A bridge too far gone

OPINION:

It took a collapsing bridge in Minnesota to alert people across the country that many other bridges elsewhere have been allowed to deteriorate by inadequate maintenance.

If this were just a matter of poor political leadership at various levels of government, we could at least hope for better leaders in the future. But the problem goes deeper. It is not just the people but the incentives that are responsible for the neglect of infrastructure, while tax money is lavished on all sorts of less urgent projects.

In other words, when there is a complete turnover in political leaders over time, the same problem will remain because the same incentives will remain when new leaders take over.

Some people claim the problem is the cost of properly maintaining bridges, highways, dams and other infrastructure. But money is found for other things, including far less urgent matters and some that are even counterproductive.

The real problem is that the political incentives are to spend the taxpayers’ money on things that will enhance politicians’ chances of getting re-elected.

There may be enough money available to maintain bridges and other infrastructure but that same money can have a bigger political payoff if spent building something new instead of maintaining and repairing existing structures.

When money is spent building a new community center, a golf course, or anything newsworthy, there will be ceremonies and the politicians who cut the ribbons can expect to see their pictures in the newspapers and on TV. All that keeps their name before the public in a positive role and therefore enhances their prospects of being re-elected.

But there are no ribbon-cutting ceremonies when bridges are being repaired or potholes are filled in. These latter activities may be more valuable than a community center or a golf course, but they are not nearly as photogenic.

The preference for showy projects that will enhance a politician’s career prospects is not peculiar to current politicians. Adam Smith noted the same thing about politicians in 18th-century Europe.

We can vote the rascals out but the new rascals who replace them will face the same incentives and in all likelihood will respond in the same way. A pattern that has persisted for more than two centuries is likely to continue unless something fundamental is changed.

We really need to change the incentives. While most bridges in the United States are owned and operated by government agencies, there are times and places where bridges have been owned and operated by private companies, just as many other goods and services are provided through the marketplace. How would that change the incentives?

A company that must get the money to build and maintain bridges or other infrastructure through the voluntary actions of people in the financial markets, instead of extracting money from taxpayers, will find financiers much more finicky about what is done with their money.

People who put their own money on the line will want their own experts to look under the bridges they finance, to see where there are rust, cracks or crumbling supports.

When people know the lawsuits that are sure to follow a bridge collapse will drain millions of dollars of their own money — not the taxpayers’ money — that keeps the mind focused.

Those who like to think of the government as the public interest personified may be horrified at the idea of turning a governmental function over to private enterprise. Politicians who want to hang on to sources of patronage and power will of course encourage people to look at things that way. But the track record of privately run infrastructure will compare favorably with government-run infrastructure.

But that is only if we stop to compare — and to think.

Thomas Sowell is a nationally syndicated columnist.