A study released Thursday on the cost of Maine’s various business-assistance programs and the benefits they bring to the economy and workers received a cold welcome from the state’s business and economic-development leaders, some of whom trashed the report before they had read it.

That is an unfortunate reaction. True, the study conducted for the Maine Citizen Leadership Fund by the Commonwealth Institute does find that some of Maine’s most expensive tax breaks produce the smallest return on investment and it is critical of the state’s spotty job in assessing the impact its programs. But beyond that, the study reveals that Maine is doing some things right and offers valuable guidance for it to do better.

Overall, the study finds that the two most expensive programs, Business Equipment Tax Reimbursement and Tax Increment Financing, total more than $33 million and cost taxpayers more than as much as $269,000 per job created. While government and business leaders are justified in questioning that finding for not fully taking into account the long-term benefits of capital investment and the role of aid in job retention, researchers were limited by the fact that government did not begin requiring businesses that receive taxpayer assistance to file reports on employment growth until this year.

It is at the other end of the cost-per-job spectrum that Maine should find reason for enouragement. The most bang for the buck comes from state investment in job-training programs; 644 jobs were created as the result of two programs — the Governor’s Training Initiative and the Maine Quality Centers — with a total cost of $1.5 million and a per-job cost of a mere $2,300.

It has long been known, in every state, that an educated workforce is the key to economic development — it attracts good employers and, even if one employer leaves, the trained workers stay behind to attract a replacement. Maine lawmakers know it too, as evidenced by recent investments in training programs, vocational education and expansion of the technical college system. This important finding in the Commonwealth Institute study gives lawmakers one more good reason to support legislation this coming session to further expand the tech colleges.

Almost as important is the institute’s finding that the more expensive programs, such as BETR and TIF, may be improved rather than scrapped by conditioning assistance to specific job-creation targets, verifying their role in job retention and accepting reasonable per-job cost limits.

And the institute even provides a road map. The report concludes with a rundown of what others states have done to measure the results of their economic-development efforts and to make certain the taxpayers are getting their money’s worth. Minnesota gives employers receiving assistance two years to add jobs and to prove that the assistance serves a public purpose beyond increasing the company’s net worth; it also permits subsidies for job retention only when job loss is imminent and demonstable. Several states, including Arizona, Iowa, Maryland and Virginia, require companies to pay back assistance if they fail to meet clearly stated job-creation or wage-increase goals or if they move jobs out of state. Oklahoma’s Quality Jobs Program addresses the cost-benefit issue by requiring that new tax revenues must, in a reasonable time period, outweigh the cost of an assistance package.

Too often, discussions of Maine’s economic-development programs devolve into all-or-nothing arguments about whether they are corporate welfare or necessary for the creation of a vibrant, competitive business climate. The institute’s report more profitably looks at them as a fact of economic life and examines ways that they can be used most effectively. This approach makes the report useful and worhty of consideration by state officials and business leaders.