A bridge to somewhere 22 January 2017 Source: http://pearsonblog.campaignserver.co.uk/?p=23379 Many politicians throughout the world, not just on the centre and left, are arguing for increased spending on infrastructure. This was one of the key proposals of Donald Trump during his election campaign. In his election manifesto he pledged (webpage removed from campaign site) to “Transform America’s crumbling infrastructure into a golden opportunity for accelerated economic growth and more rapid productivity gains”. Increased spending on infrastructure has both demand- and supply-side effects. Unless matched by cuts elsewhere, such spending will increase aggregate demand and could have a high multiplier effect if most of the inputs are domestic. Also there could be accelerator effects as the projects may stimulate private investment. On the supply side, well-targeted infrastructure spending can directly increase productivity and cut costs of logistics and communications. The combination of the demand- and supply-side effects could increase both potential and actual output and reduce unemployment. So, if infrastructure projects can have such beneficial effects, why are politicians often so reluctant to give them the go-ahead? Part of the problem is one of timing. The costs occur in the short run. These include demolition, construction and disruption. The direct benefits occur in the longer term, once the project is complete. And for complex projects this may be many years hence. It is true that demandside benefits start to occur once construction has begun, but these benefits are widely dispersed and not easy to identify directly with the project. Then there is the problem of externalities. The external costs of projects may include environmental costs and costs to local residents. This can lead to protests, public hearings and the need for detailed cost–benefit analysis. This can delay or even prevent projects from occurring. The external benefits are to non-users of the project, such as a new bridge or bypass reducing congestion for users of existing routes. These make the private construction of many projects unprofitable, except with public subsidies or with public–private partnerships. So there does need to be a macroeconomic policy that favours publicly-funded infrastructure projects. One type of investment that is less disruptive and can have shorter-term benefits is maintenance investment. Maintenance expenditure can avoid much more costly rebuilding expenditure later on. But this is often the first type of expenditure to be cut when public-sector budgets as squeezed, whether at the local or national level. The problem of lack of infrastructure investment is very much a political problem. The politicians who give the go-ahead to such projects, such as high-speed rail, come in for criticisms from those bearing the short-run costs but they are gone from office once the benefits start to occur. They get the criticism but not the praise. Articles ● ● ● Are big infrastructure projects castles in the air or bridges to nowhere? The Economist, Buttonwood’s notebook (16/1/17) Trump’s plans to rebuild America are misguided and harmful. This is how we should do it. The Washington Post, Lawrence H. Summers (17/1/17) Can Infrastructure Spending Really Stimulate the Economy? Investopedia, Sean Ross, (20/8/2016 Questions to Answer Using the resources linked above answer the following questions. Use the discussion rubric for initial posts as your guide. Note: Each question is in a table. The empty cell will expand as you type. 1. Why are governments often unwilling to undertake (a) new infrastructure projects, (b) maintenance projects? 2. Is a program of infrastructure investment necessarily a Keynesian policy? What accelerator effects would you expect from infrastructure investment? 3. Explain the difference between the ‘spill-out’ and ‘pull-in’ effects of different types of public investments in a specific location. Is it possible for a project to have both effects? 4. What answer would you give to the teacher who asked the following question of US Treasury Secretary, Larry Summers? “The paint is chipping off the walls of this school, not off the walls at McDonald’s or the movie theatre. So why should the kids believe this society thinks their education is the most important thing?” 5. Explain the ‘bridge to nowhere’ problem and it’s solutions? Why is the ‘castles in the air’ element of private projects during a boom an example of the fallacy of composition?