It is one of the most prominent clichés in modern politics. It also can be one of the most confounding.
Election season routinely features candidates who declare themselves to be “pro-business.” And why not? Creating a climate that is conducive to establishing and growing businesses is good for everybody. Businesses create jobs, generate taxes that pay for local services, provide an outlet for aspiring entrepreneurs and attract employees and additional businesses to the region.
Yet while nearly every political candidate claims they are in favor of a positive business climate, the definitions can vary wildly. For some, it means lower taxes or local tax breaks; for others, it means fewer environmental regulations; for others, it means state-provided assistance for startups.
Last month, financial website Bankrate.com ranked Washington as having the nation’s best environment for small businesses. “Washington stands out in three categories we examined: Access to capital, the robustness of small-business activity and the availability of skilled workers,” analysts wrote. “Washington’s biggest areas for improvement in our rankings are its business costs and tax policies.”
So it is interesting to hear a different perspective, as provided in an interview with Peter Clarke, owner of ANC Movers in east Vancouver. Columbian reporter Sarah Wolf wrote: “Clarke said moving companies are extremely regulated in Oregon and Washington, including setting the amount moving companies can charge customers. His work would be easier if he moved across the border to Idaho or to states including Montana where movers face fewer regulations.”
All of that is in the eye of the beholder. CNBC this year ranked Washington as the 10th best state for business. But while the state scored well in infrastructure, workforce, quality of life, and technology and innovation, it placed 42nd in business friendliness and 39th in cost of doing business.
Meanwhile, a study by SmartAsset ranked Clark County as the seventh best in the state for small businesses. John McDonagh, president and CEO of the Greater Vancouver Chamber, said: “We have the potential to enhance our appeal by the investments being made in infrastructure, workforce development, and policies that attract both startup entrepreneurs and established companies alike.”
To a business owner, some regulations might be considered as costly and oppressive. To residents, those same regulations can be viewed as protections for consumers and the environment. Striking the proper balance is a difficult task for elected officials.
Amid the rhetoric that surrounds the issue, it is instructive to consider the World Economic Forum’s list of how governments can foster entrepreneurship. The most important factor, the forum writes, is to “provide access to funding,” either through small-business loans or tax incentives for investors. Other methods involve reducing bureaucratic red tape and investing in education and training for a qualified workforce.
The most important of these are the ones that can be considered investments rather than impediments — access to capital and support for job training. For generations, Washington has reaped the benefits of an entrepreneurial culture. It is the birthplace of Boeing, Costco, Starbucks, Amazon and many lesser-known companies that have grown from humble beginnings.
To truly be pro-businesses, policymakers would be wise to examine and replicate the conditions that allowed those Washington companies to become global entities.
