Page images
PDF
EPUB

Talue of military procurement and construction contracts (prime contracts)

awarded in the United States, by region and State, fiscal year 1952, and July 1950-March 1954

[blocks in formation]

Southwest.

Texas. Central

Ilinois Northwest Far West.

1, 443, 835 1, 298, 475 13, 197, 947 1, 733, 937

3. 8

3. 4 34. 4 4. 5 1.5 17.4

121 160 323 195

4, 787, 285 3, 500, 878 30, 408, 824 4, 913, 670 3,035, 288 18, 899, 332

4. 7 3. 5 30.1 4.9 3.0 18. 7

13

401
431
744
552

17

592, 624 6, 657, 365

73 430

371 1,219

1 Data from Munitions Board Report 3B, Oct. 15, 1952; Military Prime Contracts, by State, July 1950June 1952.

2 Amounts may not add to totals because of rounding.

3 Based on average of Census Bureau estimates of population (Series P-25, No. 84) for July 1, 1951, and July 1, 1952.

+ Data from Department of Defense, Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense (Supply and Logistics). June 15, 1954; Military Prime Contracts, by State, July 1950-March 1954, table 1.

Less than 0.05 percent.

29. For Walsh-Healey contracts (military items are excluded) New England's record is even better. She accounts for 12.7 percent of $11 billion of these contracts for 1952, with Connecticut capturing 5.8 percent, Massachusetts 4.3 percent, and Rhode Island and Maine each 1 percent.

Unclassified contracts awarded subject to the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts

Act during fiscal year 1952, by State and region of manufacture

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

I Data from U. 8. Department of Labcr, 1952 Annual Report of the Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Divisions, pp. 61-62.

? Amounts may not add to totals because of rounding.

3 Based on average of Census Bureau estimates of population (Series P-25, No. 84) for July 1, 1951, and July 1, 1952.

30. Once the measurements are based on the place of production rather than that of the consummation of contract, the concentration of business is greatly reduced. New England's share is reduced from 8 (military prime) and 12.7 (Walsh-Healey) to 7.5 percent. The reduction is large for Connecticut, and Massachusetts gains. Large relative gains are to be noted for the Southeast (6.8 and 11.1, respectively, to 11.5) and the Southwest. New York loses substantially.

[blocks in formation]

Percentage distribution of Federal contract awards and estimated production

impact of military purchases, by region and State

[blocks in formation]

New England

Connecticut.
Maine..
Massachusetts.
New Hampshire
Rhode Island.

Vermont..
Middle East.

New York
Southeast

Alabama.
Georgia.
North Carolina.
South Carolina.

8.0 4.3

.4 2. 6 .2 .5

1 28. 6 15. 5 6.8

.6 1.3

9 4

12.7
5.8
1.0
4. 3

.5
1.0

.1 28. 1 10.7 11.1 1.0 1. 2 1. 2 1.1 1.6 2.8

4

1 26,1 10.1 11. 3

1.4 1.1 1.0

Tennessee. Southwest

Texas Central

Illinois. Northwest Far West.

2.0 34. 5 7. 2 1, 2 9.6

.5 1.3 6. 2 4.6 31.7

4. 7 3.5 30.1 4. 9 3.0 18.7

3.9 13. 1

NOTE.- Amounts may not add to totals because of rounding.

31. Finally, we present a table which shows Federal grants to States and localities for 1949-51. More than $2 billion are distributed. The amounts tend to be larger on a per capita basis as incomes decline; $13.01 for the high-income group, $15.65 for the middle-income group, and $17.56 for the low-income group. In relation to income, the differences are even greater. But results vary for different States. Thus, Nevada, a high-income State, received 2.2 percent of income, Connecticut 0.6 percent, Massachusetts 0.9 percent. In the low-income group, Mississippi received 2.4 percent and Vermont 1.3 percent. For assistance payments, the largest item included, the percentage of income varied from 0.4 percent for New Jersey to 2.8 percent for Louisiana.

Per capita Federal grants to States and localities, by State and purpose, fiscal

year 1952 1

[blocks in formation]

From Social Security Bulletin, June 1953. 2 Old-age assistance, aid to dependent children, aid to the blind, and aid to the permanently and totally disabled.

3 Unemploymnent insurance and employment service administration.

+ Maternal and child health services, services for crippled children, general public health services, venereal disease, tuberculosis, heart disease, and cancer control, mental health activities, hospital survey and construction, and water pollution control.

Child welfare services, vocational rehabilitation, State and Territorial homes for disabled soldiers and sailors, and school-lunch program,

• Colleges for agriculture and mechanic arts, vocational education, education of the blind, State marine schools, school survey and construction, and maintenance and operation of schools in certain areas.

7 Agricultural experiment stations and extension work, cooperative projects in marketing, forestry cooperation, removal of surplus agricultural commodities, commodities donated by the Commodity Credit Corporation, wildlife restoration, annual contributions to public housing agencies, Federal airport program, regular and emergency highway construction, and civil defense grants.

Federal disbursements and national income, 1954

32. In a master table for 1954, we have compared Federal disbursements in New England relative to New England's income and relative to her Federal tax burden; and the disbursements relative to tax burdens for New England in comparison with similar ratios for the United States, South Atlantic and East South Central States, and New York, as an example of an additional Northern State. In this study, I include the total of each of 8 categories, inclusive of the smaller items, but comparisons of individual programs are limited to the 75 costing $10 million or more in 1954. The original material includes 140 programs.

In this master table, I also compare the disbursements in the 10 richest and the 10 poorest States, both relative to incomes and taxes borne.

33. Here are some of the results to be gleaned from this master table. Federal disbursements in New England as a percentage of New England's income.-In 18 out of 75 programs, New England gains in excess of its proportion of income. In the category totals, percentage of disbursments exceeds percentage of income only in 24 (grants and payments to individuals) and 2D (non-tax-financed Federal insurance).

Programs costing more than $ 10 million, New England's share in Federal disbursements and in the national income, 1954

Percentage share in Federal

disbursements was greater than percentage share in

national income in NIAid to States and local government

8 out of 25 programs. Loans to States nd local government

0 out of 1 program. Projects within States_

O out of 8 programs. Grants and payments to individuals and groups

4 out of 13 programs. Loans to individuals and groups..

O out of 8 programs. Loan guaranties and insurance_

0 out of 1 program, Non-tax-financed insurance payments-

1 out of 1 program. Salaries, services, and procurement-

5 out of 18 programs. 34. For category 1A (grants to States and local units), New England received in Federal disbursements only 81 percent as much as might be expected from her relative income. The total amount spent by the Federal Government in this category was close to $4 billion.

35. Under the Federal highway program ($532 million), New England received only 72.1 percent of what might be expected on the basis of her relative income; from old-age assistance ($957 million program), 88 percent; from grants for aid to dependent children ($360 million), New England's relative receipts were 75 percent. The only substantial programs in this category where New England received amounts in excess of her relative income position was the annual contributions to State and local authorities of the Public Housing Administration ($37 million program), with New England receiving 161 percent relative to her income position; and the grants to States of the Bureau of Employment ($198 million program), where New England received 120 percent of the amount suggested by relative income.

35a. Under 1B (loans to State and local authorities), New England again does not fare too well. Its relative share of loans in slum clearance is 47 percent (again, 100 is the figure suggested by relative income).

36. Of the 8 projects listed under 1C (projects within States) and accounting for $944 million, New England's total is only 9 percent in relation to her relative income, or one-eleventh of what might be expected from relative income. (New England received six-tenths of 1 percent of disbursements.) Under the largest program in this category (civil projects of Army Corps of Engineers), accounting for $532 million, New England received 0.62 percent, or 9 percent of the amount expected from her relative income.

37. In category 2A, New England profited from disbursements in only 4 out of 13 programs in amounts exceeding her share of national income. But for the whole category (total grants and payments to individuals and groups) Federal dsbursements were $9,824 million and New England received 112 percent of the amount indicated by her relative income.

38. The explanation of these favorable results for New England lie largely in the importance of insurance programs—the high incomes and wide coverage in old-age and survivors insurance (OASI), the wide coverage under unemployment insurance (and high incidence of unemployment), and relatively large veterans pensions are relevant here.

[blocks in formation]

39. The largest relative gains of New England in this category are to be found in the item "Public Health Services, National Institute of Health fellowships, grants, and trainee rewards.” New England's share relative to her relative income is 251 percent. The program of $13 million is a small one, but New England's favorable position is explained by her eminence in education and health.

« PreviousContinue »