Modest success marks Clinton era Arkansas remains poor, but has made gains in Democrat's tenure

October 21, 1992|By David Lauter | David Lauter,Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON -- During his 12 years as governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton has improved the schools, kept taxes low, increased the number of jobs, improved civil rights for minorities and maintained one of the cleanest environments in the country.

Or, he has presided over one of the worst-educated states in the country, raised taxes on everything from groceries to used cars, watched as wages declined, failed to gain a civil rights law for his state's citizens and allowed the poultry industry to stall state regulation of water pollution caused by chicken droppings.

Both pictures are true. Neither is complete.

Mr. Clinton's record is as ambiguous and contradictory as the man himself often has been on this year's campaign trail. When he took over, Arkansas ranked as one of the nation's poorest states. It still does. But in many ways, the state has made steady progress under Mr. Clinton's tenure.

The overall assessment of his record depends in large part on whether one looks at where the state stands or where it is moving. Much also depends on what year one looks at.

During the first part of the 1980s, Arkansas was hard hit by the twin downturns in the nation's farm economy and its oil and gas industry. Economic statistics taken from that decade show slow growth, declining incomes and poor job markets. During the last four years, however -- while President Bush presided over a stagnant national economy -- Arkansas' picture has improved substantially.

Here is a closer examination of the Clinton record:


The official version of the history of the Arkansas economy during the Clinton era runs something like this:

When he first took office in 1978, economic development in the small Southern state amounted to "smokestack chasing." State officials would look for industrial plants in the Midwest and Northeast and woo them with promises of cheap labor, low taxes and lax regulation.

Mr. Clinton has said that he quickly realized that such efforts were self-defeating. Employers attracted by the promise of low wages would forever remain low-wage employers. They would stay in the state for a while but eventually would be lured away by other areas -- Mexico or Taiwan -- that could promise even lower costs. And in the meantime, such industries would do little to lift the state from poverty.

And so, during his first two-year term and again in 1982 when he regained his office after losing it in 1980, Mr. Clinton set out to change the state's approach to encouraging development in its impoverished backwaters. He pushed for major education reforms to improve the future work force, as well as the creation of new agencies to provide capital to encourage business starts.

At first, progress was slow, particularly in the recessionary years of the mid-1980s. But in recent years, Arkansas has led the nation in new job growth.

This version of the story is true. But only in part.

Mr. Clinton's programs may have had some impact on the state's job-growth rate, but the impact has been small. The main source of new jobs has been the state's rapidly growing chicken industry, growth that has made the poultry producers a powerful entity in Arkansas. And that, in turn, has stymied efforts to control chicken-related pollution.

In addition, jobs in the chicken factories are generally low paying, as are jobs in the timber industry -- another source of Arkansas' strong employment growth in recent years.

Comparing 1979 with 1991, the number of non-farm jobs in Arkansas has increased by 24 percent, a rate slightly higher than the national average of 20 percent during that period. Nationally, most of that job growth took place in the early and mid-1980s. In Arkansas, much of the growth was in the last four years. Since Mr. Bush took office, jobs nationwide have increased by only 1 percent, while jobs in Arkansas have increased by 11.5 percent.

In another key economic category, Arkansas' per capita annual income has gone from $6,911 in 1979 to $14,629 in 1991. That was a healthy rate of growth, but overall only kept pace with the national averages. And the state remains near the bottom in per capita income; only West Virginia, Mississippi and Utah rank below it.

Still, during the years Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush have both been chief executives, Arkansas has done better than the nation as a whole. Nationally, per capita income adjusted for inflation has dropped 1 percent since 1989. In Arkansas, per capita income adjusted for inflation has grown 2 percent, making the state one of the few that can show actual income growth during the Bush years.

Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.