CPs to Solve Competitiveness/Economy/stem advanced Manufacturing Networks cp
Download 0.72 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Extend: “Solves Competitiveness”
- Infrastructure boosts U.S. global competitiveness through increased productivity and job creation
- They Say: “Links to Spending”
Infrastructure Regulations CP1NC — Infrastructure Regulations CPText: The United States federal government should increase regulation of infrastructure policy by:limiting involvement explicitly to areas there are high return benefits;remove and repeal barriers that increase the cost of providing infrastructure;and streamline environmental regulations on infrastructureCP solves their competitiveness advantage through innovation without spending moneyBourne 17 (Ryan Bourne – occupies the R. Evan Scharf Chair for the Public Understanding of Economics at Cato. was Head of Public Policy at the Institute of Economic Affairs and Head of Economic Research at the Centre for Policy Studies, holds a BA and an MPhil in economics from the University of Cambridge; Article; 5/17/17; CATO Institute; “Seven Ways Trump and Congress Can Improve Infrastructure without Spending a Dime of Taxpayer Money”; https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/seven-ways-trump-congress-can-improve-infrastructure-without-spending-dime; accessed 7/14/17) [DS] Seven Ways Trump and Congress Can Improve Infrastructure without Spending a Dime of Taxpayer Money. “Infrastructure Week” sees the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, unions, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and many others telling Congress that “It’s Time To Build.” Yet a quick perusal of Infrastructure Week’s website suggests a more accurate description of their demand is, “It’s Time to Spend More Taxpayer Money.” This is a shame. With President Trump pledging $1 trillion of new public and private investment across a decade and Democrats preferring direct federal spending, the group could be pushing at an open door. But the cross-party obsession on federal spending levels ignores opportunities to make infrastructure development more efficient without increasing demands on taxpayers. In order to get the biggest “bang for our buck”, infrastructure policy should encourage innovation, cost-effective provision, and investment where it is most economically beneficial. This means putting aside short-term concerns about “creating jobs” and “shovel-ready projects,” and focusing on long-run growth. Here are seven ways to do that: Government should only be involved in projects where there are high social returns that the private sector would not provide. We are way beyond this in the United States. Other countries show the possibility of having well-run and maintained privatized airports (the United Kingdom), air traffic control systems (Canada) and railways (Japan). Many areas of U.S. infrastructure are ripe for privatization, and the experience of the U.K. and elsewhere suggests this could lower prices for consumers without compromising quality. The burden of responsibility for spending and taxation on projects should be shifted towards states. Federal aid often distributes money to the detriment of economic growth. The Highway Trust Fund, for example, disproportionately benefits large, relatively underpopulated areas, rather than investing in areas of rapid growth. Harvard economist Ed Glaeser has outlined how “Alaska received $484 million in the 2015 highway-aid apportionment … about $657 for each Alaskan” while “New York State received $1.62 billion, or $82 per person.” Clearly, this does not reflect economic demands. The federal government should remove barriers to user charging, such as tolling restrictions on interstate highways and the cap on passenger facility charges at airports. User charging provides incentives to reduce congestion and ensure development closely aligns with demand. Having clear revenue streams associated with assets also makes private sector investment more likely. The economic benefits could be substantial. The Federal Highway Administration estimates congestion pricing could reduce the amount of capital investment required to meet the same goals for the highway system by around 30 percent. Decisions on what government projects to undertake given scarce resources should be decided by selecting those with the highest benefit/cost ratios. Though governments around the world tend to be overoptimistic about the benefits of major projects generally, the Federal Highway Administration has estimated selecting highway projects on this basis could see the same level of benefits delivered for about 25 percent less cost. The tax bias towards government debt financing of projects should be ended. Under present federal income tax law, the interest income you receive from investing in municipal bonds is free from federal income taxes, which is not the case for private debt. This tips the deck in favor of government investment and deters private infrastructure ventures. Environmental regulations which delay and raise the cost of projects should be streamlined. A report for the outgoing Obama administration estimated that “the average time to complete a [National Environmental Policy Act] study increased from 2.2 years in the 1970s … to 6.6 years in 2011.” This increases costs and adds significant uncertainty to a project, deterring private investment. Imposing time limits for agency decisions or narrowing the Act are two crude ways to curb this trend. Finally, regulations which raise the cost of providing infrastructure should be repealed. The federal Davis-Bacon Act commits federal construction projects to pay “prevailing wages” for construction workers, often meaning union rates at a significantly higher cost. Repealing the Act could have saved taxpayers $13 billion between 2015 and 2023, according to the CBO. Likewise, Buy America regulations impose requirements that federal construction projects use American steel, iron, and other products in highway construction unless waivers are granted, which also raises costs. This could get worse of course, if the Trump administration imposes further import restrictions on steel imports. Trump has a huge opportunity to overhaul all these areas to improve infrastructure for generations to come. But if he is to do so, he will need to cast aside the notion from “Infrastructure Week” and advocacy groups that improving infrastructure is all about more spending, and instead focus on getting the structures and institutions right. Extend: “Solves Competitiveness”Infrastructure solves economic competitiveness and is independently key to quality of life, national security, and educationPalei 15 (Tatyana Palei – Associate Professor, Department of General Management, Kazan Federal University Kazan, Russian Federation; PDF; 2015; Science Direct; “Assessing the Impact of Infrastructure on Economic Growth and Global Competitiveness”; http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212567115003226; accessed 7/14/17) [DS] The aim of this research is to examine the degree of the influence of infrastructure on national competitiveness. Through an effectiveness of infrastructure management can improve industrial policy and gain national competitiveness. According to research of the World Bank there are several factors influencing the economy growth effectiveness and national competitiveness, including institutions, infrastructure, macroeconomic environment, health and primary education, technological readiness, market size, etc and also, there are various frameworks, models, and analytical tools that can be used in studying the causal relationships between some key infrastructure factors and national competitiveness. Based on existing models, this study aims to identify and discuss the key infrastructure factors that determine national competitiveness, which in turn influence positively on the total results of industrial policy. The results of study showed that national competitiveness is influenced basically by the level of institutional development and other seven factors, including infrastructure, in turn infrastructure factor is determined mainly by the quality of roads, railroad infrastructure, air transport and electricity supply. The key institutional traps were singled out that prevent the development of the national economy. These findings contribute to an understanding of the key factors that determine economic growth, help to explain what infrastructure factors allows to be more successful in raising income levels and offer policymakers and business leaders an important tool in the formulation of improved economic policies and institutional reforms. The subject of this study is to evaluate the impact of infrastructure on global competitiveness. In general, infrastructure problems research is considering only a narrow part of the infrastructure capital that is in public ownership. Even if there is an opportunity evaluate private infrastructure capital, it is difficult to separate its impact on industrial growth from the effects of public infrastructure. Therefore, in our study, we will consider only the infrastructure assets in public ownership. Fourie (2006) argues that the infrastructure consists of two elements - "capitalness" and "publicness". Accordingly, it consists of assets that have a major, but not necessarily social. We classified the degree of capital intensity of infrastructure and social significance (Table 1). Therefore, the infrastructure may include capital-intensive facilities that are not of public interest. But the public actively uses most of the infrastructure. Economists refer to such objects as physical infrastructure or infrastructure capital. In the scientific literature, the role of infrastructure is evaluated by the services provided by the physical infrastructure assets. Infrastructure services, such as energy, transport, telecommunications, provision of water, sanitation and safe disposal of waste are fundamental to all kinds of household activities and economic production. We agree with the Prud'homme (2004), Baldwin and Dixon (2008), that infrastructure is a long-term, spatially bound, capital-intensive asset with a long life cycle and the period of return on investment is often associated with a "market failure" (a situation in which the market system crashes, and economic efficiency is not achieved). For example, monopoly (if there is only one seller on the market, who can abuse their position and put a price on his product much higher than it costs), or a natural monopoly, it is a form of public goods with favourable externalities (including through external networks), which leads to reduce costs in the business, or provides significant social benefit (merit goods). Baldwin and Dixon (2008), in accordance with these features, divided infrastructure into three groups: machinery and equipment, buildings, engineering structures. The field of our study includes only the basic physical infrastructure, except the social, environmental and institutional infrastructure (schools, hospitals, prisons, etc.). In such a manner, under the infrastructure we mean the basic physical infrastructure consisting of: transport infrastructure, water infrastructure, telecommunication infrastructure and energy infrastructure. This infrastructure will be called the public infrastructure because it creates benefits for a large number of users. 2. Related Literature and Research Results Last years the fact of the positive impact of infrastructure on productivity and economic growth is in increased attention. Fig. 1 depicts the most famous work on the subject in this area over the last 20 years. Aschauer (1989) found out that almost simultaneously with a reduction of public investment almost everywhere the productivity growth fell sharply. He was the first who proposed that the reduction of productive public services in the United States may be crucial in explaining the overall reduction in the rate of productivity growth in the country. Mamatzakis' (2008) calculations suggest that the infrastructure is an important component of economic activity in Greece. His estimates show that the public infrastructure reduces costs in the most manufacturing industries, as it strengthens the growth of productivity of resources. The efficient infrastructure supports economic growth, improves quality of life, and it is important for national security (Baldwin, Dixon, 2008). The researchers analyze the impact of infrastructure in various aspects: regional competitiveness, economic growth, income inequality, output, labour productivity, the impact on the environment and well-being (in time and cost savings, increased safety, the development of information networks) (Bristow and Nellthorp (2000)). Some authors argue that investment in infrastructure can stimulate organizational and management changes: the construction of the railway system will lead to the standardization of the scMaahedule, which leads to increased revenue in addition to having railway service (Mattoon, 2004). Public infrastructure provides the geographic concentration of economic resources and wider and deeper markets for output and employment (Gu, Macdonald, 2009). It affects the markets and resources of the finished product, helps to determine the spatial patterns of development and provides an extensive network of individual users at low prices. Public infrastructure is generally seen as a foundation on which to build the economy (Macdonald, 2008). Grundey (2008), Burinskiene and Rudzkiene (2009) have conducted an analysis of the implementation of sustainable development policies, they note the development of infrastructure as one of the most important aspects in the field of strategic planning for sustainable spatial and socio-economic development of the country. Aschauer (1998) confirms that the public infrastructure is the basis of the quality of life: good roads reduce the number of accidents and increase public safety, water supply system reduces the level of disease, waste management improves the health and aesthetics of the environment. Agenor and Moreno-Dodson (2006) examined the association between the presence of infrastructure and health and education in the community, and proved that infrastructure services are essential to ensure the quality and availability of health and education, which provide a wealth effect to a large extent. Damaskopoulos, Gatautis, Vitkauskaite (2008) attributed to the sources of infrastructure performance. Demetriades and Mamuneas (2000) suggest that social capital infrastructure has a significant positive impact on earnings, the demand for private means of production and delivery of products in 12 OECD countries. The results of the assessments that were made by Mentolio, Sole-Olle (2009) confirmed the idea that productive public investment in roads positively influenced by the relative increase in labour productivity in the Spanish regions. Macdonald (2008) analyzed the impact of public infrastructure on the level of private production and found that private infrastructure is vital for the private manufacturing sector. Companies are looking at social capital as an unpaid factor of production while maximizing profits. Nijkamp (1986) confirms that the infrastructure is one of the tools for the region development. It can affect, directly or indirectly, on the social-economic activities and other regional capacity, as well as factors of production. The author emphasizes that infrastructure policy is a condition of the regional development policy: it does not guarantee regional competitiveness, but creates the necessary conditions for achieving regional development objectives. Snieska and Draksaite (2007) say that the competitiveness of the economy is determined by many different factors, and indicator of infrastructure is one of them. Snieska and Bruneckiene (2009) identified infrastructure as one of the indicators of the competitiveness of regions within the country. It refers to the physical infrastructure (consisting of road transport infrastructure, telecommunications, newly built property, external accessibility of the region by land, air and water) as an indicator of the factors of production, competitive conditions in the region. Martinkus and Lukasevicius (2008) consolidate that the infrastructure services and physical infrastructure are factors that affect the investment climate at the local level and increase the attractiveness of the region. Further, we examine the extent of the infrastructure influence for global competitiveness and sources. Infrastructure boosts U.S. global competitiveness through increased productivity and job creationSlaughter 11 (Matthew J. Slaughter – Associate Dean for the MBA Program and the Signal Companies' Professor of Management at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth. He is also currently a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research; a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations; a member of the academic advisory board of the International Tax Policy Forum; an academic advisor to the Deloitte Center on Cross-Border Investment; and a member of the U.S. State Department's Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy, bachelor's degree summa cum laude from University of Notre Dame in 1990, and his doctorate from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1994; PDF; Spring 2011; Executive Summary; “BUILDING COMPETITIVENESS AMERICAN JOBS, AMERICAN INFRASTRUCTURE, AMERICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS”; http://www.bafuture.org/pdf/OFII_Infrastructure_Paper.pdf; accessed 7/14/17) [DS] INFRASTRUCTURE HAS LONG BEEN ONE OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF AMERICA’S COMPETITIVE SUCCESS. The competitive success of the United States over much of the 20th century was based on extended periods of strong productivity growth in companies and resulting growth in average earnings for workers. High-quality infrastructure has helped boost U.S. productivity and standards of living, in part by encouraging global companies to create high-paying jobs here. Today, however, America’s infrastructure is deteriorating—both in absolute terms and relative to other countries that are rapidly bolstering their infrastructure. IMPROVING AMERICA’S INFRASTRUCTURE WILL BOOST ITS GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS. Although very welcome, renewed U.S. economic growth and ongoing recovery from the World Financial Crisis and Great Recession have not eliminated the reality that today the United States is in a new era of global competition to attract, retain, and grow the dynamic jobs of global companies. These companies have ever-widening choices for where to locate around the world, choices for which infrastructure is a major consideration. Not improving America’s infrastructure now could mean the loss of future American investment and jobs to other countries. APPLYING THE BEST PRACTICES IN INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AND INNOVATION FROM AROUND THE WORLD CAN HELP AMERICA REBUILD ITS INFRASTRUCTURE. In recent decades, many countries have faced the challenges of maintaining and modernizing their infrastructure—challenges that helped create highly innovative world-class infrastructure companies. Many governments have improved their countries’ infrastructure by crafting partnerships that draw on the expertise and experiences of these companies. The U.S. subsidiaries of global companies, along with their U.S.-based counterparts, are already on the job helping fund, build, and operate infrastructure projects in the United States that are high-quality, efficient, and green. They Say: “Links to Spending”CP avoids the Spending DA, no funding is required for infrastructure regulation reformBourne 16 (Ryan Bourne – occupies the R. Evan Scharf Chair for the Public Understanding of Economics at Cato. was Head of Public Policy at the Institute of Economic Affairs and Head of Economic Research at the Centre for Policy Studies, holds a BA and an MPhil in economics from the University of Cambridge; Article; 11/14/16; City A.M; “The Trump-Hammond-Keynesian consensus is wrong: Higher infrastructure spending does not equal greater growth”; http://www.cityam.com/253627/trump-hammond-keynesian-consensus-wrong-higher; accessed 7/14/17) [DS] In the aftermath of Donald Trump’s victory last week, even his most vociferous left-leaning economic critics were heralding the fact that he has advocated huge increases in infrastructure spending – something which Keynesian economists here have been calling for over much of the past six years. In fact, this “increase infrastructure spending” clarion cry is fast becoming political consensus. Labour has argued for it since 2010. And chancellor Philip Hammond has given some not-so-subtle indications that the Autumn Statement will contain provisions for more in the way of this type of spending. It’s all a bit baffling. The Keynesian theory is that at times of high unemployment – when the economy is not running at its “potential” – temporary government spending on infrastructure (roads, bridges, rail) can increase demand and keep growth on a steady path. This spending can then be withdrawn as the economy recovers. In other words, governments can fine-tune the economy to smooth the business cycle. There are lots of challengeable assumptions to this theory, not least how any increase in spending might be offset by monetary policy and how consumers and investors might respond to the expectation of future higher taxes to fund the investment. There is also the little issue of most infrastructure projects having long lag times. But even if one assumes these issues away, there is little evidence the UK is in some sort of heavy slump. Unemployment is very low at 4.9 per cent and the employment rate at historic highs. Data last week showed that UK firms hired permanent staff at the fastest pace in eight months in October. Retail sales are strong. The economy is growing at 2 per cent annualised (exactly the growth rate forecast in the 2016 Budget). Lots of economists still reeling from the Brexit vote just assume the economy will be weaker next year, but these are the same economists who forecast weakness this year too – perhaps highlighting one of the key practical arguments against the use of this type of fiscal policy: that because of forecast errors it actually risks exacerbating booms and busts. Advocates of more infrastructure investment put these critiques aside by saying that it is really a supply-side policy. With borrowing costs so low, they believe government investments can improve the long-term productivity performance of the economy in a cost-effective way. Investing in transport infrastructure can enhance economic mobility, for example. They are right that good infrastructure can improve economic performance. But the international evidence that government infrastructure spending facilitates higher economic growth is surprisingly mixed. The main reason can be summarised in one word: “politics”. For rather than investing in things with high economic returns, political choices often mean investment in favoured regions, or on projects with lower economic returns but higher political rewards (think HS2 rather than strategic road schemes with much higher benefit-cost ratios). Devoid of market pressures, state infrastructure projects are often beset by cost overruns. Japan spent $6.3 trillion of public money on big projects, and ended up with bridges to nowhere. Spain, likewise, was left with empty airports. A recent assessment of a host of major projects in China showed a great deal of infrastructure investment there was plagued by overestimated benefits, meaning that 55 per cent of the projects had a benefit-to-cost ratio below one, i.e. they led to a net loss in economic value. That’s not to say all government infrastructure investments are worthless, merely that political decisions are unlikely to result in a significant upward impact on economic growth, as promised. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 0.72 Mb. Share with your friends:
|