Brett M. Frischmann, Infrastructure: the social value of shared resources.
Brett M. Frischmann, Infrastructure: the social value of shared resources.
复制标题
Brett M. Frischmann，《基础设施：共享资源的社会价值》。
作者：
A. Marciano
布雷特·弗里施曼 (Brett Frischmann) 以美国土木工程师学会 (ASCE) 提供的一些数据开始了他这本引人入胜且富有挑战性的书，根据这些数据，“美国超过 26%（即四分之一）的桥梁要么结构有缺陷，要么功能陈旧”（第 ix-x 页）。由此，弗里施曼总结道：“我们在美国面临着重大的基础设施问题”（第 x 页）。这个问题不仅限于桥梁，还影响弗里施曼定义为基础设施的其他资源，包括：互联网、基础研究、思想、语言、法律和环境。人们可以假设弗里沙姆指出的问题超越了国界，因为它植根于一种有缺陷的基础设施管理理论方法。更准确地说，弗里施曼声称“我们”管理基础设施的方法是“自满、被动、零碎……[并且]极其短视”（第x页）。改变它“需要一个巨大的转变——也许是范式转变——偏离有利于市场供应和市场“不受”政府干预的传统立场”（第368页）。事实上，弗里施曼所谴责的自满情绪正是我们支持市场供应的自满情绪，在他看来，这种自满情绪导致了“对供应方问题的短视关注”（第 18 页）。实际上，问题在于这些标准的亲市场基础设施方法首先关注个人层面。它们将基础设施的类型和数量建立在个人支付意愿的基础上。这意味着基础设施的社会价值对应于并且可以归结为个人评价和需求的总和。弗里施曼声称，这种方法误解了基础设施社会价值的产生因素，因为它从根本上误解了基础设施资源的真实性质。从这个角度来看，一个未被充分强调的关键因素是基础设施在下游需求之外没有任何内在价值。或者，换句话来说，基础设施的社会价值是基础设施允许直接用户和间接非用户进行的商业和非商业活动的函数。
Brett Frischmann starts his captivating and challenging book with some figures providedby the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), according to which ‘‘more than 26 %,or one in four, of the nation’s [U.S.’s] bridges are either structurally deficient or func-tionally obsolete’’ (p. ix–x). From this, Frischmann generalizes that ‘‘we have a majorinfrastructure problem in the United States’’ (p. x). This problem is not limited to bridgesbut, also affects other resources that Frischmann defines as infrastructures including: theinternet, basic research, ideas, language, law, and the environment. One can assume thatthe problem identified by Frischamnn transcends national boundaries since it is rooted in aflawed theoretical approach to managing infrastructures. More precisely, Frischmannclaims that ‘‘our’’ approach to managing infrastructures is ‘‘complacent, reactive, piece-meal… [and] incredibly shortsighted’’ (p. x). Changing it ‘‘entails a dramatic shift–perhapsa paradigm shift–away from the conventional position favoring market provisioning andmarkets ‘free’ from government intervention’’ (p. 368). Indeed, the complacency Frisch-mann denounces is the one that we have in favor of market provisioning that leads, in hisview, to a ‘‘myopic focus on supply-side issues’’ (p. 18). In effect, the problem is that thesestandard pro-market approaches to infrastructures begin by focusing at the individual level.They base the type and amount of infrastructure to provide on the willingness of indi-viduals to pay for it. This means that the social value of infrastructures correspond to, andcan be reduced to, the sum of the individual evaluations and demands.Frischmann claims that this type of approach misunderstands what generates the socialvalue of infrastructures because it fundamentally misunderstands the real nature of infra-structure resources. From this perspective, a crucial element, not sufficiently emphasized,is that infrastructures do not have any inherent value outside of downstream demand. Or, toput it differently, the social value of infrastructures is a function of the commercial andnon-commercial activities that infrastructures allow direct users, and indirect non-users, topursue.