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

Health care funding falls, again

Real provincial government health care funding per-person has fallen again this year in Ontario, the third year in a row.  Since 2009 real funding per-person has fallen 2.6% -- $63 per person. 

Across Canada real per person funding is in its fourth consecutive year of increase. Since 2009, real provincial funding across Canada is up $89 -- 3.6%.
In fact the funding gap between Ontario and Canada as a whole has gown consistently for years (as set out below in current dollars).

Ontario funds health care less than any other province -- indeed, the province that funds health care the second least (B.C.) provides $185 more per person per year, 4.7% more.  
Provincial health care spending in the rest of Canada (excluding Ontario) is now  $574 higher per person annually than in Ontario. 

 Ontario has not always provided lower than average health care funding increases-- but that has been the general pattern since 2005.
Private expenditures on health care have exceeded Ontario government increases …

Ontario long-term care staffing falls far short of other provinces

CUPE and others are campaigning for a legislated minimum average of four worked hours of nursing and personal care per resident per day in long-term care (LTC) facilities.  New research indicates that not only is LTC underfunded in Ontario, it is also understaffed compared to the other provinces. 
LTC staffing falls short:  The latest data published by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (and based on a mandatory survey undertaken by Statistics Canada) indicates that staffing at long-term care (LTC) facilities falls far short of other provinces. 
Part of this is driven by a low level of provincial funding for LTC.

Ontario has 0.575 health care full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) per bed staffed and in operation.[1]  The rest of Canada reports 0.665 health care FTEs.[2] The rest of Canada has 15.7% more health care staff per bed staffed and in operation than Ontario.[3] 

No other province reports fewer LTC health care staff per resident (or per bed) than Ontario.[4]

Occupancy r…

Six more problems with Public Private Partnerships (P3s)

The Auditor General (AG) has again identified issues in her annual reportwhich reflect problems with Ontario health care capacity and privatization.   First, here are six key problems with the maintenance of the 16 privatized P3 ("public private partnership") hospitals in Ontario:
There are long-term ongoing disputes with privatized P3 contractors over the P3 agreements, including about what is covered by the P3  (or “AFP” as the government likes to call them) contract.The hospitals are required to pay higher than reasonable rates tothe P3 contractor for  maintenance work the contractor has deemed to be outside of the P3 contract. Hospitals are almost forced to use P3 contractors to do maintenance work the contractors deem outside of the P3 contract or face the prospect of transferring the risk associated with maintaining the related hospital assets from the private-sector company back to the hospitalP3 companies with poor perf…