Guest column: Audit should prompt scrutiny of MEDC’s fundamental purpose

By Gary Wolfram/Hillsdale College

A recent Auditor General’s report found that the Michigan Economic Development Corporation has failed to establish a comprehensive method to properly evaluate the effectiveness of one of its major programs: Renaissance Zones.

From the inception of the Renaissance Zone program in fiscal year 1995-96 through fiscal year 2009-10, the MEDC abated $820 million in taxes. Taxpayers should expect their government to effectively analyze the effectiveness of a program of this size.

MEDC claims that 12,632 new jobs were created in Renaissance Zones over the period in study. The Auditor General pointed out that MEDC did not adequately check whether the number of jobs reported by firms was correct, but even if that were the true number, each new job cost $65,000 in reduced tax revenues for state and local governments.

Surely this is worth extensive examination by the MEDC and the legislative oversight committee.

Billion dollar bust?: Snyder adminstration strips down tax break program

The Auditor General’s report brings up a more important point regarding the very existence of MEDC. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy has long argued, correctly, that lowering taxes for all producers is a more effective economic development tool than using government to decide which firms will pay lower taxes or to provide special programs for certain areas. As Mackinac’s Michael LaFaive put it in one of his articles:

“The job of the MEDC is to take money from a lot of people and businesses and give it (through one channel or another) to a few people and businesses under the guise of ‘creating jobs.’”

His point is that a major problem with economic development through government agencies like MEDC is that some businesses pay higher taxes than others simply because they have fewer connections or are located in an area that is not favored by the legislature or bureaucrats.

Not only has the MEDC not evaluated the effectiveness of at least one of its major programs, it has failed to provide legislators with basic information about some of its budget. Last session, Rep. Bob Genetski, R-Saugatuck and a member of the House Appropriations Committee, was unable to obtain details of MEDC’s Travel Michigan budget despite numerous requests.

The problems with MEDC go back for years and the complaints are bipartisan.

From another Mackinac Center report: “In 2000, state Rep. Joseph Rivet, D-Bay City, … argued that the MEDC should lose its state funding, telling the Lansing State Journal, ‘Every time we try to hold these guys at MEDC accountable to the taxpayers, they claim to be a private agency outside the realm of public scrutiny.’”

MEDC has not been run by incompetent people. Some of its CEOs and board members have been and are personal friends of mine. I know them to be talented, hard-working, honorable people. The problem is structural. Governmental programs that give tax benefits to some firms and not others must be political. It is the political process through which the benefits are put into place and distributed.

In the market process, firms succeed due to the ability of entrepreneurs to produce goods and services that consumers are willing to pay enough for to meet the cost of the resources used up in production. When government provides benefits to some firms and not others it redirects resources away from production towards obtaining the benefits handed out through the political process. This is both unfair and inefficient.

The Auditor General’s report will ultimately prove most useful if it sparks debate about whether the MEDC and all of its various programs should be scrapped in favor of reducing the taxes for all firms.

Bridge welcomes guest columns from a diverse range of people on issues relating to Michigan and its future. The views and assertions of these writers do not necessarily reflect those of Bridge or The Center for Michigan. Bridge does not endorse any individual guest commentary submission.

If you are interested in submitting a guest commentary, please contact Monica WilliamsClick here for details and submission guidelines.

Facts matter. Trust matters. Journalism matters.

If you learned something from the story you're reading please consider supporting our work. Your donation allows us to keep our Michigan-focused reporting and analysis free and accessible to all. All donations are voluntary, but for as little as $1 you can become a member of Bridge Club and support freedom of the press in Michigan during a crucial election year.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Dear Reader: We value your thoughts and criticism on the articles, but insist on civility. Criticizing comments or ideas is welcome, but Bridge won’t tolerate comments that are false or defamatory or that demean, personally attack, spread hate or harmful stereotypes. Violating these standards could result in a ban.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.


Thu, 01/31/2013 - 10:42am
Reports from the Office of the Auditor General have been reporting that MEDC has not met the proposed increase in jobs that their programs are suppose to have since around 2002. The MEDC does not nor have they ever placed any emphasis on verifying if the outcomes meet the number of jobs that were supposed to be created by any of the programs where funds were provided that were to result in an increase in jobs. These findings seem to fall on deaf ears in the executive and legislative branches. These programs seem to be designed to promote selected companies rather than promoting jobs overall. All companies should be given the same opportunities.