There is more significance than
meets the eye in the peer recognition of Penticton’s
Economic Development Officer
The
Economic Development Association of BC has named one of their
peers - the City
of Penticton’s Economic Development Officer – “The
Economic Developer of the Year”.
The recognition is for the EDO’s effort that
attracted a US company to locate a Call Center in Penticton.
Penticton EDO’s effort is commendable, and presumably
the Mayor, Councilors, and Administration all played a role in
the US company’s decision. According to press information,
the Call Center now employs around 600 people in the Okanagan.
Even if many are part-time jobs, they are in an area
where investment in job generating economic production is
scarce.
All
indications are that the EDO and Penticton relied very little
on Provincial or Federal government transfers to entice and
secure the jobs in the area. It would appear instead that
Penticton choose a modern economic development model where
quality of life, political stability and the tax base depend
on private investment in economic production in businesses
that distribute real income via employment, rather than tax
transfers. Penticton is making healthy strides toward meeting
the standard for modern economic development in a democratic
mixed open economy (such as Canada).
It is a different approach from the postwar economic
development model used in the BC Forest Sector, the Fast
Ferries, and other ‘development projects ’ where
government subsidies and tax transfers are a major factor.
This may be good for a few,
but bad for the many, and ultimately increases disparities in
opportunities – failing to meet the standards established in
the Canadian constitution.
‘Development’ based on transfers and subsidy fails
during good times to encourage long-term investment, adding
value, and using fewer resources. During the bad times, it
stimulates industry to expect government assistance and
bailouts.
It
is only natural that the private sector will pursue tax
transfers and grants where available, rather than investing in
long-term development of their organization. It is
government’s accountability to ensure that transfers meet
our constitutional standards while solving identified problems
in the economy.
Penticton’s
approach is significantly different from some local
governments in the Southern Okanagan such as Summerland to the
north and Osoyoos to the south of Penticton, that continue the
patronage-driven tax transfer model of the seventies.
Plaudits
to Penticton’s EDO and to a community that practice modern
economic development and encourages self-sustaining economic
production.
June
17, 2002
OISD
Okanagan Institute for Strategic Development
