Content uploaded by Elena E Karpova
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Elena E Karpova on Feb 18, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
ACADEMIC PAPER
Employment in the US textile and
apparel industries
A comparative analysis of regional vs national
trends
Nancy Nelson Hodges
University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro,
North Carolina, USA, and
Elena Karpova
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA
Abstract
Purpose – To examine the impact of changes in the US textile and apparel industries on employment
patterns at the state level compared with the nation as a whole during the period of 1997-2003.
Design/methodology/approach – Secondary data sources were analyzed to develop an overall
picture of changes happening in the North Carolina industries compared with the USA overall. A focus
on North Carolina, a primary location of the industries within the USA, permits a micro-level
examination of changes in employment trends for one state in comparison with those of the industries
nation-wide. Three industries form the bulk of the data examined: Textile Mills (NAICS-313), Textile
Product Mills (NAICS-314), and Apparel Manufacturing (NAICS-315).
Findings – An overall decrease in employment and number of units for all three industries was
found. The number of establishments in the North Carolina textile complex decreased by 25 percent
and employment by almost 50 percent. The state losses resembled those of the nation as a whole. For
the majority of industry groups, the trend in value of shipments mirrored the downward direction of
employment from 1997 to 2001.
Research limitations/implications – Although this study focuses on only one state in comparison
with the USA as a whole, it reveals current trends in employment patterns and has implications for
developing an in-depth picture of regional versus national industry performance during a period of
decline.
Originality/value – Within this study, industry change was interpreted at both the state and
national level through employment patterns as a means to explore why some industry groups have
remained relatively healthy compared with others and what this means for industry employment in
the future.
Keywords Textile industry, Employment, United States of America
Paper type Research paper
Background
According to the American Textile Manufacturing Institute (ATMI), 2004 was
predicted to be a “make or break year” for the United States Textile Industry
(American Textile Manufacturers Institute, 2003a). Although its prominence within the
overall scope of domestic manufacturing is not as significant as it was half a century
ago, the textile complex remains a critical component for the economic and social
sectors of the USA. Representing 6 percent of the national manufacturing force at the
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1361-2026.htm
Regional vs
national trends
209
Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management
Vol. 10 No. 2, 2006
pp. 209-226
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1361-2026
DOI 10.1108/13612020610667513
turn of the twenty-first century, the textile complex contributed about $70 billion
yearly to the national GDP (American Textile Manufacturers Institute, 2002; Economic
Census, 1997). In addition to jobs within the textile complex itself (around one million
workers), it supported employment related to direct suppliers, the government, and
other services and industries (American Textile Manufacturers Institute, 2002).
Since the late 1990s, however, the complex has been in crisis, suffering heavy losses
in employment (American Textile Manufacturers Institute, 2001; Oh and Suh, 2003).
The most obvious and often cited reasons include pressure from intense global
competition, low cost manufacturing in developing countries, liberalization of trade
policies, and retail consolidation (Scholler, 2002). In addition, the textile complex must
deal with the fact that the national economy is undergoing a shift from manufacturing
to service and information, thereby changing its overall nature. For example, Tyler
(2003) believes that the traditional typology of the apparel industry is no longer
workable in the post-industrialized economy of the twenty-first century. Blurred
boundaries between manufacturing and sourcing require companies to focus on
creating a niche market and on sourcing larger batches in low labor cost countries,
decreasing leadtime (Tyler, 2003). Oh and Suh (2003) reviewed the problems faced by
the US textile industry and summarized the strategic initiatives that American textile
corporations have been using to respond to the emerging crisis. The authors conclude
that under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) the industry “has
experienced significant erosion in its profitability and competitiveness” and propose
strategic actions in order for the sector to regain its position in the global market (Oh
and Suh, 2003, p. 131).
As several studies have found, the US manufacturing sector has been experiencing
a steady decline since the late twentieth century. Research that addresses these
changes generally focuses either on the whole US textile and/or apparel industries
(Doeringer, 2004; Franklin, 1995; Gereffi, 2000; Mittlehauser, 1997; Oh and Suh, 2003;
Taplin, 1999), or presents select cases that describe the economic and social impact of
plant closings on individuals within isolated communities (Norris, 2003; Rocha, 2001).
There are few studies that investigate how individual states have dealt with the textile
complex crisis. One by Melkers et al. (2001) analyzed plant closings in Georgia. The
study defined demographic characteristics of the state’s textile and apparel labor force
in order to design an unemployment assistance program that addresses needs of laid
off workers. A study by Kessler (2002) assessed the impact of NAFTA on the Los
Angeles apparel industry, looking at the dynamics in occupational categories.
Palpacuer (2002) studied the New York City garment industry to develop a new
typology for the sector.
Regional studies are helpful in developing a better understanding of what is
actually happening within the overall US textile complex because a micro-level focus
avoids featureless and often meaningless generalizations and allows for a close-up
analysis of a specifically situated component of the national industry. Small-scale
analyses of industry change are particularly important because different states
throughout the US have unique specializations, which, in turn, determine the strengths
and weaknesses of the regional industries. A comparison of a single state’s textile
complex performance with national shifts can address issues of employment, as well as
help define the changing nature and structure of the local economies.
To further develop how the “small picture” helps describe the “big picture”, this
study examines the implications of recent employment trends in the textile and apparel
JFMM
10,2
210
industries. Changes happening over time within one state in the Southeastern United
States – North Carolina, will be the focus. As will be discussed, North Carolina was
selected because it remains one of the few states with a recent history of textile
manufacturing and can therefore provide a clear and timely picture of the impact of the
industry’s present state on employment patterns. The data collected spans a time
period of seven years, beginning in 1997 (one year prior to the Asian economic crisis)
and ending in 2003. The guiding question is: what is happening to employment as a
result of changes experienced by these industries? The analysis presented will identify
primary shifts in the North Carolina textile sector relative to employment patterns, and
compare employment trends in North Carolina with those of the USA overall to explore
the implications of these trends for the long-term.
The State of North Carolina
In 1975, manufacturing was the largest sector in North Carolina, employing more than
one-third of the state’s labor force (Hussain et al., 2002). However, by the end of the
century the share of manufacturing jobs in North Carolina was reduced by almost half,
to about 18 percent, whereas employment in the service sector exploded, increasing its
share of the state’s labor market from 18 percent in 1975 to 36 percent in 2000 (Hussain
et al., 2002). During the economic recession of the early twenty-first century, many
textile and apparel companies had to make extensive cutbacks in hiring and radical
alterations to their corporate structure (North Carolina Employment Security
Commission; Heisler, 2001, 2002a). As a result, the state has experienced a string of
plant closings and layoffs. Many of these plants had been providing work for
generations of families living in rural areas. Such layoffs have forced unemployed
individuals to move elsewhere and seek similar types of jobs or to remain and be
re-trained for another profession (Melkers et al., 2000; Heisler, 2002b).
The majority of jobs in Southeastern textile and apparel companies have consisted
of unskilled or semiskilled machine tenders and operators, which often meant
employing large numbers of workers in repetitive tasks with obsolete technology
(Holusha, 1996; Leiter et al., 1991). Beginning in the late 1970s, new machines served to
revamp the production process by combining several operations, thereby decreasing
the number of production workers (Office of Technology Assessment, US Congress,
1987). Textile production in North Carolina increased significantly during the
1970-1990 period despite the large number of job losses (Economic Census, 1997;
Eksten, 2002). Throughout the 1980s, continued downsizing and plant closings in the
rural areas often wiped out the economic base of the community, resulting in a reduced
standard of living and forced migration (Gaventa and Smith, 1991). Such losses added
to the fact that Southeastern states traditionally offered the least protection for workers
and had the greatest percentage of poor households of any region in the country. As a
result, North Carolina was one of six states undergoing “downward wage polarization”
due to growth in jobs with wages below the poverty level (Zingraff, 1991).
Yet, in the early 1990s, 75 percent of US textile production occurred in eight
Southeastern states with more than 350,000 workers employed, almost half of whom
were in North Carolina (Glass, 1992). At that time, according to Glass (1992), the textile
industry was North Carolina’s largest industrial employer, and there were more textile
workers in North Carolina than in any other state. Figure 1 illustrates the share of
North Carolina in national textile complex employment[1]. In 2003, almost one-third of
Regional vs
national trends
211
all US Textile Mills workers (North American Industry Classification System – NAICS
313) were employed in North Carolina, making this industry the largest in the state’s
textile complex (Figure 1). At the same time, apparel manufacturing (NAICS 315) and
textile products mills (NAICS 314) accounted for 10 and 8 percent, respectively, of the
total US employment. On the national level the largest industry in terms of
employment was apparel manufacturing, followed by the Textile Mills, with the textile
products mills being the smallest (Figure 1). In North Carolina, textile mills
substantially exceeded the other two industries in the complex, in that it employed two
times more workers than apparel manufacturing did. Apparel manufacturing, in turn,
provided two times more jobs than textile product mills.
According to figures provided by the North Carolina Employment Security
Commission (NCESC), in 1997 the statewide labor force totaled 3.8 million, growing to
4.2 million by 2003. At that time, manufacturing alone comprised 800,500 jobs (21
percent of state’s labor force), which dropped to 641,000 (14 percent of state’s labor
force) in 2003, representing a 25 percent decline. The textile complex reinforces this
downward trend, going from 220,000 jobs in 1997 to 116,300 in 2003, for a total of
103,700 job losses, and constituting a 47 percent loss in total workforce. Textile
companies, as well as other manufacturers, blame much of their trouble on the flood of
cheap foreign imports, the Asian economic crisis, and new trade regulations (American
Textile Manufacturers Institute, 2001). However, others argue that North Carolina’s
loss of textile sector jobs began in the early 1970s, and that half of the jobs lost were
instead due to the use of new technology to improve productivity (Eksten, 2002).
In addition to modernization, free-trade policies were responsible for some of the
damage (Jobs with Justice, 2001; Taplin, 2003). NAFTA, which took effect in 1994,
encouraged US manufacturers to open plants in Mexico. Some of North Carolina’s
biggest textile companies built multimillion-dollar operations there, and many moved
their sewing plants entirely to Mexico (Oh and Suh, 2003; “North Carolina had second
highest loss of jobs”, 2002). Since 1994, North Carolina has suffered the greatest
number of plant closings and job losses when compared to other states in the Southeast
region (ATMI, 2003b and 2003c). Even though these changes have rocked its economic
and social structure, North Carolina’s textile complex remains an integral part of the
US industry overall, thus making it a valuable case study for examining the impact of
industry change on present and future employment trends.
Figure 1.
Proportion of North
Carolina in total US
Industries Employment,
2003
JFMM
10,2
212
Methodology
A variety of sources were examined in order to develop a comprehensive account of
employment in the textile complex from 1997 until 2003. Nationwide figures were
obtained from the Annual Survey of Manufacturers (1996-2001), Mecia and Morganton
(2002)-2001), the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (1997)-2003), and the
Current Employment Statistics Survey (1997)-2003). For data specific to North
Carolina, several sources were consulted, including the North Carolina Manufacturers
Directory (published in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Commerce)
and the North Carolina Employment Security Commission (1997)-2003). The latter
source was found to be the most complete in terms of its coverage of employment
dynamics by industry and industry group[2].
A descriptive methodology was used in order to address the objectives of the study.
Three industries form the bulk of the data examined:
(1) Textile Mills (NAICS-313).
(2) Textile Product Mills (NAICS-314).
(3) Apparel Manufacturing (NAICS-315).
Job numbers listed for each industry and industry groups were compared for the period
between 1997 and 2003 as a means to determine primary shifts relative to employment
patterns and to uncover any similarities or differences in trends between North
Carolina and the US as a whole. Additional data includes number of establishments
and value of shipments for the period under the study.
Analysis
Throughout the following, the North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) is used as the primary mode of classification of the data to every extent
possible. However, because the transition from the Standard Industry Classification
system (SIC) occurred in 1997, a few of the data sets continued to use SIC codes instead
of NAICS codes throughout the period under investigation. For ease of interpretation,
the primary NAICS codes pertaining to employment within these sectors were the
focus. What follows is an analysis of the employment dynamics for the period between
1997 and 2003.
Textile and apparel establishments in North Carolina
Figure 2 illustrates a downward trend in total number of establishments common
among all three industries within North Carolina’s textile complex. Overall, there was a
loss of more than 500 establishments over the seven-year period (Table I), representing
a 25 percent decline. The apparel manufacturing industry had the greatest reduction in
the number of establishments throughout the state, as it lost 37 percent of the total by
2003 (Table I), equating to roughly 300 closings during this seven-year period. Within
the industry, cut and sew apparel companies were the most affected – the number of
establishments decreased from 400 to 200 (Table I). Closings in the apparel industry
peaked in 1997-1998 and again during 2002 and 2003, totaling a 10 percent rate of loss
(Table II).
Until 1999, the textile mills industry experienced a slight increase in number of
establishments. Since then, however, the number of mills in North Carolina has steadily
decreased (Figure 2) at a fairly stable rate of about 5 percent a year until 2003, when 75
Regional vs
national trends
213
plants were closed, constituting 9 percent (Tables I and II). The textile products mills
industry did not suffer to the extent that the two other industries did. Only 50 (12
percent) establishments were lost since 1997 (Table I). Moreover, the number of
establishments engaged in carpet production (NAICS 31411) and other textile products
(NAICS 3149) did not change (Table I). Overall, the rate of change in textile products
mMills remained fairly stable until the end of the period under study and did not
exceed 4 percent a year (Table II).
Textile and apparel employment in North Carolina
In 1997, the North Carolina textile complex employed 6 percent of the state’s total labor
force and accounted for almost 30 percent of the employment in manufacturing
(NCESC). In 2003, these numbers were reduced to 3 and 19 percent, respectively. At the
same time, the total labor force in the state increased by 10 percent. From 1997 to 2003,
a downward trend in employment is common for all industries in the North Carolina
textile complex (Figure 3). Its labor force was reduced by half, leaving slightly more
Number of establishments
NAICS Industry and industry groups 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
313 Textile mills 959 967 969 926 872 829 754
3131 Fiber and yarn mills 224 230 229 216 207 195 181
3132 Fabric mills 335 336 339 331 320 300 278
3133 Finishing mills 400 401 402 379 346 333 295
314 Textile product mills 394 390 382 371 363 363 347
3141 Textile furnishing mills 195 186 183 177 172 175 160
31411 Carpets and rugs 31 32 33 33 32 32 30
31412 Curtains and linen 164 154 150 144 140 143 131
3149 Other textile products 200 204 199 194 191 188 187
315 Apparel manufacturing 756 699 662 617 594 532 474
3151 Knitting mills 296 279 271 258 252 229 207
3152 Cut and sew apparel 404 366 335 299 282 246 220
3159 Apparel accessories 56 54 56 60 61 57 47
Total textile complex 2,109 2,056 2,013 1,914 1,829 1,724 1,575
Source: North Carolina Employment Security Commission
Table I.
Number of
establishments, North
Carolina textile complex
Figure 2.
Number of establishments,
North Carolina textile
complex
JFMM
10,2
214
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
NAICS Industry
Estabishment
(%)
Employer
(%)
Estabishment
(%)
Employer
(%)
Estabishment
(%)
Employer
(%)
Estabishment
(%)
Employer
(%)
Establishment
(%)
Employer
(%)
313 Textile mills 0 29242726215 25212 29212
314 Textile
products mills
2226232622213 0 262429
315 Apparel
Manufacturing
25211 27210 24214 210 215 211 211
Table II.
Changes in number of
establishments and
employment, North
Carolina textile complex
Regional vs
national trends
215
than 100,000 people without jobs (Table III). Apparel manufacturing experienced an
on-going decline at a rate of 10 to 15 percent a year (Table II). This resulted in a total of
35,000 jobs lost, which constituted more than half of its workers (53 percent). The cut
and sew apparel industry group was affected the most in that it lost 62 percent of its
total jobs over the seven-year period (Table III).
Similarly, textile mills lost nearly half of its workers (47 percent). However, the
numbers here are almost double the losses in apparel manufacturing, as more than
62,000 people have gone through the unemployment process since 1997 (Table III).
This explains why the textile mills downward trend looks so dramatic in Figure 3.
Until 2000, the pace of job loss in the industry was less than 9 percent. However, in
2001 alone the textile mills workforce was reduced by 15 percent, as approximately
17,000 people lost their jobs (Tables II and III).
Textile products mills had the greatest reduction in the number of jobs in 2001 – 13
percent (Table II). However, in this case the losses were not nearly as devastating, as it
translated to only roughly 2,500 jobs. Textile products mills, the smallest industry in
Employment, in thousands
NAICS Industry and industry groups 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
313 Textile mills 133.7 128.4 117.4 109.1 92.4 81.0 71.3
3131 Fiber and yarn mills 35.8 36.6 33.7 31.5 26.9 23.4 20.5
3132 Fabric mills 60.5 58.2 53.1 49.7 41.9 37.3 32.3
3133 Finishing mills 37.4 33.9 30.6 27.9 23.5 20.3 18.5
314 Textile product mills 22.4 22.5 21.2 19.9 17.4 16.3 14.8
3141 Textile furnish. mills 14.0 14.4 13.8 12.9 11.2 10.4 9.0
31411 Carpet and rugs 2.9 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.3 3.9 3.6
31412 Curtains and linen 11.2 11.1 10.3 9.4 7.3 6.7 5.4
3149 Other textile products 8.4 8.0 7.4 7.0 6.5 5.8 5.9
315 Apparel manufacturer 63.9 58.2 51.7 46.3 39.8 33.8 30.2
3151 Knitting mills 30.6 29.0 27.1 25.5 22.3 19.2 17.3
3152 Cut and sew apparel 30.4 26.6 22.2 18.6 15.6 13.00 11.5
3159 Apparel accessories 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.2 1.9 1.6 1.5
Total textile complex 220.0 209.1 190.2 175.3 149.6 131.1 116.3
Source: North Carolina Employment Security Commission
Table III.
Employment, North
Carolina textile complex
Figure 3.
Employment trends, North
Carolina textile complex
JFMM
10,2
216
the North Carolina textile complex in terms of employment, laid-off 8,000 workers, or
34 percent of its total labor force, during the period under study (Table III). The only
industry group that actually saw an increase in the number of jobs was carpet and rugs
(Table III), but the employment in these mills was not significant enough (4,000
workers) to influence the overall employment picture.
North Carolina vs National Employment Trends
To assess the performance of North Carolina textile complex, it is necessary to compare
the state’s employment patterns with those of the US overall. The national employment
data is presented in Table IV, and compared with North Carolina in Table V from
1997-2003. During this seven-year period, the North Carolina complex lost nearly half
Employment Value of shipments
1997-2003 (2001)
a
1997-2001
NAICS Industry and industry group North Carolina US North Carolina US
313 Textile mills 247 (231) 240 (224) 230 222
3131 Fiber and yarn mills 243 (225) 235 (218) 228 222
3132 Fabric mills 247 (231) 243 (227) 231 225
3133 Finishing mills 250 (237) 238 (222) 232 218
314 Textile product mills 234 (222) 217 (25) 22
3141 Textile furnishing mills 236 (220) 217 (24) 27þ7
31411 Carpets and rugs þ24 (þ14) 27(þ2) N/A N/A
31412 Curtains and linen 252 (235) 224 (28) N/A N/A
3149 Other textile products 229 (222) 218 (27) þ10 25
315 Apparel manufacturing 253 (238) 255 (239) 217 220
3151 Knitting mills 243 (227) 252 (235) 238 229
3152 Cut and sew apparel 262 (249) 257 (241) þ5219
Note:
a
Data for 2001 change presented in parentheses
Table V.
Percent change in
employment and value of
shipments
Employment, in thousands
NAICS Industry and industry groups 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
313 Textile mills 436.2 424.5 397.1 378.2 332.9 290.9 260.3
3131 Fiber and yarn mills 86.6 87.2 83.6 80.9 70.7 63.2 56.2
3132 Fabric mills 228.6 220.9 203.5 191.9 167.7 145.2 129.6
3133 Finishing mills 121.0 116.4 110.1 105.4 94.5 82.5 74.5
314 Textile product mills 217.0 217.1 217.3 216.3 205.7 194.6 179.8
3141 Textile furnish. mills 126.1 126.6 128.3 128.5 121.4 116.4 105.2
31411 Carpet and rugs 54.2 55.0 56.3 56.8 55.2 54.9 50.3
31412 Curtains and linen 71.9 71.6 72.0 71.7 66.2 61.5 54.9
3149 Other textile products 90.9 90.5 88.9 87.7 84.3 78.3 74.7
315 Apparel manufacturer 700.2 639.6 555.6 496.8 426.5 359.7 312.7
3151 Knitting mills 93.6 86.5 76.4 68.9 61.1 50.3 44.9
3152 Cut and sew apparel 568.0 515.7 444.3 393.5 334.7 282.9 244.6
Total textile complex 1,380.4 1,281.2 1,170 1,091.3 965.1 845.2 752.8
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Table IV.
Employment, US textile
complex
Regional vs
national trends
217
of its workforce (47 percent). This reduction is similar to the numbers on the national
level, where industries were downsized by 45 percent (Table V). In proportional
numbers, the greatest decline in jobs was in the apparel industry, where 53 percent of
the total workforce was laid-off in North Carolina (35,000 workers) compared with
55 percent (387,000 workers) throughout the US apparel sector as a whole (Tables III,
IV, and V). However, in absolute numbers, the state’s textile mills lost almost two times
more jobs for a total of about 62,000, thus reducing its base by 47 percent. Similarly,
nationwide, the textile mill workforce was reduced by 40 percent (175,900 workers)
during this period. Textile products mills was the least impacted by the crisis. In North
Carolina the number of employees decreased by 34 percent (7,600 workers), while on
the national level it fell by only 17 percent (37,000 workers).
Further analysis demonstrates that there are differences between employment
patterns in North Carolina and the US as a whole (Table V). In some groups, like
knitting mills and carpets and rugs, North Carolina experienced fewer job losses as
compared to those nationwide (Table V). While for other industry groups, like cut and
sew apparel and finishing mills, the state job losses were greater than those on the
national level (Table V). In order to understand the reasons behind these findings, the
proportional size of each industry group for both the North Carolina and US textile
complex was determined (Table VI and Figures 4-6).
According to the data, apparel manufacturing in North Carolina employs half of its
workers in knitting mills (Figure 4). During the period under study, this number
increased from 48 percent in 1997 to 56 percent in 2003 (Table VI). On the other hand,
knitting mill employees account only for 14 percent of the national apparel industry
employment (Table VI). Obviously, apparel manufacturing in North Carolina is highly
skewed toward knit garments. Therefore, the US knitting mills industry group is
concentrated in the state of North Carolina and forms a cluster, which might be the
reason for the lower decline rate in terms of employment when compared to that of the
whole US industry group (Porter, 1990). Another explanation is that knit garments are
less labor intensive than cut and sewn, and have therefore been less susceptible to
foreign competition.
North Carolina US
NAICS Industry group 1997 (%) 2003 (%) 1997 (%) 2003 (%)
313 Textile mills 100 100 100 100
3131 Fiber and yarn mills 27 29 20 21
3132 Fabric mills 45 45 52 50
3133 Finishing mills 28 26 28 29
314 Textile products mills 100 100 100 100
3141 Textile furnishing mills 63 61 58 58
31411 Carpets and rugs 21 40 43 48
31412 Curtains and linen 80 60 57 52
3149 Other textile products 37 39 42 42
315 Apparel manufacturing 100 100 100 100
3151 Apparel knitting mills 48 57 13 14
3152 Cut and sew apparel 48 38 81 78
3159 Other apparel manufacturer 4 5 6 8
Table VI.
Distribution of
employment within
industries
JFMM
10,2
218
The fact that during the seven year period North Carolina’s textile products mills lost
twice as many jobs, in proportional numbers, than the national industry (34 percent vs
17 percent), may be explained by the state industry being skewed toward curtain and
linen products (Table VI). The US home furnishings industry has a higher proportion
of employment within the carpet business: in 1997 it accounted for 43 percent, growing
to 48 percent in 2003. In contrast, employment in North Carolina’s carpet industry was
only 20 percent of the total furnishing mill employment. Between 1997 and 2003, carpet
mill employment jumped from 20 to 40 percent in North Carolina (Figure 5). Because
Figure 4.
Apparel manufacturing
employment
Figure 5.
Textile products mills
employment
Figure 6.
Textile mills employment
Regional vs
national trends
219
carpets and rug manufacturing has suffered less from foreign competition than the
curtain and linen industry group, North Carolina textile products mills have had
significantly more losses in employment as compared to that of the whole United
States (Table V).
During the time period under study, the North Carolina textile mills industry laid off
47 percent of its workers, as compared to 40% nationwide (Table V). Although the
discrepancies in employment decline on the state vs. national levels may be explained
by the different proportional sizes of the industry groups for apparel manufacturing
and textile products mills, it is not the case for textile mills. Figure 6 shows that the
proportion of textile mills industry groups is similar for both state and national levels.
The greatest difference in the rate of employment reduction was in finishing mills: in
the state it decreased by 50 percent, while nationwide by just 38 percent (Table VI).
Fiber and yarn mills lost 43 percent of the labor force in North Carolina and 35 percent
in the USA (Table VI). The fact that the textile mills industry represents a clearly
identifiable cluster in North Carolina – in 2003 this state employed almost one-third of
the total US textile mill workers (Figure 1), did not automatically guarantee better
performance on the national scale. Instead the opposite was observed.
The NAICS classification system does not break down the textile industry by fiber
content, as the SIC classification did (Annual Survey of Manufactures, 1996-2001;
North Carolina Manufacturers Directory, 2002), therefore, the latter was used to
examine employment statistics in cotton vs. manmade finishing plants (Table VII).
North Carolina’s cotton finishing plants employed 73 percent of all workers involved in
the finishing business, while manmade finishing plants employed only 4 percent. In
contrast, the US percentages were 39 and 44, respectively (Table VII). This skewness of
the state’s textile mills industry toward cotton production might explain the greater job
losses in North Carolina when compared to that of the whole country, taking into
account that cotton fabrics are generally more widely used to produce apparel;
therefore this sector suffered more from low-cost imports and was less resistant to the
manufacturing crisis of the late 1990s.
Textile complex output: North Carolina vs USA
Given the decline in textile complex employment, it is important to evaluate its
performance in terms of output for the same period of time. Value of product shipment
figures, get the closest to measuring industry output[3]. At the time of the study,
statistics on the value of shipments was available up to 2001 (Annual Survey of
Manufacturers, Economic Census). Thus, it is possible to make the comparison of
trends in industry output and employment only between 1997 and 2001 (Table VIII).
Employment, in thousands Size of industry/group
SIC Industry groups North Caroline (%) US (%) North Carolina (%) US (%)
2260 Textile finishing 16.9 51.0 100 100
2261 Finishing plants, cotton 12.4 20.0 73 39
2262 Finishing plants, manmade 0.6 22.5 4 44
2269 Finishing plants, n.e.c. 3.9 8.5 23 17
Sources: Annual survey of manufactures and North Carolina manufacturers directory
Table VII.
North Carolina and US
Textile Finishing
Industry Group, 1996
employment
JFMM
10,2
220
The percent change is presented in Table V. For the purpose of comparison, the percent
change in employment was also calculated for the 1997-2001 period (Table V). The
overall trend shows that textile complex employment was shrinking faster than output
for most industries and industry groups (Table V). The majority of industry groups
decreased the value of shipments in 2001 when compared with that of 1997. However,
there were several exceptions to that general trend, and some industry groups, such as
cut and sew apparel, actually experienced a growth in value of shipments despite
steady decline in employment.
The number of jobs and value of shipments on average in North Carolina were
reduced by one-third, while in the US they were down by one-quarter (Table V). Fiber
and yarn mills, was the only industry group where the decline in value of shipments
was slightly greater than the decline in employment for both the US and North
Carolina. textile product mills performance in terms of number of employees differs
from the performance measured in dollar value. Despite significant job losses, which
were greater in the state (34 percent) than in the whole country (17 percent), the
industry’s shipments remained stable. There was only a 2 percent decrease for the
North Carolina industry and a slight growth (3 percent) on the national level (Table V).
Other textile product mills in North Carolina increased production output by 10 percent
between 1997 and 2001, which is in contrast to the loss of this industry group’s work
force by one-third (Table V).
Apparel manufacturing in North Carolina and the US reduced its number of
workers by 40 percent. At the same time, shipments decreased by almost 20 percent
(Table V). However, the picture is very different for the two main apparel industry
groups. Knitting mills in North Carolina appeared to be less efficient when compared to
the US industry group performance. The decrease in North Carolina industry’s
shipments was 38 percent, while the number of workers declined by 27 percent. The
numbers were opposite for the national industry, where shipments and employment
declined by 29 and 35 percent, respectively (Table V). In contrast, the North Carolina.
Cut and sew apparel outperformed the total for this industry group nationwide, as it
increased the value of shipments by 5 percent between 1997 and 2001 despite the loss
North Carolina US
NAICS Industry and industry groups 1997 2001 1997 2001
313 Textile mills 17,229,691 12,054,002 58, 707,401 45,680,697
3131 Fiber and yarn mills 5,920,759 4,262,877 12,896,617 10,030,255
3132 Fabric mills 8,081,747 5,589,751 29,979,595 22,604,452
3133 Finishing mills 3,227,185 2,201,974 15,831,189 13,045,991
314 Textile product mills 2,890,166 2,833,116 31,051,835 31,970,641
3141 Textile furnishing mills 2,082,546 1,937,015 20,296,040 21,792,868
3149 Other textile products 807,720 896,101 10,755,795 10,177,774
315 Apparel manufacturing 7,332,757 6,051,341 68,018,116 54,598,294
3151 Knitting mills 3,921,819 2,413,385 9,600,569 6,837,745
3152 Cut and sew apparel 3,180,923 3,388,241 53,851,513 43,562,535
3159 Apparel accessories 230,015 249,515 4,566,034 4,198,015
Source: Annual survey of manufacturers
Table VIII.
Value of shipments
($1,000)
Regional vs
national trends
221
of more than half of its jobs (Table V). During the same time period, US cut and sew
apparel lost 40 percent of its workers, while the total shipments declined by almost 20
percent (Table V).
In 1997, the share of North Carolina cut and sew apparel given for the total US
apparel industry employment was 5.3 percent. By 2001, this number slightly decreased
to 4.7 percent. At the same time, the share of the North Carolina industry group in the
national value of shipments increased from 6 percent in 1997 to 8 percent in 2001
(Tables III, IV and VII). This could be attributed to expanding outsourcing strategies
pursued by US apparel companies, the success of which has been proven by industry
group performance within the state.
Discussion and implications
What do these employment numbers mean for the future of these industries? Several
studies have attempted to predict further US textile complex development and
anticipate future employment trends (Franklin, 1995; Mittlehauser, 1997; North
Carolina Occupational Trends, n.d.). All agree upon an inevitable further decline,
although the projected pace is different. Mittlehauser (1997) estimated that in 2005 the
US textile complex would employ 1.3 million workers. Ultimately, the reality is even
worse than the study’s projections as by 2003 employment was less than 800,000
(Table IV). Local projections estimated that the number of jobs in the North Carolina
textile complex would decline by 17 percent over a ten-year period, and by 2008 would
reach 180,000 (North Carolina Occupational Trends, n.d.). However, after only five
years of the projected period (1998-2003) employment in the state’s complex fell by 45
percent, to fewer than 120,000 workers (Table III).
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, by the year 2012 the US textile complex
will employ just under half a million, or 482,700, workers (Industry Output and
Employment Projections, n.d.). This means that at least 400,000 former textile and
apparel workers will be faced with unemployment between 2002 and 2012. This
employment forecast also points to an interesting shift in the perception of the
traditional importance of the individual industries within the textile complex. Apparel
manufacturing, which has traditionally been the largest employer due to the
labor-intensive nature of the industry, is predicted to become the smallest, after losing
65 percent of its labor force (Figure 7). This decline reflects the long-term evolution –
Figure 7.
Projected employment, US
textile complex
JFMM
10,2
222
and is perhaps the final phase – experienced by apparel manufacturing, as it was the
first of the three industry types to exponentially move toward complete out-sourcing of
the manufacturing process. Other potential reasons are increased foreign competition
alongside on-going restructuring, reorganization and consolidation (NCESC). In
contrast, the textile product mills industry, which presently is the smallest, is to
become the most significant, as its workforce is expected to remain practically stable
(estimated at a 7 percent decline). The employment base of the textile mills industry is
predicted to shrink by 47 percent during the same period (Figure 7).
The discussed projections would have a tremendous impact on North Carolina for
two reasons. First, as was found in this research, the state’s textile mills and textile
products mills industries were not able to remain competitive on the national level (the
decline in employment and shipments were greater in the state than in the overall US).
Second, the textile products mills industry – which is predicted to become the largest
employer in the national textile complex – is underdeveloped in North Carolina
(Figure 1). Some experts speculate that the decline in jobs will continue until there are
just 20,000 North Carolina workers employed by the sector (Eksten, 2002). Based on the
Bureau of Labor Statistics projections (Industry Output and Employment Projections,
n.d.), by 2012, combined employment in North Carolina’s textile complex will be
roughly 60,000-65,000 workers, reflecting a 50 percent decline from 2003.
This study illustrates how the textile complex in a single state has been affected by
the reality of a global economy. The results of the study demonstrate that the
differences in the structure of the state textile complex vs. that of the US as a whole had
a significant impact on its performance. Moreover, the results indicate that these
structural differences will to a large extent determine the future of North Carolina’s
textile complex development and employment trends. For instance, for the North
Carolina knitting mills industry group, where the value of shipments has decreased
faster than employment when compared to nationwide patterns, it will likely be a
challenge to remain competitive in the future.
Taking into account an on-going decline in textile complex employment, it is
important to develop an understanding of how the nature and structure of the
sector will be changing in the near future as well as for the long-term. This study
showed that during 1997-2003 the proportional size of the industries within the
North Carolina textile complex has not changed significantly despite the fact that
overall employment was reduced by almost half. In 2003, textile mills continued to
employ 61 percent of the total textile complex’s workforce, similar to 1997. There
was a slight shift in size with respect to the two other industries, in that textile
products mills employment increased from 10 to 13 percent, while the number of
jobs in apparel manufacturing dropped from 29 to 26 percent. This trend is in line
with the anticipated development of the textile complex as a whole (Industry
Output and Employment Projections, n.d.).
Alongside the need for further study of employment trends, an assessment is
needed of the types of jobs being cut. Hussain et al. (2002) point out that certain
occupations are in the process of disappearing, including textile draw-out machine
operators, textile machine setters/tenders, as well as sewing machine operators. More
studies that address job losses by occupation are needed. For example, Kessler (2002)
found that despite the decline in total apparel industry employment, white-collar
occupations involved in pre-production product development and post-production
Regional vs
national trends
223
merchandising and marketing are increasing in both absolute and proportional
numbers. Although beyond the scope of the present study, this type of examination
could be used to understand the extent to which design and distribution can soften the
blow caused by the loss of manufacturing.
Notes
1. Throughout this paper, the term textile complex includes three following industries: textile
mills (NAICS 313), textile products mills (NAICS 314), and apparel manufacturing (NAICS
315).
2. There are roughly 1,500 textile and apparel establishments located throughout the state.
Since the majority of these companies are privately held, public access to information on
their corporate performance is limited. Therefore, only data available to the general public
was used as the foundation for the analysis.
3. Value of product shipments includes not only products manufactured domestically but also
bought and sold by a company without further processing (Economic Census, 1997).
References
American Textile Manufacturers Institute (2001), “Crisis in US textiles”, Textile Industries,
September.
American Textile Manufacturers Institute (2002), The Scope and Importance of the US Textile
Industry. Economic information – 2002, available at: www.atmi.org/EconTradeData/
Spring2002.pdf
American Textile Manufacturers Institute (2003a), Year-End Economic Report: Textile Industry
Crisis Continued in 2003. 2004 to Be a Make or Break Year, available at: www.atmi.org/
Newsroom/Releases/yrend03.asp
American Textile Manufacturers Institute (2003b), Textile Job Losses, available at: www.atmi.
org/TheTextileCrisis/joblosses.html
American Textile Manufacturers Institute (2003c), Textile Plant Closings, available at: www.
atmi.org/TheTextileCrisis/PlantClosings.html
Annual Survey of Manufactures (19962001), Statistics for Industry Groups and Industries 2001
and Earlier Years, available at: www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/m01as-1.pdf
Current Employment Statistics Survey (1997/2003), Bureau of Labor Statistics, available at:
www.bls.gov/ces/home.htm
Doeringer, P. (2004), “Can fast fashion save the US apparel industry?”, paper presented at
Economics Seminar, UNCG, Greensboro, NC.
Economic Census (1997), available at: www.census.gov
Eksten, B. (2002), “Business as usual: fabric of economy can change”, Sunday Star-News,
November 17, Wilmington, NC, p. A1.
Franklin, C. (1995), “Industry output and employment projections to 2005”, Monthly Labor
Review, Vol. 118 No. 11, pp. 45-59.
Gaventa, J. and Smith, B. (1991), “The deindustrialization of the textile south: a case study”,
in Leiter, J., Sulman, M. and Zingraff, R. (Eds), Hanging by a Thread: Social Change in
Southern Textiles, Cornell University, New York, NY, pp. 181-96.
Gereffi, G. (2000), “The transformation of the North American apparel industry: is NAFTA a
curse or a blessing?”, Integration and Trade, Vol. 4 No. 11, pp. 47-95.
JFMM
10,2
224
Glass, B.D. (1992), The Textile Industry in North Carolina: A History, Division of Archives and
History, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Heisler, F. (2001), “VF to slash 13,000 jobs: restructuring class for closing more than 30 plants”,
News and Record, November 15, p. A1.
Heisler, E. (2002a), “Burlington industries to cut jobs, shut plants”, News and Record, January 11,
p. A1.
Heisler, E. (2002b), “Life after layoffs: a third of textile workers remain jobless”, News and Record
April 21, p. A1.
Holusha, J. (1996), “Squeezing the textile workers”, The New York Times, February 21,
pp. D1-D20.
Hussain, S., Mahmood, A. and Choudry, M. (2002), “North Carolina’s changing employment
pattern during 1975-2000 and outlook through 2008”, North Carolina’s Labor and
Economic Outlook, available at: www.ncesc.com/lmi/specialResearch/insight/Sept02.pdf
Jobs with Justice (2001), NAFTA’s Impact on North Carolina: Job Loss Has Led to Downward
Pressure on Wages and Living Standards, available at: www.jwj.org/global/FTAA01/
NAFTAreports.htm
Kessler, J. (2002), “The impact of North American economic integration on the Los Angeles
apparel industry”, in Gereffe, G., Spener, D. and Bair, J. (Eds), Free Trade and Uneven
Development in North American Industry after NAFTA, Temple University Press,
Philadelphia, PA, pp. 53-73.
Leiter, J., Sulman, M. and Zingraff, R. (1991), Hanging by a Thread: Social Change in Southern
Textiles, Cornell University, New York, NY.
Mecia, T. and Morganton, N.C. (2002), “Officials celebrate textile mill opening”, The Charlotte
Observer, Vol. 23, July.
Melkers, J.E., Rushing, R.W. and Sjoquist, D.L. (2001), An Analysis of Plant Closings in Georgia’s
Textile and Apparel Industries, School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, Atlanta,
GA, available at: http://frp.aysps.gsu.edu/frp/frpreports/report_60/rpt60text-final.htm
Mittlehauser, M. (1997), “Employment trends in textiles and apparel, 1973-2005”, Monthly Labor
Review, Vol. 120 No. 8, pp. 24-34.
Norris, L. (2003), “The human face of globalization: plant closings and life transitions”, Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 163-81.
North Carolina Employment Security Commission (1997/2003), Employment and Wages by
Industry, available at: www.ncesc.com/lmi/industry/industryMain.asp#industryWages
North Carolina Occupational Trends (n.d.), Employment by Major Industry Group, North
Carolina Employment Security Commission, available at: http://eslmi12.esc.state.nc.us/
projections/index.asp?Section=3
Office of Technology Assessment, US Congress (1987), The US Textile and Apparel Industry:
A Revolution in Progress-Special Report, US Government printing Office, Washington, DC.
Oh, H. and Suh, M.W. (2003), “What is happening to the US textile industry? Reflections on
NAFTA and US corporate strategies”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management,
Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 119-37.
Palpacuer, F. (2002), “Subcontracting networks in the New York City garment industry:
Changing characteristics in a global era”, in Gereffe, G., Spener, D. and Bair, J. (Eds), Free
Trade and Uneven Development in North American Industry after NAFTA, Temple
University Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Porter, M. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Macmillan Press, London, Ch. 4.
Regional vs
national trends
225
Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (19972003), Bureau of Labor Statistics, available at:
www.bls.gov/cew/home.htm
Rocha, C. (2001), “From plant closure to reemployment in the new economy: risks to workers
dislocated from declining garment manufacturing industry”, Journal of Sociology and
Social Welfare, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 53-74.
Scholler, K. (2002), Our Future in the Textile and Textile Machinery Industry, American Textile
Machinery Association, available at: www.atmanet.org/kurt_scholler__atma_chairman.
html
Taplin, I. (1999), “Continuity and change in the US apparel industry: a statistical profile”, Journal
of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 360-8.
Taplin, I. (2003), “The politics of industrial restructuring: NAFTA and beyond”, Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 111-18.
Tyler, D.J. (2003), “Will the real clothing industry please stand up!”, Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 231-4.
Zingraff, R. (1991), “Facing extinction?”, in Leiter, J., Sulman, M. and Zingraff, R. (Eds), Hanging
by a Thread: Social Change in Southern Textiles, Cornell University, New York, NY,
pp. 199-216.
Further reading
(The) Charlotte Observer (2001), “New plants in Charlotte, North Carolina area to make auto
upholstery”, The Charlotte Observer, December 5.
(The) Herald-Sun (2002), “North Carolina had second highest loss of jobs in manufacturing from
1997 to 2000”, The Herald-Sun Durham, NC, March 14, p. C8.
Industry Output and Employment Projections for the Year 2012 (n.d.), Bureau of Labor Statistics,
available at: www.bls.gov/emp/empind2.htm
North Carolina Manufacturers Directory (1996/2002), Harris Info Source, Twins, OH.
Corresponding author
Nancy Nelson Hodges can be contacted at: njnelson@uncg.edu
JFMM
10,2
226
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
