Regional macroeconomic outcomes under alternative arrangements for the financing of urban infrastructure
Many studies, both of Australia and of comparable developed economies, have found that the economic benefits from investment in urban infrastructure are substantial. However the nature of this infrastructure is often such that it is under-provided by the private sector. In Australia, much of the responsibility for the provision of urban infrastructure rests with state and local government. However throughout the 1990’s many of Australia’s state governments embarked on a period of fiscal restraint, seeking to improve financial positions weakened by exposure to failed state government enterprises in the early 1990’s. Perhaps because of the deferred consequences of reducing spending on infrastructure, a large proportion of this fiscal adjustment appears to have been borne by spending on public infrastructure. Today, policy attention at the state government level is again focussing on public infrastructure. However in spite of the now robust fiscal positions of Australia’s state governments, there remains a reluctance on their part to finance public infrastructure through debt, and raising taxes is perceived as politically unpopular. Instead, governments are exploring alternative financing instruments, such as developer charges and public-private partnerships. This paper uses a dynamic multi-regional CGE model (MMRF) to evaluate the regional macro economic consequences of four alternative methods of financing an expansion in state government spending on public infrastructure. The four methods are developer charges, payroll tax, government debt, and residential rates. The paper confirms that the services provided by public infrastructure can have significant impacts on the regional macro economy. More importantly however, the paper demonstrates that the total gains from urban infrastructure are quite sensitive to the means chosen by government to finance infrastructure investment. In contrast to up-front financing methods (such as developer charges, payroll tax, and residential rates), the paper finds that the gains from urban infrastructure are greatest when the chosen financing method provides a closer match between the timing of the burden of financing the infrastructure and the timing of the benefits provided by the infrastructure. This can be achieved by instruments such as debt, public-private partnerships, and user charges. On this basis the paper finds that a greater reliance by regional government son debt financing might be warranted, and that the gains from infrastructure expenditure are least when that expenditure is financed by developer charges.
|Date of creation:||Aug 2004|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.ersa.org
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Naqvi, Farzana & Peter, Matthew W, 1996. "A Multiregional, Multisectoral Model of the Australian Economy with an Illustrative Application," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(66), pages 94-113, June.
- David Aschauer, 1988.
"Is public expenditure productive?,"
88-7, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
- Harrison, W Jill & Pearson, K R, 1996.
"Computing Solutions for Large General Equilibrium Models Using GEMPACK,"
Society for Computational Economics, vol. 9(2), pages 83-127, May.
- W. Jill Harrison & K.R. Pearson, 1994. "Computing Solutions for Large General Equilibrium Models Using GEMPACK," Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre Working Papers ip-64, Victoria University, Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre.
- Matthew W. Peter & Mark Horridge & G.A.Meagher & Fazana Naqvi & B.R.Parmenter, 1996. "The Theoretical Structure of MONASH-MRF," Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre Working Papers op-85, Victoria University, Centre of Policy Studies/IMPACT Centre.
- Otto, Glenn & Voss, Graham M, 1994. "Public Capital and Private Sector Productivity," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 70(209), pages 121-32, June.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa04p116. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Gunther Maier)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.