The Case for a Regional Approach to Economic Development

warehouseby James A. Bacon

The economies of 17 Virginia localities and one North Carolina locality in the Hampton Roads region are more inter-related than they were 10 years ago. Almost two-thirds (more than 65%) of all workers in the metropolitan statistical area commute to jobs outside the jurisdiction where they live — up from less than 60% in 2005, according to a new report, “Our Jobs Are Also Your Jobs,” published by the Hampton Roads Economic Development Alliance.

That fact has profound implications for economic development strategy, argue the report’s authors James V. Koch and Vinod Agarwal with Old Dominion University. Political leaders of Hampton Roads jurisdictions act as if “the only really good economic development project is the one that is located squarely inside their own city our county,” they write. What that assumption overlooks, however, is the extent to which the economic impact — and benefits — are diffused throughout the metropolitan economy.

Koch and Agarwal gave the hypothetical example of a new warehouse facility built in Suffolk to serve the growing cargo business flowing through the ports in Norfolk and Portsmouth. Suppose that warehouse employs 250 people averaging $50,000 annual pay (including managerial salaries but not including fringe benefits). Here is how they predict those jobs, income and sales tax revenues would be distributed geographically.

diffused_impact

In this example, while Suffolk would enjoy the biggest impact, the benefits would be broadly distributed through the region. Suffolk residents would reap about one-third the jobs, income and sales tax revenues. Yet, to pick a different locality, the project also would create 20 jobs for Virginia Beach residents and generate $40,000 a year in additional sales tax revenues.

Moreover, the Suffolk warehouse would spend money on products and services from area businesses, which also would be distributed geographically.

“When more than 65 percent of individuals cross city and county lines to travel to their place of employment, it is inevitable that economic benefits will be widely diffused,” write Koch and Agarwal. “The moral to the story is that regional cooperation and regional economic development efforts make sense. … Parochial approaches to economic development are not likely to achieve great success — if success is interpreted to mean capturing the economic benefits that are generated by a new or expanded business. … The economic success of one city or county soon becomes another’s.”

Bacon’s bottom line: What applies to Hampton Roads applies to every other metropolitan region in Virginia. Nowhere in Virginia do political boundaries coincide with economic boundaries. From a regional perspective, economic development is best pursued as a regional enterprise.

Koch and Agarwal highlight an important insight, although they do overlook a critical facet of economic development that will not change without a dramatic re-write of Virginia’s tax code: The locality where a new warehouse, manufacturing plant or corporate facility locates captures 100% of the property tax revenue. Because property tax is the largest single source of local revenue in Virginia, local governments are highly motivated to see to it that a particular project lands within their boundaries. Unless subsidies are offered to attract the investment, such facilities are a big winner for the locality in question because business operations require little in the way of public services. Indeed, the fact that 2/3 of a company’s employees are located outside the jurisdiction means the locality in question is saddled with the cost of providing educational and other government services to only 1/3 of the workforce. Thus, ironically, the more economically interdependent the localities of a region are, the more local governments are incentivized to capture the tax benefits of bagging a corporate investment.

The only way to change that dynamic is to change the tax code to allow for (or require) the regional sharing of revenue from commercial and industrial property. And that will never happen because any change would create winners and losers, and the losers would fight like hell to thwart it.

But the Koch-Agarwal paper does make a sound argument for supporting regional economic development organizations like the Hampton Roads Economic Development Alliance. Fortunately, most Virginians get it, and a regional approach to economic development predominates in the Old Dominion.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

  1. […] article (and the report itself) is worth reading in their entirety.  Jim Bacon over at Bacon’s Rebellion has more insight on the […]

  2. Welcome back!

    Mathews County, where I’m currently staying for the warm months, has a total population of only 8000 or so; yet the daily traffic along Routes 14 and 198 takes more than half the working folks out of the County daily; there are even commuter lots out here in the woods, where people assemble car-loads to share the daily cost of crossing the Coleman Bridge on US 17 at Yorktown. Where do they work? A few in Saluda or West Point, many more in Gloucester (in that retail strip that runs from the Court House to the Bridge), but mainly in York County or Newport News or Hampton or beyond, at the military bases or institutions or shipyards or retail of greater Williamsburg. There’s a lot of bitterness down here about that toll to cross the York River; after all the State rebuilt the bridges at West Point toll-free, and removed the tolls in Hampton Roads — but from a transportation perspective it has helped keep the worst sprawl south of the York.

    Is this pushing off regional costs onto Mathews? I think one of the things these commuters treasure is the good schools in Mathews, and the absence of the very commercial sprawl that employs them elsewhere. For that tradeoff let Newport News keep the property taxes.! But, this may not be the typical relationship.

  3. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    I’ve long advocated that local governments should share in the state income tax revenue, which is collected by the state. Indirectly they do, of course, but say they got a direct share – say one third, based on the employee’s home location. Then other jurisdictions would care far more about the regional benefit of a project in one particular city or county. The employee base will be spread out across the region, and so would the personal income tax.

    Just a thought experiment. Equally interesting would be sharing the property taxes with the state instead of leaving that as purely going to the locality.

    Regionalism would be very easy to implement if we could just get those 140 or so pesky local governments to step out of the way. Acbar does a pretty good job of illustrating why that’s not happening anytime soon.

  4. LarrytheG Avatar

    You’ll find me more aligned with those who say we should not tax production – but consumption.

    taxing production – distorts the free market, creates artificial and geographic winners and losers and encourages competitors to seek lower and lower labor costs at wherever they can find it geographically.

    It’s somewhat perverse for competitors to compete against each other not on quality or quantity or efficiency but political jurisdiction.

    1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
      TooManyTaxes

      A local income tax would further weaken Virginia’s economy while only feeding local government’s desire to spend more and more. Larry is correct.

      NoVA is, of course, sharing tax revenues from new and higher taxes for transportation. The Northern Virginia Transportation Authority dispenses 70% of the revenue (as I recall) and the member localities get 30% directly. As I recall, something similar is in place in the Greater Tidewater Area.

      If other parts of Virginia need more transportation money, let them tax themselves more through new transportation tax districts like NoVA and the GTA. If they want more money for other governmental purposes, let them raise their real estate taxes.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        You gotta admit TMT – the .7% sales tax for NoVa stays in NoVa… and does not go to other localities!

        1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
          TooManyTaxes

          I agree. And I’d like to see it stay that way.

  5. Re “income taxes” and “taxing consumption” rather than property or production: Many states allow variations of an income tax assessed directly by the locality. That then generates the “commuter tax” debate between urban and suburban jurisdictions. But my experience from the DC metro area is not typical (nothing about DC area taxes is typical!); how as a practical matter are income taxes successfully shared in one-state urban areas elsewhere?

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      The state effectively enacted a commuter tax when they enacted a supplemental sales tax for NoVa and Hampton – commuters who buy stuff – pay that tax and tolls on roads also charge for commuting – and both are consumption taxes.

Leave a Reply