IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/clh/resear/v17y2024i03.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Federal Business Subsidies: Explosive Growth Since 2014

Author

Listed:
  • John Lester

    (University of Calgary)

Abstract

Federal business subsidies have risen 140 per cent over the nine years ending in 2023–24, compared to 17 per cent over the previous nine years. New programs accounted for over half the growth. Clean economy measures, which rose $7 billion from 2014–15 to 2023–24, were the major contributor to growth in new programs. Even without the new climate change measures, business subsidies would have doubled over the period. Subsidies are likely to reach about $50 billion in 2027–28, which would represent 54 per cent of corporate income tax revenue, up from 42 per cent in 2014–15. Other key findings are: • Small and medium-sized enterprises benefit disproportionately from subsidies. These firms account for about half of output in Canada but receive approximately two-thirds of business subsidies. • Clean economy measures account for almost a fifth of business subsidies. The agri-food sector receives the second largest share, approximately 15 per cent, which is substantial relative to its four per cent output share. • Business subsidies are concentrated in a small number of programs. In the current fiscal year, the top 10 programs (out of almost 150 programs) account for almost 60 per cent of subsidies, and the top 20 for almost 80 per cent. • Spending programs account for a surprisingly small share of business subsidies — approximately 30 per cent in the current fiscal year. The tax system is the most important delivery mechanism (45 per cent), while government business enterprises and refundable tax credits account for just over 10 per cent each. What are taxpayers getting in return for the massive spending on subsidies? They are certainly getting more of the activities that are being subsidized and less of the activities that are not. However, this change in the composition of economic activity won’t necessarily improve well-being because market prices generally allocate society’s scarce resources to their best uses. That is, if markets are functioning properly, subsidies harm rather than help economic performance. On the other hand, if subsidy programs address a market failure, the resulting reallocation of activity may be more efficient. Federal business subsidies that have the potential to improve economic performance, or more generally, to enhance well-being, because they address a market failure accounted for 64 per cent of business subsidies in 2023–24. However, measures accounting for about two-thirds of this spending fail a benefit-cost test — they are not successful in raising Canadians’ real income. These programs should be reviewed to determine if they can be restructured to deliver a positive net benefit. If not, they should be eliminated. Measures accounting for 36 per cent of total spending in 2023–24 are not intended to correct a market failure and are therefore transferring income from one group of Canadians to another while harming economic performance. These measures include general business subsidies and initiatives providing income support. These measures should be carefully reviewed to determine if their income redistribution effects can be justified in the context of the real income loss they cause. Since 2019–20, subsidies implemented to mitigate the impact of climate change and to create good jobs by subsidizing high-productivity, high-wage industries have grown in importance and will continue to do so. Climate change mitigation measures should only be implemented if they complement carbon pricing, the government’s main and most cost-effective instrument for reducing emissions. If they meet this minimum condition, climate change mitigation measures should be assessed based on their relative cost-effectiveness in reducing emissions. The proposition that subsidies intended to create good jobs are sound public policy is controversial. The impact of these measures should be tested against the data before additional funds are committed.

Suggested Citation

  • John Lester, 2024. "Federal Business Subsidies: Explosive Growth Since 2014," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 17(03), March.
  • Handle: RePEc:clh:resear:v:17:y:2024:i:03
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/FP6-FedBusSubsidies.Lester.Mar7_.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Howard Pack & Kamal Saggi, 2006. "Is There a Case for Industrial Policy? A Critical Survey," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 21(2), pages 267-297.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shrimali, Gireesh & Sahoo, Anshuman, 2014. "Has India׳s Solar Mission increased the deployment of domestically produced solar modules?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 501-509.
    2. Bartesaghi, Paolo & Clemente, Gian Paolo & Grassi, Rosanna & Luu, Duc Thi, 2022. "The multilayer architecture of the global input-output network and its properties," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 304-341.
    3. Fanti, Lucrezia & Pereira, Marcelo C. & Virgillito, Maria Enrica, 2024. "The agents of industrial policy and the North-South convergence: State-owned enterprises in an international-trade macroeconomic ABM," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1491, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    4. S. Sinelnikov-Murylev & A. Radygin & L. Freinkman & N. Glavatskaya (ed.), 2014. "RUSSIAN ECONOMY IN 2013 Trends and Outlooks (Issue 35)," Books, Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy, edition 1, volume 35, number 5.
    5. Alessio Terzi & Monika Sherwood & Aneil Singh, 2023. "European industrial policy for the green and digital revolution," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(5), pages 842-857.
    6. Sergio G. Lazzarini, 2015. "Strategizing by the government: Can industrial policy create firm-level competitive advantage?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(1), pages 97-112, January.
    7. Harrison, Ann & Rodríguez-Clare, Andrés, 2010. "Trade, Foreign Investment, and Industrial Policy for Developing Countries," Handbook of Development Economics, in: Dani Rodrik & Mark Rosenzweig (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 4039-4214, Elsevier.
    8. Roe, Alan R., 2011. "Aid and the Fiscal and Monetary Responses to Dutch Disease," WIDER Working Paper Series 095, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    9. Estian Calitz & Eva Muwanga-Zake & Alexius Sithole & Wynnona Steyn, 2021. "Depreciation allowances in South Africa," Studies in Economics and Econometrics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(1), pages 1-22, January.
    10. Bernard Hoekman & Will Martin & Carlos A. Primo Braga, 2009. "Trade Preference Erosion : Measurement and Policy Response," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 9437.
    11. Martin Ravallion, 2013. "The Idea of Antipoverty Policy," NBER Working Papers 19210, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Justin Yifu Lin, 2013. "New structural economics: the third wave of development thinking," Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, The Crawford School, The Australian National University, vol. 27(2), pages 1-13, November.
    13. Pitelis, Christos & Kelmendi, Pellumb, 2009. "The political economy of European anti-trust and industrial policy," MPRA Paper 23941, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Robert K. Gruenwald, 2014. "Alternative Approaches in Evaluating the EU SME Policy: Answers to the Question of Impact and Legitimization," Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, Centre for Strategic and International Entrepreneurship at the Cracow University of Economics., vol. 2(2), pages 77-88.
    15. Cheng, Wan-Jung, 2023. "A political economy approach to endogenous industrial policies," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    16. Annalisa Caloffi & Marco Mariani, 2018. "Regional policy mixes for enterprise and innovation: A fuzzy-set clustering approach," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(1), pages 28-46, February.
    17. Çiğdem Börke Tunali & Jan Fidrmuc, 2015. "State Aid Policy in the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(5), pages 1143-1162, September.
    18. Tilman Altenburg & Wilfried Lütkenhorst, 2015. "Industrial Policy in Developing Countries," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14726.
    19. Wu, Yiyun & Zhu, Xiwei & Groenewold, Nicolaas, 2019. "The determinants and effectiveness of industrial policy in china: A study based on Five-Year Plans," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 225-242.
    20. Ederington, Josh & McCalman, Phillip, 2011. "Infant industry protection and industrial dynamics," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 37-47, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:clh:resear:v:17:y:2024:i:03. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

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

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

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

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

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