Questions raised for elections and beyond

For the past 50 years, per capita income in Ohio has been declining despite the best efforts of seven governors — four Republicans and three Democrats — to spur economic development and job creation.

That calls into question just how much influence any governor or any General Assembly can have on the state’s overall fortunes, especially in an increasingly global economy.

As the 2018 race for governor accelerates toward the May 8 primary, then to the Nov. 6 general election, there’s a need for sober nonpartisan analysis of Ohio’s economy and what public policies might influence it for the better.

Fortunately, two highly experienced financial analysts with extensive Ohio pedigrees have just published research on Ohio’s economy that should guide discussion and debate for the 2018 campaign and into the next administration.

“Toward a New Ohio” is a three-part, 43-page report by William Shkurti, a former state budget director and former Ohio State vice president for business and finance, and Fran Stewart, senior research fellow at OSU’s Ohio Manufacturing Institute.

The economic overview was published by OSU’s John Glenn College of Public Affairs and is available on the college’s website, glenn.osu.edu.

The report’s first section traces the decline of Ohio’s economy over the half-century, particularly the dramatic shrinkage in high-paying manufacturing employment. In 1953, manufacturing accounted for 44 percent of Ohio’s jobs. Today, it accounts for 12.5 percent and will continue to shrink.

One of the paper’s most definitive conclusions is that the loss of 700,000 manufacturing jobs is due almost entirely to automation, not foreign trade deals or domestic competition in states with lower labor costs.

Politicians who talk about bringing back goodpaying manufacturing jobs by canceling or renegotiating trade deals or adopting right-to-work laws are blowing hot air.

Because of automation, Ohio factories are nearly four times more productive than they were in 1967, and automation is sure to continue.

Manufacturing is still a high-value component of Ohio’s economy — and will be well into the future — but labor-intensive manufacturing will not return.

The report’s second section focuses on changes in the profile of Ohio’s workforce, especially the dramatic increase in women workers and the decline of men of prime working age between 25 and 54. Drug abuse is a big factor.

This section clearly illustrates that even though education levels of Ohio’s workers have improved, they’ve not kept pace with the rest of the nation. The section offers a detailed assessment of the difficult choices to be made over how best to direct the state’s education and training dollars.

The paper’s third section recaps the efforts of seven Ohio governors to position the state for economic growth and compares Ohio’s performance relative to other states.

The final section poses a dozen policy questions facing the next governor and General Assembly, beginning with: What will be your priority for initiatives aimed at improving Ohio’s economy? Others include choices to be made on infrastructure, local government assistance, drug prevention and treatment.

The report could not be better timed. It deserves wide discussion.