Should the term infrastructure be redefined?

The Covid crisis has highlighted where some parts of society have embarked on new journeys toward digital and online interaction, usually out of necessity. Arguably, entirely new - and resilient - supply chains have been created

Why should the term “infrastructure” be limited to the realm of digging and steel-reinforced concrete?

It’s Not The Size Of Your Infrastructure Stimulus Package That Matters. It’s What You Do With IT.

The last few months of the pandemic have given us a glimpse of our future. Beyond the focused mathematics of R numbers, daily cases and casualties, news feeds have shown a backdrop of how societies, governments and economies might work in times of future stress and uncertainly.

This could also act as a guide for how major new investments in critical infrastructure should be directed, and how central government spend ought to be allocated. Governments have been studying a new range of R words; R is for reproductive index of virus, but R is also for resilience. So any new infrastructure spending ought to consider how it helps improve national resilience in future crises and lockdowns. R is also for recovery, reform, rebalancing and real-time.

The current chaotic montage of change is not all bad - the quiet roads, clean air and re-connection of communities to create local commerce hubs have been heartening. The open debates on what we need for future societies have flourished, and even been tolerated by previously ardent followers of Friedrich Hayek, free markets and stand-offish government.

But painted less flatteringly are the social problems, enforced separations, remote working on over-stressed internet connections, or not working at all and worrying about making ends meet. Sketched-up plans for electronic tracking and tracing of citizens and images of health passports sounds viable, but creepy. Debates on who we’d trust more with our data and our identities - governments or big data enterprise - have become more spiky.

Some of these arguments are rendered unnecessarily harshly, penned by the inevitable polarizing effects of unregulated social media. So complex needs are too often reduced to binary arguments. For example, are you for all-in lockdown or devil-may-care free movement? For the move toward universal digital payments, or for the constitutional right to bear cash? Pro business or socialist? Are you for electronic identity records being held centrally, or do you insist on the distributed approach favored by Apple and Google? Distribute free money to citizens to fund a new generation of day-traders, or spend to create infrastructure jobs?

Most of these polarized debates are pointlessly over-simplified, ignoring a broad spectrum of mutually acceptable states. It is perfectly possible to be pro-business whilst simultaneously leaning on government to create the infrastructure that is beneficial to all business.

But the range of arguments is useful in shaping what sort of infrastructures might be needed. Today in the UK, the biggest infrastructure project is the construction of a high(er) speed rail link between London and “The North.” I’m not sure how to grade that $110 billion spend against the new criteria of resilience. Call me cynical, but wouldn’t that infrastructure spend be better used by giving prospective users a free high speed internet connection and a bicycle voucher? Putting decent wifi on the existing trains might be a good start.

The Covid crisis has highlighted where some parts of society have embarked on new journeys toward digital and online interaction, usually out of necessity. These include local shops, motivated to create rudimentary web sites, and to accept digital payments and to work with local delivery companies. Local communities have often flourished. Arguably, entirely new - and resilient - supply chains have been created.

But like the R number, the distribution of this digital revolution has not been equal. Many people still have no internet access. Not everyone has a bank account or the ability to engage in an online payment. The infrastructure for many of these digital services has not really been properly considered.

And yet we’re reading a lot about new infrastructure at the moment - the next trillion-dollar economic stimulus mooted in the US will be linked to spending on important national construction work.

According to the FT this week, the UK government has called out for more “shovel-ready” capital project applications, able to take advantage of government spending, as long as it can be delivered within 18 months and address two specific policy objectives — driving up economic growth/jobs and supporting a green recovery.

But why should the term “infrastructure” be limited to the realm of digging and steel-reinforced concrete? It’s a mistake to assume it only applies to grand civil engineering projects. The definition of infrastructure includes any fundamental facilities and systems that serve a community or a wider geography, including the services necessary for an economy to function.

These facilities are not limited to buildings, bridges and transport systems. They must also include the digital realm of high speed internet, and universal access to the web. They include practical support for e-commerce, digital platforms, electronic payments systems and security. They should also include digital education facilities, to make sure everyone gets a chance to benefit from new virtual infrastructure. If that’s what citizens want.

The digital infrastructure elements advocated by the World Economic Forum and think tanks like CEPS cater to an ambitious range from AI to Generation-Z. They are not as easy to visualize as roads, rails and bridges, but these digital building blocks are more likely to generate sustainable, resilient economic benefits.

Digital infrastructure should not be left for commerce alone. It’s an ideal time for government to rebalance and re-define the “shovel-ready” phrase. It was never supposed to be taken literally. It related to projects that could employ people within a few months, and have economic impacts swiftly. There are many such projects in the digital domain, so governments need to ensure a fair share of stimulus funding is allocated to software, and not just on shovels.

This article was written for Forbes by Lu Zurawski from ACI Worldwide