Register

Capability 01

Where in America a project should land.

For a company or a government choosing where in the United States to build: we write the requirement down, read the state index pillar by pillar against it, test each surviving site against the power, transport, suppliers and workforce around it, and hand back a shortlist and the office that must act.

Discuss a locationRead the state index
01

Reading the index

A rank is a summary. A location decision is not.

The State Development Index scores the fifty states and the District of Columbia on up to eight pillars — starting up, population health, productive base, labor market, prosperity, housing permits and prices, fiscal standing and openness — averaged equally. That weighting is declared, not tuned, and it was then measured against itself: weightings were drawn at random in their tens of thousands and every state re-ranked. Restricted to ones a person could defend, with every pillar between 6.25% and 25% of the total, the average state’s rank moves 16 places across the middle 90% of those weightings. Allow any weighting at all and that figure is 28.9 places; 23 of the fifty-one can then reach first place.

There is a sharper reason not to read the composite as an answer, and the index publishes that one too. Across those fifty-one jurisdictions the composite has almost no relationship with where Americans move: its correlation with net domestic migration is +0.04, on a scale where 0 is none and 1 is perfect. One indicator inside it, housing units authorized per 1,000 workers, reaches +0.74. Idaho is the most-moved-to state in the country and the index ranks it 40th; Colorado ranks first here and 25th on movers.

The work is establishing which pillars a project depends on, reading those and the indicators under them, and naming the point where measurement stops helping. A project that turns on how readily a state permits building is asking one question; a project that needs a particular occupational base is asking another. The jurisdiction that answers one is often not the one that answers the other.

02

The ground the argument stands on

Fifty-one jurisdictions, scored.

Every state and the District of Columbia, shaded by composite score. The composite is where a location question starts, and the page below is about why it is not where the question ends.

Highest

  1. 1Colorado71
  2. 2Utah68
  3. 3Washington67
  4. 4Florida66
  5. 5Texas65

Lowest

  1. 51New Mexico33
  2. 50West Virginia36
  3. 49Arkansas40
  4. 48Louisiana41
  5. =46Alabama44
  6. =46Rhode Island44
The fifty states and the District of Columbia, shaded by composite State Development Index scoreHighest: Colorado 71, Utah 68, Washington 67. Lowest: New Mexico 33, West Virginia 36, Arkansas 40. 3 jurisdictions are scored on fewer than 8 pillars and are hatched.

Tennessee, Washington, D.C., Alabama are scored on 7 pillars rather than 8. A pillar missing an indicator goes unscored rather than averaged, so they are marked rather than shaded.

The composite hides this.

Every jurisdiction, ranked by composite down the left, then its standing on each pillar separately. A row that shades evenly is a place that is consistent. A row that runs dark to light is a place whose usefulness depends entirely on which pillar a project needs — and the composite gives both the same answer. Washington, D.C. ranks 15 overall and 1–51 across the eight; Hawaii ranks 19 overall and 1–51 across the eight; Vermont ranks 8 overall and 1–50 across the eight.

The fifty states and the District of Columbia, ranked by composite State Development Index score, with each jurisdiction’s separate standing on all 8 pillars.
RankJurisdictionScoreStarting upHealthBaseLaborProsperityHousingFiscalOpennessSpan
1Colorado71Starting up, 2Population health, 12Productive base, 27Labour market, 10Prosperity, 4Housing permits and prices, 33Fiscal standing, 18Openness, 182–33
2Utah68Starting up, 12Population health, 15Productive base, 18Labour market, 21Prosperity, 20Housing permits and prices, 27Fiscal standing, 1Openness, 41–27
3Washington67Starting up, 43Population health, 11Productive base, 7Labour market, 22Prosperity, 7Housing permits and prices, 36Fiscal standing, 2Openness, 22–43
4Florida66Starting up, 1Population health, 14Productive base, 42Labour market, 35Prosperity, 19Housing permits and prices, 24Fiscal standing, 3Openness, 71–42
5Texas65Starting up, 6Population health, 30Productive base, 21Labour market, 38Prosperity, 29Housing permits and prices, 1Fiscal standing, 4Openness, 81–38
6North Carolina63Starting up, 16Population health, 31Productive base, 16Labour market, 23Prosperity, 28Housing permits and prices, 8Fiscal standing, 5Openness, 105–31
7New Hampshire62Starting up, 14Population health, 9Productive base, 13Labour market, 1Prosperity, 9Housing permits and prices, 39Fiscal standing, 19Openness, 391–39
=8Maryland61Starting up, 36Population health, 13Productive base, 37Labour market, 7Prosperity, 6Housing permits and prices, 41Fiscal standing, 6Openness, 126–41
=8Vermont61Starting up, 50Population health, 7Productive base, 38Labour market, 2Prosperity, 12Housing permits and prices, 46Fiscal standing, 20Openness, 11–50
=8Virginia61Starting up, 32Population health, 16Productive base, 30Labour market, 43Prosperity, 10Housing permits and prices, 34Fiscal standing, 7Openness, 33–43
11Missouri60Starting up, 5Population health, 38Productive base, 28Labour market, 5Prosperity, 35Housing permits and prices, 31Fiscal standing, 8Openness, 195–38
=12Connecticut59Starting up, 44Population health, 8Productive base, 1Labour market, 36Prosperity, 3Housing permits and prices, 43Fiscal standing, 46Openness, 131–46
=12Nebraska59Starting up, 31Population health, 26Productive base, 3Labour market, 14Prosperity, 23Housing permits and prices, 3Fiscal standing, 21Openness, 293–31
=12South Dakota59Starting up, 22Population health, 41Productive base, 11Labour market, 8Prosperity, 21Housing permits and prices, 4Fiscal standing, 9Openness, 344–41
=15Iowa58Starting up, 34Population health, 25Productive base, 8Labour market, 28Prosperity, 39Housing permits and prices, 2Fiscal standing, 10Openness, 202–39
=15Tennessee58Starting up, 17Population health, not scoredProductive base, 4Labour market, 19Prosperity, 36Housing permits and prices, 11Fiscal standing, 11Openness, 354–36
=15Washington, D.C.58Starting up, 29Population health, 18Productive base, not scoredLabour market, 34Prosperity, 1Housing permits and prices, 51Fiscal standing, 12Openness, 141–51
18New Jersey57Starting up, 28Population health, 3Productive base, 26Labour market, 49Prosperity, 5Housing permits and prices, 45Fiscal standing, 50Openness, 53–50
=19Delaware56Starting up, 24Population health, 21Productive base, 17Labour market, 50Prosperity, 30Housing permits and prices, 25Fiscal standing, 13Openness, 2213–50
=19Hawaii56Starting up, 51Population health, 1Productive base, 40Labour market, 15Prosperity, 15Housing permits and prices, 44Fiscal standing, 36Openness, 61–51
=19Massachusetts56Starting up, 48Population health, 2Productive base, 14Labour market, 46Prosperity, 2Housing permits and prices, 50Fiscal standing, 22Openness, 172–50
=19New York56Starting up, 37Population health, 4Productive base, 22Labour market, 47Prosperity, 8Housing permits and prices, 48Fiscal standing, 23Openness, 154–48
=19Wisconsin56Starting up, 33Population health, 32Productive base, 12Labour market, 13Prosperity, 32Housing permits and prices, 23Fiscal standing, 24Openness, 2612–33
=19Wyoming56Starting up, 10Population health, 34Productive base, 34Labour market, 9Prosperity, 22Housing permits and prices, 19Fiscal standing, 25Openness, 369–36
=25California55Starting up, 42Population health, 5Productive base, 10Labour market, 48Prosperity, 11Housing permits and prices, 47Fiscal standing, 37Openness, 165–48
=25Michigan55Starting up, 19Population health, 22Productive base, 15Labour market, 31Prosperity, 38Housing permits and prices, 37Fiscal standing, 26Openness, 2115–38
=25Minnesota55Starting up, 45Population health, 10Productive base, 5Labour market, 41Prosperity, 13Housing permits and prices, 15Fiscal standing, 14Openness, 405–45
28Arizona54Starting up, 8Population health, 29Productive base, 39Labour market, 39Prosperity, 33Housing permits and prices, 26Fiscal standing, 27Openness, 258–39
=29Georgia53Starting up, 3Population health, 36Productive base, 24Labour market, 32Prosperity, 34Housing permits and prices, 14Fiscal standing, 15Openness, 413–41
=29Illinois53Starting up, 39Population health, 19Productive base, 2Labour market, 29Prosperity, 14Housing permits and prices, 38Fiscal standing, 51Openness, 232–51
=29South Carolina53Starting up, 9Population health, 37Productive base, 31Labour market, 16Prosperity, 42Housing permits and prices, 9Fiscal standing, 16Openness, 379–42
=32Indiana51Starting up, 27Population health, 44Productive base, 9Labour market, 30Prosperity, 43Housing permits and prices, 10Fiscal standing, 17Openness, 289–44
=32Kansas51Starting up, 30Population health, 39Productive base, 19Labour market, 20Prosperity, 31Housing permits and prices, 5Fiscal standing, 38Openness, 385–39
=32Montana51Starting up, 13Population health, 28Productive base, 49Labour market, 4Prosperity, 25Housing permits and prices, 28Fiscal standing, 28Openness, 424–49
=32Ohio51Starting up, 20Population health, 35Productive base, 6Labour market, 11Prosperity, 40Housing permits and prices, 20Fiscal standing, 29Openness, 436–43
=32Pennsylvania51Starting up, 40Population health, 20Productive base, 25Labour market, 42Prosperity, 18Housing permits and prices, 42Fiscal standing, 47Openness, 99–47
37North Dakota50Starting up, 49Population health, 27Productive base, 20Labour market, 24Prosperity, 27Housing permits and prices, 21Fiscal standing, 30Openness, 3020–49
38Oklahoma49Starting up, 11Population health, 42Productive base, 46Labour market, 27Prosperity, 44Housing permits and prices, 6Fiscal standing, 39Openness, 276–46
39Oregon48Starting up, 38Population health, 23Productive base, 33Labour market, 51Prosperity, 17Housing permits and prices, 40Fiscal standing, 31Openness, 1111–51
=40Idaho47Starting up, 25Population health, 24Productive base, 45Labour market, 12Prosperity, 41Housing permits and prices, 22Fiscal standing, 32Openness, 4412–45
=40Maine47Starting up, 46Population health, 17Productive base, 43Labour market, 6Prosperity, 24Housing permits and prices, 32Fiscal standing, 40Openness, 456–46
=40Mississippi47Starting up, 7Population health, 50Productive base, 35Labour market, 3Prosperity, 50Housing permits and prices, 12Fiscal standing, 41Openness, 313–50
43Kentucky46Starting up, 26Population health, 45Productive base, 23Labour market, 33Prosperity, 48Housing permits and prices, 30Fiscal standing, 48Openness, 2423–48
=44Alaska45Starting up, 4Population health, 40Productive base, 29Labour market, 44Prosperity, 26Housing permits and prices, 35Fiscal standing, 49Openness, 464–49
=44Nevada45Starting up, 21Population health, 33Productive base, 41Labour market, 25Prosperity, 37Housing permits and prices, 29Fiscal standing, 33Openness, 4721–47
=46Alabama44Starting up, 18Population health, 48Productive base, not scoredLabour market, 26Prosperity, 47Housing permits and prices, 16Fiscal standing, 34Openness, 3216–48
=46Rhode Island44Starting up, 47Population health, 6Productive base, 44Labour market, 17Prosperity, 16Housing permits and prices, 49Fiscal standing, 42Openness, 486–49
48Louisiana41Starting up, 15Population health, 49Productive base, 36Labour market, 18Prosperity, 46Housing permits and prices, 17Fiscal standing, 43Openness, 4915–49
49Arkansas40Starting up, 23Population health, 47Productive base, 32Labour market, 40Prosperity, 49Housing permits and prices, 7Fiscal standing, 35Openness, 507–50
50West Virginia36Starting up, 41Population health, 46Productive base, 47Labour market, 37Prosperity, 51Housing permits and prices, 18Fiscal standing, 44Openness, 3318–51
51New Mexico33Starting up, 35Population health, 43Productive base, 48Labour market, 45Prosperity, 45Housing permits and prices, 13Fiscal standing, 45Openness, 5113–51

An unshaded cell is a pillar this jurisdiction is not scored on, because an indicator beneath it is missing and the index refuses to average over the gap. 3 jurisdictions carry one: Tennessee (Adult obesity, 2024); Washington, D.C. (Manufacturing share of jobs); Alabama (Manufacturing share of jobs).

Why the rank is not the answer

A rank that moves when the weights do.

Every jurisdiction, in published rank order. A short band is a rank that holds; a long one is a rank the weighting chose. A written requirement does not move with it.

Published rank, and the range of ranks under defensible weightings
JurisdictionPublished rankRange
Colorado11–3
Utah22–4
Washington31–9
Florida42–10
Texas52–13
North Carolina65–16
New Hampshire73–23
Maryland85–19
Vermont84–28
Virginia86–18
Missouri115–24
Connecticut126–28
Nebraska127–23
South Dakota127–26
Iowa158–26
Tennessee158–28
Washington, D.C.156–33
New Jersey189–36
Delaware1913–33
Hawaii1911–39
Massachusetts199–39
New York1912–36
Wisconsin1914–28
Wyoming1912–30
California2515–39
Michigan2517–32
Minnesota2512–37
Arizona2815–34
Georgia2915–38
Illinois2919–39
South Carolina2916–36
Indiana3223–41
Kansas3224–39
Montana3220–42
Ohio3220–40
Pennsylvania3226–44
North Dakota3729–43
Oklahoma3825–43
Oregon3930–48
Idaho4032–44
Maine4034–48
Mississippi4026–46
Kentucky4335–47
Alaska4434–48
Nevada4441–46
Alabama4637–47
Rhode Island4634–50
Louisiana4844–49
Arkansas4945–49
West Virginia5049–50
New Mexico5151–51
State Development Index weighting audit: 20,000 weightings with every pillar between 6.25% and 25%. Band: middle 90% of ranks. Dot: published rank.
04

How the question narrows

From a written requirement to a named office.

Seven moves. Each eliminates, and each can send the question back a step.

State the requirement

What can the project not do without? Most location arguments fail here, before any jurisdiction is named.

Requirement

Read the pillars, not the rank

Every pillar score and every indicator beneath it, published per jurisdiction, each source named. A pillar missing an indicator goes unscored, not averaged.

State indexPillars

Shortlist, then compare in pairs

Three or four jurisdictions, head to head. Any two of the fifty-one open side by side on the pillars where they differ most.

Comparison

Test the corridor

A site inherits the power, transport, suppliers and workforce around it, and none of those stop at a state line.

Corridors

Place the sector

The site’s sector research covers four groups: critical minerals and materials; manufacturing, energy and infrastructure; technology, aerospace and defense; health, agriculture and workforce. A project outside all four is told that this research does not cover its sector.

Strategic industries

Read the workforce as a mix

Occupational concentration, not headcount, which mostly restates population. The production-occupations quotient and the index’s manufacturing share are largely one fact counted twice.

Workforce

Reach the office that must act

For the 56 jurisdictions that reported one, the directory holds the office and its named contacts, what it says it is recruiting, and any shovel-ready inventory.

FDI directory
05

What this one rests on

The research, counted.

Four figures specific to this capability: one derived from the index’s scope, one from its weighting audit, and two from the SelectUSA FDI database.

1,275Published head-to-head comparisons of two jurisdictionsApplied America State Development Index
16.0Places the average state’s rank moves on the weighting alone, across 20,000 defensible weightingsApplied America State Development Index — weighting audit
45Jurisdictions describing their own site-selection serviceSelectUSA FDI database, U.S. Department of Commerce — February 2025
29Jurisdictions publishing a shovel-ready site inventorySelectUSA FDI database, U.S. Department of Commerce — February 2025
06

Common questions

A single rank carries its weighting inside it.

No — the index argues against it. A single integer rank carries the weighting inside it, which is why the pillar scores are published separately and read directly.

It depends on the requirement, which is why that comes first. “Housing permits and prices” is two indicators — residential units authorized and a state house-price index — so no factory, warehouse or data center is in it.

Not on its own. Nothing in the eight pillars measures generation, interconnection or transmission, so the power question is answered in the corridor read and not from a score.

Cost of living. The wages are nominal, and the one price series here — the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s house-price index — measures each state against its own 1980 base, not a level comparable between states. No rent or regional-price-parity series is held, so the adjustment cannot be made here.

Across thirty-three federal series tested, the only state-level regulatory variable is the minimum wage, and it exists for forty-five states. The tax indicator counts state collections only — county, municipal and school-district taxes are not in it.

It is a proxy for one. CEFA probed three machine endpoints per state in a single month: whether an open-data portal answers an API, the incentive, permit and finance datasets behind it, and government newsroom feeds.

Federal series from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Census Bureau, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, plus Moody’s general-obligation rating of each state (its grade of the state’s own debt) and CEFA’s own measurement of which states publish machine-readable data. No other ranking is re-derived.

The index scores 51 jurisdictions — the fifty states and DC. The directory covers 56, because 5 territories also reported an inward-investment office. So a territory can be reached through the directory and not scored on the index.

All of it, and deliberately so. The sectors, target countries, incentive descriptions and site inventories are the development offices’ own submitted text, reproduced from a federal database whose snapshot is February 2025. Officials and programs move.

We do not negotiate incentive packages and we do not transact in sites — we read what a jurisdiction publishes about them. National-security review, in-country representation and trade missions are three more this platform does not claim.

07

Start with the requirement, not the map.

Tell us what the project cannot do without and where you are currently looking. We will say which pillars and which corridor work bear on it, which jurisdictions survive the requirement, and where the measurement stops helping.

Discuss a locationThe FDI directory
Location & Market Entry — Applied America