• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Obama vs. the Evidence: Infrastructure Spending Is No Job Creator

    The latest unemployment numbers, released Friday, showed that the economy created a net 18,000 jobs in June, far below the roughly 150,000 needed to keep pace with new job market entrants. The unemployment rate ticked up to 9.2 percent. Since President Obama had not yet been asked directly about June’s unemployment numbers, it was inevitable that the topic be raised in his Monday press conference on the stalled debt limit negotiations with congressional Republicans.

    But if the president has learned anything from the apparent failure of his policies to spur job growth, he sure didn’t show it. A central element of his proposed unemployment solution is still the creation of an “infrastructure bank that could put construction workers to work right now rebuilding our roads and our bridges and our vital infrastructure right now.”

    All of this despite the preponderance of evidence showing that federal infrastructure spending is not the boon for the economy that Obama claims. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research Service, and the Government Accountability Office have all concluded that such spending has at best a marginal impact on employment, and may even yield a net loss in jobs.

    In a series of studies in 2000, the Department of Transportation used economic modeling to conclude that each billion dollars in infrastructure spending would create 47,576 job-years. That study was used to tout infrastructure spending in the stimulus package, and to justify such spending thereafter.

    But USDOT’s study considered federal spending in the abstract, and thus failed to account for the hidden costs of extracting money from one part of the economy and spending it elsewhere. The Heritage Foundation’s Ronald Utt explained the flawed logic thusly:

    In the real world, the additional federal borrowing or taxing needed to provide this additional $1 billion means that $1 billion less is spent or invested elsewhere and that the jobs and products previously employed by that $1 billion thus disappear. Regardless of how the federal government raised the additional $1 billion, it would shift resources from one part of the economy to another, in this case to road building. The only way that $1 billion of new highway spending can create 47,576 new jobs is if the $1 billion appears out of nowhere as if it were manna from heaven…

    Because of these inherent limitations, [input/output] models such as the one used by USDOT should be used with great caution, and their limitations and artificial assumptions should be clearly acknowledged. When these conditions are considered, the job-creation potential of any spending scheme will be found to be a small fraction of what such models initially report.

    Even some I/O studies have found the benefits of infrastructure spending to be negligible. The aforementioned CRS report, for instance, used I/O models to measure the impact of such spending, and concluded (see link above for details):

    To the extent that financing new highways by reducing expenditures on other programs or by deficit finance and its im­pact on private consumption and investment, the net impact on the economy of highway construction in terms of both output and employment could be nullified or even negative.

    Unlike CRS and USDOT, the Government Accountability Office actually studied the track record of an infrastructure project – the Emergency Jobs Act of 1983 – and found similarly unimpressive results. “Funds were spent slowly and relatively few jobs were created when most needed in the economy,” GAO found. The jobs that were created by infrastructure spending “represented less than 1 per­cent of about 5.8 million jobs created by the economy since the act was passed.”

    The Congressional Budget Office took a different approach, and conducted a review of 10 years of academic data on the relationship between federal spending and job creation. On infrastructure spending, the CBO had this to say:

    The available information suggests three conclusions: some investments in public infrastructure can be justified by their bene­fits to the economy, but their supply is lim­ited; some (perhaps substantial) portion of federal spending on infrastructure displaces state and local spending; and on balance, available studies do not support the claim that increases in federal infrastructure spending would increase economic growth.

    In short, a variety of studies using very different methodologies suggest that infrastructure spending is not an unemployment solution, and may even make the situation worse. So it should have come as little surprise, nearly a year after the president passed his stimulus package, that “a surge in spending on roads and bridges has had no effect on local unemployment and only barely helped the beleaguered construction industry,” as the Associated Press reported.

    But President Obama continues to cling to the notion that unemployment can be solved by simply spending more federal dollars on construction projects. As long as he continues pursuing policies shown time and again to be ineffective, unemployment will likely remain a problem.

    Posted in Scribe [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to Obama vs. the Evidence: Infrastructure Spending Is No Job Creator

    1. Bobbie says:

      Obama and the bunch, the great Houdini's. While these jobs appear to be available he's closing down the private sector with rules, regulations and mandates!! CRISIS!

      There should be no deals being discussed! America needs resolution! Obama simply chooses non-compliance to principled resolution! Especially if they're American. He condescends peoples' ability to survive themselves with unconstitutional, taxed paid "government hand holding programs!" Get rid of special interests!

      There should be no need for debt ceiling increase when the trade is cuts. Lower the debt ceiling so people are allowed closer the gross amount they earn and government is disciplined to their proper role.

    2. Debra in NC says:

      How is this 9.2 percent unemployment rate calculated? If by the number of people on unemployment benefits, then it is NOT accurate. I, along with many others I personally know, fell off that list after my benefits expired, and am still unemployed. After paying taxes and working since I was 15, I am close now to losing my house and everything I have worked for at age 56, when I should be planning some sort of retirement — had to cash in my 401K as well. No one has ever polled or asked if I have found a job since then. I feel that the ACTUAL rate is much higher.

    3. John F says:

      Wait, a minute…
      The Most-Honorable, Most-Capable, Greatest & Bestest of all time President Ronald Wilson Reagan actually signed a Socialist, Pinko-Commie Stimulus Package called the "Emergency Jobs Act of 1983"?!!?
      Wait,… and in his third year as President , unemployment was actually 10.7%?!!?
      Wait,… and he actually raised taxes (11 times)?!!?
      And,… Saint Reagan more than quadrupled the national debt?!!?

      Too bad the Tea Party wasn't around back in the 80's to save us from Our Savior.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.