Wisconsin, USA Wisconsin is one of the inclusive productivity case studies for Our Economy, with the main focus being on the three metropolitan areas of Milwaukee, Madison and Green Bay and the North Central Wisconsin region.
OverviewWisconsin is the United States 25th largest state by land area (54,167 sqm) and 20th by population (5,892,539). The state’s diversified economy is led by its primary sectors of manufacturing, agriculture and tourism. These sectors are facilitated by favourable climate and topography and a southern industrial manufacturing belt that includes Milwaukee, making it one of the largest manufacturing states in the country. Given the size and scale of Wisconsin, economic development is delivered at different spatial levels. This case study focuses in particular on the three metropolitan areas of Milwaukee, Madison and Green Bay as well as the North Central Wisconsin region that encompasses 10 of the state’s 72 counties as an example of a wider regional strategy.
Performance on key indicatorsWisconsin performs well on all three of our key indicators compared to the North East. Having started in 2008 with a considerably higher GDP per head, Wisconsin then saw a further 12% rise to 2018 compared to just 4% in the North East. By 2018, North East England had therefore fallen further behind. Over the same period, the economic activity rate did not change much in Wisconsin, while increasing by 1% in the North East. However, the starting postion in Wisconsin was much higher with more than 4 out of 5 adults economically active in the region compared to less than 3 out of 4 in the North East. Finally, disposable household income per head in Wisconsin was more than twice that in North East England in 2008. Both regions. saw disposable household income per head rise by 17% between 2008 and 2018. Gross Domestic Product per head, 2008 to 2018 ($s)North East England was notably less productive than Wisconsin in 2008: GDP per head was at 64% of the level in the state. Between 2008 and 2018, Wisconsin saw considerable productivity growth, with a 12% rise in GDP per head compared with growth of 4% in North East England. By 2018, North East England had, therefore, fallen further behind: GDP per head was 59% of the level in Wisconsin.
Economic activity rate, 15 to 64 year olds, 2008 to 2018 (%)The economic activity rate was lower in North East England (74%) in 2008 than in Wisconsin (81%). Between 2008 and 2018, the economic activity rate in Wisconsin remained unchanged. North East England saw a slight increase (1 percentage point, to 75%) but the economic activity rate remained below that in Wisconsin. This difference in economic activity rates helps explain the difference in GDP per head between Wisconsin and North East England, though longer average working hours in the US compared with the UK also contribute. Disposable household income per head, 2008 to 2018 ($s)Disposable household income per head in Wisconsin was more than twice that in North East England in 2008. Both regions saw disposable household income per head rise by 17% between 2008 and 2018.
Policy priorities Governmental structures within Wisconsin are complex. The state has 3,096 governing authorities at different spatial levels, the 11th-most in the country and of which around 700 have been gained since the 1970s. 1,924 of these are “general purpose” governments, (72 counties, 601 cities and villages, and 1,251 towns) differentiated by methods of revenue collection and their main responsibilities. County-level bodies have responsibilities covering public safety and legal matters and health and social services whilst cities and villages are granted “home rule” under the state constitution, meaning they have the “broad authority…to govern themselves locally.” This allows for more autonomy in aspects not handled by state government or specifically assigned to counties, such as police, fire and emergency medical services, water, sewers, libraries and parks.
Policy interventions and aimsAt a state level, since the mid-1990s Wisconsin’s priorities have been generally directed towards efforts to aid small and minority businesses, add maximum value to raw materials before shipment out of state, promote tourism, and increase international trade and investment. However, development policies have varied across the wide range of governmental levels as discussed in the select examples below.
What has changed since 2008 Of the shortlisted areas included within this study, Wisconsin has evidenced good economic performance between 2008 and 2018 on key indicators such as GDP per head and disposable income. However, the state still faces some challenges. Between 2008 and 2018, the gap in labour market participation between men and women widened, from an activity rate gender difference (female minus male) of 5.5 percentage points to 6.5 percentage points. Over the same period, the gender gap in labour market participation in North East England narrowed by 2.5 percentage points, though the gap remained wider in 2018 (8 percentage points) than in Wisconsin. The proportion of 18 to 24 year olds in Wisconsin who are not in education, employment or training (NEET) was persistently at 10% or above between 2008 and 2018, with no improvement over this period. In comparison, the proportion of 18 to 24 year olds in North East England who are NEET fell by three percentage points, though it remained higher than in Wisconsin in 2018, at 16%. Wisconsin has a relatively high proportion of 25 to 64 year olds with qualifications from tertiary education compared with North East England. Between 2008 and 2018, this proportion rose from 38% to 45%. North East England saw a comparable increase (8 percentage points, compared with 7 in Wisconsin) over this period, and 34% of 25 to 64 year olds had tertiary qualifications in 2018. Since the COVID 19 pandemic, Wisconsin has performed comparatively worse than most other areas of the USA. As of December 2022, Wisconsin experienced some of the slowest economic growth in the country, largely attributable to the shrinking of output in key sectors of agriculture, construction, manufacturing and finance. Wisconsin suffered from the fifth worst economic growth in the quarter across the 50 US states. In its largest metropolitan area of Milwaukee, there has been positive growth in educational attainment and the concentration of science and technology employment. However, innovation and economic metrics trail national averages, likely resulting from a high density of large enterprises with slow growth. Economic activity rate gender difference (female minus male), 2008 to 2018 (%)Proportion of 18 to 24 year olds not in education, employment or training, 2008 to 2018 (%)Proportion of 25 to 64 year olds with qualifications from higher education, 2008 to 2018 (%)
Caveats and conclusionsGiven the size of Wisconsin and the devolved approach in government, there are challenges in drawing learnings from the state that are applicable to the North East. There is a risk that analysis of smaller units of government may compartmentalise economic development and act under the assumption trends are statewide. The review of economic strategies from three separate metropolitan areas and one regional plan (and similarities in size between these metro areas and the North East) provides an introduction to different policies beneath the state level, but the geography of the state is still a caveat. Overall, the economic performance of Wisconsin post 2008, when many other economies and regions have struggled, is impressive. The high levels of degree level qualifications in the population suggest that a highly skilled workforce may help explain some of the region's resilience, while the degree of autonomy afforded to particular cities has also allowed development strategies to focus on local sector strengths in the major conurbations in the state.
Explore more case studies |
