Table of Contents

Those interviewed across Colorado, in conservative and progressive areas, saw the world in positive-sum terms. They rejected the zero-sum thinking that suggests other countries’ gains come at the expense of the United States. Colorado’s exporters welcomed trade agreements that allowed them to tap into foreign markets. They supported foreign aid that helped grow new markets and head off crises that could spill across borders. They coveted access to foreign workers for jobs that would go unfilled if reliant on indigenous labor alone. Overall, they believed that globalization and increasing global prosperity has been good for Colorado and its middle class.

Most people interviewed did not believe that middle-class economic interests would be advanced by the widespread use of tariffs, significant cuts to foreign aid, or major impediments to legal immigration. However, some said they were prepared to take a hit to their economic interests in the near term if it would help to combat China’s unfair trading practices and level the playing field in the long term. That said, views on the escalating trade tensions with China were by no means uniform. Furthermore, the interviews were conducted in early 2019, when hopes were higher for a breakthrough in U.S.-China trade negotiations and the additional U.S. tariffs and retaliation by China (between July and September 2019) had not yet gone into effect. Colorado manufacturers that source inputs from China, among others, have since expressed heightened levels of anxiety.1

The nature of Colorado’s industries, workforce, and exports may explain why those interviewed generally did not advocate drastic changes to long-standing approaches to trade, aid, and legal immigration. Industries that play a big role in Colorado’s economy and export activity—for example, professional and business services, IT, advanced manufacturing, agriculture, and tourism—tend to be strong advocates of globalization. They produce services and goods that are uniquely competitive in the global market. They have more to gain from growing and accessing overseas markets than to fear from foreign competition. They also depend on accessing foreign labor to fill critical gaps in highly educated professionals and low-skilled, low-paid workers.

Compared to other states, Colorado has had far fewer blue-collar manufacturing workers who have lost their jobs due to import competition and offshoring. Thus, drastic policy changes geared toward bringing back blue-collar manufacturing jobs and protecting older U.S. industries, such as steel, are of no interest to the majority of Coloradans. In fact, tariffs on imported steel are not even uniformly popular in Pueblo, Colorado’s traditional steel town.

Coloradans are split on many issues, especially on energy and climate change. However, when it comes to trade, aid, and immigration, there appears to be a convergence of views across the state’s different industries and regions.

Services and Service Exports Play an Important Role in Colorado

One primary reason why Coloradans see more to gain than lose from further reducing trade barriers between nations is that financial activities, professional and business services, and IT services dominate the state’s trading activity and economy. By one estimate, service exports accounted for 3.7 percent of Colorado’s GDP in 2017 (the most recent reliable data available). Thus, while Colorado’s service exports as a percentage of GDP seem to approximate the national figure (see Figure 5), Colorado’s goods exports continue to fall well below (see Figure 6).

By one measure, services—IT, tourism, finance, insurance, engineering, and general business services—accounted for about half of Colorado’s exports in 2017. The services share of exports at the national level was lower. Meanwhile, by the same measure, not only does Colorado have comparatively few goods exports in total, but manufacturing accounts for a smaller share of Colorado’s total exports than it does nationally and far less than in states such as Ohio.2

The relative importance of Colorado’s service industries are reflected in its workforce composition as well. For example, most recent estimates maintain that professional and business services account for 16 percent of the state’s workforce, in comparison to just 5 percent for manufacturing (see Table 3). Wages within the service industry workforce span the income range, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.3 They range from around $20,000 per year for those in retail trade, transportation, and food services in the lower-income bracket to almost $200,000 for chief executive officers in the upper-income bracket. While middle- to upper-level managers earn annual median wages above $150,000, the far more numerous rank-and-file employees in business, finance, and IT-related occupations earn median annual wages between $79,000 and $109,000 per year, putting them solidly in the middle-income range.

Table 3: Service Industry Jobs Dominate in Colorado’s Workforce
Industry Number of Employees in Colorado (Thousands, July 2019) Share of Total Colorado Nonfarm Jobs (%) Share of Total U.S. Nonfarm Jobs (%) Share of Total Ohio Nonfarm Jobs (%)
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 473 17% 18% 18%
Government 455 16% 15% 14%
Professional and Business Services 454 16% 14% 13%
Education and Health 350 13% 16% 17%
Leisure and Hospitality 349 12% 11% 10%
Construction 174 6% 5% 4%
Financial Activities 169 6% 6% 6%
Manufacturing 149 5% 8% 13%
Other Services 114 4% 4% 4%
Information 75 3% 2% 1%
Mining and Logging 29 1% 0% 0%
Total Nonfarm Employment 2,791      
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Colorado Economy at a Glance,” July 2019 data seasonally adjusted, https://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.co.htm, data extracted September 24, 2019; Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Economic News Release: Table B-1 Employees on Nonfarm Payrolls by Industry Sector and Selected Industry Detail,” July 2019 data seasonally adjusted, September 6, 2019, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm, data extracted September 24, 2019; Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Ohio Economy at a Glance,” July 2019 data seasonally adjusted, https://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.oh.htm, data extracted September 24, 2019.

Notes: The share of nonfarm employment reflects seasonally-adjusted data from July 2019. In using more recent data from a sample-based survey, the percentages may vary slightly from the 2018 annual averages reported in Table 1 and Figure 1. “Other Services” includes noncategorized, private service–providing employment such as repair and maintenance, personal and laundry services, and membership associations and organizations.

Thus, to understand how trade policy impacts Colorado and its middle class, it is not enough to evaluate how it impacts manufacturing employment. One also needs to look at it from the perspective of the service sector, including the tech and engineering firms. For example, one focus group participant in the Denver suburbs stressed that because Colorado is strong in IT software development and data analytics, “intellectual property theft [is] a big consideration. . . . Whether this [trade war] is the right way to [protect] it or not is a question. But I think there is recognition that intellectual property theft is an issue in the technology space . . . particularly with China.”4

The tech firms based in Colorado span the gamut—from small start-ups and relatively newer players like SurveyGizmo to well-established multinational corporations like Arrow Electronics, IBM, and Oracle. These firms collectively export both services and goods. They employ both upper-income management and middle-income workers, whose salaries continue to rise in a tight labor market amid fierce competition for top talent. For some firms and their employees, the trade policies that now attract the most attention relate to requirements on where companies store data, how they protect their data and intellectual property, and where consultants providing international services are required to reside. Some representatives of the tech industry interviewed for this study believed that the provisions on these issues included in the newly negotiated U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement represent steps in the right direction.5 Conversely, those in the tech industry who are particularly dependent on exports to China, such as wholesalers of electronics products, believed that the escalating trade war with China was heading in the wrong direction.6

The metro Denver area boasts one of the highest concentrations of engineers in the country, many of whose firms provide services to overseas clients.7 Like the tech firms, though perhaps not to the same extent, interviewees at engineering firms expressed interest in how the protection of intellectual property is addressed in current and future trade negotiations. However, they are as or more concerned about other issues that will affect their international activities. For example, since many of them are involved in structural engineering, their businesses are sensitive to global trends in government spending on major infrastructure projects. They are also impacted by their relationships with local communities where they do business and with local workers, who they rely on for site engineering, geotechnical services, and field inspections.

In sum, trade policy that works for Colorado’s middle class needs to prioritize issues around intellectual property, the free flow of data, and relations with labor abroad, among other issues related to the future of services and digital trade—in addition to those around import competition and the offshoring of manufacturing employment.

Colorado Is Less Vulnerable to Manufacturing Trade-Related Job Losses

Due to manufacturing becoming more technologically advanced and less labor intensive, it now employs much less of the nation’s workforce. That is especially the case in Colorado, where manufacturing activity takes place, but—with notable exceptions, such as in the food and beverage industries—tends to occur in less labor-intensive niche areas, such as in the outdoor gear industry or at the high end of the value chain. The advanced manufacturing industry in Colorado relies on the state’s well-educated, high-skilled labor and research institutions and universities to produce and export semiconductors, medical equipment, and telescopes for the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), among other highly specialized goods.8 For that reason, Colorado can rightfully claim that it undertakes important manufacturing activity, including for the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), even though manufacturing accounts for less of the workforce than in most U.S. states (see Figure 7).

Colorado’s relatively limited reliance on labor-intensive manufacturing has meant that it has not had as many workers exposed to trade-related job losses as a result of the North American Free Trade Agreement or increased trade with China, compared to other U.S. states. The Department of Labor keeps statistics on the number of workers certified as eligible for trade adjustment assistance (TAA) because they lost jobs due to foreign import competition or the relocation of production overseas. This statistic by no means captures all workers adversely affected by trade—some who lost their jobs did not seek assistance and others may have been unable to make their case effectively. It is nonetheless a decent indicator of how trade displacement has affected U.S. states differently (see Figure 8). Unlike Ohio, a state with much higher manufacturing employment, Colorado suffered comparatively fewer trade-related job losses.

Mixed Results of Steel Tariffs in Pueblo

Pueblo is the one place in Colorado where traditional, labor-intensive manufacturing and blue-collar workers still dominate the local economy. But there, too, globalization has had a significant and largely positive effect, and few of those interviewed favored the widespread use of tariffs.

Pueblo was Colorado’s largest city in the late 1800s, as its strategic location and growing rail lines and steel mills rapidly attracted workers and entrepreneurs. In 1903, the Rockefeller family and Jay Gould purchased the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company (CF&I), Pueblo’s largest steel mill. Italian and southern European immigrants streamed into the area to work at the mill. This was just the first wave of immigrants that continued to come to Pueblo, contributing to its rich, ethnic diversity. Though experiencing ups and downs over the next several decades, Pueblo and its steel industry continued to thrive. But fortunes took a precipitous turn for the worse following the steel crash and recession in 1982. Since then, Pueblo has dramatically diversified its economy, but steel remains associated with the city’s heritage and provides a prominent source of income.9

Steel’s economic, cultural, and symbolic value in Pueblo explains a level of sympathy for the imposition of steel tariffs intended to aid the industry. Moreover, CF&I still lives on in Pueblo, under the new name and ownership of EVRAZ Rocky Mountain Steel. It is one of the top private sector employers in the region. It employs over 1,000 people—of whom the majority are blue-collar workers without a college degree, who can earn salaries over $60,000, plus generous healthcare plans, defined pension benefits, and paid apprenticeship options that pave a pathway to higher-earning jobs in the company. It remains fully unionized, which is not a common occurrence within Colorado’s private sector, especially relative to the industrial Midwest. Thus, residents in Pueblo see EVRAZ’s success as highly relevant to the middle class in the area, even though EVRAZ is no longer an all-American company. EVRAZ is traded on the London Stock Exchange, with its main headquarters, investors, and management based in Russia (a fact that others interviewed in Pueblo and across Colorado were surprised to learn).10

Yet it turns out that the steel tariffs have had mixed implications even for EVRAZ, which has facilities in both the United States and Canada and therefore supported the recent lifting of tariffs on Canadian steel.11 Meanwhile, the steel tariffs inflict serious pain on other top manufacturing employers in Pueblo that rely on steel to make their products, such as Vestas.

Vestas, a Danish company, is one of the world’s leading manufacturers of wind turbines. At its facility in Pueblo, it fabricates, welds, and assembles up to 240-ton steel towers for wind turbines, some in excess of 90 meters. While many do not know EVRAZ is foreign-owned, Pueblo residents acknowledged the benefits of foreign investment gained through Vestas. The Pueblo facility produces more of these towers than any other facility in the world. It opened the facility in 2010, attracted to the area by the tax breaks, affordable land and water, and most importantly, the history of Pueblo as a steel city that could supply the kind of workforce it needed.12 Vestas is also one of the top private sector employers in the area. Like EVRAZ, it provides the types of salaries, benefits, and training for blue-collar workers that enable a secure middle-class lifestyle. Yet the tariffs helping steel companies like EVRAZ are imposing serious pain and cost on steel-using companies like Vestas.13 Vestas reported a sharp decline in profits in the second quarter of 2019; their prices had remained stable but tariff, raw material, and transport costs had increased.14

The bottom line is that steel tariffs are not a clear win for the middle class in Pueblo. And if that is not the case in Pueblo, then it is far less likely to be elsewhere in Colorado, where the state’s service exports and agricultural products are exposed to retaliatory tariffs.

Meat Products Are Colorado’s Top Goods Exports

Colorado is a particularly interesting state insofar as it exports sophisticated financial instruments, professional and business services, IT software, and aerospace equipment, but cattle, beef, and other meat products still top the list of the state’s goods exports.15 And when it comes to trade, aid, and immigration, the economic interests of Colorado’s bankers, engineers, IT software developers, ranchers, and farmers appear to coincide.

Colorado’s ranchers are sensitive to, and aware of, how various trade agreements and trade actions might affect them. They point to the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement as a prime example of how international trade benefits them. Since the pact went into effect in 2012 and Seoul reduced its tariffs, Colorado beef exports to South Korea increased by 73 percent through 2018.16 South Korea is now Colorado’s top importer for beef.17 Colorado ranchers and farmers see Asia, more generally, as a main area for growth. For that reason, they were worried after the United States withdrew from the (at the time) twelve-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and escalated trade tensions with China. Japan is the second-highest importer of Colorado beef and the highest importer of U.S. beef.18 Since the United States exited from the TPP, Japan has negotiated more favorable terms with other beef-producing countries, including Australia, one of U.S. ranchers’ top competitors. Colorado ranchers will benefit from the mini U.S. trade deal with Japan, which, as of the writing of this report, appeared on track to be announced this fall. China was poised to be another area of growth, when market access for U.S. beef resumed in 2017. But in retaliation for the U.S. imposition of tariffs on its imports, China upped the tariffs on U.S. beef to 37 percent and imposed tariffs on hides and skins.19 Hides and skins, the largest U.S. exports to China, are down 39 percent as of September 2018. And in August 2019, the United States imposed additional tariffs on Chinese imports, prompting Beijing to promise retaliation against additional U.S. goods, including pork.20

Cattle and beef account for the majority of Colorado’s meat products, but the state is also a leader in lamb meat and wool. It is the third-biggest sheep-producing state in the United States, after Texas and California.21 The owner of a sheep ranch participated in one of the focus groups. He made clear that, in addition to harnessing the benefits of international trade, he saw foreign aid and immigration as critical to his economic interests in the agriculture industry. “Let me just talk about red meat for a minute—beef, lamb, and pork. The better the economy is in any other country, they crave protein, high protein. And they’re used to just eating rice. If you can elevate their economic level just a little bit, it would be huge for us to export red meat to those countries. But they just can’t afford it . . . anything we can do to elevate, to bring people of third world countries out of extreme poverty, worldwide, it will help.”22 Similar thoughts were expressed by some focus group participants in the agriculture industry in Ohio.

He added that “we use the sheep herder program. And you can’t find an American. Through the H-2A [visa] program, we get a lot of Peruvians in here. They send a lot of money back there, and they know a lot about sheep.”23 The issue of seasonal workers came up in other focus groups as well. In Grand Junction, for example, one participant stressed that “with the big . . . visa program going away effectively [due to restrictive policy changes], all of a sudden you can’t get the crops picked at an affordable rate. So the cost of a tomato from Northbrook Valley that was 50 cents two years ago is now $3 or $4.”24

At the same time, this sheep rancher and others representing the agricultural industry cautioned against evaluating policy through the lens of narrow, short-term economic interests alone. He was willing to absorb the near-term pain from retaliatory tariffs on beef, hides, and skins if it led to long-term gain in getting other countries, especially China, to play by the rules. The sheep rancher also noted that foreign aid and immigration were not just about expanding markets and getting seasonal workers. They were part of a larger project, championed by former president Ronald Reagan, that sought to promote free markets and democratic societies globally and elevate the United States as a beacon of hope.25

Tourism Is Colorado’s Top Service Export

Colorado’s ranchers and farmers tend to reside in more rural, conservative areas, whereas those working in the tourist industry are more heavily concentrated in urban or semi-urban liberal cities and towns. The conservative ranchers and liberal tourist industry representatives might disagree on taxes, regulations, and approaches to climate change, among other issues, but they appear to have the same views on trade, aid, and immigration. They all benefit from globalization, increased global prosperity, and the ability to draw on foreign labor.

Tourism is a $19.7 billion industry in Colorado that supports 165,000 jobs and contributes $1.2 billion in local and state tax revenues.26 It is also the largest subsector of Colorado’s service exports (see Table 4). Colorado’s old mining towns, ski resorts, mountain biking trails, rock climbs, canoe trips, craft breweries, and growing culinary scene all contribute to making it an attractive tourist destination. State officials responsible for tourism indicated that U.S. citizens accounted for the bulk of the tourists, but foreign tourism (counted as a service export) is seen as an important area of growth.

Table 4: Travel and Tourism Is the Top Subsector of Colorado Service Exports
Service Industry and Subsectors Total Service Exports (%), 2017
Travel and Tourism 22.0
Royalties 15.3
Tech Sector 14.4
Financial Services 14.1
Freight and Heavy Industry 9.3
Management and Legal Services 7.8
Engineering Services 7.2
Educational and Medical Services 5.1
Support Services 3.0
Insurance Services 1.7
Source: Nick Marchio and Joseph Parilla, “Export Monitor 2018,” Brookings Institution, April 30, 2018. https://www.brookings.edu/research/export-monitor-2018/.

International visits to Colorado increased 5.4 percent in 2016–2017, compared to 1.8 percent nationally. They have increased by 23 percent overall since 2011.27 State officials and tourist industry representatives attributed much of this growth to the rapid increase in nonstop, direct international flights to/from the Denver International Airport, now the fifth-busiest airport in the United States.28 Canadians and Mexicans still top the list of foreign visitors to Colorado, but Australians, Britons, and Germans are also traveling to the state in large numbers. This is good news for the tourism industry, because they and other overseas visitors spent $2,424 on average per trip in 2017, approximately triple of what Canadians and Mexicans spent the same year.29 Chinese visitors spent the most of all foreign visitors at $3,223 on average per trip. While Chinese visitors constitute about only 3 percent of international visitors, their number grew the fastest between 2012 and 2017 (it is presumed that statistics for 2018–2019, when available, may show a decline in Chinese visitors).

In addition to airport access, tourist industry representatives pointed to several other factors that could affect the growth of international tourism. The global economy needs to stay healthy, so more foreigners can afford to travel. The costs of air travel, accommodations, and currency exchange rates need to be comparatively low, so people will choose to travel to the United States over another country. Visitors need to feel safe, making perceptions and statistics about violent crime important factors. Much will also depend on the “U.S. brand” and whether it portrays a country that is welcoming of foreigners and acts as a good global citizen on the world stage. Tourist industry representatives believe that the U.S. brand will take a hit if the United States continues to escalate trade tensions, employ hostile rhetoric toward other nations, cut foreign aid, and clamp down on legal immigration.30

Beyond affecting the U.S. brand, certain major policy changes, especially related to immigration, could also affect the ability of tourist industry suppliers to operate. Ski resorts, hotels, and restaurants depend heavily on seasonal workers from south of the U.S. border. In a particularly tight labor market, they cannot find enough workers locally to operate the ski lifts, clean the rooms, wash the dishes, and take on other lower-paying jobs. Colorado’s tourist industry is, therefore, very sensitive to any changes in the H-2B visa program.31

A Denver-based business owner that supplies seafood for resorts, hotels, and restaurants offered a particularly holistic explanation of how trade, aid, and immigration affect his business and workers. He explained that he relies on mainly legal, immigrant labor to receive and cut seafood, because it is difficult to find native Coloradans who are interested in taking on such jobs, despite the relatively high wages and benefits he pays for those without a postsecondary education. While he himself is not in the middle class, many of his employees and contractors are, such as the unionized labor that trucks and warehouses his seafood. His ability to pay generous salaries and benefits would take a hit if he had to pay more for the seafood that he imports from overseas. He was worried about any movement away from free trade and toward increased tariffs. But immigration and trade were not his only concerns. He also believed deeply in the value of the U.S. investing in global health systems. He recalled how he ended up having to pay considerably higher prices for salmon a few years ago, following the outbreak of infectious Salmon Anemia in Chile, a top source of the salmon he imports. He saw long-term benefits from the foreign aid the United States dispenses to protect the health of the oceans.32

Those in the tourist industry had a clear idea about the type of foreign policy that benefited them. Some, like the owner of the seafood company, made the case in concrete economic terms. Others focused more on policy that espouses the values that contribute to the U.S. brand, such as delivering humanitarian relief to those in need, because, as one local contractor in Durango put it, it was “the right thing to do” and that mattered to Americans.33

Concluding Thoughts: Industrial Mixes Significantly Influence Opinions on Trade, Aid, and Immigration Within and Across States

The legacy and future of international trade is not nearly as divisive in Colorado as it is in Ohio. It is important to understand why.

Everything the Carnegie research team heard in Colorado about the benefits of globalization, international trade, foreign aid, and the legal flow of foreign labor was also heard in various parts of Ohio. But unlike Colorado, Ohio has suffered large numbers of manufacturing job losses due to foreign import competition and offshoring. That largely explains why trade policy has been such a divisive issue in Ohio but far less so in Colorado.

The divisiveness in Ohio is compounded by the political-economy of trade in the state. The large metropolitan areas of Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati have been the biggest beneficiaries of globalization, whereas smaller cities and towns in rural counties have borne the heaviest brunt of trade-related job losses. In the case of Colorado, because there have not been nearly as many people and places that have suffered as a result of globalization, support for international trade is actually a unifying thread across political and geographic lines. Colorado’s top exporters of cattle, beef, and other meat products tend to be ranchers and farmers in conservative, rural areas. The state’s top exporters of services tend to be those with college and advanced degrees in urban areas on the Front Range. All groups are joined in a common cause to promote international trade.

Finally, many state officials and economic developers—across Ohio’s large metropolitan areas and smaller cities and towns alike—stressed that retaining and attracting more foreign direct investment (FDI) was vital to the state’s economic strategy. Yet FDI did not come up nearly as often in Colorado. The different role that manufacturing plays in the two states likely explains that. A high percentage of FDI in the United States tends to be concentrated in manufacturing industries, as international companies locate production closer to the consumers they are trying to reach in North America. For that reason, the Midwest, in particular, attracts considerable foreign investment, with Ohio ranking fourth in the nation for FDI-supported manufacturing employees in 2016 (Colorado ranked twenty-sixth).34 Further, in Ohio, the “foreign” nature of the investment is also unmistakable. The Japanese automaker Honda is now Ohio’s top manufacturing employer. Japanese FDI supports over 72,000 employees in Ohio alone.35 There is no equivalent in Colorado. FDI does play an important role, but it is less concentrated and obvious where ownership lies, as was starkly illustrated by the case of Russian involvement with the steel company in Pueblo.

Regardless, the case studies in Ohio and Colorado demonstrate that, while culture, identity, and political biases all can play a role, Americans’ views on international trade, investment, aid, and immigration are significantly informed by economic considerations. And those economic considerations flow from the industrial mix in their respective states and communities.

Notes

1 Tamara Chuang, “Colorado Companies Struggle in Search for Exclusions to Trump’s Tit-for-Tat Tariff War With China,” Colorado Sun, August 26, 2019, https://coloradosun.com/2019/08/26/china-imports-nite-ize-tariffs-trade-war-outdoor-industry/.

2 The relative statistics draw on total goods and services export data as reported in Nick Marchio and Joseph Parilla, “Export Monitor 2018,” published by the Brookings Institution. Due to methodological differences, the goods export data from this source do not equal the goods export data reported by the U.S. Census Bureau, USA Trade Online.

3 S. Ahmed and B. Lewandowski, focus group, Englewood, April 2, 2019; S. Ahmed, A. Gelman, B. Lewandowski, and R. Wobbekind, focus group, Denver, March 19, 2019; S. Ahmed and B. Lewandowski, interview with representative of the local realtors’ association, Boulder, April 4, 2019.

4 S. Ahmed and B. Lewandowski, focus group, Englewood, April 2, 2019.

5 B. Lewandowski, phone interview with representative of the Colorado Technology Association, May 28, 2019.

6 B. Lewandowski, phone interview with Jacobs Representative, May 31, 2019; B. Lewandowski, phone interview with representative of Merrick & Company, May 28, 2019; B. Lewandowski, phone interview with representative of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, June 6, 2019.

7 Denver South Economic Development Partnership, “Industry Cluster Profile: Engineering Services,” April 2017, http://denversouthedp.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Engineering-Services_2016_DSEDP_042617.pdf.

8 Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, “Advanced Manufacturing,” https://choosecolorado.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/CO-Advanced-Manufacturing-Profile.pdf.

9 Pueblo County, Colorado, “History of Pueblo,” http://pueblo.org/history.

10 S. Ahmed and B. Lewandowski, phone interview with representative of EVRAZ, March 8, 2019.

11 EVRAZ, “EVRAZ North American Applauds Removal of Steel Tariffs in Canada,” May 20, 2019, https://www.evrazna.com/Portals/0/documents/PressReleases/232_lifted_release-final.pdf.

12 Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, “Vestas: Colorado’s Gone in the Wind With Vestas,” https://choosecolorado.com/success-stories/vestas/; Salman Ahmed, Allison Gelman, and Brian Lewandowski, phone interview with representative of Vestas, March 5, 2019.

13 S. Ahmed, A. Gelman, and B. Lewandowski, phone interview with representative of Vestas, March 5, 2019.

14 Karl-Erik Stromsta, “Vestas Profit Falls as Trade Tariffs Bite Wind Supply Chain,” Green Tech Media, August 15, 2019, https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/vestas-profit-falls-as-trade-tariffs-bite-wind-supply-chain#gs.z09xkm.

15 U.S. Census Bureau, USA Trade Online, “State Exports by NAICS Commodities,” 2018, data extracted June 18, 2019.

16 Business Research Division, Colorado Business Outlook 2019, 17.

17 Tamara Chuang, “South Korea, Home of Hanwoo and Bulgogi, Is Now Largest Importer of Colorado Beef,” Colorado Sun, January 28, 2019, https://coloradosun.com/2019/01/28/colorado-beef-exports-south-korea/.

18 U.S. Census Bureau, “State and Metropolitan Trade Data: State Trade by Commodity and Country,” data extracted May 16, 2019, https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/state/.

19 Business Research Division, Colorado Business Outlook 2019, 17.

20 Tamara Chuang, “Colorado Companies Struggle in Search for Exclusions to Trump’s Tit-for-Tat Tariff War with China.”

21 American Sheep Industry, “Fast Facts About Sheep Production,” June 2018, https://d1cqrq366w3ike.cloudfront.net/http/DOCUMENT/SheepUSA/2018%20production%20fast%20facts.pdf.

22 Salman Ahmed, Allison Gelman, Brian Lewandowski, and Richard Wobbekind, focus group, Durango, February 25, 2019.

23 Ibid.

24 S. Ahmed, A. Gelman, and R. Wobbekind, focus group, Grand Junction, March 4, 2019.

25 S. Ahmed, A. Gelman, B. Lewandowski, and R. Wobbekind, focus group, Durango, February 25, 2019.

26 Visit Denver, “About Visit Denver: Facts and Figures,” https://www.denver.org/about-visit-denver/facts-figures/.

27 Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, “Colorado International Tourism,” presentation to authors, March 7, 2019.

28 Denver International Airport, “Passenger Traffic Reports,” data extracted June 20, 2018, https://www.flydenver.com/about/financials/passenger_traffic?date_filter%5Bvalue%5D%5Byear%5D=2018.

29 Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, “Colorado International Tourism.”

30 Salman Ahmed, Allison Gelman, Brian Lewandowski, and Richard Wobbekind, interview with representatives of Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, Denver, March 18, 2019; and S. Ahmed, B. Lewandowski, and R. Wobbekind, interview with representatives of Visit Denver, Denver, March 19, 2019.

31 S. Ahmed, A. Gelman, B. Lewandowski, and R. Wobbekind, focus group, Durango, February 25, 2019.

32 S. Ahmed and B. Lewandowski, phone interview with representative of Seattle Fish Company, March 19, 2019.

33 S. Ahmed, A. Gelman, B. Lewandowski, and R. Wobbekind, focus group, Durango, February 25, 2019.

34 Bureau of Economic Analysis, “Activities of U.S. Affiliates of Foreign Multinational Enterprises: Preliminary 2016 Statistics, Majority-Owned Affiliates,” Employment of Affiliates, State by Industry of Affiliate, data extracted May 2019, https://www.bea.gov/data/intl-trade-investment/activities-us-affiliates-foreign-mnes.

35 Ohio Development Services Agency, Research Office, “International Corporate Investment in Ohio Operations,” June 2019, https://www.development.ohio.gov/files/research/B2003.pdf; and Ohio Development Services Agency, “Ohio Major Employers—Section 1,” May 2019, https://development.ohio.gov/files/research/B2001.pdf.