美國亟需加大基礎設施投資
There is a consensus that the US should substantially raise its level of infrastructure investment.
目前存在一個共識，美國應大舉擴大基礎設施投資。
Economists and politicians of all persuasions recognise that this can create quality jobs and provide economic stimulus without posing the risks of easy-money policies in the short run.
各種意識形態的經濟學家和政治人士都承認，這可以在短期內不構成寬鬆貨幣政策風險的情況下，創造高質量的就業並提供經濟刺激。
They also see that such investment can expand the economy’s capacity in the medium term and mitigate the huge maintenance burden we would otherwise pass on to the next generation.
他們還認爲，此類投資可以擴大美國經濟的中期產能，並緩解我們傳給下一代的巨大維修負擔。
The case for infrastructure investment has been strong for a long time, but it gets stronger with each passing year, as government borrowing costs decline and ongoing neglect raises the return on incremental spending increases.
長期以來，基礎設施投資的理由一直充分，但年復一年，這種理由變得越來越充分，因爲政府借款成本下滑，同時持續的忽視提高了增量支出增加的回報率。
As it becomes clearer that growth will not return to pre-financial-crisis levels on its own, the urgency of policy action rises.
隨着情況變得更加明朗：經濟增長不會靠自己重返金融危機前的水平，採取政策行動的緊迫性加大了。
Just as the infrastructure failure at Chernobyl was a sign of malaise in the Soviet Union’s last years, profound questions about America’s future are raised by collapsing bridges, children losing IQ points because of lead in water and an air traffic control system that does not use GPS technology.
就像切爾諾貝利核電站的基礎設施失效突顯蘇聯在最後幾年的衰敗一樣，垮塌的橋樑、兒童智商因自來水含鉛而下降，以及至今尚未採用全球定位系統(GPS)的空中交通管制系統，引發了有關美國未來的深遠問題。
The issue now is not whether the US should invest more in infrastructure but what the policy framework should be.
現在的問題不是美國是否應該加大對基礎設施的投資，而是應該採取什麼樣的政策框架。
There are five key questions.
這裏有5個關鍵問題。
How much more do we need to invest? For the foreseeable future, there is no danger that the US will overinvest in infrastructure.
我們需要再投資多少？在可預見的將來，美國不會出現基礎設施投資過度的風險。
An increase in investment of 1 per cent of gross domestic product over a decade would total $2.2tn and permit substantial steps both to catch up on deferred maintenance and embark on new projects.
10年期間增加相當於國內生產總值(GDP) 1%的投資，總額將達到2.2萬億美元，那將足以採取重大舉措，一方面趕上延後的維修，另一方面上馬新項目。
What is the highest priority? The fastest, highest and safest returns are likely to be found where maintenance has been deferred.
最優先的任務是什麼？在維修延後的領域，投資回報可能最快、最高也最安全。
Maintenance outlays do not require extensive planning or regulatory approvals, so they can take place quickly.
維修支出不需要廣泛規劃或監管批准，因此可以快速到位。
And they tend naturally to take place in areas where infrastructure is most heavily used.
自然，維修往往發生在基礎設施利用率最高的地方。
How should investment be financed? There is a compelling case that infrastructure investments pay for themselves by expanding the economy and increasing the tax base.
投資應如何融資？一個頗具說服力的主張是，基礎設施投資會通過擴張經濟和提高稅基，爲自己買單。
The McKinsey Global Institute has estimated a 20 per cent rate of return on such investments.
麥肯錫全球研究所(McKinsey Global Institute)估計，此類投資的回報率爲20%。
If the return is only 6 per cent and the government collects about 25 cents on every dollar of GDP, it will earn 1.5 per cent on investments.
如果回報率僅爲6%，而政府稅率大致爲GDP的25%，那麼其賺得的投資收益爲1.5%。
This far exceeds the real cost of borrowing even over a horizon of 30 years.
這遠遠超過了30年期的實際借款成本。
Debt financing of new infrastructure investment would be entirely reasonable.
新基礎設施投資採用債務融資完全是合理的。
And if there is a desire to generate revenue to finance infrastructure investments, the best approaches would involve user fees.
如果人們渴望創造收入爲基礎設施投資項目融資，那麼最好的方法涉及用戶收費。
Thus, increased landing fees could help finance airports; tolls or taxes on miles driven could fund road improvements.
因此，提高起降費可以幫助爲機場融資；根據行駛里程收取公路通行費或稅費可以幫助道路修繕。
What about the private sector? Some infrastructure priorities, such as replacing coal-fired power plants with renewables, expanding broadband networks or building pipelines, are clearly the responsibility of the private sector.
私營部門呢？一些基礎設施優先項目，例如用可再生能源取代燃煤電廠、擴大寬帶網絡或者修建管道顯然是私營部門的責任。
Policy frameworks that streamline regulatory decision-making and reduce uncertainty could spur investment in these sectors.
簡化監管決策並減少不確定性的政策框架，能夠刺激對這些行業的投資。
There is a case for experimenting with mobilising private capital for use on infrastructure that has been a public-sector preserve, such as airports and roads.
在此前一直是公共部門專屬的基礎設施領域，如機場和道路，嘗試利用私營部門資金是合理的。
But, the reality that government borrowing costs are much lower than the returns demanded by private-sector infrastructure investors should lead to caution.
但是，政府借款成本遠遠低於私營部門基礎設施投資者要求的回報，這一現實值得警惕。
It would be unfortunate if, in an effort to avoid deficits, large subsidies were given to private financial operators.
如果爲了避免赤字而向私營資金運營商發放鉅額補貼，那將是不幸的。
Only when private-sector performance in building and operating infrastructure is likely to be better than what the public sector can do is there a compelling argument for privatisation.
只有在私營部門在建設和運營基礎設施方面的表現很可能優於公共部門時，私有化纔有說服力。
How can we be sure investment is carried out efficiently? There is legitimate scepticism about this, and there is no silver bullet for this problem.
我們如何能確保投資高效率實施？人們有正當的理由對此表示懷疑，而這個問題確實沒有靈丹妙藥。
Transparency of the type adopted for the Obama administration’s fiscal stimulus should become the norm.
奧巴馬政府在財政刺激中實行的那種透明度應成爲常態。
Additionally, progressive advocates of more investment should compromise with conservative sceptics and, in the context of increased spending, accept regulatory streamlining, as well as requirements that projects undergo cost-benefit analysis.
另外，支持加大基礎設施投資的進步人士，應該與保守的懷疑派達成妥協，並在支出增加的背景下，接受監管流程簡化以及項目應接受成本-收益分析的要求。
Minimising cost should be the objective of infrastructure procurement.
基礎設施採購的目標應該是將成本降至最低。
Every year that we allow our infrastructure to decay raises the burden that our generation places on the next.
我們允許我國基礎設施老化的每一年，都會加重我們這代人留給下一代人的負擔。
We will not always be able to borrow for the long term at a near zero interest rate.
我們不可能永遠以接近零的利率長期借款。
However the election turns out, a major infrastructure investment programme should be adopted by the president and Congress in the spring of 2017.
不管大選結果如何，美國總統和美國國會應在2017年春季出臺一項大規模基礎設施投資計劃。
