Skip to main content

Private finance: transfering the risk (to the public)

A week ago, it became apparent western business and political elites were contemplating a €1 trillion bail out for the mess in the European banking system.  Then, by late last week, Bank of Canada president Mark Carney urged €1 trillion in funds or "a little bit more";  he was shortly followed by the British Chancellor who called for €2 trillion. Over the weekend the proposals began stretching up to €3 trillion.  Here is a report from London's Telegraph:  
Germany and France have now agreed the principles of a €2 trillion to €3 trillion rescue plan. Mr Osborne said they had just seven days to come up with “something quite impressive”.   Details will be thrashed out this week but there now appears to be consensus around the core measures – to increase the firepower of the eurozone bail-out fund (EFSF) from €440bn to around €2 trillion, to recapitalise the banks with €100bn-€200bn, and to devise a credible programme for Greece, including losses for private sector creditors of as much as 50pc.

Despite intense opposition from banks, it now seems the banks will have to accept much higher loses, effectively ripping up the deal reached in July.  If so, banks will need more government cash to survive.

But if the scheme fails, governments will be on the hook for huge loses.

And Ontario's use of P3 private finance?
Bankers (etc.) justify public private partnerships (P3s) with the claim that the extra costs associated with private financing of public infrastructure are offset by the risk transferred from the public sector to the private sector.

Even when the banking system is not in crisis, P3 critics pour scorn on these claims and scoff at the millions and millions of dollars the public is required to pay for the risk 'transferred'.    

But bank crises undermine both aspects of the bankers' case for P3s.  The bank crisis drives up the relative cost of private finance compared to public finance and the bailout of the banking system by public authorities shows yet one more way that the risk is not really transferred to the private sector. 

Officially, Ontario plans to entangle itself much deeper into private P3 financing.  Public infrastructure projects worth billions and billions are being caught up in this, even as the problems in the private financing world are mushrooming.

Hopefully, someone in the Ontario government is considering other options. But who knows?

Cartoon Link: American Progress


Popular posts from this blog

Public sector employment in Ontario is far below the rest of Canada

The suggestion that Ontario has a deficit because its public sector is too large does not bear scrutiny. Consider the following. 

Public sector employment has fallen in the last three quarters in Ontario.  Since 2011, public sector employment has been pretty flat, with employment up less than 4 tenths of one percent in the first half of 2015 compared with the first half of 2011.

This contrasts with public sector employment outside of Ontario which has gone up pretty consistently and is now 4.7% higher than it was in the first half of 2011.

Private sector employment has also gone up consistently over that period. In Ontario, it has increased 4.3% since the first half of 2011, while in Canada as a whole it has increased 4.9%.

As a result, public sector employment in Ontario is now shrinking as a percentage of the private sector workforce.  In contrast, in the rest of Canada, it is increasing. Moreover, public sector employment is muchhigher in the rest of Canada than in Ontario.  Indeed as…

The long series of failures of private clinics in Ontario

For many years, OCHU/CUPE has been concerned the Ontario government would transfer public hospital surgeries, procedures and diagnostic tests to private clinics. CUPE began campaigning in earnest against this possibility in the spring of 2007 with a tour of the province by former British Health Secretary, Frank Dobson, who talked about the disastrous British experience with private surgical clinics.

The door opened years ago with the introduction of fee-for-service hospital funding (sometimes called Quality Based Funding). Then in the fall of 2013 the government announced regulatory changes to facilitate this privatization. The government announced Request for Proposals for the summer of 2014 to expand the role of "Independent Health Facilities" (IHFs). 

With mass campaigns to stop the private clinic expansion by the Ontario Health Coalition the process slowed.  

But it seems the provincial Liberal government continues to push the idea.  Following a recent second OCHU tour wi…

Hospital worker sick leave: too much or too little?

Ontario hospital workers are muchless absent due to illness or disability than hospital workers Canada-wide.  In 2014, Ontario hospital workers were absent 10.2 days due to illness or disability, 2.9 days less than the Canada wide average – i.e. 22% less.  In fact, Ontario hospital workers have had consistently fewer sick days for years.

This is also true if absences due to family or personal responsibilities are included.
Statistics Canada data for the last fifteen years for Canada and Ontario are reported in the chart below, showing Ontario hospital workers are consistently off work less.
Assuming, Ontario accounts for about 38% of the Canada-wide hospital workforce, these figures suggest that the days lost due to illness of injury in Canada excluding Ontario are about 13.6 days per year ([13.6 x 0.68] + [10.2 x 0.38] = 13.1).

In other words, hospital workers in the rest of Canada are absent from work due to illness or disability 1/3 more than Ontario hospital workers. 

In fact, Canad…