text:
The Economic Impact of Technology
The Economic Impact of
Technology-Based
Industries in Washington
State (2013)
William B. Beyers
beyers@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/beyers/
A Report Prepared for the
www.technology-alliance.com
Technology-based industries are a leading force in the development of the
Washington economy. They account for the largest share of jobs, sales, and labor income
of any major cluster of industries in the state's economic base. Natural resource
dependent industries—including agriculture, fishing, food products, and forest products
are also important to the state's economic base. Maritime industries, tourism and
transportation, warehousing and wholesaling, and producer services not included in our
definition of technology based industry continue as other significant elements in the
state's economic base.
This study has defined technology-based industry on the basis of the occupational
structure of the workforce, identifying industries with a relatively large share of their
workforce in research and development (R&D) activities. This definition was developed
by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to define "high tech" industries. In this study we
have utilized data for the year 2013 from the Washington State Department of
Employment Security (ESD) to define these industries. We have included (with a few
exceptions) industries with at least twice the percentage of employment in computer
related, engineering, and scientific occupations (16.6% or more); across all industries in
the Washington economy 8.8% of employment was in these R&D related occupations.
In 2013 technology-based industries had 41% of their workforce in these R&D related
occupations, compared with just 3% employed in these occupations in other industries.
The most recent year of employment data from ESD for covered wage & salary
employment, and from the Census Bureau for self-employed individuals was used in this
study. The ESD data for the second half of 2012 and for the first half of 2013 were used,
along with 2011 data from the U.S. Census Bureau for the self-employed, to estimate
technology-based employment.
Technology-based industries have grown rapidly in Washington over the last
several decades. Employment grew from 96,000 covered, private sector wage and salary
jobs in 1974 to 408,286 jobs in 2013. Technology-based employment quadrupled, while
employment in other industries doubled over this same time period. Covered
employment in technology-based industries has grown from 6.7% to 14.1% of total state
employment. In 2013, there were an additional 11,531 university and federal research
related jobs in Washington State, and an estimated 40,425 self-employed people working
in our technology-based industries, for a combined total of 460,242 technology-based
jobs in 2013.
Through the use of the Washington State input-output model, we calculate a total
of 1.38 million jobs were created in the Washington economy due to technology-based
industries last year, which was 42% of total employment in the state. Similar percentages
of overall impact were measured for sales, labor income, and selected taxes through use
of the input-output model.
Economic impacts are related to purchases made by industries from other
industries in the Washington economy and the level of labor income earned and spent as
consumption expenditures. Technology-based industries have a level of labor income
($120,005) that is more than double the average for other industries ($53,111), which
results in a relatively high multiplier in the input-output model. The employment
multiplier for technology based industries was 3 jobs per direct job, compared to 2.45
jobs per direct job for other industries. Technology-based industries also have a
relatively high level of exports (70%) compared to other Washington industries (28%),
thereby contributing strongly to the state's economic base.
Washington's employment in the industries covered by this study was 49% above
the national average, driven by our high concentrations of employment in aerospace,
software, and remediation and other waste services. If the largest technology-based
industry in Washington State (aerospace) is excluded, Washington still has a
concentration of technology-based industry that is 33% above the national average. The
concentration of aerospace employment is 7.9 times the national average, while the
concentration of software employment is 6.9 times the national average.
Research and development (R&D) expenditures in Washington State are an
important indicator of the concentration of technology-based industry. The latest data on
R&D expenditures from the National Science Foundation are for the year 2011. These
data report that Washington ranked 6th nationally in total dollars used for R&D, while our
state population is the 13th largest nationally, indicating a stronger concentration of R&D
spending in Washington State than nationally. R&D spending in Washington in 2011
was 5% of our Gross State Product (GSP), compared to 2.8% nationally. Business R&D
accounts for most R&D spending, and in this category Washington State ranks first in the
nation when indexed against GSP. Overall, Washington ranks 4th nationally in R&D
spending for all categories, when indexed against GSP. Washington's position is also
strong on funding for non-profit federally funded research and development centers and
other non-profits ; we rank 6th for both of these categories when they are indexed against
GSP. In contrast, our position on university and college research is 24th when indexed
against GSP, a reflection of our relatively small higher education system.
Defining Technology-Based Industry and Measuring the
Importance of R&D Activity in Washington State
Defining Technology-Based Industry
University and Federal Research
Measuring the Importance of R&D Activity in the Washington Economy
Trends in Washington State Technology-Based Industry
Employment and Comparison with Other States
Employment Trends 1974-2002
A Note on Hanford
Employment Trends Since 1998
Concentration of Technology-Based Industries in Washington State
Size Distribution of Technology-Based Establishments
Distribution of Technology-Based Jobs in Washington State
Economic Impact Analysis
The Washington State Input-Output Model
Aerospace & Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing
Machinery and Computers & Electronics Manufacturing
Petroleum & Coal Products Manufacturing
Chemicals Manufacturing
Software Publishers, Data Processing, and Other Information
Computer Systems Design & Related Services
Commercial Equipment Merchant Wholesalers
Electronic Shopping & Mail-order Houses
Architectural & Engineering, and Management, Scientific
& Technical Consulting Services
Management of Companies & Enterprises
Scientific Research & Development
Travel Arrangement & Reservation Services
Remediation & Other Waste Services
University & Federal Research
Appendix I. Alternative Definitions of Technology-Based Industries:
A Sampling of Recent Studies
Appendix II. Technical Notes on the Input-Output Model
Appendix III. Location Quotients for Technology-Based Industries in
Washington State, 2011
Appendix IV. Growth of Employment in Technology-Based Industries in
Washington State (1974-2002, SIC-based)
Appendix V. Growth of Employment in Technology-Based Industries in
Washington State (1998-2013 NAICS-based)
Appendix VI. Washington Technology-Based Employment by County
The author would like to acknowledge the following people for their assistance
with this study. Mr. Scott Bailey with the Washington State Employment Security
Department provided the very useful estimates of technology-based employment by
county. Mr. Michael Babb, a graduate student in Geography at the University of
Washington prepared the maps contained in this report. Mark Boroush at the National
Science Foundation (NSF) provided valuable assistance regarding research and
development funding received by users in the United States. Dr. Nirmala Kannankutty,
Senior Advisor at the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics at the
National Science Foundation provided information clarifying NSF's current definition of
high-technology industry. Susannah Malarkey of the Technology Alliance was very
helpful in the conceptualization of this research project. Kristin Osborne of the
Technology Alliance provided all manner of technical and logistical assistance with this
report, ranging from copy-editing to making sure that definitions of activity included in
various tables and graphs was accurately measured and described. She also directed the
preparation of a short brochure summarizing this study distributed widely by the
Technology Alliance.
This report is the eighth estimate of the magnitude of employment, business
activity, and income related to a major segment of the Washington State economy—our
technology-based industries—commissioned by the Technology Alliance. A relatively
high level of employment in research-related computing, scientific, and engineering
occupations has been the basis for defining the industries included in these studies.
While primarily in the private sector, some important segments of technology-based
industries are public employers. Almost all segments generate a significant fraction of
their business volume out-of-state, thereby contributing to the state's export base.
As a group these industries have been growing rapidly, expanding their
contribution to the state economy over the past several decades. They are expected to
continue this growth trajectory, and they will likely be an even more important
component of the state economy in coming years. The latest industry employment
projections from the Washington State Employment Security Department (ESD) project
20.4% growth in the technology-based industries included in this report between 2011
and 2021, compared to 15.0% for other industries in the state economy (these estimates
exclude state and federal research activity and self-employment) (ESD 2013).
This report documents the growth and development of technology-based
industries in the Washington economy up to the year 2013, as well as their impact on the
aggregate state economy in the year 2013. Similar studies were released by the
Technology Alliance in 1997, 1998, 2001, 2005, 2008, 2010 and 2012, benchmarked to
1995, 1997, 2000, 2003, 2007, 2009, and 2011 data, respectively (Beyers and Lindahl
1997; Beyers and Nelson 1998; Beyers and Lindahl 2001; Beyers, Andreoli and Hyde
2005; Beyers 2008; Beyers 2010; Beyers 2012).
Each of these reports started by defining the industries included in them. This is
not an easy task, for terms such as "technology industry," "high technology," and
"advanced technology" are frequently used by scholars, the media, political figures, and
others to refer to this rapidly changing part of our economy. Some of these industries
manufacture products, while others are engaged in research that may or may not lead to
the production of a product. Some are engaged primarily in long-term research or render
services with an ongoing, strong technology factor in their production. It is not easy to
define clearly all of the industries that should be considered for inclusion in a study of
this type. Section II of this report describes how technology-based industries were
defined in this study.
After defining the economic activities covered in this report, and reviewing the
importance of research and development activity in the Washington economy, Section III
traces the historical development of these industries in Washington State and how their
concentration within the state compares to the rest of the nation. As this section
documents in detail, the growth of employment in technology-based industries has been
steadily shifting, albeit gradually, from a heavy concentration in aerospace and other
manufacturing industries to most employment being in service industries. This section
also presents information on the geographic distribution of technology-based industries
among counties in Washington State, and on the size distribution of technology-based
establishments in Washington State compared to the U.S. as a whole.
Section IV analyzes the impact of these industries on the Washington State
economy. Direct, indirect, and induced employment; output (sales); labor income; and
tax revenues generated by technology-based industries are presented, using the
Washington State input-output model. These impacts are then compared to those of other
industries. Approximately 42 % of total employment (covered and self-employed) in
Washington State can be attributed to technology-based industries in the year 2013.
Section V provides some concluding comments, including a brief overview of the history
of the economic impact of technology-based industries in Washington State, as
documented in previous Technology Alliance studies.
This report has six appendices. Appendix I contains a review of alternative
definitions of technology-based industries used in recent studies in the United States.
Appendix II provides technical notes about the input-output model used to calculate
economic impacts. Appendix III contains detailed location quotients for technologybased industries in Washington State in 2011. Appendix IV documents the growth of
detailed technology-based industries in Washington State from 1974 to 2002, as
measured by the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) definition of industries.
Appendix V presents estimates of detailed employment levels in Washington State from
1998 through 2013, as measured by the North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS). Appendix VI presents estimates of technology-based employment in
Washington by county in 2013.
Defining Technology-Based Industry and Measuring the Importance of R&D
Activity in Washington State
Advanced economies continue to evolve in their economic structure. Through the
"Great Recession" we saw nationally faltering output in many technology-based sectors
as well as the economy as a whole. As the economy has recovered, this evolution in
economic structure has continued. This report focuses on how technology-based sectors
contribute to the Washington economy, and reports longitudinal information on how
employment in these sectors has changed over time. We know that there has been a shift
economy-wide in the composition of what is produced and particularly explosive growth
in service-based activities and business activity related to the Internet. The methods by
which these goods and services are produced are continually evolving, and there have
been changes in the use of labor and capital in the production process.
Each of these dimensions—the mix of industries, the method of production, and
the intensity of use of the factors of production—have undergone revolutions in regions
such as Washington State, as well as in national economies and globally. As these
changes have occurred, industries that are growing and deemed "high technology" have
often been singled out as dynamic agents in the process of development in regional
economies (Atkinson and Stewart 2012; Klowden and Wolfe 2013). There are numerous
challenges involved in defining these industries. Factors considered in alternative
definitions of technology-based industries include: the nature of the products or services
they produce; characteristics of the production process; the structure of the labor force;
the ratio of R&D spending as a fraction of sales revenues; and the length of product lifecycles.
When the Technology Alliance undertook the first study of the economic impact
of technology-based industries, a large amount of time was spent deciding upon how to
define the industries covered by the study. The first two reports included an appendix
that reviewed historically important studies focused on methodology for defining
technology-based industries. This appendix is not included in this impact analysis.
Those interested in these matters can either contact the Technology Alliance or the author
to obtain a copy of the earlier studies that include these appendices. Appendix I in the
current study describes briefly definitions used in several recent studies of hightechnology industries, to give a flavor of the variety of definitions that have been used in
recent years.
The definition of "high-tech" has been made more difficult in a world in which
information technologies and other advanced technologies influence the way that
business is done in every industry. Doctors and loggers use similar computer
technologies as computer software makers and manufacturers of semiconductor chips to
operate their businesses. So, there can be no question but that the nature of production
has been altered by modern technologies across the economy, including the public sector.
The definition of technology-based industries in Washington State used
occupational categories considered as R&D intensive by the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics (Hecker 2005). Table 1 lists examples of these occupational classifications.
There were 96 occupations considered to be R&D related in the ESD's industry-xoccupation matrix used to define the industries included in this study. These are
computer, engineering, and scientific occupations.
While it is the case that all industries in the Washington economy now rely on
information technologies and other indicators of technology-intensive industry to a
greater or lesser extent, there are significant variations in their commitment to staff who
try to cause change in the products and services that they provide through their research
and development efforts. This study focuses on industries that have this commitment,
and after considerable deliberation and evaluation of approaches taken in studies in other
regions, a definition of at least 16.6% employment in R&D intensive occupations, or
twice the state average for all industries, was established. With limited exceptions, the
industries included in this study meet the 16.6% threshold.
Early Technology Alliance economic impact studies used a threshold of 10%
employment in R&D occupations, a figure consistent with that suggested by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics as an indicator of high-technology industry (Hecker 1999). The first
three studies examined industries defined by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
categories. Since 2005 the Technology Alliance studies have used a spreadsheet obtained
from ESD that provides estimates of employment by industry and occupation using the
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) to determine which studies
meet the R&D employment threshold to qualify as technology-based.
Table 1 Selected Examples of R&D Intensive Occupations
Category (SOC)
Occupational Description
Software Developers, Applications
Operations Research Analysts
Statisticians
Architects, Except Landscape and Naval
Nuclear Engineers
Electrical and Electronics Drafters
Electrical and Electronics Engineering Technicians
Biochemists and Biophysicists
Environmental Scientists and Specialists, Including Health
Biological Technicians
Other R&D Intensive Occupations
Source: Washington State Employment Security Department, 2013 Occupational employment by
industries for 2012Q2.xls
The data in these spreadsheets have reported significant increases in total
employment in R&D intensive occupations, leading to the decision in recent studies to
increase the percentage of employment in R&D intensive occupations used to define
technology-based industries from 10% to twice the state average for all industries. It
should be noted that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has also observed these same trends in
occupational structure, and the role they play in developing their current definitions of
technology-based industry (Hecker 2005).
An alternative to the Washington State industry-x-occupation matrix that could be
used to define technology-based industries, as undertaken by the BLS, would be to use the
U.S. industry-x-occupation matrix. This would yield a different set of industries than
included in the current study, including some industries not present in the Washington
economy. Since the purpose of this analysis was to report on Washington's technologybased industries, not the national set of technology-based industries, the Washington State
industry-x-occupation matrix has been used as the basis for defining technology-based
industry in this study. It is recognized that this decision alters the scope of the industries
included in this research project, and also alters measures of Washington's comparative
position to other states related to technology-based industry. Appendix I contains NSF's
current definition of high-tech industry; this definition is similar to that used in this study,
suggesting that these definitional issues may not be of enormous importance.
The ESD matrix of employment and occupations used in this study defines
industries through the use of the 2007 NAICS codes; these codes are slightly different
than the original set of NAICS codes first utilized by the federal government in 1997, and
modified in 2002 and 2007. These redefinitions of the NAICS codes have presented
difficulties in the consistent estimation of employment by industry over time as reported
in Section III of this report. In a few cases the 2002 NAICS codes separated activities
(such as Internet service providers) that were aggregated with broader categories in the
1997 NAICS, and then these categories were recombined with the 2007 NAICS
redefinitions. However, the changes in the NAICS codes are a minor issue compared to
the more general matter of drawing comparisons between the NAICS scheme and the SIC
codes used in the earlier Technology Alliance studies, as discussed in Section III.
Shares of employment were calculated for each industry included in the 2012
industry-x-occupation matrix for computing, engineering, and scientific occupations
(codes beginning with SOC 15, 17, and 19). These calculations found that 8.3% of total
employment in Washington State was estimated to be in these occupations in the year
2012; hence, double this percentage (16.6%) was used as the primary basis for defining
technology-based industry in the current study.
The industries that are included in this study after this process of evaluation are
listed in Table 2, along with the corresponding percentage of R&D employment. Figure
1 indicates that the majority (67%) of computer, engineering, and science workers are
employed in technology-based industries. However, 33% are employed in other
industries, the majority in computer-related occupations. Technology-based industries
have an average of 41% of their workforce in computer, science, and engineering
occupations, compared to 3% in other industries in the Washington economy.
Figure 1 Computer, Engineering, and Science Jobs in Technology-Based and Other
Industries in Washington State, 2012
Three industries included in Table 2 have less than 16.6% R&D-related
employment: metalworking machinery, chemicals, and commercial equipment merchant
wholesalers. These sectors were included after careful examination of their occupational
structure. Metalworking machinery has a relatively high share of employment in
engineering occupations, but modest levels of computer-related occupations, and no
employment in scientific occupations. Chemicals manufacturing has a strong
concentration of scientific occupations, but modest concentrations in computer science
and engineering occupations. Commercial equipment merchant wholesalers have a very
strong concentration of employment in computer related occupations, but a small
percentage of employment in scientific and engineering occupations.
Table 2 R&D Employment Concentration in Washington's Technology-Based
Industrial Definition
% R&D
Technology Intensive: R&D Occupations over 30%
Architectural & Engineering Services
Scientific Research & Development Services
Other Information Services
Data Processing & Related Services
(Not covered in ESD
data base; see text)
Other Technology Industries: R&D Occupations 14.7% to 30%
Computer & Electronic Product Manufacturing
Management, Scientific, & Technical Consulting Services
Turbine & Power Transmission Equipment Manufacturing
Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing
Petroleum & Coal Products
Metalworking Machinery Manufacturing
All Technology-Based Industries
Two industrial classifications included in the ESD employment-x-occupation
matrix had a high concentration of employees in research-related occupations, but were
excluded from this study. They were the federal government and "state government
other," with 21.0% and 16.2% employment in research-related occupations, respectively.
These two industrial classifications had a large level of employment (61,337 federal and
59,168 state government other). However, we could not determine what categories of
government activity were included in these two industrial classifications, and we have
included some activity in government in this study. In future studies of this type, it
would be useful if the ESD could categorize the agency structure of these two sectors, to
isolate where these research-related employees are concentrated.
Two categories included in Table 2, university research and federal research
organizations, were not defined for inclusion in this study through the use of the industryx-occupation matrix. University research employment includes research-related workers
at the University of Washington and Washington State University (UW 2013; Downes
2014). The federal research organizations include National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) agencies in Washington State and the Naval Undersea Warfare
Center Division Keyport (NUWC Keyport Division 2014; ESD 2013b). Their
occupational mix is strongly skewed towards a research and development dominated
labor force. In contrast to the measurement of employment for other sectors covered in
this study, university research employment measures include only research-related
employment. Thus, the teaching, service and extension, housing, fellowship/traineeship,
and hospital employment at the two research universities were excluded from this study.
Life sciences (including biotechnology and medical devices) are not identified
separately in the NAICS codes shown in Table 2. Most biotechnology and medical
device employment is encompassed within three NAICS codes included in this study:
chemicals manufacturing (NAICS 325), computer and electronic product manufacturing
(NAICS 334), and scientific research and development services (NAICS 5417). A
portion of medical devices is included in pump and compressor manufacturing (NAICS
3391), an industry that did not meet the criteria for inclusion in this study.
The Washington Research Council estimated that 10,038 people were employed
in biotechnology and medical devices in Washington State in 20101. Its report
documented 2,085 people employed in drug and pharmaceuticals manufacture (NAICS
3254), and 7,953 employed in medical devices and equipment (NAICS 3345 and 3391).
The council estimated 3,730 people were employed in biotech research, which is about
19% of total employment in scientific research and development services (including selfemployed) in this current Technology Alliance study.
This figure is based on the Washington Research Council's Washington Life Sciences
Economic Impact Study, released in November 2011, which was the most recent data
available to this author at the time this report was prepared.
The industries defined in Table 2 with high proportions of their labor force in
research-intensive occupations are also likely to devote relatively high proportions of
their expenditures on R&D activities. Data from the National Science Foundation (NSF)
are reported annually on a wide range of indicators of scientific and engineering effort at
the national and state level. Before turning to an historical and comparative account of
the importance of employment in technology-based industries in Washington, the state's
position with regard to these measures is reviewed.
Table 3 details Washington's position on a variety of measures of R&D funds
using NSF data. The latest data are for the year 2011, while the primary benchmark for
this study is 2013. Two rank measures are provided: (1) total dollars spent, and (2) ranks
based on indexed estimates of spending relative to Gross State Product (GSP).
Washington's overall position is 6th nationally based on total spending and 4th nationally
when viewed from an indexed perspective.
Table 3 Washington State Distribution of R&D Funds, 2011
$ Used
Performer and Sources of Funds
United States Sources: Total Used
A. Federal Government: Total Used (1)
B. Business: Total Used (2)
Federal Sources
Business Sources (3)
C. Universities & Colleges: Total Used(4)
Non-federal Government Sources
University & College Sources
Business Sources
Non-Profit Sources
D. Non-Profits: Total Used (5)
Non-profit FFRDC
Other Non-profits
E. State Internal (6)
(1) Total funds used by the federal government from federal sources.
(2) The category previously labeled "Industry" is now called "Business" by NSF. Business totals include
R&D performed by industry-administered federally funded research and development centers.
(3) Business R&D support to business performers includes all non-federal sources of funds.
(4) For universities and colleges, funds are for doctorate-granting institutions only.
(5) For the non-profit sector, funds distributed by state and region include only federal obligations to
organizations in this sector, including associated federally funded research and development centers
(FFRDCs), such as the Battelle Memorial Institute. Estimated non-federal support to the non-profit sector
is excluded from these state data.
(6) Internal performers include state agency and department employees, and services performed by others
in support of an internal R&D project.
NA – Data not available for this year; NSF measures these data biennially.
D – data not disclosed
Source: National Science Foundation 2014
Washington's comparative position has improved since the last Technology
Alliance economic impact study, which used data for 2008. NSF data show on a variety
of key indicators that Washington is in a strong position with regard to R&D activities.
In 2011, NSF estimated Washington-based entities used $18 billion in R&D funds, which
was 5.04% of our GSP; nationally, R&D was 2.84% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
This placed us 6thamong the states based on total spending, well above our position as the
13th most populous state in the country (Census 2013). This relative concentration of
expenditures on R&D activities is mirrored in the next section of this report, which
demonstrates that Washington's employment concentration in technology-based
industries, as defined in this report, is also well above the national average. In 2010 the
concentration of doctoral scientists and engineers employed in Washington State also
exceeded the national average2.
Business dominated Washington R&D expenditures in 2011, as it did nationally
(70% of national R&D was performed by business; in Washington State, 81% of R&D
funds were used by business). Washington ranks 4th nationally in business R&D dollars
expended, and 1st when indexed to GSP. In Washington, business R&D expenditures
were likely dominated by funds spent by The Boeing Company on the development of
new product lines, such as the new 787 airplane, and by the Microsoft Corporation3.
Federal R&D activity in Washington is largely at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center
Division Keyport and at NOAA.
University and college funds accrue primarily to the University of Washington
and Washington State University. University and college research spending yielded a
ranking (13th) that is the same as our population rank. However, when indexed to GSP,
Washington's position falls to 24th, largely due to relatively weak non-federal
government (e.g. state government), business, and university and college funding sources
(such as endowments). While Washington ranks 13th nationally in the receipt of federal
university and college research funds, our position falls to 16th once expenditures have
been indexed. This relatively weak position has been associated with our relatively small
enrollment of higher education students and related research faculty in science and
engineering (Osborne & Beyers 2013).
Notable in Table 3 is the receipt of funds by non-profits, as defined by NSF,
which in Washington State is dominated by funding to the Fred Hutchinson Cancer
Research Center in the other non-profits sector, and by the Battelle Memorial Institute
(Pacific Northwest National Laboratory) in the non-profit FFRDC sector. Washington's
ranking as the 7th highest recipient of research funds by non-profit FFRDC's and the 3rd
highest recipient of research funds by the other non-profit sector highlights the
importance of these organizations to the state's R&D activities.
This conclusion is based location quotients calculated from data in NSF Science and
Engineering Profiles by State (last updated February 2014, for employed S&E doctorate
holders by state for the year 2010 and employed workforce by state),Table 8-35.
3 Unfortunately, NSF does not disaggregate business R&D activity by industry due to
disclosure laws.
Although it is not possible to classify expenditures of R&D funds by NAICS
code, it is certain that almost all of these funds were received by industries covered in this
study. Again, the impacts considered in this analysis are based on all of the business
activity in the industries which have high levels of R&D employment, not only the
impact of activities directly associated with R&D expenditure.4 It should be noted that
Washington's position on a number of the indicators reported in Table 3 has improved, as
our ranking has moved up for most measures from the spending ranks calculated in the
early Technology Alliance economic impact studies.
Trends in Washington State Technology-Based Industry Employment and
Comparison with Other States
In 2013, technology-based industries employed 460,242 people in Washington
State, 13.9% of the state's total covered employment and non-employer base of 3.315
million. As Table 4 reports, and Figure 2 illustrates, manufacturing industries accounted
for 28% of total technology-based jobs, with aerospace and motor vehicle manufacturing
being the largest single category (21% of the total). The remaining 31,685 manufacturing
jobs are divided between machinery and computer and electronics manufacturing (22,861
jobs), and petroleum refining and chemicals (8,824 jobs).
Covered employment is the average of data from the Washington State
Employment Security Department for the 2nd half of the year 2012, and the first half of
the year 2013 (ESD 2013b, ESD 2014). The non-employer data is from the U.S. Census
Bureau, benchmarked against the year 2011, the latest year for which data were available.
The one exception to this principle is for university research, where the impacts are
confined to the impact of research-related activities, and excludes other bases for the
economic impact of universities.
Table 4 Employment in Technology-Based Industries, 2013
Nonemployer
Computer & Electronics Manufacturing
Electronic Shopping & Mail Order Houses
Software Publishing & Data Processing
Petroleum & Chemicals Manufacturing
Architecture & Engineering
Computer Systems Design
Management, Scientific & Technical Consulting
Sources: Washington State Employment Security Department, and U.S. Census Bureau.
The bulk of technology-based employment in Washington State is found in a
variety of non-manufacturing industries. This category includes sectors that provide
services—for example, architecture and engineering—and industries that produce
intellectual property-based goods, software being a prominent example. The information
sector (composed of software publishers, data processing, telecommunications, other
information services, and computer systems design) accounts for 31% of total
technology-based employment. Producer services include architecture and engineering,
scientific research and development, management and technical consulting, management
of companies and enterprises, and remediation and other waste services. Together, these
industries account for 30% of total technology-based employment.
The balance of technology-based jobs are found in commercial equipment
merchant wholesaling, electronic shopping and mail-order houses, travel arrangement,
and university and federal research activities. These industries account for 11% of total
Figure 2 Breakdown of Employment in Technology-Based Industries, by
Percentage of Total Technology-Based Employment
In the first four Technology Alliance economic impact studies, we were able to
construct detailed information on employment by broad lines of technology-based
industry (excluding university and federal research) back to 1974. This time series was
based on the SIC classification system.
With the shift to the NAICS classification system there are two important changes
that make it impossible to present a harmonious estimate of employment trends from
1974 to 2013. First, some of the sectors considered technology-based under the SIC
system of classification were divided up into new categories in which at even the finest
level of detail the SIC classification system was not commensurable with the NAICS
system (the dispersal of SIC 737 computer services into parts of the NAICS information
industry, and into part of computer systems design and related services, illustrates this
issue). Second, the NAICS system recognized new industries that had no antecedent in
the SIC system, but meet the current test of having a high concentration of computing,
engineering, and scientific occupations. Management of companies and enterprises is a
good example of this second issue.
There is a third issue that arises in making such comparisons: the changing
occupational employment mix in particular industries. Whereas some industries were
excluded from earlier definitions of technology-based industry, the evolution of their
occupational mix has led to their inclusion under the current definition. Petroleum
refining is an example of this—it did not qualify for inclusion in the 2008 study, but it is
included in the current study. Even under the SIC system there were discontinuities in
classification, such as the movement of much of Hanford from chemicals (plutonium)
manufacturing to services in 1991.
There are no perfect solutions to these statistical issues. The easiest solution is to
include in this section both the historical data in the SIC format, to provide information
on the evolution of technology-based industries (Table 5), as well as the data in the
NAICS format (Table 6). Table 6 presents data for the years in which NAICS data are
available, and while the totals do not add up perfectly to the values in Table 5, they allow
us to have some evidence regarding the recent evolution of technology-based
employment in the industries included in the current study under these two systems of
measurement in the years when the government reported statistics in both formats (19972002).
Figure 3 presents estimates of private sector covered employment in technologybased industries from 1974 through 2013. This figure shows estimated aerospace
employment; software and computer services employment (including data processing,
computer systems design, and other information services); and other technology-based
employment. The figure illustrates the significant growth of non-aerospace technologybased employment in Washington. It uses the SIC industry definitions up to 2002, and
uses the NAICS definitions for the years after 2002. Figure 3 excludes university and
federal research and self-employment data, as historical data on these activities are not
available. Figure 3 reports over the course of the NAICS history employment levels
based on the definition of technology-based industry used in the Technology Alliance
economic impact study that year. In contrast, the data in Table 6 reports historic NAICS
data for the current study's definition of technology-based industry.
The three broad groups of industries displayed in Figure 3 have significant
differences in research-related occupational structure in the three SOC's used to define
technology-based industries included in this report (ESD 2013a). The aerospace sector
has 68% of its research-related employment in engineering occupations, 31% in
computer-related occupations, and 1% in scientific occupations. In contrast, software and
computer services industries have 99% of their research-related employment in computer
science occupations, 1% in engineering occupations, and no scientific occupational
employment. The "other technology-based industries" category has a more diversified
pattern of research-related employment: 36% in computer science occupations, 43% in
engineering occupations, and 21% in scientific occupations. Five industries within this
"other" category have research-related employment in which computer science
occupations dominate: electronic shopping and mail order houses; travel arrangement and
reservation services; telecommunications; management of companies and enterprises; and
commercial equipment merchant wholesalers.
The growth of private sector employment in Washington's technology-based
industries defined on an SIC basis was steady in the aggregate, increasing from 95,910 in
1974 to 259,648 in 2002, or 171%, as described numerically in Table 5 and in more detail
in Appendix IV. This compares to total wage and salary employment growth of 92% in
the Washington economy during the same period. In 1974, technology-based industries
accounted for 6.7% of state employment; by 2002 this had increased to 11.3%. The
inclusion of aerospace, which has demonstrated a high degree of cyclicality over the 1974
to 2002 period, masks a tremendous amount of growth in many of the non-aerospace
Biotechnology/biomedical manufacturing, an industry that was practically nonexistent decades ago, had the highest percentage growth of any sector, expanding more
than twelve-fold between 1974 and 2002. Software and computer services also expanded
twelve-fold over the same period. Aerospace, while the largest single tech-based industry
employer became steadily less important as a share of technology-based employment: in
1974 (as shown in Figure 3), almost 55% of private-sector technology-based employment
was in this sector; by 2002 its share had fallen to 23%.
It is also important to note the structural transformations that have occurred within
the software and computer services industry. At the end of the 1970s, software and other
computer services employment was dominated by data processing services undertaken on
mainframe computers. The adoption of minicomputers and personal computers led to a
significant decline in employment in data processing, evident in the large drop in
employment in this industry between 1980 and 1982. Simultaneously, software and
computer programming activity for personal computers started to become more and more
important in Washington State, and the industry began to expand again and is now
dominated by software production. This history demonstrates that cyclical changes in
technology-based employment are not confined to aerospace in Washington State.
Other sectors with high growth rates in Table 5 include engineering, research, and
consulting services (506%), reflecting the rapid growth of other types of business
services in the state and U.S. economy (as well as a reclassification of activities at the
Hanford site, discussed below); computers and electronics manufacturing (296%); and
specialized instruments and devices (228%). Motor vehicles and machinery, a sector
which many might not consider high technology but exceeded the 10% threshold of
employment in R&D occupations under the SIC definitions used in the early Technology
Alliance economic impact reports, showed very modest growth of 16%.
Table 5 Employment History for Washington State Technology-Based Industries, 1974-2002 (private-sector covered employment; SICbased definitions)
% Chg.
Motor Vehicles and
Specialized Instruments and
Chemical Production and
Biotechnology/Biomedical
Engineering, Research, and
Software and Other
Sources: U.S. County Business Patterns, Washington State Employment Security Department
Notes: Excludes university and federal research employment. A portion of the engineering, research, and consulting sector is related to biotechnology. Historical data on the level of
biotechnology research employment are not available.
Figure 3 Growth of Employment in Technology-Based Industries in Washington State, 1974-2013 (covered employment, excluding
government and university research activities)
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau County Business Patterns and Washington State Employment Security Department
The 26% decline in employment within chemical production and petroleum
refining in Table 5 reflects the reclassification of activities from plutonium production to
environmental remediation at the Hanford site. From the Second World War until 1989,
the Hanford works was a major contributor to national defense weapons production,
through the manufacture of plutonium. Over this long span of time, the federal government
instituted a management structure for the Hanford nuclear facility that employed a
contractor to operate the plutonium production process. This industrial activity was
classified in SIC 281, industrial inorganic chemicals. In addition to nuclear materials
production activity, research emerged as an important component of the Tri-Cities
economy, led by the research activities of the Battelle Memorial Institute. Battelle
managed (and still manages) the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and also operates a
separate research program affiliated with Battelle's larger mission as a research enterprise.
With the end of plutonium manufacture and the shift of the federal effort at Hanford
towards environmental cleanup, the classification of the employees who were considered
part of the inorganic industrial chemicals manufacturing industry were shifted to research
and testing (SIC 873). This change of classification was undertaken by ESD in 1991. In
our historical employment series for SIC 281 and 873, the impact of this change of
classification is evident. In the ongoing cleanup efforts at Hanford in recent years, most
employment has been reclassified again, and is now in waste remediation (NAICS 5629),
an industry included in the current study, with an estimated 4,131 people employed in this
industry in Benton County in 2013. Federal Department of Energy employment at Hanford
is not included in this study, but it is probably in the range of 500 employees. The
Employment Security Department reports a total of 753 federal employees in Benton
County in 2013, and a total of 529 persons in the administration of air, water, and waste
programs in Washington State (NAICS 924110) in 2013 (ESD 2014).
Table 6 presents estimates of employment for the 1998-2013 time period by
NAICS definitions used in this study. More detail on the history of employment by
NAICS codes is found in Appendix V. NAICS codes were changed in 2002 and 2007,
rendering some sectors non-comparable (NC) due to these definitional changes. This
table documents the rapid growth of employment in software publishing and computer
systems design, scientific research and development, and electronic shopping and mail
order houses. The aerospace employment cycle is evident in this table as well, with a
large drop in employment between 1998 and 2005, and a rebound after 2005. The
employment history in various business services is affected by the reported data for
management of companies, which shows a large drop in levels between 2000 and 2002.
A similar drop was recorded in computer manufacturing. These changes may be related
to reclassifications of establishments as a result of changes in NAICS classification
principles. Changes in NAICS codes in 2002 and 2007 have affected the definitions of
industries included in the various Technology Alliance economic impact studies, leading
to some discontinuities in employment statistics in cases where these redefinitions have
made it impossible to classify industries in a harmonized manner.
Table 6 Employment Trends for NAICS Technology-Based Industries (excluding university and federal research employment)
Computers & Electronic Products
Commercial Equipment Merchant
5112. 518,
Electronic Shopping and Mail Order Houses
Software Publishers, Data Processing and
Architectural & Engineering Services;
Management, Scientific & Technical
Consulting Services; Management of
Companies & Enterprises
Scientific R&D Services
Travel Arrangement & Reservation
Estimate for 1998 through 2002
Source: Washington State Employment Security Department, U.S. Census Bureau County Business Patterns
NC=not comparable
Washington State's concentration of technology-based employment, as defined in
this series of studies, has increased significantly over the past several decades. In 1985,
our relative share of private sector technology industries was 10% above the national
average; by 1997, this share had increased to 42% above the national average (Beyers
and Lindahl 1997; Beyers and Nelson 1998; Beyers and Lindahl 2001). In the wake of
the downturns in aerospace employment after 1998, and impacts on technology-based
industry of the business cycle in 2001-2002 and the dot-com bust, the concentration of
technology based employment declined somewhat in Washington. In 2011, the latest
year for which national data by state were available, Washington's concentration of
technology-based industries was 49% above the national average.
Table 7 identifies "location quotients" for each of the NAICS technology-based
sectors. The location quotient is a simple measure of the relative concentration of a
particular industry in a region compared to the concentration of that industry for a
benchmark region; in this study nation as a whole is the benchmark region. A value less
than 1.0 indicates that an industry is underrepresented in a state or region, a value over
1.0 indicates a higher level of concentration than the nation, and a value around 1.0
indicates that the concentration of an industry within the state or region is similar to that
within the national economy5. Table 7 uses two measures of employment: U.S. County
Business Patterns, and the U.S. Census Bureau Nonemployer Statistics. The nonemployer
data are derived from tax returns filed with the Internal Revenue Service by selfemployed persons, in which they self-identify the industry from which they are receiving
self-employment income.
The 2011 data for technology-based self-employment in Washington State
indicate that their number was 9.8% of the total number of people reported as selfemployed in County Business Patterns; this compares to 18.1% economy-wide. Thus,
technology-based industries have a lower share of self-employed workers than in the
economy as a whole. The number of self-employed persons in the United States has
gradually increased in recent years; their inclusion in the statistical basis for calculating
location quotients does not change significantly Washington's overall concentration, but
it does provide a broader basis for calculating these indices. The Washington inputoutput models used for economic impacts includes self-employment in measures of labor
income and employment.
U.S. Census Bureau data are used in this section of the report, rather than Washington
State Employment Security Department data, because the calculations in this section of the
report were compared to other states in the United States.
Table 7 Location Quotients in Washington's Private Sector Technology-Based
Industries, 2011
NonIndustries
CBP employer
Computers & Electronics Manufacturing
Aerospace & Motor Vehicle Parts
Software Publishers & Computer Systems
Data Processing & Other Information Services
5413, 5416, 55 Business Services
Scientific R&D
All Technology-Based Industry
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau County Business Patterns and Nonemployer Statistics
The strongest concentration of technology-based industry in Washington State is
in aerospace and motor vehicle parts manufacturing, with a location quotient of 3.80. No
other sector included in this study approaches this dominance. Software publishers &
computer systems design, as well as remediation and other waste services, have a
concentration 2.2 times the national average. Commercial equipment merchant
wholesalers, telecommunications, data processing and other information services,
business services6, and scientific R&D are all above the national average in
concentration. Appendix III presents location quotients for more detailed industries than
those contained in Table 7, and these data make it clear that Washington's strongest
industrial concentration is due to aerospace, in which our location quotient is 7.9, while
in motor vehicle parts manufacturing our location quotient is only 0.2.
Figures 4 through 6 depict the concentration of technology-based industries, as
defined in this report, in Washington State compared to that in other states. These figures
show specific location quotients for Technology Alliance peer states, along with location
quotient values for some other states with high location quotients that are not considered
Washington's peers (in red type).
The location quotient for all technology-based employment, based on the mix of
industries covered by this report, placed Washington 1st, with a location quotient of 1.49,
followed by Virginia at 1.45. Virginia has strong concentrations in data processing;
Including Management of Companies & Enterprises, Architectural & Engineering Services,
and Management, Scientific & Technical Consulting Services.
architectural and engineering services; computer systems design; management, scientific
and technical consulting; and scientific research and development.
New Jersey has strong concentrations in chemicals manufacturing; commercial
equipment merchant wholesalers; computer systems design; management of companies;
remediation and other waste services; management, scientific and technical consulting;
and scientific research and development. Massachusetts is heavily concentrated in
computer and electronics manufacturing, software, and scientific research and
development. California has multiple concentrations of technology-based industries,
including machinery manufacturing, software, commercial equipment merchant
wholesalers, telecommunications, architecture and engineering, and computer systems
Maryland has high concentrations in architecture and engineering; computer
systems design; scientific research and development services; and management,
scientific, and technical consulting services.
Figure 4 Location Quotients for Technology-Based Employment in the U.S.
(industries defined as in Table 2, excluding university and federal research)
In the 1997 Technology Alliance economic impact study, Washington ranked 6th
in the U.S. in its location quotient for technology-based industries, as they were defined
in that report, using data for the year 1993. In the 1998 study, we were propelled to the
top of the nation in our concentration of these industries, a ranking based on data for
1995. Washington retained this position in the 2001 study, using national data for 1997.
In the 2005 study, our position slipped to 3rd and then, in the 2008 study we ranked 4th,
fueled primarily by employment losses in the aerospace sector. In the 2010 study
Washington also ranked 4th nationally. Using the current definition of technology-based
industries, Washington ranked 1st nationally, moved upward by growth in a broad
spectrum of technology-based industries in Washington State.
It is not possible to tease apart precisely the relative contributions to
Washington's shifting position in these location quotients in industry detail due to the
shift from the SIC to the NAICS classification schemes, and changes in the definition of
technology-based industry in these studies. However, with the growing importance of
services in the definition of technology-based industry, it is clear that states such as
Virginia, Maryland, Connecticut, and New Jersey are strong competitors with their
proximity to the nation's capital and our leading financial center, New York City.
Washington's position is strongly impacted by our very strong concentration in software
publishing—our location quotient is 6.9, more than double that of the closest other state
(Massachusetts, with a value of 2.7).
Figure 5 identifies patterns of industries that are "technology-intensive," or those
with greater than 30% of employment in R&D occupations (see Table 3 for a list of these
industries). The inclusion of aerospace and software publishers in this category (26% of
employment in R&D occupations within Washington State are in these two sectors), is
responsible for our very high concentration (2.058)—the second highest index in the
nation after Virginia (2.062). It should be noted that Washington and Virginia have much
higher concentrations of these "technology-intensive" industries than other states, as
reported in Figure 5.
Figure 5 Location Quotients for Technology-Intensive Employment in the U.S.
(greater than 30% employment in R&D occupations)
The strong contribution of aerospace to the high location quotients for
Washington State depicted in Figures 4 and 5 is more sharply evident when the sector is
excluded from the calculation, as shown in Figure 6. Without aerospace Washington's
technology-based industry location quotient falls to 1.33. Washington State enjoys an
unsurpassed dominance in its concentration of aerospace employment (a location quotient
of 7.9). The other state with a very high concentration of aerospace employment is
Kansas (with a location quotient of 7.6), but this state is currently not a national center of
non-aerospace technology-based manufacturing, so its location quotient on Figure 6 is
relatively low. The industries that pull us up to the national average are computers and
electronics, software, research, and waste remediation. States that have the highest
location quotients in Figure 6 (Virginia and New Jersey) have strong concentrations in a
variety of technology-based services, but not in software.
Figure 6 Location Quotients for Non-Aerospace Technology-Based Employment
County Business Patterns (CBP) provides establishment counts by size category,
while the Nonemployer Series provides estimates of proprietorships. These data are
presented in Table 8, and in Figures 7, 8 and 9. These data indicate that 15,975
technology-based establishments in Washington State employed a total of 414,136 people
in 2011, with an average of 26 employees per establishment7. The Nonemployer Series
for 2011 contains an additional 40,425 individuals, most of whom are reported in
services, with 40% of the total reported in NAICS 5416, management, scientific, and
technical consulting.
Figure 7 is presented in a semi-logarithmic format, and includes the size
distribution of technology-based establishments in Washington State and the United
States, as well as the distribution for employment in all industries. This figure clearly
indicates (1) a similar size distribution for technology-based establishments in
Washington State and in the United States, and (2) the fact that Washington and U.S.
technology-based industries have a "tail" of larger establishments (over 100 employees).
Figure 8 shows the estimated total employment by size category, using the estimated size
The year and data base for County Business Patterns differs from the Employment Security
Department covered employment series, used as the benchmark for this study. Therefore,
the totals are not the same, but they are quite similar.
per establishment reported in Table 88. Figure 8 reports that almost half of employment
in Washington technology-based industries are in establishments with 500 or more
employees. In contrast, Figure 9 indicates the very skewed distribution of establishment
size, with 99.4% of the total establishments employing fewer than 500 people, and 86.4%
employing fewer than 20 people.
Figure 7 Size Distribution of Technology-Based Establishments, 2011 (excludes selfemployed and university and federal research)
The estimated size for the category over 1,000 employees was calculated by subtracting
total employment in the smaller size categories from the total employment, and calculating
the average employment for the remaining employees.
Table 8 Size Distribution of Technology-Based Establishments in Washington State
Petroleum & Coal
3335 Metalworking Machinery
Turbine & Power
3336 Transmission Manufacturing
Computer & Electronic
Products Manufacturing
3363 Manufacturing
3364 Aerospace Manufacturing
4234 Merchant Wholesalers
Electronic Shopping & Mail4541 order Houses
5112 Software Publishers
ISPs & Data Processing
Architectural & Engineering
5413 Services
5415 Computer Systems Design
Management, Scientific &
5416 Technical Consulting
5417 Scientific R&D
Management of Companies
& Enterprises
Travel Arrangement &
5615 Reservation Services
Remediation & Other Waste
5629 Management Services
All Technology-Based
Average Employment
Total Employment
Figure 8 Share of Total Employment by Size Category
Figure 9 Share of Total Number of Establishments by Size Category
The historical trends described in this section, and the U.S. maps showing the
concentration of technology-based employment, exclude employment in university and
federal research organizations due to a lack of historical information on these entities.
The University of Washington and Washington State University provided special
tabulations of their research-related expenditures and employment for the year 1997,
including direct outlays associated with research grants and contracts and associated
indirect costs. It was assumed that these cost distributions have not changed for the
purposes of this study; their Washington intermediate purchases and labor income
percentages are similar to sector 44 in the 2007 Washington input-output model (this
sector includes architecture & engineering, specialized design, computer systems design,
and scientific research & development).
It is estimated that 11,531 people were employed at university and federal
research establishments in 2013, as measured on an FTE basis. At the UW, grant and
contract awards have expanded significantly over time, rising from $179 million in 1975
to $531 million in 2013 (as measured in constant 1982-1984 dollars). Grant and contract
expenditures at the UW were $1.362 billion in fiscal year 2013, of which $806 million
was for research (UW 2013). The balance of these grant and contract funds were
obligated for training, fellowships, and other activities (including institutes and
conferences, and are not included in this study). The UW is currently the 2nd largest
university recipient of federal research funding in the U.S. and the largest recipient
among public institutions.
While employment in technology-based industries is strongly concentrated in the
Seattle-Everett metropolitan area (where aerospace and technology-based service
employment is primarily located), there are firms located in every county in the state.
Figure 10 shows the distribution of employment in 2013. Outside of King and Snohomish
counties, there are also relatively large numbers of employees in Benton (14,372), Clark
(13,845), Pierce (13,647), and Spokane (14,036) counties. Fourteen counties have at least
1,000 persons employed in technology-based industries. Appendix VI contains estimates
of technology-based employment for all 39 counties in Washington State.
Figure 10 Technology-Based Employment by County
Source: Washington State Employment Security Department, supplemented with estimates for UW and WSU research, NOAA, and Keyport
Washington's technology-based industries have grown substantially in the past
three decades, such that in the aggregate they now represent 13.9% of total employment
(including university research and federal employment at Keyport and NOAA). While
aerospace and computer services continue to play a dominant role and are the primary
reason that Washington has one of the highest concentrations of technology-based
industries, other sectors have emerged that contribute to further diversification of the
state's economy. As the next section describes in detail, these industries now represent a
substantial component of Washington State's economic base.
While technology-based industries employ more than 460,000 people in
Washington, there are broader impacts on our economy beyond direct employment.
These larger "multiplier" effects occur as a result of businesses within these industries
selling their goods and services outside the state, making intermediate purchases within
the state, and providing payments to employees in the form of wages and other labor
income, a large portion of which is spent on other goods and services within the state
To calculate these larger impacts, the Washington State input-output model was
used, which provides a detailed representation of the economic linkages within a
particular regional or national economy. We have used the Washington State inputoutput model to calculate the impacts of technology-based industries on the Washington
economy for the year 2013 (Beyers and Lin 2012). Before describing results from this
analysis, a brief discussion of the input-output methodology is presented. A technical
appendix on modeling is included as Appendix II.
Washington State has invested in the construction of eight regional input-output
models beginning in 1963, with the latest model released for the year 2007. These
models describe where Washington industries sell their products and where they purchase
the inputs needed to make their products. The structural relationships contained in these
models are used to estimate the indirect impacts associated with industrial production.
The models are divided into "sectors," which have distinctive patterns of inputs, or
purchases of goods and/or services regionally. These distinctive purchasing patterns lead
to varying multipliers. The widespread application of regional input-output models to
impact analyses stems from their ability to pinpoint these differing levels and patterns of
impact by industry.
Figure 11 is a schematic that describes the general structure of a regional inputoutput model. Demands for the products or services of individual industries lead to the
direct purchase of inputs to make products and services. These direct purchases are made
from suppliers located inside Washington State but are also procured in non-Washington
markets. For example, Boeing imports all of the airframes for the 737 airplane from
plants located in Kansas, but they also purchase some services and manufactured goods
in Washington State and make large payments to their labor force.
Within the regional economy, the purchases of goods, services, and payments to
the labor force have "ripple effects." For businesses, these ripple effects begin when they
procure inputs to produce the products or services they sell to a client. "Second-round"
and "third-round" effects take place as other industries are drawn into the production
process indirectly to produce output ultimately delivered to the business. Similarly, labor
force earnings are spent on consumption of goods and services, such as food, housing,
cars, clothing, etc. These expenditures also have ripple effects, which are captured in
regional input-output models.
Figure 11 Schematic of the Washington State Input-Output Model
Through the use of a generalized form of the direct structural relationships found
in a regional input-output model, it is possible to trace out the summarized impact of the
demand from any given industry on all industries. These impacts are measured as (1) the
level of business activity (or output) generated in all industries, (2) the number of jobs
created in all industries, (3) the level of labor income (wages and supplements) earned in
all industries, and (4) tax revenues in all industries. Separate measures of impact were
calculated for each of the NAICS codes shown in Appendix V, and aggregated to the
industrial groupings used in Table 11. Details of this computational process are
discussed in Appendix II.
Results of the impact analysis are presented first in the aggregate and then with
more detail related to particular segments of technology-based industries in Washington
State. Table 9 presents direct and aggregate impact results. Some 460,242 jobs, $221
billion in sales, $802 million in taxes, and $55 billion in labor income were directly
generated by technology-based industries in Washington State in 2013.9 These values
increase significantly once the indirect effects are added from the input-output model
calculations. Direct and indirect employment impacts total 1,381,917 jobs across all
industries in the Washington economy; overall impacts equal $370.3 billion in sales, with
$102.8 billion in labor income. The aggregate level of state sales and use, business and
occupation (B&O), and local sales and use taxes are estimated to be $6.9 billion.10 Later
in this section, these large impacts are disaggregated into the contributions of individual
Table 9 also presents estimates of multipliers: the multiplier represents simply the
relationship between the direct effects and the sum of the direct and indirect impacts. To
interpret these multipliers, we can say, for instance, that for every technology-based job
in Washington State, there are a total of three jobs created in the state economy.
Table 9 Direct and Total Economic Impacts of Technology-Based Industries
% Change from 2012 Study in
Nominal $
Direct Impacts
Labor Income
Total Cumulative Impacts
The input-output model provides estimates of output, income, and employment
impacts in each industry in the economy due to the demands related to each individual
technology-based industry. The impacts in Table 9 could be presented at this level of
detail, but a simpler view of these impacts is presented in Figure 12, which shows the
total direct and indirect employment effects.
Of the 921,675 indirect and induced jobs created in the Washington economy,
some 17,865 of these are in manufacturing, 158,779 are in retail and wholesale trade,
688,757 are in services, and 56,274 are in other industries. The indirect and induced jobs
Direct tax impacts are estimated state business and occupation tax collections.
Total tax impacts are much higher than direct tax impacts, as they include state and local
sales taxes generated from the spending of labor income, as well as directly and indirectly
generated state business and occupation tax revenues.
reported in Figure 12 are a summary of the job impacts calculated for each of the 52
sectors contained in the Washington State input-output model. These impacts reflect the
strong leveraging impact of labor income earned by workers in technology-based
industries, income that is well above the state average per worker as will be documented
shortly. The expenditure of this labor income robustly stimulates the trade, services,11
and other industry12 sectors in the input-output model.
Figure 12 Total Direct and Indirect Employment Impacts
The data reported in Table 9 indicate differences in direct and indirect impacts
from the 2012 Technology Alliance economic impact study. These differences are
related to several factors. First, the 2012 study utilized the 2002 Washington State InputOutput Model to calculate economic impacts, while the current study utilized the 2007
Washington State Input-Output Model. Multipliers in these two models are not the same;
most significantly there are changes in labor productivity between these two models that
contributed to a decline in employment multipliers. Second, the mix of industries in the
current study and in the 2012 study are not the same, leading to different aggregate
economic impacts. Third, direct labor income per employee in the current study is well
above that estimated in the 2012 study. This increased level of labor income may be
related to the recovery of Washington industries from the Great Recession. Increased
labor income translates in the impact estimates into increased personal consumption
Services includes transportation and warehousing; information; finance, insurance, and
real estate; professional services; educational services; health services; arts, recreation and
accommodation services; food services and drinking places; and other services.
12 The other industry group includes: agriculture, agricultural services, forestry, fishing,
logging, mining, utilities, and construction.
expenditures, which stimulates overall sales, taxes, and labor income. It is not possible to
disentangle the contribution of each of these trends to the changes reported in Table 9 for
direct and total cumulative impacts.
Industries have varying impacts on regional economies, as measured by business
activity, employment, and income through input-output models. The magnitude of these
impacts is a function of their connectivity to these economies. The industries included in
this study have major differences in their impacts, as documented in Table 10. Table 10
presents the total employment impact multiplier and labor income per job by industry,
and identifies industry variations in the proportion of purchases made in Washington
State and the share of out-of-state sales. This table also compares technology-based
industry impacts to the average for all other industries in the Washington economy.
Variations in labor income levels per job and in-state purchases each influence multiplier
levels, contributing to the multiplier effect of these sectors on the Washington economy.
Table 10 Key Indicators for Technology-Based Industries
Per Job
% In State
% Out of
State Sales
Aerospace & Motor Vehicles
Machinery and Computers & Electronics
Software, Data Processing, Other Information
Scientific Research &Development
Architecture & Engineering and Management,
Scientific, & Technical Consulting
Remediation & Other Waste Management
Other Washington Industries
Technology-based industries have higher employment multipliers than other
industries in the Washington economy, and have a level of labor income per job that is
more than double the average of other industries in the Washington economy.
Technology-based industries are also much more export-oriented than other industries in
the Washington economy, and they rely in imports from other regions to a greater extent
than other Washington industries. The estimates of in-state purchases and out-of-state
sales in Table 10 are based on data for these industries from the 2007 Washington State
input-output model. Indicators for individual technology-based industries will be
discussed in the next sections of this report.
Table 11 presents summary impacts of technology-based business activity by sectoral
group. This table is followed by a brief discussion of the impacts of each sector. Total
impacts are as reported in Table 9. Four measures of impact are contained in Table 11. The
sales impact figures are a measure of total business activity in the Washington economy
related to each technology-based industry. The employment and labor income figures for
each technology-based industry are the total estimated direct plus indirect and induced jobs
and labor income generated in the Washington economy in the year 2013. The tax impacts in
Table 11 are the combination of business and occupation plus sales taxes generated in
Washington State due to business activity in each technology-based industry.
Table 11 Summary Impacts by Sector
Software, Data Processing, Other
Architecture & Engineering and
$20,081.7
The aerospace and motor vehicle parts sector generated 257,000 jobs in the
Washington economy in 2013, 7.8% of total state employment. Most of the impact of
this sector comes from the aerospace sector which employed 95,340 people in 2013;
motor vehicle parts had 2,303 employees. As Table 9 indicates, the aerospace and motor
vehicle parts sector is strongly focused on markets outside Washington State. The
aerospace component of this sector has a history of fluctuation, as the demand for
commercial aircraft has boomed or collapsed. The year 2013 corresponded to an
expanding phase in the aerospace cycle, with the sector gaining 10,355 jobs in
Washington State between 2011 and 2013. However, 2013 wage and salary employment
fell short of the 1998 peak level of employment by 17,776 jobs.
While the aerospace and motor vehicles sector accounted for 19% of direct
technology-based jobs in 2011, it accounted for a somewhat smaller share (17%) of total
job impacts. Although labor income per worker is high in this sector, it has weak backward
linkages to other industries in the state economy when compared to other technology-based
industries. The result is a lower multiplier than found in a number of other technologybased sectors, but a level still above the state average (Beyers & Lin 2012).
Machinery and Computer & Electronics Manufacturing
The machinery and computer and electronics industry has a number of segments
in the current study. The machinery component is composed of manufacturers of metal
working, and engine and turbine and power transmission machinery. The computer and
electronics industry includes computer and peripheral equipment; communications
equipment; audio and video equipment; semiconductors and other electronic components;
navigational, measuring, electromedical and control instruments, and reproducing
magnetic and optical media. These industries collectively employed nearly 23,000
people and supported 97,430 total jobs in 2013. The computer and electronics
component experienced significant job growth over the 1974-2002 time period (296%),
as indicated in Table 5 and Appendix IV, but employment decreased 12% between 2007
and 2011.
This sector is strongly tied to non-Washington markets, exporting 90.5% of its
product. Its jobs multiplier of 4.22 is above than the average for all technology-based
industries. This sector accounted for 5.0% of technology-based jobs in 2013, and 7.1%
of all jobs created statewide by technology-based industries.
The petroleum and coal products industry is dominated in Washington State by
petroleum refining, which is done primarily at establishments in Skagit and Whatcom
counties. This industry has a very high value of output relative to its employment size
(2,608 jobs in 2013), given the current value of crude oil that is its principal input. Data
from the 2007 Washington input-output model report that this industry has exports from
Washington State of 42% of its value of output, and purchases in-state of 18% of total
purchases. In contrast, only 1.4% of this industry's total purchases are labor income in
the state economy, although as Table 10 reports the labor income per job is very high in
this industry. Table 10 reports a very high multiplier for this industry—17 total jobs per
direct job--probably an unrealistically large multiplier. This result is a byproduct of the
input structure in this industry, in which intermediate purchases are larger than payments
of labor income (in other industries this relationship is the reverse). ,. This sector has not
had much change in employment in recent years, as reported in Appendix V. Table 10
indicates that this industry supported nearly 42,000 jobs in the Washington economy in
the year 2013.
The chemicals manufacturing industry includes firms engaged in organic and
inorganic chemicals manufacturing; plastics materials manufacturing; pesticide and
fertilizer manufacturing; biomedical products manufacturing; and paints, adhesives,
cleaning, and other chemical products manufacturing. Over 6,300 people worked in this
industry in 2013, supporting 17,800 jobs in the Washington economy.
The chemicals manufacturing sector has exhibited considerable employment change
over time; Table 5 shows a large drop in employment between 1990 and 1992. This was
largely due to a reclassification of people who were employed in plutonium production at
Hanford into research and testing services (note the large increase in employment in this
sector in Appendix IV between 1990 and 1992). Table 6 and Appendix V report modest
growth in NAICS-based chemicals employment since 1998.
This industry has lower wages than all technology-based sectors (see Table 10),
and a slightly lower employment multiplier than all technology-based industry. The
chemicals industry is strongly focused on markets outside Washington State, selling 87%
of its output in external markets. This industry was responsible for 1.4% of the
technology-based jobs in Washington State, but supported only 0.5% of the total jobs
related to technology-based industries, due to its relatively low labor income per
employee, and relatively weak purchases level in the Washington economy.
Software Publishers, Data Processing, and Other Information Services
These industries contain establishments primarily engaged in computer software
publishing and reproduction; establishments primarily engaged in providing
infrastructure for hosting or data processing services; and other information services.
These establishments may provide specialized hosting activities, such as web hosting,
streaming services or application hosting; provide application service provisioning; or
may provide general time-share mainframe facilities to clients. Data processing
establishments provide complete processing and specialized reports from data supplied
by clients or provide automated data processing and data entry services. Other
information services is dominated by employment in internet publishing and
broadcasting, but also includes news syndicates, libraries, and other information services.
These industries directly employed 71,091 people, with a relatively high job
multiplier of 4.10. They supported 291,638 jobs in the Washington economy in 2013, or
8.8% of total state employment. The high multiplier is related to the high labor income
per worker in this sector, estimated to be $173,390, or more than two and one-half times
the state average labor income per job. These industries accounted for 15.4% of
technology-based jobs, and through its relatively high multiplier, it was responsible for
21.1% of total jobs created by technology-based industries in Washington.
This sector has very strong out-of-state sales (86%), and makes in-state purchases
at a level similar to all technology-based industries. Reclassifications from the old SIC
code to NAICS and redefinitions of NAICS codes make it difficult to estimate growth of
this sector using consistent definitions. However, Table 5 reports growth under the SIC
definition of 1,239% from 1974 to 2002, while Appendix V reports a quadrupling of
employment in software publishers and data processing and related services from 1998 to
This industry includes establishments providing custom computer programming
services, computer integrated systems design, computer facilities management, and other
computer related services. Appendix V reports that this industry has had a strong record
of growth since 1998 (160.6%). Before the change from the SIC to the NAICS
classification system, this industry was part of the computer services industry (SIC 737),
which Appendix IV reports had a 13-fold increase in employment from 1974 to 2002.
This industry directly employed 48,842 people in 2013, and it generated a total of
120,755 jobs in the Washington economy in 2013. Labor income in this industry is
slightly below the tech-industry average, and the employment multiplier (2.47) is also
somewhat below the tech-industry average (3.0).
Like software, this industry is strongly export oriented (70%), and buys a modest
share of its inputs from the Washington economy (14%). The computer systems design
& related services industry accounted for 10.6% of direct technology-based employment
in Washington State in 2013, and its impact was 8.7% of total jobs impacts of
technology-based industry in 2013.
This industry includes establishments wholesaling photographic equipment and
supplies; office equipment; computer and computer peripheral equipment; software;
medical, dental and hospital equipment; ophthalmic goods; and other commercial and
professional equipment and supplies. This industry was not included in the first three
Technology Alliance economic impact studies. Redefinitions of the classification of
wholesaling in the 2002 revisions of the NAICS codes led to the inclusion of this sector
because of its relatively high concentration of computer-related occupations. The NAICS
definition for this industry does not mesh well with SIC-based definitions, so it is not
possible to develop historical estimates of employment in this industry prior to 1998.
This industry employed 13,203 people and supported 36,690 jobs in the
Washington economy in 2013. The sector earnings per worker similar to all technologybased industry, and a degree of export-market orientation similar to all Washington
industries. This sector accounted for 2.9% of technology-based jobs in Washington State,
and was responsible for 2.7% of total jobs created due to technology-based industries.
This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in retailing all types of
merchandise using non-store means, including electronic media such as interactive
television or the Internet. This industry employed 19,933 people in 2013, or 4.3% of
technology-based employment in Washington. It supported 53,587 total jobs, which was
3.9% of the jobs supported by technology-based industry in the state. This industry has
grown rapidly, increasing state employment by 258% from 1998 to 2013, as measured by
U.S. County Business Patterns.
The 2007 Washington State input-output table included non-store retailing as a
sector for the first time. Data from this model indicate that out-of-state sales were 87.3%
of total sales, while purchases in the state economy were 19.7% of total purchases. Labor
income per employee was $108,765, somewhat below the overall technology-based
industry average.
The largest employer in this industry is Amazon.com, headquartered in Washington
State, which also has fulfillment centers located around the United States and in foreign
countries. Amazon's global sales cannot be attributed to its headquarters activity; it is
unknown what the percentage of sales filled by this company's Washington establishments
are shipped to customers located in the state. It is also unknown what percentage of overall
Amazon and other electronic shopping and mail order house employment is classified in
this industry, as opposed to other industries such as NAICS 55 (management of companies
and enterprises), or NAICS 5415 (computer systems design).
The telecommunications industry is composed of establishments providing wired,
wireless, and satellite telecommunications; telecommunications resellers; and other
telecommunications services. Changes in NAICS code definitions made in 2007 have
altered where some telecommunications activities are classified. Due to these
reclassifications there is a lack of historical data for this industry. The current industry
had 23,067 employees in 2013 which was 5.0% of all technology-based employment in
Washington State. This industry has a relatively high jobs multiplier, accounting for
98,989 jobs or 7.2% of total jobs supported by technology-based industry in the
Washington economy.
The Washington input-output table reports a low level of out-of-state sales for this
industry, only 18.6%, making this sector the most strongly linked to the Washington
economy of any technology-based industry. The industry's level of in-state purchases
was higher than that of other technology-based industries. Labor income per worker was
slightly below the technology-based industry average.
Architectural & Engineering Services and Management, Scientific, & Technical
This industry includes establishments engaged in architecture, engineering, and
related services, as well as providing management, scientific, and technical consulting
services. Over 72,000 people were employed in these industries in 2013, and the sector
supported almost 151,734 jobs in the Washington economy. Earnings in this sector are
below the average for all technology-based industries, but well above the statewide
average. This sector accounted for 15.7% of all technology-based jobs in Washington
State, and it supported 11.0% of the total jobs created by technology-based industries.
Market data for this sector show that about 57% of sales are made out-of-state, while
11.3% of purchases were made in-state.
Self-employment in this industry is quite high, accounting for 54% of the total
number of self-employed workers included in this study. Within this industry, 30% of
total employment was by the self-employed, compared to 8.8% for all technology-based
industries. The lower earnings by the self-employed compared to those on wage and
salary employment pulled down the average level of earnings in this industry.
This sector is not comparable to definitions based on the SIC system. Table 5
indicates that engineering, research, and consulting services had strong growth in
Washington State between 1974 and 2002, while Appendix IV indicates that architectural
and engineering services and management and public relations services have also had
strong growth over this time period. Research and testing services were included in this
industry grouping in early Technology Alliance studies, but in studies since 2005 that
activity is classified separately as scientific research and development services.
This industry is one that is somewhat problematic for this research project, as it is
not clear what type of industrial activity is related to those classified in NAICS 55. In the
SIC classification scheme, headquarters were treated as "administrative and auxiliary"
establishments, and were reported at the industry division level (such as manufacturing or
retail). The NAICS system reclassified these entities into NAICS code 55, with no
subdivision into the equivalent of industry divisions found in the SIC system. The
following text comes from the U.S. Census Bureau, defining this industry.
The Management of Companies and Enterprises sector comprises (1)
establishments that hold the securities of (or other equity interests in) companies
and enterprises for the purpose of owning a controlling interest or influencing
management decisions or (2) establishments (except government establishments)
that administer, oversee, and manage establishments of the company or enterprise
and that normally undertake the strategic or organizational planning and decisionmaking role of the company or enterprise. Establishments that administer,
oversee, and manage may hold the securities of the company or enterprise.
Establishments in this sector perform essential activities that are often undertaken,
in-house, by establishments in many sectors of the economy. By consolidating the
performance of these activities of the enterprise at one establishment, economies
of scale are achieved.
This industry directly employed 37,362 people in Washington State in 2013, and
supported 91,069 jobs in the state economy. It accounted for 8.1% of direct technologybased jobs, and 6.6% of total job impacts. This industry has no self-employment, and
average labor income slightly higher than all technology-based industry. The
employment multiplier is slightly below the technology-based industry average, because
regional purchases in this industry are relatively low (8%) compared to the technologybased industry average (16.8%). The Washington input-output table indicates that export
sales in this industry is lower than the technology-based industry average (43%).
Appendix V reports a sharp drop in employment in management of companies
and enterprises between 2000 and 2002. This is likely related to reclassifications of
establishments in the wake of the 2002 NAICS redefinitions. Unfortunately, there are no
statistical reports available that document these reclassifications. It is likely that some
employment of major technology-based Washington State businesses, such as Amazon
and Microsoft, is classified in this industry, but it is not possible to define the magnitude
of this activity.
This industry is composed of scientific research and development services
establishments, including establishments engaged in physical, engineering, and biological
research, as well as those engaged in social science and humanities research. Nearly
20,000 people worked in this industry statewide in the year 2013, and it supported a total
of over 54,000 jobs. Earnings are similar to the average for technology based industries.
This industry accounted for 4.3% of technology-based industry employment, and was the
source of 3.9% of the jobs supported in the Washington economy by technology-based
industries.
Appendix IV reports the SIC-based system of measurement of research and
testing services employment, which is not quite the same as the definition used in this
study. This data series shows that this sector has had strong growth over the 1974-2002
time period. In 1992 the large jump in employment in this sector was due to the
reclassification of a large number of Hanford-related workers from chemicals. In about
1995 many of these people were again reclassified into waste treatment and waste
remediation. Thus, the trend of employment shown in Appendix IV is not based on an
entirely consistent definition of this sector in the SIC classification framework.
Table 6 reports a doubling of wage and salary employment in this industry since
1998, when the NAICS definition measurement was first reported. This industry has
about 70% of its revenues from outside of the state; this is likely a conservative estimate,
as a substantial fraction of the activity in this sector takes place on federal account at the
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Unfortunately, the Washington input-output
model, which was used to develop this estimate of out-of-state sales, does not provide
detail on markets for this industry.
This industry appears for the first time in this analysis of technology-based
industry in the Washington economy. It is composed of travel agencies, tour operators,
convention and visitors bureaus, and other travel arrangement and reservation services.
The majority of employment is found in travel agencies, including the large online travel
company Expedia. Table 6 reports a decline in wage and salary employment in this
industry since 1998, but also reports considerable year-to-year volatility in estimates of
employment in this industry. Approximately 10% of the employment in this sector is
self-employment, as reported in Table 4.
The travel arrangement and reservation services industry accounted for 1.4% of
total technology-based employment in Washington State in 2013, and resulted in 1.1% of
total jobs supported by technology-based industry in the same year. Earnings in this
industry were at the average for technology-based industry. Table 8 reports export sales
of only 18.5% for this industry—data based on the broad sector within which this
industry is included in the Washington State input-output model. This is likely a very
conservative estimate of exports, but no alternative data were available to provide a more
realistic estimate of sales outside of the state.
Remediation & Other Waste Management Services
This sector is composed of remediation and other waste management services,
including materials recovery, septic tank & related services, and miscellaneous waste
management services; it does not include establishments engaged in waste collection.
The majority of employment in this industry is in remediation services, related to
Hanford cleanup activities.
In 2013, this sector employed 7,735 people, and supported 27,279 jobs in the Washington
economy. It accounted for about 1.7% of direct technology-based jobs, and for about
2.0% of total job impacts. Table 10 reports 62.6% export sales for this industry. This
figure was derived by assuming that the federal government provided the revenue for
Hanford cleanup work in Benton County. ESD provided an estimate of 4,131 people
employed in this industry in Benton County, which is 53% of the statewide total in this
industry. It was assumed that the balance of employment in this industry had exports as
reported in the Washington input-output model for the sector that includes NAICS 5629,
which was 19.8%. The export percentages for other industries in Table 10 are directly
from the 2007 Washington State input-output table; the adjustment just described was
made to better represent exports from this industry.
This sector is composed of research activity at the University of Washington and
Washington State University, and research and development being undertaken by NOAA
and at the Keyport Naval Undersea Warfare Division Keyport. No historical data are
available for this sector. The definition of this sector differs from the first three
Technology Alliance studies, which included other components of research activity along
with university and federal research. In the 2005, 2008, 2010 studies, as well as the
current study, these university and federal research activities are considered to be a
separate industry.
The wage level is lower than other technology-based industries, creating low
multipliers. This is due to the inclusion of university research in this sector, in which a
large number of graduate students are paid a relatively modest level of income compared
to research staff and faculty. About 2.5% of the jobs in technology-based industries are
in this sector, and they support around 1.9% of total jobs related to technology-based
industry. Almost all of the revenue to this sector is derived from out-of-state sources,
primarily from the federal government.
V. Conclusions
This study describes the growing importance of technology-based industries in the
Washington economy. In 2013 these industries employed 460,242 people, and supported
a total of 1,381,917 jobs in the state economy. Through multiplier effects, technologybased industries were responsible for 42% of Washington's 3.3 million wage and salary
and self-employed jobs in 2013. The share of Washington employment accounted for by
private sector technology-based industries has risen from 6.7% to 14.1% from 1974
through 2013, a trend that suggests that the total impact of technology-based employment
on the state economy has expanded significantly over the past three decades.
Tax revenues from the state business and occupation (B&O) tax due to technologybased industries (inclusive of indirect effects) were estimated to be $2.43 billion in 2013.
(Local B&O tax collections were not estimated in this study.) Sales and use tax revenues
to the State of Washington due to technology-based industries (inclusive of indirect effects)
were estimated to be $3.07 billion; an additional $1.42 billion in local sales and use taxes
were generated to local governments, for a total tax impact of $6.92 billion.
Technology-based industries directly and indirectly generated a total of $102.8
billion in labor income in 2013, which is 47.5% of total labor income earned in
Washington that year. Thus, from the multiple perspectives of job creation, tax revenues,
and labor income, technology-based industries account for about 42%-48% of total
activity in the state economy13
From a national perspective, Washington State is a center of technology-based
employment and R&D activity. The concentration of employment in the sectors covered
by this study places Washington 1st in the nation, and 4th in R&D funding indexed against
Gross State Product. Washington has increased its concentration of technology-based
A direct measure of their contribution to gross state product was not undertaken in this
study, primarily because the output of these sectors enters export markets, while gross state
product is predominantly composed of sales to regional components of final demand
(consumption, investment, and state and local government outlays).
industries over time, from 10% above the national average in 1985 to 49% above it in
The change in the definition of technology-based industries due to the shift from
the SIC system to NAICS makes it difficult to estimate growth rates for many
Washington technology-based industries compared to the nation as a whole over the long
run. Statistics for the SIC-based system presented in this report (Table 5 and Appendix
IV) indicate strong growth rates in some sectors (such as computers and electronics and
software and other computer services), and the increase in the relative concentration of
technology-based industries in Washington State is indicative of a stronger overall
expansion of employment in these sectors than in the national economy. Statistics from
the NAICS based system (Table 6 and Appendix V) also report strong growth.
As Washington's technology-based employment has grown, it has also become
more diversified. In 1974, 57% of technology-based employment was in aerospace; by
2013 this share had fallen to 21%. Given the fluctuations in employment in the aerospace
sector, this percentage could move up again, or it could continue to decline. However, a
number of other technology-based sectors have recently experienced rapid growth,
including software and other computer services; scientific research and development;
architectural and engineering services; and management, scientific, and technical
consulting services. Growth in these services industries should help the Washington
economy continue the long-term diversification of its technology-based employment.
Figure 13 documents the changing shares of manufacturing and services employment
across the eight studies of technology-based industry conducted by the author for the
Figure 13 Shares of Technology-Based Employment in Manufacturing and Services
Technology-based industry jobs are high-wage, full-time types of work. In 2013
the average level of labor income per job in technology-based industry in Washington
State was $120,005, which is 113% higher than the average level of labor income per
worker in other industries in Washington State. This high wage level is prevalent in most
technology-based industries, and it leads to relatively high impact levels stemming from
the expenditure of this income.
Technology-based industries are also strongly focused on external markets,
selling at least 70% of their output to clients located out-of-state. This level of exports is
much higher than other industries in the Washington economy (28%), making these
industries key and growing contributors to the state's economic base. They also provide
a stimulus to industries within the state economy through their purchases of goods and
services needed to produce their output. The linkage pattern of these industries creates
higher than average multipliers, leading to relatively high levels of impact per dollar of
business activity or per directly-created job.
This study documents the fact that private sector, for-profit technology-based
industries and private non-profit and public sector research organizations have significant
economic impacts on the Washington economy. There are other measures of impact that
could also be constructed to describe the contribution of these industries, including the
investment in productive capital needed to support their production process. The
research and development intensity of these sectors also has a long-term impact on new
business formation, as new businesses spin out of existing firms and research
organizations. In industries such as biotechnology, this process has important impacts as
firms move from the research to the commercialization phase of the production process.
University research also results in new business formation that has lasting economic
impacts on the state economy. Again, this study has not quantified these effects and is
therefore a conservative view of the larger impacts of technology-based activities in the
state economy.
While this study is based on a widely accepted definition of technology-based
industry, it is clear that there are other industries and categories of economic activity that
are changing the economic landscape which have their roots in or make heavy use of
advanced information technologies. The demise of many early dot-com businesses is a
good example of many business concepts built around information technologies. While
some of these enterprises were premised on business models that have not survived, the
expansion of electronic commerce is real and now the subject of measurement by the
The use of the Internet for business-to-business sales and purchases is burgeoning,
and the application of information technologies in a wide array of industries has now
been recognized as fueling an increase in the productivity of American industry
(Atkinson and Stewart 2012). The federal statistical agencies have identified key
information technology-producing and information technology-using sectors that have
contributed very strongly to the recent growth in gross domestic product and
employment. These include many of the technology-based industries covered by this
study, but also include a number of other sectors such as motion pictures, health care, and
producer services—sectors seen as vital to the so-called New Economy. Other studies of
technology-based industry in the Washington State economy could use a different basis
for defining industries included in an analysis, such as those just mentioned, that could
find an even larger economic impact than measured in this study.
In summary, technology-based industries are a growing, vibrant, innovative sector
in the Washington economy. They provide good jobs for Washington residents and
contribute an increasing share to our economic base. If the trends of recent years are any
indicator, these industries will play an even more important role in our economy in
coming years.
Appendix I Alternative Definitions of Technology-Based Industries: A Sampling of
A continuous stream of research focuses on technology-based industries in the
United States and in other developing and developed countries. As discussed in Section
I, the Technology Alliance has used an occupational definition of R&D related work as
its basis for defining the scope of the industries included in this and the previous
Technology Alliance economic impact studies. In this appendix several recent studies
are discussed, to highlight the diversity of approaches to defining technology-based or
high tech industry.
TechAmerica
TechAmerica was formed by the merger of the American Electronics Association,
Information Technology Association of America, Government Electronics and
Information Association, and the Cyber Security Industry Affairs Association. They
argue that they are a leading voice for the Information and Communications Technology
(ICT) industry in the United States." TechAmerica continues to produce documents that
were previously produced by the American Electronics Association (AEA) at the
national, state, and metropolitan area on industries it deems to be high-tech
(TechAmerica 2013). TechAmerica states "To be included in TechAmerica Foundation's
core definition of tech, an industry must be a maker/creator of technology, whether
products or services. The definition does not include wholesale or retail trade, industries
that are primarily dedicated to selling technology products as opposed to making/creating
the technology." (TechAmerica 2013, p. 109). Their definition includes computers and
peripheral equipment, communications and consumer electronics, electronic components,
semiconductors, space and defense systems, measuring and control instruments,
electromedical equipment, photonics, internet and telecommunications services, software
publishers, computer systems design and related services, engineering services, R&D and
testing laboratories, and computer training. Using this definition, TechAmerica publishes
documents such as Cyberstates, which provides a state-by-state national assessment of
measures such as employment, earnings, exports, R&D, and venture capital investment
(TechAmerica 2013). They also issue on-line press releases that highlight activity levels
in each state, provide estimates of high-tech in 60 major metropolitan areas (cybercities),
and are producing measures of high-tech international trade for the states. The
TechAmerica scope of high-technology industry is narrower than this study, amounting
to less than 50% of the number of jobs encompassed in the Technology Alliance
definition (191,000 jobs in Washington State versus the estimate of 460,242 contained in
this study).
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reviewed the definition of high-technology
employment in a paper published in 1999. Hecker (1999) revisited the widely cited 1983
evaluation of these definitions by BLS and, using the considerable resources at the
disposal of the federal statistical agencies, embraced a definition very similar to that used
in the Technology Alliance economic impact studies. He writes, "For this analysis,
industries are considered high tech if employment in both research and development and
in all technology-oriented occupations accounted for a proportion of employment that
was at least twice the average for all industries in the Occupational Employment
Statistics survey " (Hecker 1999). The paper includes a useful comparison of the
industries included in this definition (they are the ones used in the first three TA studies),
as well as in a number of other recent and older studies, including many reviewed in the
earlier TA studies. Hecker recently revisited the definition of high-tech, given the shift in
measurement to the NAICS system (Hecker 2005). His NAICS definitions are very
similar to those used in this study.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) presents annually Science and
Engineering Indicators, a diverse set of measures related to NSF's mission. NSF states:
"Science and Engineering Indicators (SEI) is first and foremost a volume of record
comprising the major high-quality quantitative data on the U.S. and international science
and engineering enterprise. SEI is factual and policy neutral. It does not offer policy
options, and it does not make policy recommendations." (NSF 2014). SEI has eight
chapters, among which is a set of state indicators. Relevant to this Technology Alliance
economic impact study are data on the science and engineering labor force, research and
development spending, and the state indicators. These data were used in this study to
document the level of doctoral employment in Washington industries compared to the
U.S. as a whole.
NSF has used the same definition of occupations as used in the current study to
define technology-based industry, but in 2012 it changed this definition. The 2012
edition of SEI it wrote: "High-technology industries are defined as those in which the
proportion of employees in technology-oriented occupations is at least twice the average
proportion for all industries. High-technology occupations include scientific,
engineering, and technician occupations that employ workers who generally possess indepth knowledge of the theories and principles of science, engineering, and mathematics
at a post-secondary level." NSF 2012, Ch 8, Employment in high-technology industry
establishments as a percentage of total employment. Table I-1 below reports the list of
industries included in the 2014 NSF definition, most of which are included in the current
Technology Alliance study.
2007 NAICS codes that constitute high-technology industries – NSF definition
Oil and gas extraction
Electric power generation, transmission, and distribution
Petroleum and coal products manufacturing
Basic chemical manufacturing
Resin, synthetic rubber, and artificial synthetic fibers and filaments manufacturing
Pesticide, fertilizer, and other agricultural chemical manufacturing
Pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing
Paint, coating, and adhesive manufacturing
Other chemical product and preparation manufacturing
In Current
TA Study
Commercial and service industry machinery manufacturing
Engine, turbine, and power transmission equipment manufacturing
Other general purpose machinery manufacturing
Computer and peripheral equipment manufacturing
Communications equipment manufacturing
Audio and video equipment manufacturing
Semiconductor and other electronic component manufacturing
Navigational, measuring, electromedical, and control instruments manufacturing
Manufacturing and reproducing magnetic and optical media
Electrical equipment manufacturing
Aerospace product and parts manufacturing
Other transportation equipment manufacturing
Professional and commercial equipment and supplies, merchant wholesalers
Pipeline transportation of crude oil
Pipeline transportation of natural gas
Other pipeline transportation
Internet publishing and broadcasting
Wired telecommunications carriers
Wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite)
Telecommunications resellers
Satellite telecommunications
Other telecommunications
Data processing, hosting, and related services
Internet Publishers & Broadcasting and web search portals
Monetary authorities, central bank
Securities and commodity exchanges
Architectural, engineering, and related services
Computer systems design and related services
Management, scientific, and technical consulting services
Scientific research and development services
Management of companies and enterprises
Facilities support services
Electronic and precision equipment repair and maintenance
Office of Technology Policy
The Office of Technology Policy (a former U.S. Department of Commerce
agency) published a set of indicators of state performance in science and technology
using measures of funding, human resources, capital investment and business assistance,
the technology intensity of the business base, and outcome measures (Office of
Technology Policy 2004). Four editions of this set of indicators were published. These
reports included a set of measures related to high-technology industry, including the
percentage of establishments, employment, and payroll in high-tech NAICS codes; the
share of establishment births in high-tech; and the net level of high-tech business
formation per 10,000 establishments. Washington ranked 1st in the share of payroll in
high-tech NAICS codes, 5th in the share of employment in high-tech NAICS codes, and
15th in the percentage of establishments in high-tech NAICS codes. The Office of
Technology Policy defined high-technology industry by reclassifying the 1999 definition
of high-technology developed by the BLS into concordant NAICS codes (Hecker 1999).
Thus, the Office of Technology Policy did not use newer the industry-x-occupation data
in developing their NAICS classification of high-tech industries. Their system was also
based on the 1997 NAICS codes, while the current Technology Alliance study has used
the 2007 NAICS codes. The industry list used by the Office of Technology Policy is
similar, but not identical, to the classification used in this study. This office was
abolished in 2007.
Milken Institute
The Milken Institute has produced a variety of reports that have a high-tech
component to them. This organization describes itself as follows: "A nonprofit,
nonpartisan economic think tank, the Milken Institute works to improve lives around the
world by advancing innovative economic and policy solutions that create jobs, widen
access to capital, and improve health" (Klowden, and Wolfe 2013). The Milken Institute
publishes periodically a report entitled "State Technology and Science Index," based on
79 different measures in the 2013 edition, which is benchmarked against the year 2012.
These measures span R&D inputs, risk capital and entrepreneurial infrastructure, human
capital capacity, technology and science workforce, and technology concentration and
dynamism. The latter includes measures similar to those included by the Office of
Technology Policy. Milken does not specifically identify the industries included in their
technology concentration and dynamism indicator, but it indicates that it uses Bureau of
Labor Statistics, Census Bureau and data that it develops in constructing these indicators.
Washington ranked 3rd on the technology and science workforce indicator and 2nd on the
technology concentration and dynamism index in 2012. These rankings are composites
of individual values within these categories, so they are not directly comparable to the
Office of Technology Policy measures (even if it were clear what industries Milken
included in its analyses). Washington's overall rank was 5th in the 2013 edition of the
State Technology and Science Index, up from 6th in 2010.
The 2012 State New Economy Index
This latest version of the State New Economy Index by Atkinson and Stewart has
been published by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, with support
from the Kauffman Foundation (Atkinson and Stewart 2012). They developed a set of
indicators for the states, and then focused on economic development strategies for the
new economy. High-tech industry is defined as by the TechAmerica, plus the addition of
biomedical sectors based on work of the BLS (Atkinson and Stewart 2012). Washington
State ranked 3rd in 2012 in this analysis, down from 2nd in the 2010 analysis, but up from
Washington's 4th position in the 1999, 2002, and 2007 State New Economy Index
measures. This analysis used 26 measures in 2012, many of which are similar those used
in the Milken Institute analysis.
Index of the Massachusetts Innovation Economy
This document is not a study of technology-based industry as such, but it has
many parallel considerations to information reported in this document, and in the State
New Economy and Milken Reports. A set of peer states were selected—Washington is
not one of them—and a set of indicators of performance of Massachusetts versus these
peers is presented (The Innovation Institute and Massachusetts Technology Collaborative
2014). Industry clusters are defined, although it is not clear how, and these include
aspects of technology-based industries as defined in this report, but also other industries.
The report has 24 indicators of performance, including some identical to those used in
this study (such as R&D indexed to a per capita or per $ of GDP). Indicator categories
include economic impact, research, technology development, business development,
capital, and talent. The report is suggestive of directions for policy, but does not directly
articulate recommendations. Massachusetts has a stronger concentration of research and
development activity as a share of GDP than Washington, but the location quotient maps
presented earlier in this report indicate that Washington's concentration of technologybased industry is greater than found in Massachusetts, using the Technology Alliance's
definition of technology-based industry.
Appendix II Technical Notes on the Input-Output Model
The impact estimates developed in this study stem from the utilization of an
"input-output model." Models of this type are based on static, cross-sectional measures
of trade relationships in regional or national economies. They document how industries
procure their inputs and where they sell their outputs. Pioneered by Wassily Leontief,
who won the Nobel Prize in Economic Science for his insights into the development of
input-output models at the national level, these models have become "workhorses" in
regional economic impact analysis in recent decades.
Washington State is fortunate to have a rich legacy of research developing inputoutput models. Early work was led by Philip J. Bourque and Charles M. Tiebout. Inputoutput models have now been estimated in Washington State for the years 1963, 1967,
1972, 1982, 1987, 1997, 2002 and 2007. No other state in the U.S. has this rich historical
legacy of survey-based or quasi-survey based regional input-output models. The current
economic impact study is based on work completed in 2011-2012 by a team of
Washington State government staff and Beyers (Beyers and Lin 2012).
Input-output models decompose regional economies into "sectors"–groups of
industries with a common industrial structure. At the heart of these models are "Leontief
production functions," which are distributions of the cost of producing the output of
sectors. Leontief augmented the national accounts schema developed by Kuznets (also a
Nobel laureate in economics) to take into account the significant levels of intermediate
transactions that occur in economic systems in the process of transforming raw materials
and services into "finished products" or "final products." Sales distributions among
intermediate and final sources of demand are used as the accounting bases for the
development of the core innovation of Leontief: that these relationships can be used to
link levels of final demand to total industrial output by way of a system of "multipliers"
that are linked through the channels of purchase in every industry to the production of
output for final demand.
This system of relationships is based on accounting identities for sales.
Mathematically, the system may be represented as follows. For each industry we have
two balance equations:
(1) Xi = xi,1 + xi,2 + .... + xi,n + Yi
(2) Xj = x1,j + x2,j+.....+xn,j + Vj + Mj
where: Xi =total sales in industry i,
Xj = total purchases in industry j
xi,j = intermediate sales from industry i to industry j
Yi = final sales in industry i
Mj = imports to sector j
Vj = value added in sector j.
For any given sector, there is equality in total sales and total purchases:
(3) Xi = Xj when i=j.
This system of transactions is generalized through the articulation of Leontief
production functions, which are constructed around the columns of the regional inputoutput model. They are defined in the following manner.
Let us define a regional purchase coefficient:
ri,j = xi,j/Xj.
Rearranging,
xi,j = ri,jXj
Substituting this relationship into equation (1) we have:
Xi = ri,1X1 + ri,2X2+ .... + ri,nXn + Yi
Each sector in the regional model has this equation structure, and since the values
of Xi equal Xj when i=j, it is possible to set this system of equations into matrix notation
as:
X = RX + Y
This system of equations can then be manipulated to derive a relationship between
final demand (Y) and total output (X). The resulting formulation is:
X = (I-R)-1Y
where the (I-R)-1 matrix captures the direct and indirect impacts of linkages in the inputoutput model system. The input-output model utilized in the modeling for this research
project was developed by a committee led by Dr. William Beyers and Dr. Ta-Win Lin,
and was published in 2012 by the Washington State Office of Financial Management.
The model has 52 sectors.
A major issue that surrounds the estimation of the (I-R)-1 matrix is the level of
"closure" with regard to regional final demand components, which are personal
consumption expenditures, state and local government outlays, and capital investment. It
is common practice to include the impacts of labor income and the disposition of this
income in the form of personal consumption expenditures in the multiplier structure of
regional input-output models. The additional leveraging impact of these outlays is
referred to as "induced" effects in the literature on models of this type. It is less common
to include state and local government expenditures in the induced effects impacts, but it
can be argued that demands on state and local governments are proportional to the
general level of business activity and related demographics. In contrast, investment is
classically argued to be responsive to more exogenous forces, and is not a simple
function of local business volume. In the model that we developed for this impact study
we have included personal consumption expenditures as a part of the induced-demand
linkages system. We have considered Washington personal consumption expenditures to
be a function of labor income. The resultant Leontief inverse matrix is available from the
Office of Financial Management in either the "simple" or the "complex" impact analysis
spreadsheet.
Appendix III Location Quotients for Technology-Based Industries in Washington
State, 2011
Turbine & Power Transmission Equipment
Remediation and other waste services
Total All Tech-Based Industry
Appendix IV Growth of Employment in Technology-Based Industries in
Washington State, 1974-2002 (excluding government and university research) SIC
Chemicals except
SIC 283 (drugs)
Engines and
Construction and
Related Machinery
Special Industry
Computer and Office
Equip.
Electric Distribution
Electrical Industrial
Household Audio
and Visual Equip.
Misc. Electrical
Equip. & Supplies
87,024 115,126 104,860
372&376 Aerospace
Search/Navigation
Equip. & Measuring
381&382 Devices
& Supplies
Research & Testing
Management &
259,648 274,989 277,688 230,183 231,977 213,405 192,759 163,044 139,509 136,892 139,771 115,680
Sources: Washington State Employment Security Department; U.S. County Business Patterns; The Boeing Company;
estimates by author
Includes an estimated 6,495 employees at Hanford in 2002 classified by ESD in sanitary
services (NAICS 562910, Remediation Services).
Appendix V Growth of Employment in Technology-Based Industries, 1998-2013 (excluding federal & university research and
self-employed), NAICS Definition
Petroleum and Coal Products
Engine, Turbine & Power Transmission
Internet Publishers & Broadcasters
ISP & Data Processing
Appendix V, continued
Sources: Washington State Employment Security Department, U.S. Census Bureau County Business Patterns
Appendix VI Washington Technology-Based Employment by County (Excludes
Self-Employed)
By # of Jobs
Source: Washington State Employment Security Department
Atkinson, R. D. and L.A. Stewart (2012). The 2012 State New Economy Index.
Washington, D.C., The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
Beyers, W. (2008). The Economic Impact of Technology-Based Industries in
Washington State. Seattle, WA, Technology Alliance.
Beyers, W. (2012). The Economic Impact of Technology Based Industries in
Beyers, W. and D. Lindahl (1997). The Economic Impact of Technology-Based
Industries in Washington State. Seattle, WA, Technology Alliance.
Beyers, W. and D. Lindahl (2001). The Economic Impact of Technology -Based
Industries in Washington State in 2000. Seattle, WA, Technology Alliance.
Beyers, W. and P. B. Nelson (1998). The Economic Impact of Technology Based
Beyers, W. and T.-W. Lin (2012). The 2007 Washington State Input-Output Model,
Office of Financial Management. http://www.ofm.wa.gov/economy/io/2007/default.asp.
Beyers, W., D. Andreoli, and S.J. Hyde (2005). The Economic Impact of Technology
Based Business in Washington State 2003. Seattle, WA, Technology Alliance.
Census, U.S. Bureau (2013). Annual Estimates of the Population for the United States,
Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2013. NST-EST2013-01.xls
Downes, J. V. (2014). Washington State University Research & Development Data. Email dated 3/11/14. Pullman, WA, Washington State University Institutional Research.
Employment Security Department, Washington State (2013). Long_Term-IndustryControl-Projections.xls.
Employment Security Department, Washington State (2013a). Occupational
employment by industries for 2012Q2.xls.
Employment Security Department, Washington State (2013b). QCEW-annual-averages2012.revised.xls.
Employment Security Department, Washington State (2014a). QCEW spreadsheets for
Q1 and Q2 Qcew-2013-q1-revised.xls; Qcew-2013-q2-preliminary.xls.
Employment Security Department, Washington State (2014b).
High_Tech_Employment_WA_Counties.xls. Prepared by Scott D. Bailey.
Hecker, D. (1999). "High Technology Employment: A Broader View." Monthly Labor
Review (June 1999): 18-28.
Hecker, D. E. (2005). "High-technology employment: a NAICS-based update." Monthly
Labor Review 128(7): 57-72.
NUWC Keyport Division (2014). "Our
People."http:www.navsea.navy.mil/nuwc/keyport/pages/OurPeople.aspx. Accessed
3/2/2014.
Klowden, K. and M. Wolfe. (2013). 2012 State Technology and Science Index:
Enduring Lessons for the Intangible Economy. Santa Monica, CA, Milken Institute.
National Science Foundation (2013). Science and Engineering State Profiles.
Http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/states/.
National Science Foundation (2014). Science and Engineering Indicators 2014. NSB14-01. Arlington VA, February 2014. Table 8-35.
Office of Technology Policy (2004). The Dynamics of Technology-Led Economic
Development: State Science and Technology Indicators. Washington D.C., U.S.
Department of Commerce.
Osborne, K & W. Beyers (2013). Drivers For A Successful Innovation Economy:
Benchmarking Washington's Performance. Seattle, Technology Alliance.
TechAmerica (2013). Cyberstates 2013.
http://www.techamericafoundation.org/cyberstates. Accessed 4/19/14.
The Innovation Institute at the MassTech Collaborative (2014). The Massachusetts
Innovation Economy Annual Index. Westborough, MA: The Innovation Institute.
University of Washington (2013). Annual Report of Awards and Expenditures Related to
Research, Training, fellowships, and other Sponsored Programs, FY2013. Prepared by
the Office of Sponsored Programs and Grant and Contract Accounting for the period July
1, 2012 through June 30, 2013.
Washington Research Council (2011). Trends in Washington's Life Sciences Industry
2007-2011. Tukwila, WA, Washington Research Council.
The Changing Nature of Technology-Based Industry in Washington