Public Works Management & Policy

In 1992 Professor Dick Netzer posed the question “Do We Really Need a National Infrastructure Policy?” but a national infrastructure policy really is a fanciful notion. America has never had a national infrastructure policy, there is no consensus as to what constitutes “infrastructure,” and little to agreement on public policy at the national level. Although we may agree that public expenditures to build and maintain infrastructure should be effective, efficient, and equitable, however hard we try and however sincere our efforts, we never agree on the meanings of terms like infrastructure, policy, effectiveness, efficiency, or equity. The futility of striving toward “a” national or unified infrastructure policy does not, of course, prevent America from pursuing innumerable national infrastructure policies. This essay posits that America can take many practical and important steps to manage and improve its infrastructure regardless of whether it has a document called a “national infrastructure policy.”

In an essay almost 30 years ago, Professor Dick Netzer of NYU asked the question “Do We Really Need a National Infrastructure Policy?” and came to the conclusion that we did not. As the Biden Administration prepares to roll out a multi-trillion dollar infrastructure package, the nation is faced with numerous questions regarding the infrastructure systems necessary to support continued economic growth and environmental sustainability. The purpose of this essay is to look to recent history for guidance for how to proceed by revisiting the underlying premises of the Netzer essay and reconsider whether a National Infrastructure Policy is needed. Because linking infrastructure to broader public policy objectives could both unite the nation and position it to address the many challenges that the 21st century will present, I believe the idea of a National Infrastructure Policy definitely deserves a second look.

As calls for renewed efforts to address the state of the nation’s infrastructure grow across both partisan and ideological lines, they raise pointed questions regarding the nature of such efforts. For example, how do we pay for needed infrastructure? How do we set priorities among the many and varied needs across the nation? Most critically, should the national government play the central role in such an effort or is this task more appropriately left to the states? With Netzer’s article in mind, we examine the core factors that a national infrastructure policy in the 21st century should consider. We illustrate these factors through the use of two exemplar cases: traditional wastewater infrastructure, and the infrastructure required to conduct free, safe, and fair elections. Contrary to Netzer, we contend that there are many advantages to employing a national policy in these areas.

Although its investment needs lag the dominant transportation category, water infrastructure addresses human needs at a foundational level because it plays public health and economic roles. Much of it is old and not likely to be replaced soon, so federal policy must focus on intergovernmental leadership to sustain vital dams, urban water systems, and natural systems. Fixing the federal responsibility requires attention to intergovernmental relations and the conflicting goals of investment and regulation. Regulatory reform is ongoing, and normally not amenable to political initiatives. Federal water policies for both investment and regulatory controls seem to be on a flat trajectory, which is expected because they have evolved over decades. These can be summarized as: maintain federal dams and levees, invest in small grants and leveraging funds for state and local governments, address water justice issues, and operate essential programs like flood insurance. Public health and safety concerns will continue to dominate, more than in other infrastructure sectors. The future of water investments will be to hold the course with occasional shifts to respond to emergencies and new opportunities, such as greater private sector involvement.

This article examines the Canada Line rapid rail transit project in Vancouver, British Columbia, a decade after its completion and the 2010 Winter Olympic Games for which it was accelerated. The case resides at the intersection of two project classes with well-documented patterns of underperformance: transit mega-projects and sporting mega-events. Beyond connecting a number of Vancouver 2010 venues, the Canada Line is notable for its use of a public-private partnership procurement (PPP) model, as well as the significant real estate development seen nearby. In particular, the article focuses on outcomes classified under three headings: procurement model, community impact, and land use impact. Prior to providing avenues for future research, this article finds that while the PPP model avoided substantial cost overrun risks, the lucrative operational concession was where the growth coalition pushing the project was able to make it sufficiently attractive for private partners, while externalizing cost on third-parties.

Globally, governments at all levels—national to local—are fiscally constrained, especially in the developing countries of the Global South (Africa, Latin and Central America, and the developing countries of Asia). One such country is India, which is also experiencing rapid growth in urban populations and is seeking additional revenues from public finance sources, such as development charges. In India, these charges need to meet the rational nexus principle to be legally robust. Through a review of India’s state-level enabling legislation, this article seeks to identify ways in which the enabling legal framework for development charges can promote or hamper the rational nexus principle. Finally, this article provides insights that can help jurisdictions in India, and potentially in other Global South countries, craft or amend enabling legislation so that such legislation can withstand rational nexus principle–related legal challenges.

This study explores capital asset maintenance practices and challenges in U.S. counties, which have been understudied in previous public administration research. We also compare the current practices with those found in the 2001 Government Performance Project (GPP) analysis. Interviews with 20 officials in 12 counties revealed six themes. Four of these are concerned with maintenance challenges: the economic environment, politics, human resources, and information systems. The other two themes relate to efforts that have been made by these counties to enhance maintenance through cost management and additional funding. Overall, we found that asset maintenance in these counties was negatively affected by the Great Recession, and that there is still a substantial level of unfunded maintenance, which is only slightly better than what was reported in the GPP, despite a recent focus on improvements.