3/8/2004

KUFM / KGPR

T. M. Power

 

The Natural Resource Strategy for Economic Development

Before we elect a new governor next November, we Montanans ought to evaluate the various candidates’ proposals for “fixing” the Montana economy. It remains to be seen just what all those proposals might be, but there’s one perennial favorite that is already making the rounds. This is the notion, popular across the political spectrum, that the key to Montana’s prosperity is natural resource development. And natural resources will be developed, so this story goes, when Montana breaks the stranglehold of “extremist” environmental groups, who have come from outside the state to pursue a “special interest” agenda.

Don’t believe it. There are three substantial flaws in this argument.

First of all, like it or not, it just is not the case any more that our economic prosperity depends on natural resources. Consider these facts. Between 1990 and 2000, both payrolls adjusted for inflation and the number of jobs in Montana grew by 2.5 percent per year. The total output of the state’s economy grew by almost 3 percent per year.  This growth occurred in spite of the fact that the state’s natural resource industries were themselves contracting, rather than growing. Over the decade, jobs in natural resources industries – agriculture, mining, petroleum and natural gas, lumber and wood products and metal smelting – fell at a rate of about a fifth of a percentage point per year and earnings fell by over 3 percent per year.  The output of the natural resource industries rose, but at about a quarter of a percentage point per year, about one tenth of the rate at which the state’s economy as a whole was growing.  By 2000, only about one out of twelve jobs in Montana was in a natural resource industry.

Of course the fact that Montanans found jobs in other industries while losing them in natural resources may not tell the whole story. That’s because many of the natural resource jobs we lost paid well, while many of the jobs we gained in trade and services paid badly. But while it’s tempting to conclude that this shift from good to bad jobs was responsible for declining pay in Montana, the facts do not support that conclusion.

With only a couple of interruptions, inflation-adjusted pay in Montana fell steadily for much of the past quarter century: From $28,000 per year in 1978, pay per job fell by $5,000 to $23,000 per year in 1996.

During that period we lost almost 6,500 natural resource jobs[1]  while gaining more than 140,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy. Had natural resource industries kept their 1978 share of employment over this period, we would, instead, have gained 8,200 natural resource jobs. But surprisingly, even if that miracle had happened, average pay per job would still have fallen by $4,600 per year, 92 percent of the amount it actually declined.

The reason for this was that quite aside from the shift in jobs among industries, within many industries (including the natural resources industries themselves) pay was falling. The problem was not the changes in our job mix but an overall decline in pay.

None of this is meant to suggest that for particular communities and areas, natural resources are not important. They certainly are. Nor is it to say that there is something wrong with natural resource industries. The point rather is that when we consider the state’s economy as a whole and when we examine its recent history, we have to recognize that natural resources are no longer the engine driving the economy’s growth, and that in the number of jobs that the natural resource industries now provide is no longer large enough to have much of an impact on pay levels for the typical Montana worker.

However, even if natural resources do not play the role they once did, Montanans might still want to take a long, hard look at our environmental policies to see if there is evidence that those policies are stifling natural resource development. But the evidence suggests that it was not environmental policies, but national and international market forces that were the real cause of the problem.  During the 1990s, natural resource industries throughout the nation experienced the same kind of declines that they did in Montana. Buffeted as they were by a variety of national and international market forces, employment in these industries fell, and their output grew much more slowly than the rest of the nation’s economy. It was the fate of Montana’s natural resource industries that they had to fight to hold on to their share of a shrinking national natural resource pie. More important, there is nothing to suggest that our natural resource industries were held back in that fight by the state’s environmental policies. On the contrary, Montana’s share of national natural resource jobs grew over the decade, albeit only slightly, rather than falling because of unusually restrictive environmental policies in Montana.

It is somewhat startling to find timber and mining interests labeling environmental concerns “special interests.” Most Montanans have at some point questioned friends and neighbors about why they stay in Montana when they could earn so much more elsewhere. And the answer is always the same: Most people (not some, but most) say they stay in Montana because it is such a good place to live. They like to fish, or ski, or hunt, or hike, or enjoy the scenery and they value the quality and tranquility of their relatively small but diverse communities. They like living in the “last best place.” In other words, the natural and social environments are very important to them – so important that they are willing to make a considerable economic sacrifice to continue to enjoy them.

When Montanans work to protect and enhance environmental quality – through a land trust or a watershed group or a wildlife federation or a wilderness society or some other advocacy organization, they are working for the public interest, on behalf of the great majority of their fellow Montanans. It follows that politicians who denigrate these efforts do not understand the public interest, are not in a position to protect it, and certainly do not deserve your vote.

 



[1] Excluding agriculture, which is not a high earnings industry.