Revitalizing Atlantic Canada

Writing for Free Exchange allowed me to examine a multiplicity of issues facing Atlantic Canada and the following are some that I have found to be of paramount importance.

The most prominent issue in Atlantic Canada is slow economic growth, which has resulted in an enormous outflow of skill labourers, young professionals, and families who have left for British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan to find work. Economic growth rates in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island, for instance, have fallen below the national average of 2 per cent in 2013. Newfoundland and Labrador, which is currently booming due to oil production, is somewhat of an exception, however, declining revenues threaten to derail the province’s path to prosperity. In addition, the three Maritime Provinces experienced declining populations in 2013.

NL’s growth is largely attributable to strong oil and gas production, which has been growing in the province since the mid-2000s. The rest of Atlantic Canada could benefit from NL’s model and the region may need to look toward the oil and gas sector. New Brunswick currently boasts an opportunity to host the Energy East Pipeline and has a prospective shale gas industry. Other opportunities include increased cooperation or shared services between the three Maritime Provinces and exploring trade prospects with emerging markets.

Another problem facing the region, and the entire country, is unfunded liabilities. In other words, public sector pensions are a significant issue that plagues both federal and provincial government. This is where Atlantic Canada can lead: New Brunswick and Nova Scotia both made changes to their pension programs and the rest of Canada could learn from their progress.

In addition, Canada’s healthcare system requires additional consideration and policymakers must look into issues plaguing it. Through the Canada Health Transfer, the federal government allocates funds to the provinces to assist them with growing wait lists, quality assurance, and a number of other issues. However, progress has been futile. The federal government has given $41 billion in additional healthcare funding since 2004, yet, in 2010, Canada ranked last out of 11 countries in terms of wait times. This is why policymakers should consider alternatives to the status quo.

There are also serious democratic issues facing the country. The Senate remains unelected and unaccountable, and the Supreme Court’s recent ruling inscribed the current structure in stone. Its ruling does not need necessarily indicate defeat, though, and the Prime Minister, in addition to supporting premiers, must take the lead and ensure reform to the Upper Chamber.

While many Canadians may agree that these issues are of great importance, there must be action. We often criticize the political sphere for not dealing with these issues adequately, however, the truth is that we, as electors, must show that they are a priority or politicians will not give them due consideration. It is our duty to ensure that ideas, such as natural resource development, prudent fiscal management, and adequate healthcare, receive fair scrutiny, rather than arbitrarily dismissing them from the outset; it is our duty as citizens to place them on the political agenda.

Randy Kaye is a 2013-2014 Atlantic Institute for Market Studies’ Student Fellow. The views expressed are the opinion of the author and not necessarily the Institute

Against Smoking Bans in “Public Spaces”

In Canada, the government prohibits smoking in “indoor public spaces,” which, according to the law, consist of bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, etc. The term “indoor public spaces,” however, is misleading: they are public only in the sense that there are other people sharing the space, yet, many of these “indoor public spaces” are owned by private individuals. There are several reasons for protecting their right to choose whether they want a smoke-free or smoke-filled establishment.

Many complain that smoking in bars is encouraging to nonsmokers and exposes them to secondhand smoke. There are many reasons why this argument may not hold. For now, though, it is more important to focus on the demonization of smoking. By categorically prohibiting restaurant owners from allowing their customers to smoke inside, the government prevents people from doing something they may want to do, i.e. to smoke in a bar or own a bar that allows smoking). Smoking is not good or bad “in itself,” but, rather, it is only good or bad according to individual preference, including, but not limited to, the tradeoff of overall health for immediate pleasure, the terms of which some individuals would happily agree with. Moreover, there is an enormous amount of information detailing the economic, health, and social harms associated with smoking available to consumers that allows them to choose intelligently.

A popular argument for banning smoking in indoor public spaces pertains to workers’ rights: smoking indoors threatens employee health and welfare and because many workers do not have the convenience of choosing their place of employment–so the argument goes–allowing it forces them to choose between inhaling toxic cigarette fumes and unemployment.

To some extent, indoor smoking harms workers. Does that really justify banning it?

Closer examination of firm behavior demonstrates that it varies based on the economic implications of “safety.” Between 2008 and 2010, 700 construction workers died from workplace injuries in Canada. In addition, 637 individuals died in manufacturing workplaces and 329 in the transportation industry. Although these numbers may seem surprising, the theory of compensating differentials explains why outcomes in some industries differ from those in others.

According to the compensating wage differentials theory, workers are compensated by firms in a number of ways: these include wages, nonwage benefits, and working conditions. Any given individual has a set of preferences between these forms of compensation. A risk adverse employee, for instance, may be willing to give up much of his paycheck for a little more safety. Someone comfortable with risk, however, could be willing to put herself squarely in danger’s way for better pay. That some individuals are comfortable with more risk explains why construction workers, for instance, agree to work in dangerous settings: higher compensation allays most concerns, whereas lower compensation highlights them. Firms need to offer compensation for labour to attract workers—when they decrease safety, labour supply shrinks and forces the firm to boost wages. Thus, there is a positive correlation between risk and compensation. And there is no authoritatively “ideal” level of risk; instead, there is a multitude of individually preferred ones.

Thus, to attract workers, owners of establishments that allow smoking indoors would need to offer wages high enough to distract employees from the health hazard associated with working there (assuming these concerns are present). For some workers, the increase in pay would offset their health concerns. Similarly, restaurant owners must consider whether indoor smoking discourages consumers from eating at their establishment. If there is growing opposition to smoking, for example, restaurant owners must choose between allowing customers to smoke indoors and losing whatever percentage of their customer base that refuses to eat in an establishment that permits indoor smoking.

Examining both consumer and employee perspectives on smoking indoors lead to a common conclusion: laws dictating firm behavior typically enforce an arbitrary standard and ignore individual preferences. Instead, the government should allow property owners to decide what is best for their respective establishments and let people pursue their individual desires freely.

Michael Sullivan is a 2013-2014 Atlantic Institute for Market Studies’ Student Fellow. The views expressed are the opinion of the author and not necessarily the Institute

Against farm subsidies

Many countries, especially those in the West, support their farmers with generous agricultural subsidies. In 2011, for example, Canada spent $6.9 billion on them. These programmes, however, create inefficiency and lead to morally questionable outcomes.

Farm subsidies artificially reduce the cost of farming. In other words, farmers produce more in jurisdictions with subsidies than those without, i.e. subsidized farmers produce more than what would otherwise be profitable under purely competitive market conditions.

For instance, consider a developed country without farm subsidies. Farmers would use land that allows them to earn as much, or more, money than they could by renting it to the highest bidder. If this country introduced agricultural subsidies, farmers would purchase or rent additional land, since it would increase their revenue from the additional land above its market price (which, all things equal, was uneconomical before subsidization). Under competitive conditions, farmers would not utilize the additional land, whereas providing subsidies encourages them to do so.

Now, imagine a farmer who plans to purchase land in one of two countries. He must choose between Country A, which has extremely fertile land, and Country B, which has only passable land. If the cost of doing business and renting land were equal in both countries, he would likely choose Country A. However, if Country B offered subsidies that compensate him for utilizing less productive land, then he may opt to operate there, instead. In other words, agricultural subsidies are inefficient, in that they encourage farming on land that could be useful for building shopping malls, restaurants, or movie theatres. Moreover, subsidies create inefficiencies between countries with different agricultural policies.

These subsidies are more pervasive in the developed world than in its developing counterpart. Farmers in poorer countries are unable to compete with farmers in richer countries that offer artificially low factor prices resulting from lavish subsidies. As a result, these subsidies encouraging production in areas that are not especially suitable for agriculture, while discouraging production in areas that are suitable for farming. It is in the interest of developing countries to end agricultural subsidies, as it would allow them to expand their agricultural industries, which currently underperform due to subsidies in rich countries, and would alleviate rural poverty by boosting production and prices. Currently, however, richer countries “dump” their subsidized products in poorer countries, not only deteriorating their ability to generate economic activity, but also creating a dependency trap. From the perspective of richer countries that provide billions in annual subsidies, it is more efficient to stop transferring wealth to their agricultural industry and, instead, purchase foodstuffs from abroad.

Agricultural subsidies additionally affect wealth distribution at the domestic level. Policymakers fund the subsidies using tax revenue, which they transfer to farmers and landowners that tend to be wealthier than most; in 2011, the average income of a farm family was $93,426. That is, they redistribute wealth from the general population to a small group of wealthy individuals and firms. Indeed, contemporary “farming” is much different from its predecessor: most “farmers” are wealthier individuals and many farm operations involve large firms that use factories.

Farm subsidies also have a tendency to remain politically relevant–the special interest group behind farm subsidies is very powerful. It is politically expedient for governments to stay these benefits, as they require little funding per capita, yet, provide massive benefits to a small group. In other words, the cost of fighting these subsidies exceeds to cost of providing them in the first place. Moreover, when subsidies increase, this group begins to sense that they can generate more profit by lobbying the government than by actually producing foodstuffs or agricultural commodities.

Lastly, the farming lobby provides a massive obstacle to potential trade deals. In 2007, for instance, American and European governments’ objected to limiting their agricultural subsidies, which threatened the World Trade Organization’s Doha talks. India and Brazil, the countries proposing that western farm subsidies recede, in turn, refused to open their markets.

Proponents of agricultural subsidies typically defend their position by arguing that they benefit farmers and increase food security. However, in world of institutionalized trade relationships, there is little reason why any country should strive for food autarky at the expense of efficiency. Additionally, the age of rural poverty in rich countries is essentially over: farmers whom subsidies support tend to be quite wealthy. For these reasons, and those mentioned above, all states would be wise to stop subsidizing agriculture.

Michael Sullivan is a 2013-2014 Atlantic Institute for Market Studies’ Student Fellow. The views expressed are the opinion of the author and not necessarily the Institute