Partisan arguments aren’t just annoying – they’re also bad for business.

That’s what my colleagues and I discovered in a recent study on the impact of environmental policy uncertainty on corporate investment.

First we analyzed over 300 million press articlestrying to find keywords related to environmental policy uncertainty. We found that this uncertainty increases during election periods and has almost doubled over the past decade.

Then we took a look business investment rates of interest – a common way of assessing a company’s financial health – in corporations in affected sectors akin to agriculture, mining, energy and automotive. We found that environmental policy uncertainty reduced these corporations’ business investment rates by 0.010%.

This may not seem to be much, but how economists like me You know, small amounts add up over time.

For example, we found that the rise in environmental policy uncertainty within the run-up to the 2008 presidential elections was linked to a one-off 25% decline within the investment rate for corporations covered by environmental policy. This effect was greater than the uncertainty related to defense, health and financial policies.

But my team also found positive sides. We found that political uncertainty had a much smaller impact on business investment when control of Congress was divided and policy changes required bipartisan support.

When the identical political party controlled each houses of Congress, environmental policy uncertainty was related to a 0.013% decline in investment rates. However, when Congress was divided, this decline shrunk to a much smaller 0.002%.

Why it matters

Because political uncertainty typically increases around elections, our results suggest that the present political environment is hampering business investment.

Our research also suggests that policies geared toward boosting business investment could also be less effective than previously thought due to uncertainty they introduce.

Let’s take for instance Inflation Reduction Actpassed in 2021, and the bipartisan Infrastructure Act of 2022. Both were designed to encourage investment in clean energy technologies.

However, uncertainty over whether these packages can be adopted in any respect – and if that’s the case, what the policies would come with – could have discouraged investment before they got here into force. Uncertainty over what features of the foundations will apply after the election could also hamper business investment.

There could also be a degree of uncertainty built into the democratic process. After all, the faster and more secretive a government is, the less accountable it’s to the general public. If you concentrate on it this fashion, some uncertainty is an inevitable cost of a sound policymaking process.

Our research puts a price on these costs and reminds policymakers that political conflicts are a drag on the economy. Our results suggest one promising path forward: bipartisanship.

What’s next?

Because there may be such a wide range of environmental policies, our team is currently conducting research to see whether corporations respond otherwise to the uncertainty related to “carrot” policies – akin to subsidies or tax breaks – in comparison with “stick” policies, akin to fines or other penalties.

Answering this query will help decision makers minimize the results of uncertainty.

It’s also an open query whether news articles convey information to business leaders or just reflect information they have already got. In the latter case, media coverage might not be a good measure of the uncertainty corporations face.

To solve this problem, we’re working on developing ways to measure uncertainty based on transcripts of telephone conversations about earnings as an alternative of press articles. They could provide a more direct strategy to measure uncertainty affecting business decisions.

If you have ever checked out a radio station’s call letters, it can have gave the impression of they were just letters to you.

But at WDKX radios in Rochester, New York, the letter “D” stands for Frederick Douglass, “K” stands for Martin Luther King Jr., and “X” stands for

In a media environment where many Black radio stations that air promoting to Black listeners usually are not Black-owned, WDKX exemplifies the legacy and power of independent Black media. This yr the station is celebrating 50 years in business.

According to African American Public Radio Consortiuman estimated 10,000 industrial radio stations broadcast each day within the U.S., but lower than 1% are black-owned. This discrepancy reveals greater than just an ownership gap; highlights a systemic problem that ends in fewer Black leaders being accountable for the voices and messages that claim to talk for Black people.

“Anyone can play black music or turn on black shows, but with black creators there is a different kind of authenticity and connection,” says Andria Langston, current co-owner of WDKX and national sales manager.

Langston is Andre Langston’s daughter and granddaughter Andrew Langstonwho founded WDKX in 1974 in Rochester. While the northern New York city is commonly considered a destination for abolitionists like Frederick Douglass, that does not imply racism wasn’t prevalent in the realm.

(*50*)

“My grandfather was a visionary, and interestingly enough, he moved to Rochester, New York, because he was promised a job at CBS,” Langston tells Grio. “But when he got there and they saw he was black, they didn’t want to show him on TV. Being in Rochester during the Rochester Riots, my grandparents saw there was a need to tell our story.”

Today, WDKX is a model of resilience, being certainly one of the last independently operated Black-owned radio stations within the United States. The station organizes community events and highlights issues related to health, education and politics. Its mission is deeply rooted within the vision of Mr. Langston, who overcame regulatory and racial barriers to create a platform dedicated to authentic Black voices. For Andria, who began learning the station’s operations on the age of 5, that is of great importance.

“I’m a third-generation owner and seeing my grandfather build this station throughout my life and my father continuing it, I think it’s a testament to the American dream; what can be achieved with persistence and community and simply focusing on your goals,” Langston tells theGrio.

The United States is experiencing the largest-ever boom in investment in clean energy production, driven by laws such as the bipartisan bill Act on infrastructure investments and employment and Act on reducing inflation.

They have these rights used billions of dollars government support to drive private sector investment in clean energy supply chains across the country.

For several years, one of us, Jay Turner, and his students at Wellesley College have been tracking clean energy investments in the U.S. and sharing the data on the website The big green machine website. This study shows that since the Inflation Control Act went into effect in 2022, firms have announced 225 projects with a complete investment of $127 billion and the creation of greater than 131,000 latest jobs.

You could have seen on the news that these projects are in danger of failure or significant delays. In August 2024, the Financial Times reported this. 40% of over 100 projects he assessed that they were delayed. These include battery production, renewable energy and metals and hydrogen projects, as well as semiconductor manufacturing plants. The technology industry magazine The Information recently warned of this 1 in 4 firms left from government subsidies for investment in batteries.

We checked all 23 battery cell factories announced or prolonged since the Inflation Reduction Act was signed into law – just about all of them are gigafactories which might be expected to produce greater than 1 gigawatt-hour of battery cell capability. These factories have one of the highest employment potentials of all the projects supported by the Act.

We wanted to discover whether the U.S. clean energy production boom was about to fizzle out. Most of what we learned is reassuring.

The largest battery factories are on the right track

While exact investment amounts are difficult to determine, our study shows that planned capital expenditure shall be $52 billion, which would supply 490 gigawatt-hours of battery production capability per 12 months – enough to put about 5 million latest electric vehicles on the road.

While not all 23 firms have announced hiring plans, the facilities are expected to create nearly 30,000 latest jobs, with projects primarily in the U.S. Southeast, Midwest and Southwest.

We wanted to know whether these projects were progressing as planned or whether there have been delays or problems.

To do that, we first contacted local and state economic development agencies. In many cases, local and state tax incentives support these projects. Where possible, we now have tried to confirm the status of the project through public data Or formal announcements. In other cases, we looked for messages to see in the event that they existed construction proof Or hiring.

Our study shows that 13 of 23 projects are on the right track, with total planned capital investment exceeding $40 billion and production capability of nearly 352 gigawatt hours per 12 months. Importantly, they include most of the largest projects with the largest investments and expected production.

Our calculations show that 77% of total planned capital investment, 79% of proposed jobs, and 72% of planned battery production are on the right track, meaning the project is likely to be accomplished roughly on time and overall as expected. result. level of investment and employment.

Three projects are on the bubble. These have shown progress but have experienced delays in construction or financing.

Five others show deeper signs of distress. We do not yet have enough information to draw conclusions about the two projects.

An example of an ongoing project is the Envision AESC battery plant in Florence, South Carolina. His the scale has been enlarged twice since it was first announced in December 2022. It is now a $3 billion investment with the goal of producing 30 gigawatt-hours of batteries per 12 months supplies the BMW factory in Woodruff, South Carolina.

In early October 2024, South Carolina Secretary of Commerce Harry Lightsey visited the Envision i facility published a video. Construction of the plant began in February 2024, and 850 employees are working six days per week to complete the 1.4 million square foot facility by August 2025. Once full production begins, the project shall be accomplished expected to hire 2,700 people.

The 2024 elections could end or speed up the boom

However, much relies on what is going to occur in the upcoming elections.

Our data suggests that the real risk facing these projects and projects like them is not sluggish demand for electric vehicles, as some suggest – in fact demand continues to grow. It’s not the local opposition that did it either it only slowed down a number of projects.

The the biggest risk is policy change. Many of these projects are counting on advanced manufacturing tax credits approved by the Inflation Reduction Act through 2032.

During the campaign, Republicans are promising to repeal key laws under Biden, including the Inflation Reduction Act, which incorporates funding for grants and loans to support clean energy, as well as tax incentives to support domestic manufacturing.

While an entire repeal of the Act could also be unlikely, an an administration hostile to clean energy redirect unspent funds to other purposes, slow the pace of grants or loans by slow project approvals, or find other ways to make tax incentives tougher to obtain. Although our research focused on the battery industry, concerns concern investments in wind energy AND solar energy too.

So will the great U.S. boom in clean energy production soon come to an end? Our data is optimistic, but the policy is uncertain.