Blog Post

The US infrastructure investment debate

What’s at stake: Infrastructure investment has been and will continue to be a prominent campaign theme in the run up to the US elections. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have promised significant public investment in infrastructure. For some time, the discussion has revolved around the opportunities and costs of increased government infrastructure spending.

By: Date: September 19, 2016 Global Economics & Governance Tags & Topics

Larry Summers says the issue now is not whether the US should invest more but what the policy framework should be. He calls for the adoption of a major infrastructure investment program by Congress in spring 2017, whatever the election result. Some infrastructure priorities can clearly be considered a responsibility of the private sector, and there is also a case for experimenting with the mobilisation of private capital for infrastructure that has traditionally been a public-sector preserve. However, the reality that government borrowing costs are much lower than the returns demanded by private-sector infrastructure investors should lead to caution. Only when private-sector performance in building and operating infrastructure is likely to be better than what the public sector can do is there a compelling argument for privatisation. Nevertheless, Summers admits that scepticism about the efficiency of infrastructure investment is legitimate. While there is no silver bullet for this problem, transparency of the type adopted by the Obama administration’s fiscal stimulus should become the norm.

Ed Glaeser has an essay in the City Journal, which takes a more sceptical tone. He argues that the “progressive romance” with infrastructure spending is based on three beliefs. First, that it supercharges economic growth. Second, that infrastructure spending is an ideal government tool for fighting unemployment during recessions. Third, that infrastructure should also be a national responsibility, led by Washington and financed by federal tax revenues. Glaeser thinks that none of this is correct. While infrastructure investment is often needed when cities or regions are already expanding, too often it goes to declining areas that don’t require it and winds up having little long-term economic benefit. As for fighting recessions, which require a rapid response, it is hard to get infrastructure projects under way quickly and wisely enough.

Moreover, centralised federal tax funding of these projects makes inefficiencies and waste even more likely. Infrastructure advocates downplay standard cost-benefit analysis in favor of broad macroeconomic surveys, which look at the statistical link between public-infrastructure investment and overall economic activity. But Glaeser argues that this approach can produce imprecise—and even wildly misleading—results. America needs an infrastructure renaissance, but it will not get it by the federal government simply writing big checks. Glaeser thinks a far better and fairer model would be for infrastructure to be managed by independent but focused local public and private entities and funded primarily by user fees, not federal tax dollars.

Randal O’Toole argues that most infrastructure funded out of user fees is in good shape. The infrastructure in the worst condition is infrastructure that is heavily subsidised, because politicians would rather build new projects than maintain old ones. That suggests that the US government should spend less, not more, on new infrastructure. O’Toole disagrees with Summers’ underlying assumption that infrastructure spending always produces huge economic benefits, arguing that the rates of return hypothesised by Summers are “pure fantasy”—especially if it is government that decides where to spend the money. Making infrastructure spending a priority would simply lead to more grandiose projects, few of which will produce any economic or social returns. Instead of an infrastructure crisis, O’Toole argues, the U.S. is facing a crisis over who gets to decide where to spend money on infrastructure. Should the impetus lie with the private or the public sector?

Noah Smith is against deliberately underestimating the upside of fixing roads and bridges. Infrastructure investments have elements of public goods, and this is something that the private sector, left to its own devices, cannot or will not provide enough of. First, government can solve the coordination problem involved in building roads. Second, private companies may find it difficult to reap the full economic benefit from building roads, if the level of congestion is low. Finally, transportation networks and other infrastructure allow businesses to cluster together, which produces agglomeration externalities. The US should work on eliminating the source of excess costs, whether these come from burdensome regulation, costly land acquisition, inefficient environmental review processes, inflated union wages or a combination thereof. But if it waits until the costs decline, the cost of maintenance from a crumbling infrastructure could rise enough to cancel out much of whatever cost savings can be made by improving the system.

Noah Smith and Tyler Cowen had a conversation about the government’s role in boosting growth, during which they also covered the infrastructure issue. Smith sees the possibility of a demand gap as adding upside, but not much downside, to infrastructure spending. He argues that if there happens to be a lingering demand shortage, infrastructure spending would yield an added benefit. If there is not, then infrastructure spending will raise interest rates (crowding out private investment) and/or inflation, but there is the option to dial back spending if that case materialises. Cowen also declared that he favours more infrastructure spending, provided it is done wisely. There is a good supply-side case for that, but there also seems to be a tendency to present it as a free lunch, which it is not. Cowen had argued in a previous post that the opportunity cost of additional government borrowing is not zero, even if government borrowing rates were literally zero.

Bradford Delong says that the case for greater infrastructure investment is close to orthogonal (unrelated) to the case for bigger government deficits ending in a larger target national debt, and that both are close to orthogonal to the case for larger swings in the government’s fiscal balance (bigger surpluses in times of boom to create the fiscal space to run bigger and more stimulative deficits in times of recession). Delong argues that Summers is making a case that is intellectually irresistible for the first only, but the cases for the second and third are intellectually irresistible as well.

John Cochrane is negative, arguing that while America’s infrastructure could use patching, stagnant growth is not centrally the fault of bad roads and bridges. The Obama administration has been after “infrastructure” stimulus since 2009, but it is difficult to build infrastructure these days, due to the endless regulatory reviews and legal challenges involved. In return for more spending, Clinton could have offered serious structural reforms: a repeal of the Davis-Bacon act (which sets out wage requirements to be respected in construction contracts where the US is a party), time limits on environmental reviews, serious cost-benefit analysis, and so forth. Such a package would have been irresistible.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

View comments
Read about event

Upcoming Event

Apr
5
09:30

Micro- and macro-based methods in assessing the impact of investment

This workshop will discuss methods for accurately evaluating the performance of public and private investment initiatives.

Speakers: Sabine Bernabe, Francesco Di Comite, Grégory Claeys, Zsolt Darvas, Helmut Kraemer- Eis, Aron Gereben, Simon Mizrahi, Amine Ouazad, Debora Revoltella, John K. Swales, Simone Signore, Natacha Valla, Georg Weiers, Marcin Wolski and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Pia Hüttl

Alice in gender-gap land

What’s at stake: The International Women’s Day on 8 March drew attention to the gender gap again, both in pay and in employment. Ongoing research on the topic shows that the gender gap persists worldwide, from finance to arts. For it to change, bold action is needed, ranging from targeted policies to rethinking gender norms.

By: Pia Hüttl Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: March 20, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Guntram B. Wolff

Europe should lead the way with multilateralism

Despite the unique partnership with the USA, Europe needs to reflect on its place in an unstable world. Especially if the US Administration moves towards protectionism, the EU will need to build and deepen relationships with other partners.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: March 16, 2017
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Intellectual Property and Competition Policy in Europe and Japan

Intellectual property (IP) is a cornerstone for incentivising innovation initiatives. It defines a framework within which firms and individuals can produce creations of intellect.

Speakers: Peter Alexiadis, Reiko Aoki, Michael Koenig, Kai-Uwe Kühn and Georgios Petropoulos Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: March 14, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

Taxing robots?

What’s at stake: “More human than human”, was the motto guiding the Tyrell Corporation’s engineering of biorobotic androids, in 1982’s Blade Runner. Fast forward to 2016, and Bill Gates argues that if robots perform human work, they should be taxed like humans. We review what economists think about this idea.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: March 13, 2017
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Trump’s energy policy: America first, climate last?

This event seeked to discuss the potential way forward for the US energy and climate policy, and its implications for both global energy markets and global climate change mitigation efforts.

Speakers: Kristine Berzina, Tim Boersma, Connie Hedegaard, Simone Tagliapietra and Zhang Xumin Topic: Energy & Climate Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: March 7, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

European identity and the economic crisis

What’s at stake: the EU prepares to mark the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, and the European Commission has presented a white paper “on the future of Europe”. However, some have argued that Europe is going through a serious identity crisis, whose roots are to be found in the economic crisis and whose implications could challenge further steps towards integration. We review the recent contributions to this debate.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 6, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

photo2016

NAFTA in play: How President Trump could reshape trade in North America

How will the story of NAFTA unfold under the Trump presidency? Uri Dadush examines three possible scenarios and provides an overview of the policy implications for the various trading partners of the United States.

By: Uri Dadush Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: March 1, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Simone Tagliapietra

Trump’s Energy Policy: America First, Climate Last?

What will the new US administration mean for the fight against global warming? Climate change is not even mentioned in the ‘‘America First Energy Plan’’, and Simone Tagliapietra fears a reversal of recent positive steps.

By: Simone Tagliapietra Topic: Energy & Climate Date: February 28, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

dsc_0809

The Mexican automotive industry and Trump’s USA

Trade with Mexico is a controversial topic for the new US administration. And the automotive sector is emblematic of Trump’s promise to bring manufacturing jobs back to the USA. But a look at the numbers reveals risks in any shake-up of cross-border trade. 22% of US automotive exports to Mexico are later reimported as part of cars “made in Mexico”. And disrupting production chains could have repercussions around the world.

By: Filippo Biondi Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: February 27, 2017
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

IMG_1985

The Trump market rally conundrum

What’s at stake: Since Donald Trump’s election in November, the US stock market has been on an unabated rally. The Dow Jones Industrial Average powered through the 20,000 mark for the first time in history. POTUS has been quick in using this financial bonanza as prima facie evidence of his early accomplishments. However, several commentators question the link between Trump’s unorthodox economic policy pledges, the stock market rally, and future growth prospects.

By: Alessio Terzi Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance Date: February 27, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

Big data and first-degree price discrimination

What’s at stake: first-degree price discrimination - or person-specific pricing, had until recently been considered a theoretical case with unlikely real-world application. Yet the increasing availability of big data could make this possible. We review recent contributions on this issue.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: February 20, 2017
Load more posts