12.07.2015 Views

No. 3 - Department of Treasury - The Western Australian Government

No. 3 - Department of Treasury - The Western Australian Government

No. 3 - Department of Treasury - The Western Australian Government

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>Western</strong> <strong>Australian</strong> Economic Summary2006 <strong>No</strong>.3Put simply, the job creation impact <strong>of</strong> a project seeking a subsidy is <strong>of</strong>tenpresented, but the job destroying impact <strong>of</strong> commandeering money fromother taxpayers to support the project is never included. This one sidedpresentation has been likened to ‘single entry bookkeeping’ (HooverInstitution, 2006).Just as with input-output multipliers 1 , accounting for the benefits <strong>of</strong> aproject without the costs <strong>of</strong> attracting the project can only ever produce apositive result. It is effectively a one-sided analysis 2 .<strong>The</strong> need to examine the budgetary impacts has long been recognised byCGE modellers. For example, in some <strong>of</strong> the earliest examples <strong>of</strong>exogenously adding a project to the economy in a CGE model, the Centre forRegional Economic Analysis (CREA, 1990, p. 12) accounted cuts in otherpublic 3 consumption required to fund the Very Fast Train project in NewSouth Wales and Victoria, while Dixon, Horridge and Johnson (1992, p. 273)did likewise for the Multi-Function Polis in South Australia. However, thistechnique seems to have become less common as the technique <strong>of</strong> addingprojects to the economy in CGE models has become more popular.Project proponents have <strong>of</strong>ten argued that the addition <strong>of</strong> a project willgenerate more than enough revenue to cover its additional cost to thebudget. <strong>The</strong> CGE framework is perfect for testing this claim through abalanced budget closure.<strong>The</strong> costs modelled should include both the direct costs, such as the subsidyrequired to attract the project, and the indirect costs, such as additionalexpenditure on the State <strong>Government</strong> health system required to support ahigher population.It could be argued that these are ‘good’ costs as they are associated witheconomic growth. <strong>The</strong>y are, nevertheless, costs that must be accounted for.Worthwhile projects will generate more benefits (economic and fiscal) thanthe total costs generated by the project.1 Input-output multipliers are widely regarded as discredited and should not be usedunder any circumstance (DTF, 2002, pp. 49-50).2 This term can be attributed to Greg Watts <strong>of</strong> the Queensland Office <strong>of</strong> Economicand Statistical Research in a conversation with the author.3 This analysis also imposed reduced private consumption in the short run as it waslargely financed by the private sector.82 <strong>Department</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Treasury</strong> and Finance

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!