Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION
Posted: 07/24/2013 1:00 AM | Comments: 0
Winnipeg's Buhler Industries -- Canada's last farm-equipment manufacturer -- got a dose of good news Tuesday when Export Development Canada approved a $20-million line of credit.
The announcement, at first blush, seems to be positive. Buhler is a prominent Winnipeg employer, with about 800 employees locally. The money helps Buhler expand overseas sales and keep Canada a player in the international farm-equipment market.
Not everyone sees it that way. The Vancouver-based Fraser Institute -- a conservative think-tank -- released a report the same day condemning government support to business.
The report revealed Ottawa has contributed $22 billion in loans and grants to Canadian businesses since 1961. No matter how you look at that number, it's pretty astounding. But what does it actually mean?
The Fraser Institute argues accepting grants or loans from government is a worst practice for Canadian business. In fact, it points out the gross majority of Canada's largest employers have never taken government largesse to get to where they are today.
"Peer-reviewed research does not support many claims advanced by federal politicians and other proponents... that corporate welfare is responsible for economic growth or job creation," the report concludes. "In fact, the companies with the highest employee counts -- most of which do not take subsidies -- are real-world examples of companies that have not needed taxpayer assistance to create jobs."
To give credit where credit is due, this is a good subject to study and at its most basic level, there is some good stuff in the report. We cannot escape the fact there have been some bad investments by government in the private sector. However, as is so often the case with Fraser Institute research, this study fails in two profound ways.
First, it does not dig deeply enough into the subject matter to differentiate between good and bad investments; and second, it draws conclusions the findings don't support.
For example, the institute argues because most of Canada's largest employers do not accept corporate welfare, it is unnecessary. However, Canada has more than 18 million people in its workforce. At most, the largest employers who have shunned corporate welfare represent about 1.3 million jobs. It does not list the number of employees employed in companies that have accepted government loans and grants, nor does it attempt to assess the value of the companies, or the wages paid.
The study also fails to acknowledge many of our most profitable, high-value industries -- aerospace, oil and gas, automotive -- were established with government subsidies. The fact is economies do not care where a dollar of investment comes from. Economies are a blend of public- and private-sector investment. Canada is split fairly evenly, with about half of GDP generated by each of the public and private sectors. Nordic countries generate as much as 80 per cent of their GDP from public-sector activity; others such as the United States rely more heavily on the private sector for growth.
In empirical terms, however, a dollar invested, regardless of its source, produces growth. This is particularly true of employment; a dollar spent hiring a worker has the same impact regardless of whether it's public or private.
David Macdonald, chief economist for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, admits he is not a fan of government subsidies to business. That having been said, he also noted his dislike of this type of investment does not change the fact each dollar invested -- whether by government or a private company -- can produce about $1.50 in economic growth, Macdonald said. There are factors that limit the impact of the investment, he added.
Money spent on direct employment has the biggest economic return, Macdonald said. However, if the money is being used to buy building materials or machinery from outside the jurisdiction in which the investment is being made, the spinoffs are considerably less. This is what economists call "leakage."
The impact could also be eroded depending on whether the company is publicly traded, or privately owned. Or, whether the company is Canadian-owned and located, or multinational.
The Fraser Institute specifically fails to draw any of these lines in its analysis. Just as it fails to deal with the real elephant in this debate: tax cuts.
Remarkably, the institute admits it excluded "tax reductions, deductions, credits or exemptions" for businesses even while conceding "preferential tax treatment... mimics subsidies." That is, for the institute, an assertion too far.
If you created a list of potential government investments, with the ones that created the biggest economic bang at the top, tax cuts would go at the bottom. Tax cuts provide the biggest benefit to high-income earners, who tend to save money rather than spend it, which limits economic impact. The same is true for corporations. Cutting taxes for an already-profitable corporation may boost earnings, share prices and dividends, and that will benefit those lucky enough to own stocks in that company. But it leads to less growth.
Running through the narrative of the Fraser Institute's research is an assumption lower taxes and smaller government make for a better economy. In fact, lower taxes and smaller government mean better conditions for one segment of the population; it is much harder to make the argument this model makes for a better economy.
We are better off for knowing how much money Canada has spent providing grants and loans to businesses. We are still waiting for a more definitive verdict on what it really means.
Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition July 24, 2013 B5
Have you found an error, or know of something we’ve missed in one of our stories? Please use the form below and let us know.
Having problems with the form?Contact Us Directly
ISIL mission to extend, expand after MPs vote
NDP MLAs invited to sign 'pledge of solidarity'
Demolitions planned to make way for new Hydro substation
Terror bill changes not enough for critics
Plane was airborne again after initial impact
Does Canada have the stomach for war?
Trudeau's museum sketch boosts party donations
Rapist out on parole when he attacked again, court hears
Goldeyes welcome two new pitchers
Extra lump sum award coming for wounded vets
Marathon bombing jurors see carnage photos, prosecutors rest
Cliffhanger in early returns from Nigeria presidential vote
Study finds quarter of hockey helmets tested unsafe
No 'narsisstics': Music festivals ban fans' selfie sticks
Tories want internal CFS report on Tina Fontaine released
Jets trying to put tough loss against Hawks behind them
Two men from Kenora killed in snowmobile collision around Hillock Creek, off Hwy 71
Deadline extended for True North to finalize deal for 220 Carlton site
Semi-trailer rollover on McGillivray and Perimeter
Scientists say Internet and ADHD connected, but they can't... ooh, shiny thing!
Ex-director faces theft charge
South African comic Noah will replace Jon Stewart
Here are seven things to do in Winnipeg next week
Portage Terriers goalie Justin Laforest posts high save percentage in MJHL
Using sex to recruit for college sports
Five charged after drugs seized in The Pas
German co-pilot was once treated for suicidal tendencies
Man fined for publishing victim's name
RRC instructor's attacker charged with breaching probation
Students to protest U of W's fossil fuel holdings
Pull suicide into light of day
Pulling rails possible - but one certainty is feds would need to pony up
Simmons wins again at men's curling worlds
Lawless in the Morning (March 30): Jets believe they belong
108th Winter Fair kicks off in Brandon today
Ski safety an uphill battle
Come see new bear on spring break
The first rule of art appreciation is to talk about art
Rhino rampages in Nepal city, killing 1 and injuring several
Winnipeg's budget, recycled