{
  "id": "R40107",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R40107",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 350960,
      "date": "2009-01-06",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T02:57:06.259331",
      "title": "The Role of Public Works Infrastructure in Economic Stimulus",
      "summary": "Interest in using federal government spending to stimulate U.S. economic recovery has intensified recently in response to indicators showing significant deterioration of the economy. Policymakers at all levels of government are debating a range of options to address these problems. Some favor using traditional monetary and fiscal policies. Others, however, favor making accelerated investments in the nation\u2019s public infrastructure in order to create jobs while also meeting infrastructure needs. This report is an overview of policy issues associated with the approach of using infrastructure as a mechanism for economic stimulus.\nWhen most people think about infrastructure, they probably have in mind systems that are publicly provided and are important to the productive capacity of the nation\u2019s economy. Today, policymakers define the term more broadly to include both publicly and privately owned systems and facilities and categories that vary considerably in the degree of historic federal investment in building or rebuilding physical structures. A relatively new dimension in today\u2019s context is the notion of coupling public works with investments in environmentally friendly systems that incorporate renewable technologies or energy efficiency\u2014called \u201cgreen infrastructure.\u201d\nAcademics, economists, and policymakers debate two issues concerning the contribution of infrastructure investment to the economy. One is the effects of infrastructure investment on productivity and growth, including job creation. The second related issue is the role of infrastructure spending, which is typically a long-term activity, as a short-term mechanism to stimulate a faltering economy. Research conducted over time has resulted in a general consensus that there can be positive returns on productivity of investing in infrastructure. Many experts now argue that infrastructure spending could be an important source of stimulating labor demand and enhancing U.S. productivity through investments in roads, bridges, water systems, etc. Still, some analysts are cautious about the effectiveness of this type of fiscal stimulus because of one key issue: timing. By definition, the goal of stimulus spending is to get money into the economy swiftly. But that objective can conflict with the reality of building infrastructure projects that typically are multiyear efforts with slow initial spendout. Spending advocates counter that because the current recession is expected to be of long duration, projects with extended timeframes can still contribute to the economy\u2019s recovery, and that investments that improve long-term productivity are preferable to options that focus on consumption as a stimulus tool.\nThe overriding question in debating infrastructure spending as part of economic stimulus is, what will the stimulus buy? Two important considerations are, will the proposal produce stimulus quickly, and will it produce a significant amount of stimulus, relative to its budgetary cost. Because of the urgency of responding to the recession, stakeholder groups have been preparing lists of projects that are \u201cready to go,\u201d but the criteria for developing these lists are largely unknown. There is tension between the goal of funding activities that will create jobs quickly and the desire to invest in projects that will have sustained value that contributes to U.S. productivity.\nA critical issue for all levels of government is ensuring accountability for funds that will be spent through a stimulus program, to assure the public that decisions involving public dollars are made quickly yet with transparency, efficiency, and sufficient accountability.\nThis report will not track legislative developments; other CRS reports referenced here will do so.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40107",
          "sha1": "9ade20d0b61d26f0f3df1e1f55167354472bb131",
          "filename": "files/20090106_R40107_9ade20d0b61d26f0f3df1e1f55167354472bb131.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40107",
          "sha1": "65b304fe6697eade2592888b6ddb13fe4fb053ba",
          "filename": "files/20090106_R40107_65b304fe6697eade2592888b6ddb13fe4fb053ba.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Domestic Social Policy",
    "Economic Policy",
    "Energy Policy",
    "Environmental Policy",
    "Science and Technology Policy",
    "Transportation Policy"
  ]
}