Why States Should Stop Courting Boeing

A handful of cities and states are competing to attract a new aerospace manufacturing plant, despite little proof that it would spur economic growth.

EVERETT, WA - FEBRUARY 8: Boeing 747 jets are built in the company's factory February 8, 2009 at Paine Field in Everett, Washington. The 747-8 is the largest jumbo jet Boeing has built. (Photo by Stephen Brashear/Getty Images)
Getty Images
Nancy Cook
Add to Briefcase
Nancy Cook
Dec. 12, 2013, 6:24 a.m.

States and cit­ies across the coun­try have been trip­ping over them­selves this week to try to cast their re­gions as the most hos­pit­able place for the aerospace in­dustry — as if every re­gion, in its back pock­et, has the labor and skills needed to build jet­liners.

At stake is the loc­a­tion of a new Boe­ing man­u­fac­tur­ing plant, where the com­pany plans to as­semble its 777x air­craft. Politi­cians and loc­al eco­nom­ic de­vel­op­ment lead­ers act as if they can already see the head­lines if their lucky state wins the bid: So-and-so gov­ernor or may­or brought Boe­ing to the area and cre­ated thou­sands of new, high-pay­ing jobs. Hello reelec­tion cam­paigns!

In re­turn, Boe­ing wants some good­ies. Among the re­por­ted asks: Cheap or free land; easy ac­cess to rail­roads, a port, an air­port, or high­ways; and some ser­i­ous tax breaks. In­creas­ingly, loc­al gov­ern­ments lean on such deal-sweeten­ers to at­tract busi­nesses.

The prob­lem with the tax-in­cent­ive strategy is that there is little eco­nom­ic evid­ence that busi­nesses — even ones that bring highly skilled man­u­fac­tur­ing jobs — can boost a loc­al eco­nomy after they re­ceive the tax breaks and move in­to town. Even if a loc­al gov­ern­ment doubles the value of the tax in­cent­ives it of­fers, that will still add only about 3 per­cent of that in­vest­ment to eco­nom­ic growth, says Richard Fun­der­burg, as­sist­ant pro­fess­or of urb­an and re­gion­al plan­ning at the Uni­versity of Iowa who’s stud­ied man­u­fac­tur­ing tax breaks ex­tens­ively.

“Tax in­cent­ives don’t really mat­ter,” he adds. “And, usu­ally, the dir­ect ef­fect is likely to be neg­at­ive.”

An­oth­er ma­jor prob­lem with these pack­ages is that once the tax sub­sidies come to life, they rarely go away. Loc­al gov­ern­ments of­ten do not ex­am­ine them closely to fig­ure out if they cre­ate jobs, or raise wages, or em­ploy res­id­ents. A 2012 re­port by the Pew Char­it­able Trusts showed that only 13 of 50 states con­sist­ently and sys­tem­at­ic­ally ex­amined the ef­fect­ive­ness of these state-based tax in­cent­ives.

“You have to ask your­self if the money wouldn’t be bet­ter spent on lower taxes for every­one, or by in­vest­ing money in edu­ca­tion or in­fra­struc­ture — stuff the gov­ern­ment does to make its eco­nomy more at­tract­ive,” says Don­ald Boyd, seni­or fel­low at the Rock­e­feller In­sti­tute of Gov­ern­ment.

When states do look closely at their tax in­cent­ives, they some­times real­ize that the breaks do not work. Wis­con­sin law­makers, ac­cord­ing to the Pew study, scaled back the state’s film tax cred­it after a study deemed it in­ef­fect­ive. Sim­il­arly, a Louisi­ana eco­nom­ic-de­vel­op­ment agency real­ized that one tax cred­it cre­ated only one-third of the jobs it had prom­ised. Con­necti­c­ut of­fi­cials were happy to learn that a job-cre­ation tax cred­it ac­tu­ally seemed to be­ne­fit the state.

It’s dif­fi­cult to track the growth of these tax in­cent­ives over the years, giv­en the dif­fer­ences in how states award them. Polit­ic­al sci­ence pro­fess­or Ken­neth P. Thomas has es­tim­ated that such sub­sidies now cost loc­al gov­ern­ments roughly $70 bil­lion a year — not an in­sig­ni­fic­ant sum of money.

Be­fore states woo Boe­ing or oth­er com­pan­ies with tax in­cent­ives, state of­fi­cials need to ask more ques­tions, says Jeff Chap­man of the Pew Char­it­able Trusts. Like: How does this fit in­to the state or city’s broad­er eco­nom­ic pack­age? Or, is this more ef­fect­ive than what we could be do­ing with the same amount of money? And, will this fact­ory or plant cre­ate an­oth­er, re­lated mini-in­dustry of small busi­nesses that feed off it?

So far, loc­al of­fi­cials do not seem to be think­ing along these lines as the Boe­ing mania over­takes them. Then again, it’s hard to con­tem­plate the long-term eco­nom­ic ef­fects of grant­ing Boe­ing its wish list when all law­makers can ima­gine are the glow­ing head­lines an­noun­cing they won the Boe­ing con­tract.

Cor­rec­tion: An earli­er ver­sion of this art­icle mis­stated the amount of in­vest­ment that a state could earn by doub­ling its tax in­cent­ives, based on in­cor­rect in­form­a­tion provided by a source.

What We're Following See More »
AFRAID HE’S TAKING SUPPORT FROM CLINTON
Democrats Taking Aim at Gary Johnson
0 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

"Democrats panicked by third-party candidates drawing support away from Hillary Clinton are ramping up their attacks against Gary Johnson and warning that a vote for a third party is a vote for Donald Trump. Liberal groups are passing around embarrassing videos of Johnson and running ads against him warning about his positions on issues like climate change that are important to young voters and independents."

Source:
RUSSIA DENIES
Dutch Investigators: MH17 Was Downed by Russian Launcher
2 minutes ago
THE LATEST

Russo-Western relations are getting thornier all the time. "Dutch-led criminal investigators said Wednesday they have solid evidence that a Malaysian jet was shot down by a Buk missile moved into eastern Ukraine from Russia. Wilbert Paulissen, head of the Central Crime Investigation department of the Dutch National Police, said communications intercepts showed that pro-Moscow rebels had called for deployment of the mobile surface-to-air weapon, and reported its arrival in rebel-controlled areas of eastern Ukraine." Russia, of course, is denying culpability.

Source:
FIRST DEMOCRAT ENDORSEMENT EVER
Arizona Republic Endorses Clinton
6 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

In its roughly 125-year history, the Arizona Republic has never endorsed a Democratic candidate for president. Until now. "The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified," the editors write, as they throw their support to Hillary Clinton.

Source:
TO BE INCLUDED IN SEPARATE BILL
Deal on Flint Aid Likely to Avert Shutdown
10 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have reached a deal which is likely to avert a government shutdown. The biggest impediment had been the GOP's refusal to include funding for Flint water system reconstruction in the continuing resolution, and this solution provides an alternative measure likely to appease both sides. The funding for Flint will be included in the Water Resources and Development Act as an amendment to the version passed by the House of Representatives, one which will be passed in the senate. It now appears likely that Congress will in fact be able to keep the government open.

Source:
GOP REFUSED VOTE ON FCC COMMISIONER
Reid Blocks Tech Bill Over “Broken Promise”
16 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Monday night's debate may have inspired some in Congress, as Senate Minority Leader has decided to take a stand of his own. Reid is declining to allow a vote on a "bipartisan bill that would bolster U.S. spectrum availability and the deployment of wireless broadband." Why? Because of a "broken promise" made a year ago by Republicans, who have refused to vote on confirmation for a Democratic commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission to a second term. Harry Reid then took it a step further, invoking another confirmation vote still outstanding, that of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

Source:
×