As if New Jersey's subsidies weren't bad enough already, Leigh McIlvaine at Good Jobs First reports that the state has just passed new legislation that expands the state's investment incentives even further. On Thursday (September 18), Governor Chris Christie signed the New Jersey Economic Opportunity Act of 2013, which reduces the number of state subsidy programs but unleashes the two remaining ones to give even more money than ever. Not only that, the new law reduces job quality provisions and guts geographic targeting of subsidies to the poorest areas of the state. The bill easily passed the Democratic-majority state legislature, making this a bipartisan fiasco.
As Governing magazine reported and I covered in my last post, from the beginning of 2011 through early 2013, New Jersey gave an astonishing $1.9 billion in investment subsidies, "more than the previous 15 years combined," as the magazine noted. The new law removes annual spending caps for Grow New Jersey and the Economic Redevelopment and Growth (ERG) grant while reducing the minimum job creation and investment requirements, thus paving the way for even more applicants to qualify. There is, however, a maximum subsidy per firm of $350 million, a level not reached -- yet.
New Jersey Policy Perspectives (see link above; h/t Leigh McIlvaine) details the decline in job quality standards. For the first time, retail facilities are eligible "if they are 150,000 square feet or larger, at least half-filled with a
full-service supermarket or grocery store and located in one of New
Jersey’s four poorest cities," which sounds like a description of a Wal-Mart Super Center. "Tourism destination projects" (read: Bass Pro Shop or Cabela's, most likely) are also eligible in Atlantic City. Worse still, tourism projects are not subject to the state's normally high wage and benefit standards. Additionally, Christie vetoed long-standing prevailing wage requirements for workers at recipient firms.
Finally, as Newark's Star-Ledger points out, virtually every location in New Jersey is now eligible to use state subsidies. This has the effect of diluting the incentive effect these programs could provide to the poorest areas of the state. This is yet another example of a phenomenon I have written about extensively: It is extremely hard to maintain the targeting of subsidy programs to the poorest areas of a jurisdiction as there are always political pressures from richer areas to be included as well. This is true even in the European Union (though far less so than in the United States), where EU state aid law and Commission negotiation over Member States' regional aid maps provide strong support for targeting.
To sum up, it looks like New Jersey will spend over $1 billion a year on incentives -- just at the state level -- while reducing job quality standards, subsidizing low-end retail jobs, and greatly weakening the geographic targeting of its subsidies to the poorest parts of the state. This is a prescription for failure at the state level and an inducement to other states to increase their subsidies as well, exactly the opposite of what needs to be happening.
Friday, September 20, 2013
Sunday, September 8, 2013
New Jersey Subsidies More Out of Control than Ever Under Christie
I have written before how state and local subsidies are more out of control than ever, and more recently how the number and size of megadeals has increased substantially since the Great Recession.
Now a new study from Governing magazine (h/t to Al at LinkedIn group Economic Development 2.0) exhaustively analyzes New Jersey's five largest incentive programs and their growth since 2011. Governor Chris Christie has made aggressive use of incentives a centerpiece of his economic development strategy, but the magazine's comparison of New Jersey's job performance with than of surrounding states shows that it simply isn't working. Not only that, according to the report, "at least 20 companies receiving incentives filed layoff notices" before fulfilling their job requirements.
But it is the sheer dollar value of incentives that makes the head spin. According to the magazine's estimates, the state awarded $904 million in 2011 and $872 million in 2012. Adding in this year's awards brings the total to $1,950 million which is, Governing notes, "more than the previous 15 years combined." (Note: 15 years is the entire life of these programs.)
Moreover, some of the biggest incentive awards have been some of the most outrageous. The Urban Transit Hub Tax Credit awarded Panasonic $102.4 million to move nine miles, within the state, from Secaucus to Newark. As I have reported before, giving subsidies to move existing facilities is the most obviously wrong form of incentive use, because no new jobs are being created, but tax revenue is cut. Interstate job piracy is bad, but for the state to fund intra-state piracy is lunacy.
Meanwhile, New Jersey's July unemployment rate came in at 8.6%, #43 of the 50 states.
Kudos to Governing and reporter Mike Maciag for a great piece of reporting, providing a well-documented case study of what out-of-control subsidies look like as the country tries to recover from its ongoing jobs depression.
Cross-posted at Angry Bear.
Now a new study from Governing magazine (h/t to Al at LinkedIn group Economic Development 2.0) exhaustively analyzes New Jersey's five largest incentive programs and their growth since 2011. Governor Chris Christie has made aggressive use of incentives a centerpiece of his economic development strategy, but the magazine's comparison of New Jersey's job performance with than of surrounding states shows that it simply isn't working. Not only that, according to the report, "at least 20 companies receiving incentives filed layoff notices" before fulfilling their job requirements.
But it is the sheer dollar value of incentives that makes the head spin. According to the magazine's estimates, the state awarded $904 million in 2011 and $872 million in 2012. Adding in this year's awards brings the total to $1,950 million which is, Governing notes, "more than the previous 15 years combined." (Note: 15 years is the entire life of these programs.)
Moreover, some of the biggest incentive awards have been some of the most outrageous. The Urban Transit Hub Tax Credit awarded Panasonic $102.4 million to move nine miles, within the state, from Secaucus to Newark. As I have reported before, giving subsidies to move existing facilities is the most obviously wrong form of incentive use, because no new jobs are being created, but tax revenue is cut. Interstate job piracy is bad, but for the state to fund intra-state piracy is lunacy.
Meanwhile, New Jersey's July unemployment rate came in at 8.6%, #43 of the 50 states.
Kudos to Governing and reporter Mike Maciag for a great piece of reporting, providing a well-documented case study of what out-of-control subsidies look like as the country tries to recover from its ongoing jobs depression.
Cross-posted at Angry Bear.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
We're #194!
I recently learned that a company called Onalytica calculates the influence of economics blogs, using the model of impact factors for academic journals. Basically, it is a question of how often you are cited and the importance of who cites you.
I was tickled to find out that Middle Class Political Economist is now ranked in its top 200 economics blogs, a new entry at #194. At the relatively tender age of 25 months, this was a nice pat on the back.
Of course, this is a testament to both my readers and those who cite me, and I'd like to thank you all. Also, congratulations to my friends at #34 Angry Bear, where I often re-post my articles.
I was tickled to find out that Middle Class Political Economist is now ranked in its top 200 economics blogs, a new entry at #194. At the relatively tender age of 25 months, this was a nice pat on the back.
Of course, this is a testament to both my readers and those who cite me, and I'd like to thank you all. Also, congratulations to my friends at #34 Angry Bear, where I often re-post my articles.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Republicans' "Market-Oriented" Health Care Reforms Won't Work, Part 2
Last time we examined a common conservative "solution" to the country's health care problems, allowing insurance companies to sell policies across state lines. What we found, though, is that this would lead to a race to the bottom in state regulation of insurance products, and that there is no reason to think that further marketization of healthcare in the U.S. will lower costs.
Today, we turn our attention to tort reform. It figured prominently in Karl Rove's Wall Street Journal article last week (paywalled). This has been a conservative theme for so long that most states have already done it. In fact, since 1986, 39 states have limited noneconmic damages, punitive damages, or both, making it hard to see how further tort reform can yield much in terms of gains that haven't already been achieved. The current conservative battle cry is for federal tort reform, in other words forcing the states to reduce protection against medical malpractice whether they want to or not.
And make no mistake, malpractice happens a lot. According to a New York Times article by Dr. Sanjay Gupta, about 200,000 people die each year because of what he calls "medical mistakes," up from an estimated 96,000 in 1999. This makes it the third-leading cause of death in the United States, after only heart disease and cancer. Yet Republican proposals would reduce the legal rights of their survivors, and of the many more patients who are only sickened or injured, but not killed, by malpractice.
The conjunction of plenty of malpractice with plenty of tort reform should make us skeptical that the cost of malpractice laws can be reduced much more. According to Aaron Carroll, the biggest proportion of the estimated $55.6 billion (a figure Rove accepts, by the way) that malpractice adds to the health care system comes from defensive medicine, for $47 billion of the total. We should start out by noting that this is only about 2.35% of the country's $2 trillion health care system. While it isn't nothing, we are talking about approximately $150 per capita, compared with U.S. spending of over $3000 per capita more than the OECD average for doctors and hospitals alone. But if tort reform has already reduced a lot of malpractice exposure, how much more of that $47 billion can doctors cut with even more tort reform? Not much, I'd argue.
No analysis of tort reform can go without mentioning Texas' 2003 Big Bang of tort reform, which conservatives widely tout as a stunning success. A July 2013 Heritage Foundation report by Joseph Nixon and the Texas Public Policy Foundation claims that not only did tort reform result in many doctors moving to Texas, but that tort reform "is the foundation of the Texas economic miracle." (I've expressed my skepticism of a Texas miracle before here.) It claims that there has been substantially increased access because of all the new physicians.
However, there are a couple of teenie-weenie problems with this analysis. First of all, as Politifact pointed out when Governor Rick Perry was running for President, the number of doctors per capita rose much more rapidly in the 1990s than it has since tort reform in 2003. From 2003 to 2011, growth in the number of doctors barely outpaced population growth, 24% vs. 20% over those eight years. Despite Nixon's claim that doctor growth was double population growth since tort reform, Politifact shows that it was only during the 1990s that this held true. Perry's "false"-rated claim that the state had gained 21,000 doctors since tort reform was based on ignoring the distinction between doctors licensed in the state and those who actually practiced in the state. Nixon's report appears to do this as well, because he says, "By the end of 2013,...Texas will have close to 60,000 doctors to care for its citizens." However, the Texas Medical Board source that he cites shows in January 2013 only 52,707 licensed doctors were practicing in Texas. The May update, which I presume was not available when he wrote, shows only 528 more. Texas will not be anywhere near 60,000 by the end of the year.
Second, while the state has improved its ranking since 2003, in 2010 the state had only 216 doctors per 100,000 population, far below the national average of 273 This makes it #40 of the 50 states. Massachusetts, a state conservatives love to hate, and which has not had either kind of tort reform, had 474 doctors per 100,000 population, first in the nation.
Third, contra Nixon, having more doctors is not the same thing as having access to health care. There is the little matter of insurance. Texas continues to have the highest rate of uninsured people in the country, 24% of its total population, which is six times as high as Massachusetts, with 4%.
Finally, tort reform has not done anything for the cost of medicine. As Aaron Carroll (link above) shows, since 2003 Medicare spending per patient has risen more rapidly in Texas than for the country as a whole. He sends us to an analysis by Public Citizen, which produced the table he uses:
Source: Public Citizen, via Aaron Carroll
Summing up, tort reform has not produced more doctors (in Texas, population growth did), does not increase access because it does not give people insurance, and does not reduce costs. Even more tort reform isn't going to give us any savings, either, though it will reduce consumer protection for the hundreds of thousands of victims of malpractice annually.
Don't believe the hype.
Cross-posted at Angry Bear.
Today, we turn our attention to tort reform. It figured prominently in Karl Rove's Wall Street Journal article last week (paywalled). This has been a conservative theme for so long that most states have already done it. In fact, since 1986, 39 states have limited noneconmic damages, punitive damages, or both, making it hard to see how further tort reform can yield much in terms of gains that haven't already been achieved. The current conservative battle cry is for federal tort reform, in other words forcing the states to reduce protection against medical malpractice whether they want to or not.
And make no mistake, malpractice happens a lot. According to a New York Times article by Dr. Sanjay Gupta, about 200,000 people die each year because of what he calls "medical mistakes," up from an estimated 96,000 in 1999. This makes it the third-leading cause of death in the United States, after only heart disease and cancer. Yet Republican proposals would reduce the legal rights of their survivors, and of the many more patients who are only sickened or injured, but not killed, by malpractice.
The conjunction of plenty of malpractice with plenty of tort reform should make us skeptical that the cost of malpractice laws can be reduced much more. According to Aaron Carroll, the biggest proportion of the estimated $55.6 billion (a figure Rove accepts, by the way) that malpractice adds to the health care system comes from defensive medicine, for $47 billion of the total. We should start out by noting that this is only about 2.35% of the country's $2 trillion health care system. While it isn't nothing, we are talking about approximately $150 per capita, compared with U.S. spending of over $3000 per capita more than the OECD average for doctors and hospitals alone. But if tort reform has already reduced a lot of malpractice exposure, how much more of that $47 billion can doctors cut with even more tort reform? Not much, I'd argue.
No analysis of tort reform can go without mentioning Texas' 2003 Big Bang of tort reform, which conservatives widely tout as a stunning success. A July 2013 Heritage Foundation report by Joseph Nixon and the Texas Public Policy Foundation claims that not only did tort reform result in many doctors moving to Texas, but that tort reform "is the foundation of the Texas economic miracle." (I've expressed my skepticism of a Texas miracle before here.) It claims that there has been substantially increased access because of all the new physicians.
However, there are a couple of teenie-weenie problems with this analysis. First of all, as Politifact pointed out when Governor Rick Perry was running for President, the number of doctors per capita rose much more rapidly in the 1990s than it has since tort reform in 2003. From 2003 to 2011, growth in the number of doctors barely outpaced population growth, 24% vs. 20% over those eight years. Despite Nixon's claim that doctor growth was double population growth since tort reform, Politifact shows that it was only during the 1990s that this held true. Perry's "false"-rated claim that the state had gained 21,000 doctors since tort reform was based on ignoring the distinction between doctors licensed in the state and those who actually practiced in the state. Nixon's report appears to do this as well, because he says, "By the end of 2013,...Texas will have close to 60,000 doctors to care for its citizens." However, the Texas Medical Board source that he cites shows in January 2013 only 52,707 licensed doctors were practicing in Texas. The May update, which I presume was not available when he wrote, shows only 528 more. Texas will not be anywhere near 60,000 by the end of the year.
Second, while the state has improved its ranking since 2003, in 2010 the state had only 216 doctors per 100,000 population, far below the national average of 273 This makes it #40 of the 50 states. Massachusetts, a state conservatives love to hate, and which has not had either kind of tort reform, had 474 doctors per 100,000 population, first in the nation.
Third, contra Nixon, having more doctors is not the same thing as having access to health care. There is the little matter of insurance. Texas continues to have the highest rate of uninsured people in the country, 24% of its total population, which is six times as high as Massachusetts, with 4%.
Finally, tort reform has not done anything for the cost of medicine. As Aaron Carroll (link above) shows, since 2003 Medicare spending per patient has risen more rapidly in Texas than for the country as a whole. He sends us to an analysis by Public Citizen, which produced the table he uses:
Source: Public Citizen, via Aaron Carroll
Summing up, tort reform has not produced more doctors (in Texas, population growth did), does not increase access because it does not give people insurance, and does not reduce costs. Even more tort reform isn't going to give us any savings, either, though it will reduce consumer protection for the hundreds of thousands of victims of malpractice annually.
Don't believe the hype.
Cross-posted at Angry Bear.
Friday, August 23, 2013
Republicans' "Market-Oriented" Health Care Reforms Won't Work, Part 1
This has been a week of Republicans saying they have actual ideas for replacing Obamacare, rather than just repealing it. The centerpiece has been an article by Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal (paywalled) detailing all the swell ideas Republicans have. In addition, a non-blogger friend points me to an earlier analysis based ultimately on a group called Docs 4 Patient Care that sounds essentially identical to Rove's article.
Before I get back to Rove, let's talk first about the earlier analysis, which highlights two supposed alternatives: selling alternatives across state lines, thereby increasing competition in the health insurance market; and tort reform. These sound like great ideas in theory, but in practice both are deeply flawed. Today I'll take on selling insurance across state lines, while my next post will go on to tort reform and beyond.
Selling insurance across state lines: Aaron Carroll points out that this is a funny point for people so frequently protective of "states' rights" to be making. That's because the essence of this proposal is to end states' current right to regulate their insurance market. He predicts, on the basis of what happened in the credit card industry, pointing to this piece at Salon, that insurance companies would only sell policies from states with the weakest consumer protections. This race-to-the-bottom dynamic is one we see in in my work on competition for investment, and I'm quite sure Carroll is right. Moreover, he points out that some insurance companies do sell policies in many states; they just have to make sure they comply with each state's regulations.
But there's another reason to doubt that increasing competition in the insurance industry will reduce health care spending. We have data! We live in the industrialized world's biggest experiment in market-oriented health care and, rather than being cheaper, it's the most expensive in the world by far. Here are the figures for per-capita health care expenditures from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's great online database, OECD StatExtracts (stats.oecd.org):
Top 5 Countries in Per-Capita Health Care Spending, 2011
United States 8174.9
Switzerland 5642.6
Norway 5458.0
Netherlands 4737.0
Germany 4346.2
Data are in U.S. dollars at purchasing power parity
Source: OECD StatExtracts, then select Data by Theme, then Health, then Health Expenditure and Financing, then Main Indicators, then Health Expenditure Since 2000, then in the table change the Unit to "PPPPER: /capita, US$ purchasing power parity."
To top it all off, in a post yesterday, Aaron Carroll (h/t Paul Krugman) reports that Singapore has just reformed its health care system to look a whole lot like...Obamacare, individual mandate, no discrimination for pre-existing conditions, subsidies, and all.
The bottom line is that competition does not work in the health care area; simplistic economic models are not enough to understand the unique economics of health. America's long experiment with a market model has been a stunning failure costing over $2500 per person per year more than the next most expensive country.
Next up: Tort reform.
Cross-posted at Angry Bear.
Before I get back to Rove, let's talk first about the earlier analysis, which highlights two supposed alternatives: selling alternatives across state lines, thereby increasing competition in the health insurance market; and tort reform. These sound like great ideas in theory, but in practice both are deeply flawed. Today I'll take on selling insurance across state lines, while my next post will go on to tort reform and beyond.
Selling insurance across state lines: Aaron Carroll points out that this is a funny point for people so frequently protective of "states' rights" to be making. That's because the essence of this proposal is to end states' current right to regulate their insurance market. He predicts, on the basis of what happened in the credit card industry, pointing to this piece at Salon, that insurance companies would only sell policies from states with the weakest consumer protections. This race-to-the-bottom dynamic is one we see in in my work on competition for investment, and I'm quite sure Carroll is right. Moreover, he points out that some insurance companies do sell policies in many states; they just have to make sure they comply with each state's regulations.
But there's another reason to doubt that increasing competition in the insurance industry will reduce health care spending. We have data! We live in the industrialized world's biggest experiment in market-oriented health care and, rather than being cheaper, it's the most expensive in the world by far. Here are the figures for per-capita health care expenditures from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's great online database, OECD StatExtracts (stats.oecd.org):
Top 5 Countries in Per-Capita Health Care Spending, 2011
United States 8174.9
Switzerland 5642.6
Norway 5458.0
Netherlands 4737.0
Germany 4346.2
Data are in U.S. dollars at purchasing power parity
Source: OECD StatExtracts, then select Data by Theme, then Health, then Health Expenditure and Financing, then Main Indicators, then Health Expenditure Since 2000, then in the table change the Unit to "PPPPER: /capita, US$ purchasing power parity."
To top it all off, in a post yesterday, Aaron Carroll (h/t Paul Krugman) reports that Singapore has just reformed its health care system to look a whole lot like...Obamacare, individual mandate, no discrimination for pre-existing conditions, subsidies, and all.
The bottom line is that competition does not work in the health care area; simplistic economic models are not enough to understand the unique economics of health. America's long experiment with a market model has been a stunning failure costing over $2500 per person per year more than the next most expensive country.
Next up: Tort reform.
Cross-posted at Angry Bear.
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Annals of Austerity FAIL, Eurozone Redux
July 31 saw the latest release of European Union unemployment numbers, and Monday's gross domestic product figures brought no joy, especially for Greece. As Think Progress reports, Greek unemployment hit a new record of 27.6 % in May, while Spain's June unemployment figure was 26.3%, according to Eurostat. As the world's biggest experiment in austerity, the European Union continues to prove a failure. Below is the Eurostat figure for unemployment in member states for June, including new (as of July 1) member Croatia, designated HR (click for larger image).
Source: Eurostat
As reported at first at Reuters, Greece's gross domestic product has fallen by 23% since January 2008. Anyway you slice it, that's a depression, not a recession. Despite austerity, the Greek economy has gotten sicker and sicker.
But, wait! you say. What about Ireland? Its unemployment rate has dropped an estimated 1.5 percentage points from its January 2012 peak of 15.1% to just 13.6% in June 2013. Isn't austerity finally paying off there?
If only that were so. What actually is happening is that Ireland has returned to its historical solution of substantial out-migration to reduce the number of unemployed workers that show up in the official data. And yes, the numbers are way more than enough to wipe out the apparent 1.5 point drop.
According to the Central Statistics Office Ireland (Table 5), emigration has surged from 72,000 in 2009, the last year of net in-migration, to 87,100 in 2012, when net out-migration was 34,400. If you look at net emigration of those 15-64, the closest we can get with the data to prime working age, the situation is even somewhat worse. Over 2010-2012, net out-migration in that age group has totaled 90,700.
I calculate the potential effect on the unemployment rate as follows. Ireland only compiles official unemployment data quarterly, and makes monthly estimates in between. So the last official unemployment rate was 13.7% for the first quarter of this year. According to the CSO, there were 292,000 unemployed then. Dividing by 0.137, we get a labor force of 2,131,387, subject to rounding error. Now add 90,700 to both numerator and denominator, and the maximum potential unemployment rate, if all of those people were in the labor force and unemployed, is 382,700/2,222,087 or 17.2%.
Now, certainly some of the 15-24 year olds would not be in the labor force, though many will. Even if we restrict ourselves to the 25-44 age group, net out-migration for 2010-2012 comes to 36,000, which would bring the unemployment rate back to 15.1%, equal to the worst month since the recession began.
We can see, then, that austerity is sinking all boats. Greece has passed Spain in unemployment and is producing barely 3/4 what it did in 2008. Ireland's reduction in unemployment is a mirage based on emigration. The same is true in Latvia and Lithuania, by the way, which the Irish Times reports have lost 7.6% and 10.1% of their population between 2007 and 2012. As the paper notes, "If Spain and Italy had lost the same proportion, it would have been 11 million."
Yet the drumbeat for austerity continues. The sequester goes on. And millions suffer needlessly.
Cross-posted at Angry Bear as "Austerity Sinks All Boats."
Source: Eurostat
As reported at first at Reuters, Greece's gross domestic product has fallen by 23% since January 2008. Anyway you slice it, that's a depression, not a recession. Despite austerity, the Greek economy has gotten sicker and sicker.
But, wait! you say. What about Ireland? Its unemployment rate has dropped an estimated 1.5 percentage points from its January 2012 peak of 15.1% to just 13.6% in June 2013. Isn't austerity finally paying off there?
If only that were so. What actually is happening is that Ireland has returned to its historical solution of substantial out-migration to reduce the number of unemployed workers that show up in the official data. And yes, the numbers are way more than enough to wipe out the apparent 1.5 point drop.
According to the Central Statistics Office Ireland (Table 5), emigration has surged from 72,000 in 2009, the last year of net in-migration, to 87,100 in 2012, when net out-migration was 34,400. If you look at net emigration of those 15-64, the closest we can get with the data to prime working age, the situation is even somewhat worse. Over 2010-2012, net out-migration in that age group has totaled 90,700.
I calculate the potential effect on the unemployment rate as follows. Ireland only compiles official unemployment data quarterly, and makes monthly estimates in between. So the last official unemployment rate was 13.7% for the first quarter of this year. According to the CSO, there were 292,000 unemployed then. Dividing by 0.137, we get a labor force of 2,131,387, subject to rounding error. Now add 90,700 to both numerator and denominator, and the maximum potential unemployment rate, if all of those people were in the labor force and unemployed, is 382,700/2,222,087 or 17.2%.
Now, certainly some of the 15-24 year olds would not be in the labor force, though many will. Even if we restrict ourselves to the 25-44 age group, net out-migration for 2010-2012 comes to 36,000, which would bring the unemployment rate back to 15.1%, equal to the worst month since the recession began.
We can see, then, that austerity is sinking all boats. Greece has passed Spain in unemployment and is producing barely 3/4 what it did in 2008. Ireland's reduction in unemployment is a mirage based on emigration. The same is true in Latvia and Lithuania, by the way, which the Irish Times reports have lost 7.6% and 10.1% of their population between 2007 and 2012. As the paper notes, "If Spain and Italy had lost the same proportion, it would have been 11 million."
Yet the drumbeat for austerity continues. The sequester goes on. And millions suffer needlessly.
Cross-posted at Angry Bear as "Austerity Sinks All Boats."
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Post on State and Local Subsidies at AlterNet
I've written a piece for AlterNet that gives an overview of the issues at play with state and local subsidies, from the opportunity cost (less spending on infrastructure, education, and health) to the price tag to the major efficiency, equity, and environmental issues involved. Naturally, I discuss possible solutions, too.
Of course, the material will be familiar to regular readers, but it is a good one-stop look at the problem. You can find it here.
Of course, the material will be familiar to regular readers, but it is a good one-stop look at the problem. You can find it here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)