Attach a purpose, an end date, and a way to measure results to every subsidy and tax break for industry, and publish them
Steps to make it happen
- When the national government helps farms, factories, or shops with money, it first writes down what the help is for.
- The government decides an end date for the help before the help begins.
- The government picks clear signs for measuring success and shows them to everyone.
- The government lets anyone look up how much money went to which company or group.
- People outside the office that decided on the help check regularly whether the signs were reached.
- When the end date comes, the government decides again, with reasons, whether to continue or stop.
- When help ends, the government cuts it little by little so workers and communities are not left in trouble.
- Reviewing money for industries by looking at the results becomes the normal way of doing things.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This covers all public support aimed at specific industries or companies, such as farming, manufacturing, and services. It includes not only direct subsidies but also any measure that in practice favors a particular industry, whatever its form: tax cuts, loans at low interest rates, price supports, and protection through tariffs on imported goods. When a national or local government starts a program of support, it states four things in a public document at the outset: the problem it wants to solve, the indicators that will measure results, the date the program ends or is reviewed, and the total amount it expects to spend. The names and amounts of companies and organizations that receive support are listed in a public record for amounts above a certain level. Checking is done by an independent evaluation body or an audit body, separate from the ministry that designed the support. Besides how far the indicators were met, it also reports unexpected side effects on the environment, on jobs, and on trading partner countries. Support that reaches its end date generally stops, and to continue it, the government must give new reasons and a new end date and decide again. As exceptions, emergency support such as for disasters or epidemics gets the same checks afterward, and for some information related to national security, only the total and the purpose may be made public. To protect private life, the names of small farmers and sole proprietors are left out of the blanket disclosure and shown only as totals by region or type of business.
BenefitsTax money becomes visible, and support that has done its job can be let go
If the purpose, the end date, and the yardstick are set out at the start, people can discuss whether support worked by looking at results, not at who is loudest in politics. If it is known who receives how much, it becomes easier to notice when only certain industries or companies are gaining unfairly, and cozy ties and special interests are less likely to grow. Because an end date is set, there is a regular chance to openly debate support that has done its job or has little effect, and to let it go. The money freed up can go to fields that newly need it or to other uses such as education and health care. Because independent checks also report side effects on the environment and on jobs, they can prompt a review of support that encourages overfishing or pollution. For those receiving support, it is also clear what they must achieve to be judged well, so they can make plans aimed at results instead of making one-off appeals. If countries release information in the same way, it also becomes easier to compare how they compete with subsidies, which can form a basis for talks.
DrawbacksLong-term planning may become shaky, and values that can't be measured may be cut
Building up an industry needs investments that take ten or twenty years, such as building factories, improving land, and training people. If support has an end date and each time there is a debate over whether to continue, companies and farmers find it harder to plan ahead and may even hesitate to invest. This is the point that worries most not only people who oppose support but also people who want to protect industries. Also, values such as the security of being able to produce food in one's own region, the scenery and culture of farming villages, and preparedness for disasters are hard to capture in numbers, and if support is judged only by easy yardsticks, the more important support is, the more easily it may be cut off. On the other hand, there is also a worry that the goal becomes just meeting the numbers, producing results with no substance behind them. Publishing the names and amounts of recipient companies can put them at a disadvantage if competitors learn their trading terms or financial condition. Independent checks need skilled people and money, so the burden is heavier in countries with limited government capacity, and more procedures may make it harder for small businesses to apply for support.
Learn the background
In many countries and regions around the world, governments spend large sums of money to support industry. Subsidies for farmers, tax breaks to attract factories, and aid for fishing and fuel have existed for a long time, and in recent years policies to push industry forward have gained strength again, aimed at responding to climate change and at securing important products such as semiconductors and batteries at home. This kind of support plays a role in nurturing new industries and protecting life in local communities. On the other hand, once support begins, those who receive it press hard for it to continue, so it can go on for decades, even after it has done its job or while its effect remains unclear. Tax breaks and low-interest loans also do not show up easily in budget documents, so it is hard to tell how much they add up to. In addition, some subsidies encourage overfishing or overuse of fossil fuels, and some create competition that countries with little money cannot match. A shared way of thinking is needed to check what support is for and whether it is really useful.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-15d) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes