doing business north america - arizona state university asu dbna 2019 report full.pdf · in that...

Doing BusinessNorthAmerica2019 Report

1ST EDITION

1

Director’s Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

What is Doing Business North America? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

The Structure of this Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Ease of Doing Business: Ranking the Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Starting a Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Employing Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Paying Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Category Rankings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

City Snapshots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

Appendix: Methodology and Calculating the Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

Table of Contents

2

Director’s Foreword

Center Director & ProfessorCenter for the Study of Economic LibertyArizona State University

Ross Emmett

3

Doing Business North America (DBNA) is predicated on the idea that a well-functioning economy has good rules. For our purposes, the focus is on rules

that enable domestic small- to medium-sized businesses to get started,

locate an establishment, get electricity, and hire employees. The rules should

also be clear about paying taxes and, if it comes to it, resolving insolvency.

The ease of doing business in a location is higher when the rules are clear

and the steps involved are few.

DBNA is the first major project of the Center for the Study of Economic Liberty (CSEL), a joint endeavor of the W.P. Carey School of Business and the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership at Arizona State University. CSEL aims to become an international leader in research that effects liberty-enhancing public policy and increases public and academic awareness of the history and philosophy of economic liberty by leveraging our place, fusing academic research with policy engagement, and engaging globally to transform society. Information about the Center, its research activities and public programs can be found at csel.asu.edu.

The project director for DBNA, and lead author of the 2019 Report, is Steve Slivinski, who also serves as Senior Research Fellow at CSEL. Paul Bernert, CSEL’s research technician, coordinated the student team that collected the data from the United States and Canada and participated in writing the methodological sections of the 2019 Report. José Torra and the Caminos de la Libertad collected the data for Mexico and advised on some of the methodological choices made.

The DBNA project and 2019 Report would not have been possible without the assistance of both the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership, directed by Paul Carrese, and the W.P. Carey School of Business, led by Dean Amy Hillman. Dean Hillman was instrumental in enabling us to initiate the project by arranging the generous support of Bill and Julie Kent for supporting the creation of the DBNA database and the production and issuance of the report based on the data. The Kent’s support has enabled both the early start to data collection that allowed the relatively speedy completion of the 2019 Report and an early start on an expanded range of variables for the 2020 Report.

The 2019 DBNA report provides data that can drive many questions about city, state and national business regulations. As you read it, and look (of course!) for your favorite cities, what do you see that can improve the ease of doing business where you are?

4

What is Doing Business North America?

5

What is Doing Business North America?

The Doing Business North America (DBNA) project annually provides objective measures of the scale and scope of business regulations in 115

cities across 92 states, provinces, and federal districts of the U.S., Canada,

and Mexico. It uses these measures to score and rank cities in regard to how

easy or difficult it is to set up, operate, and shut down a business.

6

Introduction

Over the years, researchers have begun to understand how robust measurement and ranking of regulations that either enhance business activity or constrain it can provide substantial insight into economic outcomes. Objective measurements of those regulations have been vital in this understanding.

Every year since 2001, the World Bank has measured and categorized more than 100 different aspects of the laws pertaining to opening, operating, and liquidating a business in the primary business cities of every country in the world. The report, titled Doing Business, scores and ranks cities over a long timeframe and has been an invaluable tool for policymakers and scholars to analyze the beneficial economic improvements that can follow the well-designed liberalization of business regulations and policies. It also gives the ranked cities on this list a gauge of how well they rank and how far they may have to go to improve the ease of doing business, as well as a history of how far they have already come.

The DBNA project seeks to provide the same service to scholars and policymakers as the World Bank study, but for cities across this continent. This year’s study covers 115 cities across 92 states, provinces, and federal districts of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. The largest city from each state or province is included, and in the case of especially large U.S. states, up to four cities in each state have been included. The report also includes the federal district of Washington, D.C. Thus, the list includes 65 U.S. cities, 39 Mexican cities, and 11 Canadian cities.

The DBNA report will be an annual study. All of the data for each year’s report will be made freely available to the public on a website devoted to that purpose. More cities and more regulatory measures will be added over time as well.

Because DBNA focuses specifically on North America, this study also can be used as an augmentation of the World Bank data. The only North American cities that appear in the World Bank report are New York City, Los Angeles, Mexico City, Monterrey, and Toronto. Needless to say, there is a much larger universe of cities across North America and a tremendous amount of variation among those cities. In that sense, the DBNA can fill in the gaps of the World Bank report.

While the DBNA is inspired by other similar reports that score and rank locations on the burden of business regulations, this study seeks to drill down further than most of them do. Many studies to date look only at state-level policies. Very few focus on the city level. State policy certainly sets the floor for many regulations, yet cities are usually free to add more regulations, and that can create a strain on local businesses in a way that is not usually captured in other published rankings.

While the DBNA is inspired by other similar reports that score and rank states on the burden of business regulations, this study seeks to drill down further.

7

Granted, it is impossible for a study looking at the ease of doing business to avoid capturing in its measurements some elements of policy enacted by the states in which those cities reside (and this study does indeed have measures that are influenced by state-level policy). It’s also inevitable that comparing cities across countries may run the risk of comparing government structures that are slightly dissimilar: Cities in Mexico operate under a more centralized fiscal system, while some cities in Canada have powers that are usually within the purview of state governments in the U.S. The methodology of the DBNA is robust enough to handle these challenges.

The Structure of this Study

The DBNA report uses as its starting point the measures and categories of the most recent edition of the World Bank’s Doing Business report. This allows us to take advantage of that institution’s experience of more than a decade of trial and error.

There are some differences, however. These stem from our focus on the regulatory burdens that would be faced by businesses in developed Western economies. The companies operating across the U.S., Mexico, and Canada do so in countries that have a much more stable rule of law than many developing countries, for instance. In that sense, we have the luxury of focusing only on the variables in the World Bank study that best reflect that reality.

To that end, a number of variables are not included in our analysis. For example, the World Bank collects data on which jurisdictions require the approval of a male spouse for a wife to buy property. While this is a substantial and onerous regulatory burden in some countries, it is not something that is evident in any of the jurisdictions we include in our report. On the other hand, we included a fuller set of labor market variables (like the level of the minimum wage and mandated worker leave requirements) than are measured by the World Bank.

As an additional result of focusing on more developed economies in our study, we also added variables to the mix that do not appear in the World Bank study but are relevant to the jurisdictions on our list. (For a list of the variables that were included, see the methodology appendixes or the data tables.)

Finally, we augmented the scope of the analysis by including a number of variables that the World Bank collects data on but does not include in its final score and ranking. These are primarily data on employing workers. Labor costs and regulations that put upward pressure on those costs — in the terms of economists, those regulations that create a wage and compensation floor that is above a worker’s marginal product of labor — are likely to be some of the most significant costs facing most employers in the cities in our study. Additionally, it is the category in which we found some of the most variation between cities, and its inclusion makes the rankings more robust.

Labor regulations that put pressure on businesses are likely to be some of the most significant costs facing many employers in the cities in our study.

8

Ease of Doing Business:Ranking the Cities

9

Ease of Doing Business:Ranking the Cities

10

Country State/Province City Score: Ease of Doing BusinessRank: Ease of Doing Business

United States Oklahoma Oklahoma City 85 .22 1

United States Virginia Arlington 84 .41 2

United States South Dakota Sioux Falls 84 .24 3

United States Idaho Boise 83 .68 4

United States Georgia Atlanta 83 .37 5

United States North Carolina Charlotte 82 .97 6

United States Texas Houston 82 .89 7

United States Wyoming Cheyenne 82 .41 8

United States Virginia Virginia Beach 82 .14 9

United States South Carolina Charleston 82 .00 10

United States West Virginia Charleston 81 .88 11

United States North Dakota Fargo 81 .81 12

United States Nevada Las Vegas 81 .77 13

United States Ohio Columbus 81 .56 14

United States Alaska Anchorage 81 .16 15

United States Kentucky Louisville 81 .08 16

United States Delaware Wilmington 80 .86 17

United States Utah Salt Lake City 80 .77 18

United States Tennessee Nashville 80 .66 19

United States Arizona Phoenix 80 .52 20

United States New Hampshire Manchester 79 .98 21

United States Alabama Birmingham 79 .72 22

In this year’s edition, there are six categories on which the cities were scored

and ranked on the ease of starting and operating a small- or medium-sized

business: Starting a Business, Employing Workers, Getting Electricity,

Registering Property, Paying Taxes, and Resolving Insolvency.

These categories are composed of a total of 63 data indicators, variables, and indexes grouped together into a total of 36 scored variables. The cities are scored and ranked using the methodology described in the appendix.

11


United States Mississippi Jackson 79 .71 23

United States Indiana Indianapolis 79 .16 24

United States New Mexico Albuquerque 78 .98 25

United States Ohio Cleveland 78 .80 26

United States Iowa Des Moines 78 .54 27

United States Kansas Wichita 78 .35 28

United States Louisiana New Orleans 78 .18 29

United States Montana Billings 78 .16 30

United States Missouri St . Louis 77 .91 31

United States Hawaii Honolulu 77 .89 32

United States Florida Miami 77 .86 33

United States Florida Orlando 77 .82 34

United States Florida Tampa 77 .49 35

United States Texas Dallas 77 .42 36

United States Florida Jacksonville 77 .10 37

United States Nebraska Omaha 76 .88 38

United States Maine Portland 76 .72 39

United States Minnesota Minneapolis 76 .41 40

United States Texas Austin 76 .34 41

United States Colorado Denver 76 .21 42

United States Oregon Portland 75 .89 43

United States Wisconsin Milwaukee 75 .39 44

United States Illinois Chicago 75 .04 45

United States Arkansas Little Rock 74 .44 46

United States Michigan Grand Rapids 74 .05 47

United States Massachusetts Boston 73 .90 48

United States Maryland Baltimore 73 .70 49

United States Washington Seattle 73 .55 50

United States Vermont Burlington 73 .42 51

United States Rhode Island Providence 73 .41 52

Canada Nova Scotia Halifax 71 .77 53

12


United States Texas San Antonio 70 .89 54

United States Michigan Detroit 70 .78 55

United States New Jersey Newark 70 .75 56

United States Connecticut Bridgeport 70 .71 57

Canada Alberta Calgary 70 .12 58

United States New York Rochester 69 .41 59

United States Pennsylvania Pittsburgh 69 .38 60

United States Pennsylvania Philadelphia 68 .55 61

United States New York New York City 68 .30 62

Canada Newfoundland and Labrador St . John’s 68 .09 63

United States California San Jose 67 .20 64

United States District of Columbia Washington, D .C . 66 .19 65

Canada British Columbia Vancouver 66 .19 66

Canada Alberta Edmonton 65 .29 67

United States New York Buffalo 65 .25 68

Canada New Brunswick Moncton 65 .20 69

Canada Manitoba Winnipeg 65 .17 70

Canada Saskatchewan Saskatoon 64 .78 71

United States California Los Angeles 64 .31 72

United States California San Diego 62 .64 73

Canada Ontario Ottawa 62 .31 74

Canada Ontario Toronto 60 .89 75

Canada Quebec Quebec City 60 .25 76

United States California San Francisco 59 .04 77

Mexico Nuevo León San Pedro 53 .34 78

Mexico Nayarit Tepic 52 .44 79

Mexico Baja California Tijuana 52 .33 80

Mexico Guanajuato León 50 .62 81

Mexico Tlaxcala Apizaco 48 .91 82

Mexico Coahuila Saltillo 48 .89 83

Mexico Aguascalientes Aguascalientes 48 .36 84

13


Mexico Durango Durango 47 .93 85

Mexico Chihuahua Chihuahua 47 .84 86

Mexico Sinaloa Culiacán 47 .79 87

Mexico Mexico City Mexico City 47 .12 88

Mexico Chihuahua Juárez 46 .93 89

Mexico Campeche Campeche 46 .92 90

Mexico San Luis Potosí San Luis Potosí 46 .86 91

Mexico México Naucalpan 46 .57 92

Mexico México Nezahualcóyotl 46 .32 93

Mexico Querétaro Querétaro 46 .11 94

Mexico Colima Colima 46 .00 95

Mexico Nuevo León Monterrey 45 .96 96

Mexico Baja California Sur La Paz 45 .66 97

Mexico México Ecatepec 45 .51 98

Mexico Quintana Roo Cancún 45 .47 99

Mexico Yucatán Mérida 45 .14 100

Mexico Morelos Cuernavaca 44 .99 101

Mexico Guerrero Acapulco 44 .86 102

Mexico Tamaulipas Reynosa 44 .64 103

Mexico Oaxaca Oaxaca 44 .05 104

Mexico Chiapas Tuxtla Gutiérrez 44 .01 105

Mexico México Toluca 43 .70 106

Mexico Sonora Hermosillo 43 .52 107

Mexico Tabasco Villahermosa 43 .24 108

Mexico Hidalgo Pachuca 42 .81 109

Mexico Coahuila Piedras Negras 42 .71 110

Mexico Michoacán Morelia 42 .44 111

Mexico Veracruz Boca del Rio 42 .18 112

Mexico Jalisco Guadalajara 42 .18 113

Mexico Zacatecas Zacatecas 41 .62 114

Mexico Puebla Puebla 41 .31 115

14

Analysis

This year, Oklahoma City accumulated the highest Ease of Doing Business Score. Mexican cities accumulated the lowest scores, although the highest-ranking Mexican cities are just behind the lowest-ranked U.S. city (San Francisco). Canadian cities rank primarily in the middle third of the overall ranking, but three Canadian cities top the ranking in the category of “Starting a Business.”

A more technical explanation of the categories is in the Appendix. Some of the categories exhibit little variation between cities within each country. The “Registering Property” category tends to reflect the level of transparency in state and local governments as well as how advanced a city is in terms of allowing online filing of documents. “Getting Electricity” mainly reflects the cost of energy in a particular city, so local market conditions paired with state and national regulations tend to be the primary influence.

The remaining individual categories that make up the overall Ease of Doing Business ranking are more competitive and show more diversity. In this section, we want to focus on those three in particular. They are the categories that have both the most interesting variations and together make up about 80% of the overall score: Starting a Business, Employing Workers, and Paying Taxes.

Starting a Business

The Canadian cities of Winnipeg, Halifax, and Moncton lead the “Starting a Business” category, which measures the number of legal procedures required to start a business and the costs — in both fees and calendar days — associated with those procedures. In those cities, it takes no more than three procedures, and the time required to set up a business is no longer than 10 days and could be as short as two days. By comparison, for Canadian cities as a whole, the average is up to 16 days.

While those three Canadian cities have the fastest process for opening a business, the average among the Canadian cities is longer than the U.S. average. In most U.S. cities, it would take on average less than a week to set up a business — and in some cities it can be done in a day. That’s a far cry from the

lowest-scoring U.S. city in this category — Little Rock, Arkansas — which is bested by all U.S. and Canadian cites, and all but 9 of the 38 Mexican cities. In Little Rock, it could take over two months to navigate the bureaucracy and complete the procedures necessary to start a business. By contrast, it takes up to 29 days in the average Mexican city. Yet there are still some bright spots in this category in that country: In San Pedro, it takes no more than 4 days.

The average time it takes to start a business among the Canadian cities is longer than the U.S. average of less than a week.

15

Employing Workers

Mandates on employers — like minimum wages and required paid leave — make up the majority of the “Employing Workers” category. Here we see Arlington, Virginia, at the top. All Mexican cities fill out the bottom ranks here too, but Ottawa, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and Quebec City score substantially lower than average and well below the next highest group of cities.

How well or poorly each city ranks in this category was largely influenced by minimum wage requirements that raise the cost of hiring a worker. Although there is some disagreement among researchers on the question of whether minimum wages decrease employment opportunities for young workers or those with less work experience, there is little disagreement over the fact that raising the minimum wage does indeed at least increase the economic cost of hiring a worker. Whether a minimum wage in a city is likely to inordinately increase the cost of doing business is likely to be a function of how high the wage is relative to the cost of living in that city. For instance, a $7.25 minimum wage (the current federal minimum wage in the U.S.) is going to translate into a greater labor cost to businesses in a low-cost-of-living area like Birmingham, Alabama, than it would in Boston, Massachusetts. For that reason, our minimum wage variable (which includes the highest of the federal, state, or local minimum wage level in each city) is measured as a percentage of per capita personal income.

Cities like Buffalo, Rochester, Newark, Los Angeles, and San Diego had high minimum wages even after being weighed against the cost of living in those areas. Those cities had local minimum wages substantially higher than the federal minimum wage. Other cities — like Phoenix — that have generally good scores on many other attributes related to the ease of doing business scored low in this respect for this reason as well.

Paying Taxes

The category “Paying Taxes” includes the gamut of taxes that a business is likely to face: personal income taxes, corporate income taxes, and property taxes. The rates included in this ranking are an aggregate of federal, state, and local rates for these taxes. Because the DBNA is a ranking of how easy it is to operate a small- or medium-sized business, it was important to consider that many businesses of that size are incorporated as S-corporations, proprietorships, or limited liability corporations. These are known to accountants as “pass-through entities,” meaning the profits of these businesses “pass through” to the owners, who derive their primary income from them, and they are taxed as personal income (subject to specific exemptions for business expenses, like depreciation of equipment). As a result, it was important to include those rates in the score. However, not all small- or medium-sized businesses are incorporated in this way. Some may be traditional C-corporations, which pay taxes as a traditional corporation through the corporate income tax. So, those rates are included too.

Mandates on employers — like minimum wages and required paid leave — make up the majority of the “Employing Workers” category.

16

Additionally, a handful of cities have municipal-level personal, corporate, and (in some cases) gross receipts or business profits taxes. Those rates are included and scored here too. This is particularly important in the analysis, as our focus is on the municipal unit of governance, and this makes the DBNA study unique from other rankings and indexes that focus mainly on state-level taxes. To that end, we also included a measure of effective property tax rates, a distinctly local tax in most places.

In all cases, we scored the rate that would most likely face the average small- or medium-sized business in that city (which isn’t necessarily the top tax rate in each state or city). That means some jurisdictions that may seem like “high-tax” cities or states may not score as low in our ranking as they might in other tax burden rankings that rely on scoring only the top personal or corporate income tax rate. By the same token, some states that appear to be low- or average-tax jurisdictions in other state-level rankings may appear in the DBNA as higher-tax jurisdictions as a result of local-level income taxes or our inclusion of the property taxes that businesses face in those cities.

In this category, Vancouver scores the best, mainly on the strength of the lower personal and corporate income tax rates that an average small- or medium-sized business would face. Pittsburgh is the lowest-scoring city in the U.S. in this category due to its combined tax burden on businesses, which includes a city-level personal and corporate income tax. Other low-scoring cities, like Philadelphia, New York City, Albuquerque, and Honolulu share these same attributes. Meanwhile, some cities from states that have low overall state-level taxes actually look like higher-tax jurisdictions when other local business taxes are included (such as Orlando, Tampa, and Miami) or when property taxes are included (like Phoenix).

Conclusion

The methodology and structure of the DBNA, as well as its annual nature, will allow researchers to track improvement or decline of local regulatory burdens at the state and local level. It can help journalists understand the context of important public policy discussions relating to the ease of doing business. It can allow policymakers to see where their state and city fall short and where they excel, as well as provide a roadmap for improvement. Good policy doesn’t occur in a bubble. In the international competition for talent and capital, the regulatory environment is a critical factor. Knowing what your neighbors are doing is important. The DBNA study intends — through the creation of comparable measures over time and its overall Ease of Doing Business score — to contribute to the understanding of which regulatory environments can produce the best economic outcomes for the largest number of people.

Some places that appear to be low-tax jurisdictions in other state-level rankings may appear in the DBNA as higher-tax jurisdictions as a result of including local-level taxes.

18

Category Rankings

19

Category Rankings

Starting aBusiness

RegisteringProperty

EmployingWorkers

PayingTaxes

Getting Electricity

ResolvingInsolvency

20

Starting aBusiness

Country State/Province City Score: Starting a BusinessRank: Starting a Business























21

































22

































23

































24

EmployingWorkers

Country State/Province CityScore: Employing Workers

Rank: Employing Workers























25


































26


































27


































28

GettingElectricity

Country State/Province City Score: Getting ElectricityRank: Getting Electricity























29

































30

































31

































32

RegisteringProperty

Country State/Province CityScore: Registering Property

Rank: Registering Property























33


































34


































35


































36

PayingTaxes

Country State/Province City Score: Paying TaxesRank: Paying Taxes























37

































38

































39

































40

ResolvingInsolvency

Country State/Province CityScore: Resolving Insolvency

Rank: Resolving Insolvency

United States Alabama Birmingham 91 .91 T1

United States Alaska Anchorage 91 .91 T1

United States Arizona Phoenix 91 .91 T1

United States Arkansas Little Rock 91 .91 T1

United States California Los Angeles 91 .91 T1

United States California San Diego 91 .91 T1

United States California San Francisco 91 .91 T1

United States California San Jose 91 .91 T1

United States Colorado Denver 91 .91 T1

United States Connecticut Bridgeport 91 .91 T1

United States Delaware Wilmington 91 .91 T1

United States Florida Jacksonville 91 .91 T1

United States Florida Miami 91 .91 T1

United States Florida Orlando 91 .91 T1

United States Florida Tampa 91 .91 T1

United States Georgia Atlanta 91 .91 T1

United States Hawaii Honolulu 91 .91 T1

United States Idaho Boise 91 .91 T1

United States Illinois Chicago 91 .91 T1

United States Indiana Indianapolis 91 .91 T1

United States Iowa Des Moines 91 .91 T1

United States Kansas Wichita 91 .91 T1

This variable measures federal-level policy and, as such, all cities within a specific country are tied and receive the score that applies to their country.

41



United States Kentucky Louisville 91 .91 T1

United States Louisiana New Orleans 91 .91 T1

United States Maine Portland 91 .91 T1

United States Maryland Baltimore 91 .91 T1

United States Massachusetts Boston 91 .91 T1

United States Michigan Detroit 91 .91 T1

United States Michigan Grand Rapids 91 .91 T1

United States Minnesota Minneapolis 91 .91 T1

United States Mississippi Jackson 91 .91 T1

United States Missouri St . Louis 91 .91 T1

United States Montana Billings 91 .91 T1

United States Nebraska Omaha 91 .91 T1

United States Nevada Las Vegas 91 .91 T1

United States New Hampshire Manchester 91 .91 T1

United States New Jersey Newark 91 .91 T1

United States New Mexico Albuquerque 91 .91 T1

United States New York Buffalo 91 .91 T1

United States New York New York City 91 .91 T1

United States New York Rochester 91 .91 T1

United States North Carolina Charlotte 91 .91 T1

United States North Dakota Fargo 91 .91 T1

United States Ohio Cleveland 91 .91 T1

United States Ohio Columbus 91 .91 T1

United States Oklahoma Oklahoma City 91 .91 T1

United States Oregon Portland 91 .91 T1

United States Pennsylvania Philadelphia 91 .91 T1

United States Pennsylvania Pittsburgh 91 .91 T1

United States Rhode Island Providence 91 .91 T1

United States South Carolina Charleston 91 .91 T1

United States South Dakota Sioux Falls 91 .91 T1

United States Tennessee Nashville 91 .91 T1

42



United States Texas Austin 91 .91 T1

United States Texas Dallas 91 .91 T1

United States Texas Houston 91 .91 T1

United States Texas San Antonio 91 .91 T1

United States Utah Salt Lake City 91 .91 T1

United States Vermont Burlington 91 .91 T1

United States Virginia Arlington 91 .91 T1

United States Virginia Virginia Beach 91 .91 T1

United States Washington Seattle 91 .91 T1

United States District of Columbia Washington, D .C . 91 .91 T1

United States West Virginia Charleston 91 .91 T1

United States Wisconsin Milwaukee 91 .91 T1

United States Wyoming Cheyenne 91 .91 T1

Canada Alberta Calgary 61 .07 T2

Canada Alberta Edmonton 61 .07 T2

Canada British Columbia Vancouver 61 .07 T2

Canada Manitoba Winnipeg 61 .07 T2

Canada New Brunswick Moncton 61 .07 T2

Canada Newfoundland and Labrador St . John’s 61 .07 T2

Canada Nova Scotia Halifax 61 .07 T2

Canada Ontario Toronto 61 .07 T2

Canada Ontario Ottawa 61 .07 T2

Canada Quebec Quebec City 61 .07 T2

Canada Saskatchewan Saskatoon 61 .07 T2

Mexico Aguascalientes Aguascalientes 25 .50 T3

Mexico Baja California Tijuana 25 .50 T3

Mexico Baja California Sur La Paz 25 .50 T3

Mexico Campeche Campeche 25 .50 T3

Mexico Chiapas Tuxtla Gutiérrez 25 .50 T3

Mexico Chihuahua Chihuahua 25 .50 T3

Mexico Chihuahua Juárez 25 .50 T3

43



Mexico Coahuila Saltillo 25 .50 T3

Mexico Coahuila Piedras Negras 25 .50 T3

Mexico Colima Colima 25 .50 T3

Mexico Durango Durango 25 .50 T3

Mexico Guanajuato León 25 .50 T3

Mexico Guerrero Acapulco 25 .50 T3

Mexico Sonora Hermosillo 25 .50 T3

Mexico Hidalgo Pachuca 25 .50 T3

Mexico Jalisco Guadalajara 25 .50 T3

Mexico México Ecatepec 25 .50 T3

Mexico México Naucalpan 25 .50 T3

Mexico México Nezahualcóyotl 25 .50 T3

Mexico México Toluca 25 .50 T3

Mexico Mexico City Mexico City 25 .50 T3

Mexico Michoacán Morelia 25 .50 T3

Mexico Morelos Cuernavaca 25 .50 T3

Mexico Nayarit Tepic 25 .50 T3

Mexico Nuevo León San Pedro 25 .50 T3

Mexico Nuevo León Monterrey 25 .50 T3

Mexico Oaxaca Oaxaca 25 .50 T3

Mexico Puebla Puebla 25 .50 T3

Mexico Querétaro Querétaro 25 .50 T3

Mexico Quintana Roo Cancún 25 .50 T3

Mexico San Luis Potosí San Luis Potosí 25 .50 T3

Mexico Sinaloa Culiacán 25 .50 T3

Mexico Tabasco Villahermosa 25 .50 T3

Mexico Tamaulipas Reynosa 25 .50 T3

Mexico Tlaxcala Apizaco 25 .50 T3

Mexico Veracruz Boca del Rio 25 .50 T3

Mexico Yucatán Mérida 25 .50 T3

Mexico Zacatecas Zacatecas 25 .50 T3

44

CitySnapshots

45

CitySnapshots

CanadaCalgary, AB 48Edmonton, AB 49Halifax, NS 50Moncton, NB 51Ottawa, ON 52Quebec City, QC 53Saskatoon, SK 54St . John’s, NL 55Toronto, ON 56Vancouver, BC 57Winnipeg, MB 58

MexicoAcapulco, GR 62Aguascalientes, AG 63 Apizaco, TL 64Boca del Rio, VE 65Campeche, CM 66Cancún, QR 67Chihuahua, CH 68Colima, CL 69Cuernavaca, MO 70Culiacán, SI 71Durango, DG 72Ecatepec, EM 73Guadalajara, JA 74Hermosillo, SO 75Juárez, CH 76La Paz, BS 77León, GT 78Mérida, YU 79Mexico City, DF 80Monterrey, NL 81Morelia, MI 82Naucalpan, EM 83Nezahualcóyotl, EM 84Oaxaca, OA 85Pachuca, HG 86Piedras Negras, CO 87Puebla, PU 88

Mexico (cont.)Querétaro, QT 89Reynosa, TM 90Saltillo, CO 91San Luis Potosí, SL 92San Pedro, NL 93Tepic, NA 94Tijuana, BC 95Toluca, EM 96Tuxtla Gutiérrez, CS 97Villahermosa, TB 98Zacatecas, ZA 99

United StatesAlbuquerque, NM 102Anchorage, AK 103Arlington, VA 104Atlanta, GA 105Austin, TX 106Baltimore, MD 107Billings, MT 108Birmingham, AL 109Boise, ID 110Boston, MA 111Bridgeport, CT 112Buffalo, NY 113Burlington, VT 114Charleston, SC 115Charleston, WV 116Charlotte, NC 117Cheyenne, WY 118Chicago, IL 119Cleveland, OH 120Columbus, OH 121Dallas, TX 122Denver, CO 123Des Moines, IA 124Detroit, MI 125Fargo, ND 126Grand Rapids, MI 127Honolulu, HI 128

United States (cont.)Houston, TX 129Indianapolis, IN 130Jackson, MS 131Jacksonville, FL 132Las Vegas, NV 133Little Rock, AR 134Los Angeles, CA 135Louisville, KY 136Manchester, NH 137Miami, FL 138Milwaukee, WI 139Minneapolis, MN 140Nashville, TN 141New Orleans, LA 142New York City, NY 143Newark, NJ 144Oklahoma City, OK 145Omaha, NE 146Orlando, FL 147Philadelphia, PA 148Phoenix, AZ 149Pittsburgh, PA 150Portland, ME 151Portland, OR 152Providence, RI 153Rochester, NY 154Salt Lake City, UT 155San Antonio, TX 156San Diego, CA 157San Francisco, CA 158San Jose, CA 159Seattle, WA 160Sioux Falls, SD 161St . Louis, MO 162Tampa, FL 163Virginia Beach, VA 164Washington, D .C . 165Wichita, KS 166Wilmington, DE 167

Canada

46

48

CalgaryCountry: Canada

Province: Alberta

Population: 1,336,000

Income Per Capita: $58,439 70.122019 EASE OF DOING

BUSINESS RANK

2019 EASE OF DOING BUSINESS SCORE COMPARISON(out of 100)

Calgary, AB

Rank 58

Bridgeport, CT

Rank 57

Newark, NJ

Rank 56

Rochester, NY

Rank 59

Pittsburgh, PA

Rank 60

2019 EASE OF DOING BUSINESS SCORE

58

69.38 69.41 70.12 70.71 70.75

Category 2019 Score 2019 Rank

Starting a Business 90 .81 9

Employing Workers 64 .12 65

Getting Electricity 96 .85 8

Registering Property 87 .77 4

Paying Taxes 69 .43 43

Resolving Insolvency 61 .07 2

49

EdmontonCountry: Canada

Province: Alberta

Population: 981,280


BUSINESS RANK


Edmonton, AB

Rank 67

Vancouver, BC

Rank 66

Washington, D.C.

Rank 65

Buffalo, NY

Rank 68

Moncton, NB

Rank 69


67

65.20 65.25 65.29 66.19 66.19








50

HalifaxCountry: Canada

Province: Nova Scotia

Population: 431,479


BUSINESS RANK


Halifax, NS

Rank 53

Providence, RI

Rank 52

Burlington, VT

Rank 51

San Antonio, TX

Rank 54

Detroit, MI

Rank 55


53

70.78 70.89 71.77 73.41 73.42








51

MonctonCountry: Canada

Province: New Brunswick

Population: 85,198


BUSINESS RANK


Moncton, NB

Rank 69

Buffalo, NY

Rank 68

Edmonton, AB

Rank 67

Winnipeg, MB

Rank 70

Saskatoon, SK

Rank 71


69

64.78 65.17 65.20 65.25 65.29








52

OttawaCountry: Canada

Province: Ontario

Population: 994,837


BUSINESS RANK


Ottawa, ON

Rank 74

San Diego, CA

Rank 73

Los Angeles, CA

Rank 72

Toronto, ON

Rank 75

Quebec City, QC

Rank 76


74

60.25 60.89 62.31 62.64 64.31








53

Quebec CityCountry: Canada

Province: Quebec

Population: 538,298


BUSINESS RANK


Quebec City, QC

Rank 76

Toronto, ON

Rank 75

Ottawa, ON

Rank 74

San Francisco, CA

Rank 77

San Pedro, NL

Rank 78


76

53.34 59.04 60.25 60.89 62.31








54

SaskatoonCountry: Canada

Province: Saskatchewan

Population: 273,010


BUSINESS RANK


Saskatoon, SK

Rank 71

Winnipeg, MB

Rank 70

Moncton, NB

Rank 69

Los Angeles, CA

Rank 72

San Diego, CA

Rank 73


71

62.64 64.31 64.78 65.17 65.20








55

St. John’sCountry: Canada

Province: Newfoundland and Labrador

Population: 113,948


BUSINESS RANK


St. John’s, NL

Rank 63

New York City, NY

Rank 62

Philadelphia, PA

Rank 61

San Jose, CA

Rank 64

Washington, D.C.

Rank 65


63

66.19 67.20 68.09 68.30 68.55








TorontoCountry: Canada

Province: Ontario



BUSINESS RANK


Toronto, ON

Rank 75

Ottawa, ON

Rank 74

San Diego, CA

Rank 73

Quebec City, QC

Rank 76

San Francisco, CA

Rank 77


75

59.04 60.25 60.89 62.31 62.64








56

57

VancouverCountry: Canada

Province: British Columbia

Population: 675,218


BUSINESS RANK


Vancouver, BC

Rank 66

Washington, D.C.

Rank 65

San Jose, CA

Rank 64

Edmonton, AB

Rank 67

Buffalo, NY

Rank 68


66

65.25 65.29 66.19 66.19 67.20








58

WinnipegCountry: Canada

Province: Manitoba

Population: 749,534


BUSINESS RANK


Winnipeg, MB

Rank 70

Moncton, NB

Rank 69

Buffalo, NY

Rank 68

Saskatoon, SK

Rank 71

Los Angeles, CA

Rank 72


70

64.31 64.78 65.17 65.20 65.25








Mexico

60

AcapulcoCountry: Mexico

State: Guerrero

Population: 673,479


BUSINESS RANK


Acapulco, GR

Rank 102

Morelia, MI

Rank 101

Mérida, YU

Rank 100

Reynosa, TM

Rank 103

Monterrey, NL

Rank 104


102

44.05 44.64 44.86 44.99 45.14








62

GUERRERO

Aguascalientes Country: Mexico

State: Aguascalientes

Population: 722,250


BUSINESS RANK


Aguascalientes, AG

Rank 84

Piedras Negras, CO

Rank 83

Apizaco, TL

Rank 82

Durango, DG

Rank 85

Chihuahua, CH

Rank 86


84

47.84 47.93 48.36 48.89 48.91








63

ApizacoCountry: Mexico

State: Tlaxcala

Population: 76,492


BUSINESS RANK


Apizaco, TL

Rank 82

León, GT

Rank 81

Tijuana, BC

Rank 80

Piedras Negras, CO

Rank 83

Aguascalientes, AG

Rank 84


82

48.36 48.89 48.91 50.62 52.33








64

TLAXCALA

VERACRUZ

Boca del RioCountry: Mexico

State: Veracruz

Population: 138,058


BUSINESS RANK


Boca del Rio, VE

Rank 112

Mexico City, DF

Rank 111

Saltillo, CO

Rank 110

Pachuca, HG

Rank 113

Zacatecas, ZA

Rank 114


112

41.62 42.18 42.18 42.44 42.71








65

CampecheCountry: Mexico

State: Campeche

Population: 899,931


BUSINESS RANK


Campeche, CM

Rank 90

Juárez, CH

Rank 89

Toluca, EM

Rank 88

Cancún, QR

Rank 91

Ecatepec, EM

Rank 92


90

46.57 46.86 46.92 46.93 47.12








66

CancúnCountry: Mexico

State: Quintana Roo

Population: 628,306


BUSINESS RANK


Cancún, QR

Rank 91

Campeche, CM

Rank 90

Juárez, CH

Rank 89

Ecatepec, EM

Rank 92

Naucalpan, EM

Rank 93


91

46.32 46.57 46.86 46.92 46.93








67

QUINTANA ROO

ChihuahuaCountry: Mexico

State: Chihuahua



BUSINESS RANK


Chihuahua, CH

Rank 86

Durango, DG

Rank 85

Aguascalientes, AG

Rank 84

San Luis Potosí, SL

Rank 87

Toluca, EM

Rank 88


86

47.12 47.79 47.84 47.93 48.36








68

ColimaCountry: Mexico

State: Colima

Population: 711,235


BUSINESS RANK


Colima, CL

Rank 95

Puebla, PU

Rank 94

Naucalpan, EM

Rank 93

Tepic, NA

Rank 96

La Paz, BS

Rank 97


95

45.66 45.96 46.00 46.11 46.32








69

CuernavacaCountry: Mexico

State: Morelos

Population: 338,650


BUSINESS RANK


Cuernavaca, MO

Rank 79

San Pedro, NL

Rank 78

San Francisco, CA

Rank 77

Tijuana, BC

Rank 80

León, GT

Rank 81


79

50.62 52.33 52.44 53.34 59.04








70

MORELOS

CuliacánCountry: Mexico

State: Sinaloa

Population: 905,660


BUSINESS RANK


Culiacán, SI

Rank 107

Nezahualcóyotl, EM

Rank 106

Tuxtla Gutiérrez, CS

Rank 105

Villahermosa, TB

Rank 108

Hermosillo, SO

Rank 109


107

42.81 43.24 43.52 43.70 44.01








71

DurangoCountry: Mexico

State: Durango



BUSINESS RANK


Durango, DG

Rank 85

Aguascalientes, AG

Rank 84

Piedras Negras, CO

Rank 83

Chihuahua, CH

Rank 86


Rank 87


85

47.79 47.84 47.93 48.36 48.89








72

EcatepecCountry: Mexico

State: México



BUSINESS RANK


Ecatepec, EM

Rank 92

Cancún, QR

Rank 91

Campeche, CM

Rank 90

Naucalpan, EM

Rank 93

Puebla, PU

Rank 94


92

46.11 46.32 46.57 46.86 46.92








73

GuadalajaraCountry: Mexico

State: Jalisco



BUSINESS RANK


Guadalajara, JA

Rank 98

La Paz, BS

Rank 97

Tepic, NA

Rank 96

Querétaro, QT

Rank 99

Mérida, YU

Rank 100


98

45.14 45.47 45.51 45.66 45.96








74

JALISCO

HermosilloCountry: Mexico

State: Sonora

Population: 812,229


BUSINESS RANK


Hermosillo, SO

Rank 109

Villahermosa, TB

Rank 108

Culiacán, SI

Rank 107

Saltillo, CO

Rank 110

Mexico City, DF

Rank 111


109

42.44 42.71 42.81 43.24 43.52








75

SONORA

JuárezCountry: Mexico

State: Chihuahua



BUSINESS RANK


Juárez, CH

Rank 89

Toluca, EM

Rank 88


Rank 87

Campeche, CM

Rank 90

Cancún, QR

Rank 91


89

46.86 46.92 46.93 47.12 47.79








76

La Paz Country: Mexico

State: Baja California Sur

Population: 789,541


BUSINESS RANK


La Paz, BS

Rank 97

Tepic, NA

Rank 96

Colima, CL

Rank 95

Guadalajara, JA

Rank 98

Querétaro, QT

Rank 99


97

45.47 45.51 45.66 45.96 46.00








77

BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR

LeónCountry: Mexico

State: Guanajuato



BUSINESS RANK


León, GT

Rank 81

Tijuana, BC

Rank 80

Cuernavaca, MO

Rank 79

Apizaco, TL

Rank 82

Piedras Negras, CO

Rank 83


81

48.89 48.91 50.62 52.33 52.44








78

GUANAJUATO

MéridaCountry: Mexico

State: Yucatán

Population: 777,615


BUSINESS RANK


Mérida, YU

Rank 100

Querétaro, QT

Rank 99

Guadalajara, JA

Rank 98

Morelia, MI

Rank 101

Acapulco, GR

Rank 102


100

44.86 44.99 45.14 45.47 45.51








79

YUCATÁN

Mexico CityCountry: Mexico

State: Mexico City



BUSINESS RANK


Mexico City, DF

Rank 111

Saltillo, CO

Rank 110

Hermosillo, SO

Rank 109

Boca del Rio, VE

Rank 112

Pachuca, HG

Rank 113


111

42.18 42.18 42.44 42.71 42.81








80

MonterreyCountry: Mexico

State: Nuevo León



BUSINESS RANK


Monterrey, NL

Rank 104

Reynosa, TM

Rank 103

Acapulco, GR

Rank 102

Tuxtla Gutiérrez, CS

Rank 105

Nezahualcóyotl, EM

Rank 106


104

43.70 44.01 44.05 44.64 44.86








81

MoreliaCountry: Mexico

State: Michoacán

Population: 597,511


BUSINESS RANK


Morelia, MI

Rank 101

Mérida, YU

Rank 1

doing business north america - arizona state university asu dbna 2019 report full.pdf · in that...

Documents