Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

What Inter-Provincial Migration Trends Can Tell Us About Good Governance

Published

1 month ago

6 minute read

 

It turns out we move a great deal less than our American neighbors

Government policies have consequences. Among them is the possibility that they might so annoy the locals that people actually get up and head for the exit. Given how parting can be such sweet sorrow (and how it’s a pain to lose out on all that revenue from provincial income, property, and sales tax), legislatures generally prefer to keep their citizens on this side of the door.

Nevertheless, migration happens. And when enough people do it at the same time, they sometimes leave economic and social clues behind waiting to be discovered. This graph represents net migrations since 1971 into and out of the four largest provinces:

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

It may just be possible to make out some broad patterns here. Quebec has never had a net inbound migration year (although there’s been plenty of immigration to Quebec from outside of Canada). But nothing matches the mass exodus of anglophones due to concerns over language and separation in the 1970s.

Curiously it seems that Alberta and British Columbia received far more migrants than Ontario around that time – although the actual numbers tell us that they were more likely to have come from Saskatchewan and Ontario than Quebec. By contrast, most disillusioned Quebecers found their way to Ontario. Besides the 70s, Alberta also enjoyed inbound spikes in the mid-90s, mid-00s, and early 10s. And it looks like they’re in the middle of another boom cycle as we speak.

The real value of all this data however, is in using it to test causation hypotheses. In other words, can statistical analysis tell us what it was that caused the migrations? And are some or all of those causes the result of government policy choices? Here are some possibilities we’ll explore:

  • Household income trends
  • Government debt
  • Crime rates
  • Healthcare costs
  • Housing costs

Right off the top I’ll come clean with you: there’ll be no smoking gun here. I could find no single historical measure that came close to explaining migration patterns. However I was able to confidently discard some theories. That’s a win I guess. And other numbers did hint to intriguing possibilities.

Inter-provincial variations in household income, crime rates (specifically murder rates), healthcare costs (including prescriptions, eye care, and dental care), and even housing affordability had no measurable impact on migration. This was true for both correlation coefficients and lag analysis (where we looked at migration changes in the years following an economic event).

Rising unemployment had, at best, a minimal impact on outbound migration. And even then, it was only noticeable for Alberta and Prince Edward Island.

Of all the metrics I explored, the only one that might have had a serious influence in migration was provincial government budget deficits.

Folks from Alberta, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland all responded to growing government debt by clearing out. Now, I doubt this was their way to telling the government what they really thought about bad fiscal management. Rather, people probably decided to move to greener pastures in response to the ripple-effect consequences of deficits, like higher taxes, reduced social services, and deteriorating infrastructure.

I suspect that part of the reason I wasn’t able to find any strong connections between those metrics and migration patterns is because there really isn’t all that much migration going on in the first place.

Take Ontario’s record net population loss of 31,018 residents back in 2021. That may sound like a lot of people, but it’s actually just a hair over two-tenths of one percent of the total Ontario population. And even Quebec’s epic 1979 loss of 46,429 people was still nowhere near one percent. It was 0.7117456, to be precise. Those aren’t significant numbers.

When so few people choose to move, it’s probably because there’s nothing on the macro level going on that’s pushing them. Those who do go, probably do it primarily for personal reasons that just won’t show up in population-scale data.

There’s also the very real possibility that Canadians are smart enough to realize that things probably won’t be any better over there than they already are right here. Fewer than two-thirds of one percent of Ontarians left for other provinces in 2023, while only around one-third of a percent gave up on Quebec.

By contrast, annual state-to-state migration figures in the U.S. typically range between 1 percent to 5 percent of each state’s population. In 2022, that added up to 8.2 million people, according to the Census Bureau.

Subscribe to The Audit. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

In the market for bespoke data analysis?

Custom Reports by The Audit

Before Post

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Alberta / 6 mins ago

On gender, Alberta is following the science

Business / 3 hours ago

Chainsaws and Scalpels: How Governments Choose

Energy / 3 hours ago

Ottawa’s proposed emission cap lacks any solid scientific or economic rationale

Business

Chainsaws and Scalpels: How Governments Choose

Published on November 17, 2024

By

The Audit

 David Clinton

Javier Milei in Argentina, Musk and Ramaswamy in the US.. What does DOGE in Canada look like?

Under their new(ish) president Javier Milei, Argentina cut deeply and painfully into their program spending to address a catastrophic economic crisis. And they seem to have enjoyed some early success. With Elon Musk now primed to play a similar role in the coming Trump administration in the U.S., the obvious question is: how might such an approach play out in Canada?

Sure. We’re not suffering from headaches on anything like the scale of Argentina’s – the debt we’ve run up so far isn’t in the same league as the long-term spending going on in South America. But ignoring the problems we do face can’t be an option. Given that the annual interest payments on our existing national debt are $11.7 billion (which equals seven percent of total expenditures), simply balancing the budget won’t be enough.

The underlying assumption powering the question is that we live in a world of constraints. There just isn’t enough money to buy everything we might want, so we need to both prioritize and become more efficient. It’s about figuring out what can no longer be justified – even if it does provide some value – and what’s just plain wasteful.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Some of this may seem obvious. After all, when there are First Nations reserves without clean water and millions of Canadians without access to primary care physicians, how can we justify spending hundreds of millions of dollars funding arts projects that virtually no one will ever discover, much less consume?

Apparently not everyone sees things that way. Large governments operate by reacting to political, social, and chaos-driven incentives. Sometimes those incentives lead to rational choices, and sometimes not. But mega-sized organizations tend to lack the self-awareness and capacity to easily change direction.

And some basic problems have no obvious solutions. As I’ve written, there’s a real possibility that all the money in the world won’t buy the doctors, nurses, and integrated systems we need. And “all the money in the world” is obviously not on the table. So the well-meaning bureaucrat might conclude that if you’re not going to completely solve the big problems, you might as well try to manage them while investing in other areas, too.

Still, I think it’s worth imagining how things might look if we could launch a comprehensive whole-of-government program review.

How Emergency Cuts Might Play Out

Imagine the federal government defaulted on its debt servicing payments and lost access to capital markets. That’s not such an unlikely scenario. There would suddenly be a lot less money available to spend, and some programs would have to be shut down. Protecting emergency and core services would require making fast – and smart – decisions.

We would need to take a long, hard look at this important enumeration of government expenditures. There probably wouldn’t be enough time to bridge the gap by looking for dozens of less-critical million-dollar programs. We would need to find some big-ticket items fast.

Our first step might be to pause or restructure larger ongoing payments, like projects funded through the Canada Infrastructure Bank (total annual budget: $3.45 billion). Private investors might pick up some of the slack, or some projects could simply go into hibernation. “Other interest costs” (total annual budget: $4.6 billion) could also be restructured.

Reducing equalization payments (total annual budget: $25.2 billion) and territorial financing (total budget: $5.2 billion) might also be necessary. This would, of course, spark parallel crises at lower levels of government. Similarly, grants to settle First Nations claims (total budget: $6 billion) managed by Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada would also be at least temporarily cut.

All that would be deeply painful and trigger long-term negative consequences.

But there’s a far better approach that could be just as effective and a whole lot less painful:

What an All-of-Government Review Might Discover

Planning ahead would allow you the luxury of targeting spending that – in some cases at least – wouldn’t even be missed. Think about programs that were announced five, ten, even thirty years ago, perhaps to satisfy some passing fad or political need. They might even have made sense decades ago when they were created…but that was decades ago when they were created.

Here’s how that’ll work. When you read through the program and transfer spending items on that government expenditures page (and there are around 1,200 of those items), the descriptions all point to goals that seem reasonable enough. But there are some important questions that should be asked about each of them:

  • When did these programs begin?
  • What specific activities do they involve?
  • What have they accomplished over the past 12 months?
  • Is their effectiveness trending up or down?
  • Are they employing efficiency best-practices used in the private sector?
  • Who’s tasked with monitoring changes?
  • Where are their reports published?

To show you what I mean, here are some specific transfer or program line items and their descriptions:

Department of Employment and Social Development

  • Workforce Development Agreements ($722 million)
  • Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Transformation Initiative ($374 million)
  • Payments to provinces, territories, municipalities, other public bodies, organizations, groups, communities, employers and individuals for the provision of training and/or work experience, the mobilization of community resources, and human resource planning and adjustment measures necessary for the efficient functioning of the Canadian labour market ($856 million)

Department of Industry

  • Contributions under the Strategic Innovation Fund ($2.4 billion)

Department of Citizenship and Immigration

  • Settlement Program ($1.13 billion)

Department of Indigenous Services

  • Contributions to provide income support to on-reserve residents and Status Indians in the Yukon Territory ($1.05 billion). Note that, as of the 2021 Census, there were 9,150 individuals with North American Indigenous origins in Yukon. Assuming the line item is accurately described, that means the income support came to $114,987/person (not per household; per person).

Each one of those (and many, many others like them) could be case studies in operational efficiency and effectiveness. Or not. But there’s no way we could know that without serious research.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Share The Audit

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Audit, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

 

Invite Friends

Continue Reading

Business

DOGE seeks ‘super high-IQ’ people willing to work 80 hours a week for free

Published on November 17, 2024

By

From The Center Square

By 

President-elect Donald Trump’s new Department of Government Efficiency is seeking “super high-IQ” people to work more than 80 hours a week for free.

DOGE co-leader Elon Musk, who is the CEO of Tesla and is one of the richest people in the world, is working with entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy to find top talent to cut wasteful spending, overburdensome regulations and re-structure federal agencies. Neither Musk or Ramaswamy will be paid for their work.

“We are very grateful to the thousands of Americans who have expressed interest in helping us at DOGE,” the new advisery group said in a social media post. “We don’t need more part-time idea generators. We need super high-IQ small-government revolutionaries willing to work 80+ hours per week on unglamorous cost-cutting.”

Candidates can send their resumes to the DOGE account on X.

“Elon & Vivek will review the top 1% of applicants,” according to the post.

In a separate post, Musk said the work will be challenging and won’t be paid.

“Indeed, this will be tedious work, make lots of enemies & compensation is zero,” Musk wrote.

The department’s acronym, DOGE, is a nod to Musk’s favorite cryptocurrency, dogecoin. Trump said the new group will pave the way for his administration to “dismantle government bureaucracy, slash excess regulation, cut wasteful expenditures and restructure federal agencies.”

Trump laid out lofty goals for DOGE in his announcement this week.

“It will become, potentially, ‘The Manhatten Project,’ of our time,” Trump’s announcement said. “Republican politicians have dreamed about the objectives of ‘DOGE’ for a very long time.”

Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said the group welcomes DOGE to the challenge.

“Given our cumbersome bureaucracy and large fiscal imbalances, the effort is long overdue,” she said. “Regardless of political views, we should all want the federal government to spend scarce dollars wisely.”

MacGuineas said the outside group’s work could help restore trust in the government.

“An aggressive effort to reduce waste, fraud, abuse, and inefficiencies could save billions or even trillions of dollars over a decade and could help improve the public’s faith in government,” she said.

MacGuineas urged DOGE to look at the full budget.

“Such an effort should look at all parts of the budget, especially in the areas of health care, national defense, and spending through the tax code, and it should look beyond just cutting fraud and reducing bureaucracy to also identify places where the taxpayer is not getting the best value for their dollar,” she said. “Federal health care spending, in particular, is rife with overpayments and inefficiencies that offer the opportunity to substantially lower costs without meaningfully reducing quality or access to care.”

Social Security and federal health care programs, specifically Medicare, deserve special attention, MacGuineas said.

Since fiscal year 2003, improper payment estimates by executive branch agencies have totaled about $2.7 trillion, including $236 billion for fiscal year 2023. Improper payments have declined in recent years, but remain a stubborn challenge for many federal agencies. Improper payments are payments that shouldn’t have been made or were made in the wrong amount.

Most of the improper payments come from five federal programs: Medicare, comprising three programs ($51 billion); Medicaid ($50 billion); the Department of Labor’s Unemployment Insurance – Federal Pandemic Unemployment Assistance ($44 billion); the Department of the Treasury’s Earned Income Tax Credit ($22 billion); the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Paycheck Protection Program Loan Forgiveness ($19 billion).

MacGuineas said DOGE should take a bipartisan outlook.

“Importantly, the process will need to be as bipartisan as possible in order to help with the deliverability and implementation of ideas,” she said. “The recommendations will need Congressional buy-in, further emphasizing the need for this to be an effort reaching across the aisle and leaving all options on the table to address our fiscal imbalances.”

Congress has run a deficit every year since 2001. In the past 50 years, the federal government has ended with a fiscal year-end budget surplus four times, most recently in 2001.

DOGE also plans to go after fraud at the federal level. The Government Accountability Office, which serves as the research arm of Congress, estimated fraud losses cost taxpayers between $233 billion and $521 billion annually, in a report in April. The fraud estimate’s range represents 3% to 7% of average federal obligations.

Continue Reading

Trending

X