Comments 16

公共投资的回归

Jan 13, 2016 Dani Rodrik

发自剑桥——在贫穷国家的政策制定者脑中，公共基础设施投资——公路，水坝，电厂等等——一直都被认为是经济增长不可或缺的驱动力。这一观点也是二战后初期的发展援助计划——当时世界银行和双边捐助者向新独立国家输送资源以资助大型项目建设——的理论基础。它催生了以中国为首的新亚洲基础设施投资银行（AIIB），其目的是填补该地区据称达8万亿美元的基础设施投资差距。

但这种公共投资拉动型的增长模式——常被戏称为所谓“资本原教旨主义”——早已在发展专家中失去了市场。自1970年代以来，经济学家一直建议政策制定者不要再强调公共部门，实物资本和基础设施，转而优先发展私人市场，人力资本（技能及培训），以及治理和体制改革。这些现象说明发展战略的思路已经出现了整体转变。

如今也是时候重新考量这种转变了。放眼那些即便全球经济下行却依然实现了高速增长的国家，人们会发现公共投资其实做了很多工作。

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

Featured

Only Poles Can Save Polish Democracy

Jul 13, 2018 Sławomir Sierakowski
The Economic Consequences of Trump’s Trade War

Jul 12, 2018 Barry Eichengreen
Reading the Signs of the Times

Jul 9, 2018 Ian Buruma
Xi Jinping’s Vision for Global Governance

Jul 11, 2018 Kevin Rudd
Three Cheers for Regulation

Jul 17, 2018 Diane Coyle

Dani Rodrik

Writing for PS since 1998
145 Commentaries

Dani Rodrik is Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is the author of The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy, Economics Rules: The Rights and Wrongs of the Dismal Science, and, most recently, Straight Talk on Trade: Ideas for a Sane World Economy.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 23 in all 23 Comments on this article

william holmes Jan 29, 2016

In my reading of Prof. Rodrik's article, references to infrastructure investment would not appear to include "green" investments. Does this reflect a mindset -- one hardly limited to Rodrik -- and does it not need to change?
Luc Lapointe Jan 23, 2016

Dear Professor Dani,

I imagine that you had the opportunity to visit the three countries and have a good sense of the return of public investment. I do agree with you that this is an important ...if not the most important part of economic development. Good infrastructure help ....but then comes the problem. If poverty rate don't change and inequality grows ...then we all know what comes next. Government can't pay, currency falls, debt rises ...and poverty start to grow again.

Colombia is probably the best example or Brazil for that matter. The biggest problem lies with shallow investigations / researches that only look at one effort as the solution for economic growth and addressing social needs.

Yes you do have a word of cautions at the end of your article. It would be nice if we start to talk about collective actions. Things are still measured in silo and growth means little when you consider that the three countries in Latin America that have generated more growth in the region ...are also home to more than 60% of the poverty.

...there is no return on public investment unless there is equality supported by sustainable development.
Enrique Woll Battistini Jan 21, 2016

Beyond the urgent problem of dealing with unstable oil markets in the short term, it seems to me that the important problem of identifying and addressing the underlying long term causes of the short term instability of the oil markets must be solved because, without this, there cannot be the short term equlibrium required for long term development, prosperity and peace. Of course, identifying and addressing the long term causes of short term instability in the oil markets may be the same as indentifying and addressing the long term causes of short term instability in all oil-dependent markets, as all markets are mutually dependent and their instability is mutually dependent as well. Thus, the problem to be solved is that of ensuring the general stability of global markets, both domestic and international. Central to this requirement is the matter of timely and adequate investment in infrastructure, industrial, and general socioeconomic development, which is a hurdle that both rich and poor countries alike must continuously overcome, and in the XXI century I suspect will be increasingly done through private sector-led private-public partnerships for development. If this is true, though far from being complete, l believe that the following ideas may be relevant to the sought general stability of all markets, faster universal socioeconomic development and global peace and prosperity:

1)https://www.academia.edu/19773066/OFA_-_At_the_Brink_of_Recovery_or_Conflagration_-_The_World_at_a_Tipping_Point_-_2011111503 …

2)https://www.academia.edu/18040396/Living_in_Peru_-_Uses_and_Limitations_of_Michael_Greene_s_Social_Progress_Index_SPI_for_Development_-_2015102202 …

3)https://www.academia.edu/13062623/Informal_Proof_of_Thomas_Pikettys_Thesis-2014060802 …

4)https://www.academia.edu/12823841/Mathematical_Model_and_Simulation_for_A_Partnership_for_Development_with_the_United_States_of_America_-_December_1999 …
Read more at https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/public-infrastructure-investment-sustained-growth-by-dani-rodrik-2016-01#X53xscJrycGewHWw.99
Lawrence Michael Jan 21, 2016

Hi George! I did begin to get a fuller picture with your response. The economy of ignorance does seem more powerful than the economy of enlightenment. But it is in human history that civilizations have been over-run by barbarians. Barely different ever. The dinosaurs got wiped out by geological/natural upheavals. Thankfully humans are doing it to themselves and thus sparing nature her troubles. Given the economy of ignorance seeming more powerful than the economy of enlightenment - is merely another repition of human history. Perhaps nature's balancing act. Don't get worried. Don't steal either. That would put you with the economy of ignorance! :-)
Emilio Zuniga Jan 20, 2016

The tendency to make generalizations and get wrong examples in common when dealing with facts and lessons in emerging economies. When you take the examples of Ethiopia or Bolivia they have almost nothing to compare with Brazil. These countries are at the bottom of their development, and of course building roads, hospitals, electricity is the first step to increase the leaving conditions of the population and its productivity. But developing countries in the middle range, do need to worry in the quality of education and institutional improvement (judicial reforms, democracy, informal economies). By the way, Brazil is busted as it is Venezuela and Argentina with Kichner, because of populist policies. But Chile, Peru, Colombia also continue to growth over 3% and up, and they are worried of human capital growth and institutional changes.
Pierre-Emmanuel NOEL Jan 18, 2016

The topic is very interesting, I am surprised that no mention is made of the EU's "Investment Plan for Europe", also known as "Juncker Plan", which aims at raising EUR 315bn in growth-boosting investment, most of which infrastructure, by 2018. See: http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/jobs-growth-investment/plan/index_en.htm
Lawrence Michael Jan 17, 2016

Why should the prospects of public investments in the Islamic state draw jeers while the Nordic states do not? Could not be religion since far more Christians in the world survive upon drugs and prostitution than Moslems do. It is about infrastructure and much more. Places like India with only records of embezzlement of public funds and populace that is largely illiterate peasantry that also is dense-headed, medieval, crime-terror prone and thivk-skinned to boot presents a different scenario than the Islamic state. History and what the beggar has collected in alms of currency that do not run anywhere else except in the beggar's enclave - do not present very heartening pictures either when compared to China. So what are we talking about? As an extractive economy India has substantial natural deposits of minerals etc that are geological and not cultural. Or human made ie. When we do speak of development and development models we speak of the people first. The model then. Geology at the end.
- george sos Jan 18, 2016
  
  Lawrence i think you need to have a look in the offices of google,apple,and microsoft ........talking about Indian literacy...and what about the US states with 100% christian fanatic illiterate peasentry (as you call those less fortunate than us ,who born in the west had everything in our disposal and still messed it all up by trying to steal resources and install terrorists as dictators to rule and keep the illiterate at that state,only to use them as soldiers for the wars or slaves for the sweat factories.A little humane tolerance can go a long way you know...racism has short feet.
  And yes this is a global problem,we are reaching the end of growth.end of the growth the economic theorists dreamed will go on forever (i still dont get it how noone told them we might run out of stuff.or even they someone needed to tell them!!LOL)..
  The answer as i see it is the return og the "giant balance!".The idea that all things must be kept in balance,of the ancient Greeks i think it was,that all things in life are good provided you keep the balance .similar to the Buddhists i think ,and the butterfly effect.We need to start dreaming of simplicity,of how to make best use of what we ve already achieved,and have,instead of running after a constant growth that leads us to death for all.....And if that means state funded projects that would make sure wealth gets redistributed across society in a fair way,so be it.After all ,who is stupid enough to trust private investors trying to make a better society for humans?For tyhemselves maybe yes(which i doubt,since they ve no idea how it is a good life).
  So we are left with a problem.How to maintain fed all the people .with no exceptions.Corruption is the big enemy.It is a leftover of the capitalist psyche,the brain wash that consumption by itself will produce a better society somehow.
  If i am worried about something that is europe.The main global centre for peace that was europe for many years has become a boiling pot.and this can not be good for anyone .Growth can be achieved in India.In europe things are a lot harder if we are to make a turn towards a fairer economic system.Then ,europe will run out of food pretty fast.....And who s going to buy the software if thers noone to buy the hardware(meaning who will pay for high value products ,when himself will be living on an income of a few $$ ???Then it seems europe will have to depend on exports to ....where ????China produces cheaper,africa is on the rise and will produce its own ,so...??We are doommed i think.Only a war will help growth in europe and this is what the big thinkers are driving towards..:(.Tha is why you see rise in nationalism and issues like the immigration becoming instead of humanitarian problem an issue for closing borders and other such idiotic responses.Plus the immigration will create a potential ,only if the european staes do not attempt to take advantage of them and instead create possibilities for them to grow in the new country .But this would mean loss of support for the thieves that rule us today.It would mean justice.And how can we have justice if we dont first get clean judges ?judges who are not in the payroll of any criminal gang or any multinational (siemens comes to mind for some reason :):)))
  I guess what i m trying to say is ,we are doomed.Africa has a chance but will probably mess it up (there are greedy vultures of every colour ).As for China i think soon will have bigger problems than just economics...ecological destruction will kick back soon.
Douglas Leyendecker Jan 17, 2016

How ridiculous is it to compare developing nations lacking in a lot of basic infrastructure to developed countries that already possess basic infrastructure. That's like suggesting a professional sports team needs to consider why a Little League team is successful. These are apples and oranges worlds.
suzanne p goard Jan 17, 2016

Rodrik focuses upon growth models with refreshing examples of success stories that don't commonly come up in the conversation of super powers. His discussion encourages the study toward the practice of investments that suffer less from decline and grow in their nurturing balance.
jose milton dos santos pestana barbosa Jan 17, 2016

Bolivia, our neighbor never apeasr in our press, only Venezuela. And Bolivia is an exemple for Brazilian economists.
Paul Daley Jan 17, 2016

This seems to be a budgeting problem. There should be a way to put public investment projects on the government's balance sheet in a manner that reflects their value.
amit nandan Jan 14, 2016

Public Investment in Infrastructure in a country like india will not only promote growth but also spur development even not big project. small project of road connecting village to nearby town promote local rural agriculture industries and provide easy access to local market to farmers to sell their product specially if they produce perishable products which helped them to rise their standard of living. prevailed notion of classical economy is that public investment crowd out private investment which is not absolutely correct for developing countries.
Procyon Mukherjee Jan 14, 2016

Dani's examples are from places like Ethiopia or India, where still primary infrastructure is being built, which will add to growth straight away. How could we compare that with the developed world and say that government balance sheets will improve with these investments?
Michael Public Jan 14, 2016

It might be worth mentioning the way in which public infrastructure expenditure became unfairly treated - the press (owned by business) took it upon themselves to attack each and every government effort as 'inefficient, ineffective and corrupt' - and to casually suggest that such things be done by business instead. If you tell a lie that big enough no-one will question it - e.g. WMD's and Iraq.
John Brian Shannon Jan 13, 2016

Hi Dani,

I find this a very fascinating topic and thanks for tackling it and writing about it with such clarity.

There are two kinds of public investments in infrastructure from my perspective.

One way, is to 'build highways and railways to nowhere'. One can only consider those projects to be 'make-work projects' designed to prevent a civil war from erupting in countries with notoriously high unemployment or scarcity of life's necessities.

Worthy enough, but as you point out, once the money is spent in its entirety, forward economic progress soon ends.

The second way, is the way the Ike Eisenhower pushed through the funding and plans to build today's U.S. Interstate Highway System (ostensibly to allow the military to better defend the nation) but which in actuality, connected every urban centre in the U.S. with every other market in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.

The IHS was not a bunch of 'highways to nowhere' nor was it a temporary 'make work project' to help defuse high unemployment or social strife.

The IHS opened up America, and not just to Fuller Brush salesmen. Vast quantities of commodities, manufactured goods, bulk liquids and so much more were then able to freely and easily move throughout the United States.

And the military was better able to defend the nation.

For each $1 that it cost to build the U.S. Interstate Highway System, it returned $6 by the time the main construction phase had been completed.

Six-for-one. And fully opened trade within North America.

(However, had the project been stalled for 15 years, there would have been no six-to-one payback, nor any payback at all, as other transportation networks were eating away at that window of opportunity)

Which is why 'timing' is everything with public infrastructure investment.

'Sooner' is always better than 'lollygagging'.

That's one example of public investment in infrastructure that could be replicated anywhere, but Africa provides the best example for future success in this regard.

Getting goods to a seaport, or getting goods to regional markets (not by sea) can be the lifeline that African nations need in order to grow their economies, instead of being forced to rely on aid agencies for an eternal handout.

The best thing we could do for Africa and ourselves, would be to institute a global Tobin Tax of 1% to help pay for such infrastructure projects that are designed to move *their goods to seaports* and into our markets, and *our goods into their markets*.

These producer-to-seaport routes don't need to be gold-plated examples of transportation engineering. Rather, they could be a paved road with daysigns (no electricity distribution required for streetlights or signage) -- which could be added in later years.

Same goes with rail links. Simply build two-tracks with a loop at each end, so trains can travel in either direction without the need for complex and expensive switching yards -- or even 'pulloffs' or 'sidings' where the stopped train is easily targetable by thieves -- just two sets of tracks, from seaport to the warehousing districts at the outskirts of each city on the route.

Thank you again, Dani, for this fascinating essay.

**It's the one window of opportunity in the world that could so easily become a major success story, on a similar scale to the uber-successful U.S. Interstate Highway System.**

As always, very best regards, JBS
- Enrique Woll Battistini Jan 21, 2016
  
  Beyond the urgent problem of dealing with unstable oil markets in the short term, it seems to me that the important problem of identifying and addressing the underlying long term causes of the short term instability of the oil markets must be solved because, without this, there cannot be the short term equlibrium required for long term development, prosperity and peace. Of course, identifying and addressing the long term causes of short term instability in the oil markets may be the same as indentifying and addressing the long term causes of short term instability in all oil-dependent markets, as both markets are mutually dependent and their instability is mutually dependent as well. Thus, the problem to be solved is that of ensuring the general stability of global markets, both domestic and international. Central to this requirement is the matter of timely and adequate investment in infrastructure, industrial, and general socioeconomic development, which is a hurdle that both rich and poor countries alike must continuously overcome, and in the XXI century I suspect will be increasingly done through private sector-led private-public partnerships for development. If this is true, though far from being complete, l believe that the following ideas may be relevant to the sought general stability of all markets, faster universal socioeconomic development and global peace and prosperity:
  
  1)https://www.academia.edu/19773066/OFA_-_At_the_Brink_of_Recovery_or_Conflagration_-_The_World_at_a_Tipping_Point_-_2011111503 …
  
  2)https://www.academia.edu/18040396/Living_in_Peru_-_Uses_and_Limitations_of_Michael_Greene_s_Social_Progress_Index_SPI_for_Development_-_2015102202 …
  
  3)https://www.academia.edu/13062623/Informal_Proof_of_Thomas_Pikettys_Thesis-2014060802 …
  
  4)https://www.academia.edu/12823841/Mathematical_Model_and_Simulation_for_A_Partnership_for_Development_with_the_United_States_of_America_-_December_1999 …
- M M Jan 15, 2016
  
  Greetings JCB,
  Thank you so much for your elaborate response and accurate description of the subject matter. You are quite right, today's 1%, for the most part, are NOT the problem, at least not directly and have earned their wealth fairly and squarely in one shape or another. I know a few of them personally and I can confirm that they are highly ethical, conscious and caring and are equally unhappy about the “Status Quo” and the way the system currently functions. They admitted to me and some of them have admitted it publicly that the current situation is not manageable anymore. Admittedly, there are always exceptions, like those individuals who marry just to avoid paying taxes or change residences or set up rogue charities for the same purpose.
  It would be worth watching the video of Obama’s latest State of the Union address on the White House Web site where he addressed this specific issue (of the 1%) in figures (albeit in respect of the US only) amongst other issues such as (1) The New Economy; (2) The Spirit of Innovation; (3) Leadership; (4) Politics, etc. All these issues that he mentioned, we as commentators have debated at length on PS. The main obstacle and the main cause of corruption, in all its forms, is one and one only, and it is called “Conflict of Interest”. People, Corporations and Countries, by nature, have different agendas. These different agendas have been the main causes, and throughout the ages, of the conflicts that our planet has been witnessing. After WWII, many International organisations and establishments were set up to bridge differences between the various parties but regrettably achieved very little because as you put it in your remark “They are busy with FAR LESS IMPORTANT MATTERS”.
  On the subject of projects one example comes to mind where one top name in the corporate world was awarded recently a lucrative contract by the UK Government after getting 100%, the unachievable score for any criteria under any standard. The deficient system combined with the establishment, in some countries are so well entrenched, it is practically very difficult to untangle them.
  So in short what is the solution, the solution is what I proposed below a “Real Partnership” between the Private and the Public sectors and between each of these sectors. There are currently many challenges in implementing this solution for one the fundamentals are not in place yet and new mechanisms (financial and others) have not been developed to deal with the issues that we have been long debating and which Obama, finally acknowledged and raised in his last State of the Union address.
  A very constructive debate JCB, I enjoyed it greatly. The very best to you and thank you once again. By the way, good article Dani.
- John Brian Shannon Jan 14, 2016
  
  Hi M M,
  
  I generally agree with your statement: "Corruption (in all its forms) is everywhere and not only in emerging or developing countries." -- M M
  
  However, as the Corruption Perceptions Index shows us (via interactive map and website) corruption in some countries is *much worse* than others.
  
  It also seems the countries that need the money in the worst possible way, also suffer from the highest levels of corruption (not that I'm an expert, just an observation I've made after visiting the CPI site) http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014
  
  On your other point... the 1% are the 1% and yes, concentrating that much wealth in the hands of so few can be problematic and could, conceivably, lead to some level of improper business practices.
  
  But I don't think that's a major part of the problem.
  
  What is a bigger problem with regards to the 1% is that they now own more than 50% of the world's wealth, and by 2030 they will own more than 75% of the world's wealth!
  
  And nobody, anywhere, is doing anything about it! Politicians and NGO's are just sitting on their hands!
  
  Both are busy with FAR LESS IMPORTANT MATTERS.
  
  In 2030, when 1% of the population own 75% of the world's wealth -- **leaving only 25% of the world's wealth for the rest of us to fight over** -- everything will become dire, and there simply won't be money left over to fight corruption, etc...
  
  In fact, there won't be any money for anything.
  
  The total, combined growth in the world's GDP between now and 2030 won't cover that 25% wealth gap.
  
  The world will continue to fall backwards (economically speaking) so that tiny numbers of people can become even richer???
  
  What kind of BS is that?
  
  (If we don't address it now) by 2050, the 1% may own as much as 90% of the world's wealth!!!
  
  I know that's an incredible statistic -- even economists have a hard time with it. But good data in = good data out. Good data in = good projections out.
  
  Addressing those imbalances in 2050 will not solve the 2016-2050 problem -- it will only affect the post-2050 world -- or what's left of it.
  
  So, we need to address it now. With no excuses.
  
  Today's 1%, for the most part, earned their money in the markets (legally) and therefore, they are NOT the problem -- rather, they are merely a symptom of a bad system. We cannot *steal* the money from the 1% when most of that wealth has been earned legally, under widely accepted investment rules.
  
  If 'we' created this problem (and we did) 'we' can solve it.
  
  *Governance and economic systems* are the purview of politicians, their area of expertise, and yet, they have allowed this situation to occur.
  
  There is no-one else to fix this for us. Therefore, we must rely on them to fix the problem they have created.
  
  If the politicians don't fix it, then it won't be fixed. (Well, eventually, a revolution always 'fixes' things, but I'm hoping our leaders are up to the task -- just as the leaders of WWII and the Cold War were 'up to' the tasks of their time)
  
  Our politicians *must* rise to the level of our problems and fix them in an appropriate timeframe, they cannot call themselves politicians and be *smaller* than our problems. That just doesn't work.
  
  Anyways, very good thread here. Thank you for your comment, M M!
  
  Cheers, JBS
- John Brian Shannon Jan 14, 2016
  
  Hi Sajal,
  
  You've shone the light on a hugely important part in all of this. Both corruption and red tape work to prevent investment in the very economies that need it the most.
  
  A high level of direction from the UNDP, and massive assistance from Interpol, the world's banks and support from governments worldwide is needed to successfully solve this problem.
  
  Failing that, the whole unseemly mess will get worse every year.
  
  Thanks for your fine comment.
  
  Here's an interesting site for those of you interested in the state of corruption in the world: http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014
  
  Cheers, JBS
- M M Jan 14, 2016
  
  Corruption (in all its forms) is everywhere and not only in emerging or developing countries. Until the problem of the 1% is dealt with, there will be no hope because any benefit from any investment under the current system can only be channeled upward.
- Sajal Manchanda Jan 14, 2016
  
  Hi, I totally agree with you that rather than Roads to nowhere it must be planned public investment and timing is important. But there is something I would like to add which both Dani and you have missed is the corruption attached with Public spending in Developing countries India and African nations in particular. The investment is there but corruption makes it both lagged and expensive that's the reason why private investment in infrastructure is given a go ahead but the cost is so how and red tapism make it more difficult so what has become of it is a situation where neither the public or the private investment are coming forward.
M M Jan 13, 2016

Dani, the Private and Public sectors must work hand in hand. It’s never easy, but if the relationship is built on a sound basis, it should work.

http://prosyn.org/kbxIgKO/zh;

Log in/Register

公共投资的回归

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Featured

Only Poles Can Save Polish Democracy

The Economic Consequences of Trump’s Trade War

Reading the Signs of the Times

Xi Jinping’s Vision for Global Governance

Three Cheers for Regulation

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Let There Be More Than Light

Three Cheers for Regulation

The Evolution of Global Governance

The British History of Brexit

How the Middle East Can Escape the Middle-Income Trap

Fossil-Fuel Doublespeak

Killer Algorithms

Is Trump an “Effective Leader”?

Cookies and Privacy