Fun with maps (II) -

Fun with maps (II)


Another interactive map to explore, this one with pretty colours.


Fun with maps (II)

  1. If you follow the links from the map to a spreadsheet here, there's some very interesting analysis that actually does factor in the cost category of projects.

    Things look rather different that way. Quebec is still getting disproportionately little spending. Low-population regions (the North, the Maritimes, and Saskatchewan) are getting disproportionately more (understandable for Saskatchewan due to a non-dense population, the Maritimes due to economic hardship, and the North due to both). Interestingly, Ontario doesn't seem to be favoured nearly as much from this analysis: it's getting 37% more of projects than would be expected from its population, but only 2% more of total spending (obviously this is a very rough estimate given the lack of cost data).

    Basically, Ontario, Alberta and BC come out of this a bit even, Quebec does poorly, and the rest do well relative to population.

    The other good thing is that they do this based on the census population rather than ridings – as Ontario, BC and Alberta have less representation in the legislature than they should, while the Maritimes, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan (and the North) have more, actual per capita disparities show up better this way.

    Also on the partisan-spending front, if you look at it by # of projects the Conservatives have 10% more than they ought, but they have 20% more than they should of the total money spent. But the Conservatives are also stronger in the areas (Alberta, BC, the parts of Ontario that aren't inner Toronto) that have ridings with larger populations than those in the rest of the country. The Liberals, meanwhile, are strong in Toronto, Quebec and the Maritimes, and the latter two have ridings with fewer people in them than much of the rest of the country.

  2. Katherine – thanks for adding this comment, it's very informative and gives a much more policy-rich perspective on the data than what we've seen in the papers.

  3. testing