MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2281444009 · doi:10.55016/ojs/sppp.v8i1.42547

Striking the Right Balance: Federal Infrastructure Transfer Programs, 2002–2015

2015· article· en· W2281444009 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Bev Dahlby, Emily Jackson

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe School of Public Policy Publications · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiquePublic-Private Partnership Projects
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBalance (ability)Transfer (computing)BusinessComputer sciencePsychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Over the last 13 years, the federal government has helped fund a wide array of infrastructure programs: A total of 8,012 projects across the country between 2002 and 2015, funded to the tune of $20.3 billion. A substantial portion of that was done in the name of recession “stimulus.” But far from all of it. And, for better or worse, federal programs have become a permanent feature of fiscal federalism. The only question now is, whether Ottawa has been spending federal taxpayer money as effectively as possible when it does fund these projects. As it turns out, federal handouts for projects in Canadian provinces and municipalities have been relatively well deployed. An analysis finds that a greater amount of federal matching funds were dedicated to projects where provinces faced a higher marginal cost of public funds than the federal government, helping to at least somewhat minimize the negative economic impacts of the additional tax burden. And that a greater amount of funds was dedicated to projects that enhanced economic productivity, such as transit and roads, which increase the probability for national spillover benefits due to the potential for increased federal tax revenue, unlike quality-oflife projects (such as recreation projects) that do not. However, the persistent fiscal imbalance in the provinces’ and the federal government’s marginal cost of raising public funds can only continue to exacerbate the demands from provinces for federal matching funds. Despite federal fiscal equalization programs that provide transfers to provinces with below-average per capita tax bases, there remain notable horizontal fiscal imbalances across the provinces, and a vertical imbalance between lower and higher government levels. Recent estimates calculate the federal government’s marginal cost to be 1.17, compared to a range of 1.41 for Alberta to 3.60 for Ontario, more than three times as high as the federal government’s cost. There are already several programs that provide large block funding transfers to provinces: The Canada Health Transfer, the Canada Social Transfer, the Gas Tax Fund, and federal equalization grants. These block transfers reduce the fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces, but they have clearly not closed the gap completely. Were the federal government to increase these block transfers, it could arguably reduce its role in funding individual infrastructure projects, thereby encouraging lower levels of government to plan infrastructure more rationally, rather than being influenced by the distortions created by federal matching offers. Indeed, among all the projects that received federal matching funds since 2002, a concerning number were smallscale projects. More than half of the 8,000 projects funded had eligible costs of $1 million or less, and a startling 92 per cent had eligible costs under $10 million. A thousand were below $100,000. Small projects may have their benefits as a stimulus response if they are “shovel ready,” since large projects may require too much planning to offer the rapid employment and spending benefits desired. But the costs of co-ordination for small projects across multiple levels of government add inefficiencies and so should generally be avoided. Again, by providing more in the form of block grants, Ottawa can leave smaller stuff to smaller governments, where it, and much else, properly belongs.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCommunication savante
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,917
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,998

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0030,004
Science ouverte0,0030,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,058
Tête enseignante GPT0,303
Écart entre enseignants0,245 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2015
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe School of Public Policy PublicationsMême sujetPublic-Private Partnership ProjectsTravaux en français237 207