Full text of Economic Review (Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland) : January 1966

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

J A N U A R Y 1966

JJ|
IN

THIS

I SSUE

A n Economic Profile
o f Colum bus, O h io . .

S u rv e y o f H igh School
Seniors in C u y a h o g a
C o u n t y — Som e
A d d itio n a l Findings .

3

. 19

C a p ita l S p e n d in g Plans
in C le ve la n d and
C in c in n a ti............... , 2 7

Annual In de x to
Economic Review . . . 3 5

FEDERAL



RESERVE

BANK

OF

CLEVELAND

Additional copies of the E C O N O M IC

REVIEW

may be obtained from the Research Department,
Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Cleveland,
Ohio 441 01.




JANUARY 1966

AN ECONOMIC PROFILE
OF COLUMBUS, OHIO
Columbus is one of the largest and fastest
growing cities in the Fourth Federal Reserve
District. It also is the capital of Ohio and the
county seat of Franklin County.
Columbus is identified as a "growth” area,
primarily because of the enormous expansion
of its industrial dimension since World War
II. While the community had done well earlier,
the favorable economic climate in Columbus
prior to the war and postwar industrial surge,
was based on the white-collar lines of activity
that still play an important role in the area's
business life. The transformation to a greater
industrial orientation has brought Columbus'
identity somewhat closer to that of other in­
dustrial centers in the Fourth District as well
as in the nation.

BACKGROUND
The borough of Columbus was incorporated
150 years ago on February 10, 1816; but
four years earlier, in 1812, the Columbus
site had already been selected from among
several competing areas to be the State capital.
Aside from its relatively central geographic
position in Ohio, there seems to have been no
compelling reason for the choice. According
to one historical source,1 the Columbus site
was "an unbroken forest" at the time of its
designation; but once the choice was made,
advantages began to accrue. The same source
states that after laying out the town, "the
1 See Henry Howe, Historical Collections o f Ohio,
Vol. 1, 1907.




primeval wilderness and native untrodden
soil awoke to its initial real estate boom . . .
after the platting of the town and its estab­
lishment as the capital, improvements and
growth advanced rapidly; immigrants came
and business began to bustle." Business ap­
parently continued to bustle for, by 1850,
Franklin County, with Columbus as its county
seat, had become the fourth most populous
county in Ohio. By 1880, the County had
climbed into third place, the position it holds
today, but with an even stronger grip.
As shown in Chart 1, population expansion
in Franklin County has been dramatic in the
present 20th century; the 88-percent gain
from 1930 to 1960 was virtually twice as
large a rate of increase as the concurrent
45-percent increase in Ohio as a whole.
Today, growth still continues apace. Popu­
lation estimates for July 1964 show a further
gain of 12 percent in Franklin County during
the first four years of the current decade,
which is well above the statewide increase.
Population
July 1 9 6 4 *
Colum bus (city o n l y ) ..................

51 6 ,4 8 3

Franklin County (incl. Columbus)

7 6 4 ,9 2 3

% C h a n ge since
1 9 6 0 Census
+ 9%
+ 12 %

P ickaw ay C o u n t y ......................

3 9 ,2 7 8

+

9%

D e la w a re C o u n t y .....................

3 8 ,6 4 3

+

7%

Total, Colum bus S ta n d a rd M etropolitan Statistical A re a ,
1 9 6 3 d e f in it io n ......................

8 4 2 ,8 4 4

O h i o ....................................... 1 0 ,4 2 5 ,1 7 5

-| -1 1 %
+

7%

* Estimated b y Developm ent Department, Economic Research
Division, State o f Ohio.

3

E C O N O M IC REVIEW

POPULATION GROWTH

- 1 8 5 0 - 1 9 6 0 , P r o j e c t e d to 1 9 7 0

S o u r c e s of d a t a : S t a t e of O h i o ; U.S. D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m e r c e

Indications of the present-day character of
the city were manifest from the start, although
initially on a modest scale. When the first
census was taken in Columbus in 1815, the
community of only 700 persons already
boasted four lawyers and six stores, or more
than might have been found in many another
pioneer community of similar size. Today,
employment in Columbus continues to be
biased toward such fields as government,
finance, services, and trade.
Table I shows the average distribution of
nonagricultural employment in the Columbus
Digitized for
4 FRASER


Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area during
1964, as compared with the Ohio average
and with seven other large metropolitan areas
in the State. Columbus not only ranked above
the Ohio average in the proportion employed
in the fields of government, services, finance,
construction, and trade; but in all of these
categories except trade, the proportion in
Columbus was higher than in any of the
seven other large cities. Conversely, Colum­
bus had a relatively light concentration of
employment in manufacturing, and was
slightly below the State average in employ­
ment in transportation.

JANUARY 1966
TABLE I
Distribution of Total Nonagricultural Employment
A m on g Se ve n M a jo r Em ploym ent C a te go ries, 1 9 6 4 Annual A v e r a g e
Eight L a rge S M S A ’s and O h io Total
Percent in

Percent in

Percent in

Percent in

Governm ent

Services

Finance

Construction

Columbus

1 9 .2 %

Columbus

1 4 .7 %

Columbus

6 .3 %

Columbus

4 .9 %

Dayton

18.2

C leveland

13.8

Cincinnati

5.6

Cincinnati

4.4

Toledo

13.8

Cleveland

4.8

C leveland

4.3

O h io A vg.

13.7

Cincinnati

13.6
4.0

O h io A vg.

4.2

12.3

YoungstownW a rre n
12.9

O h io A vg.

Cincinnati
Toledo

12.0

D ayton

Canton

3.4

C leveland

11.9

Toledo

3.4

YoungstownW a rre n
4.0

Akron

11.5

O h io A vg.

12.8
12.7

YoungstownW a rre n

9.8

Akron

12.2

Canton

8.9

Canton

11.8

Akron

2.9

Dayton

3.9

Dayton

2.8

Toledo

3.8

YoungstownW a rre n
2.7

Percent in

Percent in

Percent in

Trade

Transportation

M anufacturing

Akron

3.3

Canton

3.2

Toledo

2 1 .4 %

Cincinnati

7 .5 %

Canton

Cincinnati

21.2

Toledo

7.2

Columbus

21.1

Akron

6.6

YoungstownW a rre n
4 7 .0

C leveland

2 0 .6

C leveland

6.2

Akron

4 4 .5

D ayton

4 0 .6

O h io A vg.

3 9 .0

O hio A vg.

19.6

O hio A vg.

6.2

Akron

19.0

Columbus

6.1

Canton

18.4

YoungstownW a rre n
5.4

4 8 .8 %

C leveland

38.3

Toledo

3 8.3

YoungstownW a rre n
18.0

Canton

5.3

Cincinnati

3 5.3

Dayton

Dayton

3.8

Columbus

26.1

17.8

Source: O h io Bureau o f Unemployment Com pensation
Division o f Research & Statistics

GOVERNMENT
The large proportion of government em­
ployment in Columbus—nearly one of five
employed persons—is self-explanatory. As
the capital city of Ohio, Columbus not only

County, or five times the statewide propor­
tion of 2 percent. About 11,000 employees
are associated with The Ohio State University
alone, according to figures for recent years.

has the various office buildings associated
with State of Ohio executive, legislative, and
judicial functions, but also numerous State
institutions and asylums. More than 2 7 ,0 0 0
persons in Franklin County were employed
during 1964 by the State government. That
was 10 percent of total employment in the

The Federal Government had approximately
12,000 employees in Franklin County in
1964; that was 4 percent of total employment,




or a little over the statewide proportion of
3 percent. Local government (including the
local public school system) accounted for
18,000. That amounted to 6.4 percent of total
5

EC O N O M IC REVIEW

employment, or somewhat less than the state­
wide proportion of 8.5 percent.
It is clear from Table I that the distribution
of employment in Columbus is atypical, with
a strong tendency to come out at either the top
or the bottom of the list of other cities in the
State. It may occur to some that this tendency
is the result of an unusually large number of
government employees superimposed, as it
were, on a community whose makeup might
otherwise resemble the average large Ohio
city more closely. This is not the case, however,
as may be seen from Table I-a, which shows
the distribution of employment in the ''private''
sector (all government employment excluded).
Just as in Table I, Columbus exhibits a strong
tendency to rank first or last in relation to the
seven other cities, and does so in five of the
six nongovernment categories of employment.
Moreover, in those same five categories,
Columbus deviates from the Ohio average to
a greater extent than any of the seven other
cities (see comparisons in last three lines of
each subdivision of Table I-a). For example,
the 3 2 .7 percent of all nongovernment em­
ployment in Columbus that is engaged in
manufacturing is not only a lower proportion
than in any other city, but it deviates from
the Ohio average by — 12.5 percentage
points. Canton, at the other extremity, deviates
from the Ohio average by only + 8 .3 points.

SERVICES
While it is possible to construct statistically
an employment picture of Columbus that ex­
cludes government workers, as was done in
Table I-a, it is not possible to exclude the per­
vasive effects of the large volume of govern­
ment activity on the composition of employ­
ment in the nongovernment sector. The high
Digitized6for FRASER


proportion of employment in service indus­
tries in Columbus (15 percent of the total, or
18 percent of the private sector in 1964)
stems beyond doubt from the role of govern­
ment in the city's economic life. This has led
to an above-average demand for attorneys,
for example, to a need for abundant hotel and
restaurant accommodations, and to demand
for many other business and personal services
required directly or indirectly by business
and political visitors. The influx of thousands
of students at The Ohio State University
further augments the above-average demand
for services.

FINANCE
The principal factor in the relatively heavy
concentration of financial employment in
Columbus as compared with other metro­
politan areas in Ohio is the city's position as
an insurance center. In Columbus, half of
the persons engaged in financial work are
employed by insurance carriers, and these
account for nearly one-fourth of the State
total. Thus, despite its smaller population,
Columbus (Franklin County) had 9,100 per­
sons employed by insurance carriers in 1963
as compared with 9 ,4 0 0 in Cleveland (Cuya­
hoga and Lake counties combined) and 8,900
in Cincinnati (Hamilton County).
In banking activity, however, Columbus is
not so outstanding, though it is certainly
holding its own. Less than 10 percent of total
bank employment in Ohio is to be found in
Columbus. Moreover, total deposits of Colum­
bus banks—amounting to $ 1 ,026 million at
yearend 1 9 6 4 —represented 7 percent of
total deposits at all banks in Ohio, a pro­
portion that is about in line with its share of
the State's population.

JANUARY 1966
TABLE l-a
Distribution of Nonagricultural Employment
Exclusive of Government Employment
Am ong S ix M a jo r Em ploym ent C a te go rie s, 1 9 6 4 Annual A v e r a g e
Eight L a rge S M S A ’s and O h io Total
Percent in

Percent in

Percent in

Services

Finance

Construction

Columbus

18 . 4 %

Columbus

7 .9 %

Columbus

6 .2 %

Toledo

15.7

Cincinnati

6.3

Cincinnati

5.0

Cleveland

5.4

Cleveland

4.9

Dayton

15.6

C leveland

15.6

Cincinnati

15.5

O hio A vg.

4 .7

O h io A vg.

14.7

Toledo

3.8

Canton

3.7

Dayton

3.4

YoungstownW a rre n

4.5

Toledo

4.3

Dayton

4.8
O h io A vg.

YoungstownW a rre n

14.3

Akron

3.2

Akron

13.8

Canton

12.8

YoungstownW a rre n

3.0

4.8

Akron

3.8

Canton

3.5

Deviation from O hio A verage:
+

3 .7 points

+

3.2 points

+

1.4 points

Highest other
city
+

Columbus

1.0 points

+

1.6 points

+

0.2 points

Lowest other
city
—

1.9 points

—

1.7 points

—

1.3 points

Percent in

Percent in

Percent in

Trade

Transportation

M anufacturing

Columbus

2 6 .5 %

Cincinnati

8 .6 %

Canton

Toledo

24.3

Toledo

8.2

5 2 .0

5 3 .5 %

Cincinnati

24.2

Columbus

7 .7

YoungstownW a rre n

C leveland

2 3 .3

Akron

7.4

Akron

50.2

Dayton

4 9 .6

O h io A vg.

2 2 .7

O hio A vg.

7.1
O h io A vg.

4 5 .2

Dayton

21.8

C leveland

7.1

Akron

2 1 .4

4 3 .5

20.2

YoungstownW a rre n

Toledo

Canton

6.0

Cleveland

4 3 .5

YoungstownW a rre n

Canton

5.9

Cincinnati

40 .2

19.9

Dayton

4 .7

Columbus

3 2 .7

Deviation from O h io A verage:
Columbus

0.6 points

-j- 3.8 points

— 1 2.5 points

Highest other
city
+

1 -6 points

-+- 1.5 points

+

8.3 points

Lowest other
city
—

2.8 points

—

—

5.0 points

2.4 points

Source: O hio Bureau o f Unemployment Com pensation
Division o f Research an d Statistics




7

E C O N O M IC REVIEW

TRADE
As the major city in an extensive rural
region and with good transportation, Colum­
bus is a leading mercantile center. Thus, the
Columbus market is larger and wider than
would be expected from its own population,
allowing for a certain amount of casual sales
to visitors, with trade volume inflated by sub­
stantial sales to persons other than permanent
residents. (These others would include not
only transient residents, such as thousands
of university students, but the inhabitants of
several nearby counties.)
Retail sales of more than $1.1 billion in
Columbus during 1963 amounted to $1,392
per capita, the highest average among the
eight largest Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Areas in Ohio.2This leading position, however,
does not appear to flow from local affluence,
for, according to available data, incomes of
Columbus residents are not so high that they
would support the top-level spending rate
indicated by the retail sales figures. Thus, in
the following list of the effective buying in­
comes (per capita, 1963) estimated by Sales
M a n a g em en t, Franklin County (Columbus)
fell in fifth place among major Ohio centers:3

And a less inclusive indicator—average
weekly earnings of production workers—
places the Columbus average of $115.81 in
June 1965 in eighth place in a list of the eight
largest Ohio cities, and appreciably below
the Ohio average of $128.28.

MANUFACTURING
Although Columbus has a substantially
smaller proportion of employment in manu­
facturing (26 percent) than any other large
Ohio city (next smallest is 35 percent), manu­
facturing activity is nevertheless the city's
largest single source of employment. More­
over, manufacturing in the area has been
growing by leaps and bounds. As shown in
Table II, value added by manufacture during
19634 amounted to nearly $ 900 million in
Franklin County ($984 million in the entire
Columbus SMSA as recently revised to include
Delaware and Pickaway counties ). Year-toyear gains in value added by manufacture in
Franklin County were scored in six of the
TABLE II
Value Added By Manufacture, 1956-63
Colum bus*
Current

County
Cuyahoga

(Cleveland)

$ 2 ,5 4 7

Hamilton

(Cincinnati)

2 ,4 3 4

Lucas

(Toledo)

2 ,3 3 2

M ontgom ery

(Dayton)

2 ,3 2 0

Franklin

(Columbus)

2 ,2 9 7

Summit

(Akron)

2 ,2 7 8

Stark

(Canton)

2 ,0 7 0

Trumbull

(W arren )

2 ,0 5 0

M a h on ing

(Youngstown)

1 ,9 9 6

%

O hio

C h a n ge

Current

Dollars

from

D ollars

%

from

C h a n ge

(millions)

Previous Y e a r

(millions)

Previous Y e a r

1956

$573

1957

582

+

1%

1 2 ,7 5 7

—

1958

623

+

7

1 1 ,4 7 3

— 10

1959

728

+ 17

1 3 ,8 5 7

+21

1960

754

+

4

1 3 ,8 3 0

—

0.2

1961

730

—

3

1 3 ,3 2 0

—

4

1962

796

+

9

1 4 ,5 7 8

+ 10

19 6 3 p

898

+ 13

1 5 ,4 4 3

+

$ 1 2 ,9 2 8
1%

6

N et C h a n ge
1 9 5 6 -6 3

2 The remaining seven ranged from $1,341 down to
$1 ,157; the Ohio average was $1,261.
3 Copyright 1965, Sales Management Survey of Buying
Power; further reproduction is forbidden.


8


+ 5 7 %

* Franklin County,
p Preliminary.
Source: U. S. Departm ent o f Commerce

4 Preliminary figures.

+ 19%

JANUARY 1966
2.

CAPITAL SPENDING
M a n u f a c t u r i n g F i r ms
Current Dollars
M i l l i o n s of d o l l a r s

M i l l i o n s of d o l l a r s

In the main, capital spending by Columbus
business firms (Franklin County) took the
same general direction for the 1954-1963
decade as did the Ohio total (see Chart 2).
There were variations in direction, however,
in two years, 1958 and 1960, and in 1963
there was a particularly sharp increase in
Columbus while the Ohio total rose only
moderately.

* Fra n k lin C o u n t y
S o u r c e of d a t a : U.S. D e p a r t m e n t of C o m m e r c e

seven years in the 1956-1963 period as com­
pared with statewide gains in only three of
the same seven years. The net change over
the entire seven years was a thumping 57
percent expansion in Franklin County as
against a more modest 19 percent increase
for all of Ohio. In addition to the rapid in­
crease in manufacturing activity in Colum­
bus, the year-to-year changes in value added
indicate that the area is less sensitive to fluc­
tuations in general business activity than is
the State of Ohio as a whole.5
5 Other evidence of the rapid pace of manufacturing
activity in Columbus was reported in the October 1965
issue of the Economic Review, in the article, "Manu­
facturing Activity in Metropolitan Areas.'' In that article,
analysis of data on industrial consumption of electric
power showed that the Columbus area has expanded at
a pace above the average for the Fourth District, and
that its manufacturing activity has tended to be relatively
stable.




The character and status of Columbus man­
ufacturing activity have undergone a major
change since the 19 3 0 's. At that time, the
industrial lineup in Columbus bore little re­
semblance to that of the State as a whole.
According to the Census of Manufacturers
for 1937, Ohio's leading manufacturing in­
dustries (ranked by value added in manu­
facture) were steel works and rolling mills,
machinery, auto bodies and parts, rubber
tires, and so on. In 1937, however, the major
products in Columbus were boots and shoes
(10 percent of the all-industry total) followed
by printed matter (mostly local newspapers),
bread and other baked goods, and meat
products. With the exception of printing,
much of the manufacturing activity consisted
of the processing of agricultural raw materials.
The revolutionary change that has taken
place since then is evident from the list of
leading manufacturing industries developed
from the latest Census data and shown in
Table III. Metal-using industries now pre­
dominate in Columbus, just as they do in
Ohio. Except for primary metals output, which
ranks third in Ohio but of which Columbus
has only a nominal amount, the leading manu­
facturing industries in Columbus and Ohio
fall mostly within the same general categories.

E C O N O M IC REVIEW
TABLE III
Three Measures of Activity in Leading Manufacturing Industries, 1962 and 1963
Columbus S M S A *
1962

O h io

19 6 3 p

1962

1963p

Sh a re of V a lue A d d e d b y All M fg . Industries
pro vid ed by:

...............

Transportation e q u ip m e n t............................ ...
Fabricated metals

...................................

18%

18%

15%

16%

16

10

10

.........................

14

12

9

9

Nonelectrical m a c h i n e r y ............................ ............................

12

10

13

12

Food and kindred p r o d u c t s .........................

11

10

7

7

70%

67%

54%

54%

13%

10%

11%

Five-Industry Total

.........................

................................... ............................

Sha re o f C ap ita l Sp en ding b y All M fg . Industries
p ro vid ed by:
Transportation e q u ip m e n t................................ ........................

8%

Electrical m a c h in e r y ................................................................

16

12

6

6

Fabricated m e t a ls .......................................... .........................

19

11

9

7

Nonelectrical m a c h i n e r y ........................................................

9

6

10

10

Food and kindred p r o d u c t s ............................ ........................

13

11

6

6

65%

52%

40%

40%

13%

13%

Five-Industry Total

...................................... ........................

Sh a re o f Total Employment in All M fg . Industries
p ro vid ed by:
Transportation e q u ip m e n t................................

...............

17%

18%

Electrical m a c h in e r y ................................................................

14

14

9

9

Fabricated m e t a ls .......................................... .........................

11

10

9

9
13

Nonelectrical m a c h i n e r y .........................................................

12

11

13

Food and kindred p r o d u c t s ............................ ........................

10

10

7

6

52%

51%

Five-Industry Total

................................... ... ........................

64%

64%

* The Colum bus S M S A consisted o f Franklin County in 1 9 6 2 an d w as e x p a n d e d to include
D e la w a re an d P ickaw ay counties in 1 963.
p Preliminary.
Source: U. S. Departm ent o f Commerce

Transportation Equipment. Measured either
by value added in manufacture or by employment, the production of transportation equipment is the chief industry in both Columbus

the long-term trend of employment in the industry for Columbus as compared with the
State (see Chart 3, top panel). Employment
declined in each area in 1964, but apparently

and Ohio. In Columbus, however, output

for different reasons. The auto-dominated

consists principally of aircraft and parts
while in Ohio as a whole, motor vehicles and
equipment are substantially more important.
Presumably because "transportation equipment" is represented by different subdivisions

Ohio figure was reduced by auto strikes late
in the year whereas in Columbus, there was
a fairly prolonged series of layoffs at aircraft
plants,

of the industry in Columbus than elsewhere
in Ohio, there has been some difference in

As a big industry, the manufacture of aircraft in Columbus dates from 1939, just prior

0 FRASER
Digitized1for


JANUARY 1966

to World War II. It did not evolve naturally
from existing local industry but was a massive
transplant from another area during the
period of national defense preparations. After
thus getting and relishing its first taste of
really big-scale heavy industry in the war
years, the prospect of a postwar void in Colum­
bus loomed unpleasantly, not only because of
the inevitable cutbacks in war orders, but
because the original aircraft firm decided to
move out again and conduct its peacetime
operations elsewhere. Fortunately, another
aircraft manufacturer took over much of the
existing plant in 1950 and by 1963 (latest
available data for individual firms) had be­
come the largest single manufacturer in the
area, employing 11,500 persons.

3.

TOTAL MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT
Se le c te d In d u s t r ie s
IN DEX 1958-60=100

Electrical Machinery. The postwar cutback

in aircraft manufacturing nonetheless left a
substantial pool of experienced factory labor
that proved attractive to other manufacturers.
In fact, following the aforementioned air­
craft plant, the three largest employers in
Columbus in 1963 were divisions or branches
of nationally known companies that were
established in Columbus since the end of
World War II. One came immediately after
the war, another came in the early 1950's,
and the third in the late 1950's.
Both of the last two plants referred to are
manufacturers of electrical machinery and
together account for the fact that output of
electrical machinery has in a few years be­
come the second largest manufacturing in­
dustry in Columbus. The entire industry
employed 11,600 persons in 1964, and about
four of every five were at the two new plants
mentioned. The second panel of Chart 3,



S o u r c e o f d a t a : O h i o B u r e a u of U n e m p l o y m e n t
Com pensation

11

E C O N O M IC REVIEW

covering the years 1958 to 1964, shows the
dramatic impact on employment in the elec­
trical machinery industry in Columbus that
came when the second plant began operations.
Further gains were registered through 1964.
Fabricated Metals. Fabricated metals, one

of the five largest manufacturing industries
in Columbus, has apparently been losing
ground in Columbus in the past several years
in comparison with statewide trends. During
the period from 1958 to 1964, the trend of
employment in the output of fabricated metal
products was less favorable in Columbus than
in the State as a whole. Ohio employment in
the industry had been fairly steady from 1958
to 1963 and then rose sharply in 1964 (see
Chart 3). In Columbus, however, employment
by fabricated metal industries rose only
slightly in 1964 and remained below the
1958-60 level.
There are more Columbus firms (104 in
1963) in the fabricated metals industry than
in either transportation equipment (20) or
electrical machinery (28), suggesting less
dominance by one or two companies. Never­
theless, one firm, the fourth largest manufac­
turing employer in the community, accounts

ments operating in 1963, the largest two are
local concerns that date back many years
prior to World War II. Together they account
for close to half of total employment in the
city's fifth largest manufacturing industry,
based on value added in manufacture, or the
third largest, measured by employment. The
major products turned out by Columbus firms
are coal mining machinery, cement mixers,
bearings, and refrigerating equipment. There
are numerous small machine shops and toolmaking concerns.
Employment in this industry in Columbus
during recent years (see Chart 3) has trailed
the statewide trend to an increasing extent.
Although production of nonelectrical machin­
ery bulks fairly large in a cross section view
of all manufacturing activity in Columbus, it
does not constitute an outstanding segment of
the industry throughout the State, as do the
other leading industries (see Chart 4). In
1963, Columbus had only 5.2 percent of
total employment in the industry throughout
Ohio, although the city accounted for 6.5
percent of statewide employment in all manu­
facturing industries (see Chart 4) and 8.7
percent of total nonagricultural employment.

for more than a third of local employment in

Food and Kindred Products. A second large

the fabricated metals industry. That firm, a
division of a giant automotive corporation

and long-established Columbus industry is
food production. In this industry, employment
patterns in Columbus and Ohio are similar.
The gradual declines shown in Chart 3 ap­
parently reflect increased productivity.
Food and kindred products is the fifth
largest manufacturing industry in Columbus,
accounting in 1963 for 10 percent of value

headquartered elsewhere, first began oper­
ation in Columbus after the war and is not an
expansion of a previously existing local en­
terprise.
Nonelectrical Machinery. The nonelectrical
machinery production is an important' 'native''
industry in Columbus. Of the 117 establish­
12 FRASER
Digitized for


added by manufacture and 10 percent of all
manufacturing employees (see Table III).

JANUARY 1966

Moreover, by providing 10 percent of the
Ohio total of value added in food manufac­
ture, Columbus turns out an above-average
share of food products, as is evident from
Chart 4. In meat packing alone, Columbus
plants employed nearly 900 persons in 1963
compared, for example, with only 600 in
Cleveland (Cuyahoga County) which has a
substantially larger population, but which
makes no claim to being a meat-packing
center.
Several geographic factors make Columbus
a "natural" for food processing. Surrounded
by agricultural land and lying at the eastern
edge of the Corn Belt, Columbus has long

had an abundance of raw food materials at
hand. Of equal importance, transportation
facilities have historically been excellent.
The east-west National Road (U.S. Route 40)
has served the community since the first half
of the 19th century, with many other major
highway links having been built since then.
In the heyday of canal traffic, a feeder con­
nection with the Ohio canal provided access
to the Ohio River and to Lake Erie, a function
that was later taken over by the railroads that
fan out in all directions. One of the latest
major improvements to transportation in and
out of Columbus is Interstate Route 71, which,
when completed, will bisect the State of Ohio
diagonally from northeast to southwest.

SELECTED M E A S U R E S of M A N U FA C T U R IN G ACTIVITY
C o l u m b u s a s a P e r c e n t of O h i o Total , 1 9 6 3
V A L U E A D D E D IN
M A N U FA C T U R IN G

CAPITAL S P E N D IN G

5%
10%
n — i— i— i— i— i— i— n — i—

0

5%

10%

EMPLOYMENT
0

5%

10%

..............

ALL

t u

M A N U F A C T U R IN G

______________

--------

F A B R IC A T E D M E T A L
PRODUCTS

7 .0

E L E C T R IC A L
M A C H IN E R Y

I
FO O D

and PRODUCTS

T R A N S P O R T A T IO N
E Q U IP M E N T

:

10.9

7.4

______

9.1

m%
N O N E L E C T R IC A L
M A C H IN E R Y

\

5.2
I l i l

I

I i i

i

5.2

I

i

i I

i

j —i

i .i

i i i

S o u r c e o f d a t a : An n u al Census of M anufactures, 1963, U.S. D e p a r t m e n t of C o m m e r c e




13

EC O N O M IC REVIEW

RECENT TRENDS AND PROSPECTS
Part of the Columbus growth story is clear
from the preceding sections, where the major
features of the contemporary economic pro­
file of Columbus are considered. In brief
statistical review, the areas in which Columbus
has forged ahead in recent years, are as fol­
lows, with Ohio comparisons provided as a
benchmark.
C h a n ge in:

Columbus

O hio

Population, 1 9 6 0 - 6 4

+ 11%

+

Va lue a d d e d in mfr., 1 9 5 6 -6 3

+57

+ 19

Total employment, 1 9 5 8 -6 3

7%

+ 13

+

Manufacturing, 1 9 5 8 -6 3

+ 10

+

3

Nonmanufacturing, 1 9 5 8 -6 3

+ 14

+

5

5

Other statistical evidence reflecting and
underscoring the foregoing list of gains is not
lacking. Such evidence consists of depart­
ment store sales, business loans, the rate of
unemployment, the help-wanted index, sav­
ings flows, and residential construction. At
the same time, bank debits show somewhat
contrary results. Most of these additional
series are shown in the accompanying charts
and while the illustrations are largely selfexplanatory, some short comments may be

practical rate of unemployment. This inter­
pretation is supported by viewing Chart 5
in conjunction with Chart 6. The latter chart,
depicting expansion in help-wanted adver­
tisements in local newspapers, suggests an
acute shortage of qualified workers.
Department Store Sales. Since 1958 the

growth of department store sales in Columbus
has exceeded that of the Fourth District as a
whole, as shown in Chart 7, and has exceeded
that of all SMSA's in the District except Cin­
cinnati. For several years prior to the period
covered in the chart, the trend of department
store sales in Columbus had not been excep­
tional, but merely kept pace with the District.
In both areas, indexes for sales were at the
83 level (1957-59 = 100) in 1954 and at the
98 level in 1958. It is clear from Chart 7 that
the Columbus index pulled sharply away
from that of the Fourth District in 1962. The
resulting gap has been maintained with little
change except for a temporary widening in
late 1964 and early 1965. The growth of de­
partment store sales volume in Columbus
during recent years is certainly associated to
a great extent with the rapid rate of popu­

helpful.

lation increase in Columbus and its impor­
tance as a trade center referred to earlier in

Unemployment and Help-Wanted. While the
rate of unemployment has experienced less

this article.

improvement during the past several years in
Columbus than in either the Fourth District or
the U.S., that is because Columbus had a
lower unemployment level at the beginning
of the period under review. Chart 5 shows
this clearly and at the same time indicates
how much sooner Columbus approached
what appears to be approximately a minimum
14FRASER
Digitized for


Business Loans. Since bank credit is com­

monly employed in the conduct of business,
the trend of business loans is a clue to the
trend of general business activity. As shown
in index form in Chart 8, the volume of busi­
ness loans outstanding has expanded at an
appreciably faster pace in Columbus than in
the Fourth District as a whole during the

JANUARY 1966

5.

6

U N E M P L O Y M E N T RATE

HELP-W ANTED INDEX

.

* F o u r t h D i s t r i c t U n e m p l o y m e n t R a t e i s b a s e d o n d a t a c o v e r i n g al l
of O h io , a n d the P i t t s b u r g h

and Er ie M e t r o p o l i t a n A r e a s .

S o u r c e of d a t a : N a t i o n a l I n d u s t r i a l C o n f e r e n c e B o a r d

S o u r c e s o f d a t a : O h i o B u r e a u of U n e m p l o y m e n t
C o m p e n sa tio n ; P e n n s y lv a n ia E m p lo ym e n t Service;
U.S. D e p a r t m e n t of L a b o r

1960's to date. The bulk of the difference in
trend of the respective indexes materialized
in 1961, but there has been some further
separation of Columbus and regional trends
since then.
Table IV, which refers to the volume of busi­
ness loans outstanding at weekly reporting
member banks on selected dates, shows the
proportion of the total that had been made to
various groups of borrowers. Heading the list
in Columbus are businesses classified as "All
other, mainly services" and "Trade," each
of which accounted in all years for much
larger shares of the Columbus total than of
the Ohio total. Conversely, borrowing by
manufacturers, whether of durable or non­



durable goods, accounted for larger shares
of the Ohio total than of the Columbus total.
The distribution of loan volume by business
of borrower is broadly in accord with the dis­
tribution of employment (see Table I). It may
be noted, moreover, that certain variations
between Columbus and the State became
more pronounced over the period. Thus, ser­
vice industries obtained an increasingly
large proportion of loans in Columbus while
durable goods manufacturers accounted for
an increasingly large share of loans in Ohio
as a whole.
Personal Savings. The trend of personal

savings in Columbus in recent years reflects
15

EC O N O M IC REVIEW

OTHER INDIC ATO RS of E C O N O M I C ACTIVITY

7.

9.

D EP ART M ENT STORE SALES

RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS

Five -M o n th
M oving A ve rag e
S E A S O N A L LY ADJUSTED

I
19 5 7 ’58

'6 0

’61

I
’6 2

I
'6 3

I
'6 4

S o u r c e of d a t a : F e d e r a l R e s e r v e B a n k o f C l e v e l a n d

S o u r c e s of d a t a : F. W . D o d g e C o r p o r a t i o n ;

8.

10.

B U S IN E S S LO ANS
Weekly

Reporting

Member

'6 6

BAN K DEBITS

S o u r c e of d a t a : F e d e r a l R e s e r v e B a n k o f C l e v e l a n d

R e g i o n IV in c l u d e s all of O hio , K e n t u c k y , W e st V i r g i n i a , and W e s t e rn P e n n s y l v a n i a .
R e g i o n IV is c o n s i d e r e d a r e a s o n a b l e a p p r o x i m a t i o n of the Fo urth F e d e r a l R e s e r v e Dist rict.


16


I
’6 5

Banks

S o u r c e o f d a t a : F e d e r a l R e s e r v e B a n k of C l e v e l a n d
*

’5 9

JANUARY 1966
TABLE IV
Commercial and Industrial Loans Outstanding
At Weekly Reporting Member Banks, By Industry
Selected Dates, 1 9 6 1 - 1 9 6 5
Percent o f Total Outstanding on
N ov. 15,

Sept. 26,

Sept. 25,

Sept. 30,

Sept. 29,

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

In Columbus:
25%

28%

28%

34%

36%

T r a d e .......................................

26

27

27

26

26

D urable go od s manufacturing

15

16

14

12

All other, mainly services

. . . .
. .

13

Transportation, communication and
other public u t i l i t i e s ..............

12

7

9

10

10

C o n s t r u c t io n ............................

17

18

12

11

10

N on du rab le go o d s manufacturing .

6

5

6

4

5

M in in g .......................................

1

1

1

1

1

In Ohio:
. .

25

25

26

26

29

N on du rab le g o o d s manufacturing .

15

16

18

18

16

T r a d e .......................................

17

17

17

17

16

All other, mainly services

16

16

15

15

14

Transportation, communication and
other public u t i l i t i e s ..............

17

16

13

13

12

C o n s t r u c t io n ............................

7

8

7

8

7

M in in g .......................................

3

3

4

3

4

D urable g o o d s manufacturing

. . . .

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland

the generally favorable economic climate of
the community. In Columbus, year-to-year
expansion in savings exceeded comparable
statewide increases in all years since 1959
except 1960, when the Columbus gain was
slightly less than the statewide gain. (See
Table V.) Data through September 1965 in­
dicate a 12.1 percent increase in personal
savings in Columbus in the first nine months

residential construction contracts moved up
sharply in Columbus during 1961 and main­
tained the increased pace in succeeding
years. The marked population increase in
recent years has apparently been accom­
panied by strong demands for more housing.
The sharp spurt in early 1965, however, re­
flected an expansion of institutional dormitory
facilities rather than a generalized advance.

of 1965, almost twice the corresponding 6.3
percent increase for Ohio. The exceptionally
rapid growth of savings in Columbus during

Bank Debits. Most economic transactions

require money payments, and most money

1965, particularly at commercial banks, pre­

payments are made by check. Bank debits—

sumably reflects the increase in interest rates
paid on savings deposits, from 3 percent to

the dollar volume of checks charged to local
checking accounts—are thus an indicator of
the total dollar volume of all kinds of trans­
actions that take place in an area. In Colum­
bus, expansion in bank debits during the

4 percent, that took place late in 1964.
Residential Construction. As Chart 9 shows,



17

E C O N O M IC REVIEW
TABLE V
Personal Savings*
Columbus
At

%

O hio

C han ge

At

%

C h an ge

Ye aren d

from

Ye aren d

from

(Millions)

Y e a r Earlier

(Millions)

Y e a r Earlier

1959

$ 5 1 0 .9

1960

5 4 4 .0

+

1961

5 0 1 .6

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

$ 6 ,6 6 6 .7
6 .5 %

7 ,1 1 1 .0

+

6 .7 %

+ 10.6

7 ,7 7 3 .4

+

9.3

1962

6 7 5 .8

+ 12.3

8 ,548.5

+ 10.4

1963

7 6 7 .2

+ 13.5

9 ,467.6

+ 10.3

1964

8 5 6 .7

+ 11.7

10,328.1

+

9.1

1 9 6 5 (Sept.)

9 6 0 .5

+ 12.1

10,981.6

+

6.3

N et Increase
1 9 5 9 -6 5

+ 88%

+ 65%

* Includes the total o f savings deposits of individuals at commercial
banks and total assets of insured savings and loan associations.
N ot adjusted for change in number of reporting institutions.
Sources: Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland;
Federal Home Loan Bank of Cincinnati

current cyclical upswing (since early 1961)
has tended to lag slightly behind that of the
Fourth District, as shown in Chart 10. It is

Digitized 18
for FRASER


interesting to note the wider swings in the
debits series for Columbus as compared with
the Fourth District as a whole. Part of this re­
flects the movements of State funds associated
with the location of the State capitol in Colum­
bus.
Columbus is currently one of the fastest
growing areas in Ohio and the Fourth Dis­
trict, as indicated by the various statistical
measures of economic activity referred to in
this article. At the same time, it is an area that
has demonstrated more stability than have a
number of other major centers. This suggests
that the Columbus area has not been radically
transformed by its increased attachment to
heavy industry, and has thus been able to re­
tain the benefits of its substantial group of
stable economic activities and still enjoy the
rewards of industrial expansion.

JANUARY 1966

SURVEY OF HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS
IN CUYAHOGA CO U N TYSOME ADDITIONAL FINDINGS
An earlier article in the E co n o m ic R eview
reported the results of this Bank's May 1965
survey of high school seniors in Cuyahoga
County and their plans for further education.1
That survey was conducted with the cooper­
ation of the Cleveland Commission on Higher
Education. This article presents some addi­
tional findings obtained from further evalu­
ation and cross-sorting of the basic survey
data. It considers student responses to the
survey in terms of age, sex, family income,
parents' attendance at college, and receipt
of scholarship (s), thereby providing addi­
tional insights into the profile of 1965 high
school seniors in Cuyahoga County.

AGE AND SEX
Of the nearly 18,000 students participating
in the survey, almost all (96 percent) were
either 17 or 18 years old (see Table I). When
sex is related to age, however, it is found that
approximately half the girls were 17 or under,
while a majority of the boys (60 percent) were
18 or over.
While the girls considerably outnumbered
the boys, particularly in the 17-year-old group,
the excess was concentrated in two of the
three major groupings, the city high schools
and the parochial schools—particularly the
latter. In the suburban schools, the numbers
were more nearly even (see Table I). In the

TABLE I
Age and Sex of High School Seniors in Cuyahoga County
(May 1965 Survey of High School Seniors in Cuyahoga County)
A re a

1 6 and Under

17

Total

M

F

Total

F

Total

M

F

Total

M

F

Total

Cleveland

4

13

17

684

1,074

1 ,758

1 ,0 1 0

1,078

2 ,0 8 8

183

114

297

1,881

Suburban

18

18

36

2 ,0 2 7

2 ,5 7 2

4 ,5 9 9

2 ,6 9 6

2 ,5 4 9

5 ,2 4 5

281

94

375

Parochial

8

40

48

382

1 ,0 3 0

1 ,412

499

920

1 ,4 1 9

14

24

38

30

71

101

3 ,0 9 3

4 ,6 7 6

7 ,7 6 9

4 ,2 0 5

4 ,5 4 7

8,7 5 2

478

232

710

Total

M

1 9 and O v e r

18

M

F

Total

2 ,2 7 9

4 ,1 6 0

5 ,0 2 2

5 ,2 3 3

1 0 ,2 5 5

903

2 ,0 1 4

2 ,9 1 7

7 ,8 0 6

9 ,5 2 6

1 7 ,3 3 2 *

* There were 2 9 no responses when a g e w as tabulated b y sex. This accounts for the difference between the total “By A g e ” in Table II
(1 7 ,3 6 1 ) an d the total in this table of 1 7,332.
Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland

1 See "Survey of High School Seniors in Cuyahoga
County," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of
Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio, November 1965.




19

E C O N O M IC REVIEW

case of the city schools, the excess of girls
is probably explained by the fact that the
dropout rate tends to be higher in the city
than in the suburbs and, in Cleveland at
least, more of the dropouts are boys than girls.2
The heavy preponderance of girls in the
parochial high schools reflects the fact that
few such schools are coeducational, and there
are more parochial high schools for girls
than for boys.3
What bearing does age or sex, or both,
have on a student's plans for further edu­
cation and the likelihood that they will mater­
ialize? While 18-year-olds outnumbered 17year-olds by approximately 1,000, only 400
more 18-year-olds planned to continue their
education. At the same time, the 17-year-olds
—as of May 1 9 6 5 —actually had received
more acceptances and more scholarships
than students a year older (see Table II). With
the 19-year-olds and over, the gap between
intent and acceptances widened appreciably;
only 37 percent of those planning to continue
had been accepted at the time of the survey,
as compared with 72 percent of the 17-yearolds and 67 percent of those 18.
2 The Cleveland City dropout ratea conforms to the
Ohio pattern15, but differs from the national pattern0
in which dropouts by females exceed those of males.
a. See Statistical Data, Superintendent's Annual
Report, Cleveland Public Schools, School Year
1963-64, Bureau of Child Accounting, July 1964.
b. See Ohio S tu d y o f High School D ropouts
1962-63, L. R. Nachman et al, State Department of
Education, Columbus, Ohio, July 1964 passim.
c. See Out-of-School Youth, February 1963, V. C.
Perrelle & F. A. Bogan, M onthly Labor Review,
November 1964.
3 This pattern is changing as new coeducational schools
are under construction.

Digitized for
2 0FRASER


Whether an acceptance had been received
or not, the college preferences of students
showed that, of 173 nineteen-year-olds and
over who expressed a preference, 101 chose
Cleveland schools (including 58 who indi­
cated Cuyahoga Community College). This
pattern is consistent with the stated intent of
207 in the 19-year-and-over age group to
work while going to school. More profitable
employment opportunities are likely to be
had in a student's home community, where he
may have obtained a job prior to college en­
rollment, than in a college town where each
fall many students compete for the typical
college jobs. Indeed, if the prospective student
has established a good record with his em­
ployer, the latter may offer financial reim­
bursement upon successful completion of his
college courses (or financial support during
the college period).4
Apart from the tendency of the older student
to continue his education on home grounds,
age does not appear to be a decisive factor in
determining where a student prefers to go to
school. To the extent that a pattern did emerge,
however, there was a moderate inverse re­
relationship between age and intended atten­
dance at an out-of-state school (based on the
number in each age group planning to go to
college outside Ohio against all those in the
same age group planning to continue their
education). Thus, of those 16 and under,
13.8 percent expected to attend an out-ofstate college; of the 17-year-olds, 13.5 per4 The pattern of combined school and employment is
consistent with information provided by Cuyahoga
Community College, namely, that of all new students
in the fall of 1965, more than half were working a full
forty-hour week, and that 17% of them were 19 or 2 0
years of age.

JANUARY 1966
TABLE II
Age, Sex, and Family Income Compared with
Intent, Acceptance, Receipt of Scholarship, Geographic Pattern and Parents' Education
(May 1965 Survey of High School Seniors in Cuyahoga County)
Sex*

A g e*
16 &
under

Fa mily Income
Under

$ 5 ,0 0 0 -

$ 1 0 ,0 0 0

F

$ 5 ,0 0 0

$ 9 ,9 9 9

& over

19 &
17

18

over

M

No
Unknown

Answe

Total no. in c a t e g o r y ..............

, 101

7 ,7 8 2

8 ,7 6 5

713

8 ,2 1 5

9 ,6 9 6

1 ,103

7 ,4 6 9

3 ,5 2 5

5,501

371

I n t e n t ...................................

80

6 ,0 1 9

6 ,4 1 9

395

6 ,6 9 5

6 ,6 6 9

789

5 ,5 8 4

3 ,0 5 8

3 ,7 0 5

269
173

A c c e p t a n c e ............................

,

58

4 ,3 2 7

4 ,2 8 6

145

4,461

4 ,6 5 9

458

3 ,7 0 8

2 ,5 0 8

2,301

Multiple a c c e p t a n c e ..............

.

28

1 ,398

1,288

26

1 ,492

1 ,3 5 7

128

1 ,0 6 7

997

609

52

Out-of-state acceptance . . . .

.

15

1 ,0 2 5

1 ,0 2 0

32

1 ,1 3 4

1 ,0 4 6

92

665

925

456

49

O n e ...................................

11

623

542

25

624

628

118

644

234

238

22

M u l t i p l e ............................

3

71

61

74

68

24

85

12

19

2

Receipt o f scholarship
—

G e o g ra p h ic P a tte rn o f P re fe re n c e s
Cleveland Public
C u y a h o g a Community C ollege

.

7

540

711

58

753

606

92

674

145

426

27

Cleveland State University

.

17

374

399

21

547

282

70

4 71

103

176

10

.

17

401

332

5

394

391

62

388

159

168

11

. . . .

3

398

433

17

171

700

57

372

1 13

313

20

.

44

1 ,713

1 ,8 7 5

101

1 ,8 6 5

1 ,9 7 9

281

1 ,9 0 5

516

1 ,0 8 3

68

5

505

426

9

455

521

41

349

321

249

19

.

11

1 ,434

1 ,449

37

1 ,454

1,592

142

1,191

884

794

44

.

16

1 ,9 3 9

1 ,875

46

1 ,909

2 ,1 1 3

1 83

1 ,540

1 ,205

1,043

63

11

814

796

26

865

837

68

502

726

379

34

.

27

2 ,1 7 5

2 ,2 9 7

13 2

2 ,2 5 4

2 ,5 4 7

165

1 ,3 0 9

1,845

1,404

93

. . . .

20

1,432

1,503

84

1,481

1 ,6 5 7

1 03

830

1,262

903

54

C leveland P r i v a t e ..................
Other in Cleveland A re a

Total Cleveland A r e a ..............
O h io P r i v a t e .....................
O h io P u b l ic .........................
Total O hio ex C u y a h o g a County
Total O u t - o f - s t a t e ..................
Father attended college . . . .
M other attended college

* There were 6 0 8 no responses to the question of a g e and 5 8 no responses to the question o f sex.
W h en these figures are included, the totals b y both a g e and sex are 1 7 ,9 6 9 — the total number of respondents.
Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland

cent; of those 18, 12.4 percent; and of those
19 and over, 6.6 percent.
Another roughly inverse relationship which
appeared is that between the student's age
at graduation from high school and the
parents' having attended college (see Table
II). Of the seniors 16 years or younger, 27
percent of the fathers and 20 percent of the
mothers attended college. For those 17 years
of age the figures are: fathers 28 percent,
mothers 20 percent; for those 18 years old,
fathers 26 percent and mothers 17 percent;
and for the 19-year-olds and over, fathers 20



percent and mothers 14 percent.
Of the students surveyed, 2,1 8 6 had fami­
lies in which both parents attended college
and 11,428 had families in which neither
parent attended (not shown in table). The
age distribution (in percent) of the students in
each group at the time of graduation was as
follows:
16

19

and

and

under

17

18

over

Total

Both parents
attended college 0 . 8 %

4 7 .6 %

4 9 .1 %

2 .5 %

1 0 0 .0 %

Neither parent
attended college 0.6

4 3 .8

5 0 .9

4.7

1 00.0

21

E C O N O M IC REVIEW

These figures indicate that seniors with both
parents having attended college tended to be
younger than other students. While this
should not be interpreted as evidence of in­
herited mental prowess, the figures do indi­
cate, when parents have attended college, a
possible environmental influence favorable to
scholastic effort. (When the same compu­
tation is made for "fathers only attended"
and "mothers only attended" a similar pattern
appears except for students 16 and under. In
the case of the latter, the sample is so small
(11 "fathers only" and 3 "mothers only")
that it is statistically insignificant.)
When the data on intent of continuing
education are examined by sex of student,
the familiar pattern of a higher percentage of
male than of female high school graduates
going on to college is confirmed. Thus, 82
percent of the boys (6,695 of 8,215) as com­
pared with 69 percent of the girls (6,669 of
9,696) indicated an intent to continue their
education (see Table II). Interestingly, the
picture was altered when the comparison
was made on the basis of acceptances. Of the
boys who planned to continue their education,

in the latter case, probably reflecting the in­
fluence of athletic scholarships.
As Table II shows, a much larger number
of girls intended to attend "other" schools in
the Cleveland area than was the case for
boys. ("O ther" refers to the nonaccredited
and/or nondegree-granting private schools
and colleges that offer a wide variety of pro­
grams, ranging in duration from a few months
to four years and having a vocational rather
than a liberal arts emphasis.) If this tends to
minimize the post high school plans of some
of the girls by strictly academic standards, a
countervailing fact of considerable signifi­
cance is that more loans to finance post high
school education were reported by girls than
by boys (221 as compared with 216). Also,
more of the loans for over $ 1 ,0 0 0 were re­
ported by girls (35 as compared with 30).
That girls or their parents value education to
the extent of borrowing to achieve it may
represent a changing attitude concerning
the importance of education for women.

FAMILY INCOME
As indicated in the earlier article, family

66 percent (4,461 of 6,695) had received
acceptances by May 1965 as compared with
70 percent of the girls (4,659 of 6,669). The
boys, however, had received more multiple
acceptances (1,492 as compared with 1,357).

income and parents' education appeared to
be strongly related both to intent of students
to continue their education and to first-round
acceptances received. While this is not a

Also, more of the multiple acceptances re­

the possibility of at least partially documenting
what otherwise could only be an assumption
on a p rio ri grounds. (Information on other
basic factors influencing both intent and a c­

ceived by the boys were from out-of-state.
The girls received just a shade more single
scholarships than the boys, but more boys
obtained multiple scholarships (74 boys and
6 8 girls) and scholarships valued at over
$ 1 ,0 0 0 a year (192 as compared with 112) —
Digitized for
22FRASER


surprising situation, the interesting aspect is

ceptance, namely, the student's scholastic
record, academic potential, and life goals
was not obtained from the questionnaire.)

JANUARY 1966
TABLE III
Family Income Compared with Selected Variables
(May 1965 Survey of High School Seniors in Cuyahoga County)
Fam ily Income
Under $ 5 ,0 0 0
Percent o f students intending to continue

No

$ 1 0 , 0 0 0 & over

Unknown

Answ er

7 1 .5 %

7 4 .8 %

8 6 .8 %

6 7 .4 %

7 2 .5 %

Percent accepted (as of M a y 1 9 6 5 )

4 1 .5

4 9 .6

71.1

4 1 .8

4 6 .6

Percent of multiple acceptances

11.6

14.3

28 .3

11.1

14.0

8.3

8.9

26.2

8.3

13.2

Percent out-of-state acceptances

. . .

$ 5 ,0 0 0 - $ 9 , 9 9 9

.

Percent receiving one or more scholarships

. .

Percent of fathers attended college .

12.9

9.8

7.0

4 .7

6.5

14.5

17.5

5 2 .3

2 5 .5

25.1

Percent o f mothers attended college
N um ber o f families . .

9.3

11.1

35.8

16.4

14.6

1,103

7 ,4 6 9

3 ,5 2 5

5,501

371

Source: Federal Reserve Bank o f Cleveland

TABLE IV
Scholarships Awarded by Location Sex, and Family Income of Recipients
(May 1965 Survey of High School Seniors in Cuyahoga County)

,

O n e Scholarship

Two Scholarships

Three Scholarships

City

Suburban

Parochial

Total

City

Sub u rb an

Parochial

Total1

M a le

144

400

80

624

10

42

20

72

—

1

1

2

Female

122

355

151

628

11

35

19

65

—

2

—

2

—

—

1

4

Sex

N o Answ er
Total

—
266

4
759

—
231

4
1 ,2 5 6

—

—

21

77

City

1

1

—

40

138

—

Sub u rb an

3

Parochia 1 Total

Income
Under $ 5 ,0 0 0
$ 5 , 0 0 0 -$ 9 ,9 9 9

39

54

25

118

7

7

9

23

—

1

—

1

162

360

122

644

13

51

18

82

—

2

1

—

8

4

12

—

—

—

3
—

9

9

19

—

—

—

—

2

—

—

—

—

13 8

—

3

1

4

$ 1 0 , 0 0 0 & over

21

187

26

234

Unknown

42

143

53

238

2

15

5

22

—

2

266

759

231

1 ,2 5 6

21

77

N o Answ er
Total

1

—
40

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland

Table III presents selected data from the
section on family income of Table II converted
into percentages. (The number of families is

at least one scholarship and 142 students re­
ported two or three scholarships (see Table IV).
City students received an approximately pro­

the divisor throughout.) All percentages in

portionate share of single scholarships (based

Table III, except for scholarships received,

on the number of city students as a percent of
all students responding in the survey) but a

move in the same direction as family income,
with an especially sharp upward movement
at the $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 and over income level.

SCHOLARSHIPS
A total of 1,256 students reported receiving



less than proportionate number of multiple
awards. While 762 of the students receiving
one scholarship reported family incomes be­
low $10,000, it is noteworthy that 234 students
in the $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 and over family income cate­
23

E C O N O M IC REVIEW

gory also reported receiving a scholarship.
This perhaps presents somewhat of a devi­
ation from tradition in that scholarships award­

that colleges are bidding actively for out­
standing candidates.

ed (academic and athletic) have usually been
regarded as enabling less affluent students
who could not otherwise do so to continue
their education beyond high school.

a definite bearing on the pattern of college
attendance. Of those scholarship recipients
(1,079) who reported the college which they
planned to attend, 3 1 0 students or 3 0 percent,
indicated that they expected to go to college
in the Cleveland area. Of these nearly onehalf (148 students) reported one of the private
colleges in Cuyahoga County as their expected
school. Of the students who indicated a school
which they planned to attend but did not re­
port receipt of a scholarship, 41 percent in­
dicated a school in the Cleveland area, but
of these only slightly more than one-sixth in­

The data presented in Table V reenforce
the observation that scholarships and high
income levels are not incompatible. Of the
2 3 4 students who reported receiving a schol­
arship and also reported a family income of
$ 1 0 ,0 0 0 and over, 2 00 indicated the value of
the scholarship. A number of these scholar­
ships were not of the token type, with 32
amounting to between $1,000 and $1,999
and 16 to $ 2 ,0 0 0 or more (14.5 percent and
19 percent, respectively, of those reported in
the particular scholarship value categories).
While a $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 family income may not be
considered as evidence of affluence, especi­
ally if more than one member of the family is
attending college at the same time, it should
be remembered that the category used is
"$ 1 0 ,0 0 0 and over” (an open-end classifi­
cation) . This makes it possible for many of the
family incomes reported in that range to be
well above the minimum. The fact that 48
good-sized scholarships were reported by
students from families in the $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 and
over income class indicates that a number of
awards are based solely on the qualifications
of the student—intellectual or athletic—and

24FRASER
Digitized for


The receipt of a scholarship apparently has

dicated a private college. Similarly, of the
scholarship recipients who planned to attend
a college in Ohio but outside the Cleveland
area almost half (205 out of 432) indicated a
private college. In contrast, only one-fifth of
the nonscholarship students who expected to
go to a school in the State but outside the
Cleveland area indicated one of the private
colleges. Finally, of the scholarship recipients,
2 93 students, or 2 8 percent, designated a
school outside Ohio. Only 18 percent of
those not reporting receipt of a scholarship
expected to attend school outside of the State.
The relationship of receipt of a scholarship
and anticipated attendance at a private col­
lege in Ohio (including Cleveland) and/or
at an out-of-state college is immediately ap­
parent from these data.

JANUARY 1966

TA B LE V
A g g r e g a te V a lu e of A ll Sc h o la rsh ip s Received, b y F a m ily Inco m e an d Location of Recipients
( M a y 1965 Su rve y of H igh Schoo l Seniors in C u y a h o g a County)
Family Income Un der $ 5 ,0 0 0
Sub­

P a ro ­

urban

A ggre gate

$ 5 ,0 0 0 -$ 9 ,9 9 9
Sub­

P a ro ­
chial

$ 1 0 ,0 0 0 and O ve r
Sub­

P aro ­

Unknow n
Sub­

P a ro ­

N o Answ er

Total

Sub­

P a ro ­

urban

chial

chial

Total

City

urban

Total

City

urban

chial

Total

C ity

urban

chial

Total

U n d er $ 1 , 0 0 0

25

36

23

84

99

226

76

4 01

13

115

24

152

19

74

34

127

1

8

2

11

775

$ 1 ,0 0 0 - $ 1 ,9 9 9

10

13

5

28

32

71

17

120

2

26

4

32

3

23

9

35

—

3

2

5

220

City

V alue

$ 2 , 0 0 0 & over
Total

City

4

3

2

9

8

33

11

52

2

13

1

16

1

3

3

7

—

39

52

30

121

139

330

94

573

17

154

29

200

23

100

46

169

1

—
11

—

Total

—

4

16

* Total d oe s not a g r e e with the num ber o f recipients (1,25 6) in Ta ble IV because a num ber o f students w ho indicated the receipt o f a
scholarship(s) fa ile d to indicate its (their) value.
Source: Fe de ral Reserve Bank o f C levelan d

TABLE VI
Parents Attendance at College Compared with Selected Variables
(May 1965 Survey of High School Seniors in Cuyahoga County)
Both Parents

Neither Parent

M e asu re s

Attended

Percent

Students plan to co n tin u e ............................................................

2 ,0 3 6

9 3 .1 %

8 ,0 7 6

6 8 .4 %

Acceptances (M a y 1 9 6 5 )

1,761

80.6

4 ,9 6 5

4 2 .4

733

33.5

1,332

11.3

Cleveland p u b l i c ............................................................

1 32

6.0

1 ,6 0 7

13.6

Cleveland private

119

5.4

472

4.0

2.2

621

5.3

2 4 .0

1 ,7 0 0

14.4

.........................................................

Multiple a c c e p t a n c e s ................................................................

Attended

Percent

W h e re Students Plan to Attend
.........................................................

O ther in Cleveland a r e a ................................................. .......4 8
O h io public ex C u y a h o g a C o u n t y ...................................

522

O h io private ex C u y a h o g a C o u n t y ....................................

285

13.0

413

3.5

O u t - o f - s t a t e ...................................................................

589

2 6 .9

612

5.2

231

10.6
1.2

719

6.1

M o re than o n e ....................................................................... 2 7

85

0.7

Those worth $ 1 ,0 0 0 or m o r e .......................................... ....... 4 8

2.2

179

1.5

N um ber b o r r o w i n g ................................................................ 7 4

3.4

257

2.2

Those borrow ing $ 1 ,0 0 0 or m o r e ................................... ........ 6

0.3

44

0.4

Scholarships
O n e ..............................................................................

Loans

Fam ily Income
U nder $ 5 ,0 0 0

....................................................................... 5 5

2.5

876

7.4

$ 5 , 0 0 0 - $ 9 , 9 9 9 ................................................................

448

2 0 .5

5 ,6 5 4

4 7 .9

$ 1 0 ,0 0 0 and o v e r .........................................................

1 ,0 3 6

4 7 .4

1,371

11.6

U n k n o w n .......................................................................

614

28.1

3 ,6 7 5

31.1

1.5

228

1.9

N o A n s w e r ................................................................... ....... 3 3
N um ber o f s t u d e n t s ...................................................................

2 ,1 8 6

1 00 .0 %

1 1 ,8 0 4

100.0 %

N O TE: All percentages b ase d on total number o f students in each category.
Source: Federal Reserve Bank o f Cleveland




25

Total

84
1 ,0 7 9 *

E C O N O M IC REVIEW

COLLEGE ATTENDANCE OF PARENTS
A total of 4 ,8 1 6 fathers and of 3,152 mothers
were reported to have attended college (totals
derived from categories under family income
in Table II). In 2 ,1 86 instances both parents
had attended college, the father only had
attended in 2 ,5 4 4 instances, and the mother
only in 9 4 0 .5 The college attendance record
of parents, by the school groupings of their
children, was as follows:
Both

City
Suburban
Parochial
All groupings

Parents

Father

Mother

Attended

O n ly

O nly

8 .5 %

3 .8 %

Neither

Total

4 .6 %

8 3 .1 %

10 0 . 0 %

17.3

16.9

5.7

60.2

1 0 0 .0

8.1

14.9

5.5

7 1 .5

1 0 0 .0

12.5

14.6

5.4

6 7 .5

1 0 0 .0

The significance of college attendance of
parents can perhaps best be judged by con­
5 The number of "fathers only" plus ''both parents” and
the number of "mothers only” plus "both parents" fail
to add to the total number of fathers who attended and
of mothers who attended because there were 8 6 no
answers on the tabulation of "fathers attended, mothers
no answer” and 2 6 no answers on the tabulation of
"mothers attended, fathers no answer."

Digitized for26
FRASER


sidering the two extreme cases—where both
parents attended and where neither attended.
This is done in Table VI, where the two cases
are compared with selected variables. In
short, the data confirm the widely held view
of a high correlation between the nature and
characteristics of one generation and the be­
havior pattern of the succeeding generation.
Thus, as the data in Table VI clearly show,
there is a close conformity among college
attendance of parents, level of family income,
and intent of students to continue education
(as well as acceptances). Similarly, the in­
fluence of background factors also shows up
in where the student intends to continue, as
well as in the receipt of scholarships. Of per­
haps greater importance, however, is the
relatively high proportion of students who
intended to continue education, where the
background factors are not as favorable
(parents did not attend college or family in­
comes are lower). This is not only indicative
of the high value being placed on education;
but it also augurs well for the next generation
and the economy at large.

JANUARY 1966

CAPITAL SPENDING PLANS IN
CLEVELAND AND CINCINNATI
CLEVELAND
Spending for plant and equipment by man­
ufacturing firms and public utilities in the
Cleveland metropolitan area during 1966 is
not expected to exceed the amount spent in
1965. This is indicated by the results of the
third semiannual survey of capital spending
plans in Cleveland, which was conducted by
the Research Department of this Bank in
October 1965. Increased outlays by manu­
facturing firms—expected to rise by 7 percent
above the 1965 level—will be offset by smaller
outlays—an expected 14 percent reduction—
on the part of utilities in the area. The net
result, unlike estimates of capital outlays in
the nation for 1966, will be a fractional drop
from 1965's capital spending in the Cleve­
land area.1
Firms participating in the survey were
evenly divided between those indicating in­
creased spending and those expecting re-

duced spending for the year 1966 as com­
pared with 1965.2 In contrast, three out of
four of the same firms expected their final
capital outlays for 1965 to exceed those for
1964.
The data in Table I reveal wide year-toyear variations in capital expenditures among
TABLE I
Year-to-Year Percent Change in
Capital Spending by Cleveland Area Firms,
1965 and 1966
1 9 6 5 (planned)




from

1 9 6 4 (actual)

1 9 6 5 (planned)

+ 10%

+

7%

+ 15

+

7

+

3

+

8

— 21

+

31

M a c h i n e r y ..................

+48

—

8

Electrical equipment

+25

M A N U F A C T U R IN G ..............
D urable g o o d s ..............
Prim ary metals
M e ta l fabrication

. . . .
. . .
. .

+32

+ 111
5
—

— 20

+

6

— 65

+

17

.

— 40

—

12

C h e m i c a l s ..................

+ 50

+

6

+24

—

14
*

Transportation equipment
N ondurable go od s . . . .
Textiles; a p p a re l

. . .

Printing and publishing
PUBLIC UTILITIES

1 Total spending of the surveyed group in 1966 will
exceed one-quarter billion dollars. The figure has not
been adjusted to allow for restricting the sample only
to manufacturing firms above a specified minimum size
and to public utilities, nor for less than 100 percent
response to the survey.

1 9 6 6 (planned)

from

TO TAL

..............

............................

+ 15%

* — 0 .3 %
Source: Federal Reserve Bank o f Cleveland

2 The time span covered by the survey has been changed
from semiannual to annual data.

27

E C O N O M IC REVIEW

the different industries. (See, for example, the
year-to-year swings in metal fabrication and
textiles.) In some instances, a large increase
in spending plans for 1966 is clearly asso­
ciated with a reduced level of spending in
1965. Conversely, industries reporting re­
duced spending plans for 1966 show expen­
ditures for 1965 that are substantially above
those for 1964. Large year-to-year fluctuations
in spending patterns of a single industry—
even where the number of reporting firms is
fairly large—are often caused by unusually
large outlays of an individual firm. The sharp
spurt in capital spending in 1966 by the
electrical equipment industry and the short­
fall shown for the machinery industry, for
example, are partly explained by large one­
time outlays. Similarly, the substantial rise in
spending by utilities (including communi­
cations) in 1965 appears to explain in part
that group's reduced spending plans for 1966.
As shown in Table II, despite an anticipated
curtailment in spending plans for 1966, utili­
ties will again contribute a large proportion
of total capital outlays of all surveyed firms.
The utilities' share, three out of every ten
dollars of total capital spending, represents a
much larger proportion than their share of
total employment in the Cleveland area.3
Within the manufacturing group, the durable
goods sector plans to spend more than nine
times as much as the nondurable goods
group. This is interesting in that the durable
3 The amount of spending by public utilities is slightly
overstated because reported figures in some cases in­
clude spending in areas beyond the boundaries of the
four-county metropolitan area. It should also be kept in
mind that the utilities' share in total spending would be
smaller if the figures shown for manufacturing indus­
tries represented 100 percent coverage.

Digitized for28
FRASER


TABLE II
Capital Spending Reported by Cleveland
Area Firms in October 1965
Percent Distribution of D ollar Total b y Industry

M A N U F A C T U R IN G . . . .
D urable g o o d s

1964

1965

1966

(actual)

(planned)

(planned)

6 7 .6 %

6 4 .9 %

6 9 .9 %

5 8 .7

5 8 .7

63.3

• . .

3 0 .3

2 7 .2

2 9 .6

. .

4.2

. . . .

Prim ary metals
M e ta l fabrication

4.6

3.2

M a c h i n e r y ..............

5.3

6.8

6.3

Electrical equipment

2.2

2.4

5.1
16.1

.

Transportation
equipment . . . .

14.7

16.9

O t h e r s * ..................

1.6

2.2

2.0

N on du ra b le g o o d s . . .

8.9

6.2

6.6

3.4

1.1

1.2

Textiles; a p p a re l
Printing and
publishing

. .

. . . .

C h e m i c a l s ..............
O th e rs**
PUBLIC UTILITIES
T O TA L

.........................

1.2

1.2

3.2

3.4

35.1

32.4

1 0 0 .0 %

1 0 0 .0 %

* Includes ordnance, stone-clay-glass,
cellaneous manufacturing.

0.8

0.7

0.6

..............
. . . .

2. 4
2.5

instruments

30.1
10 0 . 0 %
and

mis-

* * Includes petroleum and rubber industries.
Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland

goods sector in Cleveland is only three times
as large as the nondurable goods group in
terms of employment or value added by manu­
facturing.4
The distribution of total capital spending
between structures and equipment has re­
mained fairly constant from year to year, as
Table III indicates, particularly insofar as
major groupings are concerned. Seven dol­
lars out of ten among the
four dollars out of five in
sector are earmarked for
slightly higher and more

utilities and about
the manufacturing
equipment, with a
stable percentage

in the durable goods portion than in the non­
durable goods portion. The latter proportion,
4 Part of the disproportion may result from better
sample coverage in the durable goods group.

JANUARY 1966
TABLE III
Capital Spending of Cleveland Area Firms,
1964-1966
Percent Distribution Between Structures
and Equipm ent*
Equipment

Structures
1964

1965

M A N U F A C T U R IN G 1 8 %

1966

1964

1965

1966

17%

19%

82%

83%

81%

14

16

18

86

84

82

Primary
metals

18

12

19

82

88

81

M e tal
fabrication

14

19

12

86

81

88

8

26

16

92

74

84

Electrical
equipment

15

18

47

85

82

53

Transportation
equipment

8

18

11

92

82

89

D urable go o d s

M achinery

N on du rab le
go o d s

37

21

27

63

79

73

Textiles;
a p p a re l

23

35

12

77

65

88

Printing and
publishing

72

33

54

28

67

46

Chemicals

30

16

31

70

84

69

. . 30

29

29

70

71

71

T O T A L .............. 2 2 %

21%

22%

78%

79%

78%

UBLIC
UTILITIES

1965 (see Table IV). Only about one out of
every four reporting firms in manufacturing
did not plan to spend anything at all for ex­
pansion in 1966. On the other hand, more
than two out of five indicated that at least 50
percent of their total outlays would be for
expansion, with the nondurable goods group
more dominant in this respect than the durable
goods group. As a general matter, these re­
ports and the relatively large amounts of
capital spending earmarked for expansion in
most of the individual industries appear to
point to the need for more capacity in manu­
facturing to meet final demands.
Unfortunately, there is no clear-cut re­
lationship between the amount of spending
TABLE IV
Capital Spending of Cleveland Area Firms,
1964-1966
Percent Distribution Between Replacem ent
and E x p a n sio n *
Replacement
1964

Source: Federal Reserve Bank o f Cleveland

M A N U F A C T U R IN G 4 6 %

however, conceals considerable variation
among individual industries, where a major
construction project by a single firm may
substantially alter the "normal" division of
expenditures between structures and equip­
ment. For example, the almost even split be­
tween structures and equipment in 1966's
expected spending by the electrical equip­
ment industry is mainly the result of one
manufacturer's multi-million-dollar construc­
tion project.
The proportion of total capital outlays to be
used for expansion rather than replacement
is expected to hold at a relatively high level
in 1966, following a substantial increase in



1965

Expansion

1966

1964

1965

1966

36%

34%

54%

64%

66%

D urable go od s

53

37

35

47

63

65

Primary
metals

49

8

11

51

92

89

M e ta l
fabrication

18

58

40

82

42

60

M achinery

85

49

57

15

51

43

Electrical
equipment

37

49

49

63

51

51

Transportation
equipment 5 3

60

45

47

40

55

20

33

30

80

67

70

2

11

7

98

89

93

6

12

25

94

88

75

53

45

32

47

55

68

27

28

72

73

72

32%

32%

61%

68%

68%

N ondurab le
go od s
Textiles;
a p p a re l
Printing and
publishing
Chemicals
PUBLIC
UTILITIES

. . 28

T O T A L ..............

39%

* Based only upon returns in which this b reakdow n w as supplied.
Source: Federal Reserve Bank o f C leveland

29

E C O N O M IC REVIEW

planned for expansion by an individual firm
and that firm's own appraisal of the adequacy
of its existing facilities. Over one-half of the
reporting manufacturing firms considered
their present facilities "about adequate,"
while only 4 0 percent reported them as "less
than adequate'' (30 percent of firms in the
durable and 60 percent of firms in the non­
durable group). Not all firms with "less than
adequate'' facilities are planning to spend
sizable amounts for expansion in 1966,
while substantial outlays for expansion were
reported by firms who considered their pres­
ent facilities "about adequate."

CINCINNATI
Plant and equipment spending by manu­
facturing firms and public utilities in the
Cincinnati metropolitan area during 1966 is
expected to surpass the previous year's level
by more than 40 percent. This is indicated by
the results of the first survey of capital spend­
ing in Cincinnati, which was conducted in
October 1965 by the Cincinnati Branch of
the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland with
the cooperation of the Greater Cincinnati
Chamber of Commerce.5
The uncommonly high rate of increase in
capital spending for 1966, reported by the
5 All manufacturing firms with at least 2 5 0 employees
and all public utilities (including communications)
operating in the seven-county Cincinnati metropolitan
area (which includes Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren
counties, Ohio; Boone, Campbell, and Kenton counties,
Kentucky; and Dearborn county, Indiana) were invited
to participate in the survey. The mailing sample repre­
sented about two-thirds of total manufacturing employ­
ment in the area. At a response rate of 65 percent, usable
replies cover about one-half of the area's total manufac­
turing employment. Capital outlays of the reporting
group in 1966 are expected to total $ 1 6 6 million.

30



manufacturing group and the utilities alike,
is well above the corresponding national
rate. In the case of the utilities, the expected
rise in spending appears to represent a catch­
ing up from a relatively low level of expendi­
tures in 1965, while the high rate of gain for
manufacturing as a whole is mainly the result
of very large spending plans within one
single industry—transportation equipment.
Excluding the transportation equipment in­
dustry, the rise in capital spending by manu­
facturing industries in the Cincinnati area in
1966 would exceed the 1965 level by only
4 percent, and total spending by all reporting
firms in 1966 would amount to only 21 per­
cent above 1965.
That the reported large increase in spend­
ing reflects a special situation is supported
by the fact that the number of firms indicat­
ing larger expenditures for 1966 is not ap­
preciably greater than the number planning
to spend less than in 1965. The same firms
are also about evenly divided between larger
and smaller capital outlays for 1965 com­
pared with 1964.
The data in Table V not only reveal an
extremely wide range of variation in year-toyear changes in spending by individual in­
dustries but also indicate an interesting pat­
tern of alternating high and low levels of
spending. Unusually large year-to-year swings
in an industry's amount of spending generally
indicate that sizable expansion or modern­
ization projects by individual firms are either
getting under way during the current year—
as, for example, in the transportation equip­
ment or printing industries—or have been
completed during the preceding year.

JANUARY 1966
TABLE V
Year-to-Year Percent Change in
Capital Spending by Cincinnati Area Firms,
1965 and 1966

TABLE VI
Capital Spending Reported by Cincinnati
Area Firms in October 1965
Percent Distribution of D olla r Total b y Industry

1 9 6 5 (planned)

1 9 6 6 (planned)

1964

1965

1966

from

from

(actual)

(planned)

(planned)

1 9 6 4 (actual)

1 9 6 5 (planned)
5 6 .4 %

5 7 .0 %

M A N U F A C T U R IN G . . .
+

42%

38

+

20

M a c h i n e r y ..................
Electrical equipment

M A N U F A C T U R IN G ..............

+

D urable g o o d s ..............

+

M e ta l fabrication* . . .

—

. .

Transportation equipment
N ondurable go od s . . . .

5%

2 2 .0

3 1 .6

3 6 .0

60

M e ta l fabrication* .

4.4

3.6

4.2

+

61

M a chin ery

3.2

7. 0

4.6

+ 11 0

—

7

1.4

3.9

2.2

+ 15 9

—

22

11.6

11.5

24.0

1.4

5.6

1.0

2 9 .7

2 4.8

21.0

—

5

—

20

+ 194

O thers

20

—

6

+

28

—

40

—

20

Food and kindred
products . . . .
Textiles; a p p a re l

0

—

40

.

—

41

+234

C h e m i c a l s ..................

—

27

—

..............

—

13

............................

—

PUBLIC UTILITIES

..............

N on du ra b le g o o d s . .

P a p er and allied
p r o d u c t s ..................

TO TAL

Electrical equipment

+

Textiles; a p p a re l

Printing and publishing

. . . .

Transportation
equipment . . .

Food and kindred
p r o d u c t s ..................
. . .

5 1 .7 %

. . .

Durable g o o d s

4%

Pap er and allied
products . . . .

+

39

Printing and
publishing

+

41%

Chemicals

13

.

PUBLIC UTILITIES
TO TA L

Source: Federal Reserve Bank o f Cleveland

Public utilities, as shown in Table VI, con­
tribute a rather large share to total capital
spending in the Cincinnati area, or over four
dollars out of every ten in 1966 and nearly
five dollars out of ten in 1964.6 In addition to
the utilities, the distribution of spending by
individual industries in 1966 is obviously
dominated by large outlays planned by auto­
motive and aircraft engine manufacturers in
the transportation equipment industry, which
boost that industry's share to one-fourth of
6 Total spending reported by public utilities is over­
stated because in some instances amounts that will be
spent outside the seven-county metropolitan area could
not be broken out of the total figures reported. It must
also be remembered that spending by the utilities would
represent a smaller proportion of total spending in the
area if the figures shown for manufacturing firms rep­
resented 100 percent industry coverage.




. . .

.....................

8.2

0.1

0.1

1.6

1.7

0.7

3.4

2.1

4.9

11.5

7.0
0.1

0.4

0.3

O t h e r s ..............
* Includes two prim ary metals firms not listed sep arate ly to
avoid disclosure.

9.0

0.2

15.0

. . .
. . . .

9.2

48 .3

4 3 .6

4 3 .0

1 0 0 .0 %

1 0 0 .0 %

10 0 . 0 %

* Includes two prim ary metals firms not listed sep a ra te ly to
a void disclosure.
Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland

total expenditures by all reporting firms.
While employment in transportation equip­
ment represents slightly over one-fourth of
area employment in durable goods manu­
facturing, capital outlays in that industry rep­
resent two-thirds of all spending reported by
durable goods manufacturers for 1966.
Manufacturers in the Cincinnati area, as
shown in Table VII, expect to invest four out
of every five dollars of total capital outlays for
1966 in new equipment, a noticeably larger
proportion than in the preceding two years.
Among individual manufacturing industries,
the relative amount of spending for equip­
ment (as against structures) varies consider­
ably from year to year. In contrast, the utili31

E C O N O M IC REVIEW
TABLE VII
Capital Spending of Cincinnati Area Firms,
1964-1966

TABLE VIII
Capital Spending of Cincinnati Area Firms,
1964-1966

Percent Distribution Betw een Structures

Percent Distribution Between Replacem ent

a nd Eq uipm e nt*

and E x p a n sio n *
Structures

Equipment

Replacement

1964

1965

1966

1964

1965

1966

1964

M A N U F A C T U R IN G 3 8 %

29%

20%

62%

71%

80%

M A N U F A C T U R IN G 3 8 %

31

16

80

69

84

D urable go o d s

20

M e tal
fabrication** 19

25

14

81

75

10

5

15

90

95

M achinery
Electrical
equipment

26

Transportation
equipment 2 4
N on du rab le
goods
Food and
kindred
products
Textiles;
a p p a re l
P a p e r and
allied
products

47

41
43

7

19
34
27

25
17

7

29
14
27

37
19

4

74
76
53

59
57

93

81
66
73

75
83

93

D urable go o d s

56

50%

38%

66

32

1964

1965

1966

62%

50%

62%

44

34

68

86

83

58

40

17

42

85

M achinery

49

71

52

51

29

48

71

Electrical
equipment

34

56

29

66

44

71

86

Transportation
equipment 7 2

46

17

28

54

83

73

N ondurab le
go o d s

30

32

44

70

68

56

63

Food and
kindred
products

67

62

46

33

38

54

81

Textiles;
a p p a re l

33

82

76

67

18

24

96

P a p er and
allied
products

16

16

52

84

84

48

Printing and
publishing

36

27

87

64

73

13

6

10

12

94

90

88

28

15

—

72

85

100

Chemicals

59

32

36

41

68

64

PUBLIC
UTILITIES . . . 3 5

33

34

65

67

66

PUBLIC
UTILITIES . . 31

30%

24%

63%

70%

76%

T O T A L ..............

37%

1966

M e ta l
fabrication** 6 0

Printing and
publishing

T O T A L ..............

1965

Expansion

* Based only upon returns in which this b reakdow n w as supplied.

Chemicals

36%

29

23

69

71

77

44%

34%

64%

56%

66%

* * Includes two prim ary metals firms not listed sep arate ly to
a void disclosure.

* Based only upon returns in which this b re akdo w n w as supplied.
* * Includes two prim ary metals firms not listed sep a ra te ly to
avoid disclosure.

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland

Source: Federal Reserve Bank o f C leveland

ties appear to maintain a more constant ratio
in their spending programs—about two dol­
lars for equipment for every one dollar for

finance expansion, which represents a return
to the proportion that had prevailed in 1964.
The shift toward larger outlays for expansion
is particularly noticeable in the durable goods

structures—although a clear-cut distinction
between structures and equipment in the case
of utilities may be difficult to make. In general,
durable goods industries appear to spend
proportionately more for equipment than non­
durable goods manufacturers.
Table VIII indicates that manufacturing
firms have earmarked three dollars out of
five in their spending programs for 1966 to

32


group where each of the four industries listed
in the table plans to increase the share of out­
lays for expansion in 1966 by a considerable
margin. In contrast, in the nondurable goods
group more industries plan to reduce than to
enlarge the proportion of expenditures com­
mitted to expansion of facilities in 1966. The
need or desire for more capacity is reflected

JANUARY 1966

in the fact that three-fifths of the reporting
manufacturing firms plan to use at least 50
percent of total outlays in 1966 to increase
capacity, while only about one-fifth did not
plan any spending at all for expansion.
Unfortunately, there is no apparent con­
sistency between the dollars to be spent for
expansion and the responding manufactur­
ing firms' own appraisals of the adequacy of
existing facilities. While the group planning
heavy spending for expansion includes—as
expected—virtually all of the firms that con­
sidered their existing facilities "less than re­
quired/' it also includes more than one-half
of the firms with "about adequate" facilities.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS
The dissimilar pictures emerging from the
surveys of capital spending plans in two major
metropolitan areas of the Fourth District sug­




gest that survey results for subnational areas
can easily differ from one another as well as
from the more comprehensive national pic­
ture. Spending patterns in a given area are
influenced by unique local conditions, in­
cluding the area's industrial composition, as
well as by the plans of one or more large
firms. For example, the 9:1 split in total ex­
penditures for 1966 between durable and
nondurable goods industries in Cleveland, in
contrast to the 3:2 division in Cincinnati, re­
flects the dominant position of heavy industry
and the relatively small weight of food and
chemicals among the nondurable goods in­
dustries in Cleveland as compared with Cin­
cinnati. Such differences between areas,
along with variations in the timing of large
local spending plans, are often concealed by
nationwide figures based upon larger aggre­
gates.

33




ANNUAL INDEX TO ECONOMIC R E V IE W -1965
MONTH

ARTICLE TITLE

JANUARY

Some Perspective on Autos
Capital Spending in the Cleveland A re a

FEBRUARY

U. S. M erchandise Trade b y Commodity Group, 1 9 5 0 -1 9 6 4
Some Aspects of Discretionary Income

MARCH

Direct Placement of Corporate Debt
Input-Output Relations of the Auto Industry

APRIL

Bank M anagem ent of Cash Assets
M ajor Social Insurance Trust Funds— A Survey

MAY

Perspective on Regional Employment Patterns
Recent Trends in the W o o d -U sin g Industries

JUNE

Input-Output Relations of the Steel Industry
Timber Resources and W o o d Product Manufacturing
in the Fourth District
Capital Spending Plans in the Cleveland A re a

JULY

M anagem ent of Cash Assets at Reserve City and Country
M em ber Banks
Acceleration in Employment G ains

AUGUST

Some Perspective on Steel
Electric Power— An Indicator o f M anufacturing Activity

SEPTEMBER

Debt and the Economy

Some Perspective on Foreign Exchange Rates

OCTOBER

Manufacturing Activity in Metropolitan A re as
Consumption of C oal in O hio

NOVEMBER

Sources of Commercial Bank Funds: An Example
of “Creative Response”
Survey of High School Seniors in C u y a h o g a County
Another Look at Municipal Portfolios

DECEMBER




A Survey of C hanges in Interest Rates on Savings
and Time Deposits
Sources of C oal Consumed in O hio
M anagem ent of Cash Assets at Fourth District Reserve
City and Country M em ber Banks
35




Fourth Federal Reserve District