IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/clh/resear/v11y2018i1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Business Subsidies in Canada: Comprehensive Estimates for the Government of Canada and the Four Largest Provinces

Author

Listed:
  • John Lester

    (University of Calgary)

Abstract

Business subsidies in Canada: the “winner” is Alberta; the loser is the taxpayer The federal government and the four largest provinces in Canada spend about $29 billion a year on business subsidies, delivered through program spending, the tax system, government business enterprises and direct investments by government. These subsidies represent almost half of the corporate income tax revenue collected by the five jurisdictions. Surprisingly, given its reputation as a bastion of free enterprise, Alberta is the most prolific subsidizer. In the 2014-15 fiscal year, per person subsidies were $640 in Alberta, about $100 ahead of the next most generous jurisdiction, Québec. Alberta has probably added to its “lead” through measures introduced in the October 2015 Fiscal Update and the 2016 budget. Alberta also stands out by having the least transparent public reporting of business subsidies. What motivates governments to subsidize business? Abstracting from cynical efforts to win votes, business subsidies have two broad objectives: to improve economic performance and to achieve a social objective by supporting specific firms, industries or regions. On average in the five jurisdictions, the split between the two categories is about 70-30 in favour of economic development measures. Assessing value for money from programs with a social objective is subjective, but measures intended to improve economic performance should be assessed on their ability to raise real income. Business subsidies can only raise real income if markets fail to allocate labour and capital to their best uses. The classic case is R&D. When a firm undertakes R&D, some of the knowledge created inevitably spills over to the benefit other firms. Firms are focused on their own benefits and costs when deciding how much to spend on R&D, not the benefits received by other firms, so society has an interest in encouraging additional R&D. While markets generally do a good job allocating capital to its most productive uses, governments express concern about the ability of small firms to access external financing. Just over half of business subsidies are intended to address these two issues. Governments also provide subsidies in order to create what are often described as “good jobs,” meaning employment in high-wage, high-productivity industries. There is ample evidence that wages differ by sector even after differences in worker skills and working conditions are taken into account. That opens up the possibility that subsidizing high-wage jobs will make us better off. Almost 10 per cent of government subsidies are pursuing “industrial policy” objectives. But real income won't necessarily go up, even in these circumstances. Benefit-cost analyses of key programs suggest that, at best, only a third of subsidies intended to raise real income achieve their objective. The main reason these subsidies are unsuccessful is that they have to be funded, either by raising taxes or cutting program spending, both of which harm economic performance. And avoiding the pitfall of excessive subsidization can be challenging. For example, small firms performing R&D get about 43% of their funding from governments, which is substantially beyond an effective level. Industrial policy measures are particularly tricky to get right. Governments have to identify sectors and firms that pay a premium for a given set of skills and working conditions, determine the subsidy that generates a social benefit net of the costs of providing assistance and avoid transferring income from low to high-wage taxpayers. With so much money at play, business subsidies should be reported more transparently and managed more effectively. For greater transparency, governments should prepare a comprehensive annual report on business subsidies delivered through program spending, the tax system and through the activities of government business enterprises. The report would describe the programs, state their objectives and report funding levels. When discussing program objectives, the report should set out in general terms the expected benefits and costs of government intervention and discuss who benefits from the measure and who is expected to pay for it. Making a commitment to set out the expected benefits and costs of all new business subsidies as they are introduced might prevent the worst offenders from being implemented in the first place.

Suggested Citation

  • John Lester, 2018. "Business Subsidies in Canada: Comprehensive Estimates for the Government of Canada and the Four Largest Provinces," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 11(1), January.
  • Handle: RePEc:clh:resear:v:11:y:2018:i:1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Business-Subsidies-in-Canada-Lester.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chun-Yan Kuo & Glenn Jenkins, 2007. "The Economic Opportunity Cost Of Capital For Canada - An Empirical Update," Working Paper 1133, Economics Department, Queen's University.
    2. Jack M. Mintz & Stephen R. Richardson, 1995. "The Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption: An Evaluation," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 21(s1), pages 1-12, November.
    3. Finn Poschmann & Philippe Bergevin, 2013. "Reining in the Risks: Rethinking the Role of Crown Financial Corporations in Canada," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 372, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alan C. O'Connor & Albert N. Link & Brandon M. Downs & Laura M. Hillier, 2015. "The impact of public investment in medical imaging technology: an interagency collaboration in evaluation," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(5), pages 510-531, July.
    2. Majid Hashemi & Glenn P. Jenkins & Frank Milne, 2023. "Renewable Energy Support Through Feed-in Tariffs: A Retrospective Stakeholder Analysis," Development Discussion Papers 2023-08, JDI Executive Programs.
    3. Coppola, Andrea & Fernholz, Fernando & Glenday, Graham, 2014. "Estimating the economic opportunity cost of capital for public investment projects : an empirical analysis of the Mexican case," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6816, The World Bank.
    4. Stephanie MacLeod & Yves Filion, 2012. "Issues and Implications of Carbon-Abatement Discounting and Pricing for Drinking Water System Design in Canada," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(1), pages 43-61, January.
    5. Hashemi, Majid & Jenkins, Glenn & Milne, Frank, 2023. "Rooftop solar with net metering: An integrated investment appraisal," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    6. David F. Burgess & Richard O. Zerbe, 2013. "Appropriate discounting for benefit–cost analysis," Chapters, in: Scott O. Farrow & Richard Zerbe, Jr. (ed.), Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 7, pages 247-263, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. William B.P. Robson & Alexandre Laurin, 2015. "Challenges, Growth and Opportunity: A Shadow Federal Budget for 2015," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 423, April.
    8. William B.P. Robson & Alex Laurin, 2016. "Where the Bucks Stop: A Shadow Federal Budget for 2016," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 447, March.
    9. Branker, K. & Pearce, J.M., 2010. "Financial return for government support of large-scale thin-film solar photovoltaic manufacturing in Canada," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4291-4303, August.
    10. Colin Busby & William Robson, 2013. "Canada's 2012 Fiscal Accountability Rankings," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 373, February.
    11. Alex Laurin & William B.P. Robson, 2014. "Equipping Canadians for Success: A Shadow Budget for 2014," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 399, January.
    12. William B. P. Robson & Alexandre Laurin & Rosalie Wyonch, 2017. "Getting Real: A Shadow Federal Budget for 2017," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 470, February.
    13. Ferede, Ergete & Dahlby, Bev, 2012. "The Impact of Tax Cuts on Economic Growth: Evidence From the Canadian Provinces," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 65(3), pages 563-594, September.
    14. William B.P. Robson & Alexandre Laurin, 2019. "Less Debt, More Growth: A Shadow Federal Budget for 2019," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 531, February.
    15. William B.P. Robson & Alexandre Laurin & Rosalie Wyonch, 2018. "Righting the Course: A Shadow Federal Budget for 2018," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 503, February.
    16. Abdallah Othman & Glenn P. Jenkins & Mikhail Miklyaev, 2022. "Estimation of Economic Opportunity Cost of Capital: An Operational Guide for Mozambique," Development Discussion Papers 2022-04, JDI Executive Programs.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:clh:resear:v:11:y:2018:i:1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Bev Dahlby (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/spcalca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.