24
• In the US: 9.4%
Traded establishment formation, annual growth rate, 1998-2008
• In New Mexico: 1.90% Rank: 21 Change in Unemployment, 2000-2010 (December)
• In the US: 1.79% • In New Mexico: 3.6% Rank: 13
• In the US: 5.5%
NGA 2011 – New Mexico– Rich Bryden 4 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

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
Colorado
Nevada Illinois 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 – New Mexico– Rich Bryden 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
$55,000 Massachusetts
Washington Virginia
California Hawaii
Colorado Maryland North Dakota
$50,000
Nevada Illinois Minnesota 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 – New Mexico– Rich Bryden 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 – New Mexico– Rich Bryden 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
Colorado U.S. GDP per Labor Force
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 New Hampshire Mississippi
Michigan 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: Growth rate calculated as compound annual growth rate (CAGR).
NGA 2011 – New Mexico– Rich Bryden 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
New Jersey Massachusetts
California Hawaii
$100,000 Virginia Louisiana
Washington Maryland
Illinois Colorado U.S. GDP per Labor Force
Texas
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 New Mexico
Ohio
Missouri
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: Growth rate calculated as compound annual growth rate (CAGR).
NGA 2011 – New Mexico– Rich Bryden 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 – New Mexico– Rich Bryden 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 – New Mexico– Rich Bryden 11 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

12. Long Term State Unemployment Rate
2000 to 2010
3.0
%
Below average
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
Louisiana
Massachusetts New York Arkansas Alaska
Delaware Texas
New Pennsylvania New Mexico
Colorado 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 Above average
Nevada unemployment Unemployment rising 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
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Change in Employment Rate, 2000 to 2010
NGA 2011 – New Mexico– Rich Bryden 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
New Mexico Delaware Texas
Pennsylvania Massachusetts
New Jersey Colorado U.S. Average
%
9.0 Alabama Connecticut
Idaho Arizona Missouri Illinois Unemployment Rate: 9.4%
Indiana Tennessee
West Virginia 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 – New Mexico– Rich Bryden 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 North Carolina
Ohio Maryland
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 – New Mexico– Rich Bryden 14 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

15. New Mexico Patents by Organization
Patents Patents
Rank Organization Rank Organization
2005-2009 2005-2009
1 Sandia Corporation 202 25 Fast Ditch, Inc. 5
2 Los Alamos National Security, Llc 63 27 Microsoft Corporation 4
3 University Of California, The Regents Of 62 27 Itt Manufacturing Enterprises, Inc. 4
Science & Technology Corporation At Genesys Telecommunications
4 University Of New Mexico 39 27 Laboratories, Inc. 4
5 Cabot Corporation 36 27 Wavefront Sciences, Inc. 4
5 Xilinx, Inc. 36 27 Sionex Corporation 4
7 United States Of America, Air Force 27 27 Science Medicus, Inc. 4
8 Intel Corporation 13 27 Avistar, Inc. 4
8 Honeywell International Inc. 13 27 Bernardo Footwear, Llc 4
8 Memx, Inc. 13 27 Riccobene Designs Llc 4
8 Inlight Solutions, Inc. 13 36 Becton, Dickinson And Company 3
12 Boeing Company 11 36 Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. 3
12 Emcore Corporation 11 36 E. I. Du Pont De Nemours And Company 3
12 Knowm Tech, Llc 11 36 Massachusetts Institute Of Technology 3
15 Eastman Kodak Company 10 36 Micron Technology, Inc. 3
United States Of America, Department Of
15 Energy 10 36 Motorola, Inc. 3
17 General Electric Company 9 36 Public Service Company Of New Mexico 3
Pageant Technologies, Inc. (Micromem
17 Southwest Sciences, Incorporated 9 36 Technologies, Inc.) 3
19 Kestrel Corporation 7 36 Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. 3
19 Dharma Living Systems, Inc. 7 36 Pinnacle West Capital Corporation 3
21 Cts Corporation 6 36 Environmental Robots, Inc. 3
21 Miox Corporation 6 36 Accent Optical Technologies, Inc. 3
21 Lumidigm, Inc. 6 36 Nanopore, Inc. 3
21 Arrowhead Center, Inc. 6 36 Santa Fe Science And Technology, Inc. 3
25 New Mexico Tech Research Foundation 5 36 Surfect Technologies, Inc. 3
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 – New Mexico– Rich Bryden 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 – New Mexico– Rich Bryden 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 – New Mexico– Rich Bryden 17 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

18. Composition of the New Mexico Economy
and Cluster Performance
NGA 2011 – New Mexico– Rich Bryden 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 – New Mexico– Rich Bryden 19 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

20. Overall Composition of the New Mexico Economy, 2008
80%
70% NM
75.1% US
71.7%
Private Employment
60%
50%
40%
Percent of Total
30%
US
20% NM 27.4%
24.0%
10%
NM US
0.9% 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 – New Mexico– Rich Bryden 20 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

21. Composition of the New Mexico Economy
Employment by Traded Cluster, 2008
Rank in US
Business Services 36 24,302
Education and Know ledge Creation 30 22,408
Hospitality and Tourism 34 19,819
Oil and Gas Products and Services 7 16,704
Heavy Construction Services 36 11,783
Entertainment 31 8,886
Information Technology 29 8,597
Financial Services 45 5,168
Processed Food 42 4,807
Distribution Services 44 4,211
Transportation and Logistics 46 3,622
Analytical Instruments 32 3,231
Publishing and Printing 43 2,168
Aerospace Vehicles and Defense 26 1,998
Pow er Generation and Transmission 33 1,935
Building Fixtures, Equipment and Services 43 1,922
Jew elry and Precious Metals 13 1,915
Agricultural Products 35 1,603
Metal Manufacturing 42 1,323
Forest Products 40 1,323
Chemical Products 41 1,224
Production Technology 45 881
Medical Devices 39 874
Automotive 45 723
Plastics 46 669
Heavy Machinery 44 649
Lighting and Electrical Equipment 38 630
Furniture 42 494
Prefabricated Enclosures 39 445
Construction Materials 43 442
Communications Equipment 41 404
Leather and Related Products 39 386
Aerospace Engines 30 375
Motor Driven Products 43 258
Textiles 44 162
Apparel 45 88
Biopharmaceuticals 48 81 New Mexico overall employment rank = 37
Tobacco 25 60
Sporting, Recreational and Children's Goods 47 43
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000
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 – New Mexico– Rich Bryden 21 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

22. Composition of the New Mexico Economy
Specialization by Traded Cluster, 1998 to 2008
Jewelry and Precious Oil and Gas Products and
Metals Services (+0.29%, 2.92%)
2.0%
Overall change in the New Mexico
New Mexico’s national employment share, 2008
Share of US Traded Employment:
+0.04%
1.5%
Power Generation Heavy
Information Construction
and Transmission Hospitality and Tourism
1.0% Technology Services
Entertainment
Aerospace
Education and Vehicles and
Knowledge New Mexico Overall Defense
Creation Share of US Traded
Aerospace Analytical
0.5% Engines Instruments Employment: 0.47%
Financial
Services Forest Products Employment
Medical
1998-2008
Devices
Added Jobs
Transportation
Apparel and Logistics Lost Jobs
0.0%
-0.45% -0.25% -0.05% 0.15% 0.35% 0.55%
Change in New Mexico share of National Employment, 1998 to 2008 Employees 4,500 =
Source: Prof. Michael E. Porter, Cluster Mapping Project, Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness, Harvard Business School; Richard Bryden, Project Director.
NGA 2011 – New Mexico– Rich Bryden 22 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter

23. Composition of the New Mexico Economy
Specialization by Traded Cluster, 1998 to 2008 (continued)
0.6%
Analytical Overall change in
Instruments the New Mexico
Agricultural
Share of Products
US Traded
Employment:
New Mexico’s national employment share, 2008
0.5% +0.04%
Business
Services
0.4% Leather and
Processed
Related Products
Food
New Mexico Overall Chemical
Share of US Traded Products Building Fixtures,
0.3% Employment: 0.47% Equipment and Services
Lighting and Electrical
Construction
Equipment
Financial Materials
Publishing
Services and Printing Prefabricated
Furniture
0.2% Enclosures
Communication Heavy Machinery
Distribution Equipment
Transportation Metal Production
and Logistics Services
Manufacturing Technology
0.1% Motor Driven Employment
Products Plastics 1998-2008
Textiles Added Jobs
Automotive
Biopharmaceuticals Lost Jobs
0.0%
-0.15% -0.10% -0.05% 0.00% 0.05% 0.10% 0.15%
Change in New Mexico share of National Employment, 1998 to 2008 Employees 4,500 =
Source: Prof. Michael E. Porter, Cluster Mapping Project, Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness, Harvard Business School; Richard Bryden, Project Director.
NGA 2011 – New Mexico– Rich Bryden 23 Copyright © 2011 Professor Michael E. Porter