Economic development incentive

Last updated

An economic development incentive is known as "cash or near-cash assistance provided on a discretionary basis to attract or retain business operations." [1] These benefits principally encompass tax and economic incentives provided by federal, state, or local governmental bodies. Entities such as utilities and non-profits, can also make incentives available for these purposes. [2] They accord the recipient a monetary benefit (i.e., tax incentives) or an in-kind benefit (e.g., state regulatory releases of environmental liability, municipal infrastructure improvements). [3] Private enterprises, including individuals, are generally the ultimate beneficiaries of economic development incentives. Depending on the incentive in question, other qualified parties are eligible to receive it, as in the case of municipalities, utilities, or economic development agencies.

Contents

Types of incentives

The two types of economic development incentives are mandatory (also called automatic) and discretionary. [2]

Mandatory benefits are generally tax incentives, which are established by tax laws and immediately triggered by a specified type of business activity. For example, the laws may be written to say that a business automatically qualifies for an exemption or rebate from sales tax when it purchases manufacturing equipment. [2]

Discretionary incentives consist of either tax or economic benefits and can be established by law, by the policy of a public body or other entity, or by negotiation among transaction participants. [2] For example, a local government and a business might negotiate a temporary reduction in property tax if the business undertakes an activity that the government wants, such as hiring more local residents or remediating a traffic problem.

Examples

The following illustrates economic development incentives made available to private sector enterprises or other recipients: [4]

Considerations

A number of factors are considered in the adoption of economic development incentive programs by public bodies. [5]

Public bodies can develop well-articulated strategies, guiding their adoption and implementation of economic development programs. [6] For example, the federal government can offer tax credits, encouraging the development of renewable energy sources as a national initiative. [7]

An uninformed observation about incentives could lead one to the conclusion that a jurisdiction with a weak business and employment base tends to offer more favorable incentives than one with a strong business and employment base. Although this correlation exists in certain instances, it is not necessarily an accurate reflection in each case of the approach public bodies take in allocating incentives to private enterprises. [8] For instance, a state with a strong business and employment base can leverage its financial position to offer incentive packages to a certain business class as a way to participate in an emerging national business sector. Similarly, a municipality with a weak business and employment base can be reticent to offer economic development incentives because of financial and political consequences. A municipality fitting this profile could be receptive to providing incentives based on new project taxes, not otherwise available to it, generated by the recipient.

The level of competition among adjacent jurisdictions or local communities, or other entities (i.e. utilities) can impact the adoption and implementation of these programs. [9] A state may legislate an aggressive incentive program to preempt adjacent states from luring inbound businesses to their jurisdictions. A local community may, however, offer economic development incentives merely as a defensive measure to maintain parity with adjacent communities. [10] The composition of a state's or local community's economic base can be a factor in the adoption of incentive programs. [11] A state may offer attractive incentive packages to an under-represented business class as a way to diversify its economy. [12] Similarly, a local community can orient its incentive policies toward particular businesses in an effort to counterbalance its reliance on one business sector (e.g., manufacturing). [13]

The state and local tax structure of a jurisdiction can affect the availability of incentives in the jurisdiction. A state may offer to private enterprises a variety of economic development incentives to offset a higher income or property tax regime. [14] A jurisdiction with a low tax structure can be less inclined to promulgate aggressive incentive programs to benefit private enterprises.

A public body's experience with an incentive program can impact its approach toward incentive arrangements. Prior experience with an insolvent company enrolled in a program can prompt a public body to adopt rigorous prequalification criteria as part of its incentive screening process.

Different constituencies affected by economic development policies can also influence tax incentive programs or arrangements. Taxpayers often use the courts as a vehicle to challenge tax incentives. [15] Taxing districts constitute another pool of opponents to these programs. For instance, certain school districts not infrequently challenge tax incentive programs or arrangements because of a reduction or loss of their tax revenue allocations. [16] Other public bodies can oppose tax incentives, as in the case of county tax authorities, because of their impact on taxing districts and public services. [17]

Inducement tests

Discretionary incentive programs commonly include an inducement test as a criterion for eligibility, requiring potential recipients to demonstrate that the incentive has effectively motivated the intended business activity. [18] The stringency of this test varies significantly among programs. On one end of the spectrum, a rigorous 'but for' test is employed, akin to those used in tax-exempt bond financing under federal tax law and in numerous state-taxable bond issuance programs. This test necessitates a demonstration that the business activity would not have occurred 'but for' the incentive. [19] At the less stringent end, the test may simply require evidence of a general intention to engage in the targeted business activity, suggesting that the incentive played a role in the decision-making process.

In the context of discretionary incentive programs, private sector enterprises are often required to pass stringent inducement tests to qualify for specific incentives. These tests generally necessitate obtaining formal governmental approval, such as a resolution or ordinance, before the enterprise can proceed with any contractual arrangements on the incentivized activity. For instance, before waiving closing conditions on real estate purchases or entering into binding contracts for new projects, a business must secure a resolution or similar form of authorization for the incentive from the appropriate public authority.

Clawbacks

State and local public bodies sometimes establish investment, employment, or other project commitments that must be met and maintained during a test period in exchange for discretionary incentives. Under these arrangements, the recipient must repay all or a portion of the benefit received, if it fails to meet or maintain the designated metric of performance during the test period. These recapture arrangements are commonly referred to as “clawbacks”. [20]

In addition, non-governmental entities, such as utilities, can incorporate clawback provisions as part of their incentive packages. A utility offering an in-kind benefit to a private enterprise, such as the installation of on-site energy infrastructure improvements, can stipulate that the project must reach and maintain certain energy usage thresholds as a means for the utility to recover its investment. If the recipient fails to meet these requirements, the utility can assess a charge based on a prearranged formula analogous to a governmental clawback.

Effectiveness

Some suggest that most incentives are relatively modest in relation to the incentivized business activity and, therefore, have no demonstrative impact on the recipient's decision-making. [21] Incentive packages can constitute a meaningful contribution toward project investment. Business enterprises with incentive experience frequently include incentives as part of project site selection checklists and treat them as relevant budget line items. [22]

Others question the net economic benefit to public bodies and local communities and the wisdom of the public policies promoting them. As a corollary, some argue economic development incentives merely facilitate the relocation of a private enterprise's business or employment from one venue to another venue and do not foster any new meaningful business activity. [23] Under this line of reasoning, a recipient can relocate essentially the same operation from one community to another community in a jurisdiction by taking advantage of the other community's ad valorem property tax incentive program. [24] Certain commentators can view business operations or facilities as easily portable from one jurisdiction or community to another. [25] Business relocations can, however, require significant investment, resources, and personnel for planning and implementation. They can be disruptive to the business and undermine the morale of employees, if not properly managed. [26]

Criticism

Economic development incentives have come under scrutiny from many quarters.

Some commentators have also contended that these programs contribute to the corruption of public officials in their administration as a basis to discredit them. [27] The media have accused some companies of flagrant conduct and mismanagement by certain public bodies, under these programs as a repudiation of economic development incentives. [28]

Response

Federal, state, and local governmental bodies, by their nature, have individual agendas in the adoption of economic development programs, although they may be complementary. For instance, a state may promulgate legislation, mindful of its economic base as a whole, while regional development consortiums and local public bodies primarily focus their attention on more local considerations. [29]

Economic development incentives vary in purpose and type. For instance, a utility incentive designed to foster economic development in a local community has distinctive characteristics and goals from an ad valorem property tax incentive used to encourage the redevelopment of blighted areas in that community.

Economic development incentives may also be viewed as merely promoting static business activity but as structures promoting and capturing the organic growth of the recipient at the project level and indirectly promoting the growth of related businesses. [30] Public officials likely have this expectation in mind when authorizing economic development programs.

An argument has been made about the increasing reliance of the private sector in today's business environment on economic development incentives for business expansion or retention. [31]

The sporadic occurrence of mismanagement or misuse of these programs by either public officials or private enterprises also often comes up. Oppositions, however, insist that this should not undermine their efficacy in promoting economic development as a whole. [32]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Timothy J. Bartik, Solving the Problems of Economic Development Incentives in Reining, in The Competition For Capital 103, 104 (Ann Markusen ed., 2007).
  2. 1 2 3 4 Kindel, Frederick W. (2014). "Discretionary Tax and Economic Incentives § 1.02" . Law Journal Press . ISBN   978-1588523792.
  3. ↑ "Frederick W. Kindel, Discretionary Tax and Economic Incentives § 9.03[6][a] (Law Journal Press ed. 2014)".
  4. ↑ "Frederick W. Kindel, Discretionary Tax and Economic Incentives §§ 6.01-6.14 (Law Journal Press ed. 2014); Timothy J. Bartik, Solving the Problems of Economic Development Incentives in Reining, in The Competition For Capital 103, 129-30 (Ann Markusen ed., 2007)".
  5. ↑ "See generally, Frederick W. Kindel, Discretionary Tax and Economic Incentives (Law Journal Press ed. 2014); Irene S. Rubin & Herbert J. Rubin, Economic Development Incentives: The Poor (Cities) Pay more, 23 Urban Affairs Rev. 37, 38 (1987) (outlining certain factors affecting local public bodies)".
  6. ↑ The Council for Community and Economic Research, 2012 State Economic Development Incentives Survey Report (May 2013).
  7. ↑ See I.R.C. § 48C (2016).
  8. ↑ Alan Peters & Peter Fisher, The Failures of Economic Development Incentives, 70 Journal of the American Planning Assoc. Nos. 32, 33 (2004).
  9. ↑ Norton Francis, State and Tax Incentives for Economic Development, Tax Policy Center, Urban Institute & Brookings Institution (February 28, 2016).
  10. ↑ Norton Francis, The Perils of Tax Incentives for Economic Development, The Policy Center, Urban Institute and Brookings Institution 6 (March 6, 2016).
  11. ↑ Norton Francis, State and Tax Incentives for Economic Development, Tax Policy Center, Urban Institute & Brookings Institution (February 28, 2016).
  12. ↑ Norton Francis, State and Tax Incentives for Economic Development, Tax Policy Center, Urban Institute & Brookings Institution (February 28, 2016).
  13. ↑ Jonathan Morgan, Using Economic Development Incentives for Better or Worse, Popular Government 20 (Winter 2009).
  14. ↑ Norton Francis, State and Tax Incentives for Economic Development, Tax Policy Center, Urban Institute & Brookings Institution (February 28, 2016).
  15. ↑ Sadloski v. Town of Manchester, 668 A.2d 1314, 1319 (Conn. 1995); see also Munger v. State, 689 S.E.2d 230 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010).
  16. ↑ E.g., Barker Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Niagara Cnty. Indus. Dev. Agency, 877 N.Y.S.2d 813 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009).
  17. ↑ Bd. of Assessors of City of the City of New Orleans v. City of New Orleans, 829 So.2d 501 (La. Ct. App. 2002).
  18. ↑ "Frederick W. Kindel, Discretionary Tax and Economic Incentives § 14.03[2] (Law Journal Press ed. 2014)".
  19. ↑ "Frederick W. Kindel, Discretionary Tax and Economic Incentives § 14.03[2] (Law Journal Press ed. 2014)".
  20. ↑ "Frederick W. Kindel, Discretionary Tax and Economic Incentives § 10.3[2] (Law Journal Press ed. 2014)".
  21. ↑ Irene S. Rubin & Herbert J. Rubin, Economic Development Incentives: The Poor (Cities) Pay More, 23 Urban Affairs Rev. 37, 50 (1987) (outlining certain factors affecting local public bodies).
  22. ↑ Jonathan Morgan, What We Know about Economic Development Incentives, Joint Select Committee on Economic Development Incentives 16 (October 25, 2007).
  23. ↑ Luke Middleton, Tax Abatements and Economic Development Structures, The University of Kansas Center for Economic Business Policy Research Institute 8 (2001).
  24. ↑ Norton Francis, The Perils of Tax Incentives for Economic Development, The Policy Center, Urban Institute and Brookings Institution 6 (March 6, 2016).
  25. ↑ Timothy J. Bartik, Solving the Problems of Economic Development Incentives in Reining, in The Competition For Capital 103, (Ann Markusen ed., 2007).
  26. ↑ E.g.. The Ugly, Journal of Applied Research in Economic Development, Vol. 8 (March 2011).
  27. ↑ Christopher Olver, Who offers tax-based business development incentives?, Journalist’s Resource (May 24, 2016, 8:56 PM), http://journalistsresource.org/studies/economics/taxes/tax-based-business-incentives-corruption.
  28. ↑ Louise Story, Lines Blur as Texas Gives Industries a Bonanza, N.Y. TIMES, (December 2, 2012).
  29. ↑ Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning Local Economic Development Incentives, Local Economic Development Incentives in Northeastern Illinois 7 (August 2013).
  30. ↑ Do Incentives Make Good Policy, Global Corporate Xpansion Magazine (June 14, 2013).
  31. ↑ "Frederick W. Kindel, Discretionary Tax and Economic Incentives § 103[2] (Law Journal Press ed. 2014)".
  32. ↑ Luke Middleton, Tax Abatements and Economic Development Structures, The University of Kansas Center for Economic Business Policy Research Institute 11 (2001).

Related Research Articles

A tax is a compulsory financial charge or some other type of levy imposed on a taxpayer by a governmental organization in order to collectively fund government spending, public expenditures, or as a way to regulate and reduce negative externalities. Tax compliance refers to policy actions and individual behaviour aimed at ensuring that taxpayers are paying the right amount of tax at the right time and securing the correct tax allowances and tax relief. The first known taxation took place in Ancient Egypt around 3000–2800 BC. Taxes consist of direct or indirect taxes and may be paid in money or as its labor equivalent.

Business is the practice of making one's living or making money by producing or buying and selling products. It is also "any activity or enterprise entered into for profit."

Corporate welfare is a phrase used to describe a government's bestowal of money grants, tax breaks, or other special favorable treatment for corporations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nonprofit organization</span> Organization operated for a collective benefit

A nonprofit organization (NPO), also known as a nonbusiness entity or nonprofit institution, and often referred to simply as a nonprofit, is a legal entity organized and operated for a collective, public or social benefit, as opposed to an entity that operates as a business aiming to generate a profit for its owners. A nonprofit is subject to the non-distribution constraint: any revenues that exceed expenses must be committed to the organization's purpose, not taken by private parties. An array of organizations are nonprofit, including some political organizations, schools, business associations, churches, social clubs, and consumer cooperatives. Nonprofit entities may seek approval from governments to be tax-exempt, and some may also qualify to receive tax-deductible contributions, but an entity may incorporate as a nonprofit entity without having tax-exempt status.

A subsidy or government incentive is a type of government expenditure for individuals and households, as well as businesses with the aim of stabilizing the economy. It ensures that individuals and households are viable by having access to essential goods and services while giving businesses the opportunity to stay afloat and/or competitive. Subsidies not only promote long term economic stability but also help governments to respond to economic shocks during a recession or in response to unforeseen shocks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">State ownership</span> Ownership of industry, assets, or businesses by a public body

State ownership, also called public ownership or government ownership, is the ownership of an industry, asset, or enterprise by the state or a public body representing a community, as opposed to an individual or private party. Public ownership specifically refers to industries selling goods and services to consumers and differs from public goods and government services financed out of a government's general budget. Public ownership can take place at the national, regional, local, or municipal levels of government; or can refer to non-governmental public ownership vested in autonomous public enterprises. Public ownership is one of the three major forms of property ownership, differentiated from private, collective/cooperative, and common ownership.

Tax competition, a form of regulatory competition, exists when governments use reductions in fiscal burdens to encourage the inflow of productive resources or to discourage the exodus of those resources. Often, this means a governmental strategy of attracting foreign direct investment, foreign indirect investment, and high value human resources by minimizing the overall taxation level and/or special tax preferences, creating a comparative advantage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tax increment financing</span> Public financing method

Tax increment financing (TIF) is a public financing method that is used as a subsidy for redevelopment, infrastructure, and other community-improvement projects in many countries, including the United States. The original intent of a TIF program is to stimulate private investment in a blighted area that has been designated to be in need of economic revitalization. Similar or related value capture strategies are used around the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Municipalization</span> Process of transferring private assets to municipal ownership

Municipalization is the transfer of private entities, assets, service providers, or corporations to public ownership by a municipality, including a city, county, or public utility district ownership. The transfer may be from private ownership or from other levels of government. It is the opposite of privatization and is different from nationalization. The term municipalization largely refers to the transfer of ownership of utilities from Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) to public ownership, and operation, by local government whether that be at the city, county or state level. While this is most often applied to electricity it can also refer to solar energy, water, sewer, trash, natural gas or other services.

An urban enterprise zone is an area in which policies to encourage economic growth and development are implemented. Urban enterprise zone policies generally offer tax concessions, infrastructure incentives, and reduced regulations to attract investments and private companies into the zones. They are a type of special economic zone where companies can locate free of certain local, state, and federal taxes and restrictions. Urban enterprise zones are intended to encourage development in deprived neighborhoods through tax and regulatory relief to entrepreneurs and investors who launch businesses in the area.

A tax incentive is an aspect of a government's taxation policy designed to incentivize or encourage a particular economic activity by reducing tax payments.

Between 1950 and 1960, the imperial government of Ethiopia enacted legislation and implemented a new policy to encourage foreign investment in the Ethiopian economy. This new policy provided investor benefits in the form of tax exemptions, remittances of foreign exchange, import and export duty relief, tax exemptions on dividends, and the provision of financing through the Ethiopian Investment Corporation and the Development Bank of Ethiopia. In addition, the government guaranteed protection to industrial enterprises by instituting high tariffs and by banning the importation of commodities that might adversely affect production of domestic goods. Protected items included sugar, textiles, furniture, and metal. The government also participated through direct investment in enterprises that had high capital costs, such as oil refineries and the paper and pulp, glass and bottle, tire, and cement industries. In 1963, with the Second Five-Year Plan under way, the government enacted Proclamation No. 51. The proclamation's objective was to consolidate other investment policies enacted up to that period, to extend benefits to Ethiopian investors, and to create an Investment Committee that would oversee investment programs. In 1966 the Ethiopian government enacted Proclamation No. 242, which elevated the Investment Committee's status as an advisory council to that of an authorized body empowered to make independent investment decisions. Thus, by the early 1970s, Ethiopia's industrialization policy included a range of fiscal incentives, direct government investment, and equity participation in private enterprises.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Community solar</span> Solar power installation that accepts capital

A community solar project, farm or garden is a solar power installation that accepts capital from and provides output credit and tax benefits to multiple customers, including individuals, businesses, nonprofits, and other investors. Participants typically invest in or subscribe to a certain kW capacity or kWh generation of remote electrical production. The project's power output is credited to investors or subscribers in proportion to their investment, with adjustments to reflect ongoing changes in capacity, technology, costs and electricity rates. Community solar provides direct access to the renewable energy to customers who cannot install it themselves. Companies, cooperatives, governments or non-profits operate the systems.

Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC) is a public-benefit nonprofit corporation established in 1981 by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Its mission is “Reinventing our economy to collaboratively advance growth and prosperity for all.” The LAEDC was originally formed to facilitate Los Angeles County's economy with programs to improve and stimulate economic development to ameliorate conditions of poverty, community tensions, and social and economic disparities.

Modern United States wind energy policy coincided with the beginning of modern wind industry of the United States, which began in the early 1980s with the arrival of utility-scale wind turbines in California at the Altamont Pass wind farm. Since then, the industry has had to endure the financial uncertainties caused by a highly fluctuating tax incentive program. Because these early wind projects were fueled by investment tax credits based on installation rather than performance, they were plagued with issues of low productivity and equipment reliability. Those investment tax credits expired in 1986, which forced investors to focus on improving the reliability and efficiency of their turbines. The 1990s saw rise to a new type of tax credit, the production tax credit, which propelled technological improvements to the wind turbine even further by encouraging investors to focus on electricity output rather than installation.

Timothy J. Bartik is an American economist who specializes in regional economics, public finance, urban economics, labor economics, and labor demand policies. He is a senior economist at the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research in Kalamazoo, Michigan.

Non-profit housing developers build affordable housing for individuals under-served by the private market. The non-profit housing sector is composed of community development corporations (CDC) and national and regional non-profit housing organizations whose mission is to provide for the needy, the elderly, working households, and others that the private housing market does not adequately serve. Of the total 4.6 million units in the social housing sector, non-profit developers have produced approximately 1.547 million units, or roughly one-third of the total stock. Since non-profit developers seldom have the financial resources or access to capital that for-profit entities do, they often use multiple layers of financing, usually from a variety of sources for both development and operation of these affordable housing units.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000</span> United States Congress bill

The Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000 is a bill that was introduced into the United States House of Representatives during the 106th United States Congress. The Act was eventually passed as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Green bank</span> Financial institution providing funding exclusively for decarbonization projects

A green bank is a financial institution, typically public or quasi-public, that employs innovative financing techniques and market development tools in collaboration with the private sector to expedite the deployment of clean energy technologies. Green banks use public funds to leverage private investment in clean energy technologies that, despite their commercial viability, have struggled to establish a widespread presence in consumer markets. Green banks aim to reduce energy costs for ratepayers, stimulate private sector investment and economic activity, and expedite the transition to a low-carbon economy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Government spending in the United States</span>

Government spending in the United States is the spending of the federal government of the United States and the spending of its state and local governments.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.