三、交通‘失败’观点 There is a feeling among some economists that an excessive amount of scarce resources sometimes tend to be devoted to transport improvements.
At a given point in economic development, a country requires a certain level of transport provision so that its growth potential is maximized. That means there is an optimum transport capacity for any development level. It has been argued, however, that there are economic forces that tend to lead to an excess of transport provision (especially high cost infrastructure) at the expense of more efficient and productive projects.
Wilson (1966)在其编著的书中 pointed to the lumpiness of transport capital which together with its longevity and associated externalities makes it particularly difficult to estimate future costs and benefits. Consequently, decisions to devote resources to transport are not easily reversible or readily corrected.
并且,发展经济学家,阿尔伯特•赫希曼 (Hirschman,1958)在其书中指出了The political acceptability of transport的原因是the sector attracts resources quite simply because it is difficult for mistakes (of an economic nature) to be proved even after major projects have been completed. Also development planners tend to be mainly concerned with allocating public investment funds and it is , therefore, natural that they should claim transport, communications, etc. as being of overriding and fundamental importance. Further, given the industrial composition of wealthier developed countries with an established heavy industrial base, tied aid for transport schemes has a firm attraction. Those adopting this rather skeptical approach to the role of transport, therefore, accept that an adequate basic transport system is an obvious sine qua non for modern economic development but question whether the opportunity costs involved in further improving transport are necessarily justified.