OP-ED: Economic development should be measured by what actually happens
When a governor or other government official announces that his administration or agency has created thousands of jobs, a critical thinker might reasonably ask whether that statement should be accepted at face value.
Business owners and managers constantly decide where to locate, expand, modernize, consolidate or close operations. Economic-development agencies compete for those businesses using taxes, infrastructure, workforce, energy costs, incentives and favorable regulatory policies.
So who really creates the jobs? And when should an announced job be counted as a job created?
When Pennsylvania wins, somewhere else may lose. When Ohio wins, Pennsylvania may lose. That is how a competitive economy works.
The recently closed Charleroi glass plant provides a painful local example.
Anchor Hocking closed the 132-year-old plant in April 2025 and consolidated production at its larger facility in Lancaster, Ohio. Roughly 300 established manufacturing jobs disappeared from Washington County.
For Charleroi, the consequences were devastating. Some argue that local and state government should have done more to prevent the closure. Others say responsibility for continued investment rested with the owners. Still others believe the federal government should have intervened.
But really, whose decision was this? And how did a plant that had operated for more than a century reach the point where its owner no longer considered it competitive?
Keeping a manufacturing facility competitive is principally management’s responsibility. Management decides whether to reinvest, modernize equipment, improve productivity, change products and respond to changing markets.
But management should not entirely ignore the social consequences. Closing a plant that has supported a community for generations affects employees, families, local businesses and the tax base. Considering those consequences, however, does not require a private company to operate an uncompetitive facility indefinitely. Nor can government continually subsidize an uneconomic operation simply because closing it would be painful.
Government has a different role. It can create conditions that encourage private investment and sometimes help a viable business modernize. Pennsylvania did that in Charleroi. In 2018, Corelle Brands received a $2.5 million RACP reimbursement grant toward modernization of the plant.
That raises another question: When taxpayers help finance private investment specifically intended to retain employment, how long does the recipient’s obligation to those taxpayers continue?
Pennsylvania’s attorney general later went to federal court attempting to prevent Anchor Hocking from closing Charleroi and removing equipment. The court allowed the consolidation to proceed.
Then another business reached a different conclusion about the same plant.
Sediver proposed investing tens of millions in Charleroi and restoring more than 250 jobs, using the plant’s glassmaking capabilities for industrial rather than primarily consumer products. Despite negotiations among the parties and regulators, the transaction collapsed. Published accounts attributed the failure partly to disagreements over what products a purchaser could manufacture, although exactly why an apparently willing buyer and seller could not reach an acceptable arrangement remains unclear.
Charleroi illustrates something easily lost in economic-development announcements: businesses are constantly opening, expanding, contracting and closing.
In just the third quarter of 2025, Pennsylvania private businesses generated 266,124 gross job gains through openings and expansions. During the same quarter, businesses lost 276,261 jobs through contractions and closures — a net loss of 10,137 jobs.
That is the economic ledger. Jobs coming in are only half the story.
The same principle should apply to public investment. If taxpayers subsidize a project because it promises investment or employment, the eventual result should be measured against the original promise. Some projects will succeed spectacularly. Others will underperform or fail. Public economic-development programs should account for both.
Gov. Josh Shapiro’s administration says it has attracted more than $43 billion in private investment and nearly 29,000 jobs to Pennsylvania. Those totals include future commitments. Chobani’s announced 900 jobs and Burlington Stores’ 2,000, for example, are projected over five years.
Those investments may prove highly successful. But an announcement is an incompletely defined datapoint in time, not an annual accounting of Pennsylvania’s economy.
Businesses — not governors — will ultimately invest the money, build or operate the facilities and employ the people. Government may deserve credit for helping Pennsylvania win an investment, but that is different from government creating the jobs.
If 900 future jobs are counted when announced, what happens when roughly 300 existing jobs disappear from Charleroi?
Are they subtracted?
Economic development should be measured net, not simply gross.
A meaningful scorecard would distinguish investment announced from investment actually made, jobs promised from jobs actually created, businesses recruited from businesses lost, and successful taxpayer-supported projects from those that fail to produce their promised benefits.
A private company makes an investment decision. Government announces it. Politicians claim some credit. Eventually those accumulated announcements help shape public perceptions of economic performance.
But economic development should be measured by what actually happens, not by who stands behind the podium when it is announced.
Count the investment when it is made. Count the jobs when they exist. Count businesses retained as well as businesses recruited. And when businesses leave, subtract those jobs.
That may produce less impressive political statistics.
It would produce a much more accurate picture of Pennsylvania’s economy.
Dave Ball is a retired international business executive, elected public official, former Chair of the Washington County Republican Party and political strategist who writes on politics, technology and regional issues.