During the nineteenth century many of Europe's capital cities were subject to major expansion and improvement schemes. From Vienna's Ringstrasse to the boulevards of Paris, the townscapes which emerged still shape today's cities and are an inalienable part of European cultural heritage. In Planning Europe's Capital Cities, Thomas Hall examines the planning process in fifteen of those cities and addresses the following questions: when and why did planning begin, and what problems was it meant to solve? who developed the projects, and how, and who made the decisions? what urban ideas are expressed in the projects? what were the legal consequences of the plans, and how did they actually affect subsequent urban development in the individual cities? what similarities or differences can be identified between the various schemes? how have such schemes affected the development of urban planning in general? His detailed analysis shows us that the capital city projects of the nineteenth century were central to the evolution of modern planning and of far greater impact and importance than the urban theories and experiments of the Utopians.
"Policy-makers often call for expanding public spending on infrastructure, which includes a broad range of investments from roads and bridges to digital networks that will expand access to high-speed broadband. Some point to near-term macro-economic benefits and job creation, others focus on long-term effects on productivity and economic growth. This volume explores the links between infrastructure spending and economic outcomes, as well as key economic issues in the funding and management of infrastructure projects. It draws together research studies that describe the short-run stimulus effects of infrastructure spending, develop new estimates of the stock of U.S. infrastructure capital, and explore the incentive aspects of public-private partnerships (PPPs). A salient issue is the treatment of risk in evaluating publicly-funded infrastructure projects and in connection with PPPs. The goal of the volume is to provide a reference for researchers seeking to expand research on infrastructure issues, and for policy-makers tasked with determining the appropriate level of infrastructure spending"--
In the quest to reduce costs and improve the efficiency of water and wastewater services, many communities in the United States are exploring the potential advantages of privatization of those services. Unlike other utility services, local governments have generally assumed responsibility for providing water services. Privatization of such services can include the outright sale of system assets, or various forms of public-private partnershipsâ€"from the simple provision of supplies and services, to private design construction and operation of treatment plants and distribution systems. Many factors are contributing to the growing interest in the privatization of water services. Higher operating costs, more stringent federal water quality and waste effluent standards, greater customer demands for quality and reliability, and an aging water delivery and wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure are all challenging municipalities that may be short of funds or technical capabilities. For municipalities with limited capacities to meet these challenges, privatization can be a viable alternative. Privatization of Water Services evaluates the fiscal and policy implications of privatization, scenarios in which privatization works best, and the efficiencies that may be gained by contracting with private water utilities.
Historically, governments have played the predominant role in owning and operating infrastructure facilities such as schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, railways, ports, telecommunications networks, and water and electricity supply facilities. However, fiscal policy constraints, growing acceptance of the user-pays principle, and a recognition that there are generally greater incentives for efficiency in the private sector, have driven increased private involvement in the provision of both economic and social infrastructure. A new Commission Staff Working Paper reports on the experiences of a number of countries using different approaches to funding public infrastructure projects. The countries covered in the study are Australia, Canada, France, Germany, New Zealand, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. In most countries, general government investment in infrastructure has declined in recent years. Nevertheless, overall investment in infrastructure has remained fairly steady, although volatile in some countries. Total Australian investment in infrastructure was just below 6 per cent of GDP in 2006-07. Sub-national governments undertook 76 per cent of public infrastructure investment, with government trading enterprises (GTEs) accounting for around half of this.