{
  "id": "R42018",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R42018",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 414399,
      "date": "2011-09-21",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T00:32:50.855675",
      "title": "The Role of Public Works Infrastructure in Economic Recovery",
      "summary": "During the recent recession, policymakers took a number of monetary and fiscal policy actions to stimulate the economy. Notably, Congress enacted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) that provided increases in federal spending and reduction in taxes in order to increase demand for goods and services. However, as the economy is only slowly emerging from the recession, interest in using federal government spending to boost U.S. economic recovery has again intensified. There is widespread desire to accelerate job creation and economic recovery, although consensus on how to do so is not apparent. Policymakers at all levels of government are debating a range of options to address these problems. This report is an overview of policy issues associated with one approach that also was included in ARRA: using accelerated investments in the nation\u2019s public infrastructure as a mechanism to benefit economic recovery.\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. \nAcademics, economists, and policymakers debate two issues concerning the contribution of infrastructure investment to the economy. One issue is the effects of infrastructure investment on productivity and growth. The second related issue is the role of infrastructure spending, which is typically a long-term activity, as a short-term mechanism to invigorate a sluggish 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 infrastructure spending is different. The reality is that large infrastructure projects typically are multiyear efforts with slow initial spendout that continues over a period of time. Spending advocates contend that to the extent that recovery from a lengthy recession is slow\u2014as it is now\u2014projects with extended timeframes can still contribute to the economy\u2019s recovery.\nA key question in debating infrastructure as part of job creation to aid economic recovery is, what will the increased spending buy? Two important considerations are, will it produce short-term or long-term benefit, and will it produce a significant economic boost, relative to its budgetary cost. A commonly asked question is, how many jobs will be created? \nSetting priorities for infrastructure spending is based on a combination of factors, often including estimates of funding needs. Determining \u201cneed\u201d is complicated by differences in purpose, criteria, and timing. In the context of evaluating job creation plans, a further complication is whether funds are targeted to true need, and whether \u201cneed\u201d is defined by engineering assessments, by economic measures such as unemployment, or a program\u2019s effectiveness in leveraging private capital.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42018",
          "sha1": "83b990d7e02e4619a9b981e1618c52173f2e64f2",
          "filename": "files/20110921_R42018_83b990d7e02e4619a9b981e1618c52173f2e64f2.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42018",
          "sha1": "e3c7652ac91de948f01450d374426948ab19d7ba",
          "filename": "files/20110921_R42018_e3c7652ac91de948f01450d374426948ab19d7ba.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Economic Policy",
    "Foreign Affairs"
  ]
}