Home / Business Scene / Five Populist Fallacies about ‘Bridges and Tunnels’

Five Populist Fallacies about ‘Bridges and Tunnels’

Mr. Karamarko, in his statement to a daily newspaper, says it is of strategic importance for Croatia to connect some islands to the mainland with underwater tunnels.

He even states that ‘they are not tunnels but pipes laid on the seabed.’ He emphasizes that this ‘should help the economic development of the islands.’ A basic understanding of the fundamental principles of market economy functioning suggests that initiatives where a prominent politician combines the terms ‘strategic importance’ and ‘economic development’ should be analyzed with particular caution and skepticism. When he adds that ‘the state needs to kickstart the construction industry’ and that ‘the price of the tunnels is not important because it will be financed from EU funds,’ it is worth reminding that empirical data shows that all of the above is (too) often not based on the presence of sufficient economic prudence.

1. Indifferent Danes and Swedes?
Let us not deceive ourselves that, for example, a Dane or a Swede is indifferent to how much their country contributes to the EU budget from which the tunnels ‘whose price is not important’ are built. What if the Danes and Swedes decide to add another lane to the Oresund Bridge (which connects Malmö and Copenhagen with four car lanes and two railway tracks) and finance the project from EU funds, resulting in increased contributions from Croatia to the EU budget for some bridge that most of us will never use or see?! Yet, the price is important to all of us!

2. The Illusion of Free Things
In socialism, but even today, some chant (and some really believe in these things?!) about free education, healthcare, etc. Unfortunately, the ultimate indicator of the price paid for ‘free things’ is a significantly lower standard of living because you have given up something else to ‘receive free healthcare and education’ provided by an inefficient service provider (the state), which collects money from users to provide ‘free services’ through taxes, excise duties, customs, etc. Our ambition should be a high GDP per capita that allows discretionary acquisition of desired services in reasonable quantities and at reasonable prices instead of a low GDP per capita in a country where ‘things are free.’ There are no free things, and in the end, someone always pays for them, and the peoples prone to populism unfortunately pay for it with a lower overall standard of living. Therefore, neither are the tunnels (bridges) free, nor is their price unimportant.

3. The Private Sector Dependent on the State
I consider it extremely harmful to believe that ‘the state needs to kickstart the construction industry.’ I spoke with a private doctor who says he is very happy because only 0.4% of his income comes from HZZO. In the last four years, his business has been growing, but he is concerned about what the state is doing. Due to the disproportion between public spending and activities in the real sector that must finance it, users of his services pay a higher VAT than in previous years, 150,000 people in the private sector lost their jobs during this period, and they are potential users of his services, etc. It is very (economically) dangerous when the state determines which sectors approach the status of a sacred cow. Croatia needs resilient and profitable companies, not a cult-like relationship with a chosen sector, especially if the cash flow of that sector (which is in private hands) primarily depends on state (irrational) spending that others (from the private sector) must finance. As things stand now, Alpine Bau (one of the largest construction companies in Europe and also the majority owner of Osijek Koteksa) is going bankrupt, and the state does not intend to save it with fictitious works. The state cannot be the solution to all problems in the economy, especially in the part that directly affects the ability of private owners and management to make decisions about what to invest in, how to finance themselves, and ultimately how to manage the entire circus.

4. Warren Buffet and Missed Punches
This celebrated investor from the USA and one of the richest people in the world once said that business (the economy) is like a boxer. Namely, he is most tired from the punches he has missed. In the economy, missed punches most often mean poor investment decisions (which are poor because they do not result in satisfactory cash flows for investors – in this case, taxpayers whose money finances the project). For this reason, I appeal for a detailed financial (not political) analysis of the actual impact on the cash flow of the economy of the project of the respective tunnels (bridges).

5. Perception vs. Facts
In the book ‘The McKinsey Way’ (McKinsey is not the largest, but it is the most expensive consulting firm in the world), I read that they try to draw most of their conclusions based on as much processed data (facts) as possible because practice shows that clients’ perceptions of what or why something is happening are not necessarily in line with the results of an analysis based solely on facts, not on the impressions the client had about their problem. Therefore, it is particularly important that the state makes decisions about significant investments based on a detailed impartial analysis. A solid indicator of the economic sensibility of the project of the mentioned tunnels (bridges) could be offers from private investors specifying the conditions under which they would invest in the project in exchange for obtaining concession management of the relevant infrastructure. It is reasonable to expect that the private sector will repeatedly reassess the adequacy of assumptions and the accuracy of all calculations used in the preparation of the feasibility study because mistakes will be paid with their own (not someone else’s) money.

In the end, but not least, that Oresund beauty cost 4.15 billion EUR, has been operational since 2000, and according to available information, the payback period is expected to be around 2035 (in terms of present value, not before 2045). I am not against bridges and tunnels, but I am against unsubstantiated populism, economic clichés, and ‘revolutionary state investments’ useful for particular groups from ‘strategically important sectors’ that ultimately become (over)dependent on the state. I only call for economic prudence because we are too poor for ‘missed punches’ of that caliber.

Andrej Grubišić, [email protected]