The issue of infrastructure development is an interesting one. Across the nation, key bridges and roads are beginning to deteriorate rapidly as a number of the resources necessary to keep these structures functioning steadily increase. The problem, at its core, revolves around the government's role in investing in infrastructure and in the nature of investment itself for infrastructure development. There, however, exists a dilemma of costs vs benefits of conducting infrastructure reform.

The critical barrier blocking important physical institutions that keep society functioning from implementing change is the simple fact that not many people want to invest in infrastructure. Infrastructure development has a significantly high cost with an unknown amount of benefits. The rate of return varies project by project, and the simple notion of repairing and upholding existing infrastructure projects does not guarantee benefits. Even if there is a monetary rate of return, the benefits are preventative rather than responsive.

This dilemma extends all the way to Congress and its representatives. Congress members would rather build and develop new infrastructure projects as they generate good publicity, increase their popularity and contribute to society's development. However, at its base, Congress biggest problem--among other things--is that their policy is always more responsive than preventative. They would rather respond to an imminent crisis and take credit for responding rather than preventing a crisis from ever occurring. This has a lot to do with heuristics about the activity of our representatives and how proactive they can be.

By the nature of our government's organization and the nature of investment analysis, it is, therefore, difficult for infrastructure development to proliferate. In our current system of affairs, the only significant way to rebuild roads and change abandoned train tracks is through public-private partnerships. But even these are too few to compete with the rising need for infrastructure development.

In order to repair critical infrastructure, there needs to be a significant change in the current paradigms of congressional organization or significant policy changes to alter the nature of investment for infrastructure. An example of this would be for there to be an increase in tax breaks for those businesses who invest heavily in restructuring current infrastructure projects and benefitting communities around it.