That remains to be seen. Right now china is neglecting less sexy infrastructure for more sexy infrastructure in a very centralized non market manner. That's why an ultra modern HSR can be flooded out whenever there is a bit of rain (billions for HSR, much less for basic draimage). Also the model that the expressways are being built (loans paid off with tolls), doesn't transfer at all to local roads and bridges.
I Am Not An Economist, but, the problem with infrastructure is that its difficult to know where to put it to generate a reasonable return on investment- predicting whether a new road gets used or a new residential area becomes desirable is more of an art than a science, and if you get it wrong you've essentially thrown money out the window. China has had this issue in spades- witness its infamous "ghost cities"[1]. In the long run, China's infrastructure growth (and therefore, to at least some degree, growth in general) will be limited not by what people are willing to spend on it, but peoples' understanding of the exact shape of what they're building with it.
It does to a certain point, but then you run into diminishing returns. China needed to build infrastructure in the 80's and 90's because a lack of infrastructure was a bottleneck for further economic growth. Now they're building infrastructure primarily as a means of exerting political power (e.g. integrating western China with high speed rail and Belt and Road).
It absolutely is. The PRC tends to invest in infrastructure projects for the future, and not for today. That's something western politicians do an awful job of with their 4 year election cycles.
I just got back from China and the rate of infrastructure expansion is amazing. I have a theory that since they are highly centrally planned they don't really have to worry about if infrastructure is "profitable" in the Western sense of the term. They want to build roads and high speed trains? Well the government entirely controls the banks and construction companies so they just make some money and give it to the construction company, no concern for short term profit.
Physical infrastructure is more than just roads, and bridges. Fiber optics, and safe homes that people want to live in are both huge economic gains. The real secret to infrastructure is balancing utility with the cost to maintain vs simply building them. Unfortunately for China their demographics are in a rapid transition so they are going to be force to invest huge amounts of capital in new homes simply to keep up with changing customer demands. The US is facing similar issues based on long term energy trends, however that's a much more hypothetical issues so it's hard to predict what needs to be done.
No China infrastructure project is laden with just different kind of political strings. In US the system has to impress up on voters, unions, donors etc. In China the hogs at the trough are just different.
This might be an overgeneralization in this case...
While generally true for developing be developed countries, are you actually familiar with China's infrastructure development practices? If one thing is for sure, it's that there isn't a shortage of bridges, trains, airplanes, and roads... The Chinese government uses infrastructure-building programs to ensure it meets its centrally-planned GDP targets and to make sure everyone has jobs. Economists are actually concerned that the infrastructure is so overbuilt that the costs of future maintenance may make the return on many new infrastructure projects negative.
Meanwhile the US is notorious for crumbling infrastructure...
I mean, China has 45 thousand kilometers of HSR and the US has zero. So I'm not saying that taking people's houses to build public infrastructure is always the right thing to do, but there's a case to be made for a more balanced view than just "never".
Not when they are built by Chinese companies, using Chinese sourced labour and supplies, and then the locals are taxed / billed to use them which many can't afford to begin with. Not to mention the governments now owing that loan money plus interest, none of which really went into the local economy.
Not arguing against China, nor infrastructure projects, but B&R initiative is very China-centric, with a lot caveats that are often overlooked by short-sighted politicians.
China has this big time. Almost all of the infrastructure built out in the current book was privately financed and is heavily tolled (definitely by western standards, it is much worse by Chinese standards). This is part of the reasons chinese logistic prices are so high, but also why there are 8 day traffic jams (because the non-toll option went under construction) and why much of the infrastructure isn’t usable by local farmers.
China did have ailing infrastructure. Entire cities with no bathrooms, no drainage systems, no solid roads, no road stripes, messy wires for electricity delivery.
The only difference is that the govt there can do whatever they want and they decided that infrastructure is the way to go.
American politicians don't have those visions of magnificient infrastructure any more. All they want to do is play divisive politics.
I'm responding to the claim that it's a "white elephant" project in China. I'm not asking why we can't do it here.
Yes, China can build a 21st century infrastructure more easily than the US. They already have 10,000 miles of high-speed rail, for example, while the US has none.
Not surprising considering how much practice China has building out their country's infrastructure over the past few decades. The US back in the 1900s was also handling some of the largest and most advanced civil engineering projects of the time. But after all the obvious improvements are done and demand for infrastructure dried up the US forgot how to do civil engineering like that after a few decades. In 50 years we'll probably be admiring the civil engineering in Nigeria while complaining about the outdated infrastructure in China. Countries at different stages of development are good at different things.
In this bridge example, not only did it cost $19 billion to build, but the tolls collected actually do not cover operating costs. Doubt their 20 year plan included having to dump more money into the bridge to just keep it working. There are a lot of Youtube videos about China's similar problems with their large high speed rail network.
All infrastructure at all times in history is crumbling. The second Japan builds a new rail line it starts “crumbling”.
China might look like it’s light years ahead on infrastructure, but infrastructure starts to be a pain in 50 years when suddenly you gotta spend on replacement and maintenance.
reply