Applied America
Registrarse
Applied America · Index51 jurisdictions · 16 indicators

The State Development Index

All fifty states and the District of Columbia, scored on how workable they are for economic development — the productive base, the labour market, what people earn, whether things actually get built, what the bond market thinks, and whether you can get an answer out of the state without telephoning it.

The full rankingHow it is built

Jurisdictions
51Fifty states and the District of Columbia
Pillars
8Scored separately, then averaged
Indicators
16Federal statistical series, plus CEFA’s own openness probe
Weighting
1/8Equal across pillars, declared rather than tuned
Normalisation
0–100Percentile rank within the set of fifty-one
Gaps shown, not filled
2State–indicator pairs the source does not publish

The ranking

How to read a cell
Above the median for that pillar.
Mark sits over the number.
Below it.
Mark sits under the number.
A shorter mark is a
smaller distance.

Each pillar has its own median, printed in the column head and again in the National median row below. Fiscal’s is 92, so a 100 there is ordinary; most others sit near 50.

Sources: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; U.S. Census Bureau; Federal Housing Finance Agency; Moody’s general-obligation ratings (indicative, 2025); and CEFA’s own probe of state open-data portals and newsrooms, September 2026.
#Rank bandStateScoreGradeBasemed 51Labourmed 49Incomemed 52Startupmed 55Buildingmed 58Healthmed 50Fiscalmed 92Openmed 51
National median5149525558509251
11–3COColorado71BProductive base: 49 of 100, 2 below the national median of 51Labour market: 68 of 100, 19 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 89 of 100, 37 above the national median of 52Starting up: 89 of 100, 34 above the national median of 55Things get built: 48 of 100, 10 below the national median of 58Population health: 71 of 100, 21 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 61 of 100, 10 above the national median of 51
22–4UTUtah68BProductive base: 58 of 100, 7 above the national median of 51Labour market: 53 of 100, 4 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 57 of 100, 5 above the national median of 52Starting up: 70 of 100, 15 above the national median of 55Things get built: 57 of 100, 1 below the national median of 58Population health: 68 of 100, 18 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 79 of 100, 28 above the national median of 51
31–9WAWashington67BProductive base: 68 of 100, 17 above the national median of 51Labour market: 52 of 100, 3 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 85 of 100, 33 above the national median of 52Starting up: 25 of 100, 30 below the national median of 55Things get built: 41 of 100, 17 below the national median of 58Population health: 75 of 100, 25 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 86 of 100, 35 above the national median of 51
42–10FLFlorida66BProductive base: 34 of 100, 17 below the national median of 51Labour market: 40 of 100, 9 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 58 of 100, 6 above the national median of 52Starting up: 95 of 100, 40 above the national median of 55Things get built: 59 of 100, 1 above the national median of 58Population health: 69 of 100, 19 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 71 of 100, 20 above the national median of 51
52–13TXTexas65BProductive base: 57 of 100, 6 above the national median of 51Labour market: 37 of 100, 12 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 48 of 100, 4 below the national median of 52Starting up: 84 of 100, 29 above the national median of 55Things get built: 81 of 100, 23 above the national median of 58Population health: 44 of 100, 6 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 71 of 100, 20 above the national median of 51
65–16NCNorth Carolina63B−Productive base: 59 of 100, 8 above the national median of 51Labour market: 51 of 100, 2 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 49 of 100, 3 below the national median of 52Starting up: 64 of 100, 9 above the national median of 55Things get built: 71 of 100, 13 above the national median of 58Population health: 41 of 100, 9 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 67 of 100, 16 above the national median of 51
73–23NHNew Hampshire62B−Productive base: 61 of 100, 10 above the national median of 51Labour market: 81 of 100, 32 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 84 of 100, 32 above the national median of 52Starting up: 65 of 100, 10 above the national median of 55Things get built: 31 of 100, 27 below the national median of 58Population health: 80 of 100, 30 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 0 of 100, 51 below the national median of 51
85–19MDMaryland61B−Productive base: 38 of 100, 13 below the national median of 51Labour market: 71 of 100, 22 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 86 of 100, 34 above the national median of 52Starting up: 33 of 100, 22 below the national median of 55Things get built: 27 of 100, 31 below the national median of 58Population health: 71 of 100, 21 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 65 of 100, 14 above the national median of 51
84–28VTVermont61B−Productive base: 36 of 100, 15 below the national median of 51Labour market: 81 of 100, 32 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 77 of 100, 25 above the national median of 52Starting up: 10 of 100, 45 below the national median of 55Things get built: 18 of 100, 40 below the national median of 58Population health: 83 of 100, 33 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 88 of 100, 37 above the national median of 51
86–18VAVirginia61B−Productive base: 46 of 100, 5 below the national median of 51Labour market: 30 of 100, 19 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 83 of 100, 31 above the national median of 52Starting up: 37 of 100, 18 below the national median of 55Things get built: 47 of 100, 11 below the national median of 58Population health: 63 of 100, 13 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 84 of 100, 33 above the national median of 51
115–24MOMissouri60B−Productive base: 48 of 100, 3 below the national median of 51Labour market: 76 of 100, 27 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 32 of 100, 20 below the national median of 52Starting up: 87 of 100, 32 above the national median of 55Things get built: 49 of 100, 9 below the national median of 58Population health: 30 of 100, 20 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 60 of 100, 9 above the national median of 51
126–28CTConnecticut59B−Productive base: 76 of 100, 25 above the national median of 51Labour market: 40 of 100, 9 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 92 of 100, 40 above the national median of 52Starting up: 21 of 100, 34 below the national median of 55Things get built: 21 of 100, 37 below the national median of 58Population health: 81 of 100, 31 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 76 of 100, 16 below the national median of 92Openness: 64 of 100, 13 above the national median of 51
127–23NENebraska59B−Productive base: 70 of 100, 19 above the national median of 51Labour market: 64 of 100, 15 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 56 of 100, 4 above the national median of 52Starting up: 39 of 100, 16 below the national median of 55Things get built: 79 of 100, 21 above the national median of 58Population health: 47 of 100, 3 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 27 of 100, 24 below the national median of 51
127–26SDSouth Dakota59B−Productive base: 63 of 100, 12 above the national median of 51Labour market: 70 of 100, 21 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 57 of 100, 5 above the national median of 52Starting up: 58 of 100, 3 above the national median of 55Things get built: 77 of 100, 19 above the national median of 58Population health: 28 of 100, 22 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 18 of 100, 33 below the national median of 51
158–26IAIowa58B−Productive base: 68 of 100, 17 above the national median of 51Labour market: 47 of 100, 2 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 26 of 100, 26 below the national median of 52Starting up: 35 of 100, 20 below the national median of 55Things get built: 81 of 100, 23 above the national median of 58Population health: 50 of 100, level with the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 60 of 100, 9 above the national median of 51
158–28TNTennessee7/8 pillars58B−Productive base: 69 of 100, 18 above the national median of 51Labour market: 57 of 100, 8 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 31 of 100, 21 below the national median of 52Starting up: 64 of 100, 9 above the national median of 55Things get built: 65 of 100, 7 above the national median of 58Population health: not scored, indicator missingFiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 18 of 100, 33 below the national median of 51
156–33DCWashington, D.C.7/8 pillars58B−Productive base: not scored, indicator missingLabour market: 44 of 100, 5 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 100 of 100, 48 above the national median of 52Starting up: 42 of 100, 13 below the national median of 55Things get built: 4 of 100, 54 below the national median of 58Population health: 55 of 100, 5 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 64 of 100, 13 above the national median of 51
189–36NJNew Jersey57B−Productive base: 50 of 100, 1 below the national median of 51Labour market: 14 of 100, 35 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 88 of 100, 36 above the national median of 52Starting up: 45 of 100, 10 below the national median of 55Things get built: 19 of 100, 39 below the national median of 58Population health: 94 of 100, 44 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 68 of 100, 24 below the national median of 92Openness: 76 of 100, 25 above the national median of 51
1913–33DEDelaware56B−Productive base: 59 of 100, 8 above the national median of 51Labour market: 12 of 100, 37 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 48 of 100, 4 below the national median of 52Starting up: 57 of 100, 2 above the national median of 55Things get built: 59 of 100, 1 above the national median of 58Population health: 52 of 100, 2 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 59 of 100, 8 above the national median of 51
1911–39HIHawaii56B−Productive base: 35 of 100, 16 below the national median of 51Labour market: 63 of 100, 14 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 67 of 100, 15 above the national median of 52Starting up: 4 of 100, 51 below the national median of 55Things get built: 21 of 100, 37 below the national median of 58Population health: 97 of 100, 47 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 84 of 100, 8 below the national median of 92Openness: 75 of 100, 24 above the national median of 51
199–39MAMassachusetts56B−Productive base: 60 of 100, 9 above the national median of 51Labour market: 24 of 100, 25 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 97 of 100, 45 above the national median of 52Starting up: 15 of 100, 40 below the national median of 55Things get built: 5 of 100, 53 below the national median of 58Population health: 96 of 100, 46 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 62 of 100, 11 above the national median of 51
1912–36NYNew York56B−Productive base: 56 of 100, 5 above the national median of 51Labour market: 18 of 100, 31 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 85 of 100, 33 above the national median of 52Starting up: 33 of 100, 22 below the national median of 55Things get built: 13 of 100, 45 below the national median of 58Population health: 90 of 100, 40 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 63 of 100, 12 above the national median of 51
1914–28WIWisconsin56B−Productive base: 63 of 100, 12 above the national median of 51Labour market: 65 of 100, 16 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 42 of 100, 10 below the national median of 52Starting up: 37 of 100, 18 below the national median of 55Things get built: 60 of 100, 2 above the national median of 58Population health: 41 of 100, 9 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 51 of 100, level with the national median of 51
1912–30WYWyoming56B−Productive base: 42 of 100, 9 below the national median of 51Labour market: 69 of 100, 20 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 57 of 100, 5 above the national median of 52Starting up: 72 of 100, 17 above the national median of 55Things get built: 62 of 100, 4 above the national median of 58Population health: 36 of 100, 14 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 18 of 100, 33 below the national median of 51
2515–39CACalifornia55C+Productive base: 64 of 100, 13 above the national median of 51Labour market: 15 of 100, 34 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 82 of 100, 30 above the national median of 52Starting up: 29 of 100, 26 below the national median of 55Things get built: 17 of 100, 41 below the national median of 58Population health: 88 of 100, 38 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 84 of 100, 8 below the national median of 92Openness: 63 of 100, 12 above the national median of 51
2517–32MIMichigan55C+Productive base: 60 of 100, 9 above the national median of 51Labour market: 46 of 100, 3 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 27 of 100, 25 below the national median of 52Starting up: 61 of 100, 6 above the national median of 55Things get built: 41 of 100, 17 below the national median of 58Population health: 51 of 100, 1 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 60 of 100, 9 above the national median of 51
2512–37MNMinnesota55C+Productive base: 69 of 100, 18 above the national median of 51Labour market: 36 of 100, 13 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 75 of 100, 23 above the national median of 52Starting up: 20 of 100, 35 below the national median of 55Things get built: 63 of 100, 5 above the national median of 58Population health: 77 of 100, 27 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 0 of 100, 51 below the national median of 51
2815–34AZArizona54C+Productive base: 36 of 100, 15 below the national median of 51Labour market: 37 of 100, 12 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 37 of 100, 15 below the national median of 52Starting up: 77 of 100, 22 above the national median of 55Things get built: 58 of 100, level with the national median of 58Population health: 45 of 100, 5 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 53 of 100, 2 above the national median of 51
2915–38GAGeorgia53C+Productive base: 53 of 100, 2 above the national median of 51Labour market: 45 of 100, 4 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 37 of 100, 15 below the national median of 52Starting up: 88 of 100, 33 above the national median of 55Things get built: 64 of 100, 6 above the national median of 58Population health: 34 of 100, 16 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 0 of 100, 51 below the national median of 51
2919–39ILIllinois53C+Productive base: 76 of 100, 25 above the national median of 51Labour market: 47 of 100, 2 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 73 of 100, 21 above the national median of 52Starting up: 30 of 100, 25 below the national median of 55Things get built: 37 of 100, 21 below the national median of 58Population health: 55 of 100, 5 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 52 of 100, 40 below the national median of 92Openness: 57 of 100, 6 above the national median of 51
2916–36SCSouth Carolina53C+Productive base: 46 of 100, 5 below the national median of 51Labour market: 63 of 100, 14 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 22 of 100, 30 below the national median of 52Starting up: 74 of 100, 19 above the national median of 55Things get built: 71 of 100, 13 above the national median of 58Population health: 31 of 100, 19 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 18 of 100, 33 below the national median of 51
3223–41INIndiana51C+Productive base: 67 of 100, 16 above the national median of 51Labour market: 47 of 100, 2 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 18 of 100, 34 below the national median of 52Starting up: 52 of 100, 3 below the national median of 55Things get built: 67 of 100, 9 above the national median of 58Population health: 22 of 100, 28 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 100 of 100, 8 above the national median of 92Openness: 33 of 100, 18 below the national median of 51
3224–39KSKansas51C+Productive base: 58 of 100, 7 above the national median of 51Labour market: 54 of 100, 5 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 46 of 100, 6 below the national median of 52Starting up: 42 of 100, 13 below the national median of 55Things get built: 75 of 100, 17 above the national median of 58Population health: 30 of 100, 20 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 84 of 100, 8 below the national median of 92Openness: 18 of 100, 33 below the national median of 51
3220–42MTMontana51C+Productive base: 11 of 100, 40 below the national median of 51Labour market: 77 of 100, 28 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 53 of 100, 1 above the national median of 52Starting up: 70 of 100, 15 above the national median of 55Things get built: 55 of 100, 3 below the national median of 58Population health: 46 of 100, 4 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 0 of 100, 51 below the national median of 51
3220–40OHOhio51C+Productive base: 69 of 100, 18 above the national median of 51Labour market: 67 of 100, 18 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 25 of 100, 27 below the national median of 52Starting up: 59 of 100, 4 above the national median of 55Things get built: 62 of 100, 4 above the national median of 58Population health: 36 of 100, 14 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 0 of 100, 51 below the national median of 51
3226–44PAPennsylvania51C+Productive base: 51 of 100, level with the national median of 51Labour market: 36 of 100, 13 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 59 of 100, 7 above the national median of 52Starting up: 30 of 100, 25 below the national median of 55Things get built: 26 of 100, 32 below the national median of 58Population health: 55 of 100, 5 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 76 of 100, 16 below the national median of 92Openness: 71 of 100, 20 above the national median of 51
3729–43NDNorth Dakota50C+Productive base: 58 of 100, 7 above the national median of 51Labour market: 51 of 100, 2 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 50 of 100, 2 below the national median of 52Starting up: 13 of 100, 42 below the national median of 55Things get built: 61 of 100, 3 above the national median of 58Population health: 47 of 100, 3 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 27 of 100, 24 below the national median of 51
3825–43OKOklahoma49C+Productive base: 26 of 100, 25 below the national median of 51Labour market: 48 of 100, 1 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 18 of 100, 34 below the national median of 52Starting up: 71 of 100, 16 above the national median of 55Things get built: 72 of 100, 14 above the national median of 58Population health: 24 of 100, 26 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 84 of 100, 8 below the national median of 92Openness: 51 of 100, level with the national median of 51
3930–48OROregon48C+Productive base: 45 of 100, 6 below the national median of 51Labour market: 6 of 100, 43 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 61 of 100, 9 above the national median of 52Starting up: 31 of 100, 24 below the national median of 55Things get built: 30 of 100, 28 below the national median of 58Population health: 51 of 100, 1 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 67 of 100, 16 above the national median of 51
4032–44IDIdaho47CProductive base: 28 of 100, 23 below the national median of 51Labour market: 67 of 100, 18 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 23 of 100, 29 below the national median of 52Starting up: 56 of 100, 1 above the national median of 55Things get built: 61 of 100, 3 above the national median of 58Population health: 51 of 100, 1 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 0 of 100, 51 below the national median of 51
4034–48MEMaine47CProductive base: 33 of 100, 18 below the national median of 51Labour market: 72 of 100, 23 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 54 of 100, 2 above the national median of 52Starting up: 20 of 100, 35 below the national median of 55Things get built: 49 of 100, 9 below the national median of 58Population health: 60 of 100, 10 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 84 of 100, 8 below the national median of 92Openness: 0 of 100, 51 below the national median of 51
4026–46MSMississippi47CProductive base: 42 of 100, 9 below the national median of 51Labour market: 79 of 100, 30 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 1 of 100, 51 below the national median of 52Starting up: 78 of 100, 23 above the national median of 55Things get built: 65 of 100, 7 above the national median of 58Population health: 1 of 100, 49 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 84 of 100, 8 below the national median of 92Openness: 27 of 100, 24 below the national median of 51
4335–47KYKentucky46CProductive base: 56 of 100, 5 above the national median of 51Labour market: 45 of 100, 4 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 7 of 100, 45 below the national median of 52Starting up: 55 of 100, level with the national median of 55Things get built: 50 of 100, 8 below the national median of 58Population health: 22 of 100, 28 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 76 of 100, 16 below the national median of 92Openness: 56 of 100, 5 above the national median of 51
4434–48AKAlaska45CProductive base: 47 of 100, 4 below the national median of 51Labour market: 26 of 100, 23 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 52 of 100, level with the national median of 52Starting up: 88 of 100, 33 above the national median of 55Things get built: 44 of 100, 14 below the national median of 58Population health: 29 of 100, 21 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 76 of 100, 16 below the national median of 92Openness: 0 of 100, 51 below the national median of 51
4441–46NVNevada45CProductive base: 35 of 100, 16 below the national median of 51Labour market: 49 of 100, level with the national median of 49Prosperity: 31 of 100, 21 below the national median of 52Starting up: 59 of 100, 4 above the national median of 55Things get built: 52 of 100, 6 below the national median of 58Population health: 38 of 100, 12 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 0 of 100, 51 below the national median of 51
4637–47ALAlabama7/8 pillars44CProductive base: not scored, indicator missingLabour market: 49 of 100, level with the national median of 49Prosperity: 9 of 100, 43 below the national median of 52Starting up: 62 of 100, 7 above the national median of 55Things get built: 63 of 100, 5 above the national median of 58Population health: 7 of 100, 43 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 27 of 100, 24 below the national median of 51
4634–50RIRhode Island44CProductive base: 33 of 100, 18 below the national median of 51Labour market: 63 of 100, 14 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 64 of 100, 12 above the national median of 52Starting up: 17 of 100, 38 below the national median of 55Things get built: 9 of 100, 49 below the national median of 58Population health: 84 of 100, 34 above the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 84 of 100, 8 below the national median of 92Openness: 0 of 100, 51 below the national median of 51
4844–49LALouisiana41CProductive base: 41 of 100, 10 below the national median of 51Labour market: 61 of 100, 12 above the national median of 49Prosperity: 10 of 100, 42 below the national median of 52Starting up: 65 of 100, 10 above the national median of 55Things get built: 63 of 100, 5 above the national median of 58Population health: 7 of 100, 43 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 84 of 100, 8 below the national median of 92Openness: 0 of 100, 51 below the national median of 51
4945–49ARArkansas40CProductive base: 46 of 100, 5 below the national median of 51Labour market: 37 of 100, 12 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 7 of 100, 45 below the national median of 52Starting up: 58 of 100, 3 above the national median of 55Things get built: 72 of 100, 14 above the national median of 58Population health: 11 of 100, 39 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 92 of 100, level with the national median of 92Openness: 0 of 100, 51 below the national median of 51
5049–50WVWest Virginia36C−Productive base: 21 of 100, 30 below the national median of 51Labour market: 38 of 100, 11 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 1 of 100, 51 below the national median of 52Starting up: 30 of 100, 25 below the national median of 55Things get built: 63 of 100, 5 above the national median of 58Population health: 22 of 100, 28 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 84 of 100, 8 below the national median of 92Openness: 27 of 100, 24 below the national median of 51
5151NMNew Mexico33C−Productive base: 19 of 100, 32 below the national median of 51Labour market: 26 of 100, 23 below the national median of 49Prosperity: 13 of 100, 39 below the national median of 52Starting up: 34 of 100, 21 below the national median of 55Things get built: 65 of 100, 7 above the national median of 58Population health: 23 of 100, 27 below the national median of 50Fiscal standing: 84 of 100, 8 below the national median of 92Openness: 0 of 100, 51 below the national median of 51

How this is built, and what it cannot tell you

Vertical axis on both panels: net domestic migration per 1,000 residents, 2021–2024. One shared scale, so the difference in slope is real and not an artefact of the drawing.

Composite index score+0.036Correlation with net domestic migration
0+56−45Index scoreColorado: +4.0 per 1,000Utah: +13.5 per 1,000Washington: −4.2 per 1,000Florida: +34.7 per 1,000Texas: +22.2 per 1,000North Carolina: +34.8 per 1,000New Hampshire: +19.8 per 1,000Maryland: −18.4 per 1,000Vermont: +9.6 per 1,000Virginia: −3.9 per 1,000Missouri: +6.9 per 1,000Connecticut: −1.0 per 1,000Nebraska: −6.5 per 1,000South Dakota: +22.8 per 1,000Iowa: −2.5 per 1,000Tennessee: +32.8 per 1,000Washington, D.C.: −20.2 per 1,000New Jersey: −19.3 per 1,000Delaware: +41.9 per 1,000Hawaii: −31.8 per 1,000Massachusetts: −18.7 per 1,000New York: −45.0 per 1,000Wisconsin: +0.5 per 1,000Wyoming: +11.7 per 1,000California: −35.5 per 1,000Michigan: −6.2 per 1,000Minnesota: −8.0 per 1,000Arizona: +29.3 per 1,000Georgia: +17.3 per 1,000Illinois: −31.1 per 1,000South Carolina: +54.7 per 1,000Indiana: +4.1 per 1,000Kansas: −7.4 per 1,000Montana: +44.6 per 1,000Ohio: −3.0 per 1,000Pennsylvania: −3.5 per 1,000North Dakota: −7.5 per 1,000Oklahoma: +21.8 per 1,000Oregon: −1.8 per 1,000Idaho: +55.7 per 1,000Maine: +33.7 per 1,000Mississippi: −6.8 per 1,000Kentucky: +6.0 per 1,000Alaska: −24.2 per 1,000Nevada: +21.7 per 1,000Alabama: +21.2 per 1,000Rhode Island: −7.4 per 1,000Louisiana: −27.1 per 1,000Arkansas: +21.4 per 1,000West Virginia: +6.3 per 1,000New Mexico: −4.1 per 1,000

No relationship: the fit is flat within its own error.

Housing authorised per 1,000 workers+0.742Correlation with net domestic migration
0+56−45Permits per 1,000 workersColorado: +4.0 per 1,000Utah: +13.5 per 1,000Washington: −4.2 per 1,000Florida: +34.7 per 1,000Texas: +22.2 per 1,000North Carolina: +34.8 per 1,000New Hampshire: +19.8 per 1,000Maryland: −18.4 per 1,000Vermont: +9.6 per 1,000Virginia: −3.9 per 1,000Missouri: +6.9 per 1,000Connecticut: −1.0 per 1,000Nebraska: −6.5 per 1,000South Dakota: +22.8 per 1,000Iowa: −2.5 per 1,000Tennessee: +32.8 per 1,000Washington, D.C.: −20.2 per 1,000New Jersey: −19.3 per 1,000Delaware: +41.9 per 1,000Hawaii: −31.8 per 1,000Massachusetts: −18.7 per 1,000New York: −45.0 per 1,000Wisconsin: +0.5 per 1,000Wyoming: +11.7 per 1,000California: −35.5 per 1,000Michigan: −6.2 per 1,000Minnesota: −8.0 per 1,000Arizona: +29.3 per 1,000Georgia: +17.3 per 1,000Illinois: −31.1 per 1,000South Carolina: +54.7 per 1,000Indiana: +4.1 per 1,000Kansas: −7.4 per 1,000Montana: +44.6 per 1,000Ohio: −3.0 per 1,000Pennsylvania: −3.5 per 1,000North Dakota: −7.5 per 1,000Oklahoma: +21.8 per 1,000Oregon: −1.8 per 1,000Idaho: +55.7 per 1,000Maine: +33.7 per 1,000Mississippi: −6.8 per 1,000Kentucky: +6.0 per 1,000Alaska: −24.2 per 1,000Nevada: +21.7 per 1,000Alabama: +21.2 per 1,000Rhode Island: −7.4 per 1,000Louisiana: −27.1 per 1,000Arkansas: +21.4 per 1,000West Virginia: +6.3 per 1,000New Mexico: −4.1 per 1,000

A strong relationship, from a single indicator inside the same index.

Where each state can rank16Places the average rank moves, on weighting alone
113263951Rank under any defensible weightingColorado: published 1, ranks 1–3 across defensible weightingsUtah: published 2, ranks 2–4 across defensible weightingsWashington: published 3, ranks 1–9 across defensible weightingsFlorida: published 4, ranks 2–10 across defensible weightingsTexas: published 5, ranks 2–13 across defensible weightingsNorth Carolina: published 6, ranks 5–16 across defensible weightingsNew Hampshire: published 7, ranks 3–23 across defensible weightingsMaryland: published 8, ranks 5–19 across defensible weightingsVermont: published 8, ranks 4–28 across defensible weightingsVirginia: published 8, ranks 6–18 across defensible weightingsMissouri: published 11, ranks 5–24 across defensible weightingsConnecticut: published 12, ranks 6–28 across defensible weightingsNebraska: published 12, ranks 7–23 across defensible weightingsSouth Dakota: published 12, ranks 7–26 across defensible weightingsIowa: published 15, ranks 8–26 across defensible weightingsTennessee: published 15, ranks 8–28 across defensible weightingsWashington, D.C.: published 15, ranks 6–33 across defensible weightingsNew Jersey: published 18, ranks 9–36 across defensible weightingsDelaware: published 19, ranks 13–33 across defensible weightingsHawaii: published 19, ranks 11–39 across defensible weightingsMassachusetts: published 19, ranks 9–39 across defensible weightingsNew York: published 19, ranks 12–36 across defensible weightingsWisconsin: published 19, ranks 14–28 across defensible weightingsWyoming: published 19, ranks 12–30 across defensible weightingsCalifornia: published 25, ranks 15–39 across defensible weightingsMichigan: published 25, ranks 17–32 across defensible weightingsMinnesota: published 25, ranks 12–37 across defensible weightingsArizona: published 28, ranks 15–34 across defensible weightingsGeorgia: published 29, ranks 15–38 across defensible weightingsIllinois: published 29, ranks 19–39 across defensible weightingsSouth Carolina: published 29, ranks 16–36 across defensible weightingsIndiana: published 32, ranks 23–41 across defensible weightingsKansas: published 32, ranks 24–39 across defensible weightingsMontana: published 32, ranks 20–42 across defensible weightingsOhio: published 32, ranks 20–40 across defensible weightingsPennsylvania: published 32, ranks 26–44 across defensible weightingsNorth Dakota: published 37, ranks 29–43 across defensible weightingsOklahoma: published 38, ranks 25–43 across defensible weightingsOregon: published 39, ranks 30–48 across defensible weightingsIdaho: published 40, ranks 32–44 across defensible weightingsMaine: published 40, ranks 34–48 across defensible weightingsMississippi: published 40, ranks 26–46 across defensible weightingsKentucky: published 43, ranks 35–47 across defensible weightingsAlaska: published 44, ranks 34–48 across defensible weightingsNevada: published 44, ranks 41–46 across defensible weightingsAlabama: published 46, ranks 37–47 across defensible weightingsRhode Island: published 46, ranks 34–50 across defensible weightingsLouisiana: published 48, ranks 44–49 across defensible weightingsArkansas: published 49, ranks 45–49 across defensible weightingsWest Virginia: published 50, ranks 49–50 across defensible weightingsNew Mexico: published 51, ranks 51–51 across defensible weightings

Each line is one jurisdiction; the dot is its published rank. New Mexico does not move at all — it is 51st under every defensible weighting, so its band is a single point. Massachusetts, published 19th, runs from 9 to 39. The ends of the table are findings. The middle is a band.

Percentile rank, not a raw scale. California’s economy is eighty-eight times Vermont’s. On a min-max scale every state but two would sit in the bottom fifth; on a z-score those two would set the mean for everyone. A percentile asks only how many states a state beats, which is the question being asked.

Size is not quality. Everything that scales with population is expressed per worker or as a rate. An index whose top ten is just the ten largest economies has measured population and called it something else — Colorado leads on starting up, population health, prosperity, fiscal standing.

Equal weights, declared. Any other weighting is a claim about relative importance this project cannot substantiate, and weights tuned until the ranking looks right are how an opinion gets laundered into a measurement. Every pillar score is published so a reader who disagrees can reweight them.

Gaps are shown, and a partial pillar is not scored at all. 2 state-indicator pairs have no published value. Tennessee (7 of 8 pillars) and Washington, D.C. (7 of 8 pillars) and Alabama (7 of 8 pillars) — the missing indicator is named in the row. Averaging the indicators a pillar does have would look like a refusal to guess and would not be one: it hands the missing indicator the mean of the others, which is imputation with the label removed. A pillar with a hole scores nothing, the state is scored on its remaining pillars, and the row says how many that was — because a score built from five pillars is not the same measurement as one built from six.

A correction to an earlier version of this page. It said no federal series measures state tax burden. That was wrong. The Census Bureau’s Annual Survey of State Government Tax Collections publishes every state’s receipts by tax type in one open file, and it is now the source for the tax facts here — including which states levy no individual income tax (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming) and no corporate income tax (Nevada, Texas, Washington and Wyoming). It also said the Tax Foundation’s index is a copyrighted work this cannot touch; it is licensed CC BY-NC 4.0, which is a narrower restriction than stated. Nothing here derives from it either way — this is arithmetic on a federal filing.

Three categories that were never actually blocked. Educational attainment, commute times and a safety measure sat unbuilt here behind a note saying they needed API keys registered to a named person. That was half right: the obvious endpoints do need keys — api.census.gov now redirects to a missing-key page, and the FBI Crime Data Explorer wants a data.gov token. It was wrong that this made the data unreachable. All three are published keyless as flat files by the same agencies, and two now sit in this index: adults with a bachelor’s degree or higher joins per-capita income under prosperity, and firearm-injury mortality joins adult obesity under population health. Both are ACS 2024 and CDC 2024, both cover all fifty-one jurisdictions, and neither required a key.

Two notes on what those numbers are and are not. The firearm figure is a crude rate, not age-adjusted — a sibling CDC dataset publishes that same kind of figure under an “age-adjusted” label when it is nothing of the sort, and the difference is not cosmetic. It counts deaths, not crime, so it sits in population health rather than under a heading like “safety”, a word it cannot honestly carry. Mean commute time was also recovered and is deliberately not in the composite: there is no pillar it honestly belongs to, and inventing one for a single indicator would let the tail wag the dog. Adding the two that do fit changed nothing about the finding above — the index’s correlation with domestic migration moved from +0.024 to +0.036, which is still nothing.

An indicator considered and rejected. State tax collections as a share of total personal income is a better-normalised measure than tax per resident: it accounts for how rich a state is, and it ranges from 2.75% in New Hampshire to 13.81% in the District of Columbia. It was computed for all fifty-one jurisdictions from data already held here, and then not adopted — because it correlates with the tax-per-resident indicator already in the index at r = +0.89. Two measures that rank the states almost identically are not two pieces of evidence; carrying both would have inflated the fiscal signal by counting one fact twice. That is the same objection this page raises against itself two paragraphs above, and it applies to what gets added next as much as to what is already here.

What is still missing. Regulatory burden. Across thirty-three tested federal series the only state-level regulatory variable is the minimum wage, and even that exists for forty-five states rather than fifty — Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee have no state statute, so the series simply does not exist. An index that filled those five with the federal floor would have invented five data points. The regulatory dimension is left out rather than proxied.

How much of the rank is the weighting. The eight pillars are averaged equally. That is declared rather than tuned, but declared is not neutral — and a single integer rank hides how much of itself the choice is carrying. So it was measured: 20,000 weightings were drawn at random, the composite recomputed each time, and every state re-ranked. Restricted to weightings a person could actually defend — every pillar between 6.25% and 25% of the total, so none dominant and none ignored — the average state’s rank moves 16 places. Allow any weighting at all and it moves 28.9. 23 of the fifty-one can reach first place under some weighting; 19 can reach last.

The useful part is that this is not uniform. The ends of the table are firm and the middle is not: Colorado never falls below rank 3 and West Virginia never rises above 49, while Massachusetts, published at rank 19, sits anywhere from 9 to 39. Read the top and bottom of this table as findings; read the middle as a band, which is why the band is printed beside every rank above rather than left for a reader to discover.

What this index does not predict, tested. A reader could reasonably assume a state scoring well here is a state people are moving to. Across all fifty-one jurisdictions that is not what the data shows. The composite score correlates with net domestic migration at r = +0.036, which is indistinguishable from no relationship (permutation p = 0.650). A single indicator inside the index — housing units authorised per 1,000 workers — reaches r = +0.742. Put plainly: the single most-moved-to state in America is Idaho, at 55.7 net domestic movers per 1,000 — and this index ranks it 40th. Colorado, ranked first here, is 25th on movers.

This does not make the index wrong — it measures what it says it measures. It means the score is not a forecast of migration, and should not be read as one. Two of its inputs are also less independent than they look: manufacturing share of jobs (productive-base pillar) and production occupations location quotient (workforce) correlate at +0.96 across the 49 jurisdictions holding both. Not an error in either figure — both are correct. It means the two are not independent evidence, and a state strong on one is not confirmed by being strong on the other. n = 51, a single cross-section, unweighted — Wyoming counts as much as California. States are not independent of one another. Co-movement is not causation, and none of this identifies why anyone moved.

Where this came from. Twelve analytical lenses were run over this data, each blind to the others, and every candidate finding was put to three independent sceptics instructed to refute it. Forty-six were mined and eight survived. The finding above was not one of them — it came from asking a final critic what all twelve had missed, and the answer was that nobody had checked whether the index tracks anything outside its own inputs. It has been recomputed here independently of the agent that raised it. The eight that survived, and the thirty-eight that did not.

The development office directoryThis week in economic development

The State Development Index — Applied America