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

Comments

Too many public sector workers in Ontario?

Opponents of public services often try to portray the public sector as having grown disproportionately. In fact, since 1976, the number of public sector employees has not quite kept pace with the population. In 1976, the number of public sector employees in Ontario as reported by Statistics Canada averaged 830,800. By 2012, the number had increased to 1,330,700 -- a 60.2% increase. That sounds like significant growth -- true. But the population has increased from 8,413,779 in 1976 to 13,505,900 in 2012, a 60.5% increase. In other words, population growth has run slightly ahead of the growth in public sector employment. In 1976, close to 10% of the population worked in the public sector. It stayed pretty much this way until the Mike Harris government came to power when it dipped below 9%. It returned close to the historical range in the last six years or so, declining in 2012 to below the 1976 averag...

Ford government fails to respond to 72% increase in COVID inpatient days, deepening the capacity crisis

COVID infections continue to drive up hospital costs and inpatient hospitalizations in Ontario. For the most recent fiscal year (April 1, 2022- March 31, 2023) hospital stays related to COVID cost $1.221 billion, according to new CIHI data. This is about 4% of total hospital spending, creating a very significant new cost pressure beyond the usual pressures of population growth, aging, inflation, and rising utilization. Costs for COVID related hospitalizations increased 22.2% in Ontario in 2022/23 from the previous fiscal year, rising from $999 million to $1.221 billion. That rise is particularly notable as the OMICRON spike of late 2021 and early 2022 had passed by the the 2022/23 fiscal year. The $222 million increase in COVID hospitalization costs came in the same year as the Ford government cut special COVID funding and, in fact, cut total hospital funding by $156 million. In total, there were 60,653 COVID hospitalizations...

The hospital crisis: No capacity, no plan, no end

While Canada has achieved universal public healthcare coverage, that does not mean conservative forces have given up trying to erode that coverage and expand corporate care where it does not currently exist. The battle has become particularly intense in Ontario under the Ford Progressive Conservative government, which is implementing serious cuts to the level of care and moving to bring in for-profit mini-hospitals. Inadequate Staﬃng. Less and less of hospital spending is on staff. Employee compensation as a share of hospital expenditures has consistently shrunk in Ontario. This is not some immutable law of hospital development. It is in stark contrast with the rest of Canada, where compensation has become a larger share and now accounts for 67.1%. Hospitals in provinces other than Ontario now have 18 percent more staﬀ per capita than hospitals in Ontario. Overall, if Ontario had the same staﬃng capacity as the other provinces and territories, there would be another...

Defend Public Healthcare

Search This Blog