Fiscal situation of Canada’s ‘oil rich’ provinces
Posted by Nick Falvo under aboriginal peoples, Alberta, Balanced budgets, budgets, corporate income tax, corporate profits, debt, deficits, economic growth, economic thought, livescoreทีเด็ด
employment, energy, fiscal policy, heterodox economics, homeless, housing, income, income distribution, income support, income tax, Indigenous people, industrial policy, inequality, labour adjustment, labour market, Newfoundland and Labrador, oil and gas, PEF, poverty, progressive economic strategies, public services, Role of government, Saskatchewan, social policy, taxation, transportation, unemployment.
June 19th, 2017
Comments: 1
I’ve just written a blog post about the fiscal situation of Canada’s ‘oil rich’ provinces (i.e., Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador). It consists of a summary of key points raised at a PEF-sponsored panel at this year’s Annual Conference of the Canadian Economics Association.
Points raised in the blog post include the following:
-The price of oil is impossible to accurately predict, and there’s no guarantee it will rise to past levels.
-Each of Canada’s ‘oil rich’ provinces should therefore find other ways of financing future spending.
The full blog post can be found here.
Comments
Comment from Larry Kazdan
Time: June 19, 2017, 9:13 pm
Counter-cyclical fiscal policy will often require the federal government to be in deficit in order to sustain the economy and support provincial budgets.
See Fiscal federalism: US history for architects of Europe’s fiscal union
http://bruegel.org/2012/01/fiscal-federalism-us-history-for-architects-of-europes-fiscal-union/
“(p.4)……states in the US can abide by strict budget
balance rules to the extent the federal government is responsible for stabilisation and the bail-out of insolvent banks, but this simple lesson is sometimes overlooked in European discussions.
(p.23) Fiscal transfers from the federal government directly into state budgets, to help them fulfill federal mandates and otherwise alleviate budget pressure, ameliorate the procyclical influence of the states during downturns
.
(p. 23 – 25 )”In sum, the federal government (1) is the only level that provides significant stabilisation during recessions, while the states are likely to be procyclical, and (2) injects federal money into state programmes directly. Both roles render the balanced budget rules at the state level more sustainable than they would be in the absence of the federal government and its fiscal system.”
(p.30) Since the 1930s, the federal budget has helped to stabilise the national economy in countercyclical fashion. Without this, state-level restrictions would have been difficult or impossible to sus-tain.”
Related articles
- Ten considerations for the next Alberta budget (December 8th, 2018)
- The Anthropocene and the New World (December 1st, 2018)
- When tenants ‘graduate’ from Housing First programs (September 7th, 2018)
- livescoreทีเด็ด (June 7th, 2018)
- Saskatchewan budget misses opportunity on rental housing assistance (May 2nd, 2018)
Write a comment