Home » Opinion » Foreign Views
Road, bridge spending can boost US growth
Print Edition
Is slow growth in advanced economies a continuation of long-term secular decline, or does it reflect the normal aftermath of a deep systemic financial crisis?
At a recent IMF conference, former US Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers argued that today’s growth blues have deep roots that pre-date the global financial crisis. Summers placed particular emphasis on the need for more infrastructure investment, a sentiment that most economists share.
Summers is certainly right that productive infrastructure investment is the low-hanging fruit. Of course, governments should be concerned about the long-term trajectory of public debt, all politically charged and polemical nonsense to the contrary. But productive infrastructure investment that generates long-term growth pays for itself, so there need not be any conflict between short-term stabilization and risks to long-term debt sustainability.
With today’s ultra-low interest rates and high unemployment, public investment is cheap and plenty of projects offer high returns: fixing bridges and roads, updating outmoded electricity grids, and improving mass-transportation systems, to take just a few examples.
I appreciate that there are those who take on faith that Keynesian multipliers are much bigger than one, implying that even wasteful government spending is productive. But, given thin empirical evidence and legitimate concerns about undermining trust in the effectiveness of government, and with so many options for the productive use of resources, this seems like a titanic ideological distraction.
It is far from clear why virtually all infrastructure needs to be publicly financed. There are still huge pools of private wealth sitting on the sidelines that can be mobilized to support productive infrastructure. The government needs to help with rights of way before construction, and with strong regulation to protect the public interest afterwards.
Infrastructure bank
In his first term in office, US President Barack Obama suggested the creation of an infrastructure bank to help promote public-private partnerships.
It is still a good idea, particularly if the bank maintained a professional staff to help guide public choice on costs and benefits (including environmental costs and benefits). Even if Keynesian multipliers are truly at the upper end of consensus, mobilizing private capital for investment has most of the advantages of issuing public debt.
One qualification is in order. Some commentators have suggested that the root cause of secular decline, as well as the main explanation of ultra-low interest rates, is low fertility throughout the advanced world.
If true, the case for any kind of investment, public or private, would be more mixed; there must be labor to use the capital. But I suspect that the drivers of today’s slow growth and low interest rates go far beyond low fertility rates, in which case this should not be an obstacle.
The important point is that the case for expanding productive infrastructure investment does not rest on one narrow ideological viewpoint or economic theory.
Whether Summers is right about secular stagnation in advanced economies, or whether we are still mainly suffering the aftermath of the financial crisis, it is time to break the political gridlock and restore growth.
Kenneth Rogoff, a former chief economist of the IMF, is professor of economics and public policy at Harvard University. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2013.www.project-syndicate.org. Shanghai Daily condensed the article.
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
