Infrastructure Financing and Operation in the Contemporary City

Abstract

The provision of large economic infrastructure in Australian cities is widely seen to be in crisis. This paper examines the reasons why crisis has arisen in the urban infrastructure sector and what might be done to redress this. The analysis and the argument are based on a resuscitation of the ideas and ideals of infrastructure provision and how these have been eroded. The paper shows how these ideas/ ideals once underpinned the formulation of state role, governance and regulation systems, financial arrangements, and even community need and expectation. Critical to this was an acceptance of the ideals of universality, access, bundling and free positive externalities, and the belief that these should be assembled necessarily as part of any urban infrastructure roll-out. This package became instinctive in post-war economic and urban management. Yet this instinct has been lost as governments shift from models of infrastructure provision to infrastructure procurement where a major role for the private sector is now common. While such an involvement has its benefits, there are concerns for the urban condition when privatisation of infrastructure construction, delivery and operation becomes dominant. Citing Graham and Marvin (2001), the paper argues that, where once infrastructure was the key device for integrating the elements of the city and its people, the way it is now being delivered produces a splintered urbanism. There is an urgent need, then, to re-think what infrastructure means in today's urban context and thereafter to re-assess the criteria for deciding what infrastructure is to be provided, in what form it should be provided, who should provide it, who should pay, and who should operate it.

Public–Private Partnerships and the Design Process: Consequences for Architects and City Building

“…We have also seen a change in rationale regarding how infrastructure should be delivered, namely by using new financial resources, tools and engineering, which affects power dynamics, accountability lines, the role of the design industry and the design process in general. Furthermore, the findings support the notions put forward by O'Neill () that a shift has occurred—or is occurring—in the way governments answer the fundamental question of what infrastructure should be: clean, safe, and functional, as one of the respondents argued, or awe‐inspiring in terms of design and innovative functionality? Governments that have taken the PPP route will be inclined to choose the first option, and Ontario is no exception.…”

“…The combination in PPPs of increased risk awareness of governments and the traditionally risk‐averse attitude of private‐sector consortia will likely induce ‘changes in the assumptions about what infrastructure is and should be’ (O'Neill, : 7) towards the use of new standards and priorities. This article aims to explore the physical effects of this presumed shift in the planning process of infrastructure projects.…”

“…Over the past few decades, the field of infrastructure provision has changed significantly owing to governments creating and monetizing infrastructure as an asset class and opening the doors to private financiers (O'Neill, ; Ashton et al ., : 301). A trend related to this development is the increasing use of public–private partnerships (PPPs), a specific approach to the construction and maintenance of infrastructure in which the private sector finances a project, takes on an expanded role for facility design and construction (and often also for operations and maintenance) and bears a considerable amount of (financial) risk .…”

Critical Urban Infrastructure

“…In addition to the strategic planning "gap", the delivery, procurement and ongoing management of urban infrastructure expose the extent to which infrastructure planning has been influenced and shaped by neoliberal forces in urban planning favoring market forces (O'Neill 2010). This is compounded by decision-makers privileging economic rationality as the foundation for urban infrastructure decision-making, rendering invisible social and environmental measures upon which decisions can better align with broader "public interest" goals Marshall 2000, 2002).…”

“…Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, when facing the threat of a recession following the GFC, in 2008 announced a stimulus package to fund "critical infrastructure" (Brisbane Times 2008). This was observed acutely through the introduction of the Social Housing Initiative as part of the Commonwealth Government's two year $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan in 2009-2010(Australian Government 2008. Perhaps also reflecting calls for further investment in critical social infrastructure such as affordable and social housing which had remained underfunded in recent years (Milligan and Pinnegar 2010), there has been an observable shift towards thinking about housing as infrastructure reflecting the job creating opportunities that arise (Maclennan et al 2015, Pradolin 2016.…”