National attention had turned to the economic-development competition between Kansas and Missouri, where public subsidies were being used to entice employers to move from one side of the Kansas City metropolitan area to the other. The New York Times coverage offered a useful illustration of how the so-called border war could consume taxpayer resources even when a company's move created little or no new economic activity for the region as a whole.

The central policy problem was not that either state wanted jobs. It was that each government was trying to secure them through selective tax breaks and subsidies rather than by improving the general business climate. A company could receive a large incentive package for moving a short distance across the state line, while firms that stayed put continued paying the ordinary tax burden.

A better interstate competition would focus on broad tax and regulatory reform that benefits all businesses instead of rewarding those willing and able to negotiate special deals.

Embedded video not reproduced here.