The 2016 campaign: Good governor, good president?

The 2016 presidential campaign is well underway, and the candidates are touting their economic agendas — or in Donald Trump's case, his record of creating wealth.

Given the conflicting claims, we have a unique opportunity to compare the economic records of 10 candidates who are current or former state governors. These men (they are all men) were the chief executive officers of states that range in size from Rhode Island to Texas. How well did they perform as CEOs in managing the economies of their states?

Here is the list of presidential candidates who are current or former state governors:

Jeb Bush, Republican, governor of Florida, 1999-2007.

Mike Huckabee, Republican, governor of Arkansas, 1996-2007.

George Pataki, Republican, governor of New York, 1995-2006.

Lincoln Chafee, Democrat, governor of Rhode Island, 2011-2014.

Chris Christie, Republican, governor of New Jersey, 2010-present.

Bobby Jindal, Republican, governor of Louisiana, 2008-present.

John Kasich, Republican, governor of Ohio, 2011-present.

Martin O'Malley, Democrat, governor of Maryland, 2007-2015.

Rick Perry, Republican, governor of Texas, 2000-2015.

Scott Walker, Republican, governor of Wisconsin, 2011-present.

The economic performance of states can be evaluated in many ways, but per capita income should be on any scorecard. An effective governor should be able to implement policies that help increase the total economic pie (divided by the total state population). Of course, this measure doesn't tell us anything about the distribution of income — that is, who shares how much of the economic pie. But making the pie relatively larger should count as an accomplishment.

Because per capita income is generally increasing over time all across the United States, we also need a benchmark against which to measure and compare the governors' economic performance. My benchmark is per capita income across the whole U.S.

I collected information from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and calculated the ratio of per capita income in each state to per capita income in the whole U.S. Then I examined the ratios of each state run by the 10 candidates who are current or former governors in the year they took office and the year they left office (or in 2014 for those still in office). By subtracting the earlier ratio from the later ratio, we can determine whether the state's economic performance improved or worsened during the governor's term in office.

Perry is the winner in this race. During his term in office, Texans' per capita income climbed from 94 to 98 percent of the U.S. average. Christie is the clear loser. Under his leadership, New Jersey per capita income slipped from 127 to 123 percent of the U.S. average.

Overall, except for Christie, it appears that the 10 present or former governors contending for the presidency were average or above-average stewards of their states' economies.

Policies enacted during a governor's term may have longer-term consequences for the state after he leaves office. For example, Walker's attack on state employee unions in Wisconsin is likely to have long-term consequences — although his defenders and detractors disagree on what those consequences will be.

Altogether, four of the presidential aspirants are still in office and three more left office recently, so it is too early to evaluate the long-term consequences of their governorships. However, three former governors (Pataki, Huckabee and Bush) have been out of office for five years or more. Five years seems a reasonable length of time over which to suppose that a governor's policies could remain a key factor, good or bad, in a state's economic results.

Per capita incomes in Pataki's New York and Huckabee's Arkansas continued to increase relative to the U.S. average five years after they left office. But Florida's ranking slipped from 99 percent when Bush left office in 2007 to 94 percent in 2012, raising questions about his legacy.

In a related fashion, it could be that the economy of a state was improving before a governor took office. In other words, some of these men may have been lucky to catch a rising wave and ride it, even though they didn't have anything to do with its ascent. To check on this alternative explanation, I calculated the changes in income ratios during the five-year periods before these governors took office.

Based on this comparison, it appears that Jindal enjoyed a strong economic tail wind when he took office in Louisiana in 2008. Between 2003 and 2008, Louisiana's economic performance had increased from 82 to 92 percent of the national average. So holding it at 92 percent during his term may be a subpar record. Chafee also benefited from rising economic performance in Rhode Island before he took office.

However, Pataki took office following five years in which New Yorkers' per capita income had slipped from 123 to 117 percent of the national average. So his term in office improves by the comparison.

Although my approach is widely used in economic studies, I cannot rule out "confounding" by favorable or unfavorable events that hit certain states at times coinciding with the governors' terms. For example, Christie's performance may be handicapped by the damage from Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Also, the drop in Florida's economic performance after Bush left office may be due to the housing bust, which hit Florida hard. Meanwhile, Pataki benefited from the expansion in New York City's financial-services industry during the run-up in stock prices before 2000.

But while special events may affect the states' ratings, their overall importance is small or it washes out. Hurricane Sandy caused about $30 billion of damage in New Jersey, but the Federal Reserve Bank of New York concluded that "much of the economic activity disrupted by the storm was likely made up later in the calendar quarter or shifted geographically; moreover, rebuilding and restoration of key services constitute economic activity that otherwise would not have occurred."

Bush, meanwhile, benefited from the housing bubble while he was in office, offsetting the later negative effect of the bursting bubble. And Pataki was penalized by the crash of the dot.com bubble in 2000.

It's worth taking a closer look at the economic performance of New York and Texas, states run by Republican governors who faced different circumstances.

Pataki was elected governor of New York in 1994 and was re-elected to two more terms. He tried to steer New York away from its reliance on heavy taxes and high spending. He advocated tax cuts and cuts in education, state employees' pensions and health care funding. He feuded with the New York legislature over the budget-setting powers of the legislature and governor. During his term, Moody's Investors Service increased New York's credit rating three times, and Pataki left office with the state employees' pension plan fully funded, a rarity among public pensions. Pataki made a point of being tough on crime, but he took a liberal position on gay rights and abortion.

While Pataki worked to reduce the economic role of government in his state, Perry delighted in keeping Texas aimed at the Republican sweet spot of small government, low taxes and business-friendly regulations. The Economist magazine compared his approach to that of a low-budget airline: "offering a minimal service that is safe and reliable, then letting consumers pay for frills and extras if they like." Under Perry's leadership, the Texas economy boomed. Five of the 10 fastest-growing cities in the U.S. are in Texas, and Houston will soon overtake Chicago as the third-largest U.S. city. Critics claim that Texas's growth hides gaping inequalities in wealth and that it is due to fortuitous events such as the boom in oil prices and cheap immigrant labor. Perry also was lucky to have a compliant legislature that supported his policies. He defends his record with the rejoinder that "Americans don't move to crappy places." And if they don't like Texas, they can move to California.

Pataki and Perry are far back in the pack of Republican contenders for president. Their odds of winning the nomination would make a good long-shot bet in Las Vegas. Donald Trump, meanwhile, has captured the early enthusiasm of Republican voters, in part because of his self-styled claim to be a wealth creator.

The real story is very different. Trump has become rich by borrowing huge sums of money, taking a cut for himself and losing the rest for other people through bankruptcy. He has destroyed more wealth than a small-scale war.

I am not advocating for Govs. Pataki or Perry. Not everyone shares their vision of government, and the skills required to run the whole county are different from those required to be a successful state leader. Nevertheless, these two former governors deserve a look — their records say so.

Roger Feldman is an economics professor at the University of Minnesota.