Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • 2019 Federal Budget Analysis February 27, 2019
    Watch this space for response and analysis of the federal budget from CCPA staff and our Alternative Federal Budget partners. More information will be added as it is available. Commentary and Analysis  Aim high, spend low: Federal budget 2019 by David MacDonald (CCPA) Budget 2019 fiddles while climate crisis looms by Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood (CCPA) Organizational Responses Canadian Centre for Policy […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Boots Riley in Winnipeg May 11 February 22, 2019
    Founder of the political Hip-Hop group The Coup, Boots Riley is a musician, rapper, writer and activist, whose feature film directorial and screenwriting debut — 2018’s celebrated Sorry to Bother You — received the award for Best First Feature at the 2019 Independent Spirit Awards (amongst several other accolades and recognitions). "[A] reflection of the […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • CCPA-BC welcomes Emira Mears as new Associate Director February 11, 2019
    This week the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives – BC Office is pleased to welcome Emira Mears to our staff team as our newly appointed Associate Director. Emira is an accomplished communications professional, digital strategist and entrepreneur. Through her former company Raised Eyebrow, she has had the opportunity to work with many organizations in the […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Study explores media coverage of pipeline controversies December 14, 2018
    Supporters of fossil fuel infrastructure projects position themselves as friends of working people, framing climate action as antithetical to the more immediately pressing need to protect oil and gas workers’ livelihoods. And as the latest report from the CCPA-BC and Corporate Mapping Project confirms, this framing has become dominant across the media landscape. Focusing on pipeline […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Study highlights ‘uncomfortable truth’ about racism in the job market December 12, 2018
    "Racialized workers in Ontario are significantly more likely to be concentrated in low-wage jobs and face persistent unemployment and earnings gaps compared to white employees — pointing to the “uncomfortable truth” about racism in the job market, according to a new study." Read the Toronto Star's coverage of our updated colour-coded labour market report, released […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers

Meta

Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

Attacking public interest regulation: north and south

What does a ballot initiative in four US states next month have to do with interprovincial trade in Canada? The answer is that both are attacks on the capacity of governments to regulate in the public interest, based on a theory known as “regulatory takings”.

The “regulatory takings” movement is more well known south of the border, and is encapsulated in the notion that if a government brings in a new regulation that affects somebody’s profits, it is tantamount to expropriation. Historically, if the government wants to build a highway through your property, they can exproprite your land but must pay you fair market value. Regulatory takings goes well beyond this and in its broadest conception could include all manner of public interest regulation, including environmental protection, labour market regulations, consumer protection, even urban planning.

Some in Canada may be familiar with this concept, as it has been built into the North American Free Trade Agreement’s Investment chapter, and is known as “investor-state” dispute settlement. If a foreign investor thinks that a measure by government (regulations but also laws and administrative directives) undermines their profits, they can avail themselves of “investor-state”, which is a process of international commercial arbitration outside the domestic legal system. Suffice it to say that investor-state has proven controversial.

In Canada, a new precedent for investor-state or regulatory takings is in the BC-Alberta Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA), due to take effect in April 2007. It has often been claimed by business advocates that there are large barriers to trade in Canada, but this is not actually the case. There are no border crossings or customs inspection stations, no currency conversions required. But there are differences in regulation across provinces, and the TILMA creates a process by which those regulations can be attacked.

Previously, under the 1995 Agreement on Internal Trade, a similar process was set up but it required companies to go to their governments first and get them to pursue the case. TILMA cuts out the middleman and allows investors to sue directly for up to $5 million per case. On the surface, $5 million may not seem like much but the total bill will depend on the number of litigants, and for a small city council, $5 million is a lot of money that could otherwise be better spent. As usual, there are a number of exemptions from this provision, so it is not necessarily carte blanche for investors, but what matters is how a panel of trade lawyers (most of whom make their incomes working for large companies) would interpret the agreement. And even the prospect of such challenges creates a “chill” over new regulations.

In the US, there are four Western states with referenda coming up next month that have put regulatory takings front and centre (also known as “property rights initiatives”). Oregon is the template, having passed such a law in 2004. The basic idea is that governments have to pay in order to regulate. A good overview of the initiatives and their problems can be found here.

The irony in all of this is that well-crafted regulations can make markets function more efficiently if they lead to internalization of externalities (eg. ensuring that polluters cannot offload some of their costs of production onto the environment, downstream residents or workers). This extreme view of property rights uber alles supports entrenched interests at the expense of functioning markets. And it is a hyper-individualistic view that assumes that private decisions have no other impacts on those not party to the transaction, when in fact externalities are pervasive.

My usual response is to tell advocates I just purchased the property next door to them, and that I am going to be building a meat-rendering plant.

Enjoy and share:

Write a comment





Related articles