Public Capital Infrastructure Management: Cases of Germany, Hungary and the USA

ABSTRACT

The study uses a comparative case study approach to analyze contrasts and similarities of capital infrastructure management at the national level in Hungary, Germany, and the USA. Public investment has decreased in Germany and the USA while Hungary has benefited from significant public investments financed by EU funds over the past 15 years. Ageing infrastructure and public infrastructure maintenance has been found to be the weakest area in all three countries. The COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated existing challenges in underinvestment in public infrastructure. Political support for capital infrastructure project could be more important than cost-benefit estimates in the USA and Hungary. These study findings show that there has been an increased need to institutionalize recommended practices in capital infrastructure management at national levels of government, in particular during COVID-19 crisis. The countries have a unique opportunity to reinvest in capital infrastructure and jumpstart countries’ economy during COVID-19 crisis.

KEYWORDS:

• Capital budgeting
• capital management
• capital infrastructure
• capital resources
• COVID-19 crisis
• Hungary
• United States
• Germany

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Economic infrastructure refers primarily to the fixed physical assets that directly support production process. This includes public utilities, such as electricity and water, transport networks and communication systems.

2. Social infrastructure refers to what may be considered as public necessities such as education, health and community services.

3. Act I of 1988

4. Hungary as a centralized country does not face this problem but the inclusion of the local, territorial approach in the planning process could be a challenge.