Category Archives: Government-Granted Privilege

The unseen costs of Amazon’s HQ2 Site Selection

Earlier this year Amazon narrowed down the list of potential cities to site its second headquarters. Applicants are now waiting out the selection process. It’s unclear when Amazon will make its choice, but that hasn’t stopped many from speculating who the likely contenders are. Varying sources report Atlanta, Boston, and Washington D.C. at the top of the list. The cities that didn’t make the cut are no doubt envious of the finalists, having just missed out on the potential for a $5 billion facility and 50,000 jobs. The second HQ is supposed to be as significant for economic growth as the company’s first site, which according to Amazon’s calculations contributed an additional $38 billion to Seattle’s economy between 2010 and 2016. There is clearly a lot to be gained by the winner.  But there are also many costs. Whichever city ends up winning the bid will be changed forever. What’s left out of the discussion is how the bidding process and corporate incentives affect the country.

Although the details of the proposals are not made public, each finalist is likely offering some combination of tax breaks, subsidies, and other incentives in return for the company’s choice to locate in their city. The very bidding process necessitates a lot of time and effort by many parties. It will certainly seem “worth it” to the winning party, but the losers aren’t getting back the time and effort they spent.

This practice of offering incentives for businesses has been employed by states and localities for decades, with increased usage over time. Targeted economic development incentives can take the form of tax exemptions, abatements, regulatory relief, and taxpayer assistance. They are but one explicit cost paid by states and cities looking to secure business, and there is a growing literature that suggests these policies are more costly than meets the eye.

First, there’s the issue of economic freedom. Recent Mercatus research suggests that there may be a tradeoff to offering economic development incentives like the ones that Amazon is receiving. Economists John Dove and Daniel Sutter find that states that spend more on targeted development incentives as a percentage of gross state product also have less overall economic freedom. The theoretical reasoning behind this is not very clear, but Dove and Sutter propose that it could be because state governments that use more subsidies or tax breaks to attract businesses will also spend more or raise taxes for everyone else in their state, resulting in less equitable treatment of their citizens and reducing overall economic freedom.

The authors define an area as having more economic freedom if it has lower levels of government spending, taxation, and labor market restrictions. They use the Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of North America Index (EFNA) to measure this. Of the three areas within the EFNA index, labor market freedom is the most affected by targeted economic development incentives. This means that labor market regulation such as the minimum wage, government employment, and union density are all significantly related to the use of targeted incentives.

Economic freedom can be ambiguous, however, and it’s sometimes hard to really grasp its impact on our lives. It sounds nice in theory, but because of its vagueness, it may not seem as appealing as a tangible economic development incentive package and the corresponding business attached to it. Economic freedom is associated with a series of other, more tangible benefits, including higher levels of income and faster economic growth. There’s also evidence that greater economic freedom is associated with urban development.

Not only is the practice of offering targeted incentives associated with lower economic freedom, but it is also indicative of other issues. Economists Peter Calcagno and Frank Hefner have found that states with budget issues, high tax and regulatory burdens, and poorly trained labor forces are also more likely to offer targeted incentives as a way to offset costly economic conditions. Or, in other words, targeted development incentives can be – and often are – used to compensate for a less than ideal business climate. Rather than reform preexisting fiscal or regulatory issues within a state, the status quo and the use of targeted incentives is the more politically feasible option.

Perhaps the most concerning aspect of Amazon’s bidding process is the effect it has on our culture. Ideally, economic development policy should be determined by healthy economic competition between states. In practice, it has evolved into more of an unhealthy interaction between private interests and political favor. Economists Joshua Jansa and Virginia Gray refer to this as cultural capture. They find increases in business political contributions to be positively correlated with state subsidy spending. Additionally, they express concern over the types of firms that these subsidies attract. There is a selection bias for targeted incentives to systematically favor “flighty firms” or firms that will simply relocate if better subsidies are offered by another state, or potentially threaten to leave in an effort to extract more subsidies.

None of these concerns even address the question of whether targeted incentives actually achieve their intended goals.  The evidence does not look good. In a review of the literature by my colleague Matthew Mitchell, and me, we found that of the studies that evaluate the effect of targeted incentives on the broader economy, only one study found a positive effect, whereas four studies found unanimously negative effects. Thirteen studies (half of the sample) found no statistically significant effect, and the remaining papers found mixed results in which some companies or industries won, but at the expense of others.

In addition to these unseen costs on the economy, some critics are beginning to question whether being chosen by Amazon is even worth it. Amazon’s first headquarters has been considered a catalyst for the city’s tech industry, but local government and business leaders have raised concerns about other possibly related issues such as gentrification, rising housing prices, and persistent construction and traffic congestion. There is less research on this, but it is worth considering.

It is up to each city’s policymakers to decide whether these trade-offs are worth it. I would argue, however, that much of the evidence points to targeted incentives – like the ones that cities are using to attract Amazon’s business – as having more costs than benefits. Targeted economic development incentives may seem to offer a lot of tangible benefits, but their unseen costs should not be overlooked. From the perspective of how they benefit each state’s economy as a whole, targeted incentives are detrimental to economic freedom as well as our culture surrounding corporate handouts. Last but not least, they may often be an attempt to cover up other issues that are unattractive to businesses.

Mutant Capitalism rears its ugly head in Arlington

Confectionery-giant Nestlé plans to move its U.S. headquarters from California to 1812 North Moore in the Rosslyn area of Arlington in the next few years. This should be great news for the people of Arlington—a world-famous company has decided that Arlington County is the best place to be in the U.S. This must be due to our educated workforce and high quality of life, right?

Maybe. The real attraction might also be the $6 million of state handouts to Nestlé, along with an additional $6 million from Arlington County. Government handouts like these have become a way of life in the U.S. even though the results are often underwhelming.

Federal programs such as the New Markets Tax Credit Program have had at best small effects on economic development, and there is a good chance they just reallocate economic activity from one place to another rather than generate new economic activity. Local programs like Tax Increment Financing appear to largely reallocate economic activity as well. These programs might be good for the neighborhood or city that gets the handout, but it doesn’t help the residents of nearby places who are forced to contribute via their tax dollars.

In the Nestlé case, all of Virginia’s taxpayers are paying for Nestlé to locate in Arlington, which already has a relatively strong economy and is one of the wealthiest counties in Virginia. Why should taxpayers in struggling counties such as Buchanan or Dickenson County be forced to subsidize a company in Arlington? Government handouts to firms are often regressive since companies rarely want to locate in areas with a low-skill—and thus low-income—workforce. Everyone pays, but the most economically successful areas get the benefits.

Government officials often praise the jobs that these deals create and the Nestlé deal is no different: According to the performance agreement, Nestlé must create and maintain 748 new full-time jobs. And even if we ignore the fact that jobs are an economic cost, not a benefit, a closer look reveals that projections and reality usually diverge. For example, Buffalo awarded hundreds of millions of dollars to SolarCity, which promised to create 5,000 jobs. They have since revised that number down to 1,460. There are numerous other examples where the cost per job turned out to be higher than initially projected.

The grant performance agreement also estimates that Nestlé will provide $18.2 million in taxes to the county over the next 10 years, more than enough to offset the grant expenditure. But this doesn’t take into account what would have happened absent the handout. Perhaps some other company would have relocated here for free. Or a local company, or collection of companies, would have eventually rented out the space.

Government grants may also distort the real estate market: There’s a good chance no company had occupied 1812 North Moore because the rent was too high. If so, part of this grant is a handout to the owners of the building, Monday Properties, since now it does not have to lower its rent to attract a tenant. This may lead other property companies to lobby for and expect government handouts to help them find tenants.

Government grants often distort the economy by treating out-of-state companies differently than in-state companies. They encourage relocation by subsidizing it, which discourages expansion. A better strategy is to create a simple, non-intrusive business environment that treats all businesses equally.

Government grants are a characteristic of what my colleague Chris Koopman calls Mutant Capitalism and are antithetical to real capitalism and free enterprise. Capitalism involves businesses competing for consumers on an even playing field—there is no room for government favors that tilt the playing field towards one business or another.

High-speed rail: is this year different?

Many U.S. cities are racing to develop high speed rail systems that shorten commute times and develop the economy for residents. These trains are able to reach speeds over 124 mph, sometimes even as high as 374 mph as in the case of Japan’s record-breaking trains. Despite this potential, American cities haven’t quite had the success of other countries. In 2009, the Obama administration awarded almost a billion dollars of stimulus money to Wisconsin to build a high-speed rail line connection between Milwaukee and Madison, and possibly to the Twin Cities, but that project was derailed. Now, the Trump administration has plans to support a high-speed rail project in Texas. Given so many failed attempts in the U.S., it’s fair to ask if this time is different. And if it is, will high-speed rail bring the benefits that proponents claim it to have?

The argument for building high-speed rail lines usually entails promises of faster trips, better connections between major cities, and economic growth as a result. It almost seems like a no-brainer – why would any city not want to pursue something like this? The answer, like with most public policy questions, depends on the costs, and whether the benefits actually realize.

In a forthcoming paper for the Mercatus Center, transportation scholar Kenneth Button explores these questions by studying the high-speed rail experiences of Spain, Japan, and China; the countries with the three largest systems (measured by network length). Although there are benefits to these rail systems, Button cautions against focusing too narrowly on them as models, primarily because what works in one area can’t necessarily be easily replicated in another.

Most major systems in other countries have been the result of large public investment and built with each area’s unique geography and political environment kept in mind. Taking their approaches and trying to apply them to American cities not only ignores how these factors can differ, but also how much costs can differ. For example, the average infrastructure unit price of high-speed rail in Europe is between $17 and $24 million per mile and the estimated cost for proposals in California is conservatively estimated at $35 million per mile.

The cost side of the equation is often overlooked, and more attention is given to the benefit side. Button explains that the main potential benefit – generating economic growth – doesn’t always live up to expectations. The realized growth effects are usually minimal, and sometimes even negative. Despite this, proponents of high-speed rail oversell them. The process of thinking through high-speed rail as a sound public investment is often short-lived.

The goal is to generate new economic activity, not merely replace or divert it from elsewhere. In Japan, for example, only six percent of the traffic on the Sanyo Shinkansen line was newly generated, while 55 percent came from other rail lines, 23 percent from air, and 16 percent from inter-city bus. In China, after the Nanguang and Guiguang lines began operating in 2014, a World Bank survey found that many of the passengers would have made the journey along these commutes through some other form of transportation if the high-speed rail option wasn’t there. The passengers who chose this new transport method surely benefited from shorter travel times, but this should not be confused with net growth across the economy.

Even if diverted away from other transport modes, the amount of high-speed rail traffic Japan and China have generated is commendable. Spain’s system, however, has not been as successful. Its network has only generated about 5 percent of Japan’s passenger volume. A line between Perpignan, France and Figueres, Spain that began services in 2009 severely fell short of projected traffic. Originally, it was expected to run 19,000 trains per year, but has only reached 800 trains by 2015.

There is also evidence that high speed rail systems poorly re-distribute activity geographically. This is especially concerning given the fact that projects are often sold on a promise of promoting regional equity and reducing congestion in over-heating areas. You can plan a track between well-developed and less-developed regions, but this does not guarantee that growth for both will follow. The Shinkansen system delivers much of Japan’s workforce to Tokyo, for example, but does not spread much employment away from the capital. In fact, faster growth happened where it was already expected, even before the high-speed rail was planned or built. Additionally, the Tokyo-Osaka Shinkansan line in particular has strengthened the relative economic position of Tokyo and Osaka while weakening those of cities not served.

Passenger volume and line access are not – and should not be – the only metrics of success. Academics have exhibited a fair amount of skepticism regarding high-speed rail’s ability to meet other objectives. When it comes to investment value, many cases have resulted in much lower returns than expected. A recent, extreme example of this is California’s bullet train that is 50 percent over its planned budget; not to mention being seven years behind in its building schedule.

The project in California has been deemed a lost cause by many, but other projects have gained more momentum in the past year. North American High Speed Rail Group has proposed a rail line between Rochester and the Twin Cities, and if it gets approval from city officials, it plans to finance entirely with private money. The main drawback of the project is that it would require the use of eminent domain to take the property of existing businesses that are in the way of the planned line path. Private companies trying to use eminent domain to get past a roadblock like this often do so claiming that it is for the “public benefit.” Given that many residents have resisted the North American High Speed Rail Group’s plans, trying to force the use of eminent domain would likely only destroy value; reallocating property from a higher-value to a lower-value use.

Past Mercatus research has found that using eminent domain powers for redevelopment purposes – i.e. by taking from one private company and giving to another – can cause the tax base to shrink as a result of decreases in private investment. Or in other words, when entrepreneurs see that the projects that they invest in could easily be taken if another business owner makes the case to city officials, it would in turn discourage future investors from moving into the same area. This ironically discourages development and the government’s revenues suffer as a result.

Florida’s Brightline might have found a way around this. Instead of trying to take the property of other businesses and homes in its way, the company has raised money to re-purpose existing tracks already between Miami and West Palm Beach. If implemented successfully, this will be the first privately run and operated rail service launched in the U.S. in over 100 years. And it doesn’t require using eminent domain or the use of taxpayer dollars to jump-start that, like any investment, has risk of being a failure; factors that reduce the cost side of the equation from the public’s perspective.

Which brings us back to the Houston-to-Dallas line that Trump appears to be getting behind. How does that plan stack up to these other projects? For one, it would require eminent domain to take from rural landowners in order to build a line that would primarily benefit city residents. Federal intervention would require picking a winner and loser at the offset. Additionally, there is no guarantee that building of the line would bring about the economic development that many proponents promise. Button’s new paper suggests that it’s fair to be skeptical.

I’m not making the argument that high-speed rail in America should be abandoned altogether. Progress in Florida demonstrates that maybe in the right conditions and with the right timing, it could be cost-effective. The authors of a 2013 study echo this by writing:

“In the end, HSR’s effect on economic and urban development can be characterized as analogous to a fertilizer’s effect on crop growth: it is one ingredient that could stimulate economic growth, but other ingredients must be present.”

For cities that can’t seem to mix up the right ingredients, they can look to other options for reaching the same goals. In fact, a review of the economic literature finds that investing in road infrastructure is a much better investment than other transportation methods like airports, railways, or ports. Or like I’ve discussed previously, being more welcoming to new technologies like driver-less cars has the potential to both reduce congestion and generate significant economic gains.

New York’s Buffalo Billion initiative has been underwhelming

New York’s Buffalo Billion plan has come under fire amidst an ongoing corruption probe looking into whether some contracts were inappropriately awarded to political donors. The investigation has led to funding delays and there are reports of some contractors and companies rethinking their investments. But even without these legal problems, it is unlikely that the Buffalo Billion initiative will remake Buffalo’s economy.

Buffalo, NY has been one of America’s struggling cities since the 1950s, but before then it had a long history of growth. After it became the terminal point of the Erie Canal in 1825 it grew rapidly; over the next 100 years the city’s population went from just under 9,000 to over 570,000. Growth slowed down from 1930 to 1950, and between 1950 and 1960 the city lost nearly 50,000 people. It has been losing population ever since. The Metropolitan Area (MSA), which is the economic city, continued to grow until the 1970s as people left the central city for the surrounding suburbs, but it has also been losing population since then. (click to enlarge figure)

buffalo-population

Buffalo’s population decline has not escaped the notice of local, state and federal officials, and billions of dollars in government aid have been given to the area in an effort to halt or reverse its population and economic slide. The newest attempt is Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Buffalo Billion, which promises to give $1 billion of state funds to the region. The investment began in 2013 and as of January 2016, $870.5 million worth of projects have been announced. The table below lists some of the projects, the amount of the investment, and the number of jobs each investment is supposed to create, retain, or induce (includes indirect jobs due to construction and jobs created by subsequent private investment). This information is from the Buffalo Billion Process and Implementation plan (henceforth Buffalo Billion Plan).

buffalo-billion-projects

The projects listed have been awarded $727 million in direct investment, $150 million in tax breaks and $250 million in other state funds. The total number of jobs related to these investments is 9,900 according to the documentation, for an average cost of $113,859 per job (last column).

However, these jobs numbers are projections, not actual counts. This is one of the main criticisms of investment efforts like Buffalo Billion—a lot of money is spent and a lot of jobs are promised, but rarely does anyone follow up to see if the jobs were actually created. In this case it remains to be seen whether reality will match the promises, but the early signs are not encouraging.

Executives of the first project, SolarCity, which received $750 million of benefits and promised 5,000 jobs in western New York, appear to have already scaled back their promise. One company official recently said that 1,460 jobs will be created in Buffalo, including 500 manufacturing jobs. This is down from 2,000 in the Buffalo Billion Plan, a 27% decrease.

The SolarCity factory is not scheduled to open until June 2017 so there is still time for hiring plans to change. But even if the company eventually creates 5,000 jobs in the area, it is hard to see how that will drastically improve the economy of an MSA of over 1.1 million people. Moreover, page eight of the Buffalo Billion Plan reports that the entire $1 billion is only projected to create 14,000 jobs over the course of 5 years, which is again a relatively small amount for such a large area.

Contrary to the local anecdotes that say otherwise, so far there is little evidence that Buffalo Billion has significantly impacted the local economy. Since the recession, employment in Buffalo and its MSA has barely improved, as shown below (data are from the BLS). There has also been little improvement since 2013 when the Buffalo Billion development plan was released. (City data plotted on the right axis, MSA on the left axis.)

buffalo-employment

Real wages in both Erie and Niagara County, the two counties that make up the Buffalo MSA, have also been fairly stagnant since the recession, though there is evidence of some improvement since 2013, particularly in Erie County (data are from the BLS). Still, it is hard to separate these small increases in employment and wages from the general recovery that typically occurs after a deep recession.

buffalo-county-wages

The goal of the Buffalo Billion is to create a “Big Push” that leads to new industry clusters, such as a green energy cluster anchored by SolarCity and an advanced manufacturing cluster. Unfortunately, grandiose plans to artificially create clusters in older manufacturing cities rarely succeed.

As economist Enrico Moretti notes in his book, The New Geography of Jobs, in order for Big Push policies to succeed they need to attract both workers and firms at the same time. This is hard to do since either workers or firms need to be convinced that the other group will eventually arrive if they make the first move.

If firms relocate but high-skill workers stay away, then the firm has spent scarce resources locating in an area that doesn’t have the workforce it needs. If workers move but firms stay away, then the high-skill workers are left with few employment opportunities. Neither situation is sustainable in the long-run.

The use of targeted incentives to attract firms, as in the aforementioned SolarCity project, has been shown to be an ineffective way to grow a regional economy. While such incentives often help some firms at the expense of others, they do not provide broader benefits to the economy as a whole. The mobile firms attracted by such incentives, called footloose firms, are also likely to leave once the incentives expire, meaning that even if there is a short term boost it will be expensive to maintain since the incentives will have to be renewed.

Also, in order for any business to succeed state and local policies need to support, rather than inhibit, economic growth. New York has one of the worst economic environments according to several different measures: It’s 50th in overall state freedom, 50th in economic freedom, and 49th in state business tax climate. New York does well on some other measures, such as Kauffman’s entrepreneurship rankings, but such results are usually driven by the New York City area, which is an economically vibrant area largely due to historical path dependencies and agglomeration economies. Buffalo, and western New York in general, lacks the same innate and historical advantages and thus has a harder time overcoming the burdensome tax and regulatory policies of state government, which are particularly harmful to the local economies located near state borders.

Buffalo officials can control some things at the local level that will improve their economic environment, such as zoning, business licensing, and local taxes, but in order to achieve robust economic growth the city will likely need better cooperation from state officials.

State and local policy makers often refuse to acknowledge the harm that relatively high-tax, high-regulation environments have on economic growth, and this prevents them from making policy changes that would foster more economic activity. Instead, politicians invest billions of dollars of taxpayer money, often in the form of ineffective targeted incentives to favored firms or industries, with the hope that this time will be different.

Discovering an areas comparative advantage and creating a sustainable industry cluster or clusters requires experimentation, which will likely result in some failures. Local and state governments should create an environment that encourages entrepreneurs to experiment with new products and services in their region, but they shouldn’t be risking taxpayer money picking winners and losers. Creating a low-tax, low-regulation environment that treats all businesses—established and start-up, large and small—the same is a better way to grow an economy than government subsidies to favored firms. Unfortunately the Buffalo Billion project looks like another example of the latter futile strategy.

Does the New Markets Tax Credit Program work?

Location-based programs that provide tax credits to firms and investors that locate in particular areas are popular among politicians of both parties. Democrats tend to support them because they are meant to revitalize poorer or rural areas. In a recent speech about the economy, presumed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton spoke favorably about two of them: the New Markets Tax Credit Program and Empowerment Zones.

Some Republicans also support such programs, which they view as being a pro-business way to help low-income communities. However, House Speaker Paul Ryan’s recent tax reform blueprint generally disapproves of tax credit programs.

Due to the volume of location-based programs and their relatively narrow objectives, many taxpayers are unfamiliar with their differences or unaware that they even exist. This is to be expected since most people are never directly affected by one. In this post I explain one that Hillary Clinton recently spoke about, the New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) program.

The NMTC program was created in 2000 as part of the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act. It is managed by the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, which is a division of the U.S. Treasury Department.

The NMTC program provides both new and established businesses with a tax credit that can be used to offset the costs of new capital investment or hiring new workers. The goal is to increase investment in low income communities (LIC) in order to improve the economic outcomes of residents.

Even though the program was started in 2000, no funds were issued to investors until 2003 (although some funds were allocated to the program in 2001 and 2002). Since 2001 over $43 billion has been allocated to the program. The figure below shows the allocations by year, amount issued to investors, and the total amount allocated from 2001 – 2014 (orange bar, uses right axis).

NMTC allocations

Figure 1

Practically all of the allocated funds from 2001 to 2012 have been issued to investors. A little over $250 million remains from 2013 and $1.3 billion from 2014. As the figure makes clear, this program controls a non-trivial amount of money.

The types of projects funded by the NMTC program can be seen in the figure below. The data for this figure comes from a 2013 Urban Institute report.

NMTC projects funded

Figure 2

So what have taxpayers gotten for their money? The program’s ‘fact sheet’ asserts that since 2003 the program has

“…created or retained an estimated 197,585 jobs. It has also supported the construction of 32.4 million square feet of manufacturing space, 74.8 million square feet of office space, and 57.5 million square feet of retail space.”

Like many government program administrators, those running the NMTC program seem to confuse outputs with outcomes. Presumably the goal of the NMTC program is not to build office space, which is a trivial achievement, but to improve the lives of the people living in low income communities. In fact, the program’s fact sheet also states that

“Investments made through the NMTC Program are used to finance businesses, breathing new life into neglected, underserved low-income communities.”

What really matters is whether the program has succeeded at “breathing new life” into LICs. To answer this more complicated question one needs to examine the actual economic outcomes in areas receiving the credits in order to determine whether they have improved relative to areas that haven’t received the credits. Such an exercise is not the same thing as simply reporting the amount of new office space.

That being said, even the simpler task of measuring new office space or counting new jobs is harder than it first appears. It’s important for program evaluators and the taxpayers who fund the program to be aware of the reasons that either result could be speciously assigned to the tax credit.

First, the office space or jobs might have been added regardless of the tax credit. Firms choose locations for a variety of reasons and it’s possible that a particular firm would locate in a particular low income community regardless of the availability of a tax credit. This could happen for economic reasons—the firm is attracted by the low price of space or the location is near an important supplier—or the location has sentimental value e.g. the firm owner is from the neighborhood.

A second reason is that the firms that locate or expand in the community might do so at the expense of other firms that would have located there absent the tax credit. For example, suppose the tax credit attracts a hotel owner who due to the credit finds it worthwhile to build a hotel in the neighborhood, and that this prevents a retail store owner from locating on the same plot of land, even though she would have done so without a credit.

The tax credit may also mistakenly appear to be beneficial if all it does is reallocate investment from one community to another. Not all communities are eligible for these tax credits. If a firm was going to locate in a neighboring community that wasn’t eligible but then switched to the eligible community upon finding out about the tax credit then no new investment was created in the city, it was simply shifted around. In this scenario one community benefits at the expense of another due to the availability of the tax credit.

A new study examines the NMTC program in order to determine whether it has resulted in new employment or new businesses in eligible communities. It uses census tract data from 2002 – 2006. In order to qualify for NMTCs, a census tract’s median family income must be 80% or less of its state’s median family income or the poverty rate of the tract must be over 20%. (There are two other population criteria that were added in 2004, but according to the study 98% qualify due to the income or poverty criterion.)

The authors use the median income ratio of 0.8 to separate census tracts into a qualifying and non-qualifying group, and then compare tracts that are close to and on either side of the 0.8 cutoff. The economic outcomes they examine are employment at new firms, number of new firms, and new employment at existing firms.

They find that there was less new employment at new firms in NMTC eligible tracts in the transportation and wholesale industries but more new employment in the retail industry. Figure 2 shows that retail received a relatively large portion of the tax credits. This result shows that the tax credits helped new retail firms add workers relative to firms in transportation and manufacturing in eligible census tracts.

The authors note that the magnitude of the effects are small—a 0.2% increase in new retail employment and a 0.12% and 0.41% decrease in new transportation and wholesale employment respectively. Thus the program had a limited impact during the 2002 – 2006 period according to this measure, despite the fact that nearly $8 billion was granted to investors from 2002 – 2005.

The authors find a similar result when examining new firms: Retail firms located in the NMTC eligible tracts while services and wholesale firms did not. Together these two results are evidence that the NMTC does not benefit firms in all industries equally since it causes firms in different industries to locate in different tracts. The latter result also supports the idea that firms that benefit most from the tax credit crowd out other types of firms, similar to the earlier hotel and retail store example.

Finally, the authors examined new employment at existing firms. This result is more favorable to the program—an 8.8% increase in new employment at existing manufacturing firms and a 10.4% increase at retail firms. Thus NMTCs appear to have been primarily used to expand existing operations.

But while there is evidence that the tax credit slightly increased employment, the authors note that due to the limitations of their data they are unable to conclude whether the gains in new employment or firms was due to a re-allocation of economic activity from non-eligible to eligible census tracts or to actual new economic activity that only occurred because of the program. Thus even the small effects identified by the authors cannot be conclusively considered net new economic activity generated by the NMTC program. Instead, the NMTC program may have just moved economic activity from one community to another.

The mixed results of this recent study combined with the inability to conclusively assign them to the NMTC program cast doubt on the programs overall effectiveness. Additionally, the size of the effects are quite small. Thus even if the effects are positive once crowding out and reallocation are taken into account, the benefits still may fall short of the $43.5 billion cost of the program (which doesn’t include the program’s administrative costs).

An alternative to location-based tax credit programs is to lower tax rates on businesses and investment across the board. This would remove the distortions that are inherent in location-based programs that favor some areas and businesses over others. It would also reduce the uncertainty that surrounds the renewal and management of the programs. Attempts to help specific places are often unsuccessful and give residents of such places false hope that community revitalization is right around the corner.

Tax credits, despite their good intentions, often fail to deliver the promised benefits. The alternative—low, stable tax rates that apply to all firms—helps create a business climate that is conducive to long-term planning and investment, which leads to better economic outcomes.

Why regulations that require cabs to be painted the same color are counterproductive

A few weeks ago, my colleagues Chris Koopman, Adam Thierer and I filed a comment with the FTC on the sharing economy. The comment coincided with a workshop that the FTC held at which Adam was invited to speak. Our comment, our earlier paper (forthcoming in the Pepperdine Journal of Business Entrepreneurship and the Law), and a superb piece that Adam and Chris wrote with MA fellows Anne Hobson and Chris Kuiper, have been getting a fair amount of press attention, most of it positive.

I want to highlight one piece that seems to have misunderstood us. I highlight it not because I blame the author, but because I assume we must not have described our point well. Paul Goddin of MobilityLab writes:

Their argument seems valid, but an example they use is New York City’s rule that taxicabs be painted the same color. They argue this regulation is a barrier to entry, yet neglect to mention that Uber also requires its drivers to adhere with automobile standards (although these standards have been loosened recently). As of this article, Uber’s drivers must possess a late-model 2005 sedan (2000 in some cities, 2007-08 in others), with specific color and make restrictions for those who operate the company’s Black car service.

A rule that requires everyone in an industry to use the exact same equipment, branding and paint color is, I suppose, a barrier to entry. But that isn’t why we raised the issue. We raise it because—more importantly—it is a barrier to signaling quality.

It is a good thing that Uber and Lyft require their drivers to adhere to standards, just as it is a good thing that TGI Fridays and CocaCola set their own standards. Walk into a TGI Fridays anywhere in the world and you will encounter a familiar experience. That is because the company sets standards for its recipes, its decorations, its employee’s behavior, its uniforms, and much else. Similarly strict standards govern the way CocaCola is packaged, and marketed. Retailers that operate soda fountains are all supposed to combine the syrup and the carbonated water in the same way. If they don’t, they may find that CocaCola no longer wants to work with them.

These practices ensure quality. And they help overcome what would otherwise be a significant information asymmetry between the buyer and the seller. But notice that these signals only work because they are tied to the brands. Imagine what would happen if Chili’s, Outback Steakhouse, and Macaroni Grill were all required by law to adopt the same logos, the same decor, the same recipes, and the same uniforms as TGI Fridays. Customers would have no way of distinguishing between the brands, and therefore the companies would have little incentive to provide quality service in order to protect their reputations. Who cares about cooking a T Bone properly if the other guys are likely to get blamed for it?

So here in lies the problem with taxi regulations that require all cabs to offer the same sort of service, right down to the color of their cars: If every cab looks the same, no one cab company has an incentive to carefully guard its reputation.

No, bailouts are not something to celebrate

Robert Samuelson at the Washington Post is celebrating the auto bailout.

Last December I had a piece in the Post in which I argued that “pro-business” policies like bailouts are actually bad for business. I offered five reasons:

  1. Pro-business policies undermine competition.
  2. They retard innovation
  3. They sucker workers into unsustainable careers.
  4. They encourage wasteful privilege seeking.
  5. They undermine the legitimacy of government and business.

Read my piece for the full argument.

But aren’t things different in the midst of a major economic and financial crisis? Shouldn’t we have more leeway for bailouts in exigent circumstances?

No. Here is why:

First, we should always remember that the concentrated beneficiaries of a bailout have every incentive to overstate its necessity while the diffuse interests that pay for it (other borrowers, taxpayers, un-favored competitors, and the future inheritors of a less dynamic and less competitive economy) have almost no incentive or ability to get organized and lobby against it.

Bailout proponents talk as if they know bailouts avert certain calamity. But the truth is that we can never know exactly what would have happened without a bailout. We can, however, draw on both economic theory and past experience. And both suggest that the macroeconomy of a world without bailouts is actually more stable than one with bailouts. This is because bailouts incentivize excessive risk (and, importantly, correlated risk taking). Moreover, because the bailout vs. no bailout call is inherently arbitrary, bailouts generate uncertainty.

Todd Zywicki at GMU law argues convincingly that normal bankruptcy proceedings would have worked just fine in the case of the autos.

Moreover, as Garett Jones and Katelyn Christ explain, alternative options like “speed bankruptcy” (aka debt-to-equity swaps) offer better ways to improve the health of institutions without completely letting creditors off the hook. This isn’t just blind speculation. The EU used this approach in its “bail in” of Cyprus and it seems to have worked pretty well.

Ironically, one can make a reasonable case that many (most?) bailouts are themselves the result of previous bailouts. The 1979 bailout of Chrysler taught a valuable lesson to the big 3 automakers and their creditors. It showed them that Washington would do whatever it took to save them. That, and decades of other privileges allowed the auto makers to ignore both customers and market realities.

Indeed, at least some of the blame for the entire 2008 debacle falls on the ‘too big to fail’ expectation that systematically encouraged most large financial firms to leverage up. While it was hardly the only factor, the successive bailouts of Continental Illinois (1984), the S&Ls (1990s), the implicit guarantee of the GSEs, etc., likely exacerbated the severity of the 2008 financial crisis. So a good cost-benefit analysis of any bailout should include some probability that it will encourage future excessive risk taking, and future calls for more bailouts. Once these additional costs are accounted for, bailouts look like significantly worse deals.

Adherence to the “rule of law” is more important in a crisis than it is in normal times. Constitutional prohibitions, statutory limits, and even political taboos are typically not needed in “easy cases.” It is the hard cases that make for bad precedent.

Corporate welfare spending is not transparent

Over a century ago, the Italian political economist Amilcare Puviani suggested that policy makers have a strong incentive to obscure the cost of government. Known as “fiscal illusion,” the idea is that voters will be willing to spend more money on government if they think its costs is lower than it actually is. Fiscal illusion explains a great deal of public choices, including the popularity of deficit spending.

It also explains why the public knows the least about some of the most controversial items in the public budget such as corporate welfare. But some would like to change this. Here are Jess Fields and Tom “Smitty” Smith, writing in the (subscription required) Austin-American Statesman:

Texans believe in government transparency and accountability. For this reason, we have some of the most advanced open-government initiatives in the nation. Yet one policy area remains outside the view of the general public: economic development.

When local governments cut deals that result in millions in incentives, they can do it behind closed doors in “executive session” — legally — thanks to exceptions to the Open Meetings and Public Information Acts for “economic development negotiations.”

Fields is a senior policy analyst at the free enterprise Texas Public Policy Foundation, while Smith is the director of the Texas office of Public Citizen, a progressive consumer advocacy group started by Ralph Nader in the ‘70s.

Texans aren’t the only ones interested in making corporate welfare more transparent. The Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is considering rules that would require governments to report the tax privileges that they hand out to businesses. Here is Liz Farmer, writing in Governing Magazine:

Specifically, GASB is proposing that state and local governments disclose information about property and other tax abatement agreements in their annual financial statements. If approved, the new disclosures could shed light on an area of government finance and provide hard data on information that is assembled sporadically, if at all. Scores of public and private groups support the proposal and it has proven to be one of GASB’s most debated topic yet, as nearly 300 groups or individuals submitted comment letters to the board. But many still say the requirements don’t go far enough.

She notes that the proposal misses a number of tax privileges including:

  • Tax increment financing (TIF),
  • Agreements to discount personal income taxes,
  • “[P]rograms that reduce the tax liabilities of businesses or similar classes of taxpayers.”

Because of these omissions the new GASB rules may only capture about one-third of all tax expenditures.

Puviani would have predicted that.