NEW PAPER via @Alon_Levy: Why is American infrastructure so expensive?
We have urgent infrastructure needs. Meeting those needs would create jobs.
But not until we stop making critical mistakes. So let’s look at what other countries are doing right. 1/ niskanencenter.org/report-so-you-…
Infrastructure creates more long-term productive potential for the economy and society. It improves productivity and living standards. But most countries spend a fraction of what the U.S. does, with better results. 2/
First, U.S. infrastructure is too slow. In 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act sought to tackle infrastructure projects but was plagued by extremely slow lead times and massive delays. This is mostly thanks to U.S. red tape. 3/
Even without the delays, projects could be sped by (1) increasing state capacity...specifically expanding the in-house design teams of state governments so that they can handle large projects. Too often the U.S. emphasizes cutting costs...at the expense of success. 4/
(2) Speeding up planning and construction. Low-cost countries do this by selecting contracts based on the time it takes to complete them and their technical merit...not just picking the lowest-cost contractor. Time IS money. 5/
Related, this process of selecting contracts can reduce red tape and improve cooperation between public and private sectors, preventing contractors from bidding low and doing poor work. Contracts should be itemized, specifying how much labor and materials are required. 6/
Civil servants, not elected officials, should be empowered to oversee the projects, so that administration changes don’t disrupt projects, and so that funds won’t be directed in politically-charged ways. 7/
Finally, the U.S needs to cut the costs of its infrastructure. There is NO reason U.S. subways should cost $400-$800 million per km while the global average is $250m. @brianmrosenthal details the reasons the subway is particularly expensive in NYC. 8/ nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyr…
The U.S. can cut infrastructure costs by reducing overdesign (to accommodate obsolete rules and regulations), improving project management, reducing the influence of temporary political appointees, etc. 9/
These are some broad-brush areas where the U.S. can improve the speed and quality of its infrastructure projects, but the full paper has a complete set of recommendations. Check it out here. 10/10 niskanencenter.org/report-so-you-…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
THREAD: In the absence of Congressional action on immigration reform, administrations have taken charge. The result? Unpredictable policies that disrupt businesses and families.
This is not a comprehensive plan for immigration reform; it’s a shortlist of the ideas that will most obviously benefit Americans.
Nativist sentiment permeates American politics right now. It's important to demonstrate how immigration reform can serve the national interest.
We’ve carefully selected a range of academics, scholars, entrepreneurs, lawmakers, lawyers, advocates, and immigrant contributors from a broad range of ideological spectrums to weigh in.
Without further ado, here are the reforms they believe could best serve our citizens.
MASSIVE NEW PAPER: Last year, we released our policy vision that rejected the false dichotomy of “pro-market” and “pro-government."
We've transformed this into a concrete agenda, our blueprint for the "free-market welfare state" THREAD 1/ niskanencenter.org/faster_fairer/…
The focus of our efforts is not to provide a complete program to save America. In this agenda, we’re addressing the problem of restoring inclusive prosperity — revitalizing lagging economic dynamism while ensuring that the rewards of such dynamism are broadly shared. 2/
Even before #COVID19, America’s 21st-century malaise of dimming economic vitality and deepening social divisions demonstrated that something has gone wrong. Very wrong. Let’s do a little review. niskanencenter.org/what-the-pande…
NEW PAPER and THREAD: “Defunding the police” does not enjoy broad public support in Black communities.
Most voters prefer reform (community groups, a larger social safety net, and limits on police violence) over abolishment. 1/ niskanencenter.org/reconstructing…
First, some history. It’s been common to portray African Americans as passive victims of policies. This downplays the intentionality and purpose behind Black leaders’ long struggle for public safety in their communities in the ‘80s and ‘90s. 2/
Here’s a chart of the crime wave, which rose in the ‘60s and ‘70s, stalled in the ‘80s, and peaked again in 1991 before declining. The black community was hit hard, and calls for more policing and more punitive justice were bipartisan and crossed racial lines. 3/
THREAD: A @CIS_org report claims that refugees cost the govt more than they contribute. But the report inflates costs and reaches overconfident conclusions.
.@CIS_org's method of calculating avg refugee cost: 1) start with estimates of the lifetime fiscal impact of immigrants by age+edu from @theNASEM report 2) add costs for refugee resettlement/welfare, 3) apply estimates to refugees based on their age+education in the 2016 (ASR).
The ASR includes a question on educational attainment, but rather than rely on refugees' responses, CIS report opts to subject their answers to arbitrary cutoffs based on the ASR's years of schooling question, effectively downgrading educational attainment.
STARTING NOW: Hear from @Blitterman, @RepRooney, Matt Sonnesyn, @CFTCbehnam, and @khilldavis as they discuss implications of climate change risk to the U.S. financial system.
"From a political and from a 'what's right' point of view, climate change is a central issue. Republicans have left the discussion entirely, but Florida is ground zero. People are starting to realize that." - @RepRooney
.@Blitterman: "Climate is a risk management problem. And when you look at it from that perspective, a lot of things become very clear. For one, we don't have the right incentives...the first recommendation of this report is that the U.S. has to price carbon."
Historically, there has been broad, bipartisan support for the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP).
The Trump administration has politicized the idea of refugee assistance and has slashed refugee admissions across the board. 2/ niskanencenter.org/how-trump-poli…
In 2017, the number of refugees admitted to the U.S. was less than half of the 100,000 proposed by President Obama. The Trump administration has repeatedly slashed the ceiling on refugee admissions — with fiscal year 2020’s proposal standing at 18,000. 3/