MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401809974 · doi:10.55016/ojs/sppp.v16i1.76465

Canadian Competitiveness for Infrastructure Investment

2023· article· en· W4401809974 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mukesh Khanal, R. S. Mansell, G. Kent Fellows

Bibliographic record

VenueThe School of Public Policy Publications · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessInvestment (military)Industrial organizationPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides a broad overview of the infrastructure investment landscape in Canada and our reputation as a competitive destination for such investment. We compare the Canadian infrastructure investment environment and recent outcomes with those of a set of peer nations (G7 countries plus Australia). Canada has serious reputational issues relative to our peer group when it comes to attracting investment in infrastructure, and these issues correspond to declining rates of foreign direct investment inflows. Federal government spending on infrastructure is also declining, implying an overall lack of investment in infrastructure. This lack of investment is, in turn, manifesting as an increase in Canada’s infrastructure deficit and an overall decline in the reputation of the quality of existing infrastructure. Estimates of Canada’s infrastructure deficit range up to $600 billion, and the investment shortfalls contributing to this deficit are particularly apparent in transportation and trade infrastructure. Canada has fallen sharply to last place relative to the G7 and Australia in terms of infrastructure and logistics quality. The most prominent issues driving Canada’s declining reputation as a destination for investment include a sharp slide in the ease of doing business, which, in turn, is caused by perceived regulatory and bureaucratic delays (including the time required for construction permits). An inconsistency in federal infrastructure funding programs and policies (tied to federal election cycles) is similarly problematic. While most of Canada’s public infrastructure investment is made by provincial and municipal governments, their smaller and more variable shares of tax revenues do not ensure stable and sufficient levels of infrastructure investment in many regions. This pattern also serves to promote regional inequality, since regions suffering from poor infrastructure may not have the resources required to overcome local infrastructure deficits. Reliance on PPPs (public-private partnerships) to bolster infrastructure investment may well prove fruitless given the negative experiences Canada’s peers have had with PPPs and the already evident frustrations with Canada’s existing pursuits in this area. Falling tax rates have failed to attract foreign direct investment flows into Canada, suggesting that tax competitiveness is not a sufficient incentive to overcome the reputational issues associated with inconsistent federal investment policies and growing regulatory and bureaucratic delays. Addressing these issues will require a stable and long-term strategy (one not subject to Canada’s federal electoral cycles) and a serious look at the timeframes and delays for regulatory and bureaucratic processes. We suggest the federal government place a higher priority on infrastructure investments in critical areas such as trade and transportation infrastructure. These types of infrastructure play an outsized role in supporting national productivity and income. Further, attracting significant levels of private investment will likely benefit from a consistent and predictable trade and transportation infrastructure strategy. Canada requires an integrated and strategic national approach to infrastructure policy and investment. This approach must be based around a long-term focus and will require coordination among federal, provincial, municipal and First Nations governments and the private sector (including coordination with Canada’s large pension funds, which represent a significant untapped source of financial capital). Provincial governments have already expressed an interest and willingness to collaborate on a national infrastructure strategy based on the corridor concept, and the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce has similarly acknowledged the potential merits of applying the corridor concept. Given these endorsements and the evidence presented above, it is incumbent on the federal and other governments to act on formulating a stable, long-term and strategic national infrastructure strategy that pairs government investment and policies to attract private sector investment in all kinds of infrastructure, but most notably in transportation, warehousing and logistics infrastructure. As part of this, it is critical that Canada address its serious issue of regulatory and policy uncertainty, delays and burdens as these appear to be the most critical aspects of our declining reputation and the most pernicious impediments to achieving infrastructure investment goals and priorities.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.848

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0090.001
Scholarly communication0.0110.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0520.005

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe School of Public Policy PublicationsSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207