Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Andrew Damitio's avatar

> The sheer number of programs alone conveys the serious bloat in U.S. industrial policy. Effectively coordinating overlapping programs across different agencies is also challenging.

I feel like this point could be significantly expanded on in a different piece, if not by you, than by the state capacity pundits like Jen Palkha. This is a problem far beyond industrial policy.

For local governments seeking funding for improved water infrastructure to accomodate new factories they wish to site, do they apply for funds from the EPA? What about FEMA (under DHS), as the infrastructure upgrades would improve their resiliency against disasters? What about Community Development Block Grants through HUD? If it's in a rural area or agribusiness is the sector being boosted, they could get USDA Rural Development funding. They could also get Economic Development Administration funding, through the Commerce Department.

My point is that the overlap of programs and agencies in the US federal government appears to be causing major state capacity issues beyond just industrial policy.

Ryan Buscaglia's avatar

I like the idea of a 45X having a place-based component, but who is the federal government to say that Atlanta, Georgia should receive it over the comparable agglomerations in Michigan or Kentucky? Sounds like centralized planning to me... ;)

I think an underrated part of the Chinese experience with place-based economic policies is the extent to which ultimate winners (both firms and cities) were not always pre-ordained by the central government. The government set strategic national targets and placed many bets on different places. Those provinces competed against each other to attract firms and talent and secure market share within China and eventually globally. Provincial leaders did so in a variety of ways using low cost loans, free land, workforce training, subsidized electricity, etc.

Arguably, the competitive approach of EDA tech hubs (were it to have actually been funded anywhere near the $10B authorized by Congress) isn't that dissimilar. Tech Hub applicants had to show connection to local industry, support from state and local governments that matched funds or used innovative techniques. Merely because there were competing programs from NSF and DOE with different focuses does not suggest that these programs weren't worthwhile.

4 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?