Monday, August 15, 2016

How Massachusetts ranks in Cato's Freedom 50 Index

Here is the link to the 2016 Freedom in the States index.

Monday, August 1, 2016

Institute releases 15th annual State Competitiveness Report and Index

BOSTON - (July 29, 2016) Massachusetts once again secured the top spot on the Beacon Hill Institute’s 15th Annual State Competitiveness Index (SCI). The index measures the ability of states to grow their economies and increase personal income. Massachusetts has retained the number one position each year since 2011. 

The BHI competitiveness index is based on a set of 43 indicators divided into eight sub-indexes – government and fiscal policy, security, infrastructure, human resources, technology, business incubation, openness, and environmental policy. Known in the field as a “productivity index”, the BHI ranking distinguishes it from more narrowly-focused measures that target only taxes, high technology, quality of life, or economic freedom.  The State of Washington’s Department of Commerce gives high grades to the BHI Index for its transparency, methodology and variability. 

North Dakota once again finished second, followed by South Dakota, New Hampshire, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Vermont and Texas. While the rankings in sub-index measures were far from uniform, states that paid attention to fostering a well-educated and healthy workforce scored well.  Rhode Island’s rise may be temporary and due to a one-time multi-billion dollar Initial Public Offering by a major bank in 2014. 

Massachusetts showed formidable strengths in its human resources (for example a high number of residents with health insurance and low infant mortality rates), technology (as a recipient of National Institutes for Health grants to local institutions and its large base of science and engineering graduates and high-tech employment), and business incubation, where Massachusetts draws the second top ranking in terms of venture capital per capita and ranks eighth in IPO dollars per capita.  New Hampshire which has bounced around in the top 20 for the past 10 years appears to have regained its footing. 

“Since we do not have oil, gas or mineral deposits, human capital has become our natural endowment, our ticket to progress,” notes Frank Conte, project manager for the BHI report. “The strong showing across most sub-indexes demonstrates that Massachusetts workers are productive. The workforce is one major reason that the Bay State remains attractive to innovative industries and allows us to overcome the perennial soft spots in our economy:  the cost of labor, high housing and utility costs.” 

The lowest-ranked states were West Virginia (46), New Jersey (47), Alabama (48), New Mexico (49) and Mississippi (50).  

Policymakers often compare a state’s performance with that of “leading technology states (LTS).” However, these states do not always prove to be competitive according to the SCI. Massachusetts (1) Minnesota (7) and Texas (10) are the only LTSs to finish in the top 10.  Other LTS states ranked as follows:  Colorado (14), Connecticut (32), North Carolina (15), New York (27), California (35), Pennsylvania (36), New Jersey (47) and Virginia (12).  

“By improving its ranking on the index, a state can realize substantial increases in personal income,” observed Conte. “Since its inception, the index has been highlighting the micro-foundations — the right mix of policies and endowments — that lead to prosperity. It remains a useful guide. ”

The report is available here

Friday, July 22, 2016

Energy infrastructure options essential to Massachusetts economy

A six-member conference committee is hashing out the details of an extensive energy bill now in two separate bills S. 2400 and H. 4385. The Beacon Hill Institute does not advocate for or against any piece of legislation. However, the Institute provides economic analysis of current proposals related to its research portfolio. Some key observations are in order.

The debate over hydropower from Quebec, natural gas or other renewables such as offshore wind and solar is absolutely critical if the Commonwealth is able to meet the goals outlined in the Global Warming Solutions Act. Everyone wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but that goal requires hard thinking, particularly since both coal and nuclear power plants will be closing down. Debates about pipelines generate much heat and little light and ignore the pressing need for reliable, cost-effective sources of energy.

Section 30, would amend current law by adding the following language: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the department to review and approve a contract for natural gas pipeline capacity filed by an electric company.”

To foreclose on possible construction of energy infrastructure, the direct intent of Section 30, would be shortsighted. In fact, the new language would pose severe economic consequences to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which already faces competitive disadvantages on energy costs. According to the Institute’s 2014 State Competitiveness Index, Massachusetts ranks first for having the conditions in place that provide for a high level of per capita income and continued growth. But energy has been a persistent disadvantage for Massachusetts since the Institute began ranking states in 2001. Last year in a sub-index that measures infrastructure Massachusetts ranked 44th when considering electricity prices per kilowatt hour. High-tech manufacturing could use the break in the form of competitively priced energy.

Some energy realism is in order. It is clear from the current economic and climate change literature that natural gas is essential to meeting the goals of a cleaner environment in both the short and long term. The state needs to preserve its options to build such facilities.

ISO-New England, which manages the region’s power grid, notes “wind and solar energy have been expanding dramatically though it will be several years before they generate a significant portion of the region’s electricity.” That means natural gas remains essential. By 2022, natural gas is expected to generate 55% of electricity.

In 2012, the ISO studied a scenario whereby 28 dirty plants would be retired. The grid operator found that “approximately 6,000 MW of resources would need to be replaced, repowered or retained to satisfy both generation and transmission reliability requirements. Given current trends, the majority of replacement resources would be natural gas-fired generation.”

The ISO report diplomatically highlights the shortcomings of renewables saying the “reliable large-scale integration of these resources presents challenges for grid planning and operation.” These include variability, (lack of wind and sun), issues “behind the meter” which make it difficult to forecast demand, and transmission limitations. These shortcomings inherent in renewables make Section 16 of the bill, which would double the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standards, all the more harmful.

Closing the door on natural gas would be a policy mistake.

Thursday, July 7, 2016

Latest BHI contributions to Social Impact Bonds, Independence Day

Here are the latest BHI columns over at

Frank Conte: Social impact bonds for public health programs
Imagine a public health program that reduces the incidences of childhood asthma. Or imagine another one that assigns a home visiting nurse to women pregnant with their first child. Don’t stop there. Imagine another program that identifies children under six who are at-risk of abuse and another one that helps the mentally ill out of restrictive institutional settings and into meaningful community housing.
The more cynical among us who suffer from “compassion burnout” may say that there’s very little imaginative about the public health programs noted above that have been launched in states like California, New York, New Mexico, Oregon and South Carolina. Read more.
David Tuerck:  Independence Day
It is customary this holiday week to remind ourselves why the American colonies declared their independence from Britain some 240 years ago. The Declaration of Independence provides the answer in the form a list of tyrannical acts attributed to King George III. Among their grievances, the authors cited the “swarms of Officers” that the King sent out to harass and steal from them, the creation of “arbitrary government” for the purpose of imposing “absolute rule” and the imposition of taxes without their consent. “A Prince” they said, “whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” Read more.

Share BHI content