There is widespread consensus that US infrastructure quality has been on the decline. In response, politicians across the ideological spectrum have called for increased infrastructure spending. Although the cost of infrastructure determines how much physical output each dollar of spending yields, we know surprisingly little about these costs across time and place. We help to fill this gap by using data we digitized on the Interstate highway system—one of the nation’s most valuable infrastructure assets—to document spending per mile over the history of its construction.
We make two main contributions. First, we find that real spending per mile on Interstate construction increased more than three-fold from the 1960s to the 1980s. The increase does not appear to come from states building “easy” miles first, since the increase is roughly unchanged conditional on pre-existing observable geographic cost determinants. Second, we provide suggestive evidence of the determinants of the increase in spending per mile. Increases in per -unit labor or materials prices are inconsistent with the pattern of the increase. But increases in income and housing prices explain about half of the increase in spending per mile. We find suggestive evidence that the rise of “citizen voice” in government decision-making caused increased expenditure per mile.
We conduct the first survey experiment to understand public attitudes about the realization rule for capital gains. This rule requires that assets usually must be sold before gains on them are taxed and thus makes taxing capital income much harder. We have three main findings. First, respondents strongly prefer to wait to tax gains on stocks until sale: 75% to 25%. But the flip side is that there is surprisingly strong support for taxing gains on assets at sale or transfer, including at death, in areas where current law never taxes those gains. Second, these stated views change only modestly when randomized participants observe a policy debate composed of videos explaining both the pros and cons of taxing before sale, though the pro and con treatments have large effects individually. And, third, among many possible explanations of these attitudes, we find particular evidence for three: mental accounting; status quo effects; and a desire to tax consumption, not income.
Economists often point to the superiority of cash transfers over in-kind assistance as a means of redistribution because recipients can choose how to use these resources. However, among the trillions of dollars of annual U.S. transfers, redistribution is mostly in-kind. We conducted a survey experiment—using a choice between a cash transfer and a transfer that could be spent only on a bundle of “necessities”—to help explain why. We show that the general population overwhelmingly prefers in-kind redistribution, largely for paternalistic reasons. This preference was common to a majority of virtually all segments of the general population, though not to a sample of educational elites. A persuasion treatment on the value of choice, while impactful, did not change this overall preference for in-kind. For an equal-sized program, below-poverty respondents preferred receiving cash. But they appeared to prefer the larger in-kind transfer to the smaller cash transfer that the general population was willing to support. This suggests that an in-kind transfer may be preferable to both recipients and the general population.