Showing posts with label cities policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cities policy. Show all posts

Thursday, 27 March 2025

Klein and Thompson’s Abundance: How We Build a better Future



Can future-oriented growth restore government capability and solve scarcity?

 

It's interesting the way some books arrive at the appropriate moment. This book had its genesis in articles written by the two authors a few years ago for their respective publications in the US, The Atlantic and The New York Times, and in Abundance they argue that liberalism has not only lost the ability build and deliver projects, but liberals and progressives have prevented building necessary things such as housing, renewable energy and public transport in the US through legislation, rules and regulation. For example, environmental regulation stops replacing fossil fuels with green energy and local zoning prevents housing developments. Basically, ‘To have the future we want, we need to build and invent more of what we need.’

 

One has to be careful about terminology. In Australia and Europe ‘liberalism’ generally means limited government and less intervention, which in the US would be called libertarianism, but the book is about the US, where ‘liberalism’ means civil liberty, social justice and regulation of industry. In the US, liberals and progressives are left or centre-left and opposed to conservatives on the right or centre-right (although these days the centre in the US is much diminished). Klein and Thompson say ‘a politics of abundance … asks what it is that people need and then organizes government to make sure there is enough of it … sometimes governments has to get out of the way, as in housing. Sometimes it has to take a central role.’

 

The majority of the book looks at the problems and issues involved in the social and political economic issues of housing, energy, health, and innovation. The problems of slower development and less delivery are well-known, and the outcome is various forms of scarcity: too little new housing, energy, medicines, infrastructure and technology. Klein and Thompson say ‘For years, we knew what we needed to build to alleviate the scarcities so many faced and create the opportunities so many wanted, and we simply didn’t build it.’

 

Klein and Thompson focus on the supply-side of the economy and believe economic growth should be revived before it is redistributed. They show the Biden administration loaded the CHIPS and Science Act with requirements to favour minority, veteran and female-owned businesses, and its industrial policy became hamstrung with red tape. They believe the major challenges of the twenty-first century, like the housing and climate crises, require a reorientation in ideas and a renewed emphasis on economic growth. 

 

One of the strengths of the book is its use of current relevant research on the issues. The authors are across contemporary thinking on these, and for those who are not engaged with policy debates this will be a valuable introduction. For those who follow these issues, there might not be much in the way of new information, however, that does not detract from the overall usefulness of these chapters [1].

 

There are many examples of the problems. They start with the housing crisis, where housing scarcity is due to restrictive zoning, regulations, requirements, and community veto, which collectively prevent housing from being built where it is most needed and raise house prices. In the US, cities and states with Democrat Party (i.e. progressive) administrations build so little housing that it has become unaffordable, while Texas, a state known for fiscal conservatism and a libertarian attitude toward business, has led in building both green energy and affordable housing. Exclusionary zoning laws and the right to appeal development proposals have prevented building of new housing in states run by progressives. 

 

California features in the examples. In one the only way to build a new social housing project in San Francisco with 145 studio apartments for chronically homeless people was to reject government funding and rely on private philanthropy, because that did not come with costly requirements to employ minority-owned or woman-owned contractors and meet onerous building standards. Another is California’s failure to build high-speed rail, after decades of development and billions of dollars in funding, in part because federal funding was tied to measures to reduce air pollution in poor communities, which determined where work started. 

 

Progressive policies have reduced the ability to build because environmental laws (in the US) allow anyone totake developers to court add delay, uncertainties, and cost to projects. The role of the National Environmental Policy Act is the most important issue here. While this legislation may have originally been intended to reduce pollution and prevent new fossil fuel power plants opening, they are now used to prevent new housing, solar farms and transmission lines, as permitting across state lines runs into the localism that also stops housing projects. The abundance approach emphasises enabling supply of these economic inputs such as energy, housing, transport and skilled workers, and making them plentiful and cheap.

 

Klein and Thompson advocate focusing on outcomes and outputs instead of processes, procedures and inputs, on how much actually gets built as a result of government spending rather than the amount of spending. They say the ‘big government-small government divide is often more a matter of sentiment than substance’ and their solution is to break through coordination problems.

 

The book also discusses funding for research in health and science. The first problem here is the process of grant application and assessment, which has ended up with a lot of ‘safe’ research on well-understood topics that does not produce breakthroughs. Not funding research with a high risk of failure also excludes new ideas that could lead to major new treatments or inventions. The second problem is that research funding has become process-driven, with up to half researcher’s time and money going on applying and reporting, rather than actually doing research. The third problem is the poor track record of turning inventions into products and industries in the US, where solar cells and microchips were invented but production is now in China and Taiwan. ‘The US needs a plan to build what it invents.’

 

Some of the most interesting parts of the book are on successful programmes run by governments during crises or emergency situations. Two examples are the development of penicillin in World War 2 and the rollout of vaccines during the COVID pandemic. Both show that the ‘mythology of invention’ as ‘eureka moments’ of discovery is wrong. Klein and Thompson argue ‘Politics should take technology more seriously. Innovation can make impossible problems possible to solve, and policy can make impossible technologies possible.’

 

The fortuitous discovery of penicillin in 1928 is often cited as one of the most important scientific developments of all time. However, ten years later there was no method to manufacture penicillin in bulk and only a handful of patients had been treated, some of whom died. In 1941, the U.S. government was looking for medical technology that would be useful during the World War, and they picked up the UK invention of penicillin and created a large team of scientists, technologists, and engineers to develop methods of mass production and distribution. The number of lives saved since the 1940s may be ‘hundreds of millions, if not billions.’ The lesson of penicillin is that ‘implementation, not mere invention, determines the pace of progress.’

 

The second example is Operation Warp Speed, which shortened the development time for a new vaccine from 10 years to 10 months in 2020. Again, this took a large team of many specialists, but the success of the programme was due to the removal of barriers to development such as extended trials and grant funding processes. Solving the science of mRNA, organising clinical trials, manufacturing and distributing the vaccine was all done by industry, but the government funded and coordinated the process, bought the vaccines, then provided them for free. The pandemic and its aftermath provide another lesson on the importance of government capability, from managing test kit distribution to vaccine deployment. 

 

It is not until the penultimate chapter that the book gets to the solution to the problems. In a section called ‘The Bottleneck Detective’ the authors argue is that government has to identify and remove the barriers to progress that have been created over the last few decades, ‘to recognize that wise policy begins with an investigation rather than an ideology.’ Sometimes this is about removing restrictions, sometimes it requires new programs, sometimes prizes or incentives like advanced market commitments will work (i.e. committing to buy a new product to accelerate its development, like vaccines or green cement). 

 

Although it is clear there are coordination problems in research grants, public administration, rules and regulations on energy, infrastructure and housing, the problems are distinct and different in each case, and they each have vested interests that will oppose any reforms. Can committing to future-oriented growth be the solution? Can government’s ability to act be restored? What is the right balance between a market- and state-led approach? 

 

One problem with the book is it focuses exclusively on the United States and how these issues are playing out between blue Democrat and red Republican states, where the economies of red states like Texas and Florida have grown significantly faster over the last few years than blue states like California and New York. Abundance is directed at progressives in the US, and wants to make it easier for the federal government there to do big things. That is understandable because, firstly, the authors are American, and secondly, how these issues managed in the US is highly specific and particular to that country. On the other hand, it's not like other places in Europe and Australia don't have similar difficulties in resolving these issues.

 

A second problem is a lack of detail on how, and how much, Klein and Thompson want to change regulations affecting infrastructure and housing developments. It is one thing to acknowledge the trade-offs required, but they do not go into details about how or which environmental laws should be amended and how NEPA should be revised. They say ‘What is needed here is a change in political culture, not just legislation.’ A change to less regulation and more growth is a challenge to the degrowth movement’s objectives, NIMBY objections to more housing in affluent suburbs, and conservationists opposing solar and wind farms. The ‘book has offered a critique of the ways that liberals have governed and thought over the past fifty years. It also reflects an opportunity open to liberals now.’  

 

The Abundance agenda of ecologically friendly economic growth, regulatory reform, more public investment in housing, infrastructure and technological progress, is an attractive idea. It will not appeal to anyone on the further extremes of the left or the right. Critics on the left will argue this undermines social democracy and the welfare system, and deregulation favours corporate interests. Critics on the right will argue it is anti-market, that building state capacity is about big government and managing the economy. Neither are accurate. 

 

There is, however, is something of a disconnect in Klein and Thompson’s agenda, and how to reconcile the deregulatory emphasis of Abundance with increasing government’s ability to develop policy and deliver projects will be an ongoing debate.  They conclude ‘What we are proposing is less a set of policy prescriptions than a new set of questions around which our politics should revolve. What is scarce that should be abundant? What is difficult to build that should be easy? What inventions do we need that we do not have?’ Their answer is to confront the reasons for scarcity, to increase supply, and to turn away from a politics of scarcity toward a politics of abundance. 

 


 

Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, 2025.  Abundance: How We Build a better Future, Avid Reader Press/Simon & Schuster. 

 

 

 

 

[1] Two other books recently published on the issues in the US raised in Abundance are Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress—and How to Bring It Back by Marc Dunkelman, which mainly looks at building and infrastructure projects, and Stuck: How The Privileged and the Propertied Broke the Engine of American Opportunity by Yoni Appelbaum, on the decline in social mobility.

 

 

 

Tuesday, 25 June 2019

Why We Should Measure the Built Environment Sector


Construction, management and maintenance of the built environment




The built environment is important.  We are surrounded both by it and by its construction, management and maintenance. Of necessity, there is an industry, in fact a collection of industries, that create, manage and maintain the built environment.

 The building and construction industry, at around seven percent of gross domestic product (GDP), is responsible for on-site work, but with that work the construction industry brings together an extensive network of suppliers in production of the built environment.

This can be thought of as the difference between an industry cluster, made up of contractors and sub-contractors supported by plant and equipment suppliers, consultants, manufacturers, distributors and others, and the on-site work that is measured as ‘construction activity’. Then, once produced, buildings and structures need to be maintained.

 A term which encompasses the large number and diverse range of participants and industries in the production, operation and maintenance of the built environment, from suppliers to those responsible for management and maintenance, is the Built Environment Sector (BES). The Australian BES combines data for 16 industries, in one of the largest and most important industrial clusters. All else equal, better data leads to better informed policy.


The Australian Built Environment Sector

The method used to measure the size and extent of the BES is to collect the data for output and employment for the relevant industries and sub-industries available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Economic activities are subdivided into industries, which are groups of firms with common characteristics in products, services, production processes and logistics.   


 

Industry value added (IVA) is an estimate of an industry’s output and its contribution to gross domestic product (GDP), and is broadly the difference between the industry’s total income and total expenses. Employment and IVA in current dollars for industries is provided annually in Australian Industry (ABS 8155), with the most recent issue for 2017-18. The three largest contributors to BES output and employment are Construction (1,115,000 employed), Property operators and real estate services (341,000) and Professional, technical and scientific services (248,000). 

 

Macroeconomic Significance

Construction projects have many participants and extensive linkages with other sectors, measured through the industry’s high multiplier effect of close to 3. Through those linkages the impact of construction on other parts of the economy is much greater than the direct contribution, which gives the industry an important macroeconomic role, seen clearly in the effects of the Commonwealth Government’s fiscal response during the financial crisis in 2009-10.

Separating the BES from the other industries in the ABS data shows how that government spending on school buildings and infrastructure flowed through to the wider economy over the following year. Later, in the residential boom from 2013-17, the BES supported output across the economy during the transition at the end of the mining boom, as business investment fell from 18 percent of GDP to 8 percent.

Another factor that regularly emerges is capacity constraints, which strongly affects prices and is again becoming an issue with current infrastructure projects. The quantity of materials like gravel and concrete that can be produced in one year is limited, there are only so many engineers and project managers, and so on. The ABS data also shows a significant part of the 2009-10 spend went on increased prices and profits for building and construction projects, and the mining boom significantly increased wages in the engineering sector.

With over ten years of data measuring the BES its relationship to the business cycle can be identified, and the output and employment indicators used as a factor in the pipeline of planned infrastructure projects. The BES also appears to be a potentially useful leading indicator of activity in the wider economy.




Policies, Objectives and BES Metrics

In a time of rapid urbanisation and great social and environmental challenges, the built environment and city policies have become central issues in public policy. The quality of the built environment the BES delivers is a major determinant of our quality of life. Further, in a fundamental sense, how cities function depends on how well the BES can deliver the projects required, and the 37 capital and regional cities in Australia generate two-thirds of GDP.

There are many issues affecting the built environment, many of which are wicked problems of great complexity that range widely across industries, institutions and regulatory systems. How measuring the BES helps is by providing an overview of the value chain, from suppliers to end users, and offering a view of pathways to future policy goals. It does this by allowing possibilities for deeper integration between these participants. For example, contributions to reducing the carbon footprint across supply (particularly concrete), construction (transport) and commercial and industrial use (energy) could be allocated across the BES with targets for each sector. And if sufficient firms were to commit to the target, many of which are already investing in modular building, rooftop solar, improving energy efficiency and so on, this could be done by industry instead of government.

For government, an important area of application could be evaluating the effects of the City Deals and Smart Cities policies, with their focus on the built environment. There are now nine City Deals underway in Australia, bringing together federal, state and local governments in a long-term strategic plan, typically focused on transport infrastructure and economic development. The Western Sydney Airport deal is a good example. The BES is the transmission channel for turning that investment into infrastructure, communities and jobs. Similarly, the rollout of smart city technologies will involve

These City Deals and Smart Cities policies come under the Department of Infrastructure. A problem they identify is the lack of current data on the effectiveness of these policies:

 



It is important that we are able to measure the success of our Smart Cities Plan, particularly our City Deals which will outline defined development goals. For many of these goals, there is no baseline data readily available to determine and track a city’s performance. We will work with the states and territories, councils, communities and the private sector to identify key city metrics and the data required to assess performance. This data will be critical in the design of targeted policies, reforms and capital investments, and to measure the effectiveness of these actions.

The BES metric of most interest could be changes in employment, in both the number and composition of jobs. Over the ten years of a City Deal, jobs in the BES are created first in supply industries like materials, manufacturing and construction, then in the demand and maintenance industries like property, real estate and building services. From this data other metrics like industry value added per employee can be found. A significant part of the economic growth after the city deal will be from growth in the region’s BES.

In a similar way, the BES also allows a view of industrial development. Economies grow by upgrading the products they produce and export, but the technology, capital, institutions, and skills needed to make new products are more easily adapted from related products with common labour and capital requirements. This network of relatedness between products means that industries move through a product space by developing goods close to those they currently produce. The technological options available for an industry are strongly influenced by its current position in the BES product space and its ability to adapt to new products.

With the wide range of new production technologies currently emerging, such as 3D printing of concrete, automated machinery and buildings made with new materials like engineered wood, the BES is a laboratory for the fourth industrial revolution. Because it is not possible to know now, which of these technologies will work at scale, a role of policy as facilitator will provide opportunities for new methods of production, organisation and management to be tested on demonstration projects.

Another issue that has arisen is build quality and product safety. The recent Shergold Weir report -Building Confidence - highlighted how difficult policy-making in the built environment is. The report mainly addressed the issue of flammable cladding, and made 24 recommendations, but acknowledged these were the responsibility of state governments in Australia. There is a wide variety of legislation, and different parties are involved during design, construction and certification (professional services, contractors and suppliers, and public and private certifiers respectively).

In February the NSW Government announced the appointment of a Building Commissioner, following the report’s central recommendation, to act as a consolidated building regulator with responsibility for licensing and auditing designers, requiring their building plans to specify a building that will comply with the Building Code of Australia, and for builders, who will have to declare that buildings have been built according to their plans. Banks have risk compliance officers, the BES may need product compliance officers.

The Commissioner’s proposed role cuts across the BES, taking the objective of product safety and built quality and allocating responsibility across the supply chain by having the relevant compliance and certification required for all parties at each stage of design, construction and operation. Consolidating the data on the range of industries and firms involved supports that role, and could improve the effectiveness of policies.

Finally, taking a broader view of an industrial sector provides perspective on its role and significance in economic and technological development. When economic activities are spread across a wide range of individual industries the contribution of the whole is not obvious. This is why the tourism industry has an annual Tourism Satellite Account produced by the ABS. This brings together the contributions of a number of industries like accommodation, tour operators and entertainment, to estimate their total output and employment. The contribution of tourism to GDP was 3.1 percent in 2017-18, and the share of employment was 5.2 percent.