New Geography

Category: Politics

  • The New State of Coastal California?

    In 2009, former California legislator Bill Maze proposed dividing his state, hiving off thirteen counties as Coastal (or Western) California (see map). Maze, a conservative from the agricultural Central Valley, objects to the domination of state politics by the left-leaning Los Angeles and San Francisco metropolitan areas. The initial impetus for his proposal was the passage by state voters in 2008 of Proposition 2, requiring larger pens and cages for farm animals. Agricultural interests denounced the measure, arguing that it would increase their costs and threaten their livelihoods. Meanwhile, the state’s on-going water crisis, which largely pits farmers against environmentalists, widens the divide. Unforgiving invective marks both sides of the debate. A post in Politics Daily characterized secessionist farmers as dolts fighting against “liberal Hollywood types [who] don’t understand the importance of torturing animals.” The Downsize California website, on the other side, fulminates against coastal “radicals” who are “infatuated with nature over mankind and are sympathetic to illegals and criminals.”

    The desire to divide unwieldy California may be quixotic but it is nothing new; at least 27 divisional schemes have been proposed since statehood in 1850. Most have sought to split the state along north-south lines. In the mid 1800s, southern California secessionists felt marginalized and ill-served by a state government based in the distant Sacramento. By the mid 1900s, the tables had been turned, as northern Californians came to resent the demographically and economically dominant greater Los Angeles (LA) area. The California State Water Project, with its vast pipes snaking over the Tehachapi Mountains, was a particular irritant. As a child growing up in northern California’s Bay Area in the 1960s, I almost never heard positive statements about LA, which was widely condemned as a vast suburban wasteland inhabited by shallow people scheming to “steal our water.” Such naked regional bigotry was spouted by people who would have been ashamed to say anything remotely smacking of racial or religious prejudice.

    Economic and political evolution, coupled with substantial immigration and emigration, gradually reduced the tensions between the Los Angeles and San Francisco metropolitan areas while accentuating the division between urban coastal and interior agricultural regions. But as the 2004 “voter index map” reproduced above shows, the state’s actual political divide is far more complex than that. Close inspection reveals a Democratic voting zone essentially split between coastal northern California and the Los Angeles area, with a few interior outliers in college towns, urban cores, Hispanic rural areas, and mountainous recreation sites. Contrasting to this area is a spatially larger and more contiguous but demographically smaller Republican-voting block covering the rest of the state.

    Maze’s scheme places several relatively conservative countries (Ventura, San Luis Obispo) in liberal Coastal California, doing so largely for reasons of geographical contiguity. Less explicable is his exclusion of the left-voting northern coastal countries of Sonoma, Mendocino, and Humboldt. These may be relatively rural counties, but where the main crops are wine grapes and marijuana one should not expect conservative voting patterns. Note that certainly highly rural and relatively remote regions have solidly left electoral records, an unusual pattern. These include the Big Sur coast in Monterrey County, with its artistic heritage, and the counter-cultural “hippy” centers of Mendocino and southern Humboldt counties, such as Willits and Garberville.

    Martin W. Lewis has taught college-level geography for 20 years, and is currently a senior lecturer at Stanford University. He is a co-author on two leading textbooks in world geography, Diversity Amid Globalization and Globalization and Diversity. He is also the author of Green Delusions: An Environmentalist Critique of Radical Environmentalism, and Wagering the Land: Ritual, Capital, and Environmental Degradation in the Cordillera of Northern Luzon, and is co-author of The Myth of Continents.

  • What To Look For In The Next President

    As the 2012 election approaches, America is in a state of malaise. Massive debt, unfettered spending, economic decline and partisan divide have served to undermine the great American narrative that is predicated on optimism and a “can do” attitude.

    As I assess the candidates for President, I will be looking for the one who most fully understands why we need to resurrect the compelling narrative for America. The compelling narrative has four basic components:

    Aspirational: President John F. Kennedy spoke to our better nature in 1962, when, at Rice University, he laid down the challenge of reaching the moon in a decade, His words still inspire us nearly 50 years later:

    We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

    His vision was ambitious, his goal worthy, and his target understandable. This is why his words excited a nation to follow. Similar aspirations drove the pioneers west to settle America, drove our nation to wage world wars, hot and cold, against evil, and drove a president to declare war on poverty.

    Visceral: The legacy of President Dwight D. Eisenhower is a national interstate system of highways that crisscross America and connect our economy. In 1955, he spoke of systems that unite us as a people. His words rang true to a shared vision for America:

    Together, the united forces of our communication and transportation systems are dynamic elements in the very name we bear—United States. Without them, we would be a mere alliance of many separate parts.

    Most of post-World War II America was still dependent on the two-lane national highway system that included Route 66 and Route 30. Americans instinctively followed Eisenhower’s leadership that they saw as advancing their quality of life and jump starting the economy into higher gear. They knew instinctively that this would require a modern, multi-lane, high speed roadway system, so Eisenhower’s narrative was enacted and 50,000 miles on interstate highway were constructed over the next five decades.

    Fills a Gap: Martin Luther King, Jr. eloquently framed the civil rights issue in human terms in a 1967 speech:

    Being a Negro in America means trying to smile when you want to cry. It means trying to hold on to physical life amid psychological death. It means the pain of watching your children grow up with clouds of inferiority in their mental skies. It means having your legs cut off, and then being condemned for being a cripple.

    Americans understood that a moral, political and economic gap existed between black and white America. The compelling narrative of the civil rights movement led to proposals for new policies and programs to narrow the gap and Americans responded.

    Pays Dividends: The compelling narrative pays dividends all along the way. The space program produced better computers, materials and science. The interstate system gave rise to the motel industry and suburban development. The push west provided impetus to build the transcontinental railroad. World Wars sent men to war and women into industry. Policies that grew out of the civil rights movement made America a more inclusive nation.

    In 2011, we have no compelling narrative. The space program is about to be de-funded, as we have retreated from the moon and settled for a low orbit space station. The interstate system is beginning to crumble as the benefits have been exhausted and no new vision has been created. Public policies designed to close the racial gap are being scrutinized because the problem still exists. In short, the great movements have stopped paying dividends and Americans have lost interest and, more important, lost confidence.

    President Obama has tried to create a compelling narrative around renewable energy. This has been undermined by the burst of the ethanol (corn fuel) bubble and the relatively low return on investment from wind and solar power. New alternative sources like shale gas find their energy narrative competing with the aspirations of the environmental cause. As a result, Obama’s vision is not gaining traction as a compelling narrative.

    America’s next great leader will not only see the future, but will be able to articulate a clear path to get there. He/she will inspire us to join in the pursuit of the cause. We will know in our guts that the cause is right for America. We will clearly see the need to be filled. And, we will understand the benefits that will be derived from the undertaking.

    Debt, deficits, entitlements, taxes and spending are not compelling narratives in and of themselves. They are mere building blocks in our quest to articulate the next great American narrative. What it will be is the great unknown.

    Photo by Alfred Hermida: Watching The President.

    Dennis M. Powell is founder and president of Massey Powell, a strategic communications and digital strategy development company headquartered in Plymouth Meeting, PA. He can be reached at dpowell@masseypowell.com.

  • Adjusting to Fiscal and Political Realities in Transportation Funding

    As this is written, we do not know the exact level of funding the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will propose in its draft legislation, to be unveiled in the first week of July and marked up the following week. Nor do we know what level of funding the Senate Finance Committee will come up with. But we do know that both Houses will be obliged to propose far less funding than is contained in the current (FY 2010) surface transportation budget of $52 billion ($41 billion for highways, $11 billion for transit). What will be the practical consequences of this belt tightening?

    The proposition that the Federal Government "must learn to live within its means" has become the fiscal conservatives’ article of faith and an elliptical way of stating the Republican opposition to deficit financing. This principle has found its way into the House T&I Committee’s "Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2012" report and it has been reaffirmed in countless statements and briefings by congressional sources.

    The practical implications of this policy for the federal-aid surface transportation program are unambiguous: federal budget authority in FY 2012 and beyond will be limited to the tax receipts flowing into the Highway Trust Fund. Those revenues (plus interest) will amount to an estimated $36.9 billion in 2011, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)— $31.8 billion to be credited to the Highway Account and $5.1 billion to the Transit Account. Over the next ten years, CBO estimates these revenues will grow at an average rate of a little more than one percent per year, largely reflecting expected growth in motor fuel consumption. ("The Highway Trust Fund and Paying for Highways," testimony of Joseph Kile, Asst. Director of CBO, before the Senate Finance Committee, May 17, 2011).

    Thus, over a six-year period, 2012-2017, tax receipts credited to the Highway Trust Fund (plus interest) could be expected to amount to approximately $230 billion— about the same sum as was authorized in the 5-year SAFETEA-LU authorization ($238.5 billion).

    Limiting future budget authority to tax revenues flowing into the Highway Trust Fund will cause a significant drop from the current funding level. However, current spending has been inflated by a massive injection of stimulus funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009— a total of $48 billion ($27.5 billion for highways, $6.8 billion for transit and $8 billion for high-speed rail). The stimulus almost doubled the annual amount of funding available  for transportation, making baseline comparisons misleading. A more accurate measure would be to compare the expected FY 2012 funding with pre-stimulus funding levels. In this comparison, the highway program would suffer a drop of 17% — from an average of $38.6 billion/year during SAFETEA-LU (FY 2005-2009) to $32 billion/year in FY 2012.  Adding the uncommitted HTF funds remaining in the Highway Account at the end of Fiscal Year 2011  ($14.8 billion, CBO estimate) would enable the annual highway allocation to be raised to about $34 billion/year — a drop of only 12 percent from the SAFETEA-LU level). (SAFETEA-LU data obtained from www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/safetea-lu_authorizations.pdf,  4/6/2006),

    Such reductions, while not insignificant, would not be catastrophic. The cut in spending  authority could be absorbed by streamlining and narrowing the scope of the federal-aid program. Its primary mission would need to be refocused on traditional "core" highway and transit programs and on keeping existing transportation assets in a state of good repair. Discretionary awards such as the TIGER and high-speed rail grants would have to be eliminated. Proposals for major infrastructure spending (through the proposed Infrastructure Bank) would have to be dropped. So would programs that are deemed of little national significance or that do not serve the national need — such as various "transportation enhancements," set-asides, and "livability" projects that cater to narrow constituencies. Most of these Trust Fund "hitchikers," as Sen. James Inhofe calls them, will have to be handed off to state and local governments.

    Will states and local governments be willing and able to pick up the slack? Some will, others may not. Many states and localities have been willing to approve significant transportation improvement programs– provided the objectives are clearly spelled out. In fact, voters approved 77 percent of local transportation ballot measures in 2010, according to the Center for Transportation Excellence.

    While the above prospect may sound alarming when set against the current inflated spending levels, distorted by the stimulus spike, many fiscal conservatives view the new fiscal environment as an opportunity to return the federal-aid program to its original roots. Greater spending discipline, they hope, will refocus the federal mission on national interests and legitimate federal objectives, restore the program’s lost meaning and sense of purpose and give states and localities more voice and responsibility in managing their transportation future. With more constrained funding, certain hard-to-attain objectives such as greater emphasis on asset preservation, expanded use of highway pricing and tolling and higher levels of  private investment, will become a greater imperative and more achievable.

    Let us also not forget that the federal contribution constitutes only about 25% of the nation’s total surface transportation budget (40% of the capital budget). The rest is provided by state and local governments. The nation would still be spending more than $150 billion/year to preserve and improve our highways, bridges and transit systems— $50 billion short of the level recommended by the National Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission, but still a respectable level of funding.

    What about major new infrastructure investments? Undoubtedly, they will be necessary in the longer run because of the need to replace aging facilities and to accommodate future growth in population. But major capital expenditures can be, and will have to be, deferred until the recession has ended, the economy has started growing again and the federal budget deficit has been brought under control. At that more distant moment in time, perhaps toward the end of this decade, the nation might be able to resume investing in new infrastructure and embark on a new series of "bold endeavors" — major capital additions to the nation’s highways and rail systems. For now, prudence, good judgment and the compelling need to rein in the budget deficit, dictate that government should live within its means. And that means spending no more than what we pay into the Trust Fund.

  • Enterprising States: Hard choices now, hard work ahead: State Strategies to Renew Growth and Create Jobs

    This is an excerpt from "Enterprising States: Creating Jobs, Economic Development, and Prosperity in Challenging Times" authored by Praxis Strategy Group and Joel Kotkin. The entire report is available at the National Chamber Foundation website, including highlights of top performing states and profiles of each state’s economic development efforts.

    Read the full report.

    Read part one in this series.

    America has the world’s largest economy, the world’s leading universities, the most robust entrepreneurial culture and many of its biggest companies—yet many see this as a diminishing advantage.31 Stagnation, many predict, will extend into the foreseeable future because the economy’s low-hanging fruit has disappeared and so the pace of innovation has slowed; by this argument we are now on a “technological plateau” that will make further growth challenging.32 The United States remains a leader in global innovation, but better-funded, higher-performing hubs of innovation are emerging among determined competitors, notably China.

    In contrast, we believe America’s prospects for competing with other countries are better than commonly assumed, and we are convinced that our strategy for the future is unlikely to be found elsewhere. Unlike our major competitors, we enjoy a huge base of natural resources—such as food and energy—which are likely to become ever more in demand as countries like China and India grow their economies. Most important of all, the United States, particularly in contrast with Europe and East Asia, enjoys relatively youthful demographics, promising an expanding workforce, new consumers and a new flood of entrepreneurs.

    Yet our demographics and resources require intelligent policies that fit our particular situations. As a young country, we will have to find employment for an additional 20 million Americans in this decade. Slow growth, which could be accommodated in rapidly aging Japan or Germany, is not an option for the United States. We will also need to harness all forms of energy, from renewables to fossil fuels. Today, half of our trade deficit consists of energy, and yet we have the oil and gas resources to supply the vast majority of our needs. As we invest in renewables for the long run, the country needs to use the resources that are readily available in order to reduce the deficit and spark job growth.

    Our ability to compete, particularly on the state level, could be compromised by an inability to address our budgetary challenges. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, states are struggling with budget shortfalls for fiscal 2012 that add up to $112 billion. The most recent Fiscal Survey of the States anticipates considerably more financial stress in the states as the substantial funding made available by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 will no longer be available.

    Most states have already taken actions to streamline and downsize government to meet the new economic realities. This has proven to be challenging given the increased demand for state services during the national recession. Surely, more redesign, streamlining and reform is on the way. To recoup lost revenue, states have taken such actions as eliminating tax exemptions, broadening the tax base, and in some cases increasing rates as well as raising a number of fees. Low tax rates by themselves are not a silver bullet for growth, but it has become clear that outdated state tax systems can undercut economic vitality.

    States are the fulcrum of change in key areas of education, infrastructure, energy, innovation and skills training—something that was confirmed on many fronts in the first Enterprising States study. States and localities are far better positioned than the federal government to foster strategic investment, regulations, taxes and incentives that encourage private sector prosperity. In large part, this is because they are more responsive to local conditions.

    Equally important, a diversified portfolio of opportunity agendas implemented by the individual states will go a long way toward renewing growth and prosperity in the national economy.

    New Era of Leadership by the States?

    As the 2010 Enterprising States study was being completed, the states were implementing sweeping changes to deal with a growing number of challenges. Since then twenty-nine new governors have started their terms. Governors of every state, along with their legislative counterparts, are taking steps to grow their states’ economies, create jobs and compete globally. They want to help businesses prosper, to produce an educated and skilled workforce, and to provide other essential services and infrastructure that foster the entrepreneurship and innovation that will lead to greater productivity and competitiveness.

    The dramatic shortage of job opportunities has driven up the unemployment rate, pushed a large number of workers into part-time jobs, increased underemployment problems, and reduced the number of people who were expected to be active participants in the labor force. There is universal agreement that we need policies and programs that create jobs now, alongside investments to lay the foundations for long-term economic growth. “To keep the American dream of widely shared prosperity alive,” one commentator has argued, “we need to choose entrepreneurship and competition over the vested interests of the status quo.”

    Restoring confidence in the economy by creating a meaningful and compelling plan for moving forward is a top priority for elected officials as well as leaders from business, education, and labor groups throughout the country.

    There is also a stark recognition among the states that solving their fiscal problems is directly connected to creating an economic climate that will foster job creation. Any state with a budget tilting towards insolvency is in a weak position to make and maintain investments in its workforce and economic infrastructure. A state’s fiscal health also has immediate consequences by affecting its credit rating and, thereby, the cost of borrowing money. Unfunded pension obligations, viewed historically as soft debt, are now being considered together with the total value of state bonds to come up with a credit rating.

    Many governors and state legislatures are attempting to strike a balance between budget cuts that could hold back the recovery by putting more people out of work, and spending cuts and government reforms that would create a more business-friendly environment, leading to greater business confidence, private-sector investment and job creation. How this balance is achieved depends on each state’s unique set of circumstances and available assets. Moreover, at their core, these debates reflect the fundamental tensions between the two major visions of American progress, namely: creating equality of condition by boosting wages, improving working conditions, and guaranteeing basic services, and creating equality of opportunity, by creating the conditions whereby individuals can elevate themselves through industry, perseverance, talent, and righteous behavior.

    As noted in The Economist, private capital is mobile and it goes where government works. So while political considerations and ideological rationalizations certainly do influence the mix of austerity measures and public investments, the real opportunity today is for states to redesign government for the 21st century. That means cutting programs that do not spur economic growth and shifting resources, where possible, to those existing or planned programs that will.

    While spending cuts will help control deficient budgets, so will increased revenue brought by economic growth. As states enact budget austerity measures, what job creation initiatives are surviving or receiving increased investment? What are the new priorities for job creation? How are states balancing cuts with critical job-creating initiatives that will stimulate innovation, build infrastructure, provide skills training, and unleash the dynamism of small business?

    Job-Centric States Are Redesigning Government and Investing in Opportunity

    Determining where to cut and where to invest40 is the central challenge of the day. States must carry out short-term strategies to jump-start and/or sustain an as-of-yet lackluster recovery, and cut costs to make state government more efficient and to avoid financial calamity. Simultaneously, though, they must craft and invest in innovations and structural solutions that will foster long-term economic growth while reining in taxes and regulations that stifle job creation.

    In most states, revenues remain stubbornly down from where they were before the recession, and job growth is proving to be more elusive than in most previous recoveries. The strategies now being planned or undertaken by each state are based on their unique sets of interests, resources and capabilities, aligned with the opportunities that they see on the horizon and believe are conceivably within their grasp. Yet all states “will likely need a new network of market-oriented, private-sector-leveraging, performance-driven institutions”41 to restore and revitalize their economies.

    The 2011 Enterprising States study highlights state-driven initiatives to 1) redesign government, including measures to deal with excessive debt levels that inhibit economic growth and job creation, and 2) forward-looking, enterprise-friendly initiatives whose primary goal is to create the conditions for job creation and future prosperity.

    The policy initiatives and programmatic efforts are related to the five policy areas that were included in the original Enterprising States report.

    • Entrepreneurship and Innovation
    • Exports, International Trade and Foreign Direct Investment
    • Workforce Development and Training
    • Infrastructure
    • Taxes and Regulation

What’s different in 2011 and for the foreseeable future is that for many states the imperative for change is real. The choice is simple. To remain a job-creating, fiscally robust economy, states will either change on their own or change will continue to be forced upon them.

Investing In Opportunity

States are taking a hard look at making investments in and implementing initiatives to create and sustain high-growth, higher-wage, 21st century industries.States play a key role in the higher education landscape, so there is considerable support for and investment in programs that educate the future talent pool and foster collaboration between business, education and government on science and technology, technology transfer and entrepreneurial programs. As states evaluate their return on investment, performance-based funding has become a best practice for aligning colleges and universities as partners in workforce preparation and sources of opportunity, growth, and competitive advantage.

High-growth start-ups are the best generators of new jobs, accounting for nearly all net job creation in America in the last twenty-plus years. They are also the firms most likely to raise productivity, a basis for economic growth. They also create jobs that did not previously exist, and solve problems in a way that makes a difference in people’s lives.

States have stepped up their efforts to help companies scale up and grow in order to capture growing domestic and international markets. A number of states have established or expanded seed and growth-stage financing funds. Some have implemented economic gardening programs deliberately designed to focus on expanding existing second-stage companies that have viable growth opportunities. Several states have undertaken initiatives to fix deficiencies in the market that inhibit private-sector investment and entrepreneurial activity. Tax credits for angel investors and state-backed venture capital funds are just two examples.

Companies with a global reach that bring together multiple technologies or complex expertise—such as advanced manufacturing, investment banking, construction and engineering, and natural resources—are likely to drive the nation’s global competitiveness in the next few years, along with more focused technology companies that are part of complex virtual networks.44 For that reason, several states are implementing, and having considerable success with, programs to help companies expand into global markets by assisting in the development of a customized international growth plan. And, some states have made significant headway using focused and purposeful strategies to attract foreign direct investment.

Public-private partnerships and privatization initiatives for economic development and the provision of infrastructure are proliferating throughout the states. Building funds and bonding programs that involve private-sector investors are now widely used to construct specialized facilities for research, demonstration, and technology transfer in key economic sectors. Building on the lessons of the past, states have become considerably more adept at avoiding what Robert Fogel has called “hothouse capitalism,” in which government assumes much of the risk while private contractors and financiers take the profit.

While unemployment remains high, many currently available jobs go unfilled. America faces a shortfall of almost two million technical and analytical workers in the coming years, a situation that stands to thwart economic growth.45 Painfully cognizant of this dilemma, many states are establishing workforce training and development programs that address structural unemployment problems and the mismatch between available jobs and the skills of the existing workforce. The goal is to align training and academic programs with in-demand regional occupations, and to add greater flexibility to workforce training programs that have left some re-trainable individuals slipping through the cracks.

Forward-looking states are modernizing their education and workforce training initiatives by developing people-focused approaches that help and train workers in navigating their careers, provide assistance for entrepreneurs, make lifelong learning loans, and offer wage insurance plans. The goal is to empower people to find better jobs and/or to create new ones. Plainly, making America more globally competitive is vital, but the increasingly obvious gap in our economic discussions is an agenda for making Americans more personally competitive. In this view, forging a new economics for the Individual Age will require rethinking our economy from the bottom up in order to realize future growth and prosperity.

Finally, because energy issues, both current and future, have become such critical factors in business and for economic growth, states are getting serious about policies, initiatives and investments to provide clean, secure, safe and affordable energy tailored to regional, state and local resources. These include renewable energy standards, investments in research, development and commercialization of energy technologies and processes, and the establishment of new financing authorities to build the infrastructure that will extract and transport energy to the places where it will fuel new growth.

Redesigning Government

The fiscal situation of many states has caused them to reconsider the level of services they are providing and, certainly, the way that they deliver them. According to the Government Accountability Office, “Because most state and local governments are required to balance their operating budgets, the declining fiscal conditions shown in our simulations suggest the fiscal pressures the sector faces and foreshadow the extent to which these governments will need to make substantial policy changes to avoid growing fiscal imbalances.”

In The Price of Government: Getting the Results We Need in an Age of Permanent Fiscal Crisis, David Osborne and Peter Hutchinson contend that Industrial Age government is just not up to the tasks and challenges at hand. Centralized bureaucracies, hierarchical management, rules and regulations, standardized services, command-and-control methods, and public monopolies are simply not aligned to Information Age realities. Today, government must be restructured and prepared for rapid change, global competition, the pervasive use of information technologies, and a public that expects quality and has lots of choices.

The keys, according to Osborne and Hutchinson, are to 1) get rid of low-value spending, 2) move money into higher-value, more cost-effective strategies and programs and 3) motivate all managers to find better, cheaper ways to deliver results. In sum, government needs to provide incentives, expect accountability, and allow the freedom to innovate.48
Government redesign efforts that are now underway or in the planning stages often follow the simple guidelines outlined above. Yet various approaches are now being used by state governments, including:

  • Consolidation, reorganization, or elimination of agencies, boards and commissions.
  • Regionalization of governance to decentralize decision-making and to customize and align service delivery with local circumstances.
  • Streamlining and modernizing bureaucratic processes to increase productivity and improve service delivery, often by deploying services online.
  • Experimenting with charter agencies that commit to producing measurable benefits and to saving money—either by reducing expenditures or increasing revenues—in exchange for greater authority and flexibility.

Steps to curb spending and reform taxation in the states have varied widely. States with the most serious fiscal problems are laying off workers, imposing hiring freezes, reducing spending for education and health care and ending or curtailing social services. Aid to local governments has been cut. For many states, current obligations for public pension funds and health insurance costs are unaffordable and future obligations represent a
looming financial disaster. Cuts, concessions and larger contributions from employees are now a necessary part of balancing the state’s checkbook.

Taxes and tax policies vary considerably among the states. To make up for lost revenues, most states have taken such actions as eliminating tax exemptions, broadening tax bases, and in some cases increasing rates as well as raising a number of fees. States have enacted increases in all of the major taxes they levy, including personal income taxes, general sales taxes, business taxes, and excise taxes. However, many states did reduce business taxes with new credits or expanded existing credits to encourage investment and growth in targeted industries.
Uncertainty, above all, is the antagonist of growth, investment, and job creation. States that cannot rid themselves of onerous DURT49 (delays, uncertainty, regulations and taxes) are in peril of putting the heaviest burdens on new and small businesses and on entrepreneurs, the real job creators in a growing economy. In a tight economy these considerations become more stringent for entrepreneurs and companies that are making economic decisions simply because the levels of uncertainty and the stakes are so much higher. Eliminating employment regulations and time-consuming processes that place unreasonable burdens on business can have a significant impact on job creation.

Moreover, the competitive identity of a state today relies increasingly on the degree to which the actions of the private, public and civic sectors are aligned with and corroborate the identity claimed or brand promise. A story must be backed up by actions: to simply proclaim an enterprise-friendly environment is no longer adequate.
States that are doing it right today are responsive and are taking a cooperative, supportive approach to dealing with new and existing companies. Their attitude and operating systems are customer-centric and their emphasis is on streamlining processes for obtaining permits, licenses, and titles.

Many state governments across the country are adopting a fast-track approach to achieving a better balance between the requirements of regulation and the need for new jobs and industry, so that that results have a higher priority than rules. This is the mindset that must guide the interface between government and business.
operating budgets, the declining fiscal conditions shown in our simulations suggest the fiscal pressures the sector faces and foreshadow the extent to which these governments will need to make substantial policy changes to avoid growing fiscal imbalances.”

In The Price of Government: Getting the Results We Need in an Age of Permanent Fiscal Crisis, David Osborne and Peter Hutchinson contend that Industrial Age government is just not up to the tasks and challenges at hand. Centralized bureaucracies, hierarchical management, rules and regulations, standardized services, command-and-control methods, and public monopolies are simply not aligned to Information Age realities. Today, government must be restructured and prepared for rapid change, global competition, the pervasive use of information technologies, and a public that expects quality and has lots of choices.

The keys, according to Osborne and Hutchinson, are to 1) get rid of low-value spending, 2) move money into higher-value, more cost-effective strategies and programs and 3) motivate all managers to find better, cheaper ways to deliver results. In sum, government needs to provide incentives, expect accountability, and allow the freedom to innovate.48

Government redesign efforts that are now underway or in the planning stages often follow the simple guidelines outlined above. Yet various approaches are now being used by state governments, including:

  • Consolidation, reorganization, or elimination of • agencies, boards and commissions.
  • Regionalization of governance to decentralize • decision-making and to customize and align service delivery with local circumstances.
  • Streamlining and modernizing bureaucratic processes • to increase productivity and improve service delivery, often by deploying services online.
  • Experimenting with charter agencies that commit • to producing measurable benefits and to saving money—either by reducing expenditures or increasing revenues—in exchange for greater authority and flexibility.

Steps to curb spending and reform taxation in the states have varied widely. States with the most serious fiscal problems are laying off workers, imposing hiring freezes, reducing spending for education and health care and ending or curtailing social services. Aid to local governments has been cut. For many states, current obligations for public pension funds and health insurance costs are unaffordable and future obligations represent a
looming financial disaster. Cuts, concessions and larger contributions from employees are now a necessary part of balancing the state’s checkbook.

Taxes and tax policies vary considerably among the states. To make up for lost revenues, most states have taken such actions as eliminating tax exemptions, broadening tax bases, and in some cases increasing rates as well as raising a number of fees. States have enacted increases in all of the major taxes they levy, including personal income taxes, general sales taxes, business taxes, and excise taxes. However, many states did reduce business taxes with new credits or expanded existing credits to encourage investment and growth in targeted industries.
Uncertainty, above all, is the antagonist of growth, investment, and job creation. States that cannot rid themselves of onerous DUR (delays, uncertainty, regulations and taxes) are in peril of putting the heaviest burdens on new and small businesses and on entrepreneurs, the real job creators in a growing economy. In a tight economy these considerations become more stringent for entrepreneurs and companies that are making economic decisions simply because the levels of uncertainty and the stakes are so much higher. Eliminating employment regulations and time-consuming processes that place unreasonable burdens on business can have a significant impact on job creation.

Moreover, the competitive identity of a state today relies increasingly on the degree to which the actions of the private, public and civic sectors are aligned with and corroborate the identity

States that are doing it right today are responsive and are taking a cooperative, supportive approach to dealing with new and existing companies. Their attitude and operating systems are customer-centric and their emphasis is on streamlining processes for obtaining permits, licenses, and titles.

Many state governments across the country are adopting a fast-track approach to achieving a better balance between the requirements of regulation and the need for new jobs and industry, so that that results have a higher priority than rules. This is the mindset that must guide the interface between government and business.

Read the full report, including highlights of top performing states and profiles of job creation efforts in all 50 states.

Praxis Strategy Group is an economic research, analysis, and strategic planning firm. Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and author of The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050

  • Enterprising States: Recovery and Renewal for the 21st Century

    This is an excerpt from "Enterprising States: Creating Jobs, Economic Development, and Prosperity in Challenging Times" authored by Praxis Strategy Group and Joel Kotkin. The entire report is available at the National Chamber Foundation website, including highlights of top performing states and profiles of each state’s economic development efforts.

    Read the full report.

    Read part two in this series.

    Restoring Growth and Upward Mobility: A Call to the States

    Over a year and a half into the recovery, the condition of the American economy is far from satisfactory. For the vast majority of Americans, conditions have improved only marginally since the onset of the Great Recession. Unemployment remains high, job creation meager, and American workforce participation has dropped to near record depths — the lowest rate in a quarter of a century.

    Not surprisingly, this spring’s Washington Post-ABC poll revealed that far more Americans feel the economy is getting worse than getting better. There seems to be what the New York Times described as “a darkening mood” among Americans about the future. Confidence in the Federal Reserve’s policies on the money supply has eroded among economists, as few benefits have accrued to smaller businesses and middle-class households.3 Times are particularly tough for entry level workers, including those with educations, and have been worsening since at least the mid-2000s.

    This stress is felt keenly by state and local officials, even in areas that aren’t suffering from the highest rates of indebtedness or pension liabilities. Without pension reform, the state of Utah, for example, would have seen its contributions to government workers’ pensions rise by about $420 million a year, an amount equivalent to roughly 10 percent of Utah’s spending from its general and education funds. The states often must deal with declining revenues at a time when the demand for services caused by the recession has increased. And, unlike the federal government, states can neither print their own money nor buy their own bonds.

    In the past, states could look to Washington for assistance. Now, whatever the intentions or real achievements of the stimulus package, future increases in federal spending seem likely to be meager at best. The 2010 election effectively ended the nation’s experiment with massive fiscal stimulus from Washington. Indeed, leaders of both parties, President Obama, and perhaps most importantly the capital markets, now acknowledge that deficit reduction will be a priority in the coming years.

    This presents a new, and perhaps unprecedented, challenge for the states. With Washington effectively forced to the sidelines, states will now have to address fundamental economic issues relating to growth and employment on their own. Most will have to do so without significantly increasing their own spending.

    For many states, the short-term prognosis is dire. Altogether, 44 states and the District of Columbia are projecting budget shortfalls for 2012 amounting to $112 billion. The upcoming fiscal year, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, will be “one of the states’ most difficult budget years on record. Retiree benefits for state employees add yet another strain, with the states facing a $1.26 trillion shortfall.”

    As a result, states and localities increasingly find themselves forced to impose tough, even draconian cuts in spending. This affects not only newly minted conservative Republicans, but new liberal Democratic governors such as California’s Jerry Brown and New York’s Andrew Cuomo. The only real debate now is how much to rely on taxes and how much on cuts in spending to address the fiscal issues ahead. One casualty: infrastructure spending, which was boosted by the stimulus, now seems to be winding down as well.

    This report will try to address the nature of this dilemma and suggest ways to best deal with it. Although we agree with the notion of fiscal probity, ultimately, states can deal with the fundamental problems only by spurring growth and upward mobility. This will not only create new revenues, but also dampen the demand for social services.

    A state can neither cut nor tax itself into prosperity. Weak public infrastructure combined with low taxes has failed through history to create strong state economies, as was long the case in the Southeast. But at the same time many large states—California, New York, Illinois—have raised taxes and spending and have suffered a strong out-migration of middle class citizens and jobs for decades.

    Now, faced with enormous deficits, there is a temptation to reduce those very “crown jewels,” such as the California public university system, into what University of California President Mark Yudof describes as “tatters.” In trying to balance their budgets, states run the risk of undermining their own long-term recoveries.

    The great danger that looms here, in our estimation, is not bankruptcy. Rather, it is long-term stagnation, in which growing demands for social services, combined with weak revenues. foster pressure for more taxes, reduced services or a deadly combination of both. This represents something of a existential problem in a country where the prospect for a better future has long been a hallmark.

    The founders of the republic understood the critical importance of maintaining this aspiration, and European observers were struck by the remarkable social mobility in America’s cities. In the 19th century, American factory workers and their offspring had a far better chance of entering the middle or upper classes than their European counterparts. In politics and in daily life, expansion of opportunity was seen as essential to the American experiment. Writing in 1837, one Whig lawyer in Pittsburgh suggested, “If you deny the poor man the means to better his condition . . . you have destroyed republican principles in their very germ.”

    Today, this traditional faith is being sorely tested in much of the country. Although both stock prices and corporate profits have rebounded, little has been done that has stimulated employment. Large companies may be sitting on large caches of cash, in part due to low interest rates and a buoyant stock market, but capital remains scarce for the small businesses that create most of America’s new jobs. Indeed, entrepreneurial growth, as the Kauffman Foundation recently found, has now slowed down among most segments of the population.

    Of course, there have been remarkable stories of wealth creation and success despite these hard times. But even in Silicon Valley—home to such high-fliers as Google, Apple and Facebook—the overall impact on jobs has been minimal. Of the nation’s 51 largest metropolitan regions, San Jose, the Valley’s heartland, has suffered the largest net loss of jobs over the past decade of any major metropolitan region outside Detroit. The San Francisco area suffered job losses only slightly lower, on a percentage basis, than hard-hit Cleveland.11 Due in part to financial controls, investment in promising new companies has become ever more undemocratic, with the bulk of new money pouring into firms like Facebook coming not from public markets, but from a small, well-heeled cadre of private investors. Venture-backed technology companies, notes Intel co-founder Andy Grove, now find it expensive to “scale” their operations and add employees in California or even the United States. As a result, he suggests, companies tend to indulge in “an undervaluing of manufacturing” that erodes employment. This contrasts with, for example, China, where job creation is considered “the number one objective of state economic policy.”

    Much the same can be said of New York, where the paper economy has been boosted by Fed policy but the creation of middle-income jobs continues to lag. New York City’s current financial boom—Wall Street pay hit a new record in 2011—simply reinforces a level of income inequality that is the highest in the nation. Unemployment in the toniest Manhattan precincts reaches barely five percent, while it’s 20 percent in working-class Brooklyn. Not surprisingly, the city’s distribution of wealth is now twice as unequal as in the rest of the nation. It may seem a model recovery on Wall Street, but it is less so on the streets of the nation’s premier city.

    In contrast, the states that have fared best in creating middle-class jobs have been either those close to the expanding federal government, another major beneficiary of the stimulus, or those that have attended to more basic industries, such as energy production, agriculture and manufacturing. These industries have propelled widespread expansions in the Great Plains, parts of the Intermountain West, Alaska and Texas.

    More interestingly, many of these states have also experienced a surge in STEM—science, technology, engineering and mathematics—related employment. In some states, this has come as a result of continuing state investment in education and training; in most cases, these states have simply tended to create a business-friendly atmosphere for companies of all sorts. They have also generally kept housing costs low, something critical to young families.

    Perhaps the best way to look at our evolving economy is not so much from the point of view of companies or industries, but of individuals. States often focus on their largest employers, but those companies have been cutting jobs for the past decade. Since 2000, large corporations—which employ roughly one-fifth of American workers— have stopped hiring, as they did in the previous decade, and actually reduced their payrolls by nearly three million while adding 2.4 million jobs abroad.

    Andrei Cherny, an Arizona Democrat writing in the journal Democracy, suggests that “both progressives and conservatives have offered little in the way of new answers as their long-held orthodoxies run headlong into new realities.” Cherny admits that the stimulus and the Fed’s strategy of loose money—what he calls “government by hot check”—failed to address the needs of the nation’s large class of small entrepreneurs.

    Left out of the equation are the small businesses that, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, employ half of all workers and create 65 percent of all new jobs. Most of these firms are small, under-capitalized, and run by single proprietors or families.

    In this environment, notes economist Ying Lowery, “Business creation is job creation.” The states that will do best are those that create the conditions to lure and retain those who start companies or who are selfemployed. Policies that target managers of hedge funds, venture firms, or large corporations have their place, but the real action—particularly in a world of ever-changing technology and declining long term employment—lies in the movement of individuals.

    Under these conditions, where individuals migrate or decide to settle will have a critical impact on which states or regions grow. Three dynamic population segments— educated workers, immigrants and downshifting boomers—illustrate the factors that drive their migration patterns. In many ways they represent the “canaries in the coal mine”; where they go is generally where the air is good for entrepreneurship.

    The movement of educated workers has become a much discussed topic among pundits and economic developers in recent years. One common assumption is that “the best” migrants tend to move to “hip and cool” locales, generally on one of the coasts. These workers then form the core of growing industries and, more importantly, new ones. Yet the evidence tells a somewhat different, perhaps surprising, story. An analysis of recent Census data on the migration of educated workers finds that the biggest net growth has taken place not in New York, San Francisco and Boston, but in places like Nashville, Houston, Dallas, Austin, and Kansas City. Indeed, many of the leading “creative class” states, notably California, Massachusetts and New York, fared considerably worse than regions in states such as Missouri, Kansas, Texas and Tennessee in terms of net migration numbers.

    These location choices have to do with how individuals make decisions: people move primarily for reasons related to jobs, family, and housing. An analysis of the migration of educated workers, for example, reveals that, for the most part, these workers are moving away from expensive, dense regions to more affordable, generally less dense places. This migration also tends to parallel moves to those states that generally impose fewer regulatory burdens on business.

    Perhaps even more surprisingly, we see a similar pattern in minority and immigrant entrepreneurship. These groups now constitute a growing percentage of business startups. Overall, according to the Kauffman Foundation, foreignborn immigrants in 2010 constituted nearly 30 percent of all new businesses owners, up from 13.4 percent in 1996. This has also been the one outstanding segment of the population whose entrepreneurship rate has grown throughout the current recession.

    As with the case of educated migrants, minority entrepreneurs tend to establish themselves in less expensive, more business-friendly, and generally less heavily regulated metropolitan regions. A recent survey of minority migration and self employment by Forbes found that the best conditions for non-white entrepreneurs were in metropolitan areas in Georgia (Greater Atlanta), Tennessee (Nashville), Arizona (Phoenix), Oklahoma (Oklahoma City), and several Texas cities (Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin). In contrast, most regions in California and the Northeast, outside of the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, did quite poorly.

    Jonathan Bowles, president of the New York-based Center for an Urban Future, has traced this poor performance to a myriad of factors including sky-high business rents, which stymie would-be entrepreneurs in minority communities. “[Entrepreneurs] face incredible burdens here when they start and try to grow a business,” Bowles suggests. “Many go out of business quickly due to the cost of real estate and things like high electricity costs. It’s an expensive city to do business in without a lot of cash.”

    Boomers are unique compared to traditional senior populations. According to the Kauffman Foundation, they tend to be more likely to start businesses than are younger age groups. In 1996, people between 55 and 64 years of age accounted for 14 percent of entrepreneurs; in 2010 they represented 23 percent.

    Less is known about the migration of aging boomers, a large segment of the population, but evidence so far suggests that they, too, are moving to such states. According to AARP, most boomers prefer to stay close to where they live—mostly in suburbs—or where their children tend to move, that is, to the low-regulation states of the South and West.

    States can draw on these migration patterns in developing their economic policies. Generally, people migrate to states with jobs, and states with population gains generally produce more employment than those with slower growth. Indeed, despite the great disruptions of the mortgage crisis, regions such as Orlando, San Bernardino-Riverside and Las Vegas all recorded double-digit employment gains over the last decade.

    More recent developments suggest that future growth may depend on several critical factors. It is clear, for example, that investments in education—for example in Austin, Raleigh-Durham and parts of the Great Plains—have paid off by attracting both individuals and industries, and have made these areas among the healthiest employment markets in the country. Some of these states have suffered less fiscal distress than states elsewhere in the nation, and have benefited from their educational investment through hard times. Investments in community colleges may prove to be particularly essential, since their role in providing skilled workers has been critical in many states.

    States that have invested in new infrastructure such as ports, airports, roads and improved transit tend to have a leg up on others that have failed to do so. Even relatively low-tax states such as Texas have invested heavily in recent years in roads and port facilities, which are critical to industries locating there. Even during the recession, many industries—from manufacturing and environmental firms to health care and information technology—have had trouble hiring skilled workers. States are responding by creating job-oriented training programs in states like Ohio, New York, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin, which have all established technical institutions separate from community colleges. Tennessee alone has 27 such “technical centers” offering one-year certificates for certain jobs.

    Overall, as Delaware Governor Jack Markell has pointed out, businesses generally do not want to eliminate government, but rather want it to be useful for economic growth. Markell, who has done some considerable budgetcutting himself, believes that the focus needs to be on expanding the economy, which will requires improvements not only in schools, but in transportation infrastructure that will make the free market work better.

    Perhaps even more important has been creating a favorable business climate. California, for example, possesses the greatest basic economic attributes of any state: a mild climate, location on the Pacific Rim, a world-class university system, and a legacy of strong infrastructure investment. Yet today, despite the presence of leading global industrial zones such as Hollywood and Silicon Valley, as well as the country’s richest agricultural sector, California’s unemployment remains well above the national average and job growth has remained relatively tepid. After many years in denial, even some of the state’s most progressive politicians realize that something is amiss. In a remarkable development, for example, California leaders including Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom recently visited Texas to learn from the large state that has fared best during the long recessionary period. Given the political gap between Californians like Newsom, a former mayor of San Francisco, and Texas Governor Rick Perry, this represents something of a “Nixon in China” moment.

    This is not to say that California, or any other state, should draw its economic policy from another state. Those states that attempt to use tax incentives to “lure” industries with no overwhelming need to relocate — as shown in recent findings about Illinois incentives to movie-makers — are often disappointed. In many cases, the incentive game becomes a classic “race to the bottom,” in which the benefits of new jobs often prove transitory. Since the 1990s, just two percent of job growth and decline has been due to businesses relocating across state borders, yet the costly practice of using unfocused tax expenditures to poach companies continues.

    Nor can states reliably predict which industries will need more workers over the long term. In the 1990s, economist Michael Mandell predicted that cutting-edge industries like high-tech would create 2.8 million new jobs; in reality, notes a 2010 New America Foundation report, they actually shed 68,000.30 Each state and each region has its own peculiar economic DNA. States with exportable products—for example the Great Plains or the Upper Midwest—may need to focus on ways to get their output efficiently to market. Already affordable, they may also choose to increase their attractiveness to high value-added companies and educated individuals by boosting their education systems and making their metropolitan regions more congenial to well-educated migrants.

    In other states such as New York or Massachusetts, the economy is focused on intangible exports like financial services and software. Making themselves more affordable for both individuals and companies may be the best way for states to improve competitiveness. Over the long term, no state economy can sustain its people if it only focuses on the “luxury” sectors; the large number of unemployed and underemployed workers will drain state resources. As those state resources become more limited, decisions about how to structure tax incentives or where to place education and infrastructure investments must be based upon a deep understanding of this economic DNA. Strategic investments will limit wasteful spending and maximize impact in the economic sectors where a state is most likely to grow.

    Ultimately, there is only one route to sustainable state economies, and that is through broad-based economic growth. The road to that objective can vary by state, but the fundamental goal needs to be kept in mind if we wish to see a restoration of hope and American optimism about the future.

    Read the full report, including highlights of top performing states and profiles of job creation efforts in all 50 states.

    Praxis Strategy Group is an economic research, analysis, and strategic planning firm. Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and author of The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050

  • Sweden: A Role Model for Capitalist Reform?

    Sweden is often held up as a role model for those wishing to expand the size of government in the U.S. and other nations. The nation is seen as combining a large public sector with many attractive features, such as low crime rates, high life expectancy and a high degree of social cohesion.

    But in actuality the success of the Swedish society lies not with the extent of its welfare state, but as the result of cultural and demographic factors as well as a favourable business environment throughout most of Sweden’s modern history.

    First, it should be noted that Sweden experienced even higher rates of growth and impressive social outcomes well before the start of the Social Democratic era in 1936. Sweden was an impoverished nation before the 1870s, as evidenced by the massive emigration to the United States. As a capitalist system evolved out of the agrarian society, the country grew richer.

    Property rights, free markets and the rule of law in combination with an increasingly well-educated workforce created an environment in which Sweden enjoyed an unprecedented period of sustained and rapid economic development. Famous Swedish companies like IKEA, Volvo, Tetra Pak and Alfa Laval were all founded during this period, aided by business friendly economic reforms and low taxes.

    Between 1870 and 1936, the start of the Social Democratic Era, Sweden had the highest growth rate in the industrialized world. In contrast, between 1936 and 2008 the growth rate was merely the 18th highest of 28 industrialized nations.

    Second, more attention needs to be paid to social and cultural factors. This reflects factors
    such as the Lutheran work ethic and the cohesion of a largely homogeneous population with
    particular social values. The perceived advantage of Swedes over other countries rose before
    the rise of the welfare state. In 1950, before the rise of the high-tax welfare state, Swedes
    lived 2.6 years longer than Americans. Today the difference is 2.7 years. Sweden’s lower
    income inequality also stems back to at least the 1920s.

    These same factors can be seen in the success of Swedes abroad. The approximately 4.4 million Americans with Swedish origins are considerably richer than the average American, as are other immigrant groups from Scandinavia. If Americans with Swedish ancestry would form their own country their per capita GDP would be $56,900, more than $10,000 above the earnings of the average American and 53 percent above the Swedish GDP level of $36 600.

    A Scandinavian economist once stated to Milton Friedman: “In Scandinavia we have no poverty.” Milton Friedman replied, “That’s interesting, because in America among Scandinavians, we have no poverty either.” Indeed, the poverty rate for Americans with Swedish ancestry is only 6.7 percent, half the U.S. average. Economists Geranda Notten and Chris de Neubourg have calculated the poverty rate in Sweden using the American poverty threshold, finding it to be an identical 6.7 percent.

    Critically, those Swedes who immigrated to the U.S., predominately in the 19th century, were anything but elite. Many were escaping poverty and famine. What has made Sweden uniquely successful is not the welfare state, as much as the hard-won Swedish stock of social capital.

    Third, the recent strong performance of the Swedish economy has its roots in labor market and other reforms enacted by center-right governments. Perhaps least appreciated, Sweden has dramatically scaled back the size and scope of government starting in the 1990s, which spurred the recovery of the growth rate.

    Indeed, modern Sweden’s success can be seen as more a shift away from the far left policy that predominated from the 1960s till the end of the century. During recent years Swedish policies have shifted strongly to the center-right, placing the once dominant Social Democrats in deep crisis.

    An important explanation is that the Swedish electorate wishes to again strengthen the ethical norms that have been eroded during the high tax regime. The center-right government that took office in 2006 and was re-elected in 2010 has implemented stepwise and rather large tax reductions.

    Few other nations demonstrate as clearly the phenomenal economic growth that results from adopting free-market economic policies. School vouchers have successfully been introduced, creating competition within the frame of public financing. Similar systems are increasingly being implemented also in other public programs, such as health care and elderly care. Another example is that the pension system has been partially privatized, giving citizens some control over their mandated retirement savings.

    Where is Sweden headed?

    Yet this is not to say Sweden can not go further into a free market direction. Although taxes have been lowered, research publication reveal they still impact to the level of entrepreneurship and crowding out private sector job creation. One study has for example shown that for each additional Swedish Kronor levied and spent by the government, the efficiency losses in the private sector can be as high as 1-3 additional Kronor.

    One particular challenge lies with immigrants. In the past Sweden was highly successful in integrating immigrants. In 1950 the level of employment for foreign-born was 20 percent higher than the average citizen. In 2000 the level of employment was 30 percent lower for the foreign-born.

    In 1968 foreign citizens living in Sweden had 22 percent higher income from work compared to those born in Sweden. In 1999 foreign citizens had 45 percent lower incomes. While racism had decreased significantly as time had passed, the situation of those born abroad in the labour market had worsened dramatically.

    A government study has shown that in 1978 foreign born from outside the Nordic nations had an employment level that was only seven percent lower than ethnic Swedes. In 1995 the gap had expanded to 52 percent.

    Looking forward, it’s clear that Sweden’s great advantages lie not in socialism, but in circumstances. In addition to its considerable human capital, Sweden has an abundance of natural resources, another that the nation was not involved in either of the worlds wars, which tore up other industrialized nations.

    There remain many problems connected to the welfare state. Amongst others Jan Edling, former economist at the labor union LO which has close ties to the Social Democratic party, has discussed this high hidden unemployment and the connection to over-utilization of welfare systems. Around one fifth of the working age population in Sweden are supported by one form or another of government handouts rather than work.

    The Swedish welfare state, of course, does create some social good, by for example providing relatively generous social security nets. But it is clearly not solely responsible for the low poverty and long lifespan in the nation.

    Many in the United States and elsewhere who tend to see Sweden as a social democratic role model fail to understand the history and trajectory of Swedish society. Indeed, much of the success of Sweden, and other Scandinavian nations, relate to strong norms and entrepreneurship.

    To be sure, Swedish society is not necessarily moving away from the idea of a welfare state, but continuous reforms implemented towards economic liberty have strengthened the society. The rise of government has been stopped and clearly reversed during the past years. Sweden is again returning to the free market policies which have served it so well in the past.

    Nima Sanandaji, is President of the Swedish think-tank Captus.

    Photo by Hector Melo A.

  • High Speed Rail Subsidies in Iowa: Nothing for Something

    The Federal government is again offering money it does not have to entice a state (Iowa) to spend money that it does not have on something it does not need. The state of Iowa is being asked to provide funds to match federal funding for a so-called "high speed rail" line from Chicago to Iowa City. The new rail line would simply duplicate service that is already available. Luxury intercity bus service is provided between Iowa City and Chicago twice daily. The luxury buses are equipped with plugs for laptop computers and with free wireless high-speed internet service. Perhaps most surprisingly, the luxury buses make the trip faster than the so-called high speed rail line, at 3:50 hours. The trains would take more than an hour longer (5:00 hours). No one would be able to get to Chicago quicker than now. Only in America does anyone call a train that averages 45 miles per hour "high speed rail."

    The state would be required to provide $20 million in subsidies to buy trains and then more to operate the trains, making up the substantial difference between costs and passenger fares. This is despite a fare much higher than the bus fare, likely to be at least $50 (based upon current fares for similar distances). By contrast, the luxury bus service charges a fare of $18.00, and does not require a penny of taxpayer subsidy. Because the luxury bus is commercially viable (read "sustainable"), service can readily be added and funded by passengers. Adding rail service would require even more in subsidies from Iowa. The bus is also more environmentally friendly than the train.

    Further, this funding would be just the first step of a faux-high speed rail plan that envisions new intercity trains from Chicago across Iowa to Omaha. In the long run, this could cost the state hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars. Already, a similar line from St. Louis to Chicago has escalated in cost nearly 10 times, after adjustment for inflation, from under $400 million to $4 billion.

    Unplanned cost overruns are the rule, rather than the exception in rail projects. European researchers Bent Flyvbjerg, Nils Bruzelius and Werner Rottengather (Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition) and others have shown that new rail projects routinely cost more than planned (Note 1).

    Flyvbjerg et al found that the average rail project cost 45 percent more than projected and that 80 percent cost overruns were not unusual. Cost overruns were found to occur in 9 of 10 projects. Further, they found that ridership and passenger fares also often fell short of projections, increasing the need for operating subsidies.

    Iowa legislators may well identify ways to spend their scarce tax funding on services that are actually needed.

    ______

    Note: Flyvbjerg is a professor at Oxford University in the United Kingdom. Bruzelius is an associate professor at the University of Stockholm. Rothengatter is head of the Institute of Economic Policy and Research at the University of Karlsruhe in Germany and has served as president of the World Conference on Transport Research Society (WCTRS), which is perhaps the largest and most prestigious international association of transport academics and professionals.

  • California’s Green Jihad

    Ideas matter, particularly when colored by religious fanaticism, wreaking havoc even in the most favored of places. Take, for instance, Iran, a country blessed with a rich heritage and enormous physical and human resources, but which, thanks to its theocratic regime, is largely an economic basket case and rogue state.

    Then there’s California, rich in everything from oil and food to international trade and technology, but still skimming along the bottom of the national economy. The state’s unemployment rate is now worse than Michigan’s and ahead only of neighboring Nevada.  Among the nation’s 20 largest metropolitan regions, four of the six with the highest unemployment numbers are located in the Golden State: Riverside, Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco. In a recent Forbes survey, California was home to six of the ten regions where the economy is poised to get worse.

    One would think, given these gory details, California officials would be focused on reversing the state’s performance. But here, as in Iran, officialdom focuses more on theology than on actuality.   Of course, California’s religion rests not on conventional divinity but on a secular environmental faith that nevertheless exhibits the intrusive and unbending character of radical religion.

    As with its Iranian counterpart, California’s green theology often leads to illogical economic and political decisions. California has decided, for example,  to impose a rigid regime of state-directed planning related to global warming, making a difficult approval process for new development even more onerous.  It has doubled-down on climate change as other surrounding western states — such as Nevada, Utah and Arizona — have opted out of regional greenhouse gas agreements.

    The notion that a state economy — particularly one that has lost over 1.15 million jobs in the past decade — can impose draconian regulations beyond those of their more affluent neighbors, or the country, would seem almost absurd.

    Californians are learning what ideological extremism can do to an economy. In the Islamic Republic, crazy theology leads to misallocating resources to support repression at home and terrorism abroad. In California green zealots compel companies to shift their operations to states that are still interested in growing their economy — like Texas. The green regime is one reason why CEO Magazine has ranked California the worst business climate in the nation.

    Some of these green policies often offer dubious benefits for the environment. For one thing, forcing California businesses to move to less energy-efficient states, or to developing countries like China, could have a negative impact overall since shifting production to Texas or China might lead to higher greenhouse gas production given California’s generally milder climate.   A depressed economy also threatens many worthy environmental programs, delaying necessary purchases of open space and forcing the closure of parks. These programs enhance life for the middle and working classes without damaging the overall econmy.

    But people involved in the tangible, directly carbon-consuming parts of the economy — manufacturing, warehousing, energy and, most important, agriculture — are those who bear   the brunt of the green jihad. Farming has long been a field dominated by California, yet environmentalist pressures for cutbacks in agricultural water supplies have turned a quarter million acres of prime Central Valley farmland fallow, creating mass unemployment in many communities.

    “California cannot have it both ways, a desire for economic growth yet still overregulating in the areas of labor, water, environment,” notes Dennis Donahue, a Democrat and mayor of Salinas, a large agricultural community south of San Jose. Himself a grower, Donahue sees agricultural in California being undermined by ever-tightening regulations, which have led some to expand their operations to other sections of the country, Mexico and even further afield.

    Other key blue collar industries are also threatened, from international trade to manufacturing. Since before the recession California manufacturing has been on a decline.  Los Angeles, still the nation’s largest industrial area, has lost a remarkable one-fifth of its manufacturing employment since 2005.

    California’s ultra-aggressive greenhouse gas laws will further the industrial exodus out of the state and further impoverish Californians.  Grandiose plans to increase the percentage of renewable energy in the state from the current unworkable 20% to 33% by 2020 will boost the state’s electricity costs, already among the highest in the nation, and could push the average Californian’s bill up a additional 20%.

    Ironically California, still the nation’s third largest oil producer, should be riding the rise in commodity prices, but the state’s green politicians seem determined to drive this sector out of the state.. In Richmond, east of San Francisco, onerous regulations pushed by a new Green-led city administration may drive a huge Chevron refinery, a major employer for blue collar workers, out of the city entirely. Roughly a thousand jobs are at stake, according to Chevron’s CEO, who also questioned whether the company would continue to make other investments inside the state.

    Being essentially a religion, the green regime answers its critics with a well-developed mythology about how these policies can be implemented without economic distress.  One common delusion in Sacramento holds that the state’s vaunted “creative” economy — evidenced by the current bubble over   surrounding social media firms — will make up for any green-generated job losses.

    In reality the creative economy simply cannot  make up for losses in more tangible industries. Over the past decade, as the world digitized, the San Jose area experienced one of the stiffest drops in employment of any of the 50 largest regions of the country; its 18% decline was second only to Detroit.  Much of the decline was in manufacturing and services, but tech employment has generally suffered. Over the past decade California’s number of workers in science, technology, engineering and math-related fields actually shrank. In contrast, the country’s ranks of such workers expanded 2.3% and prime competitors such as Texas , Washington and Virginia enjoyed double-digit growth.

    So who really benefits from the green jihad? To date,  the primary winners have been crony capitalists, like President Obama’s newly proposed commerce secretary, John Bryson, who built a fantastically lucrative  career (he was once named Forbes’  “worst valued chief executive”) while  running the regulated utility Edison International. A lawyer by training, Bryson helped found the green powerhouse National Resources Defense Council. He’s been keen to promote strict  renewable energy  standards  that also happen to benefit solar power and electric car companies in which he holds large financial stakes.

    Other putative winners would be large international companies, like Siemens, that hope to build California’s proposed high-speed rail line, the one big state construction project favored by the green-crony capitalist alliance. Fortunately , the states dismal fiscal situation and  rising cost estimates for the project, from $42 to as high as $67 billion, as well as cuts in federal subsidies, are undermining support for this project even among some liberal Democrats.  Even in a theocracy, reality does, at times, intrude.

    Finally, there are the lawyers — lots of them. A hyper-regulatory state requires legal services just like a theocracy needs mobs of mullahs and bare knuckled religious enforcers. No surprise the number of lawyers in California increased by almost a quarter last decade, notes Sara Randazzo of the Daily Journal. That’s two and a half times the rate of population growth.

    The legal boom has been most exuberant along the affluent coast.  Over the past decade, the epicenter of the green jihad, San Francisco, the number of practicing attorneys increased by 17%, five times the rate of the city’s population increase. In the Silicon Valley, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties boosted their number of lawyers at a similar rate. In contrast, lawyer growth rate in interior counties has generally been far slower, often a small fraction of their overall population growth.

    If California is to work again for those outside the yammering classes, some sort of realignment with economic reality needs to take place.  Unlike Iran, California does not need a regime change, just a shift in mindset that would jibe with the realities of global competition and the needs of the middle class. But at least with California we won’t have to worry too much about national security: Given the greens anti-nuke proclivities, it’s unlucky the state will be developing a bomb in the near future.

    This piece originally appeared at Forbes.com.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University, and an adjunct fellow of the Legatum Institute in London. He is author of The City: A Global History. His newest book is The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, released in February, 2010.

    Photo by msun523

  • Orlando’s Sunrail: Blank Checks Induced by Washington

    We are supposedly living in an age of austerity, but many federal programs are leading many states into overspending and potential fiscal insolvency.  Transit spending is a case in point, as is indicated by the proposed Orlando Sunrail commuter rail project.

    How Washington Induces Higher State and Local Spending: For decades, the federal government has encouraged state and local governments to build expensive projects, as is the case in Orlando. Under the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) "New Starts" program, state and local governments can obtain federal funding for such projects, contingent on their taxpayers providing "matching funding." This can be in the form of higher taxes, budget increases or in unplanned subsequent expenditures that are higher than projected. The responsibility for cost overruns and operating subsidies belong exclusively to state or local taxpayers.

    Inaccurate Cost Forecasts: This can prove very expensive. European researchers Bent Flyvbjerg, Nils Bruzelius and Werner Rottengather (Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition) and others have shown that new rail projects routinely cost more than planned (Note 1).

    Flyvbjerg et al found that the average rail project cost 45 more than projected and that 80 percent cost overruns were not unusual. Cost overruns were found to occur in 9 of 10 projects. Moreover, they found that despite increased attention to these cost blow-outs, final costs continue to be far above the projections presented to public officials and the taxpayers at approval time. Further, they found that ridership and passenger fares also often fell short of projections, increasing the need for operating subsidies.

    Moreover, urban rail systems are of questionable value. Transport economist Clifford Winston of the Brookings Institution has noted that "the cost of building rail systems are notorious for exceeding expectations, while ridership levels tend to be much lower than anticipated" and that "continuing capital investments are swelling the deficit." 

    Federal policies, however, often force state and local taxpayers to guarantee the accuracy of notoriously inaccurate cost projections. The standard FTA "full funding agreement," a prerequisite for federal funding, requires state or local taxpayers to pay for any cost overruns. Further, if the projects are not completed, state and local taxpayers are required to pay back the federal grants (more on Florida’s experience with that later).

    Sunrail: The "Sunrail" commuter rail project is planned to parallel Interstate 4 in the Orlando metropolitan area. From the perspective of Florida taxpayers, the tragedy is that the project has proceeded so far. Project forecasts say that in 2030, Sunrail will add only 1,850 new round trip riders daily to Orlando’s already sparse transit ridership (barely half a percent of travel). Even if all Sunrail trips were for employment, it would not even be a "drop in the bucket" in a metropolitan area likely to add more than 400,000 jobs by 2030. Further, despite inferences to the contrary, this will have less than negligible impact on traffic congestion. It is likely that traffic on Interstate 4 will increase by at least 100,000 cars daily by 2030 (Note 3), many times the cars that Sunrail could possibly remove, even under its probably exaggerated ridership projections.

    Sunrail also will do little to increase job access to jobs in a metropolitan area where less than two percent of employment can be reached by the average commuter in 45 minutes using transit, according to Brookings Institution research. By contrast, at least more than 80 percent of jobs in the Orlando metropolitan area are reached in 45 minutes by car, and more than 55 percent in 30 minutes. Despite the high costs of all this and Sunrail’s negligible effect on regional mobility, politics may preclude cancellation of the project.

    Sunrail’s first phase is projected to cost $350 million (after a half-billion dollar right-of-way purchase). The Federal Transit Administration intends to pay a maximum of $175 million for the project. State taxpayers (through the Florida Department of Transportation) will be required to match that funding with another $175 million, though that amount could grow.

    Florida Taxpayers Already Burnt Once: In addition in paying for likely Sunrail cost overruns, Florida taxpayers would be obligated to fund service levels that satisfy the Federal Transit Administration. Otherwise the federal government can demand that taxpayers send the money back. This is no idle threat. When the Miami commuter rail system (Tri-Rail) provided service levels deemed insufficient, FTA demanded a return of $250 million in federal grants. This repayment was averted only by a state bailout that provided up to $15 million in annual subsidies to increase the service levels (Note 2).

    Essentially then, to obtain federal funding for Sunrail, Florida taxpayers must write a blank check out to a rail construction industry that has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to build rail projects for promised amounts.

    Negotiating a Way Out? Florida taxpayers, however, may have some options to avoid writing the blank check. In March, the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) desperately sought to find governments in Florida willing to provide a blank check to fund the now cancelled Tampa to Orlando high-speed rail line, with costs that were so low that they had "big cost overruns" written all over them.

    In a February 27 letter USDOT told local officials the federal grant repayment provisions were negotiable. Based upon this policy latitude available to USDOT, Florida officials could seek less unreasonable terms with USDOT. For example, a revision might be negotiated to limit Florida’s cost overrun liability to amounts resulting from state actions. Further, Florida should seek agreement that it does not have to operate service levels that are greater than required by demand or can be afforded. This would prevent a repeat of the unhappy Tri-Rail experience.  

    Provisions such as these would provide important protections to Florida taxpayers, who could otherwise be forced to pay hundreds of millions in cost overruns and higher operating subsidies and potentially higher taxes.

    Lessons for Taxpayers: Projects like Orlando’s Sunrail provide important lessons for the nation. The stimulus, now winding down, boosted questionable spending policies well outside the Beltway. Washington needs to stop writing blank checks on taxpayer accounts. It’s time for the feds to stop inducing state and local governments to mimic its fiscal irresponsibility.

    —–

    Notes

    1. Flyvbjerg is a professor at Oxford University in the United Kingdom. Bruzelius is an associate professor at the University of Stockholm. Rothengatter is head of the Institute of Economic Policy and Research at the University of Karlsruhe in Germany and has served as president of the World Conference on Transport Research Society (WCTRS), which is perhaps the largest and most prestigious international association of transport academics and professionals.

    2. The Florida Department of Transportation has made agreements local governments to participate in funding of Sunrail cost overruns. However, in the event that local governments are unable to pay their share, it may be expected that the state will pay, as it did in bailing out Miami’s Tri-Rail (discussed above).  

    3. Assumes that automobile traffic would grow at the projected population growth rate (based upon University of Florida population projections). 

    —–

    Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris and the author of “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life”

    Photo: Downtown Orlando (by author)

  • Fwd: California’s Bullet Train — On the Road to Bankruptcy

    For California’s high-speed rail boosters including their chief cheerleader, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, the month of May must have felt like a month from hell. First came a scathing report by California legislature’s fiscal watchdog, the non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), questioning the rail authority’s unrealistic cost estimates and its decision to build the first $5.5 billion segment in the sparsely populated Central Valley between Borden and Corcoran. That segment, the LAO noted, has no chance of operating without a huge public subsidy, yet the terms of the voter-approved Proposition 1A, explicitly prohibit any operating subsidies.

    These concerns were echoed by an eight-member Independent Peer Review Group. “We believe the Authority is increasingly aware of the challenge of accurate cost estimating,” wrote its chairman Will Kempton in a letter to the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s CEO, Roelef van Ark. The Legislative Analyst‘s Office had concluded that if the cost of building the entire Phase I system were to grow as much as the revised HSRA estimate for the Central Valley segment (an increase of 57%), the Phase I system would end up costing not $43 billion as originally estimated, but $67 billion.

    The two reports unleashed a torrent of criticism from the press. In sharply critical editorials, The Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times questioned the project’s fiscal viability and the Authority’s poor decisionmaking. The project is “a monument to the ways poor planning, management and political interference can screw up major public works,” opined the LA Times. (“California’s High Speed Train Wreck,” May 16). “If the state can’t come up with enough money to finish the route, a stand-alone segment in the Central Valley would literally be a train to nowhere and a big drain on taxpayers,” said the Wall Street Journal (“California’s Next Train Wreck,” May 18). “The legislature needs to kill the train now. Once this boondoggle gets out of the station, the state will be writing checks for decades,” added the Journal in its most recent editorial (“Off the California Rails,” May 30). The San Francisco Examiner and The Sacramento Bee also have been critical in their reporting. Governor Brown needs to “squarely address the issues raised by the legislative analyst’s report,” a Sacramento Bee editorial urged.

    Even some of the state’s former legislative supporters, such as state senators Joe Simitian, Alan Lowenthal, Anna Eshoo and Mark DeSaulnier have expressed reservations and urged the Authority to rethink its direction. “I don’t want to see an EIR (Environmental Impact Report) completed for a project that will never be built,” Senator Joe Simitian told Roelef van Ark at a Senate Budget Subcommittee hearing on financing the first rail segment in the Central Valley.

    At the urging of the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the rail authority asked the U.S. DOT for more flexibility about where and when to build the initial “operable” segment. The LAO went as far as recommending that “If the state can’t win a waiver from the federal government to loosen the rules and the timing for using high-speed rail grants, it should consider abandoning the project.” Not only would the Central Valley segment, by itself, have insufficient ridership and revenues to stand on its own, the Legislative Analyst wrote, but “the assumption that construction of the Central Valley segment could move quickly because of a lack of public opposition has already proved to be unfounded.” The LAO suggested several alternative segments that could be more financially viable and economically beneficial than the Central Valley segment. They included Los Angeles-Anaheim, San Francisco-San Jose and San Jose-Merced.

    But in a remarkable exercise of inflexibility and delusion, the U.S. Department of Transportation turned a deaf ear to the request. “Once major construction is underway…the private sector will have compelling reasons to invest in further construction,” the DOT letter stated in an assertion totally unsupported by any evidence.

    “California is a test case for whether high-speed trains can succeed in the U.S. — and so far, the state is failing the test,” the LA Times editorial concluded. The feds’ refusal to reconsider their position has substantially magnified and accelerated the likelihood of that failure.

    LATE-BREAKING NEWS 6/6/2011: In the wake of the LAO report, both houses of the California Legislature have passed legislation that, in effect, is a vote of no confidence in the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) and its Board. The bills place the Authority within the state’s Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, thus giving the Governor decisionmaking power over the project. The Senate bill would “vacate” the appointments of the current Board members and provide for the appointment of a new advisory Board with special expertise in construction management, infrastructure finance and operation of rail systems. The House bill would retain the current Board but only in an advisory capacity. The two bills will have to be reconciled before they are sent to the Governor for signature. However, with the bills sponsored by three Democrats, the Governor is expected to sign the final bill into law [SB 517 (A. Lowenthal), passed on June 1 by a vote of 26-12; AB 145 (Galgiani and B. Lowenthal) passed on June 3 by a vote of 50-16].

    There is a possibility that a change of leadership at the Authority, coupled with mounting grassroots opposition in the Central Valley, might delay the project past September 2012 — the federal deadline to start construction— and thus disqualify the project from federal grant assistance extended under the stimulus (ARRA) legislation. The deadline was reaffirmed in a letter from U.S. DOT’s Undersecretary for Policy, Roy Kienitz. “U.S. DOT has no administrative authority to change this deadline, and do not believe it is prudent to assume Congress will change it,” Kienitz wrote to Roelof van Ark.