Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THEECONOMICBENEFITSOFPUBLICINFRASTRUCTURESPENDINGINBRITISHCOLUMBIA
Preparedfor:
BroadbentInstituteStationB,POBox1273Ottawa,ONK1P5R3
Preparedby:
TheCentreforSpatialEconomics336BronteStreetSouth,Unit221Milton,ONL9T7W6
March2017
TableofContentsExecutiveSummary......................................................................................................................................1
BritishColumbia'sInfrastructureSpendingOptions....................................................................................3
EconomicTheory:LinkingPublicInfrastructureandEconomicPerformance.........................................3
MethodologyandAssumptions...................................................................................................................6
AScenario-basedApproachtoModelingUncertainty.............................................................................6
Results:TotalEconomicImpact...................................................................................................................8
EconomicMultipliersandReturnonInvestment...................................................................................10
Short-runMultipliers..........................................................................................................................10
Long-runReturnonInvestment.........................................................................................................11
SummaryandObservations.......................................................................................................................13
References..................................................................................................................................................15
AppendixA:ContributionofPublicCapitalattheIndustryLevel..............................................................16
AppendixB:C4SEProvincialEconomicModelingSystem..........................................................................18
AppendixC:SectoralImpacts.....................................................................................................................20
AboutthisStudy
ThisreportwaspreparedforTheBroadbentInstitutebyTheCenterforSpatialEconomics.TheBroadbentInstituteisanindependent,non-partisanorganizationchampioningprogressivechangethroughthepromotionofdemocracy,equality,andsustainabilityandthetrainingofanewgenerationofleaders.Formoreinformation,pleaseseewww.broadbentinstitute.ca.
TheanalysisestimatestheeconomicbenefitsofpublicinfrastructurespendinginBritishColumbiausingtheC4SE’sprovincialeconomicmodelingsystem.Resultsarepresentedintermsoftheplan’simpactsuponGDP,employment,governmentrevenuesanddeficitsovertime.SpendingmultipliersandreturnoninvestmentstatisticsaregeneratedtoprovidesummarymeasuresofthebenefitstoBritishColumbiaresidentsandtaxpayers.Theresultsdemonstratethebenefitsofpublicfundingforinfrastructurewherepubliccapitalcanplayanimportantroleincontributingtoinvestment-ledeconomicexpansions,andimprovingtheproductivityandcompetitivenessofprivatebusinessesinBritishColumbia.
ThereportwasconductedbyRobinSomerville,Director,oftheCentreforSpatialEconomics(C4SE).TheC4SEmonitors,analyzesandforecastseconomicanddemographicchangethroughoutCanadaatvirtuallyalllevelsofgeography.Italsopreparescustomizedstudiesontheeconomic,industrialandcommunityimpactsofvariousfiscalandotherpolicychanges,anddevelopscustomizedimpactandprojectionmodelsforin-houseclientuse.TheC4SEprovideseconomicmodels,analysisandforecaststonineprovincialandterritorialgovernmentsacrossCanada.Formoreinformationpleasegotowww.c4se.com.
TheEconomicBenefitsofPublicInfrastructureSpendinginBritishColumbia
1
ExecutiveSummary
ThereisabroadconsensusthatCanada’spublicinfrastructurehasdeterioratedoverthelastfewdecades.Issueswithtrafficcongestion,inadequatepublictransportation,sewercollapseandsinkholesregularlymakemediaheadlinesandhavegonefrombeinginconvenienttoaseriousimpedimenttoeconomicactivity.TheBroadbentInstituteisencouragingalllevelsofgovernmentsacrossthecountrytofocusondevelopingthecountry'sinfrastructure.
ThisreportexaminestheeconomicbenefitsofthreepossiblepublicinfrastructurespendingplansinBritishColumbia.Thethreeplansinvolve5-yearcumulativespendingcommitmentsbytheprovincialgovernmentof$5,$7and$10billionrespectively.Thebenefitsfromapublicinfrastructureprogramarisefromthedirectprogramspendingbutthenextendbeyondthisdirectimpact.Publiccapitalpromoteslong-termeconomicgrowthandproductivityasproductivepublicinfrastructurereducescostsforprivatebusinessesprovidingacompellingcaseforpublicfundingofthiscapital.
Thebenefitsofapublicinfrastructurespendingprogramincludethefollowing:
o Intheshort-run,GDPrises$1.78perdollarofspending,9.6jobsaregeneratedpermilliondollarsspentand$0.29ofeachdollarspentbygovernmentisrecoveredinadditionalprovincialtaxrevenue
o Overthelong-term,thediscountedpresentvalueofGDPgeneratedperdollarofpublicinfrastructurespending(ROI)liesbetween$1.42and$2.09
o Privatesectorinvestmentriseso Businessesaremoreproductiveandcompetitiveininternationalmarketso Realwagesrise,providingahigherstandardofliving
Table1
Productivepublicinfrastructurereducescostsforprivatebusinesses–boostingGDPbyupto$2.09perdollarspent–sothatacompellingcasecanbemadeforpublicfundingofthiscapital.TheC4SEbelievesthatthefullbenefitscaseresults,basedonthecost-savingsbenefitstoprivatebusinessestimatedbyHarchaouiandTarkhani(2003),arecredibleandrepresentthebenefitsthatshouldaccruefromspendingonpublicinfrastructure.Butthereisariskthatalargeinfrastructureprogramcouldyieldlowerbenefitssothatthehalfbenefitscaseprovidesaprudentlower-boundtotheanalysis.
TheC4SEcautionsagainstviewingpublicinfrastructurespendingastooltocounterthebusinesscycle.
HalfBenefits
FullBenefits
GDPper$ofspending 1.78 1.42 2.09Non-Residentialinvestmentper$ofspending 1.35 0.84 1.04Jobsper$millionofspending 9.6 1.1 1.1BCGov'ttaxrevenueper$ofspending 0.29 0.14 0.19
BritishColumbiaPublicInfrastructureSpending:SummaryofBenefitsLong-runReturnon
InvestmentImpactperdollarofpublicinfrastructurespending
Short-runTotalImpact
Multiplier
TheEconomicBenefitsofPublicInfrastructureSpendinginBritishColumbia
2
Publicinfrastructurefundingdecisionsshouldbebasedonlong-termbenefitsandavoidfundingprojectsthatyieldlesslong-termutilitytotheeconomysoastoensurethatthespendingdoesnotyieldreducedlong-termbenefitstooutputoremploymentwhilesaddlingtheeconomywithadditionaldebt.
StudyMethodology
TheanalysisconsistsofsevenscenarioswhichwereconductedusingtheC4SE’sprovincialeconomicmodelingsystemwhichisamulti-region,multi-sector,dynamicstochasticgeneralequilibriummodelofCanadaanditsprovinces.Thebaselinescenariodoesnotincludeanyadditionalpublicinfrastructurespendingandisthebenchmarkagainstwhicheachoftheotherscenariosiscompared.Thethreeothersetsofscenariosreflectchangesineconomicactivityarisingfromthepublicinfrastructurespendingprogram.Eachsetofscenariosisconstructedforcumulative5-yearspendingprogramsof$5,$7and$10billion.Thelong-termimpactsfromthehalfandfullbenefitscasescenariosassumerespectivelythatthenewpublicinfrastructureprovideseitherhalforallofthecost-savingsbenefitstoprivatebusinessestimatedbytheresearchofHarchaouiandTarkhani(2003).
TheincreaseinpubliccapitalcanalsohelpachievesomethingelsethathaseludedpolicymakersinCanadaandBritishColumbiaoverthelastfewyears:gainsinprivatesectorinvestmentspending.Apublicinfrastructureprogramboostsprivateinvestmentinboththenearandlong-termandcan,therefore,playanimportantroleincontributingtoaninvestment-ledeconomicexpansion.
Thereadershouldnotethat,likeotherreports,thisstudyonlyconsiderssomeofthepossiblebenefitsfromspendingonpublicinfrastructure.Thebenefitsarelimitedtothosefromtheactualordirectspendingandthelong-termbenefitstobusinessintermsofreducedcostsfromthepubliccapital.Butpublicspendingontheseassetsisalsorequiredtoachieveothersocialobjectivesthathavenotbeencapturedorquantifiedinthisanalysis.Thesebenefitsincludethosetohouseholdsfromlowertransportationcongestioncosts,improvedbusinessnetworkingopportunities,reductionsinpollutionandgreenhousegases,andsocietalgainsfromeducation,healthcareandotherpublicassets.
Inclosing,thisstudyalsoprovidesacautionarytaleforpolicyanalysts.Thecostsofneglectingourpublicinfrastructurearenotzero.AsnotedbyInfrastructureCanada,allowingourpublicinfrastructuretocontinuetodecayimposescostsofatleastequalbutoppositeconsequencetothebenefitsestimatedinthisstudy.ThecompetitivenessofprivatebusinessesinBritishColumbia(2011)aretiedtothequalityofpublicassetssoasignificantandsustainedpublicinfrastructurespendinginitiativeisrequiredifhouseholdsandbusinessesaretocontinuetoenjoyahighstandardofliving.
TheEconomicBenefitsofPublicInfrastructureSpendinginBritishColumbia
3
BritishColumbia'sInfrastructureSpendingOptions
ThereisabroadconsensusthatCanada’spublicinfrastructurehasdeterioratedoverthelastfewdecades.Issueswithtrafficcongestion,inadequatepublictransportation,sewercollapseandsinkholesregularlymakemediaheadlinesandhavegonefrombeinginconvenienttoaseriousimpedimenttoeconomicactivity.Manygovernmentsacrossthecountryarenowcommittedtoaddressingissueswithpublicinfrastructurewithincreasedspendingtoexpand,replaceorrepairpublicassets.
LemireandGaudreault(2006)estimatedthatin2003Canada'sroadandhighwaynetworkhadover50percentofitsusefullifebehinditwhilefederalandprovincialbridgeshadpassedthehalfwaymarkoftheirusefullife.Municipalbridgesfaredalittlebetterwith41percentoftheirusefullivesbehindthem.Morerecently,GuyFélio(2012)preparedareportfortheFederationofCanadianMunicipalitieswhichestimatedthereplacementcostofmunicipalinfrastructureassetsthatwereratedbetween"fair"and"verypoor"tobe$171.8billionin2010.Federalandprovincialgovernmentshaveincludedspendinginitiativesinrecentbudgetsbut,after25yearsofunderinvestment,thespendingrequiredtocorrecttheissuewillrequiresignificantlymoreresourcesandsustainedcommitmentbyalllevelsofgovernment.
TheBroadbentInstituteisencouragingalllevelsofgovernmentsacrossthecountrytomaintainthisfocusondevelopingthenation'sinfrastructure(CentreforSpatialEconomics,2015).ThisreportexaminestheeconomicbenefitsofthreepossiblepublicinfrastructurespendingplansinBritishColumbia.Thethreeplansinvolve5-yearcumulativespendingcommitmentsbytheprovincialgovernmentof$5,$7and$10billionrespectively.
WhileitisexpectedthatthisspendingwillimprovethequalityoflifeinBritishColumbia–forexamplebyreducingtrafficcongestion,greenhousegasemissions,orreducingroadclosuresandpropertydamagefrominfrastructurefailure–itisalsoimportanttounderstandtheeconomicandfiscalconsequencesofthisspending.ThisstudyusestheC4SE’sprovincialeconomicmodelingsystemtoprovideanassessmentofthenear-termandlong-runeconomicandfiscalimpactsofthisspending.
EconomicTheory:LinkingPublicInfrastructureandEconomicPerformance
Economicstudiesoverthelasttwenty-fiveyearshaveconsistentlyfoundapositivelinkbetweenpublicinfrastructureandproductivity.Whiletherearemanycriticsofpublicspending,withmediareportsoftencitingexamplesofpublicinfrastructureprojectsthatprovidelittleornobenefittobusinessortothepublic,theseexamplesaretheexception.
Publiccapital,consistingofroads,bridges,sewersystemsandwatertreatmentfacilitiesamongotherpublicinfrastructureassets,constitutesavitalinputforprivatesectorproduction.Nonetheless,itsimpactonbusinesssectorproductivitygrowthortotaleconomygrossdomesticproduct(GDP)isdifficulttomeasure.PubliccapitalinNorthAmericatendstobepubliclyownedsonomarketsexistforitsoutput.Therearenoclosesubstitutesforpubliccapitalintheprivatesector,thusmakingitinfeasibletouseprivatesectorinformationasaproxyforthepublicsector.Asaresult,estimatesofpubliccapital’simpactarenoteasilyobtained.
TheEconomicBenefitsofPublicInfrastructureSpendinginBritishColumbia
4
In1989DavidAschauer(1989)usedproductionfunctionestimatestoigniteadebateabouttheroleofpubliccapitalinprivateproduction,anditsroleintheproductivityslowdownintheUnitedStatesduringthe1970s.Wylie(1996)adoptedtheapproachtakenbyAschauertoestimatetheelasticityofpubliccapitalinCanada.Usingaproductionfunction,andCanadianaggregatedatafrom1946to1991,hefindsthatgovernmentcapitalhasapositiveelasticity.HeconcludesbyarguingthathisresultssupportthefindingfortheUnitedStatesthatpubliccapitalplaysanimportantroleinbusinesssectoroutputandproductivitygrowth.Foravarietyofreasons,therehavebeenmanycriticsoftheseeconometricstudies.Forexample,thecriticismsrangefromfailingtoaccountfornon-stationarityinthedata,toomittedvariablebiasandsimultaneitybias.Inadditionthemagnitudesofthecoefficientestimates–thebenefits–areimprobablylarge.
Morerecentempiricalworkreplacestheproductionfunctionwithitsdual:thecostfunction.1NadiriandMamuneas(1994)usethecostfunctionapproachtoinvestigatetheimpactofpubliccapitalonthecoststructureoftheUSindustriesandobtainedsmaller,morecredible,estimatesofthebenefitsfrompubliccapital.HarchaouiandTarkhani(2003)applyasimilarapproachtoNadiriandMamuneas(1994)usingCanadiandata.
Finally,analternativenon-parametricapproachtoproductivityanalysisistakenbyBaldwin,GuandMacdonald(2010)basedonagrowthaccountingframework.Itfocusesonprivatesectorinputsandoutputs.Inputsthataredifficulttomeasureorinclude,suchaspubliccapital,arefoldedintoestimatesofmultifactorproductivity(MFP).Criticsofearlierstudiesthatadoptedthisapproachsaythatitisunclearhowlargeaneffectpubliccapitalhasonproductivitygrowthorwhethertheimpactvariesovertime.ThemorerecentresearchbyBaldwin,GuandMacdonald(2010),however,specificallyincorporatespubliccapitalusingthebenefitsestimatedbyHarchaouiandTarkhani(2003)andothers(Macdonald2010).
HarchaouiandTarkhani(2003)estimatetheeffectsofpubliccapitalonbusinesssectorproductioncosts,levelofoutput,demandforlabour,capital,andintermediategoodsusingCanadiandatafor37industriesfortheperiod1961-2000usingatranslogcostfunction.Theauthorsfoundthatanincreaseinpubliccapitalhasaninitialdirectproductivityeffect:itreducesthecostofproducingagivenlevelofoutputinalmostallindustries.Thiscost-reducing‘productivityeffect’ofpubliccapitalvariesinmagnitudeacrossindustries(seeAppendixAforatablereproducingtheirresults)withthelargestbenefitsaccruingtothetransportation,wholesale,retailandotherutilitysectors.Theeconomicimpactofpubliccapitalonthevariousindustriesdoesnotstopwiththedirectproductivityeffect.Costreductionspermitproductstobesoldatlowerpriceswhichcanbeexpectedtoleadtohighersalesandoutputgrowth.Theauthorsrefertothisasthe‘outputeffect’ofpubliccapital.
Thecost-reducingandoutput-expandingimpactsofpubliccapitalaffectthebusinesssector’sdemandforlabour,capitalandintermediateinputs.Theinitialproductivityeffectofanincreaseinpubliccapital
1Inaproductionfunction,firmsproducetheiroutputusingvariousinputs(capital,labour,materials,etc.)soastomaximizetheirprofits.Acostfunctionhasfirmsminimizingthecostofinputstoproducetheiroutput.Thecostfunctionisreferredtoasthedualoftheproductionfunctionbecausethetwoapproachesyieldthesameoutcomeintermsofinputsandoutputs.
TheEconomicBenefitsofPublicInfrastructureSpendinginBritishColumbia
5
resultsinareductioninthedemandforlabourandintermediateinputsbutanincreaseinthedemandforprivatecapitalinallindustries.Whenindustryproductionlevelsincreaseduetothe‘outputeffect’ofpubliccapital,thechangeinthedemandforlabourandintermediateinputsisreducedwhilethedemandforprivatecapitalincreases.Thus,theoutputeffectofpubliccapitalreinforcesthe‘crowdingin’ofprivatecapitalformationsothatpubliccapitalcanbeseenashavinganimportantroleincontributingtoinvestment-ledeconomicexpansions,andimplyingthatpubliccapitalisacomplementtoprivatecapital.2
ThispaperusesthefindingsfromHarchaouiandTarkhanitoestimatetheeconomicbenefitsofthethreepublicinfrastructurespendingoptionsusingtheC4SE’sprovincialeconomicmodelingsystem.Thenextsectionsdiscussthestudymethodologyandassumptionsfollowedbytheresults.ResultsarepresentedintermsofimpactsuponGDP,employment,governmentrevenuesandfiscalbalancesovertime.Spendingmultipliersandreturnoninvestmentstatisticsaregeneratedtoprovidesummarymeasuresoftheresults.Thepaperconcludeswithsomeobservationsbasedontheresults.
2Criticsofpublicspendingcontendthatitcanactasasubstituteforprivatespendingthus‘crowdingout’privatespendingandreducingtheoverallimpactofpublicspending.The‘crowdingin’ofprivatespendingisthereverseofthisphenomenonwhereprivatesectorspendingrisesthroughthemultipliereffectofpublicspending.
TheEconomicBenefitsofPublicInfrastructureSpendinginBritishColumbia
6
MethodologyandAssumptions
ThissectionreviewsthemethodologyandassumptionsrequiredtoassessthebenefitsofpublicinfrastructurespendinginBritishColumbia.Thebenefitsofapublicinfrastructureprogram–whichaccrueprincipallytotheconstructionsector3–arisefromthedirectprogramspendingandbeyond,withpubliccapitalpromotingeconomicgrowthandproductivity.Thereadershouldnotethatcurrentgovernmentspending(excludingdebtservicecharges)isnotdirectlyaffectedbyinfrastructurespending.Employmentinpublicadministration,publiceducationorhealthcarerises-orfalls-basedonchangesinprovincialpopulation-basedneedsandnotindirectresponsetotheconstructionofnewfacilities.Thestudy,therefore,assumesthatanyimprovementsoradditionstothestockofinstitutionalbuildingseitherreplacedecommissionedbuildingsormeetanticipatedincreasesindemandarisingfromchangesinpopulation.
TheprivateindustrycostelasticitiesestimatedbyHarchaouiandTarkhaniareusedtoreduceproductioncostsbythebusinesssectorintheC4SE’sprovincialeconomicmodelingsystem.AtableoftheirelasticitiesofcostswithrespecttopubliccapitalbybusinesssectorisreproducedinAppendixA.Thebenefitstoindustryintermsofreducedcostcontinueoverthedesignlifeofthepubliccapital.Maintainingthepublicinfrastructuresothatthenetcapitalstockvalueispreserved,therefore,allowsthesebenefitstopersistthroughoutthesimulationperiod.Alackofrepairandreplacementspendingafterthe5-yearprogramperiodwould,however,leadtoadeteriorationinthecostbenefitstoprivateindustry.Anotherimportantassumptionisthattheuseofpubliccapitalbyoneindustrydoesnotprecludeorreducethevalueofitsusebyanyotherindustry.
AScenario-basedApproachtoModelingUncertainty
TheprivateindustrycostelasticitiesestimatedbyHarchaouiandTarkhaniareconsideredplausiblebymanyeconomists.Theirworkcorrectsthemethodologicalconcernsofearlierstudiesandproduceselasticitiesthataresignificantlysmallerthanthosefromearlierempiricalstudies.Thereisstill,however,debateanduncertaintyoverthepreciselevelofbenefitconferredtoprivateindustryfrompubliccapital.
Uncertaintyisaddressedthroughasetofscenarios.Thefirstscenario,referredtoasthebaselinescenario,doesnotincludeanypublicinfrastructurespending.Thisisthebenchmarkagainstwhicheachoftheothershockscenariosiscompared.Apairofscenariosareprovidedtoevaluatetherangeofbenefitsoflowerindustrycosts:thefullbenefitscaseandthehalfbenefitscase.4ThehalfbenefitscasescenariohalvesHarchaouiandTarkhani’sbusinessindustrycostelasticitiesandreflectsthepossibilitythatsuchalargespendingprogram,whileaddressingmanyvitalinfrastructureneeds,mayalsoincludeanumberofprojectsoflowereconomicnecessityorvalue.Economistsrefertothis
3AtableofsectoralimpactsisincludedinAppendixC4Athirdshockscenarioisthezerobenefitscasewhichassumesthatpublicinfrastructureprovidesnobenefittoprivatebusiness.Theresultsfromthisscenarioareanextremecaseanddonotrepresentalikelyoutcome;sotheyarenotshowninthisreport.
TheEconomicBenefitsofPublicInfrastructureSpendinginBritishColumbia
7
phenomenonas"diminishingmarginalreturnoninvestment."Thefullbenefitscaseisbasedonthefullvalueoftheestimatedcostelasticities.
TheEconomicBenefitsofPublicInfrastructureSpendinginBritishColumbia
8
Results:TotalEconomicImpact
Thissectionofthereportpresentsthetotaleconomicimpactofthepublicinfrastructurespendingprogramdescribedintheprevioussection.TheanalysisisconductedusingtheC4SE’sprovincialeconomicmodelingsystemwhichisamulti-region,multi-sector,dynamicstochasticgeneralequilibriummodelofCanadaanditsprovinces.ThemodelisdescribedinmoredetailinAppendixB.
Theanalysisconsistsofsevenscenarios.Thebaselinescenariodoesnotincludeanyadditionalpublicinfrastructurespendingandisthebenchmarkagainstwhicheachoftheotherscenariosiscompared.Theothersixscenariosreflectchangesineconomicactivityarisingfromthepublicinfrastructurespendingprogramandaregroupedintothreesetsofshockscenarios.Theotherscenariosarethehalfandfullbenefitscaseswhichassumerespectivelythatthe5-yearcumulative$5billionpublicinfrastructureprogramprovideseitherhalforallthebenefitstoprivatebusinessestimatedbyHarchaouiandTarkhani.Thehalfandfullbenefitscasescenariosarethenrepeatedwith5-yearcumulativespendingprogramsof$7and$10billion.
Table2
Theresultsareconductedunderthemaintainedassumptionthatongoingprovincialpublicinfrastructurespendingissufficienttomaintainthestockofpubliccapitalatthelevelabovethebaselineattainedattheendofthe5-yearplanspendingperiod.Thisspendingensuresthattheboosttocompetitivenessforbusinessesintheprovincefromtheinitialinvestmentininfrastructuredoesnotdiminishovertime.Withoutthispost-planspending,thestockofpubliccapitalaffectingbusinesssectorcostswoulddecline-aswouldtheirestimatedcost-savingsbenefits.Assumingapermanentpost-planlevelofpublicrenewalspendinghasfiscalimplicationsoverthelongterm,butitalsoprovidesaperspectiveofthelong-runbenefitsarisingfromanew,stable,higherlevelofpublicinfrastructureintheprovince.
Table2summarizestheeconomicbenefitsfromthesescenariosbycomparingactivityinthesixpublicinfrastructurespendingscenariosagainstthebaselinescenario.
Short-runAverage(5year)
Long-runAverage(20years)
Short-runAverage(5year)
Long-runAverage(20years)
Short-runAverage(5year)
Long-runAverage(20years)
GDP(millionsof2016dollars)Halfbenefitstoprivatebusiness 1726 573 2417 803 3452 1147Fullbenefitstoprivatebusiness 1790 1098 2506 1537 3580 2195
Non-residentialInvestment(millionsof2016dollars)Halfbenefitstoprivatebusiness 1302 227 1822 318 2603 454Fullbenefitstoprivatebusiness 1350 366 1890 512 2700 732
Employment(thousands)Halfbenefitstoprivatebusiness 9.8 -2.2 13.7 -3.0 19.6 -4.3Fullbenefitstoprivatebusiness 9.2 -2.0 12.9 -2.8 18.4 -4.0
DifferencefromtheBaselineScenario
Spendingof$5billion Spendingof$7billion Spendingof$10billionBritishColumbiaPublicInfrastructureSpending:SummaryofEconomicImpacts
TheEconomicBenefitsofPublicInfrastructureSpendinginBritishColumbia
9
ThetotalimpactsforthefullandhalfbenefitscasesinTable2includethedirectincreaseinpublicinfrastructurespendingplustheindirectimpactonBritishColumbiasupplierstotheconstructioncompaniesofeverythingfromofficesuppliestoconstructionequipmentusedintheconstructionprocessplustheinducedimpacts.Inducedimpactsincludetheimpactontheeconomyfromemployees(atthedirectandindirectlevelofimpact)spendingtheirincomes-andthentheincomethatprocessgeneratesbeingre-spentbyitsrecipients.Theprovincialeconomicmodelingsystemalsoconsiderschangesinbusinessinvestmentspendingarisingfromtheshiftsintheeconomy,changesinwages,prices,interestandexchangerates,andchangesinpopulationaspeoplemovebasedonprevailingeconomicconditions.Thesefactorscombinetoensurethatthetotalimpactislargerthanthedirectincreaseinspending.
TheaverageannualimpactonGDP,measuredinmillionsof2016dollars,duringthe5-year$5billionspendingprogramisbetween$1.7and$1.8billionforthehalfandfullbenefitscaseshigherthaninthebaselinescenario.Non-residentialfixedinvestmentalsorises,relativetothebaseline,overthisperiodwithaverageannualincreasesofbetween$1.3and$1.4billion.Itisworthnotingthattheaverageannualincreaseinfixednon-residentialinvestmentishigherthanthepublicinfrastructureprogramspendingof$1.0billionayear(expressedin2016dollars)forboththeshockscenariosasalsofoundbyHarchaouiandTarkhani.Theincreaseinaverageannualemploymentrelativetothebaselineisbetween9and10thousandforthetwoshockscenariosashigherproductivityinthefullbenefitscasescenarioslightlyreducestheincreaseinemploymentrelativetothehalfbenefitscasescenario.Intermsofperson-yearsofwork,the$5billioninfrastructurespendingprogramgeneratesbetween46and49thousandoverthe5yearsofprogramspending.
Afterthe5-year$5billioninfrastructureprogramends,reductionsinbusinesscostsincorporatedinthehalfandfullbenefitscasesleadtoaverageannualincreasesinGDP(measuredin2016dollars)relativetothebaselineofbetween$0.6and$1.1billionayear.Thelong-runimpactonnon-residentialinvestmentspendingfollowsthesamepatternasGDP.Thehalfbenefitscaseraisesaverageannualinvestmentby$0.2billionrelativetothebaselinescenariowhilethefullbenefitscaseraisesitby$0.4billion.Finally,thelong-runimpactonemploymentisdownbyaboutaround2,000forboththeshockscenariosrelativetothebaseline.Asaresult,labourproductivityisupforbothshockscenariosrelativetothebaseline.
Theoutput,investmentandemploymentimpactsforthe5-yearcumulative$7and$10billionpublicinfrastructurespendingplansvaryproportionallytothoseforthe$5billionplandiscussedabove.
TheEconomicBenefitsofPublicInfrastructureSpendinginBritishColumbia
10
Table3
ThefiscalimplicationsfortheprovincialgovernmentarepresentedinTable3.Provincialgovernmentrevenues,measuredin2016dollars,riseanaverageof$0.3billionayearrelativetothebaselineforbothshockscenariosduringthe5-year$5billionspendingprogram.Afterthe5-yearprogramends,theaverageannualchangeinprovincialgovernmentrevenueisquitesmallrelativetothebaseline.Therevenueresponseforthe$7and$10billionspendingplansvariesproportionallytothoseforthe$5billionplan.
Theprovince’sfiscalbalance,onaPublicAccounts(PA)basis,improvesslightlyasashareofGDPforbothshockscenariosrelativetothebaselineduringthe5-year$5billionspendingprogram.However,theaverageannualbalancedeteriorates,asashareofGDP,0.2%afterthe5-yearspendingprogramendsastheamortizedcostoftheinfrastructurespendingisrealized.
EconomicMultipliersandReturnonInvestment
Economicmultipliersandreturnoninvestmentmeasuresareoftenusedtosummarizetheeconomicbenefitsofpublicorprivateactivities.5EconomicmultipliersarepresentedinTable4andmeasuretheshort-termbenefittotheeconomy-intermsofGDP,jobs,investmentorgovernmentrevenue-ofadollarofpublicinfrastructurespending.Returnoninvestmentstatisticsaregeneratedtosummarizethelong-runbenefitsofpublicspendingandarealsopresentedinTable4.Theprincipaldifferencebetweenthetwotypesofstatisticsisthatmultipliersareameasureofcontemporaneousbenefitwhilereturnoninvestmentstatisticsexpressthenetpresentvalueofbenefitsoverthelong-termasamultipleofcosts.
Short-runMultipliers
TheGDPmultiplierisgeneratedbydividingthechangeinrealGDPrelativetothebaselineforthe5-yearinfrastructurespendingperiod6bythechangeinpublicinfrastructurespending.ForGDP,theshort-runmultiplieris1.78.Thismeansthattheeconomyexpandsby$1.78forevery$1.00spentonpublicinfrastructure.
5Aneconomicmultiplieristhefactorbywhichthegainsinonemeasure–suchasGDPoremployment–aregreaterthanthefactor(investmentspending)thatcausedit.Thereturnoninvestmentisaperformancemeasureusedtoevaluatetheefficiencyofaninvestment.6ThemultipliersshowninTable4aregeneratedfromtheaverageofthefullandhalfbenefitscaseimpacts.
Short-runAverage(5year)
Long-runAverage(20years)
Short-runAverage(5year)
Long-runAverage(20years)
Short-runAverage(5year)
Long-runAverage(20years)
BCGovernmentRevenue(millionsof2016dollars)Halfbenefitstoprivatebusiness 291 18 408 25 582 36Fullbenefitstoprivatebusiness 290 58 406 81 580 115
BCGovernmentPADeficit(shareofGDP)Halfbenefitstoprivatebusiness -0.04 0.18 -0.06 0.24 -0.09 0.32Fullbenefitstoprivatebusiness -0.04 0.16 -0.06 0.20 -0.10 0.27
BritishColumbiaPublicInfrastructureSpending:SummaryofFiscalImpacts
DifferencefromtheBaselineScenario
Spendingof$5billion Spendingof$7billion Spendingof$10billion
TheEconomicBenefitsofPublicInfrastructureSpendinginBritishColumbia
11
Table4
Theimpactonemploymentistypicallyexpressedintermsofjobspermilliondollarsspentonpublicinfrastructure.Theshort-runemploymentmultiplieris9.6jobspermilliondollars.
Thenon-residentialinvestmentmultiplieris1.35andmeasurestheextenttowhichinvestmentintheprivatesectorand,toalimitedextent,otherpartsofthepublicsectorexpandsinresponsetotheincreaseineconomicactivityfromthepublicinfrastructurespendingprogram.Thismeasure’svalue,ofmorethanone,providesevidenceofthe‘crowding-in’effectofpublicinfrastructurespendingwhereitencouragesadditionalprivateinvestment.
BritishColumbia'provincialgovernmentrevenuerises$0.29per$1.00ofprogramspending.Asthesemultipliersorrevenuerecoveryratesarelessthanone,theprovincialgovernmentfinancestheprogrambyrunninghigherdeficitsorlowersurpluses.
Long-runReturnonInvestment
ThelongertermbenefitsofpublicinfrastructurespendingareassessedthroughaReturnonInvestment(ROI)statistic.ROIcalculationscanbedefinedinavarietyofways.Thedenominatoristhenetpresentvalueofexpenditureorinvestmentovertimeassociatedwithaparticularoutcome.Thenetpresentvalueoftheoutcomeoverthesimulationperiodisthenumerator.Thebenefitassociatedwithavarietyofdifferentoutcomemeasurescanbeassessed.ThemostcommonoutcomesfromeconomicbenefitstudiestendtobeGDP,employmentandgovernmentrevenue.
DiscountRates
Thefutureisuncertain;sopeopleplacemoreimportanceonwhattheyhavetodayrelativetowhattheymayhaveinthefuture.Uncertaintyandpotentialrisksriseasyoulookfurtherintothefuture.Thisnotionof"discounting"thefutureisusedtoexpresshowmuchlesssomeonewouldaccepttodayinplaceofhigherbutuncertainfuturereturns.
Inthecontextofthisanalysis,theannualcostsandbenefitsgeneratedbytheProvincialEconomicModelingsystemovertheprojectionperiodareconvertedtocurrentdayvaluesusingadiscountrate.Inmanycasestheyieldonlong-termgovernmentbondsisusedtorepresentthediscountrate.Thisrateaccountsfortherisksfrombothinflationanduncertaintyaboutthefuture.However,theeconomicmeasuresconsideredinthisreportexcludetheimpactsofinflationsoalowerdiscountratecanbeused.Intheseinstancesadiscountrateofjust3%isusedbuthigheruncertaintysurroundingthepotential
HalfBenefits
FullBenefits
GDPper$ofspending 1.78 1.42 2.09NRinvestmentspendingper$ofspending 1.35 0.84 1.04Jobsper$millionofspending 9.6 1.1 1.1BCGov'ttaxrevenueper$ofspending 0.29 0.14 0.19
BritishColumbiaPublicInfrastructureSpending:SummaryofBenefitsLong-runReturnon
InvestmentImpactperdollarofpublicinfrastructurespending
Short-runTotalImpact
Multiplier
TheEconomicBenefitsofPublicInfrastructureSpendinginBritishColumbia
12
benefitsfrompublicinfrastructuremayalsowarranttheuseofahigherdiscountrate.Thebenefitsbasedonhigherdiscountratesdonotmateriallyaffecttheconclusions.
ThecostsandbenefitsinthisstudyareassessedovertheprojectionhorizonintheProvincialEconomicModelingSystem(from2016to2040).Arithmeticallyextendingtheprojectionhorizonoutbeyond2040leadstostronger,positiveresultsatalldiscountratesfortheGDP,employmentandgovernmentrevenueROIstatistics.However,thisalternateapproachwasnotadoptedbecauseofthepotentialthatglobaleventsorother,disruptivetechnologiescouldariseinfuturedecadesaffectingtheassumedlong-termreturns.
TheROIstatisticsinthisstudyshowthenetbenefittosocietyfromthepublicinfrastructurespendingprogram.ThefirstROIstatisticshowsthediscountedvalueofGDP,measuredin2016dollars,perdollaroffunding(alsoexpressedin2016dollars).Thesecondstatisticshowsthediscountednumberofjobspermilliondollarsofspending.ThefinalROIstatisticsshowsthenumberofdollarsofadditionalProvincialtaxrevenue,expressedin2016dollars,perdollarspent.
Table4showstheROIstatisticsassociatedwiththefullandhalfbenefitspublicinfrastructurespendingscenarios.Theanalysisrevealsthat:
o TheoverallROIisexpressedintermsofdiscountedgrossdomesticproductdividedbydiscountedspendingtobuildandmaintainthenewpublicinfrastructure.Discountingfuturecostsandbenefitsby3%yieldsaROIofbetween$1.42and$2.09perdollarofspendingforthehalfandfullbenefitscasesrespectively.
o AROIcanalsobeexpressedintermsofjobsgeneratedper$1millionofspendingtobuildandmaintainnewpublicinfrastructure.Bothspendingscenariosgenerate1jobper$1millionoffundingata3%discountrate.
o Thereturnonpublicinvestmentisexpressedintermsofdiscountedprovincialgovernmenttaxrevenuesdividedbydiscountedprogramspendingtobuildandmaintainthenewpublicinfrastructure.Discountingfuturecostsandbenefitsby3%yieldsaprovincialtaxrevenueROIofbetween$0.14and$0.19perdollarofspendingforthehalfandfullbenefitscasesrespectively.
Overthelong-term,thegovernmentwillcollectbetween$0.14and$0.19inrevenueforeverydollaritspends.Thepublicinfrastructurespendingdoes,however,stimulateprivatesectorinvestmentandgeneratesignificantincreasesintheprovince’sGDPandproductivity.
TheEconomicBenefitsofPublicInfrastructureSpendinginBritishColumbia
13
SummaryandObservations
AsustainedpublicinfrastructurespendingprogramcanlaythefoundationforfuturegrowthandprosperityinBritishColumbia.Productivepublicinfrastructurereducescostsforprivatebusinesses;providingacompellingcaseforpublicfundingofthiscapital.TheC4SEbelievesthatthefullbenefitscaseresults,basedonthecostelasticityestimatesfromHarchaouiandTarkhani,arecredibleandrepresentthebenefitsthatshouldaccruefromspendingonpublicinfrastructure.Butthereisariskthatalargeinfrastructureprogramcouldyieldlowerbenefitssothatthehalfbenefitscaseprovidesaprudentlower-boundtotheanalysis.
Theshort-runeconomicbenefitsincludeaGDPmultiplierof1.78,9.6jobsgeneratedpermilliondollarsspent,and$0.29ofprovincialgovernmentrevenuerecoveredperdollarspent.Theincreaseindomesticeconomicactivity,particularlynewconstructionsectorjobs,canbeattractiveinaslowgrowthenvironment;promptingvariousproponentsofpublicinfrastructurespendingtoarguethatitcanbeusefulincounteringthebusinesscycleovertheshort-term.TheC4SEconsidersthistobeaweakreasonforthisspendingandthatpublicinfrastructurefundingdecisionsshouldbebasedonlong-termneedssoastodeliverlastingbenefits.Correctlytimingfiscalpolicytocountertheeconomiccycleisdifficult.Ifprojectsarerushedsoastoboostshort-termdemandwithlimitedthoughtgiventotheirlong-termutilitytotheeconomy,thenthereisasignificantriskofnotrealizingtheoutcomesdescribedbythefullbenefitscasescenariosincethespendingyieldslesslong-termbenefitstooutputoremploymentwhilesaddlingtheeconomywithadditionaldebt.Infrastructurespendingmustbedirectedtowardsprojectsthatyieldlong-termbenefitstotheeconomy.
Overthelong-run,thereturnoninvestmenttoGDPfromspendingonpubliccapital,assuminga3%discountrate,liesbetween1.4and2.1forthehalfandfullbenefitscasescenarios.Thismeansthateverydollarinvestedininfrastructureresultsinanincreaseofupto$2inrealGDPoverthelong-term.Thisresultisstrongenoughtojustifyapublicinfrastructurespendinginitiativeandstillremainshighwhenhigherdiscountratesareassumed.Provincialgovernmentrevenuerecoveredisbetween$0.14and$0.19forthehalfandfullbenefitscasescenarioshelpingtomitigatethelong-runfiscalimpact.
Somecriticsmaynotethatthelong-runincreaseinemploymentofjust1jobgeneratedpermilliondollarsspentonpubliccapitalislowandthatthemoneywouldbebetterspentonotherpriorities-ornotspentatall.Thisresultarises,inpart,fromthedesignoftheC4SE'sprovincialeconomicmodelingsystemwherechangesinwageratesandmigrationforcetheunemploymentratetoadjusttowardsitsnaturalrateovertime.Whileemploymentgainsmaybelimited,businessesaremoreproductiveandcompetitiveandworkersearnhigherrealwages:upbetween0.4and0.5%afterthe5-yearspendingprogramendsinthehalfandfullbenefitscasescenariosrelativetothebaseline.
TheincreaseinpubliccapitalcanalsohelpachievesomethingelsethathaseludedpolicymakersinCanadaoverthelastfewyears:gainsinprivatesectorinvestmentspending.Apublicinfrastructureprogramboostsprivateinvestmentinboththenearandlong-termandcan,therefore,playanimportantroleincontributingtoaninvestment-ledeconomicexpansion.
TheEconomicBenefitsofPublicInfrastructureSpendinginBritishColumbia
14
Insummary,thebenefitsofapublicinfrastructurespendingprograminclude:
o Higherprivatesectorinvestment,o Amoreproductiveeconomy,ando Ahigherstandardofliving.
Althoughthisstudyreportsthatsignificanteconomicbenefitscanberealizedfromtheprovince'spublicinfrastructureplan,spendingontheseassetsisalsorequiredtoachieveothersocialobjectivesthathavenotbeencapturedorquantifiedinthisanalysis.Thesebenefitsincludethosetohouseholdsfromlowertransportationcongestioncosts,improvedbusinessnetworkingopportunities,reductionsinpollutionandgreenhousegases,andsocietalgainsfromeducation,healthcareandotherpublicassets.
Inclosing,thisstudyalsoprovidesacautionarytaleforpolicyanalysts.Thecostsofneglectingourpublicinfrastructurearenotzero.AsnotedbyInfrastructureCanada(2011),allowingourpublicinfrastructuretocontinuetodecayimposescostsofatleastequalbutoppositeconsequencetothebenefitsestimatedinthisstudy.ThecompetitivenessofprivatebusinessesinBritishColumbiaaretiedtothequalityofitspublicassets,especiallygiventheshortfallofinfrastructureinvestmentinpreviousdecades.Therefore,asignificantandsustainedpublicinfrastructurespendinginitiativeisrequiredifhouseholdsandbusinessesaretocontinuetoenjoyahighstandardofliving.
TheEconomicBenefitsofPublicInfrastructureSpendinginBritishColumbia
15
References
Aschauer,D.A.1989.“IsPublicExpenditureProductive?”JournalofMonetaryEconomics23(2):177–200.
Baldwin,J.,W.Gu,andR.Macdonald.2010.“IntegratedProductivityAccounts:ContributionstotheMeasurementofCapital.”TheCanadianProductivityReviewCatalogueno.15-206-X,no.027,EconomicAnalysisDivision.Ottawa:StatisticsCanada.
Baldwin,J.,H.Liu,andM.Tanguay.2015."AnUpdateonDepreciationRatesfortheCanadianProductivityAccounts."TheCanadianProductivityReviewCatalogueno.15-206-X,no.039,EconomicAnalysisDivision.Ottawa:StatisticsCanada.
CentreforSpatialEconomics,The.2015."TheEconomicBenefitsofPublicInfrastructureSpendinginCanada."Ottawa:BroadbentInstitute.
Harchaoui,T.M.,andF.Tarkhani.2003.“PublicCapitalanditsContributiontotheProductivityPerformanceoftheCanadianBusinessSector.”EconomicAnalysisResearchPaperSeriesCatalogueno.11F0027MIE,no.017,Micro-EconomicAnalysisDivision.Ottawa:StatisticsCanada.
InfrastructureCanada.2011.“BuildingCanadaPlan.”Ottawa:InfrastructureCanada.RetrievedJune9,2015fromhttp://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/prog/doc/booklet-livret03-eng.html.
Macdonald,R.2008."AnExaminationofPublicCapital'sRoleinProduction."EconomicAnalysisResearchPaperSeriesCatalogueno.11F0027M,no.050,Micro-EconomicAnalysisDivision.Ottawa:StatisticsCanada.
Nadiri,M.I.,andT.P.Mamuneas.1994.“InfrastructureandPublicR&DInvestments,andtheGrowthofFactorProductivityinUSManufacturingIndustries.”NBERWorkingPaperSeries,W.P.#4845.
Wylie,P.J.1996.“InfrastructureandEconomicGrowth,1946–1991.”CanadianJournalofEconomics,XXIX,SpecialIssue,S350-S355.
TheEconomicBenefitsofPublicInfrastructureSpendinginBritishColumbia
16
AppendixA:ContributionofPublicCapitalattheIndustryLevel
ThefollowingtablecanbefoundinHarchaouiandTarkhani’spaper(Table5,p.17)andprovidesasummaryoftheirempiricalresults.Theindustrycostelasticities,ηCG,werederivedfromnationaldatafortheperiod1960-2000andindicatethepercentagechangeinthetotalprivatecostofproducingagivenlevelofoutputthatisassociatedwitha1%changeinthevalueofthepubliccapitalservicesandwereusedtoadjustindustrycostsintheC4SE’sprovincialeconomicmodellingsystem.Theimpactoncostsislargestfortransportationandthewholesaleandretailtradesectors.Theweightedaverageaggregateimpactonbusinesscostsistolowerthemby0.06%forevery1%increaseinpubliccapital.
Table5
ηCG 1/η 1/η* ηYGAgriculturalandrelatedservice -0.047 1.071 1.224 0.052Fishingandtrapping -0.001 0.981 1.024 0.001Loggingandforestry -0.014 1.012 1.091 0.014Mining -0.025 1.053 1.154 0.026Crudepetroleumandnaturalgas -0.037 1.091 1.193 0.041Quarryandsandpit -0.010 0.912 1.012 0.009Servicesincidentaltomineralextraction -0.012 0.946 1.029 0.011Food -0.037 1.026 1.141 0.038Beverage -0.035 1.044 1.159 0.037Tobaccoproductsindustry -0.019 0.984 1.043 0.019Rubberproducts -0.030 1.037 1.067 0.031Plasticproducts -0.017 1.047 1.093 0.018Leatherandalliedproducts -0.011 1.022 1.034 0.011Primarytextile -0.020 1.022 1.101 0.021Textileproducts -0.016 1.054 1.146 0.017Clothing -0.021 1.061 1.087 0.022Wood -0.031 1.034 1.053 0.032Furnitureandfixture -0.013 1.023 1.064 0.013Paperandalliedproducts -0.034 1.067 1.125 0.036Printingpublishingandallied -0.030 1.065 1.140 0.032Primarymetal -0.052 1.047 1.157 0.055Fabricatedmetalproducts -0.049 1.075 1.171 0.053Machineryind.(exceptelectricalmach) -0.053 1.125 1.234 0.060Transportationequipment -0.057 1.097 1.177 0.063Electricalandelectronicproducts -0.003 1.146 1.241 0.003Non-metallicmineralproducts -0.022 1.033 1.097 0.023Refinedpetroleumandcoalproducts -0.042 1.097 1.153 0.046Chemicalandchemicalproducts -0.035 1.058 1.197 0.037Othermanufacturing -0.002 1.012 1.074 0.002Construction -0.070 1.034 1.223 0.072Transportation -0.093 1.046 1.279 0.097Pipelinetransport -0.052 1.012 1.189 0.023Storageandwarehousing -0.015 1.022 1.086 0.015Communication -0.069 1.097 1.124 0.075Otherutility -0.061 1.012 1.087 0.062Wholesaletrade -0.118 1.055 1.191 0.125Retailtrade -0.121 1.063 1.221 0.129BusinessSector -0.062 1.058 1.176 0.066Source:HarchaouiandTarkhani,Table5,p.17
TranslogCostFunctionElasticities
TheEconomicBenefitsofPublicInfrastructureSpendinginBritishColumbia
17
Note:ηCGistheprivatecostelasticitywithrespecttoprivatecapital;1/ηistheinternalreturntoscale,ortheeffectonoutputofa1%increaseinallinputs(privatecapital,labourandmaterials)exceptpubliccapital;1/η*istheoverallreturntoscale,ortheeffectonoutputofa1%increaseinallinputsincludingpubliccapital;ηYGisthemarginalproductivityofpubliccapital,ortheeffectonoutputofa1%increaseinpubliccapitalholdingotherinputsconstant.
TheEconomicBenefitsofPublicInfrastructureSpendinginBritishColumbia
18
AppendixB:C4SEProvincialEconomicModelingSystem
TheC4SE’sProvincialModelingSystemisadynamic,multi-sector,regionaleconomicmodelofthecountry.Itincludesabottom-upsetofmacroeconomicmodelsfortheprovinces,theterritoriesandtherestoftheworld.Thenationalmodellinkseconomicactivityinoneregionwithactivityintheotherregionsthroughtrade.Theprovincialmodelsincludedetailedincomeandexpenditurecategoriesanddemographicandlabourmarketinformation.Thepurposeofthemodelingsystemistoproducemedium-tolong-termprojectionsoftheprovincialeconomiesandconductsimulationstudiesthatrequireindustryanddemographicdetail.
Thismodellingsystemconsistsofasetofprovincialandterritorialmacroeconomicmodelsthatarelinkedthroughtrade,financialmarketsandinter-provincialmigration.Theimpactonthesupplychain–intermsofoutputandemployment–isfullycapturedbythemulti-sectormodel,whichincorporatesthepurchasingpatternsfromthecurrentinput-outputtables.But,incontrasttoaninput-outputmodel,adynamicmacroeconomicmodelalsoconsiderstheimpactonsupplier’sinvestmentdecisionsthatoccurasaresultofthechangeineconomicactivity.
Themodelproducesimpactsonemployment,labourincome,valueaddedoutput,productivity,investmentandexportsforatleastfourteenindustrysectors(seelistbelow).Italsoproducestheimpactsongovernmentrevenuebylevelofgovernmentandsourceofrevenue.Thedynamicnatureofthemodel,however,makesitmorechallengingtodevelopasinglesummarymeasurethatprovidesa“rule-of-thumb”result.Theneedforsuchameasureissatisfiedbygeneratinganaverageimpactoverseveralyearsofthesimulationor,whenappropriate,aReturnonInvestmentstatistic.
C4SEModel–IndustrySectors
AgricultureOtherPrimary(detailvariesbyprovince)Manufacturing(detailvariesbyprovince)ConstructionUtilitiesTransportation&WarehousingWholesale&RetailTrade
Finance,Insurance&RealEstateProfessional,Scientific&ManagementServicesAccommodation&FoodHealthServicesOtherServicesEducationServicesGovernmentServices
Themodelincorporatespartialpolicyresponsestoeconomicdevelopments.Intermsofmonetarypolicy,theBankofCanadaadjustsinterestratesusingaTaylorRulereactionfunctionthatrespondstoinflationrelativetoitstargetrateandtheunemploymentraterelativetothenaturalrateofunemployment.TheexchangeratereactstoCanada-USinterestratedifferentialsandchangesinthepurchasingpowerparityvalueofthedollar.Intermsoffiscalpolicy,governmentspendingis,formanycategories,afunctionofpopulation,whilegovernmentrevenuereactstochangesinthetaxbase.
Thefollowingsectionsprovidethereaderwithmoreinformationonthestructureoftheindividualprovincialmodelsandthenationalmodelthatunitestheprovincialandterritorialmodels.
TheEconomicBenefitsofPublicInfrastructureSpendinginBritishColumbia
19
ProvincialModels
Theprovincialandterritorialmodelsareverysimilarinstructure–theparametersineachmodeldiffertoreflectdifferencesintheeconomicexperienceofeachregion.
Theprovincialmodelsaresimilarinnaturetoageneralequilibriummodel,butfullproductandfactorsubstitutionisnotimplemented.Atpresent,substitutionisrestrictedtotheenergyproductsandvalue-added.Forpurposesofmanageabilitythereisonlyonewagerateandonesetofcostofcapitalmeasures–constructionandequipment–inthemodel.Changesinthesemeasuresoflabourandcapitalcostscauselabourandcapitalintensitiestochangeacrossallsectorsoftheeconomy.
Themodel'seconomyisorganizedintofourbroadsectors.Firmsemploycapitalandlabourtoproduceaprofit-maximizingoutputunderaCobb-Douglasconstant-returns-to-scaletechnology.Householdsconsumethedomesticandforeignproductsandsupplylabourundertheassumptionofutilitymaximization.Governmentspurchasethedomesticandforeignproductsandproduceoutput.Foreignerspurchasethedomesticproductandsupplytheforeignproduct.
Therearetwomainmarketsinthemodel.Thesemarketscorrespondtothedomesticandforeignproductsandthelabourmarket.Eachofthesemarketsisconcernedwiththedeterminationofdemands,supplies,andprices.Likemostsub-nationalmodels,theBritishColumbiamodelassumesthatmostpricesaresetinnationalmarkets.ThepresenceoftheNationalmodelinthesystemmeansthatinterestrates,exchangeratesandthepriceofsomegoodsandservicesareaffectedbychangesineconomicactivityinBritishColumbiaandtherestofthecountry.
Insub-nationaleconomies,themovementoflabourisakeyfactorintheadjustmentofthelocaleconomytochangesineconomicconditions.TheC4SE’smodelallowsnetmigration–andthereforethetotalpopulation–toadjustovertimetoreflectchangesineconomicconditions.Iftheeconomyandemploymentisgrowing,thenthedemandforlabourrisesandnetmigrationrises.Thisfeatureisanimportantconsiderationwhenexaminingeconomicimpactsoveroneormoredecades.
NationalModel
ThedesignofthenationalmodeliswhatmakestheC4SE’ssystemunique.Thenationalblockaddsuptheeconomicactivityacrossthecountryandusesthisinformationtohelpdetermineprices,interestrates,exchangeratesandtherest-of-countryexternaldemandforgoodsandservices–allfactorsthatareexogenoustotheotherprovincialmodellingsystems.
Toseewhythisisimportant,consideranincreaseinoneprovince’seconomy.Thisraisesthatprovince’sdemandforimports.Inthissystemeachoftheotherprovincesseesanincreaseindemandfortheirexportstothatprovincewhich,inturn,raisestheirowneconomies.Theincreaseineconomicactivitywillputupwardpressureprices,interestratesandtheexchangerate.Theentirenationaleconomy,therefore,adjustsovertimetotheinitialshock.
TheEconomicBenefitsofPublicInfrastructureSpendinginBritishColumbia
20
AppendixC:SectoralImpacts
HalfBenefits
FullBenefits
HalfBenefits
FullBenefits
HalfBenefits
FullBenefits
HalfBenefits
FullBenefits
HalfBenefits
FullBenefits
HalfBenefits
FullBenefits
AllIndustries(basicprices) 1,583 1,642 531 1,016 2,216 2,299 743 1,422 3,165 3,284 1,061 2,031Agriculture 6 7 5 10 9 10 6 14 13 14 9 21OtherPrimary 73 82 47 109 103 115 65 153 146 164 93 218Manufacturing 66 77 68 157 92 108 96 219 131 154 137 314Utilities 26 27 10 17 37 38 14 24 53 54 20 35Construction 748 766 132 181 1,047 1,072 185 253 1,496 1,531 265 361Transportation&Warehousing 56 60 39 92 79 84 54 128 113 120 77 183Trade 177 188 77 148 248 263 107 207 354 375 153 295Finance,Insurance&RealEstate 161 161 47 92 225 225 66 128 322 322 95 183Information,Professional,Scientific,Managerial 128 134 64 128 179 188 90 179 255 268 129 255Accommodation&FoodServices 32 31 10 20 44 43 14 28 63 62 20 39EducationServices 7 6 -2 -3 9 9 -3 -4 13 12 -4 -5Health&SocialServices 5 5 -1 -2 7 7 -1 -3 11 10 -2 -4OtherServices 93 94 35 70 131 132 49 97 187 188 70 139GovernmentServices 4 4 -1 -2 6 6 -1 -2 8 8 -2 -3
Note:sectorimpactsinthistablearereportedatbasicprices;allotherGDPimpactsusedinthisstudyarereportedatmarketprices
Spendingof$5billion Spendingof$7billion Spendingof$10billionBritishColumbiaPublicInfrastructureSpending:SectoralImpacts
DifferencefromtheBaselineScenarioinMillionsof2016Dollars
Short-runAverage Long-runAverage Short-runAverage Long-runAverage Short-runAverage Long-runAverage