Abstract
This article compares and contrasts two debates about the role of infrastructure in American economic growth and development. The contemporary policy debate revolves around the extent to which the observed decline in public works investment since 1960, measured as a proportion of gross national product, has been a cause of the coincident decline of productivity over the same period. An earlier debate in the economic history field revolved around whether the railroads were “indispensable” to America's economic growth and how the building of a rail network affected the shape of that growth. The comparison reveals that just as the first debate went down many blind alleys, so did the second one. At the same time, however, after a long period of discussion and gestation, some firm conclusions arose in both controversies. In the infrastructure case, the overall consensus is that America is probably investing enough in infrastructure overall but that the question is too broad to be meaningful for policy makers. As a result, the focus has shifted to specific kinds of investments in specific areas.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
