Building at home and abroad

Posted By Stephen M. Walt Tuesday, December 1, 2009 - 3:23 PM Share

I was struck by Louis Uchitelle's article in the Sunday NY Times on the dearth of big public works projects here in the United States. "For the first time in memory, the nation has no outsize public works project under way," he says, and then reports that:

Some economists argue that the continual construction of new megaprojects adds a quarter of a percentage point or more, on average, to the gross domestic product over the long term. Again, cause and effect aren't clear, but the strongest periods of economic growth in America have generally coincided with big outlays for new public works and the transformations they bring once completed."

One might add that we aren't spending enough to maintain our existing public infrastructure, and state and local governments across the country are facing deep budget deficits (and in some cases, a very real risk of bankruptcy).

But it's not as though the United States hasn't started some big public works projects over the past decade or so; it just hasn't been doing them here at home. We've spent billions constructing military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, and another billion or more on a giant embassy in Baghdad and another one in Pakistan. Needless to say, those "public works" projects are a drain on the U.S. economy rather than a source of additional productivity.

As I've said before, Americans have come to believe that spending government revenues on U.S. citizens here at home is usually a bad thing and should be viewed with suspicion, but spending billions on vast social engineering projects overseas is the hallmark of patriotism and should never be questioned. This position makes no sense, but it is hard to think of a prominent U.S. leader who is making an explicit case for doing somewhat less abroad so that we can afford to build a better future here at home. Debates about foreign policy, grand strategy, and military engagement -- including the current debate over Obama's decision to add another 30,000-plus troops in Afghanistan -- tend to occur in isolation from a discussion of other priorities, as if there were no tradeoffs between what we do for others and what we are able to do for Americans here at home.

And no, I'm not suggesting a return to isolationism, a retreat to "Fortress America" or any of the other labels that hawks use to try to discredit those who want a more restrained foreign policy. Rather, I'm suggesting that national security spending should not be considered sacrosanct and that a nation's leaders can hurt the country just as easily by under-investing at home as by neglecting its defenses. And given that we currently spend more on national security than the rest of the world put together, have several thousand nuclear weapons, face no great power rivals, and don't have any serious enemies nearby, it's kind of hard to argue that we're "neglecting" our defenses. We are using them unwisely (see under: Iraq, Afghanistan) and Obama is about to make his own contribution to this bipartisan blunder, but we're not exactly scrimping.

Darren McCollester/Newsmakers

EXPLORE:BUSINESS, DEVELOPMENT, ECONOMICS, FINANCIAL CRISIS, MILITARY, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
 

SIR_MIXXALOT

4:10 PM ET

December 1, 2009

A measure of Isolationism

A measure of Isolationism would be welcome, since we have shown ourselves to be empirically incompetent to have a FP that benefits us -- or others.

We are incompetent abroad. EMPIRICALLY.

This is because FP is made by the Pentagon and some neocon think tanks and not by State Dept.

Not surprising given their respective budgets

 

GRANT

3:34 AM ET

December 2, 2009

I still think the United

I still think the United States cannot politically afford to stay out of the outside world, but it might be better if we stir trouble in more low-key ways than recently. Also I'd suggest we need a very strong president to get a better rail system.

 

REUBEN HINTZ

10:31 AM ET

December 2, 2009

No Ongoing Megaprojects?

New York City Water Tunnel #3 - Begun in 1970s, EDC 2020
San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge - $6.3 Billion
International Spae Station - $100 Billion

 

DRLAKE777

5:42 PM ET

December 2, 2009

The ISS isn't here, and a lot

The ISS isn't here, and a lot of the costs do not transfer into economic growth. The Oakland Bay Bridge is simply too small to qualify. Not sure on the Tunnel, but I'm thinking it really isn't a "megaproject" when you control for the size of the US economy.

 

DWDADDIO

2:55 PM ET

December 2, 2009

Except in Obama's speech last night...

You said:
"Debates about foreign policy, grand strategy, and military engagement -- including the current debate over Obama's decision to add another 30,000-plus troops in Afghanistan -- tend to occur in isolation from a discussion of other priorities, as if there were no tradeoffs between what we do for others and what we are able to do for Americans here at home. "

From the President's speech last night:

"But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That's why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended -- because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own."

 

GWHH

6:51 PM ET

December 3, 2009

The reason local goverment

The reason local goverment and the state goverment can't make thigns work is simple. Goverment are incaple of doing a project on time and on target. They answer to no one and don't care about budgets, if they run over. They just tax people more, or sell more bonds, or what ever. What we need is this nation. Is that at the state and local level, that there is a ratio of state workers to state residents. IE the total amount of goverment workers at state and local levels, can only be a certain % of the total population! That would be a good start!

 

KERIM

4:51 AM ET

December 13, 2009

21 centure, black president. People, wake up!!!

The role of the government is changing. Do not compare it to old style megaproject sponsoring type government anymore. Internet, iphone, Gene decoding, it all happening without sponsoring of government. Initiatives are passed down to individuals because this is the Google economy, economy of creativity. Government reducing its role and passing those roles to public, because public can manage it better.
Regarding military bases, its all necessity. Do you think home is the source of wealth? 40% of profit generated by US companies is originated abroad, and this figure is rising. Have you heard about globalization? That's really happening, world is getting smaller, you cannot afford not to be everywhere. Afganistan, Iraq are megaprojects ran by US. Being fortress is weird, isolationism is weird. It is almost like dumb racism. Too dumb. American should travel abroad. It worth more to travel abroad than have a stupid Mustang :)

 

MICHAEL DAWSON

6:21 PM ET

December 14, 2009

Baran/Sweezy Blockage

In Monopoly Capital, economists Baran and Sweezy argued that public spending at home can only happen when it does not set bad (not business-friendly) precedents or spoil private-sector markets. Mega-projects at home, particularly at this moment in history, when the corporate economy can only generate new jobs when GDP growth passes 5%, are simply too hot to be permitted by the corporate babysitters we call "politicians." Mega-projects here would not only include large-scale rail improvements, but would also show the public what other kinds of things are possible with bailout monies. Hence, they are verboten.

Michael Dawson
http://www.consumertrap.com

 

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.

Read More