UBC's Kevin Milligan is to be congratulated for taking the initiative of organising an open letter signed by 130 people (so far), almost all of whom are economics professors, and whose political allegiances span - as far as I can tell - pretty much the entire spectrum of the Canadian mainstream:
The Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (OPBO)
was established in 2006 with a mandate to provide an independent
authority on the finances of the nation and to submit the Government's
quarterly fiscal forecasts to analysis. The OPBO has recently come under bi-partisan attack, with proposals to limit the ability of the OPBO
to communicate to Canadians and to operate effectively. We write in
support of this nascent, innovative, and necessary institution. Our
support stems from three underlying reasons.
First, the OPBO can produce independent, detailed, and credible fiscal projections. The Department of Finance has a very talented economic staff, but under our Parliamentary system these economists are restrained by the political stance of the Finance Minister. Other groups of economists both inside and outside government lack either the mandate or the resources to effectively produce detailed fiscal projections and costing of government initiatives. Without the OPBO, important and vital information about Canada's fiscal position would be lost.
Second, the OPBO contributes to elevating democratic debate in Canada. A properly supported OPBO could put out credible estimates of fiscal revenues and expenses, as happens in its older sibling institution in the United States, the Congressional Budget Office. Ideally, this allows Parliamentarians to focus more on the merits of government economic initiatives, rather than allowing the debate to degrade into quibbling over differing economic assumptions. In a time when many are questioning the prevailing standard of political debate in Canada, we must support an institution that improves democratic discussions.
Third, the OPBO in its short existence has a commendable record of success. For example, the OPBO's predictions of the fiscal consequences of the current recession appear prescient. Such credibility is hard-earned and harder-still to recreate if discarded. We should allow the OPBO the opportunity to build on its success.
We call on Parliamentarians of every party to pursue the following actions in support of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer:
First, the OPBO can produce independent, detailed, and credible fiscal projections. The Department of Finance has a very talented economic staff, but under our Parliamentary system these economists are restrained by the political stance of the Finance Minister. Other groups of economists both inside and outside government lack either the mandate or the resources to effectively produce detailed fiscal projections and costing of government initiatives. Without the OPBO, important and vital information about Canada's fiscal position would be lost.
Second, the OPBO contributes to elevating democratic debate in Canada. A properly supported OPBO could put out credible estimates of fiscal revenues and expenses, as happens in its older sibling institution in the United States, the Congressional Budget Office. Ideally, this allows Parliamentarians to focus more on the merits of government economic initiatives, rather than allowing the debate to degrade into quibbling over differing economic assumptions. In a time when many are questioning the prevailing standard of political debate in Canada, we must support an institution that improves democratic discussions.
Third, the OPBO in its short existence has a commendable record of success. For example, the OPBO's predictions of the fiscal consequences of the current recession appear prescient. Such credibility is hard-earned and harder-still to recreate if discarded. We should allow the OPBO the opportunity to build on its success.
We call on Parliamentarians of every party to pursue the following actions in support of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer:
- Ensure adequate funding to carry out its mandate
- Independence by making the PBO a full Officer of Parliament
- Public reporting of all analysis.
Did you jump from the rail tracks at The Narrows, Stephen?
Is the Canada OPBO the same as the US CBO?
Why would a young economist at the CPDO be restrained by the political stance of the Finance Minister. Jeff Rubin, as a young economist, was vilified by the media but called the top in the Toronto real estate market in 1989, and yet went on to make a boatload of money with CIBC World Markets before he discovered peak oil. Is it a tenure thingie with young economists at the CPDO? Apparently, none of them are doctorates, so you and Rowe can fill the breach.
Couchiching was real cold for mid-July, huh?
Posted by: marmico | July 17, 2009 at 09:48 AM
marmico: The point here is to support the institution of the Office itself
And the ages of the staff of the CPDO are not given, nor is there a suggestion that they are going to be working there forever. It's unclear why you'd want more of the staff with doctorates: wouldn't that depend on the type of work they are doing, as well as the amount of money available to pay them?
The Conservatives have lessened the independence of many Canadian institutions. A lot of people think that is generally a bad thing. So it makes sense to speak out now if you value this budgetary office's independence.
Posted by: crf | July 17, 2009 at 06:13 PM
Marmico - yes, Couchiching was cold. But worth it, well worth it.
The PBO has hired at least one person with a PhD - Stephen Tapp, whose work I've quoted several times here. Given the current state of the PhD job market, they could recruit some very good people and do very good work - if they had the money.
Posted by: Stephen Gordon | July 17, 2009 at 06:44 PM