The summer produced another flurry of best places studies. I suspect a doggedly diligent researcher could find that each of the 50 states can claim to be “the best place” for something important. As Mom said, we’re all special in our own way.

Confirmation for that comes from a 2005 study for the liberal Economic Policy Institute by University of Iowa professor Peter Fisher. Pondering the accuracy and significance of business climate rankings, he critically examined five then-popular indexes produced by regional and national think tanks.

“Thirty-four of the 50 states can claim that they are in the top 10 in terms of business climate or competitiveness,” he writes. “[T]hey just have to pick which of the five indexes they want to point to.”

He also looks at reports from Economy.com, Forbes, and Expansion Management magazine, noting that “we cannot critique these indexes in depth” because the owners consider the methodology proprietary.

Ranking industry growing
The rankings industry has grown since Fisher’s report. In the last few months I’ve seen rankings from a university research center, a popular business magazine, a cable network and two global consultancies.

A few weeks ago, the Bureau of Business Research at Ball State University ranked Washington the 25th-best state for manufacturing and logistics. The researchers looked at education, crime rates, business costs and research and development. Missouri, Utah and Florida ranked highest. We did relatively well on education, not so well on cost factors.

Taking a different approach, Development Counsellors International, a global economic development and marketing firm, surveyed corporate executives. Asked to select the most favorable business climates among the states, 41 percent of the 281 respondents selected Texas, 30 percent chose North Carolina, and 20 percent picked Georgia. Just 2 percent cited Washington. No data — just professionals’ perceptions.

As has been widely reported, Forbes recently ranked Washington as the third-best state for business. As Fisher noted, the magazine does not fully disclose its methodology. Washington ranked near the top on clusters, including labor quality and availability, transportation, bond ratings, and growth prospects. We were near the middle of the pack on business costs and, oddly, quality of life.

Forbes vs. CNBC
Forbes’ rankings differed considerably from another media assessment, CNBC’s ranking of “top states for business.” On that one Washington tied with New Jersey for 18th place. Texas, Virginia and Utah were the top three. Our state did well on access to capital, technology and innovation and quality of life. We fared poorly on costs and “business friendliness.”

KPMG, an international consulting firm, recently examined the taxes imposed on business by 35 major international metropolitan areas. Seattle ranked among the biggest taxers, coming in at 27th (ranked from least to most expensive).

Other studies seem to be released on a weekly basis. These things proliferate like Scotch broom — and like the weed, they can be both colorful and pernicious.

There’s no definitive study, just as there’s no single “business climate.” What makes a place good for manufacturing may not be equally advantageous for biotech. Land costs may matter more for some, while others place more value on proximity to research universities.

Catchalls
Catchalls like “quality of life,” regulation and education are measured differently depending on the evaluator’s biases. Typically, the more specific the analysis, the better. Industry-focused research, like the BSU manufacturing study, will generally be better at capturing relevant information than a general business climate assessment. Academic research is more credible than most media analyses because of the value universities place on transparency and peer review. While data and statistics matter, so do the perceptions of site selection and economic development consultants.

Finally, because conditions vary dramatically within a state, metro-area reports are often more useful than statewide reports. State policies matter most when we consider how they influence business costs and labor markets.

Washington has high costs
Strikingly, the disparate evaluations confirm that Washington’s a high-cost state at a time when global competition, a still-weak dollar and a sluggish economy make cost considerations highly salient. That’s a problem.

The “best places” game provides a little diversion, confers temporary bragging rights, and provides some useful information. But the rankings themselves don’t mean much.

That’s why eight years ago, the Washington Alliance for a Competitive Economy chose not to create a business climate index. Instead, we came up with the Competitiveness Redbook, a set of indicators addressing business costs, labor quality and availability, housing affordability, education, and much more. The 2008 edition includes 54 tables. Next month, we’ll be releasing the 2009 edition with even more information.

Better than any single ranking table, the Redbook allows analysts and business people to consider the factors that are important to them and evaluate how our state competes on those criteria.

It’s not as cool as a headline screaming, “We’re number one!” but it’s a lot more accurate and useful.