Commentary: Enterprise Fund gives Texans’ money to their competitors


In 2013 and 2014, then-gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott expressed skepticism about corporate welfare. His predecessor, Gov. Rick Perry, had no such qualms. Perry had established the Texas Enterprise Fund in 2003 to help attract out-of-state businesses by dispensing “economic development” incentives. It grew to become the largest closing fund of its kind in the country.

But candidate Abbott wasn’t impressed. He repeatedly worried about corporate welfare cronyism, saying the government “should get out of the business of picking winners and losers.” However, when asked whether this meant he would discontinue the fund — a program that does just that — the candidate did not directly answer.

Now, it appears we know the answer. In his State of the State address in January, Gov. Abbott called on the Texas Legislature to expand the fund, urging them to allocate $108 million to be used by early 2019.

Though programs like the Texas Enterprise Fund make little economic sense, they make perfect political sense. They allow politicians to bestow benefits on a small-but-organized — and thus powerful — set of interest groups while spreading the costs across a broad-but-unorganized set of taxpayers, consumers and business owners.

The fund has long been dogged by accusations of misuse. A September 2014 audit discovered a lack of accountability between 2003 and 2013, as officials awarded $172 million outside of formal channels and failed to verify whether recipients actually created the jobs they promised.

Even if the fund had a clean record, the policy itself is counterproductive.

Texans have spent an astounding $609 million on business subsidies since the inception of the program. The same amount of money could have fully funded the K-12 education of 5,000 students or repaved 500 miles of highway from Lubbock to Corpus Christi.

What might have happened if $609 million had not been collected from taxpayers at all? Imagine how many valuable local jobs the individuals and businesses who footed the bill could have created over the past 14 years had they faced a lower tax rate. And because all taxation involves what economists call “excess burden,” those who paid the tax bills actually lost more money than the fund’s beneficiaries gained.

Abbott argues that “having a deal-closing fund can be an effective tool in keeping Texas competitive.” In reality, the fund is quintessentially anti-competitive, tilting the playing field toward those who know how to work the political system and away from those who don’t.

If yours is a homegrown Texas business, your tax dollars go to your potential competitors. To make matters worse, corporate subsidies encourage Texans to specialize in the wrong industries. If a business would not locate in Texas but for the subsidies, that suggests that Texas is not well-suited for it — and that Texans could be more prosperous focusing on another pursuit.

Moreover, those firms that are enticed to relocate for government cash are just the sort that are likely to skip town when a better deal comes along.

The numbers don’t lie: A review of dozens of empirical studies shows that these types of programs simply do not produce the sort of widespread prosperity that their proponents claim. As one recent report put it, business incentives “are excessively costly and may not have the promised effects.”

When asked about the fund and how to ensure long-term prosperity for Texans, then-candidate Abbott had a wise answer: “Good tax structure,” he said, is the best incentive for business in Texas. Indeed, a good tax and regulatory environment — and a general respect for economic freedom — are much better bets than corporate welfare. Hundreds of studies have now documented the direct association between greater economic freedom and higher standards of living.

There would be no better way to get the government “out of the business of picking winners and losers” than to close down the Texas Enterprise Fund and instead expand Texans’ economic freedom.

Mitchell is a senior research fellow and Philpot is a research assistant with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

Phillips: Is Patrick lieutenant govenor or viceroy? Let voters decide
Phillips: Is Patrick lieutenant govenor or viceroy? Let voters decide

Maybe we should change Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s title to viceroy. That seems appropriate, since he is acting more like a ruler exercising control over colonies – Texas cities and counties – than a statewide elected leader interested in solving the big problems and challenges facing Texas, such as the state’s broken school finance...
Herman: Legislature honors late columnist John Kelso
Herman: Legislature honors late columnist John Kelso

The Legislature, controlled by a party that gave us a president who believes many journalists are the enemy of the people, honored my late friend and colleague John Kelso on Tuesday. Thank you, Texas Legislature. For you skeptics out there, this is a timely reminder that our lawmakers can do good. Longtime American-Statesman columnist Kelso, 73, died...
Trump is right: bigotry, violence ‘on many sides’

British writer and theologian G.K. Chesterton observed, “It is hatred that unites people — while love is always individual.” The use of hatred to mobilize has a long and bloody history. We should understand why it works so well. It taps into human weakness. It exploits the unwillingness of individuals to take responsibility for their...
Letters to the editor: Aug. 16, 2017

Like Austin, Charlottesville, Va., prides itself on its progressive values. This weekend we watched as the KKK and other white supremacists marched on their town, intimidating and attacking its residents in acts of terror. These events have made it clearer than ever that Austin cannot let Robert E. Lee Road remain named for a general who fought on...
Commentary: Texas schools are struggling. Why vouchers make it worse
Commentary: Texas schools are struggling. Why vouchers make it worse

Imagine if Texas had enough money to update all public schools, pay salaries appealing to the brightest and best graduates, and provide state-of-the-art materials and equipment. Imagine if private and parochial schools also requested state funding. I might stand at the front of the line to say, “Of course, Texas can fund private as well as public...
More Stories