skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Government Projects and Subsidies: What are the Alternatives?
By Art Carden of EconLog.
"Repeat after the economics profession: resources are scarce, and they
have alternative uses. Thomas Sowell has said that this is the first
rule of economics. He has also said that the first rule of politics is
to ignore the first rule of economics, and this is perhaps nowhere more
obvious than in discussions of state and local development policy.
The state of Alabama has given hundreds of millions of dollars in
subsidies and tax breaks to auto manufacturers, and the city of
Birmingham has been talking for a long time about building a domed
stadium and expanding the convention center. I've seen $500 million
listed as a price tag for this venture, but I don't know that the city's
prospective commitment is that high.
"What else could we do with the money?" is the question too few people are asking. Questions about economic calculation
are important, but given that governments are doing these things in the
context of a market economy we can at least use a few benchmarks.
So how should governments evaluate their undertakings? Ignore public choice
considerations for just a second and indulge a flight of fancy. There
is a collective action problem that, in theory, could mean too few
stadiums and the like get produced and that could, in theory, mean that
government provision of stadiums and the like would make us all better
off. If Alabama, for example, is a better place to live because a
government spent $250 million to lure CarCo or to build a stadium, the
indirect benefits should be reflected in higher real estate prices and,
therefore, higher property tax revenues. The "intangible benefits" of
"putting Alabama on the map" or "becoming a big-league town" are more
tangible than they might at first appear because they will be
capitalized into real estate prices. Hence, we could estimate the
project's contribution to tax revenue in order to determine whether it's
actually creating value.
Of course, there are a lot of ways to use $250 million. A government
could fund a stadium, give it to a car company, cut taxes, pay for
better schools, or simply invest it in stocks and bonds. What is the
baseline to which we should compare government spending on economic
development, and how should we evaluate the outcomes?
I'm tempted to say we should evaluate taxes and spending by comparing
it to a program of investing in stocks, bonds, or a combination of the
two, distributing the proceeds, and relying on entrepreneurs to provide
the things governments currently provide. Essentially, we turn states
into big mutual funds. Stocks, though, are too risky while risk-free
bonds are too conservative. What benchmarks and metrics would you
propose?"
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.