Hashimu lwenje
JF-Expert Member
- Oct 2, 2017
- 415
- 359
WASHINGTON—
US President Biden called on members of Congress on Wednesday (April 7) to approve his $2 trillion infrastructure plan. Biden said that China and other countries ran ahead of the United States in investing in the future, "trying to grasp the future." Last week, Biden mentioned China many times when he announced the plan. He said that the goal of his infrastructure plan is to allow the United States to win competition with China. However, some analysts pointed out that the United States should not use China as a reference when it comes to infrastructure investment.
Huang Tianlei: Biden's infrastructure plan is not comparable to China's
Biden's infrastructure plan includes repairing roads, bridges, intercity trains and other transportation infrastructure, modernizing stations, airports, and ports, renovating communities, updating power grids, expanding broadband Internet coverage, and replacing lead water pipes in drinking water systems. and so on.
In addition, given Biden’s broad definition of “infrastructure”, his plan also includes industrial policies for advanced manufacturing, electric vehicle, clean energy, and care industries, public investment in technology research and development, and Race, gender, and economic equality policies, etc.
Huang Tianlei, a researcher at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, believes that Biden's infrastructure plan is not directly comparable to China's infrastructure plan.
He wrote in a reply to VOA’s email: “Biden’s infrastructure plan is not only about infrastructure in the traditional sense. It is multi-faceted. Among them, there are very important factors of racial justice, which have a great deal of response. Climate change factors, as well as industrial policy factors. These make Biden’s plan not directly comparable to China’s infrastructure investment after the 2008-2009 international financial crisis. However, China’s experience may provide some lessons. ."
David Ditch: The U.S. does not need to follow China in infrastructure investment
Promoting the economy through large-scale infrastructure construction is a strategy that the Chinese government has repeatedly used in the face of economic difficulties. Especially after the international financial crisis in 2008, China launched 4 trillion yuan in infrastructure investment, which drove the blowout development of China's infrastructure.
According to data from the US Council on Foreign Relations, China’s investment in infrastructure accounts for 8% of GDP, compared with 2.4% in the United States. President Biden vowed to reverse this situation.
However, David Ditch, a budget researcher at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, believes that the United States does not need to follow China in infrastructure investment.
He told VOA: “China’s investment in infrastructure should have been higher than ours, because they are still developing, and the United States is already a developed country, and the demand of developed countries is smaller than that of developing countries.
Ditch also pointed out that the focus of infrastructure investment in the United States and China should also be different.
Take high-speed rail as an example. High-speed rail is obviously one of China's key infrastructure investments. China has built a high-speed rail with a total length of 39,000 kilometers, operating at a speed of about 350 kilometers per hour, and Beijing plans to increase the total length of high-speed rail by 30% by 2025. In contrast, the United States not only lags far behind China in the development of high-speed railways, but even ordinary railways are in urgent need of improvement.
As a "train fan", President Biden not only proposed to build a new railway in his infrastructure plan, but also allocated 80 billion US dollars to repair and modernize the "Amtrak" (Amtrak). "Amtrak" subsequently released an ambitious railroad expansion plan, responding to Biden's plan with "Vision 2035".
However, in David Ditch's view, it is meaningless to catch up with China in railway transportation construction. He explained that China's population density is high and cities are close to each other, so it is necessary to vigorously develop intercity rail transit. The United States is very sparsely populated, with less than 10% of the population relying on rail transit to travel. In contrast, 90% of the population uses roads and bridges every day, and investment in the latter is more in line with the US environment.
"We should not compare the infrastructure we want to develop with those owned by other countries, because other countries develop infrastructure based on their needs and their geographic environment." Ditch told VOA.
Belt: The American political system is deliberately designed to make it difficult for the government to do things
David Ditch’s views are representative in the United States, but they also face skepticism. Some people believe that the shortcomings of the United States on the issue of infrastructure are its one-sided emphasis on temporary and one-time benefits, and the lack of long-term thinking and a view of the overall situation.
Arthur Kroeber, founding partner of Gavekal Dragonomics, a research company focused on China, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal a few days ago that when China measures the value of high-speed rail, it focuses on the difficulties it can bring. Quantitative benefits, such as the improvement of industrial efficiency, are what the United States should learn from. He said: "When calculating the cost of infrastructure, we should take into account the wide range of social benefits it can bring, not just forecast revenue."
Thomas J. Campanella, a historian of urban planning research at Cornell University, also pointed out to the Wall Street Journal that the United States is inadequate in promoting infrastructure projects. He said: "We paid too much attention to the residents who were directly affected, and did not make necessary considerations from the perspective of the entire society."
Of course there is also the issue of efficiency. President Biden’s infrastructure plan lasts for eight years, but it must be reviewed and revised by Congress before it is implemented. This will be a long and difficult process. To what extent Biden’s initial vision can be implemented Unknowns.
Biden said at the White House on Wednesday that he is willing to compromise on infrastructure plans, but cannot tolerate doing nothing. He said, "Do you think China is waiting for investment in this kind of digital infrastructure research and development? I assure you that they are not waiting. But they expect American democracy to be too slow, too limited, and too divided to keep up. "
Previously, many infrastructure projects in the United States were aborted in such a game. Even in the process of construction, progress was slow due to the need to accommodate the demands of various stakeholders.
Todd L. Belt, director of the Political Management Program at George Washington University, believes that the differences in infrastructure issues between the United States and China are largely due to the differences in the political systems of the two countries.
He told VOA: “China’s political leadership, military, and economy are completely unified, so the government can easily guide the direction of the economy. If it wants to develop 5G and increase investment in the field of artificial intelligence, it will immediately It can be achieved. In the United States, the government needs to make more efforts, it needs to provide incentives, subsidies, and it needs to convince people that this is profitable, so as to promote the economic development in a certain direction. This cannot be done by the central government Arrived."
However, China's "mandatory" system has brought many problems while setting off a frenzy of infrastructure construction.
Huang Tianlei, a researcher at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, pointed out that China's 4 trillion infrastructure investment is mainly through state-owned banks and state-owned enterprises to boost the supply side of the economy, which has brought about overcapacity and more serious pollution. In addition, China's industrial policies in high-tech fields such as semiconductors and 5G have caused overheating of investment in these fields. The Financial Times calls this a new "Great Leap Forward", which may lead to a huge waste of resources.
On the other hand, China's large-scale public investment has also exacerbated the debt problem. According to estimates by the International Finance Association, the ratio of China’s debt to GDP has risen from 200% in 2011 to 335%.
Todd Belt, director of the Political Management Program at George Washington University, said that the American political system is precisely to avoid this kind of situation where the government's excessive power will bring greater hidden dangers to society.
"The American political system is deliberately designed to make it difficult for the government to do things. This is something we must remember," Professor Belt said to VOA.
US President Biden called on members of Congress on Wednesday (April 7) to approve his $2 trillion infrastructure plan. Biden said that China and other countries ran ahead of the United States in investing in the future, "trying to grasp the future." Last week, Biden mentioned China many times when he announced the plan. He said that the goal of his infrastructure plan is to allow the United States to win competition with China. However, some analysts pointed out that the United States should not use China as a reference when it comes to infrastructure investment.
Huang Tianlei: Biden's infrastructure plan is not comparable to China's
Biden's infrastructure plan includes repairing roads, bridges, intercity trains and other transportation infrastructure, modernizing stations, airports, and ports, renovating communities, updating power grids, expanding broadband Internet coverage, and replacing lead water pipes in drinking water systems. and so on.
In addition, given Biden’s broad definition of “infrastructure”, his plan also includes industrial policies for advanced manufacturing, electric vehicle, clean energy, and care industries, public investment in technology research and development, and Race, gender, and economic equality policies, etc.
Huang Tianlei, a researcher at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, believes that Biden's infrastructure plan is not directly comparable to China's infrastructure plan.
He wrote in a reply to VOA’s email: “Biden’s infrastructure plan is not only about infrastructure in the traditional sense. It is multi-faceted. Among them, there are very important factors of racial justice, which have a great deal of response. Climate change factors, as well as industrial policy factors. These make Biden’s plan not directly comparable to China’s infrastructure investment after the 2008-2009 international financial crisis. However, China’s experience may provide some lessons. ."
David Ditch: The U.S. does not need to follow China in infrastructure investment
Promoting the economy through large-scale infrastructure construction is a strategy that the Chinese government has repeatedly used in the face of economic difficulties. Especially after the international financial crisis in 2008, China launched 4 trillion yuan in infrastructure investment, which drove the blowout development of China's infrastructure.
According to data from the US Council on Foreign Relations, China’s investment in infrastructure accounts for 8% of GDP, compared with 2.4% in the United States. President Biden vowed to reverse this situation.
However, David Ditch, a budget researcher at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, believes that the United States does not need to follow China in infrastructure investment.
He told VOA: “China’s investment in infrastructure should have been higher than ours, because they are still developing, and the United States is already a developed country, and the demand of developed countries is smaller than that of developing countries.
Ditch also pointed out that the focus of infrastructure investment in the United States and China should also be different.
Take high-speed rail as an example. High-speed rail is obviously one of China's key infrastructure investments. China has built a high-speed rail with a total length of 39,000 kilometers, operating at a speed of about 350 kilometers per hour, and Beijing plans to increase the total length of high-speed rail by 30% by 2025. In contrast, the United States not only lags far behind China in the development of high-speed railways, but even ordinary railways are in urgent need of improvement.
As a "train fan", President Biden not only proposed to build a new railway in his infrastructure plan, but also allocated 80 billion US dollars to repair and modernize the "Amtrak" (Amtrak). "Amtrak" subsequently released an ambitious railroad expansion plan, responding to Biden's plan with "Vision 2035".
However, in David Ditch's view, it is meaningless to catch up with China in railway transportation construction. He explained that China's population density is high and cities are close to each other, so it is necessary to vigorously develop intercity rail transit. The United States is very sparsely populated, with less than 10% of the population relying on rail transit to travel. In contrast, 90% of the population uses roads and bridges every day, and investment in the latter is more in line with the US environment.
"We should not compare the infrastructure we want to develop with those owned by other countries, because other countries develop infrastructure based on their needs and their geographic environment." Ditch told VOA.
Belt: The American political system is deliberately designed to make it difficult for the government to do things
David Ditch’s views are representative in the United States, but they also face skepticism. Some people believe that the shortcomings of the United States on the issue of infrastructure are its one-sided emphasis on temporary and one-time benefits, and the lack of long-term thinking and a view of the overall situation.
Arthur Kroeber, founding partner of Gavekal Dragonomics, a research company focused on China, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal a few days ago that when China measures the value of high-speed rail, it focuses on the difficulties it can bring. Quantitative benefits, such as the improvement of industrial efficiency, are what the United States should learn from. He said: "When calculating the cost of infrastructure, we should take into account the wide range of social benefits it can bring, not just forecast revenue."
Thomas J. Campanella, a historian of urban planning research at Cornell University, also pointed out to the Wall Street Journal that the United States is inadequate in promoting infrastructure projects. He said: "We paid too much attention to the residents who were directly affected, and did not make necessary considerations from the perspective of the entire society."
Of course there is also the issue of efficiency. President Biden’s infrastructure plan lasts for eight years, but it must be reviewed and revised by Congress before it is implemented. This will be a long and difficult process. To what extent Biden’s initial vision can be implemented Unknowns.
Biden said at the White House on Wednesday that he is willing to compromise on infrastructure plans, but cannot tolerate doing nothing. He said, "Do you think China is waiting for investment in this kind of digital infrastructure research and development? I assure you that they are not waiting. But they expect American democracy to be too slow, too limited, and too divided to keep up. "
Previously, many infrastructure projects in the United States were aborted in such a game. Even in the process of construction, progress was slow due to the need to accommodate the demands of various stakeholders.
Todd L. Belt, director of the Political Management Program at George Washington University, believes that the differences in infrastructure issues between the United States and China are largely due to the differences in the political systems of the two countries.
He told VOA: “China’s political leadership, military, and economy are completely unified, so the government can easily guide the direction of the economy. If it wants to develop 5G and increase investment in the field of artificial intelligence, it will immediately It can be achieved. In the United States, the government needs to make more efforts, it needs to provide incentives, subsidies, and it needs to convince people that this is profitable, so as to promote the economic development in a certain direction. This cannot be done by the central government Arrived."
However, China's "mandatory" system has brought many problems while setting off a frenzy of infrastructure construction.
Huang Tianlei, a researcher at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, pointed out that China's 4 trillion infrastructure investment is mainly through state-owned banks and state-owned enterprises to boost the supply side of the economy, which has brought about overcapacity and more serious pollution. In addition, China's industrial policies in high-tech fields such as semiconductors and 5G have caused overheating of investment in these fields. The Financial Times calls this a new "Great Leap Forward", which may lead to a huge waste of resources.
On the other hand, China's large-scale public investment has also exacerbated the debt problem. According to estimates by the International Finance Association, the ratio of China’s debt to GDP has risen from 200% in 2011 to 335%.
Todd Belt, director of the Political Management Program at George Washington University, said that the American political system is precisely to avoid this kind of situation where the government's excessive power will bring greater hidden dangers to society.
"The American political system is deliberately designed to make it difficult for the government to do things. This is something we must remember," Professor Belt said to VOA.
