在基础设施规划方面, 有很多承诺, 尤其是在危机时期.
COVID-19 brought with it severe 经济 impacts and many governments quickly announced major infrastructure stimulus packages alongside legal reforms to fast track delivery.
The promise was that these emergency infrastructure investments would “build back better”, 应对2019冠状病毒病带来的直接经济挑战, 同时刺激社会变革.
这些可能性引发了许多希望. There was no shortage of public opinion pieces calling for things like a “green recovery” or a reduction in the geographical inequalities in jobs and well-being the pandemic helped reveal.
凯时k66平台的研究 investigated the substance and the politics of these much vaunted transformational promises in Australia, 新西兰和联合王国.
每个国家都有自己引人注目的危机, 以及现存的社会, 经济, 空间, 生态和代际挑战.
这种紧迫性也限制了对拟议项目的公开辩论和审查. 关于它们价值的问题, 他们的目的, 哪些社区会受到影响，如何受到影响, 面对很少的考试.
在大流行之前, all three countries had similar debates on infrastructure “deficits” and the need to reduce “red tape” from planning and public consultation.
Recognising infrastructure projects can become toxic and lead to electoral backlashes, politicians had also sought to depoliticise aspects of the decision-making process.
Each country established “independent” infrastructure commissions to develop national strategies and advise on priorities. 或许不可避免地,se commissions confirmed the need for more infrastructure spending and for faster processes.
将应急需求放在首位, 随着疫情的爆发，这些先前存在的改革理由很快被重新提起. 大部分决策权都交给了技术专家和政客.
在新西兰 基建行业参考小组 是为了帮助选择项目和投标人. 有兴趣的各方只有两周的时间提交意见.
在英国， 项目的速度 是由财政部建立和领导的，同样是非常紧迫的.
最后, 这一大流行病的经济影响可与以前的危机相比, 例如, 国内生产总值(gdp)收缩. 另一方面，它的社会影响是凯时k66平台所见过的其他危机所没有的.
在事后看来, insufficient time was given to understanding how the pandemic was reshaping the way we live.
工作方式的深刻改变, 是否在家工作, 上下班少, 或者搬出主要的城市中心, 最终对刺激计划几乎没有影响.
在更多转型基础设施投资方面取得了一些进展, 但这受到了公众接受度方面挑战的限制. Initiatives to pursue low traffic neighbourhoods and cycle lanes met with significant local opposition in some areas, 例如.
短期的时间限制了公众谘询的空间, 高质量的设计, 或者把这些作为全市战略的一部分.
As 研究 英国地方政府协会发现, 这些计划需要更多的利益攸关方参与, 而不是更少, 帮助识别和解决社区关注的问题.
与这种步履蹒跚的进展形成鲜明对比, much more headway was apparent in introducing reforms to speed up decision making on large infrastructure projects, 尤其是通过减少公众反馈的机会.
The shift towards centralised and expert-led decision making facilitated a rapid “pipeline” of investment. Yet this pipeline curtailed the space for the necessary politics typically associated with more transformative futures.
因此，与其让人们重新考虑基础设施的优先次序, 现有的改革, 叙事和项目都变得根深蒂固, 其中一些是快速处理的.
虽然是出于好意, promises of building back better did not constitute the radical rupture initially promised. 这种失败的部分原因是, 专家主导的过程不适合更具变革性的未来.
A key message is that if we really want to be transformative in future crisis we must hold those making promises accountable.
Accountability can be achieved by resisting the closure of political space that typically accompanies emergency claims and asking the question: “what infrastructure ought to be built, 为谁, 地点和原因?”
This invites us to question the normalisation of new infrastructure as a solution – almost regardless of the problem – and instead challenges us to unpick the existing assumptions of promoting high growth and productivity, 尤其是这些对减缓气候变化产生负面影响的地方.
另外, infrastructure we do build should be limited in scale and localised - focusing on creating coherent networks of smaller infrastructure projects as much as headline-grabbing mega-projects.
This two-pronged approach would better reflect the more local ways in which life has been conducted in cities since the early years of the pandemic.
凯时k66平台认为这是为了开辟一条不同的道路, politicians will need to spend more time actively identifying “shovel worthy” alternatives – projects that cultivate more equitable and climate-friendly cities and regions of the future.
“Shovel-worthy” means working with local communities and planning for infrastructure in an integrated way that centres climate justice and moves away from mega-projects.
Engaging with local knowledge and allowing open public scrutiny will greatly assist policy makers in identifying the kinds of infrastructure that can better address current inequalities and facilitate the societal transitions that cities and regions desperately need.