Two simple prosperity proposals

Not everything in the newly-released report of the Governor’s Prosperity Council is uncontroversial, or should be, or points specifically to major systemic problems that limit Oregon’s economic growth.

But some do. Two general proposals especially, which may at first sound almost like anodyne boilerplate, seem on reflection like matters of real significance and specific relevance to the way Oregon works, or doesn’t.

And in theory at least, both ought not to be non-controversial because they touch on matters of simple competence and fairness.

Gov. Tina Kotek formed the 15-member council, which includes a number of business leaders around the state, in January to “recommend actionable steps to accelerate Oregon’s economy, create good paying jobs, and recruit and grow Oregon’s businesses.

It didn’t stint on recommendations: The report runs 452 pages. Some of its ideas are very specific, such as those concerning taxes and spending, and some still seem a little more vague, even if numbers are attached (such as a recommendation to reduce regulations by a set percentage, without more specificity on which regulations exactly should be dropped).

But at least two ideas have deeper implications for the way things are or should be done in Oregon.

The topline for the first: ”The state should transform Business Oregon [a state economic development organization] into the Oregon Commerce Authority, governed by a board of business and innovation leaders and the Governor …”

Which sounds like: “Great, let’s set up a committee and slap a new name on it.”

Except that’s not what the report was getting at. (The new name would be beside the point.) There’s an underlying problem in Oregon’s economic development system this proposal is designed to address:

“More than 850 organizations make up Oregon’s economic development system, all broadly focused on business growth and job creation. However, consistent collaboration around shared priorities is the exception, not the norm. For businesses of all sizes, this fragmentation can make it difficult to identify a clear entry point, navigate available programs, or receive coordinated support.”

The simple number of 850 economic development organizations in Oregon suggests the issue: Clearly the problem doesn’t involve inadequate resources or effort, but rather the lack of a unified effort. If Oregon’s economic development efforts are that fractured, that incoherent, there should be little argument the system presents a real handicap to economic growth. 

The point of the Authority would be to place someone in actual charge, someone setting a consistent approach and message and harnessing the grab-bag of small pieces into a larger, comprehensive effort.

It went on: “The Authority should establish measurable statewide economic development goals and maintain a public-facing dashboard tracking key metrics such as business growth, job creation, project timelines, regional investment, customer response times, and economic competitiveness outcomes to improve transparency and accountability …”

Simple provision of coordination and competence could help quite a bit. It’s not that all those people working in economic development aren’t capable; lots of them surely are. But if they’re not working together, the state isn’t going to get traction from them. 

The argument for the second point may be a little less clear cut for some people, but the underlying principle should not be: Justice delayed is justice denied.  

This relates to the state’s overall system — not so much its content, but its process — of regulation. The Council said that people commenting on it around the state said much of the statewide regulatory system is “fragmented, lengthy, inconsistent, and costly.” 

That assessment probably wouldn’t draw a serious argument broadly around the state, and across a large number of agencies, and it would apply to individuals and non-profits as well, and really almost anyone other than people trying to use the flaws in the cumbersome system to achieve a result not through merit but through wearing down the opposition. 

Those too-frequent realities of the system build distrust generally in government systems, and ought to be something advocates of government action would want to address as well.

The proposed solutions involve setting action deadlines and even penalties for unnecessary delays: “The process should prevent projects from being delayed indefinitely and should include accountability measures such as public reporting and partial fee refunds when deadlines are missed.”

The idea is for greater efficiency and timeliness in addressing regulatory issues, not merely as an aspiration but backed up with legal teeth and top-level enforcement. A more rigorous system surely would provide economic benefits, but the positive implications would ripple beyond that. 

These are things a governor and Legislature should be able easily to do. They seem clear and obvious enough, and the benefits seem direct enough if the rules are strong enough and they are enforced from the top down.