THE ECONOMIC GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS OF INCREASED GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON INFRASTRUCTURE

A Research Paper Presented to Ms. Mishima Z. Miciano Department of Arts and Communication College of Arts and Sciences University of the Philippines Manila

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements in Communication II

By Ferdinand B. Sta. Ana, Jr. October 19, 2012

The Economic Growth and Development Effects of Increased Government Spending on Infrastructure Increased government spending on infrastructure leading to the creation and enhancement of infrastructure will improve the economy because it can spur growth and raise the quality of living of the people through developments on both economic and social services. I. As a component of fiscal policy, infrastructure spending is a tool utilized by development economics to influence the economy. II. An increase in government spending on infrastructure leading to greater infrastructure provisions causes economic growth by affecting production, investment and trade. A. Infrastructure can raise productivity, affecting the production of goods and services. B. Infrastructure can attract investments. C. Infrastructure can improve trade facilitation. III. Greater provisions of infrastructure in the form of economic services such as energy and transportation creates economic development A. The construction of roads or, generally, the development of the transportation sector can produce several development effects. B. Electrification is also capable of developing a community, specifically a rural community, in ways such as increased employment.

IV.

Greater infrastructure provisions, when they improve the production and delivery of social services such as health and education, directly cause economic development, and through these social services, they can also produce economic growth. A. Infrastructure causes economic development as it improves health and education which raise the standard of living of people B. Infrastructure indirectly causes economic growth when it enhances health and education as these have a positive effect on output and productivity.

V.

The necessity of increasing government spending on infrastructure in producing economic growth and development is questioned. A. Increasing government spending on infrastructure can deprive other expenditures. B. At optimal levels of allocation, the gains from increasing infrastructure spending have a positive impact sufficient to offset the losses suffered in other areas.

VI.

Evidence of the effects of infrastructure yields several recommendations on both future research and government policy on infrastructure spending. A. In general, the government should increase spending on infrastructure leading to the rehabilitation and enhancement of infrastructure. B. Research recommendations mainly revolve around identifying the optimal distribution of government resources on the different aspects of infrastructure.

VII.

Based on the effects of infrastructure discussed in this paper, increased government spending on infrastructure improves the economy.

THE ECONOMIC GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS OF INCREASED GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON INFRASTRUCTURE FERDINAND B. STA. ANA, JR. Development economics is a field of economics that deals with the generation of advancements in the quality of life of people especially in developing or low-income countries (Todaro & Smith, 2012). Many countries in the world including the Philippines are low-income countries. It is therefore imperative to conduct studies in this field so that low-income countries can be guided towards development. Research in this field is mostly focused on the creation and implementation of policies with a goal of translating economic growth into improvements in the different aspects of peoples lives such as education and health (Todaro & Smith, 2012). Conventions in economics equate development with prolonged growth rates which allow the rate of output to increase such that it is faster than the population growth rate. The conventions emphasize the importance of attaining economic growth, which is defined as the increase in the total output of goods and services in an economy over time, in developing an economy because it leads to greater income. Furthermore, income increases are believed to be transformed into benefits for the people. Thus, in order to increase income, focus and effort are dedicated to raising the gross domestic product (GDP), an indicator of economic growth. However, Sen (as cited in Todaro & Smith, 2012) believes that development should be less involved with economic growth and wealth and more concerned with directly improving the quality of the life of the human being. Consequently, economic development is basically the enhancement of the standard of living of people (Todaro & Smith, 2012).

In order to accomplish this, development economics utilizes possible and vital mechanisms. As the public conduit of development, the government plays an extremely important role because of its function in public policy formulation and implementation (Todaro & Smith, 2012). One such policy is the fiscal policy which is the use of taxation and government spending to affect the economy. As a component of fiscal policy, government spending can be used as an important tool in influencing the economy, and one of the avenues for government spending is infrastructure. The term infrastructure can refer to various concepts. It can refer to roads, highway, trains and ports which can be categorized as transportation infrastructure. It can also refer to telephone lines, cell sites and satellites which can be categorized as communications infrastructure. The organizational structure through which health care and education systems operate can also be referred to as infrastructure. It is therefore important to define infrastructure in the context of this paper. For the purposes of this paper, infrastructure is defined as a capital good which facilitates the production and distribution of goods and services. This definition is functionally broad to cover the different aspects of infrastructure. This definition can also accommodate both private and public provisions, and through the latter, infrastructure becomes an area for expenditure by the government. Infrastructure spending by the government has been touted as one of the keys to economic progression. Aside from being potentially capable of raising economic growth, infrastructure has also been shown to be capable of causing several development effects. These effects include the creation of more jobs and more opportunities for raising income (Olsson, 2009). A comprehensive study of the wide-ranging growth and development effects of infrastructure needs to be performed in order to verify the advantages or disadvantages of 2

increasing government spending on infrastructure. Furthermore, research on this may convince the government to create new policies and modify existing policies on infrastructure. This study identifies the capacity of infrastructure to generate economic growth and development, and it also discusses the justification for allocating government funds for infrastructure. This paper believes that increased government spending on infrastructure leading to the creation and enhancement of infrastructure will improve the economy because it can spur growth and raise peoples standard of living through improvements on both economic and social services. This paper consists of four different parts. The growth effects of infrastructure are first discussed in this paper. Then, the development effects produced from infrastructure provisions as an economic service are studied. This paper also considers the growth and development effects caused by infrastructure provisions on social services. Finally, this paper examines the justification for appropriating government funds for infrastructure. Studies have shown that infrastructure has an effect on the economic growth of a country. It has been observed that the lack or presence of infrastructure creates negative and positive outcomes, respectively. Agenor (2010) notes the absence of infrastructure has prevented countries from growing which was observed in Sub-Saharan Africa. In the Philippines, according to Diokno (2010), the fiscal deficits experienced by the country lately were observed along government underspending on productive expenditures including infrastructure. Diokno (2010) also notes that further underspending on human capital and infrastructure may limit the countrys growth to low levels over long periods of time. On the other hand, increased presence of infrastructure has been shown to augment per capita income growth (Brooks, Hasan, Lee, Son, & Zhuang, 2010). Calderon and Serven (as cited in Brooks et

al., 2010) observe a 2.9% boost in the per capita income growth when the infrastructure stocks index is raised by one standard deviation. Infrastructure expands an economys potential for growth. This provides the government the capacity to advance the growth potential of the economy by increasing the spending on infrastructure. Increased spending on infrastructure can achieve this through the ability of infrastructure to lower costs and raise profitability of businesses which, in turn, improve productivity, draw investments (Diokno, 2010) and facilitate trade efficiently (Brooks & Stone, 2010). Infrastructure promotes economic growth by increasing productivity (Agenor & Neanidis, 2011). One way infrastructure can increase productivity is when it is a factor of production, an input used to produce goods and services. In this case, when infrastructure is increased, the production of goods and services also increases (Straub & Terada-Hagiwara, 2011). An example is the text messaging service used in phones. Cell sites, which can be considered as infrastructure, are prerequisites for performing this service, so more text messages can be produced if there are more cell sites. Another way infrastructure can increase productivity is when it encourages the development of technology which, in turn, can affect the productivity of other production factors (Straub & Terada-Hagiwara, 2011). Infrastructure has also shown a capacity to directly raise the productivity of the other factors of production. An example is the achievability of using machines for production when there is a provision for energy or electrification (Cook, 2011). Other infrastructure sectors such as roads, highways, electricity and telecommunications have

been found to significantly affect the productivity of different countries such as the Philippines, Thailand and the United States (Straub & Terada-Hagiwara, 2011). Infrastructure is also capable of attracting investments from the private sector, and an increase in investments can spur economic growth (Brooks et al., 2010). According to Straub and Terada-Hagiwara (2011), investment is influenced by infrastructure. Both the lack and low quality of infrastructure can discourage investments because such infrastructure entails high costs. As an example, Straub and Terada-Hagiwara (2011) explain that repeated power outages increase the possibility of machines breaking down which creates higher repair and maintenance costs. Consequently, government spending on infrastructure indicates that the government guarantees success for investors (Diokno, 2010). Infrastructure can also improve the facilitation of trade. This is another way in which infrastructure can indirectly cause economic growth because improved trade facilitation promotes economic growth. Francois and Wignaraja (as cited in Brooks & Stone, 2010) present the outcome of having China, Japan and Korea establish a free trade relationship with the Association of South East Asian Nations as an increase in the national income of all the countries involved ranging from 2.6% to 12%. Several obstacles must be surmounted before efficient trade facilitation is achieved. These constraints are infrastructure in nature. These include high freight costs, delays in customs clearance, unofficial payments, and poor governance (Brooks & Stone, 2010, p. 136). Other infrastructure-related issues in trade facilitation include the transport technology in use, the congestion of physical infrastructure in use and the efficiency of ports. All of these obstacles certainly affect trade costs. Improving both the physical and soft infrastructure definitely leads to

the reduction of costs and waiting times. These reductions in costs can foster production, employment, trade expansion and growth (Brooks & Stone, 2010). Yean, Devadason and Heng (2010) provide an example of how infrastructure can decrease costs. The example shows Malaysia has spent about 93 billion Malaysian ringgit on transport infrastructure development from 1991 to 2010. Specifically, about five billion Malaysian ringgit was spent on port development. This resulted to improvements in ports such as an increase in port capacity from 174.1 million tons in 1995 to 570.0 million tons in 2010 and an increase in volume of cargo handled from 152.3 million tons in 1995 to 539.0 million tons in 2010 (Yean, Devadason, & Heng, 2009). These improvements reflect the reduction in trade costs as more goods were traded. Better trade performance resulting from the improvements has helped Malaysias economy grow, and according to Yean, Devadason and Heng (2009), become one of the most highly integrated into the world economy (p. 148). Attracting investments through infrastructure is also possible in the context of trade. Trade expansion resulting from reduced costs means greater access to markets and suppliers. This trade expansion has a positive impact on foreign direct investment (FDI), and as previously stated, greater investments lead to economic growth. Then, given the right conditions, FDIs can promote further trade. As a result, it is possible to have a cycle of trade facilitation, trade, and investment that fosters increased trade and economic growth (Brooks & Stone, 2010, p. 145). Aside from economic growth, increased government spending on infrastructure can also improve the economy in terms of economic development. Infrastructure is capable of achieving this when it acts as an economic service such as road construction and electrification.

The construction of roads or, generally, the development of the transportation sector can produce several development effects. These effects may either be general or specific. A study conducted in the Philippines from 1990 to 2005 by Olsson (2009) was able to observe and enumerate effects produced by a road construction project. The first of the specific effects observed was the decrease in operating costs, in which fuel consumption and maintenance costs decreased by 35% and 44%, respectively. Travel time also decreased by 40%. These effects allowed the goods which were perishable to be sold at higher prices. Greater accessibility was another effect created by the road project. This allowed the arrival of investments. In turn, this resulted to a more competitive production system. Greater accessibility also meant more markets. This led to trade expansion. Greater accessibility also allowed the inflow of more capital such as motor vehicles and larger harvesting vessels. This led to an increase in yield and trade volume. The yield increased by 425% in terms of metric tons from before the road project (Olsson, 2009). These specific effects that developed the community in the study were able to show two general development effects. First, income was affected. Easier access to capital allowed more opportunities for earning income. Increase in the production of goods and trade volume directly raised income (Olsson, 2009). In another study, the reduction of transport costs resulting from road construction has been found capable of raising the income of households. It was also observed that the benefits from road construction were not equally distributed as the most distant households benefited the most. As a result, road construction is thought to be capable of not only raising income but also distributing income equitably (Jacoby & Minten, 2009).

Second, there is an effect on employment. The competitive production system and ease of access to capital goods also increased employment. More firms meant more jobs were created. An example was that as capital goods such as harvesting vessels increased, the number of workers needed also increased (Olsson, 2009). In another study performed in Thailand, Felker and Townsend (as cited in Foster, 2012) finds that the number and earnings of firms, which employ labor, decrease as the distance from a major highway increases. Other than road construction, electrification is another economic service related to infrastructure. Electrification has similar effects to road construction. Like road construction, electrification can create opportunities for earning income by affecting the production of goods and services. This is proved by a study performed by Prasad and Dieden (as cited in Cook, 2011) wherein they find that electrification is responsible for 40% to 53% increase in the activity of firms. Moreover, the empowerment of firms, especially those belonging to the poor or hiring poor workers, raises the income of the poor. This demonstrates the impact of electrification on poverty (Brenneman & Kerf, 2002) Electrification also has an effect on employment. Dinkelman (as cited in Foster, 2012) finds that electrification can increase labor supply. On the effect of electrification on employment, women seem to be more affected. Cook (2011) explains that electrification can free women from household work which leads to the creation of income opportunities. Calvo (as cited in Brenneman & Kerf, 2002) provides evidence in which 769 women in sub-Saharan Africa spend 0.29 hours to 2.48 hours per day to gather firewood, and believes that electrification can reallocate the time used for gathering firewood to activities such as creating income.

In general, electrification raises the standard of living of the poor. Venkataraman (as cited in Brenneman & Kerf, 2002) surveyed 50 households, of which 20 are low-income households, in five rural electrification cooperatives. Using the results of the survey, Venkatraman (as cited in Brenneman & Kerf, 2002) reports that 60% of the low-income households stated household work became easier due to electrification, 48% of the households said peace, order and security improved due to electrification, and 86% declared electricity made their leisure activities better. Economic development resulting from greater infrastructure provisions is also achievable when infrastructure improves the production and delivery of social services such as health and education because these social services can intrinsically raise the standard of living of people. Generally, infrastructure has a positive impact on health outcomes. Valdivia (2004) finds an increase of one standard deviation in the health infrastructure index of a community results to children who are taller by 0.02 standard deviations. Improvements in infrastructure also result to a decrease in mortality of children below five years old (Fay, Leipziger, Wodon, & Yepes, 2005). Furthermore, specific types of infrastructure are capable of improving health through different ways. These specific types include electrification, information and communications technology (ICT), transportation and water and sanitation. Poor households in developing countries commonly utilize biomass, such as coal and firewood, as fuel to address their energy needs. This leads to indoor air pollution which can negatively affect the respiratory health of households. Electrification provides a cleaner alternative energy source. As a result of electrification, the occurrence of respiratory-related sicknesses in poor households decreases (Brenneman & Kerf, 2002). Foster (as cited in

Brenneman & Kerf, 2002) confirms the effect of electrification on the respiratory health of people by performing a health survey on 430 children in Evaton, South Africa. The results of the survey show that children of coal-powered households have a 190% greater chance of developing respiratory ailments than children who are members of households with electricity. Infrastructure as ICT can also improve health. Information in the form of patient records and test results have a large impact on the administration of health care on people. Mishandling and delays in obtaining information can have severe consequences such as inadequate and low quality treatment of patients. ICT can solve this by allowing exchange of information through easier and more efficient means such as the phone and the Internet. Consequently, time and resource costs decrease, and health professionals provide optimal treatment (Brenneman & Kerf, 2002). The Telecommunication Development Bureau (as cited in Brenneman & Kerf, 2002, p. 57) offers as evidence that the use of ICT in providing health care in Mozambique can result to savings of 10, 000 US dollars per year, obtained from a reduction in transportation costs for inappropriate referrals. Other than electrification and ICT, transportation infrastructure can also have a positive impact on health. Several barriers to health care access are geographical location and remoteness from health care centers. This negatively influences the health of people (Brenneman & Kerf, 2002). In a study conducted in the Philippines, Booth, Hammer, and Lovell (as cited in Brenneman & Kerf, 2002) observe a 2% rise in mortality from a 10% increase in travel time to a health care center. Improvements in transportation infrastructure which reduce travel costs and time translate to better health care access. The World Bank (as cited in Brenneman & Kerf, 2002) conducted a study in Morocco which shows that after old and new roads were repaired and

10

constructed respectively, hospital and health care center appointments made by women increased from 1.1 to 2.4 per year and from 2.3 to 3.1 per year respectively. Water and sanitation systems are another infrastructure which can positively influence health. Utilization of untreated or unclean water poses several risks to the health of people such as infection and disease contraction. Enhancing water and sanitation systems can assist in decreasing the prevalence of waterborne diseases. As a result, the health of people improves. Using results of a survey conducted in 1978 on 1, 903 households in the Bicol region of the Philippines, Horton (as cited in Brenneman & Kerf, 2002) presents a significant and positive correlation with a coefficient of 0.441 between the presence of piped water in homes and child nutrition. Aside from health, education is another social service that can be improved by greater infrastructure provisions. One of the points made earlier is that electrification can reallocate time resources from gathering biomass fuel into other productive activities. One possible activity is education. Hence, children, instead of collecting biomass fuels, can attend classes and spend more time on studying (Brenneman & Kerf, 2002). Khandker (as cited in Brenneman & Kerf, 2002) presents data from a survey of 87 villages in Bangladesh from 1991 to 1992 that providing all schools with electricity can result to an increase in the number of schooling years from 4 to 4.38 and from 4 to 4.45 for boys and girls, respectively. Sufficient transportation infrastructure is another key to better education especially for rural communities because it provides both teachers and students easier access to schools (Brenneman & Kerf, 2002). Levy (as cited in Agenor & Neanidis, 2011) verifies the positive influence of transportation infrastructure through the results of a study in the Philippines wherein

11

a 10% increase in school enrollment and a 55% decrease in dropout rates were observed after the construction of rural roads. If the construction of roads and schools in rural communities are impractical, modern technology offers an alternative in the form ICT. ICT infrastructure can be utilized for distance education programs. This allows better access to education. Exchanging information and discussions over great distances are also possible through the use of ICT. Bhatia (as cited in Brenneman & Kerf, 2002) reports 82% of participants in a distance education program for teacher training consider the program better than traditional training methods. In addition to economic development, infrastructure can also cause economic growth by improving health and education. Several studies demonstrate the capacity of health and education to induce economic growth. One such study states that enhancing the nutrition of people triggers economic growth by improving labor productivity (Agenor & Neanidis, 2011). Another study finds that improving the life expectancy of people by one year raises economic output by 4% (Bloom, Canning, & Sevilla, 2004) Different studies have also correlated better education with economic growth. In terms of educational attainment, Bloom, Canning, and Chan (2003) observe a 0.35% rise in industrial output as the number of people who have completed higher education increases by 1%, and a 0.15% increase in agricultural output as the number of science and engineering graduates increases by 1%. In terms of school enrollment, a study reports a 40% increase in secondary school enrollment results to a 1% increase in the growth rate of gross national product (GNP) per capita, another indicator of economic growth,. (Gylfason, 2001). An increase in schooling years also triggers economic growth. A study finds that increasing the number of years of secondary

12

and tertiary education by 0.68 years and 0.09 years improves GDP growth by 1.1% and 0.5% respectively (Bloom, Canning, & Chan, 2006). These growth effects of health and education raise a certain issue regarding the necessity of increasing infrastructure spending in promoting economic growth and development. It has been argued that if improving health and education can produce growth and cause development, then it may be better to increase direct spending on health and education rather than increase infrastructure spending. Agenor (2010) argues that reallocating huge government resources to infrastructure will only produce the preferred effects if the efficiency of public investments which is largely affected by governance is high enough. In the Philippines, increasing government spending on infrastructure may seem unviable due to governance issues. However, infrastructure can cause several effects which make it a practical expenditure. Public infrastructure can become sufficiently productive in health-related technology such that increasing infrastructure spending has a positive effect which compensates for lower direct spending on health. Infrastructure also has the capacity to maintain and enhance present investments in both health and education. Furthermore, immediate gains on health and education outcomes caused by infrastructure developments cannot be disregarded. These gains which include greater access to health care and clean water are vital for raising the quality of peoples lives (Agenor & Moreno-Dodson, 2006). It is therefore reasonable to believe that allocating more resources for infrastructure may be a better way to improve health rather than spending directly on health. The effects of infrastructure discussed in this paper reveal the need to modify the existing fiscal policy of the government in relation to infrastructure spending. First of all, in general, the

13

government should increase spending on infrastructure, resulting to the rehabilitation and construction of old and new infrastructure respectively. Specific recommendations on the infrastructure spending policy of the government are also important to note. First, as trade is crucial for economic growth, improvements in trade and transportation infrastructure such as airports like the Ninoy Aquino International Airport should be undertaken by the government. Second, the government should increase focus on infrastructure developments in rural communities where they seem to have the greatest effect as most of the studies cited in this paper were conducted in rural communities. Third, since poverty is prevalent in the Philippines, the government should be geared towards raising the standard of living of people by prioritizing infrastructure developments which improve social services such as health and education. Recommendations for future research are also important. First, future research should focus on ascertaining the optimal distribution of government resources to the different types of infrastructure. Second, further research should also determine the optimal distribution of government resources among three aspects of infrastructure spending, rehabilitation of old infrastructure, maintenance of existing infrastructure and construction of new infrastructure. Lastly, future studies should gather empirical evidence which show the optimal allocation of government spending on infrastructure in the Philippines. In this paper, the capacity of infrastructure enhanced by increased spending to induce economic growth through productivity, investment and trade was studied. This paper also discussed the ability of infrastructure as an economic service to raise the quality of peoples lives. Furthermore, this paper also studied the economic growth and development effects of

14

social services such as health and education as infrastructure improved the production and delivery of such services. Finally, this paper inferred that allocating government resources on infrastructure is justified as this produces positive effects on social services which are absent in direct spending on social services. Using the evidence gathered, it can be concluded that increasing government spending on infrastructure improves the economy because it enhances infrastructure which can stimulate growth and enrich peoples lives as infrastructure positively affects economic and social services.

15

References Agenor, P.-R. (2010). A theory of infrastructure-led development. Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control, 34, 932-950. doi:10.1016/j.jedc.2010.01.009

Agenor, P.-R., & Moreno-Dodson, B. (2006). Public infrastructure and growth: New channels and policy implications. In D. Franco, M. R. Marino, & S. Momigliano, Fiscal Indicators (pp. 403-447). Rome, Italy: Banca D'Italia.

Agenor, P.-R., & Neanidis, K. C. (2011). The allocation of public expenditure and economic growth. The Manchester School, 79(4), 899-931. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9957.2011.02197.x

Bloom, D. E., Canning, D., & Sevilla, J. (2004). The effect of health on economic growth: A production function approach. World Development, 32(1), 1-13. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.07.002

Bloom, D., Canning, D., & Chan, K. (2006). Higher education and economic development in Africa. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Brenneman, A., & Kerf, M. (2002). Infrastructure & poverty linkages. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Brooks, D. H., & Stone, S. F. (2010). Infrastructure and trade facilitation in Asian APEC. Asian Development Review, 27(1), 135-159.

Brooks, D. H., Hasan, R., Lee, J.-W., Son, H. H., & Zhuang, J. (2010). Closing development gaps: Challenges and policy options. Asian Development Review, 27(2), 1-28.

Cook, P. (2011). Infrastructure, rural electrification and development. Energy for Sustainable Development, 15, 304-313. doi:10.1016/j.esd.2011.07.008

Diokno, B. E. (2010). Philippine fiscal behavior in recent history. The Philippine Review of Economics, 47(1), 39-87. 16

Fay, M., Leipziger, D., Wodon, Q., & Yepes, T. (2005). Achieving child-health related Millennium Development Goals: The role of infrastructure. World Development, 33(8), 1267-1284. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.03.001

Foster, A. (2012). Creating good employment opportunities for the rural sector. Asian Development Review, 29(1), 1-28.

Gylfason, T. (2001). Natural resources, education, and economic development. European Economic Review, 45(4-6), 847-859. doi:10.1016/S0014-2921(01)00127-1

Jacoby, H. G., & Minten, B. (2009). On measuring the benefits of lower transport costs. Journal of Development Economics, 89, 28-38. doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2008.06.004

Olsson, J. (2009). Improved road accessibility and indirect development effects: Evidence from rural Philippines. Journal of Transport Geography, 17, 476-483. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2008.09.001

Straub, S., & Terada-Hagiwara, A. (2011). Infrastructure and growth in developing Asia. Asian Development Review, 28(1), 119-156.

Todaro, M. P., & Smith, S. C. (2012). Economic development (11th ed.). Boston, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Valdivia, M. (2004). Poverty, health infrastructure and the nutrition of Peruvian children. Economics & Human Biology, 2(3), 489-510. doi:10.1016/j.ehb.2004.10.008

Yean, T. H., Devadason, E., & Heng, L. W. (2009). Infrastructure and trade costs in Malaysia: The importance of FDI and exports. In D. H. Brooks, & D. Hummels (Eds.), Infrastructure's role in lowering Asia's trade costs: Building for trade (pp. 148-181). Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Asian Development Bank Institute and Edward Elgar Publishing.

17