Hubbry Logo
Infrastructure-based developmentInfrastructure-based developmentMain
Open search
Infrastructure-based development
Community hub
Infrastructure-based development
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Infrastructure-based development
Infrastructure-based development
Infrastructure-based development
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Infrastructure-based economic development, also called infrastructure-driven development, combines key policy characteristics inherited from the Rooseveltian progressive tradition and neo-Keynesian economics in the United States, France's Gaullist and neo-Colbertist indicative planning, Scandinavian social democracy as well as Singaporean and 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).[1][2]

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...).

Aschauer's model and other academic approaches

[edit]

According to a study by D. A. Aschauer,[3] 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[4] 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.”[3]

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.

Aschauer uses the production function , where:

  • Y = level of output
  • K = private fixed capital
  • G = level of government productive services
  • N = population or labor force
  • Z = index of technological progress
  • α and β are constants determined by available technology.

He estimates the production function relation using the average data from 1965 to 1983 for the 50 states. This enables Aschauer to conclude that the level of per capita output is positively and significantly related to core infrastructure investments, in other words, an increase in the core infrastructure investments leads to an increase in the level of per capita output.[3]

However, infrastructure has positive impact not just on the national level. By implementing the cross-sectional study of communities in one state, Janet Rives and Michael Heaney confirm “the links identified in national level studies between infrastructure and economic development”[5] are also present locally. Because infrastructure enters the production function and increases the value of urban land by attracting more firms and house construction, the core infrastructure also has a positive effect on economic development locally.

According to an overview of multiple studies by Louis Cain,[6] the infrastructure investments have also been profitable. For example, Fogel estimated the private rate of return on the Union Pacific Railroad at 11.6%, whereas the social rate that accounts for social benefits, such as improved firm efficiencies and government subsidies, was estimated at 29.9%.[6] In another study, Heckelman and Wallis estimated that the first 500 miles of railroad in a given state led to major increases in property values between 1850 and 1910.[6] They calculated the revenue gain from the land appreciation to be $33,000-$200,000 per mile, while construction costs were $20,000-$40,000 per mile. Hence, on average the revenue from construction of a new railroad outweighed the costs. While initial construction returns were high, the profitability diminished after the first 500 miles.

Even though the revenue streams on infrastructure construction investment fall due to diminishing returns, Edward Gramlich indicates that the rate of return on new construction projects was estimated at 15%. Furthermore, the rate of return on maintenance of current highways was estimated at 35%. It means that even without further new construction, the investment in the maintenance of the core infrastructure is very profitable.[6]

Roller and Waverman,[7] utilizing data for 21 OECD countries, including US, over a 20-year period, from 1970 to 1990, examined the relationship between telecommunications infrastructure investments and economic performance. They used a supply-demand micro-model for telecommunications investments jointly with the macro production equation, accounting for country-specific fixed effects as well as simultaneity. They conclude that there is a causal relationship between telecommunications infrastructure investment and aggregate output.

Shane Greenstein and Pablo T. Spiller examined the effects of telecommunication infrastructure on economic performance in the United States. They conclude that infrastructure investment accounts for a significant fraction of the growth in consumer surplus and business revenue in telecommunications services, both of which indicate the growth in economic performance.[7]

The 'China way'

[edit]

An alternative development path?

[edit]

Some European and Asian economists suggest that “infrastructure-savvy economies” [1] 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 pragmatist development path of their own[8] 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.”[9]

Research conducted by the 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 African economies suffered from various development bottlenecks: poor transportation networks, aging power grids, inadequate school facilities, among other issues.[1]

Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and 'One Belt, One Road'

[edit]

The Beijing-based Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) established in July 2015 and corollary One Belt, One Road Chinese-led initiative demonstrate the PRC government’s capacity to garner the financial and political resources needed to "export" their economic development model, notably by persuading neighboring Asian nations to join AIIB as founding members: “as Asia (excluding China) will need up to $900bn in infrastructure investments annually in the next 10 years (which means there’s a 50% shortfall in infra spending in the continent), many [Asian] heads of state […] gladly expressed their interest to join this new international financial institution focusing solely on ‘real assets’ and infrastructure-driven economic growth.”[10]

Recent developments in North America and the EU

[edit]

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, the Netherlands, Denmark and the UK.[11]

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 “Rooseveltian” economic policies removed from the ‘Neoclassical’ orthodoxy of the past 30 years- notably a degree of federal stimulus spending across public infrastructures and social services that would “benefit the nation as a whole and put America back on the path to long term growth”.[12]

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).

Kazakhstan's infrastructure development program

[edit]

The Nurly Zhol plan or 'New Economic Policy', announced on 11 November 2014 during Kazakhstan President’s State of the Nation Address, introduced a number of measures aimed at developing country's infrastructure in order to sustain economic growth.[13] The Nurly Zhol program applies to such sectors of infrastructure as transport and logistic, tourism, housing and communal services, education, support of export, agriculture, etc.[13]

Trump’s 'America First' Infrastructure Plan

[edit]
Main article: Infrastructure policy of Donald Trump

In May 2015, one month before launching his presidential campaign, Donald Trump expressed his desire to "fix" America's aging infrastructure.[14] 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.[14] He also considers infrastructure investments a tool to create jobs and to spur economic growth.[15]

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.[16] 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.[17]

Trump's successful presidential bid was to a large extent based on an ‘unorthodox’ economic plank bringing together 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’).”[18]

This unconventional (by American standards) policy mix favoring renewed federal government involvement in infrastructure investment and co-investment across the board (at national, state, municipal and local level) is known as Trumponomics.

On January 31, 2019, President Trump issued an executive order encouraging the purchase of U.S.-made construction materials for public infrastructure projects, especially those that need funding from the federal government.[19] This followed his 2017 "Buy American, Hire American" executive order restricting the hiring of foreign workers and tightening standards for federal acquisitions. As of February 2019, Canadian officials were negotiating an exemption for their country.[20]

President Donald Trump's position with regards to energy independence is similar to that of his predecessors dating back to the 1970s. President Barack Obama, his immediate predecessor, lifted a 40-year old ban on oil exports and granted over two dozen liquefied-natural-gas-export licenses.[21] Trump's goal is to achieve "energy dominance," or the maximization of the production of fossil fuels for domestic use and for exports.[22]

Reliance on “infrastructure as an asset class” for private investors

[edit]

Donald Trump's policies aim at harnessing private capital to leverage government spending on infrastructure at federal, state and local level. This approach relies on the notion of “infrastructure as an asset class” for institutional investors, which was initially developed in Northern Europe, Canada and Australia[23][24]

Blackstone-Saudi Arabia infrastructure fund

[edit]

On May 20, 2017, during President Donald Trump's official state visit to Saudi Arabia, he signed a $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia; Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates announced they would "donate a combined $100 million to a World Bank fund for women entrepreneurs", a project inspired by Ivanka Trump; and Saudi Arabia "joined forces" with The Blackstone Group, a global private equity firm to "build a $40 billion war chest to privatize U.S. infrastructure".[25] Blackstone's CEO is Stephen Schwarzman,[26][27] leads Trump's business council, "advising him on "policy issues ranging from trade to infrastructure", unveiled a $40 billion fund which will primarily invest in infrastructure in the United States. Blackstone, which has "$360 billion in assets" is entering into infrastructure projects in which "large investors" plant "their money into the cogs of the global economy such as toll roads, airports, public works, buildings, ports, wireless infrastructure, pipelines, and railroads".[28] Saudi Arabia will provide $20 billion from its Private Investment Fund (PIF) towards the Blackstone infrastructure fund.[29] Limited partners will contribute $20 billion. "With debt financing, Blackstone hopes eventually to bring the total to $100 billion" in "total infrastructure investments on a leveraged basis".[28]

Biden's Infrastructure Bill

[edit]

Unprecedented public funding

[edit]

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

[edit]

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."[30]

Commenting on the passage of the bill, the Hon. Nick Sherry and other experts from the 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:

"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 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'!" [31]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Infrastructure-based development

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Infrastructure-based development is an economic emphasizing large-scale public and private investments in physical assets such as transportation networks, facilities, , and systems to enhance , reduce transaction costs, and catalyze broader growth by improving the mobility of labor, capital, and . This approach posits that foundational infrastructure acts as a multiplier for economic activity, enabling specialization, , and efficient resource allocation in line with models that incorporate public capital as a distinct input alongside private capital, labor, and . Empirical analyses indicate that well-targeted infrastructure spending can elevate output by boosting private sector efficiency and lowering barriers to trade, with studies estimating multipliers ranging from 1.5 to 2.0 in GDP terms for advanced economies under optimal conditions. However, outcomes depend critically on institutional quality, fiscal discipline, and alignment with market needs; poorly planned projects often yield suboptimal returns, including fiscal strain from debt accumulation and stranded assets that fail to generate sustained productivity gains. Defining characteristics include long-term government-led planning, often via public-private partnerships, though controversies arise over environmental externalities, corruption risks in execution, and the potential for overemphasis on visible megaprojects at the expense of human capital or regulatory reforms. Despite these challenges, infrastructure-based strategies have underpinned rapid industrialization in select cases by addressing binding constraints on expansion, underscoring the causal role of durable assets in enabling scalable economic activity when integrated with sound governance.

Conceptual Foundations

Definition and Core Principles

Infrastructure-based development refers to an economic strategy in which governments prioritize large-scale investments in physical infrastructure—such as roads, ports, railways, energy grids, and water systems—as the primary mechanism to catalyze sustained economic growth, particularly in emerging and developing economies. This approach views infrastructure not merely as a supportive input but as a foundational driver that alleviates production constraints, enhances factor mobility—for instance, through projects like ring roads, highways, and connections to key transport hubs that reduce congestion and improve connectivity, thereby increasing cities' ability to attract enterprises and investments—and amplifies the returns to private capital and labor. By addressing market failures in the provision of non-rivalrous public goods, where private sector underinvestment is common due to externalities and high upfront costs, the strategy aims to unlock productivity gains and foster broader development outcomes like poverty reduction and regional integration. Core principles hinge on infrastructure's role as public capital in augmented production functions, where it directly augments output alongside private capital (K), labor (N), and (Z), as formalized in models like Y = ZKαGβN1-α-β (with G denoting public infrastructure stock). This modeling underscores causal channels: infrastructure boosts marginal productivity by reducing transaction costs, improving , and enabling scale economies, thereby generating returns that exceed and financing costs under optimal conditions. Multiplier effects are central, with initial public spending inducing private investment through complementary demands and signaling commitment to growth-oriented policies; for instance, each dollar invested can yield 1.5–2.0 times in GDP impact via direct activity and indirect supply-chain spillovers. The principles also emphasize long-term planning to internalize dynamic benefits, such as enhanced formation through better access to and services indirectly supported by and utilities, while mitigating risks like overcapacity via needs assessments and involvement. Public-private partnerships are advocated to harness private efficiency in operations and , though remains essential to ensure equitable access and alignment with national priorities over short-term fiscal pressures. These tenets derive from extensions, prioritizing causal realism in linking infrastructure accumulation to persistent output expansions rather than transient stimuli.

Historical Evolution

Infrastructure investments have historically preceded and enabled economic expansion by reducing transaction costs and integrating markets. In the , systematic construction of roads, aqueducts, and ports—totaling over 80,000 kilometers of roads by the CE—facilitated across diverse regions, supported agricultural surpluses, and sustained urban growth, demonstrating early recognition of physical capital's role in . The marked a pivotal shift toward large-scale, private-public to underpin and . Britain's canal network, beginning with the in 1761, halved coal transport costs and spurred factory development, while the in 1825 initiated rail expansion that connected industrial centers, contributing to annual GDP growth rates exceeding 2% from 1815 to 1870. In the United States, the Erie Canal's 1825 completion linked interior farmlands to eastern ports, increasing exports by 700% in affected regions and accelerating westward settlement and industrialization. The early saw deliberate state intervention in as a counter-cyclical tool for development. During the U.S. , President Franklin D. Roosevelt's (1933–1939) allocated $4 billion through agencies like the and for projects including 650,000 miles of highways, 78,000 bridges, and hydroelectric dams such as (completed 1936), which employed up to 8.5 million people and generated multiplier effects estimated at 1.5–2 times initial spending through stimulated private activity. Post-World War II reconstruction and elevated to a foundational element of strategy. The World Bank, established in 1944, issued its first loan in 1947—a $250 million credit to France for postwar rebuilding, emphasizing and to restore productive capacity. By the 1950s, the Bank's portfolio shifted toward developing countries, funding projects like India's Damodar Valley dams (1950s) and prioritizing as 60–70% of early lending to enable industrialization and agricultural modernization. Theoretical formalization emerged concurrently in , with Paul Rosenstein-Rodan's 1943 "big push" framework positing that underdeveloped economies required coordinated, lumpy investments—including like roads and power—to generate pecuniary externalities and achieve self-sustaining growth, overcoming indivisibilities that trapped nations in subsistence equilibria. This influenced and regional commissions in the , which advocated infrastructure-led "balanced growth" in and , viewing it as a prerequisite for absorbing surplus labor and fostering backward and forward linkages.

Theoretical Models

Aschauer's Public Capital Multiplier

David A. Aschauer developed the public capital multiplier framework in his seminal 1989 analysis, which integrated public infrastructure as a productive input in aggregate production functions to explain productivity trends in the U.S. economy. Using time-series data from the private nonfarm business sector spanning 1949 to 1985, Aschauer augmented the standard Cobb-Douglas production function to include public capital stock (G), alongside private capital (K), labor (N), and total factor productivity (Z), yielding the form Y = Z K^{\alpha} G^{\beta} N^{1-\alpha-\beta}. His empirical estimation revealed a statistically significant output elasticity for public capital (β) of 0.39, substantially higher than the private capital elasticity (α) of approximately 0.14, indicating that a 1% increase in public capital stock raises output by 0.39%. In contrast, government consumption expenditures showed a negative impact on productivity, underscoring the distinction between productive public investment and non-productive spending. This elasticity implies a high marginal productivity for public capital, with Aschauer attributing the U.S. productivity slowdown of the 1970s partly to declining public infrastructure investment rates, which fell from 2.6% of GDP in the to under 1.5% by the mid-1980s. The framework posits a multiplier effect wherein public capital enhances efficiency by reducing transportation costs, improving , and serving as a complement to private inputs, thereby amplifying output beyond the initial investment. For core infrastructure categories like highways and streets, subsequent refinements in Aschauer's work suggested even higher elasticities, around 0.56, translating to internal rates of return exceeding 50% under plausible assumptions. Aschauer's model challenged neoclassical assumptions by demonstrating that public capital accumulation does not crowd out private investment but instead boosts it through higher returns, with estimates showing a positive cross-elasticity between public and private capital. The implied for public investment—derived from the elasticity and steady-state growth dynamics—suggests returns of $1.50 to $2.50 in GDP per dollar invested over the long term, influencing debates on as a driver of . This approach provided a theoretical foundation for infrastructure-based development strategies, emphasizing empirical measurement of public capital's causal role in enhancing rather than mere demand stimulation.

Alternative Academic Approaches

Alternative academic approaches to Aschauer's neoclassical augmentation of the have primarily emerged within endogenous growth frameworks, where public infrastructure or productive can influence long-run growth rates rather than merely shifting output levels along a balanced growth path. In these models, enters as a complement to private factors, potentially generating constant across accumulable inputs, thereby sustaining perpetual growth without relying on exogenous technological progress. This contrasts with Aschauer's Solow-inspired setup, which implies convergence to a steady-state growth rate independent of . A seminal contribution is Barro's 1990 extension of the AK endogenous growth model, incorporating tax-financed purchases of goods that directly augment private production, akin to services. Here, output is produced via Y=F(K,G)Y = F(K, G), with GG representing -provided inputs exhibiting constant marginal , financed by distortionary flat-rate income taxes that reduce private incentives. The steady-state growth rate rises with the share of productive spending in output up to an interior optimum, beyond which tax distortions dominate, yielding an inverted-U relationship between public investment and growth. Barro's framework highlights causal channels where lowers private production costs or enhances factor , but emphasizes fiscal trade-offs absent in Aschauer's aggregate estimates. Subsequent models by Turnovsky build on this by endogenizing public and introducing congestion effects, where effective stock diminishes with private usage intensity. In these dynamic setups, public capital KgK_g evolves via financed by taxes or bonds, entering a that supports endogenous growth through interactions with private capital and labor. Transitional dynamics reveal that shocks to public can permanently alter growth paths if congestion is partial, with optimal policy balancing accumulation against crowding-out via higher taxes or debt. For instance, under Ramsey-style optimization, steady-state growth maximizes when public capital's elasticity complements private returns without full from overuse. These approaches underscore causal realism by modeling agent optimization and intertemporal trade-offs, revealing that 's growth impacts hinge on financing mechanisms and spillover assumptions rather than simple elasticities. Other variants integrate into product variety or augmentation models, where public spending expands frontiers or reduces adjustment costs, fostering sustained innovation-driven growth. For example, extensions of Romer's variety expansion framework incorporate public capital as a non-rival input boosting , yielding higher long-run growth via scale effects moderated by public provision. Collectively, these alternatives prioritize and fiscal endogeneity, cautioning against overreliance on Aschauer's high multiplier absent considerations of , congestion, or policy distortions.

Empirical Evidence

Studies Supporting Growth Impacts

David Aschauer's 1989 analysis of U.S. time-series data from 1949 to 1985 estimated the elasticity of output with respect to public capital at 0.39 for core , implying a exceeding 50%, far higher than private capital returns and supporting substantial growth effects from infrastructure spending. Subsequent cross-country regressions by Aschauer using Group-of-Seven data over 1965-1985 confirmed positive associations between public infrastructure investment and productivity growth after controlling for private investment. Panel data studies across developing and developed economies have reinforced these findings; for instance, and Servén's World Bank analysis of over 100 countries from 1960-2000 found that a 1% increase in the stock correlates with a 0.06-0.07% rise in GDP growth , with stronger effects in low-income nations. IMF on multipliers, drawing from fiscal episodes in advanced and emerging economies, estimates that $1 of spending raises output by 0.9-1.5 in the medium term, particularly when slack exists in the economy and financing is efficient. Vector autoregression models applied to urban U.S. data indicate persistent positive shocks from infrastructure outlays to GDP, with effects accumulating over years and enhancing productivity. World Bank panel evaluations similarly show infrastructure development explaining up to 20% of growth variance in low-income countries, via improved factor productivity and reduced transaction costs. These results hold across methodologies, though magnitudes vary with institutional quality and complementary reforms.

Critiques and Methodological Challenges

Early empirical studies, such as Aschauer's 1989 analysis estimating an of public capital at 0.39, faced criticism for overstating productivity impacts due to failure to adequately address endogeneity and reverse , where may drive infrastructure investment rather than the reverse. Critics argued that Aschauer's time-series approach on U.S. data produced implausibly high marginal returns—exceeding those of private capital—potentially reflecting omitted common trends or spurious correlations from non-stationary variables rather than true causal effects. Subsequent state-level panel studies, like Holtz-Eakin (1994), often yielded negligible or negative elasticities, attributing discrepancies to aggregation biases in national data that mask regional heterogeneity. Methodological challenges persist in disentangling causal effects, including the difficulty of measuring public capital stocks accurately, as rates and historical data are often estimated rather than directly observed, leading to inconsistencies across studies. Endogeneity remains a core issue, with governments likely responding to anticipated growth or demand shocks when allocating spending, biasing ordinary estimates upward; instrumental variable approaches, such as using historical or geographic factors, frequently suffer from weak instruments or invalid exclusions. Specification sensitivity exacerbates problems, as results vary widely with model choices—like including lagged effects, controlling for or institutions, or distinguishing types—often rendering elasticities statistically insignificant or context-dependent. Panel and cross-country regressions introduce further complications, such as unobserved heterogeneity across nations (e.g., institutional quality or influencing returns) and among infrastructure subcomponents like roads and , which hinders isolating individual contributions. Dynamic general equilibrium effects, including potential crowding out of private investment or fiscal distortions from sources, are rarely fully modeled, leading to incomplete assessments of net growth impacts. Meta-analyses confirm this variability, with public capital elasticities ranging from near zero to 0.2 in more robust specifications, underscoring how data limitations and omitted variables bias early optimistic findings.

Case Studies in Emerging Economies

China's Infrastructure-Led Model

China's infrastructure-led development model emphasizes state-directed investments in , such as transportation networks, energy facilities, and urban projects, as a primary driver of economic expansion. Initiated prominently after the 1978 economic reforms and intensified through the 2008 global financial crisis stimulus, this approach has channeled resources via state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and local government financing vehicles (LGFVs) to build extensive domestic infrastructure. Between 2003 and 2016, infrastructure expansion accounted for approximately 14% of China's average annual GDP growth rate of 9.6%, according to quantitative assessments using structural models that isolate infrastructure's causal contributions from other factors like private investment. Empirical analyses of from Chinese provinces indicate that infrastructure investments have yielded higher marginal contributions to output than either public or private non-infrastructure spending, with and sectors showing particularly strong elasticities relative to GDP. A of this model is the rapid expansion of (HSR), which grew from negligible coverage in 2008 to over 42,000 kilometers by 2023, comprising two-thirds of the global total and connecting major economic hubs. This network has facilitated labor mobility, reduced regional disparities in access to markets, and supported , with studies estimating an annual economic return of around 8% as of based on connectivity enhancements and facilitation. However, evaluations reveal uneven impacts; while HSR has boosted firm formation and service sector activity in connected core cities, it has sometimes lowered labor productivity by up to 13% in peripheral non-core areas due to resource diversion and widened inter-city gaps. Overall spending has hovered at 6-8% of GDP, sustaining high investment-to-GDP ratios above 40% through the , which propelled industrialization but increasingly faced diminishing marginal returns as saturation in urban transport and real estate-linked projects reduced incremental growth effects. The model's international extension via the (BRI), launched in 2013, has committed over $1 trillion to in more than 140 countries, aiming to secure resource access, export excess domestic capacity in and , and open new markets for Chinese firms. Outcomes include improved trade corridors, such as reduced transport costs along Asia-Europe routes, but host countries have incurred unsustainable burdens, with projects in regions like yielding positive returns in select cases while contributing to fiscal strains elsewhere. Domestically, the approach has amplified local , estimated at over 60% of GDP by 2023 through LGFV borrowing, fostering overinvestment in underutilized assets like "ghost cities" and exacerbating vulnerabilities to economic slowdowns. Recent policy shifts, including curbs in high-risk regions since 2023, reflect recognition of these risks, though reliance on as a counter-cyclical tool persists amid challenges in transitioning to consumption-led growth.

Kazakhstan and Other Asian Examples

Kazakhstan has pursued infrastructure-based development through programs like Nurly Zhol, launched in to address post-Soviet legacies of underinvestment in , , and industrial facilities. This initiative allocated approximately 2.4 tenge (around $12 billion at the time) over five years, focusing on roads, railways, and pipelines to enhance connectivity across its vast territory and boost export-oriented sectors like oil and minerals. Empirical analysis of Nurly Zhol indicates short-term demand stimulus via construction multipliers and long-term productivity gains through improved logistics efficiency, with infrastructure investment averaging 3.4% of GDP contributing to sustained non-oil growth. A specific case is the ADB-financed Turkestan-Shu railway extension, which generated an 18% medium-term increase in regional GDP and elevated tax revenues by facilitating agricultural and industrial expansion in southern provinces. Integration with China's has amplified these efforts, funding projects like the Almaty-Shymkent highway upgrades, which reduced travel times by up to 40% and supported FDI inflows reaching $166 billion cumulatively by January 2025. However, challenges persist, including corruption risks and overreliance on resource exports, with World Bank assessments highlighting an ongoing gap that demands 5-7% annual GDP investment to sustain projected 4.5-5.0% growth in 2025. Recent commitments, such as a 2025 AIIB memorandum for $6 billion in sovereign-backed projects, target diversification into renewables and digital to mitigate energy intensity, which exceeds averages threefold. In neighboring , post-2017 liberalization has driven infrastructure expansion under the 2030 Strategy, emphasizing , roads, and rail to support (25% of GDP) and urban connectivity. World Bank-backed modernization, initiated in 2025, aims to rehabilitate 100,000 hectares, potentially increasing yields by 20-30% in arid regions and bolstering regional GDP growth averaging 5.3% since reforms began. BRI projects, including links, have enhanced corridors, with studies showing positive long-term effects on GDP and output in remote areas, though efficiency gains depend on reducing state monopolies in execution. Indonesia's National Medium-Term Development Plan (2015-2019, extended) exemplifies large-scale pushes, investing over $30 billion annually in ports, toll roads, and airports to integrate its economy. Econometric evidence links such spending—particularly in roads and —to higher provincial growth rates, with a 1% GDP increase in infrastructure correlating to 0.1-0.2% output expansion via reduced costs (from 24% to projected 17% of GDP). Yet, execution lags, with only 60-70% of targets met due to land acquisition delays, underscore allocation inefficiencies despite positive causal links to in underserved regions.

Implementations in Developed Economies

European Union Initiatives

The 's infrastructure initiatives primarily operate through the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), which allocates funding to trans-European networks in transport, energy, and digital sectors to enhance connectivity and economic integration. Established under the 2014-2020 and extended into the 2021-2027 period with a budget exceeding €33 billion for transport alone, the CEF targets projects that reduce bottlenecks and promote multimodal mobility, such as rail and road upgrades within the (TEN-T). In July 2025, the selected 94 transport projects for nearly €2.8 billion in grants, focusing on sustainable alternatives like and alternative fuels to support decarbonization while aiming to generate jobs and boost competitiveness across member states. The TEN-T policy, formalized in and revised in to accelerate core network completion by 2030, outlines a 94,000-kilometer rail and 36,000-kilometer road network linking major urban centers, ports, and airports. This framework has facilitated over €500 billion in total investments since inception, with EU co-financing through CEF covering up to 50% of costs for eligible projects in less-developed regions. Empirical assessments indicate that TEN-T completions have improved efficiency by 10-15% in corridors like the Rhine-Alpine axis, correlating with regional GDP uplifts of 0.5-1% annually in connected areas, though causal attribution remains debated due to confounding factors like trade liberalization. Complementing these, the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), launched in 2021 as part of the €806.9 billion NextGenerationEU package, channels €723.8 billion in grants and loans, with at least 37% earmarked for such as energy grids and . By mid-2025, RRF disbursements totaled over €300 billion across member states, funding projects like high-speed rail extensions in and grid reinforcements in , intended to yield 1.5-2% GDP growth multipliers per studies commissioned by the Commission, though independent analyses highlight risks of inefficient allocation due to limited transparency in project selection. The (EIB) plays a pivotal role by providing loans and guarantees, financing over €100 billion annually in infrastructure by 2025, including cross-border initiatives that enhance . For instance, EIB-backed projects in the Baltic-Adriatic corridor have supported €20 billion in rail investments since 2014, contributing to a 20% rise in interregional trade volumes. While official evaluations emphasize long-term productivity gains, critiques from economic analyses point to bureaucratic delays and overemphasis on environmental criteria potentially inflating costs by 15-20% without proportional growth returns.

North American Policies

In the United States, federal infrastructure policies have historically emphasized transportation networks to facilitate economic expansion, with the establishing the , which constructed over 41,000 miles of roads by 1992 and reduced interstate freight costs by an estimated 20-30% through improved efficiency. This system, funded primarily via user fees like gasoline taxes rather than general revenues, spurred post-World War II , relocation, and GDP growth by enhancing labor mobility and connectivity, though it also contributed to in some inner cities due to highway routing decisions. Subsequent policies, such as the Interstate Highway Act amendments in the 1970s and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998), expanded maintenance and intermodal links, aiming to sustain competitiveness amid rising trade volumes, with outlays averaging 2-3% of GDP in the late correlating with gains in logistics-dependent sectors. Canadian infrastructure policies have prioritized public-private partnerships (P3s) and targeted federal transfers to provinces for regional development, exemplified by the Building Canada Fund (2007-2014), which allocated CAD 8.8 billion for strategic projects in transportation and utilities, yielding short-term multipliers of 1.5-2.0 in economic output per dollar invested through job creation and effects. The Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (2018-2028), committing over CAD 33 billion across green, community, and public transit streams, seeks to address aging assets—estimated at a CAD 150 billion maintenance backlog—while supporting growth in resource-exporting provinces, though evaluations indicate uneven returns due to regulatory delays and provincial execution variances. These efforts integrate with broader economic goals, such as enhancing connectivity for commodities like exports, where infrastructure bottlenecks have historically constrained GDP expansion by 0.5-1% annually in affected regions. Binational policies under frameworks like the United States-Mexico- Agreement (USMCA, effective ) promote cross-border infrastructure to bolster integrated supply chains, including investments in rail and upgrades along trade corridors that handled over USD 1.2 in in 2022, reducing delays and supporting nearshoring trends amid global disruptions. Joint U.S.- initiatives, such as the 2019 Border Infrastructure Investment Plan allocating USD 1.5 billion for crossings and highways, aim to cut wait times by 50% at key , enhancing North American and resilience, with empirical models projecting 0.2-0.4% annual GDP uplift from friction-reduced trade. However, critiques highlight overreliance on subsidies without rigorous cost-benefit analysis, as seen in U.S. state-level variations where higher-income areas capture disproportionate federal funds, potentially exacerbating regional disparities despite intended development objectives.

Public vs. Private Funding Debates

Trump's America First Infrastructure Plan

President Donald Trump's infrastructure proposal, formally presented in February 2018, sought to generate $1.5 trillion in total investments over a decade through $200 billion in new federal funding, primarily by incentivizing contributions from state, local, tribal entities, and private investors. This approach aimed to address aging U.S. —such as highways, bridges, and systems—while adhering to fiscal constraints and avoiding significant deficit increases. The plan rested on six principles: stimulating sustained investment via federal seed money; empowering state, local, and tribal leadership in project selection; prioritizing innovative, high-quality projects of national significance; slashing regulatory barriers and permitting delays; promoting fiscal responsibility through revenue-generating mechanisms like public-private partnerships (PPPs); and enforcing via performance metrics. Federal funds were allocated to new programs, including $100 billion for the Infrastructure Incentives Initiative to match non-federal spending on core highways, bridges, and tunnels; $50 billion for a Rural Infrastructure Program targeting underserved areas; and $20 billion for transformative projects with potential for economic multipliers, such as advanced air traffic control or port modernizations. Additional elements encompassed $20 billion for locks and dams, plus proposals to monetize federal assets and expand PPP eligibility for revenue bonds exempt from state taxes. Emphasizing private sector involvement, the initiative recast the federal role as a minority partner, leveraging PPPs to access private capital, expertise, and risk-sharing, which proponents argued would enhance efficiency and innovation over traditional public funding models. This aligned with the America First doctrine by mandating domestic content preferences, prioritizing U.S. worker employment, and bolstering energy infrastructure—like pipelines and export terminals—to secure independence from foreign suppliers. Deregulatory measures targeted environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act, aiming to halve timelines from an average of 4-5 years. Though failed to enact the full legislative package amid partisan divides, executive actions advanced complementary goals, including expansion in rural areas and cybersecurity for the power grid. In Trump's second term starting January 2025, related policies reinforced these themes, such as declaring an energy emergency to expedite critical builds and the Investment Policy restricting foreign acquisitions in strategic sectors like minerals and infrastructure. Critics, including analysts at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, contended the $200 billion federal commitment would not realistically multiply to $1.5 trillion, potentially burdening states and localities while underfunding direct needs. Others noted PPPs could expose taxpayers to long-term liabilities if projects underperformed. Nonetheless, the framework underscored a causal for market-driven allocation over centralized spending, positing that private incentives better align with user demands and cost controls than deficit-financed public outlays.

Biden's Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

The (IIJA), enacted on November 15, 2021, authorizes $1.2 trillion in federal infrastructure spending over five years from 2022, of which approximately $550 billion represents new investments supplementing reauthorizations of baseline programs like surface transportation funding ($643 billion). Allocations prioritize transportation (e.g., $350 billion for federal highway programs), access ($65 billion), water infrastructure ($55 billion), and power grid enhancements ($73 billion), with mandates for domestic content in projects and resilience against . Funding derives predominantly from public sources, including mandatory budget authority for core programs and supplemental appropriations, financed through general federal revenues and borrowing that added to the national debt amid rising deficits. Provisions for private involvement exist, such as grants to public-private entities for minority and incentives for clean energy deployment, but these constitute a minority share, with the Act emphasizing government-directed disbursements over leveraged private capital. This public-heavy model contrasts with prior proposals favoring user fees or private investment to minimize fiscal burdens. By April 2025, implementation had allocated over $695 billion across more than 74,000 projects, per administration reports, though the Government Accountability Office identified persistent challenges for grantees, including staffing shortages, regulatory hurdles, and elevated costs from and disruptions. Outcomes include bridge repairs and expansions in underserved areas, but critiques highlight inefficiencies: highway expansions funded under IIJA may induce emissions equivalent to 77 million metric tons of CO2, undermining environmental goals, while earmarks for localized projects evoke pork-barrel spending patterns that distort allocation away from high-return national priorities. Fiscal impacts remain contentious, with the Act's spending coinciding with a surge in federal interest payments exceeding $540 billion annually by mid-2024, as deficit-financed outlays amplified inflationary pressures during a period of elevated borrowing costs. Empirical evaluations of economic multipliers are limited and preliminary, with some analyses suggesting government-led infrastructure yields lower productivity gains than private alternatives due to misallocation risks and opportunity costs from servicing. Proponents cite job creation in sectors, yet systemic biases in academic and media assessments—often favoring expansive public roles—may overstate net benefits without rigorous counterfactuals on private funding efficacy.

Controversies and Risks

Debt Accumulation and Overinvestment

In infrastructure-based development strategies, particularly in emerging economies, governments frequently resort to extensive borrowing to fund capital-intensive projects, resulting in rapid accumulation that can outpace economic returns. financing vehicles (LGFVs) in exemplify this mechanism, where quasi-fiscal entities issue off-balance-sheet to construct roads, bridges, and urban developments, bypassing central fiscal constraints. By the end of 2024, official reached approximately 48 trillion RMB (about $6.7 trillion USD), while LGFV exceeded 60 trillion RMB, largely tied to infrastructure outlays since the 2008 global stimulus. This borrowing surge, which escalated LGFV to 11.4 trillion RMB by late 2009 alone, has strained provincial budgets, prompting interventions like bond quota allocations exceeding 2.2 trillion RMB in 2023 for resolution and the shutdown of over 70% of LGFVs by 2025 to curb hidden liabilities. Overinvestment arises when infrastructure expansion exceeds demand, yielding assets with low utilization and inadequate revenue to service , often driven by incentives for local officials to prioritize visible projects for political promotion over economic viability. In , this manifested in "ghost cities"—vast underoccupied urban complexes built during the 2000s-2010s property and infrastructure boom, such as expansive new towns with unoccupied high-rises and malls, representing trillions in sunk costs from overbuilding in lower-tier cities. These developments, financed through LGFV loans and land-backed pledges, contributed to a likened by analysts to a , where construction outstripped population growth and migration patterns, leaving idle and exacerbating liquidity crises. While some sites have partially populated over time due to adjustments, persistent vacancies highlight misallocation, with halted projects in 2024 underscoring the fiscal drag from non-productive assets. The export of this model via China's (BRI) has amplified debt risks in recipient emerging economies, where infrastructure loans often lead to unsustainable burdens without commensurate growth. As of 2024, 80% of Chinese government loans to developing countries targeted nations already in or at high risk of debt distress, financing ports, railways, and power plants that frequently underperform due to poor planning or . World Bank assessments indicate that BRI-related investments can elevate debt-to-GDP ratios by 5-10% in vulnerable states, prompting restructurings in cases like Sri Lanka's Hambantota Port, where revenue shortfalls necessitated a to . IMF analyses further warn that such high-debt environments, combined with slowing growth, heighten fiscal and financial vulnerabilities, potentially crowding out private investment and necessitating that hampers development. In aggregate, these patterns underscore how infrastructure-led borrowing, absent rigorous cost-benefit scrutiny, fosters cycles of overinvestment and , with emerging markets facing elevated default risks amid global interest rate hikes.

Efficiency and Allocation Issues

Infrastructure investments in development models often suffer from inefficiencies in execution and maintenance, where poor planning, procurement delays, and inadequate oversight result in significant resource wastage. An analysis of public investment across countries estimates that inefficiencies lead to the loss of about one-third of infrastructure spending on average, with some nations experiencing waste exceeding 50% due to factors like cost overruns and suboptimal project selection. These issues are exacerbated in models relying on state-led acceleration, where rapid deployment prioritizes quantity over quality, leading to underutilized assets and deferred maintenance costs that erode long-term returns. Allocation distortions arise from political incentives and information asymmetries, causing governments to favor visible, high-profile projects—such as monumental transport hubs or urban expansions—over less glamorous but higher-value investments in rural connectivity or maintenance. In China's infrastructure-led approach, this manifested in overinvestment during the 2008-2015 stimulus period, producing "ghost cities" like parts of Ordos and , where millions of housing units and supporting infrastructure stood vacant, contributing to non-performing loans estimated at trillions of yuan and distorting resource flows away from productive sectors. Empirical studies indicate that such misallocations reduce marginal returns on capital, with World Bank assessments showing social rates of return to and roads dropping below general capital yields when projects exceed economic thresholds. In democratic settings, allocation problems intensify through pork-barrel politics and electoral cycles, where infrastructure budgets are directed toward swing districts or incumbency advantages rather than national priorities, as evidenced by U.S. state-level revealing punctuated spending patterns tied to political events rather than metrics. Correcting these requires robust frameworks, including independent evaluations and user-fee mechanisms to align incentives with usage, though implementation lags in many developing contexts due to entrenched bureaucratic interests.

Rise of Private Infrastructure Investment

Private infrastructure investment has expanded significantly in recent years, driven by institutional investors seeking stable, inflation-linked returns amid fiscal constraints. Assets under management in private infrastructure reached $1.3 trillion by June 2024, reflecting steady growth from $1 trillion in 2021. Fundraising for infrastructure funds totaled $87 billion in 2024, a 14% increase from 2023, though below the 2022 peak, with first-half 2025 activity hitting $134.3 billion—the second-highest semiannual total in six years. Key drivers include the appeal of infrastructure's predictable cash flows and resilience in volatile markets, positioning it as a hedge against and economic uncertainty. Demand has surged in digital infrastructure, fueled by , AI, and data centers, alongside energy transition assets like renewables, which comprised 43% of new infrastructure funds launched in 2023. Institutional allocations are rising, with 60% of investors planning increases over the next three to five years, supported by public-private partnerships that mitigate government budget limitations. Projections indicate private infrastructure AUM could exceed $3 trillion by 2035, as global needs for modernization—estimated at $3 trillion in markets by 2024—outpace funding capacity. This shift underscores a broader trend toward private capital filling infrastructure gaps, particularly in high-growth sectors, though it raises questions about long-term compared to traditional models.

Geoeconomic Shifts and Sustainability Focus

Geoeconomic shifts have prompted nations to prioritize investments that enhance amid trends accelerated by the , the 2022 , and U.S.- tensions. —relocating production to politically aligned countries—has driven targeted development in sectors like , critical minerals, and energy, with the U.S. and allies investing in domestic and partner-nation facilities to reduce dependence on adversarial suppliers. For instance, U.S. policies under the of 2022 have allocated over $52 billion for manufacturing , fostering builds in states like and as well as allied nations such as and the . Similarly, Brazil's upgrades for copper and export, supported by U.S. partnerships, exemplify 's emphasis on resource security, with investments projected to expand geological mapping and to meet global demand. These shifts reflect a causal pivot from cost-minimizing to risk-mitigating regionalization, where serves as a tool for economic rather than mere connectivity. China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), launched in 2013, exemplifies offensive geoeconomic infrastructure strategy, having financed over $1 trillion in projects across 150 countries by 2023, often securing resource access and political influence through loans tied to construction by Chinese firms. However, BRI has faced criticism for fostering debt dependencies—Pakistan's obligations exceeding $30 billion by 2023—and environmental degradation without robust governance, prompting defaults in nations like Sri Lanka in 2022. In response, Western-led initiatives like the U.S.-EU-Japan Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII), announced in 2022, have committed $600 billion by 2027, emphasizing transparent, sustainable projects in developing regions to counter BRI's scale with quality standards. Yet, PGII's fragmented implementation—totaling under $50 billion disbursed by mid-2024—highlights coordination challenges among democracies, contrasting BRI's centralized approach, though the latter's opacity raises credibility concerns in risk assessments by bodies like the World Bank. This rivalry underscores infrastructure as a domain of strategic competition, where geoeconomic leverage derives from financing terms and alignment with recipient priorities over ideological narratives. Sustainability has increasingly intersected with these shifts, as infrastructure planning incorporates environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria to align with and long-term viability, though empirical outcomes vary. Global infrastructure ESG fundraising hit record highs in 2024, surpassing $100 billion, driven by mandates for decarbonization in transport and power grids, with investors prioritizing assets like storage to mitigate risks. In geoeconomic contexts, this manifests in "green ," such as investments in African solar and battery infrastructure under the 2022 Global Gateway initiative, aiming to secure critical mineral supplies while reducing carbon footprints— imports of and projected to rise 20-fold by 2030. However, causal realism reveals tensions: rushed transitions have led to grid instability in regions like , where 2022-2023 blackouts stemmed from over-reliance on intermittent renewables without adequate backup, underscoring that claims must be vetted against reliability data rather than policy rhetoric. Peer-reviewed analyses emphasize hybrid approaches—integrating nuclear and with renewables—for resilient outcomes, as pure ESG focus risks economic inefficiencies in high-demand scenarios like AI-driven . Overall, in infrastructure now balances geoeconomic imperatives with empirical viability, favoring investments that deliver verifiable long-term benefits over unsubstantiated greenwashing.

References

  1. https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/126014241.pdf
  2. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-economics-of-infrastructure-in-a-globalized-world-issues-lessons-and-future-challenges/
  3. https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2021/6/15/economic-effects-of-infrastructure-investment
  4. https://www.epi.org/publication/the-potential-macroeconomic-benefits-from-increasing-infrastructure-investment/
  5. https://www.library.hbs.edu/working-knowledge/big-infrastructure-may-not-always-produce-big-benefits
  6. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/infrastructure/overview
  7. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/state-us-infrastructure
  8. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstreams/eea77d61-cb2b-4c8d-83b9-3572c4724f3a/download
  9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165188910000102
  10. https://www.pwc.com/m1/en/publications/beyond-pipes-and-roads-how-cities-can-rethink-infrastructure-for-growth.html
  11. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/wp1639.pdf
  12. https://www.gihub.org/articles/the-vital-role-of-infrastructure-in-economic-growth-and-development/
  13. https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/2022-08-role-infrastructure-economic-growth-poverty-reduction-regional-integration/
  14. https://www.reliance-foundry.com/blog/history-of-infrastructure
  15. https://www.bushcenter.org/publications/connecting-and-opening-up-the-nation-through-infrastructure-investment
  16. https://www.aeaweb.org/research/transportation-industrial-revolution-spatial-uk
  17. https://www.history.com/articles/new-deal-infrastructure-projects-fdr
  18. https://www.worldbank.org/en/archive/history/exhibits/Digitized-Records-World-Bank-First-Loan
  19. https://borgenproject.org/history-of-the-world-bank-2/
  20. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/shleifer/files/indust_big_push.pdf
  21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053535799000025
  22. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304393289900470
  23. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/historical/frbchi/workingpapers/frbchi_workingpaper_1988-07.pdf
  24. https://www.clevelandfed.org/-/media/project/clevelandfedtenant/clevelandfedsite/publications/economic-commentary/1995/ec-19950301-is-public-capital-productive-a-review-of-the-evidence-pdf.pdf
  25. https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/economic-perspectives/1989/12sepoct1989-part3-aschauer
  26. https://www.chicagofed.org/~/media/publications/economic-perspectives/1989/ep-sep-oct1989-part3-aschauer-pdf.pdf
  27. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0304393289900020
  28. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=10748
  29. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/261726
  30. https://www.nber.org/papers/w2588
  31. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2937633
  32. https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/macdyn/v1y1997i03p615-639_00.html
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0161893803000267
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264999308000849
  35. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/55728/1/MPRA_paper_55728.pdf
  36. https://www.bostonfed.org/-/media/Documents/conference/34/conf34b.pdf
  37. https://www.imf.org/-/media/Websites/IMF/imported-flagship-issues/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/02/pdf/_c3pdf.ashx
  38. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27625/w27625.pdf
  39. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/62471bf1-a785-5b41-b42b-f8cb689bdf33
  40. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/downloadpdf/display/book/9781513511818/ch002.pdf
  41. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.6.4.189
  42. https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/68457/1/An_Empirical_Approach_to_Public_Capital_Infrastructure_and_Economic_Activity_A_Literature_Review.pdf
  43. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/553061639760111979/pdf/How-Much-Does-Physical-Infrastructure-Contribute-to-Economic-Growth-An-Empirical-Analysis.pdf
  44. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0377221713000040
  45. https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00773200/document
  46. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304387822000748
  47. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49175190_Infrastructure_Development_and_Economic_Growth_in_China
  48. https://orcasia.org/high-speed-railways-in-china
  49. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00168-025-01384-4
  50. https://www.gihub.org/countries/china/
  51. https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-briefs/overbuilt-assessing-diminishing-returns-building-china
  52. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-massive-belt-and-road-initiative
  53. https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2023/12/how-has-chinas-belt-and-road-initiative-impacted-southeast-asian-countries?lang=en
  54. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/econographics/sinographs/beijing-extends-and-pretends-to-deal-with-its-mountain-of-local-government-debt/
  55. https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-cabinet-curbs-debt-growth-12-high-risk-regions-sources-2023-10-25/
  56. https://www.reuters.com/markets/asia/it-reins-wasteful-investment-china-frets-over-growth-2024-08-29/
  57. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/downloadpdf/view/journals/002/2020/038/article-A002-en.pdf
  58. https://infracompass.gihub.org/ind_country_profile/kaz/
  59. https://www.adb.org/publications/measuring-impacts-financing-infrastructure-kazakhstan
  60. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/471731593499938164/pdf/South-Caucasus-and-Central-Asia-The-Belt-and-Road-Initiative-Kazakhstan-Country-Case-Study.pdf
  61. https://www.aiib.org/en/news-events/news/2025/aiib-kazakhstan-sign-landmark-memorandum-understanding-unlock-usd6-billion-sustainable-development.html
  62. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/63bca49a-23be-4017-84d3-9529a67f6d44
  63. https://www.aiib.org/en/projects/details/2025/proposed/kazakhstan-inclusive-and-sustainable-economic-growth-development-policy-operation.html
  64. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2025/05/21/uzbekistan-to-modernize-its-irrigation-infrastructure-with-world-bank-support
  65. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/uzbekistan/overview
  66. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/responsible-business-conduct-for-sustainable-infrastructure-in-kazakhstan-mongolia-and-uzbekistan_2762f803-en/full-report/uzbekistan_02731111.html
  67. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/18793665251362866
  68. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364574041_An_Evidence-Based_Approach_to_Infrastructure_Development_in_Uzbekistan
  69. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352883923_The_Impact_of_Infrastructure_Spending_on_Economic_Growth_A_Case_Study_of_Indonesia
  70. https://ijble.com/index.php/journal/article/view/319
  71. https://www.eria.org/uploads/07-PSN-Book-vol_1-ch_2.pdf
  72. https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/cef-transport-eu28-billion-94-projects-boost-sustainable-and-connected-mobility-across-europe-2025-07-03_en
  73. https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-themes/infrastructure-and-investment/trans-european-transport-network-ten-t_en
  74. https://www.pnoinnovation.com/uk/funding/connecting-europe-facility/
  75. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292543422_The_Trans-European_Transport_Network_Ten-T_History_Progress_and_Financing
  76. https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/economic-recovery/recovery-and-resilience-facility_en
  77. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/sp/eu-infrastructure-spend-totals-e286-billion-gxeu01/
  78. https://www.open-contracting.org/news/analysis-finds-eus-recovery-and-resilience-facility-spending-at-risk-due-to-lack-of-transparency/
  79. https://www.eib.org/en/projects/pipelines/index
  80. https://www.eib.org/en/publications/contribution-of-major-road-and-rail-infrastructure-projects-
  81. https://www.eib.org/en/publications/20230107-cross-border-infrastructure-projects
  82. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166046296021485
  83. https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/infrastructure-investment-in-the-united-states
  84. https://fcm.ca/en/resources/municipal-infrastructure-macroeconomic-impacts
  85. https://housing-infrastructure.canada.ca/plan/icp-pic-INFC-eng.html
  86. https://www.gihub.org/countries/canada/
  87. https://www.prodensa.com/insights/blog/the-north-american-trade-corridor-powering-nearshoring-growth
  88. https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/united-states-and-canada-announce-first-ever-binational-border-infrastructure
  89. https://www.novoco.com/public-media/documents/wh_infrastructure_fact-sheet_021218.pdf
  90. https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/briefing-room/304461/highlightsofinfrastructureplan.pdf
  91. https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.com/2018/02/7483/
  92. https://www.grassiadvisors.com/blog/trumps-infrastructure-vision-building-americas-future/
  93. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/issues/infrastructure-technology/
  94. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/01/president-trumps-america-first-priorities/
  95. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/america-first-investment-policy/
  96. https://www.cbpp.org/blog/trump-15-trillion-infrastructure-plan-is-a-mirage
  97. https://www.mercatus.org/economic-insights/expert-commentary/trumps-problematic-infrastructure-plan
  98. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/12/business/trump-infrastructure-proposal.html
  99. https://www.gfoa.org/the-infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-iija-was
  100. https://www.ncsl.org/state-federal/infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-implementation-and-key-resources
  101. https://t4america.org/2021/12/15/show-me-the-money-financial-breakdown-of-the-infrastructure-law/
  102. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act/funding.cfm
  103. https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2021/08/infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-summary
  104. https://www.transportation.gov/mission/budget/infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-iija-funding-status
  105. https://budget.house.gov/press-release/fact-check-the-truth-about-bidens-failed-presidency
  106. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684
  107. https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2022/09/infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act/infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act
  108. https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/11/15/fact-sheet-biden-%25E2%2581%25A0harris-administration-transforms-nations-infrastructure-celebrates-historic-progress-in-rebuilding-america-for-the-three-year-anniversary-of-the-bipartisan-infrast/
  109. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-25-107166.pdf
  110. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2024/11/13/highway-to-hell-fed-infrastructure-funding-even-under-biden-has-been-terrible-for-the-environment
  111. https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2025-01/BG3889.pdf
  112. https://budget.house.gov/press-release/op-ed-washington-examiner-bidens-cruel-economy
  113. https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/death-discretionary-budgeting
  114. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/at-its-two-year-anniversary-the-bipartisan-infrastructure-law-continues-to-rebuild-all-of-america/
  115. https://www.iwkoeln.de/en/studies/gero-kunath-debt-fuelled-growth-in-china-and-local-government-indebtedness.html
  116. https://china.ucsd.edu/_files/2023-report_shih_local-government-debt-dynamics-in-china.pdf
  117. https://www.yicaiglobal.com/news/china-cuts-local-govt-financing-platforms-by-over-70-in-debt-cleanup-drive
  118. https://www.newsweek.com/what-happened-china-ghost-cities-2047985
  119. https://eh4s.eu/publication/reevaluating-the-china-model-the-carbon-emission-burden-of-chinas-infrastructure-overinvestment
  120. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/from-ghost-cities-smart-analyzing-dynamics-real-china-dr--lwakc
  121. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/debt-distress-road-belt-and-road
  122. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/723671560782662349/pdf/A-Framework-to-Assess-Debt-Sustainability-and-Fiscal-Risks-under-the-Belt-and-Road-Initiative.pdf
  123. https://www.cfr.org/task-force-report/chinas-belt-and-road-implications-for-the-united-states/recommendations
  124. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2024/03/28/the-fiscal-and-financial-risks-of-a-high-debt-slow-growth-world
  125. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Policy-Papers/Issues/2025/02/19/Debt-Vulnerabilities-And-Financing-Challenges-In-Emerging-Markets-And-Developing-Economies-562218
  126. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2023/12/13/developing-countries-paid-record-443-5-billion-on-public-debt-in-2022
  127. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2020/09/03/blog090320-how-strong-infrastructure-governance-can-end-waste-in-public-investment
  128. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211464515300725
  129. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/ef870d83-ec4c-54d5-9030-a6111a3efa30
  130. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02750740241231250
  131. https://www.bcg.com/press/17march2025-private-equity-infrastructure-investment-renewed-growth
  132. https://cdn.gihub.org/umbraco/media/5266/gih-infrastructure-monitor-2022-report-availability-of-private-capital-may-2023.pdf
  133. https://www.infrastructureinvestor.com/key-trends-in-infrastructure-strategies/
  134. https://www.hamiltonlane.com/en-us/insight/private-infrastructure-growth
  135. https://www.brookfield.com/views-news/insights/why-infrastructure-compelling-investment-all-cycles
  136. https://www.cambridgeassociates.com/insight/powering-the-future-infrastructure-trends-performance-and-portfolio-impact/
  137. https://www.blackstone.com/pws/essentials-of-private-infrastructure/
  138. https://www.ifminvestors.com/capabilities/know-how/
  139. https://privatewealth.goldmansachs.com/public/ACM-Infra-Primer_vFinal.pdf
  140. https://www.evident.capital/blog/building-the-future-infrastructure-as-a-key-private-asset-in-wealth-strategies
  141. https://www.csis.org/analysis/friendshoring-copper-new-pillar-us-brazilian-economic-partnership
  142. https://www.gihub.org/articles/friendshoring-and-slowbalisation-are-high-infrastructure-costs-here-to-stay/
  143. https://www.cfr.org/report/chinas-belt-and-road-implications-for-the-united-states/
  144. https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/western-rival-belt-road-has-much-prove-2023-09-25/
  145. https://www.csis.org/analysis/enabling-better-offer-how-does-west-counter-belt-and-road
  146. https://giia.net/news/report-esg-fundraising-reaches-record-highs-2024-amid-market-challenges
  147. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/infrastructure/our-insights/the-infrastructure-moment
  148. https://www.controlrisks.com/our-thinking/insights/infrastructure-and-geopolitics-four-key-shifts
  149. https://www.gihub.org/sustainable-infrastructure/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.