Gansauer et al.: Can Infrastructure Save “Left Behind” Places?
In Can Infrastructure Help ‘Left Behind’ Places ‘Catch Up?’ Theorizing the Role of Built Infrastructure in Regional Development, Grete Gansauer, Julia H. Haggerty, and Kelli F. Roemer (all of the Earth Sciences Department, Montana State University), Kristin K. Smith (Headwaters Economics, Montana), and Mark N. Haggerty (Center for American Progress, Washington, D.C.) investigate the role of infrastructure in the development of “left behind” regions in the United States. They ultimately argue that the nature of infrastructure interventions can lead to deepening structural “left behind-ness.”
Scholarly and policy debates often act on the assumption that widespread infrastructure repair will simultaneously mend socioeconomic deficits in marginalized places. But while the authors acknowledge that well-maintained infrastructure systems are needed for regional prosperity, they question the perspective that infrastructure offers a “silver bullet.” The article draws on three theoretical and empirical frameworks: critical infrastructure studies as a basis to investigate how system governance expresses power imbalances across different scales, economic geography to consider structural explanations of core-periphery value flows, and contemporary regional studies to balance social and economic goals for regional development.
With these perspectives in mind, the article identifies four mechanisms by which infrastructure development may exacerbate regional inequality. First, by (re)inscribing unequal exchange dynamics where the surplus value produced in resource peripheries benefits core geographies. Second, by contradicting locally important social needs and values in favor of industry and economic ends. Third, by employing problematic finance mechanisms in areas with high borrowing costs and relying on competitive awards that may reflect spatial biases against peripheral and under-performing regions. And finally, by neglecting to interrogate intersectional identity-based variables including race, gender, and class and their interaction with scalar public and private interests.
The article calls for further critical research which not only problematizes the assumption that infrastructure necessarily benefits regional development, but also recognizes that regions are not neutrally “left behind.” Just as the historical under- and dis-investment processes in peripheral regions have had political motivations, renewed interest in “left behind” places is also a politically motivated endeavor that can reproduce regional inequalities under the guise of development agendas. To avoid reinforcing ideas that may result in unjust practices, future research in the field must be adept at interrogating the social, economic, historical, and place-based dimensions of infrastructure production.
For more on rural infrastructure, see this commentary by Grete Gansauer on the challenges rural communities face accessing safe drinking water and check out the Rural Reconciliation Project’s Rural Infrastructure series.
