Infrastructure-based development - Revision history

Dimadick: /* References */

2025-05-24T21:27:29Z

References

← Previous revision		Revision as of 21:27, 24 May 2025
Line 112:		Line 112:
	[[Category:State capitalism]]		[[Category:State capitalism]]
	[[Category:Neoclassical economics]]		[[Category:Neoclassical economics]]
			[[Category:Gaullism]]

Dimadick: /* References */

2025-05-24T21:26:13Z

References

← Previous revision		Revision as of 21:26, 24 May 2025
Line 111:		Line 111:
	[[Category:Social philosophy]]		[[Category:Social philosophy]]
	[[Category:State capitalism]]		[[Category:State capitalism]]
			[[Category:Neoclassical economics]]

Dimadick: /* References */

2025-05-24T21:25:35Z

References

← Previous revision		Revision as of 21:25, 24 May 2025
Line 110:		Line 110:
	[[Category:Social inequality]]		[[Category:Social inequality]]
	[[Category:Social philosophy]]		[[Category:Social philosophy]]
			[[Category:State capitalism]]

GreenC bot: Reformat 1 archive link. Wayback Medic 2.5 per WP:USURPURL and JUDI batch #27ah

2025-05-04T19:12:06Z

Reformat 1 archive link. Wayback Medic 2.5 per WP:USURPURL and JUDI batch #27ah

← Previous revision		Revision as of 19:12, 4 May 2025
Line 37:		Line 37:

	===An alternative development path?===		===An alternative development path?===
	Some European and Asian economists suggest that “[[infrastructure]]-savvy economies” <ref name="M. Nicolas Firzli & Vincent Bazi"/> such as [[Norway]], [[Singapore]] and [[China]] have partially rejected the underlying Neoclassical “financial orthodoxy” that used to characterize the ‘Washington Consensus’ and initiated instead a [[Realpolitik\|pragmatist]] development path of their own<ref>{{in lang\|en}} {{Citation\|url=http://www.turkishweekly.net/op-ed/2799/forecasting-the-future-the-brics-and-the-china-model.html \|access-date=2011-03-09 \|title=see M. Nicolas J. Firzli, "Forecasting the Future: The G7, the BRICs and the China Model", JTW/Ankara & An-Nahar/Beirut, Mar 9 2011 \|url-status=dead \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110314200831/http://www.turkishweekly.net/op-ed/2799/forecasting-the-future-the-brics-and-the-china-model.html \|archive-date=2011-03-14 }}</ref> based on sustained, large-scale, government-funded investments in strategic [[infrastructure]] projects: “Successful countries such as [[Singapore]], [[Indonesia]] and [[South Korea]] still remember the harsh adjustment mechanisms imposed abruptly upon them by the IMF and World Bank during the 1997-1998 ‘Asian Crisis’ […] What they have achieved in the past 10 years is all the more remarkable: they have quietly abandoned the “Washington consensus” by investing massively in infrastructure projects […] this pragmatic approach proved to be very successful.”<ref name="Euromoney ">{{Cite news\|author= M. Nicolas J. Firzli [[World Pensions & Investments Forum\|World Pensions Council (WPC)]] Director of Research quoted by Andrew Mortimer\|title= Country Risk: Asia Trading Places with the West\|url= http://www.euromoneycountryrisk.com/Analysis/Country-Risk-Asia-trading-places-with-the-west\|work= Euromoney Country Risk\|date= May 14, 2012\|access-date= 5 Nov 2012\|location= .\|archive-date= 28 May 2020\|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20200528062918/https://www.euromoney.com/country-risk\|url-status= ~~dead~~}}</ref>		Some European and Asian economists suggest that “[[infrastructure]]-savvy economies” <ref name="M. Nicolas Firzli & Vincent Bazi"/> such as [[Norway]], [[Singapore]] and [[China]] have partially rejected the underlying Neoclassical “financial orthodoxy” that used to characterize the ‘Washington Consensus’ and initiated instead a [[Realpolitik\|pragmatist]] development path of their own<ref>{{in lang\|en}} {{Citation\|url=http://www.turkishweekly.net/op-ed/2799/forecasting-the-future-the-brics-and-the-china-model.html \|access-date=2011-03-09 \|title=see M. Nicolas J. Firzli, "Forecasting the Future: The G7, the BRICs and the China Model", JTW/Ankara & An-Nahar/Beirut, Mar 9 2011 \|url-status=dead \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110314200831/http://www.turkishweekly.net/op-ed/2799/forecasting-the-future-the-brics-and-the-china-model.html \|archive-date=2011-03-14 }}</ref> based on sustained, large-scale, government-funded investments in strategic [[infrastructure]] projects: “Successful countries such as [[Singapore]], [[Indonesia]] and [[South Korea]] still remember the harsh adjustment mechanisms imposed abruptly upon them by the IMF and World Bank during the 1997-1998 ‘Asian Crisis’ […] What they have achieved in the past 10 years is all the more remarkable: they have quietly abandoned the “Washington consensus” by investing massively in infrastructure projects […] this pragmatic approach proved to be very successful.”<ref name="Euromoney ">{{Cite news\|author= M. Nicolas J. Firzli [[World Pensions & Investments Forum\|World Pensions Council (WPC)]] Director of Research quoted by Andrew Mortimer\|title= Country Risk: Asia Trading Places with the West\|url= http://www.euromoneycountryrisk.com/Analysis/Country-Risk-Asia-trading-places-with-the-west\|work= Euromoney Country Risk\|date= May 14, 2012\|access-date= 5 Nov 2012\|location= .\|archive-date= 28 May 2020\|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20200528062918/https://www.euromoney.com/country-risk\|url-status= usurped}}</ref>

	Research conducted by the [[World Pensions & Investments Forum\|World Pensions Council (WPC)]] suggests that while [[China]] invested roughly 9% of its GDP in infrastructure in the 1990s and 2000s, most Western and non-Asian emerging economies invested only 2% to 4% of their GDP in infrastructure assets. This considerable investment gap allowed the Chinese economy to grow at near optimal conditions while many [[South American]], South Asian and [[Africa]]n economies suffered from various development bottlenecks: poor transportation networks, aging power grids, inadequate school facilities, among other issues.<ref name="M. Nicolas Firzli & Vincent Bazi"/>		Research conducted by the [[World Pensions & Investments Forum\|World Pensions Council (WPC)]] suggests that while [[China]] invested roughly 9% of its GDP in infrastructure in the 1990s and 2000s, most Western and non-Asian emerging economies invested only 2% to 4% of their GDP in infrastructure assets. This considerable investment gap allowed the Chinese economy to grow at near optimal conditions while many [[South American]], South Asian and [[Africa]]n economies suffered from various development bottlenecks: poor transportation networks, aging power grids, inadequate school facilities, among other issues.<ref name="M. Nicolas Firzli & Vincent Bazi"/>

CGP05: /* Unprecedented public funding */ added a wikilink

2024-12-09T18:32:39Z

Unprecedented public funding: added a wikilink

← Previous revision		Revision as of 18:32, 9 December 2024
Line 78:		Line 78:
	==Biden's Infrastructure Bill==		==Biden's Infrastructure Bill==
	===Unprecedented public funding===		===Unprecedented public funding===
	The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, is a United States federal statute enacted by the 117th United States Congress and signed into law by President Joe Biden on November 15, 2021. It includes approximately $1.2 trillion in new spending, unlocking unprecedented funding for transportation, broadband, and utilities across the United States.		The [[Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act]], also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, is a United States federal statute enacted by the 117th United States Congress and signed into law by President Joe Biden on November 15, 2021. It includes approximately $1.2 trillion in new spending, unlocking unprecedented funding for transportation, broadband, and utilities across the United States.

	===Geoeconomic considerations===		===Geoeconomic considerations===

ShanGuy37: Added correction that France's system of economic planning is indicative, not centralized.

2024-09-27T15:56:12Z

Added correction that France's system of economic planning is indicative, not centralized.

← Previous revision		Revision as of 15:56, 27 September 2024
Line 2:		Line 2:
	{{Cleanup\|date=December 2018\|reason=The style is interrupted with many side notes}}		{{Cleanup\|date=December 2018\|reason=The style is interrupted with many side notes}}

	'''Infrastructure-based economic development''', also called '''infrastructure-driven development''', combines key policy characteristics inherited from the [[Franklin D. Roosevelt\|Roosevelt]]ian [[Progressivism in the United States\|progressive]] tradition and [[neo-Keynesian economics]] in the [[United States]], France's [[Gaullist]] and neo-[[Colbertism\|Colbertist]] ~~centralized economic~~ planning, [[Nordic model\|Scandinavian]] [[social democracy]] as well as [[Singapore]]an and [[People's Republic of China\|Chinese]] [[state capitalism]]: it holds that a substantial proportion of a nation’s resources must be systematically directed towards long term assets such as [[transportation]], [[energy]] and social infrastructure (schools, universities, hospitals) in the name of long term [[economic efficiency]] (stimulating growth in economically lagging regions and fostering technological innovation) and [[social equity]] (providing free education and affordable healthcare).<ref name="M. Nicolas Firzli & Vincent Bazi">{{Cite news\|author=M. Nicolas Firzli\|author2=Vincent Bazi\|name-list-style=amp \|title= Infrastructure Investments in an Age of Austerity : The Pension and Sovereign Funds Perspective\|url= http://nebula.wsimg.com/5bd39c809b17edb595bcef072b5621e1?AccessKeyId=9BB168F4CFBA64F592DA&disposition=0&alloworigin=1\| work=Revue Analyse Financière, volume 41, pp. 34-37 \|date=October 2011 \|access-date=30 July 2011}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news\|author=T. Rephann\|author2=A. Isserman\|name-list-style=amp\|title=New Highways as Economic Development Tools\|url=http://www.rri.wvu.edu/pdffiles/wp9313.pdf\|work=West Virginia University Regional Research Institute, Paper 9313\|date=March 1994\|access-date=9 Nov 2012}}{{Dead link\|date=January 2023 \|bot=InternetArchiveBot \|fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>		'''Infrastructure-based economic development''', also called '''infrastructure-driven development''', combines key policy characteristics inherited from the [[Franklin D. Roosevelt\|Roosevelt]]ian [[Progressivism in the United States\|progressive]] tradition and [[neo-Keynesian economics]] in the [[United States]], France's [[Gaullist]] and neo-[[Colbertism\|Colbertist]] [[indicative planning]], [[Nordic model\|Scandinavian]] [[social democracy]] as well as [[Singapore]]an and [[People's Republic of China\|Chinese]] [[state capitalism]]: it holds that a substantial proportion of a nation’s resources must be systematically directed towards long term assets such as [[transportation]], [[energy]] and social infrastructure (schools, universities, hospitals) in the name of long term [[economic efficiency]] (stimulating growth in economically lagging regions and fostering technological innovation) and [[social equity]] (providing free education and affordable healthcare).<ref name="M. Nicolas Firzli & Vincent Bazi">{{Cite news\|author=M. Nicolas Firzli\|author2=Vincent Bazi\|name-list-style=amp \|title= Infrastructure Investments in an Age of Austerity : The Pension and Sovereign Funds Perspective\|url= http://nebula.wsimg.com/5bd39c809b17edb595bcef072b5621e1?AccessKeyId=9BB168F4CFBA64F592DA&disposition=0&alloworigin=1\| work=Revue Analyse Financière, volume 41, pp. 34-37 \|date=October 2011 \|access-date=30 July 2011}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news\|author=T. Rephann\|author2=A. Isserman\|name-list-style=amp\|title=New Highways as Economic Development Tools\|url=http://www.rri.wvu.edu/pdffiles/wp9313.pdf\|work=West Virginia University Regional Research Institute, Paper 9313\|date=March 1994\|access-date=9 Nov 2012}}{{Dead link\|date=January 2023 \|bot=InternetArchiveBot \|fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>

	While the benefits of infrastructure-based development can be debated, the analysis of US economic history shows that at least under some scenarios infrastructure-based investment contributes to economic growth, both nationally and locally, and can be profitable, as measured by higher [[rates of return]]. The benefits of infrastructure investment are shown both for old-style economies (ports, highways, railroads) as well as for the new age ([[high speed rail]], airports, telecommunications, internet...).		While the benefits of infrastructure-based development can be debated, the analysis of US economic history shows that at least under some scenarios infrastructure-based investment contributes to economic growth, both nationally and locally, and can be profitable, as measured by higher [[rates of return]]. The benefits of infrastructure investment are shown both for old-style economies (ports, highways, railroads) as well as for the new age ([[high speed rail]], airports, telecommunications, internet...).

Bruce1ee: fixed lint errors – stripped tags

2024-09-16T15:33:49Z

fixed lint errors – stripped tags

← Previous revision		Revision as of 15:33, 16 September 2024
Line 82:		Line 82:
	===Geoeconomic considerations===		===Geoeconomic considerations===

	Chinese state media, which had largely ignored the preceding policy debates on Capitol Hill, mocked the newly passed infrastructure bill as a "feeble imitation" of their nation's accomplishments: "the Global Times, a newspaper produced by the ruling [[Chinese Communist Party]], criticized the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act in an [acerbic] editorial."<ref>{{Cite news\|author=Alexandra Hutzler \|title= ''Feeble Imitation of China': Chinese State Media Mocks U.S. Infrastructure Bill'		Chinese state media, which had largely ignored the preceding policy debates on Capitol Hill, mocked the newly passed infrastructure bill as a "feeble imitation" of their nation's accomplishments: "the Global Times, a newspaper produced by the ruling [[Chinese Communist Party]], criticized the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act in an [acerbic] editorial."<ref>{{Cite news\|author=Alexandra Hutzler \|title= ''Feeble Imitation of China'': Chinese State Media Mocks U.S. Infrastructure Bill \|url= http://www.newsweek.com/chinese-state-media-mocks-us-infrastructure-bill-feeble-imitation-china-1647060\| work= Newsweek \|date= 8 Nov 2021 \|accessdate=Nov 14, 2021}}</ref>
	\|url= http://www.newsweek.com/chinese-state-media-mocks-us-infrastructure-bill-feeble-imitation-china-1647060\| work= Newsweek \|date= 8 Nov 2021 \|accessdate=Nov 14, 2021}}</ref>

	Commenting on the passage of the bill, the Hon. [[Nick Sherry]] and other experts from the [[Singapore Forum\|Singapore Economic Forum]] have argued that the Infrastructure Bill is a reflection of the bipartisan if belated realisation in America that China is outpacing the United States on infrastructure after four decades of neoliberal neglect:		Commenting on the passage of the bill, the Hon. [[Nick Sherry]] and other experts from the [[Singapore Forum\|Singapore Economic Forum]] have argued that the Infrastructure Bill is a reflection of the bipartisan if belated realisation in America that China is outpacing the United States on infrastructure after four decades of neoliberal neglect:

Explicit: Removing link(s) undefined (XFDcloser)

2024-09-16T11:24:59Z

Removing link(s) undefined (XFDcloser)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 11:24, 16 September 2024
Line 10:		Line 10:
	According to a study by D. A. Aschauer,<ref name="Aschauer">Aschauer, David Alan (1990). “Why is infrastructure important?” Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, New England Economic Review, January/February, pp. 21-48.</ref> there is a positive and statistically significant correlation between investment in [[infrastructure]] and economic performance. Furthermore, the infrastructure investment not only increases the quality of life, but, based on the time series evidence for the post-World War II period in the United States, infrastructure also has positive impact on both labor and [[multifactor productivity]]. The multifactor productivity can be defined as the variable in the output function not directly caused by the inputs, private and public capital. Thus, the impact of infrastructure investment on multifactor productivity is important because the higher multifactor productivity implies higher economic output and hence higher growth.		According to a study by D. A. Aschauer,<ref name="Aschauer">Aschauer, David Alan (1990). “Why is infrastructure important?” Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, New England Economic Review, January/February, pp. 21-48.</ref> there is a positive and statistically significant correlation between investment in [[infrastructure]] and economic performance. Furthermore, the infrastructure investment not only increases the quality of life, but, based on the time series evidence for the post-World War II period in the United States, infrastructure also has positive impact on both labor and [[multifactor productivity]]. The multifactor productivity can be defined as the variable in the output function not directly caused by the inputs, private and public capital. Thus, the impact of infrastructure investment on multifactor productivity is important because the higher multifactor productivity implies higher economic output and hence higher growth.

	In addition to Aschauer’s work, Munnell’s paper<ref name="Munnell">Munnell, Alicia (1990). "Why has Productivity Growth Declined? Productivity and Public Investment.", Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, New England Economic Review, January/February, pp. 3-20.</ref> supports the point that infrastructure investment improves productivity. Munell demonstrates that the decrease in multifactor productivity growth during the 1970s and 1980s relative to the 1950s and 1960s is due to the decrease of public capital stock rather than the decline in [[technological progress]]. By showing that public capital plays an important role in private sector production, Munnell helps Aschauer establish that infrastructure investment was a key factor to “the robust performance of the economy in the ‘golden age’ of the 1950s and 1960s.”<ref name=" Aschauer" />		In addition to Aschauer’s work, Munnell’s paper<ref name="Munnell">Munnell, Alicia (1990). "Why has Productivity Growth Declined? Productivity and Public Investment.", Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, New England Economic Review, January/February, pp. 3-20.</ref> supports the point that infrastructure investment improves productivity. Munell demonstrates that the decrease in multifactor productivity growth during the 1970s and 1980s relative to the 1950s and 1960s is due to the decrease of public capital stock rather than the decline in technological progress. By showing that public capital plays an important role in private sector production, Munnell helps Aschauer establish that infrastructure investment was a key factor to “the robust performance of the economy in the ‘golden age’ of the 1950s and 1960s.”<ref name=" Aschauer" />

	To prove his point, Aschauer builds a model, using the data for the time period from 1953 to 1988, to simulate the effect of higher public investment on the aggregate economy. His simulation shows that, on net, the increased investment in core infrastructure might have greatly improved the performance of the economy.		To prove his point, Aschauer builds a model, using the data for the time period from 1953 to 1988, to simulate the effect of higher public investment on the aggregate economy. His simulation shows that, on net, the increased investment in core infrastructure might have greatly improved the performance of the economy.

GreenC bot: Move 1 url. Wayback Medic 2.5 per WP:URLREQ#thehill.com

2024-04-16T05:18:49Z

Move 1 url. Wayback Medic 2.5 per WP:URLREQ#thehill.com

← Previous revision		Revision as of 05:18, 16 April 2024
Line 60:		Line 60:
	In May 2015, one month before launching his presidential campaign, Donald Trump expressed his desire to "fix" America's aging infrastructure.<ref name=":202">{{Cite news\|url=https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/17/trump-tax-hike-rumors-infrastructure-1331703\|title=Trump aides try to quash tax hike rumors amid infrastructure talks\|date=May 17, 2019\|work=Politico\|access-date=June 15, 2019}}</ref> He views the modernization of American infrastructure as an extension of his career as a real estate developer and a concrete item to add to his legacy as President.<ref name=":202"/> He also considers infrastructure investments a tool to create jobs and to spur economic growth.<ref>{{Cite magazine\|url=https://time.com/4247162/donald-trump-trains-infrastructure/\|title=Trump Agrees With Democrats on High-Speed Trains\|last=Edwards\|first=Hayley Sweetlands\|date=March 4, 2016\|magazine=Time\|access-date=September 16, 2019}}</ref>		In May 2015, one month before launching his presidential campaign, Donald Trump expressed his desire to "fix" America's aging infrastructure.<ref name=":202">{{Cite news\|url=https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/17/trump-tax-hike-rumors-infrastructure-1331703\|title=Trump aides try to quash tax hike rumors amid infrastructure talks\|date=May 17, 2019\|work=Politico\|access-date=June 15, 2019}}</ref> He views the modernization of American infrastructure as an extension of his career as a real estate developer and a concrete item to add to his legacy as President.<ref name=":202"/> He also considers infrastructure investments a tool to create jobs and to spur economic growth.<ref>{{Cite magazine\|url=https://time.com/4247162/donald-trump-trains-infrastructure/\|title=Trump Agrees With Democrats on High-Speed Trains\|last=Edwards\|first=Hayley Sweetlands\|date=March 4, 2016\|magazine=Time\|access-date=September 16, 2019}}</ref>

	A key aspect of this policy is that it relegates primary funding responsibility to local authorities and the private sector. Trump's aim with this funding policy is to realize his promise during the 2016 presidential campaign to bring jobs to rural areas, where employment prospects have been dim, and to transfer wealth from states that tend to vote Democrat to those that helped him win the election.<ref>[https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/12/trump-infrastructure-blue-states-transit-405993 Trump takes aim at blue states in infrastructure plan]. Politico. February 12, 2018. Accessed February 10, 2019.</ref> On June 20, 2017, at the SelectUSA Investment Summit in Washington, Treasury Secretary [[Steven Mnuchin]] said that financial help from foreign investors will probably be necessary in order for President Trump's $1 trillion infrastructure plan to "upgrade U.S. roads, bridges, airports and other public works", to succeed.<ref name="thehill_Munchin">{{cite news \|url=~~http~~://thehill.com/policy/transportation/338649-white-house-says-foreign-investment-key-to-infrastructure-plan \|title=White House says foreign investment key to infrastructure plan \|first=Melanie \|last=Zanona \|date=June 20, 2017 \|access-date=June 20, 2017}}</ref>		A key aspect of this policy is that it relegates primary funding responsibility to local authorities and the private sector. Trump's aim with this funding policy is to realize his promise during the 2016 presidential campaign to bring jobs to rural areas, where employment prospects have been dim, and to transfer wealth from states that tend to vote Democrat to those that helped him win the election.<ref>[https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/12/trump-infrastructure-blue-states-transit-405993 Trump takes aim at blue states in infrastructure plan]. Politico. February 12, 2018. Accessed February 10, 2019.</ref> On June 20, 2017, at the SelectUSA Investment Summit in Washington, Treasury Secretary [[Steven Mnuchin]] said that financial help from foreign investors will probably be necessary in order for President Trump's $1 trillion infrastructure plan to "upgrade U.S. roads, bridges, airports and other public works", to succeed.<ref name="thehill_Munchin">{{cite news \|url=https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/338649-white-house-says-foreign-investment-key-to-infrastructure-plan/ \|title=White House says foreign investment key to infrastructure plan \|first=Melanie \|last=Zanona \|date=June 20, 2017 \|access-date=June 20, 2017}}</ref>

	[[Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016\|Trump's successful presidential bid]] was to a large extent based on an ‘unorthodox’ economic plank bringing together [[supply-side economics\|supply-side]] policies and infrastructure-based development planning: “the deliberate neglect of America’s creaking infrastructure assets (notably public transportation and water sanitation) from the early 1980s on eventually fueled a widespread popular discontent that came back to haunt both Hillary Clinton and the Republican establishment. Donald Trump was quick to seize on the issue to make a broader slap against the laissez-faire complacency of the federal government: ‘when I see the crumbling roads and bridges, or the dilapidated airports or the factories moving overseas to Mexico, or to other countries for that matter, I know these problems can all be fixed’ (June 22, 2016 New York Speech: ‘We Will Build the Greatest Infrastructure on the Planet Earth’).”<ref>M. Nicolas J. Firzli : [http://www.analysefinanciere.org/2017/01/26/understanding-trumponomics 'Understanding Trumponomics', Revue Analyse Financière, 26 January 2017 – Supplement to Issue N°62]</ref>		[[Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016\|Trump's successful presidential bid]] was to a large extent based on an ‘unorthodox’ economic plank bringing together [[supply-side economics\|supply-side]] policies and infrastructure-based development planning: “the deliberate neglect of America’s creaking infrastructure assets (notably public transportation and water sanitation) from the early 1980s on eventually fueled a widespread popular discontent that came back to haunt both Hillary Clinton and the Republican establishment. Donald Trump was quick to seize on the issue to make a broader slap against the laissez-faire complacency of the federal government: ‘when I see the crumbling roads and bridges, or the dilapidated airports or the factories moving overseas to Mexico, or to other countries for that matter, I know these problems can all be fixed’ (June 22, 2016 New York Speech: ‘We Will Build the Greatest Infrastructure on the Planet Earth’).”<ref>M. Nicolas J. Firzli : [http://www.analysefinanciere.org/2017/01/26/understanding-trumponomics 'Understanding Trumponomics', Revue Analyse Financière, 26 January 2017 – Supplement to Issue N°62]</ref>

BattyBot: Fixed CS1 errors: extra text: issue and general fixes

2024-04-01T23:06:54Z

Fixed CS1 errors: extra text: issue and general fixes

← Previous revision		Revision as of 23:06, 1 April 2024
Line 48:		Line 48:
	In the West, the notion of [[pension fund investment in infrastructure]] has emerged primarily in [[Australia]] and [[Canada]] in the 1990s notably in [[Ontario]] and [[Quebec]] and has attracted the interest of policy makers in sophisticated jurisdictions such as [[California]], [[New York (state)\|New York]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Denmark]] and the [[UK]].<ref>{{Cite news\|author=WPC Conference Committee \|title= Infrastructure As A New Asset Class for Pensions and SWFs\|url= https://www.oecd.org/finance/private-pensions/49720977.pdf\| work= [[World Pensions & Investments Forum\|2nd Annual World Pensions Forum]], Roundtable led by Arbejdsmarkedets TillægsPension (ATP), Denmark’s National Supplementary Pension \|date= 9 February 2012 \|access-date= 17 August 2017}}</ref>		In the West, the notion of [[pension fund investment in infrastructure]] has emerged primarily in [[Australia]] and [[Canada]] in the 1990s notably in [[Ontario]] and [[Quebec]] and has attracted the interest of policy makers in sophisticated jurisdictions such as [[California]], [[New York (state)\|New York]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Denmark]] and the [[UK]].<ref>{{Cite news\|author=WPC Conference Committee \|title= Infrastructure As A New Asset Class for Pensions and SWFs\|url= https://www.oecd.org/finance/private-pensions/49720977.pdf\| work= [[World Pensions & Investments Forum\|2nd Annual World Pensions Forum]], Roundtable led by Arbejdsmarkedets TillægsPension (ATP), Denmark’s National Supplementary Pension \|date= 9 February 2012 \|access-date= 17 August 2017}}</ref>

	In the wake of the [[Great Recession]] that started after 2007, liberal and Neo-Keynesian economists in the [[United States]] have developed renewed arguments in favor of “[[Franklin D. Roosevelt\|Roosevelt]]ian” economic policies removed from the ‘Neoclassical’ orthodoxy of the past 30 years- notably a degree of federal stimulus spending across [[public infrastructure]]s and social services that would “benefit the nation as a whole and put America back on the path to long term growth”.<ref>{{Cite journal \|url=http://www.worldpensions.org/special-report-on-the-us-economy.html \|access-date=26 Jan 2013 \|author=Felicia Wong \|date=January 2013 \|title=Fighting the 'Great Recession': Why America Needs Rooseveltian Resolve \|pages=18–19 \|journal=Revue Analyse Financière, RAF/WPC Special Report on US Economy \|issue=N° 46 \|archive-date=6 April 2016 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160406201430/http://www.worldpensions.org/special-report-on-the-us-economy.html \|url-status=dead }}</ref>		In the wake of the [[Great Recession]] that started after 2007, liberal and Neo-Keynesian economists in the [[United States]] have developed renewed arguments in favor of “[[Franklin D. Roosevelt\|Roosevelt]]ian” economic policies removed from the ‘Neoclassical’ orthodoxy of the past 30 years- notably a degree of federal stimulus spending across [[public infrastructure]]s and social services that would “benefit the nation as a whole and put America back on the path to long term growth”.<ref>{{Cite journal \|url=http://www.worldpensions.org/special-report-on-the-us-economy.html \|access-date=26 Jan 2013 \|author=Felicia Wong \|date=January 2013 \|title=Fighting the 'Great Recession': Why America Needs Rooseveltian Resolve \|pages=18–19 \|journal=Revue Analyse Financière, RAF/WPC Special Report on US Economy \|issue=46 \|archive-date=6 April 2016 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160406201430/http://www.worldpensions.org/special-report-on-the-us-economy.html \|url-status=dead }}</ref>

	Similar ideas have gained traction amongst [[IMF]], [[World Bank]] and [[European Commission]] policy makers in recent years notably in the last months of 2014/early 2015: Annual Meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank Group (October 2014) and adoption of the €315 bn [[European Commission Investment Plan for Europe]] (December 2014).		Similar ideas have gained traction amongst [[IMF]], [[World Bank]] and [[European Commission]] policy makers in recent years notably in the last months of 2014/early 2015: Annual Meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank Group (October 2014) and adoption of the €315 bn [[European Commission Investment Plan for Europe]] (December 2014).
Line 81:		Line 81:

	===Geoeconomic considerations===		===Geoeconomic considerations===


	Chinese state media, which had largely ignored the preceding policy debates on Capitol Hill, mocked the newly passed infrastructure bill as a "feeble imitation" of their nation's accomplishments: "the Global Times, a newspaper produced by the ruling [[Chinese Communist Party]], criticized the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act in an [acerbic] editorial."<ref>{{Cite news\|author=Alexandra Hutzler \|title= ''Feeble Imitation of China': Chinese State Media Mocks U.S. Infrastructure Bill'		Chinese state media, which had largely ignored the preceding policy debates on Capitol Hill, mocked the newly passed infrastructure bill as a "feeble imitation" of their nation's accomplishments: "the Global Times, a newspaper produced by the ruling [[Chinese Communist Party]], criticized the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act in an [acerbic] editorial."<ref>{{Cite news\|author=Alexandra Hutzler \|title= ''Feeble Imitation of China': Chinese State Media Mocks U.S. Infrastructure Bill'
	\|url= http://www.newsweek.com/chinese-state-media-mocks-us-infrastructure-bill-feeble-imitation-china-1647060\| work= Newsweek \|date= 8 Nov 2021 \|accessdate=Nov 14, 2021}}</ref>		\|url= http://www.newsweek.com/chinese-state-media-mocks-us-infrastructure-bill-feeble-imitation-china-1647060\| work= Newsweek \|date= 8 Nov 2021 \|accessdate=Nov 14, 2021}}</ref>
Line 87:		Line 87:
	Commenting on the passage of the bill, the Hon. [[Nick Sherry]] and other experts from the [[Singapore Forum\|Singapore Economic Forum]] have argued that the Infrastructure Bill is a reflection of the bipartisan if belated realisation in America that China is outpacing the United States on infrastructure after four decades of neoliberal neglect:		Commenting on the passage of the bill, the Hon. [[Nick Sherry]] and other experts from the [[Singapore Forum\|Singapore Economic Forum]] have argued that the Infrastructure Bill is a reflection of the bipartisan if belated realisation in America that China is outpacing the United States on infrastructure after four decades of neoliberal neglect:

	{{~~quote~~\|"In Washington and Wall Street, there was until recently, a pronounced scepticism as to whether sustained government investment in transportation infrastructure is at all desirable. The rapid [[geoeconomics\|geoeconomic]] rise of China, as exemplified by the successful establishment of the [[Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank]] (AIIB) was actually the only factor strong enough to force a reassessment by U.S. policy thinkers, be they Trump Republicans or Clinton Democrats, the latter constituting the true center of gravity of the Biden White House: 'The Chinese are investing a lot of money, they’re investing billions of dollars and dealing with a whole range of issues that relate to [[transportation]], the environment and a whole range of other things, [...] China is going to ‘eat our lunch’ if the U.S. doesn’t get moving on infrastructure'!" <ref>{{cite news \|url=http://worldpensions.org/us-infra-investment-bill\|work=Institutional Investment Research \|location=Singapore \|title= Beyond COP26, Building Back Better for the Post-Covid Era... Part 1: Biden's $1.2 tr. Infra Bill \|first=M. Nicolas J. \|last=Firzli \|date=8 November 2021 \|accessdate=14 November 2021}}</ref>}}		{{blockquote\|"In Washington and Wall Street, there was until recently, a pronounced scepticism as to whether sustained government investment in transportation infrastructure is at all desirable. The rapid [[geoeconomics\|geoeconomic]] rise of China, as exemplified by the successful establishment of the [[Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank]] (AIIB) was actually the only factor strong enough to force a reassessment by U.S. policy thinkers, be they Trump Republicans or Clinton Democrats, the latter constituting the true center of gravity of the Biden White House: 'The Chinese are investing a lot of money, they’re investing billions of dollars and dealing with a whole range of issues that relate to [[transportation]], the environment and a whole range of other things, [...] China is going to ‘eat our lunch’ if the U.S. doesn’t get moving on infrastructure'!" <ref>{{cite news \|url=http://worldpensions.org/us-infra-investment-bill\|work=Institutional Investment Research \|location=Singapore \|title= Beyond COP26, Building Back Better for the Post-Covid Era... Part 1: Biden's $1.2 tr. Infra Bill \|first=M. Nicolas J. \|last=Firzli \|date=8 November 2021 \|accessdate=14 November 2021}}</ref>}}

	== See also ==		== See also ==

← Previous revision		Revision as of 05:18, 16 April 2024
Line 60:		Line 60:
	In May 2015, one month before launching his presidential campaign, Donald Trump expressed his desire to "fix" America's aging infrastructure.<ref name=":202">{{Cite news\|url=https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/17/trump-tax-hike-rumors-infrastructure-1331703\|title=Trump aides try to quash tax hike rumors amid infrastructure talks\|date=May 17, 2019\|work=Politico\|access-date=June 15, 2019}}</ref> He views the modernization of American infrastructure as an extension of his career as a real estate developer and a concrete item to add to his legacy as President.<ref name=":202"/> He also considers infrastructure investments a tool to create jobs and to spur economic growth.<ref>{{Cite magazine\|url=https://time.com/4247162/donald-trump-trains-infrastructure/\|title=Trump Agrees With Democrats on High-Speed Trains\|last=Edwards\|first=Hayley Sweetlands\|date=March 4, 2016\|magazine=Time\|access-date=September 16, 2019}}</ref>		In May 2015, one month before launching his presidential campaign, Donald Trump expressed his desire to "fix" America's aging infrastructure.<ref name=":202">{{Cite news\|url=https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/17/trump-tax-hike-rumors-infrastructure-1331703\|title=Trump aides try to quash tax hike rumors amid infrastructure talks\|date=May 17, 2019\|work=Politico\|access-date=June 15, 2019}}</ref> He views the modernization of American infrastructure as an extension of his career as a real estate developer and a concrete item to add to his legacy as President.<ref name=":202"/> He also considers infrastructure investments a tool to create jobs and to spur economic growth.<ref>{{Cite magazine\|url=https://time.com/4247162/donald-trump-trains-infrastructure/\|title=Trump Agrees With Democrats on High-Speed Trains\|last=Edwards\|first=Hayley Sweetlands\|date=March 4, 2016\|magazine=Time\|access-date=September 16, 2019}}</ref>

	A key aspect of this policy is that it relegates primary funding responsibility to local authorities and the private sector. Trump's aim with this funding policy is to realize his promise during the 2016 presidential campaign to bring jobs to rural areas, where employment prospects have been dim, and to transfer wealth from states that tend to vote Democrat to those that helped him win the election.<ref>[https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/12/trump-infrastructure-blue-states-transit-405993 Trump takes aim at blue states in infrastructure plan]. Politico. February 12, 2018. Accessed February 10, 2019.</ref> On June 20, 2017, at the SelectUSA Investment Summit in Washington, Treasury Secretary [[Steven Mnuchin]] said that financial help from foreign investors will probably be necessary in order for President Trump's $1 trillion infrastructure plan to "upgrade U.S. roads, bridges, airports and other public works", to succeed.<ref name="thehill_Munchin">{{cite news \|url=~~http~~://thehill.com/policy/transportation/338649-white-house-says-foreign-investment-key-to-infrastructure-plan \|title=White House says foreign investment key to infrastructure plan \|first=Melanie \|last=Zanona \|date=June 20, 2017 \|access-date=June 20, 2017}}</ref>		A key aspect of this policy is that it relegates primary funding responsibility to local authorities and the private sector. Trump's aim with this funding policy is to realize his promise during the 2016 presidential campaign to bring jobs to rural areas, where employment prospects have been dim, and to transfer wealth from states that tend to vote Democrat to those that helped him win the election.<ref>[https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/12/trump-infrastructure-blue-states-transit-405993 Trump takes aim at blue states in infrastructure plan]. Politico. February 12, 2018. Accessed February 10, 2019.</ref> On June 20, 2017, at the SelectUSA Investment Summit in Washington, Treasury Secretary [[Steven Mnuchin]] said that financial help from foreign investors will probably be necessary in order for President Trump's $1 trillion infrastructure plan to "upgrade U.S. roads, bridges, airports and other public works", to succeed.<ref name="thehill_Munchin">{{cite news \|url=https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/338649-white-house-says-foreign-investment-key-to-infrastructure-plan/ \|title=White House says foreign investment key to infrastructure plan \|first=Melanie \|last=Zanona \|date=June 20, 2017 \|access-date=June 20, 2017}}</ref>

	[[Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016\|Trump's successful presidential bid]] was to a large extent based on an ‘unorthodox’ economic plank bringing together [[supply-side economics\|supply-side]] policies and infrastructure-based development planning: “the deliberate neglect of America’s creaking infrastructure assets (notably public transportation and water sanitation) from the early 1980s on eventually fueled a widespread popular discontent that came back to haunt both Hillary Clinton and the Republican establishment. Donald Trump was quick to seize on the issue to make a broader slap against the laissez-faire complacency of the federal government: ‘when I see the crumbling roads and bridges, or the dilapidated airports or the factories moving overseas to Mexico, or to other countries for that matter, I know these problems can all be fixed’ (June 22, 2016 New York Speech: ‘We Will Build the Greatest Infrastructure on the Planet Earth’).”<ref>M. Nicolas J. Firzli : [http://www.analysefinanciere.org/2017/01/26/understanding-trumponomics 'Understanding Trumponomics', Revue Analyse Financière, 26 January 2017 – Supplement to Issue N°62]</ref>		[[Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016\|Trump's successful presidential bid]] was to a large extent based on an ‘unorthodox’ economic plank bringing together [[supply-side economics\|supply-side]] policies and infrastructure-based development planning: “the deliberate neglect of America’s creaking infrastructure assets (notably public transportation and water sanitation) from the early 1980s on eventually fueled a widespread popular discontent that came back to haunt both Hillary Clinton and the Republican establishment. Donald Trump was quick to seize on the issue to make a broader slap against the laissez-faire complacency of the federal government: ‘when I see the crumbling roads and bridges, or the dilapidated airports or the factories moving overseas to Mexico, or to other countries for that matter, I know these problems can all be fixed’ (June 22, 2016 New York Speech: ‘We Will Build the Greatest Infrastructure on the Planet Earth’).”<ref>M. Nicolas J. Firzli : [http://www.analysefinanciere.org/2017/01/26/understanding-trumponomics 'Understanding Trumponomics', Revue Analyse Financière, 26 January 2017 – Supplement to Issue N°62]</ref>