These broad effects were also discovered in the $964 million in value-added generated by these same investments. Interestingly, the study also revealed value-added to be concentrated in manufacturing (61.5 percent), as was employment (57 percent). This evidence suggests that, by preferring investments in manufacturing and processing industries, the Fonds de solidarité has apparently succeeded in providing an exponential job and value-added impact on the Québec economy.^{Endnote 31}

The INRS also reported that employment, created or preserved, and other economic benefits were spread to underdeveloped or disadvantaged regions. In the Mauricie - Bois- Francs region of Québec, fund investments in four illustrative cases were found to have prevented otherwise inevitable plant closures and protected approximately one-half of the original workforces - or 720 jobs - in these plants from permanent layoff. The prime beneficiaries of this result were resident older workers (45 years of age and older).^{Endnote 32}

Finally, positive economic effects were realized at a minimal cost to the public treasury - that is also recovered within an average of three to four years - according to researchers. Actually, if INRS calculations are correct, an initial fiscal cost of $1.35 per investment dollar should become a net government gain following the recovery period due to sustained tax revenue collections.^{Endnote 33} A summary of INRS finding is presented in Figure 10.

CSTIER also conducted a cost-benefit analysis of labour-sponsored funds with reference to the Fonds de solidarité and Working Opportunity using an INRS-adapted methodology. The government payback period determined in this study was less than three years.^{Endnote 34}

The INRS study was commissioned by the Fonds de solidarité in response to a piece of research conducted by Jean-Marc Suret of Université Laval. Contrary to the INRS, Suret found that public treasury costs of the Québec labour-sponsored fund seemed very high when performance indicators were taken into account. Suret argued that fund efficiency in making investments was restricted by sizeable administration expenses and failure to allocate a proportion of assets. He also said that some of the most commercially successful investee firms, such as Biochem Pharma, Inc., could have found money elsewhere.^{Endnote 35} On the other hand, Suret acknowledges that his analysis does not weigh some of the economic positives (covered by the INRS).