This week’s maps use data from the Export-Import Bank and the US Census Bureau to display the effect of Ex-Im Bank financing on each state. The maps show that Washington state, home of Boeing, garners the bulk of the benefits in terms of both Ex-Im Bank disbursements and as a percentage of total state export value, even though taxpayers across the nation are equally exposed to liability.
These charts show that small business establishments and employees that benefit from Ex-Im Bank assistance constitute a minuscule portion of all small businesses and related employment in the nation. Supporters of the Ex-Im Bank have little reason to claim that it meaningfully benefits American small business firms and their employees.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States claims to boost US exports by providing artificially cheap financing to overseas buyers of certain US products. The Ex-Im Bank and its supporters rarely discuss which countries’ firms actually receive US export credit subsidies.
This week’s charts show that if we were serious about improving the competitiveness of American producers, we should be looking at policies that help all producers rather than to the Export-Import Bank, which benefits mostly a few winners.
This week’s charts use data from the Annual Reports of the Export-Import Bank from FY 2009 to FY 2013, the International Trade Administration, and the US Census Bureau. The charts display the total value of US exports and total number of export-related jobs from 2009 to 2013, along with the proportions of exports and export-related jobs the Bank claims to have influenced in its official reports.
This week’s charts use data from the Export-Import Bank’s Annual Report 2013 and from a new Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on the Export-Import Bank. They show that while a small proportion of the Ex-Im Bank’s work is dedicated to counteracting foreign government export subsidies, the US government is actually one of the worst offenders when it comes to subsidizing domestic exports.
This week’s charts use data from this CBO report to display the discrepancies between the two accounting methods in each bodies’ reported costs. The charts show that these programs are in a far more dire fiscal position than their administrators have reported to the public.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States, the official export credit corporation of the federal government, is often criticized for favoring large, politically-connected corporations like Boeing and Caterpillar; for a lack of transparency and accuracy in their data reporting, job creation methodology, and risk calculations; and for unnecessarily tilting the scales of competition in the direction of favored industries.
As the official export credit corporation of the US federal government, the Export-Import Bank is tasked with the mission of “assist[ing] in financing the export of US goods and services to international markets.” So what kinds of goods and services do the Bank primarily assist in financing?
This week’s charts use participant record data from the Export-Import Bank to display the Bank’s top exporter beneficiaries in general and for each financial vehicle the Bank offered for FY 2013: loan guarantees, insurance coverage, direct loans, and working capital guarantees. The charts show that the Export-Import Bank’s top beneficiaries constitute a large portion of total financial assistance—and therefore have plenty of reasons to support the upcoming reauthorization.