Causes of Retail Pull in Nebraska Counties and Towns A Thesis By Rex Nelson
Introduction Motivation for study – to understand rural declines Improve effectiveness of rural development efforts
Introduction Observations in Rural America: Rural population declines Rural business district declines Declining services available to rural dwellers Declining quality of life for rural residents Declining job opportunities Shrinking tax base Decaying rural infrastructure
Introduction Goal: Improved Understanding Learn to modify, if not change trends Manage impacts Focus rural development efforts Improved public policy Better use of scarce resources
Retail Trade This study uses retail trade as a benchmark to measure relative economic performance It is a net by which wealth is captured and transferred to new ownership In recipient community: creates jobs and economic multiplier effects In doner communities: opposite effects
(1) Leistritz, Ayres and Stone Retail Trade Rural counties in Iowa, Kansas Missouri and Nebraska 15% retail leakage in 1970’s 20% in 1990’s 1 Lost Jobs Population declines
(2) Reilly 1931, (3) Craig et al (4) Rathge Causes in the Literature Central Place Theory Distance and geographic area 2 Distance and demand thresholds 3 Population and demographics 8.4% of U.S. counties accounted for 93% of growth 1990 to Age and shopping patterns Income
(5) Darling (6) Yanagida et al Causes in the Literature Retail environment Size and quality 5 Presence of big box retailers Transportation Highway access Agriculture dependence 6
Theory Retail Trade = People Money A place to trade
Theory Retail Strength is represented by: County Trade Pull Factor (CTPF) County taxable retail sales / average of state aggregate taxable retail sales Measures retail trade coming into or “leaking” out of a community
(7) Darling Theory CTPF = f(CB, BP, RE) Where: CB is Customer Base BP is Buying Power RE is Retail Environment
Theory Dependent Variable CTPF represents Retail Strength
Dependent Variables CB POPROOT MJRHWY DIST BP INCOME CIIV RE VALUE
Theoretical Model CTPF=f(POPROOT, MJRHWY, DIST, INCOME, CIIV, VALUE)
Dependent Variables POPROOT: square root of population of dominant city within each county MJRHWY: location on interstate highway DIST: for communities over 2500, distance from major trade center of 10,000 population
Dependent Variables INCOME: per capita household income for residents in county CIIV: size and direction of flow of commuter income VALUE: per capita value of property value
Dependent Variables CB POPROOT MJRHWY DIST BP INCOME CIIV RE VALUE Seitz and Darling 2003 CB URBMASS MJRHWY CIIVBP INCOMERE VALUE MARKETCAP
Dependent Variables CB POPROOT MJRHWY DIST BP INCOME CIIV RE VALUE Upendram and Darling 2004 CB URBMASS (sq root) MJRHWY CIIVBP INCOMERE VALUE
Data All 93 Nebraska Counties Includes the three major metro counties CTPF from University of Nebraska Department of Ag Economics: “Nebraska Retail Pull Factors for Counties – 2002” Sales tax data Values greater than one – stronger than average retail sales Implies incoming trade
Data POPROOT: population of dominant city in the county – the trade center From 2000 census Square root used to reduce variance CIIV: Derived from U.S. Dept. of Commerce Bureau of Economic Research Index developed by Darling at KSU BEA Adjustment for Residence divided by total income Signed for positive index for job centers
Data MJRHWY: county given a value of one for location on an interstate highway DIST: Distance county trade center lies from nearest trade center of >10000 Towns under 2500 assigned value of zero Towns over 2500 assigned number of miles
Data INCOME: Per capita income in county from 2000 census (1999) VALUE: Per capita commercial property value, real and personal Includes all retail and industrial property
Results and Conclusions CTPF Mean 0.56 Median 0.47 Skewness 0.89
Results and Conclusions Profile of retail sales underlying CTPF: Three metro counties capture 61% of retail sales Top six counties (6.5%) capture 71%
Results and Conclusions Adjusted R-Squared73.4 The model is effective at explaining retail trade All variables significant at the 10% level POPROOT was 66% correlated with VALUE, all others <55% in correlation matrix
Results and Conclusions DIST: coefficient positive and significant at 1% level Relatively large A trade center city 50 miles from another trade center could surmise that 0.16 of CTPF was due to favorable location
Results and Conclusions MJRHWY: Coefficient positive and significant at the 1% level Location on interstate may add 0.17 to CTPF all other things being equal Highway investments have and will continue to impact trade patterns
Results and Conclusions POPROOT: Coefficient positive and significant at the 10% level Larger cities do have a significant advantage Managing for population growth may improve retail pull over time
Results and Conclusions VALUE: Coefficient positive and significant at the 1% level The value of commercial property gives some measure of retail performance Investment in the retail environment may improve retail trade
Results and Conclusions INCOME: Coefficient positive and significant at the 1% level $10,000 increase in INCOME may cause increase of 0.16 in CTPF High income cities may draw less outside trade than CTPF indicates
Results and Conclusions CIIV: Coefficient positive and significant at 1% level
Results and Conclusions Retail Trade: Is a function of Customer Base, Buying Power, and the Retail Environment Customer base can be represented by population, interstate highway access and distance to trade center Buying power can be measured as income and commuter income Retail environment can be represented by value of commercial property
Further Research Longitudinal Study Alternatives to CTPF Testing model on other state data sets “Big Box Retailer” variable Demographic variables Agricultural influence Finer highway grid Define study boundaries by trade areas rather than state borders