Tag: Infrastructure investments

Towards European Union Membership: Poland’s EU Pre-accession Funds and Infrastructure Development

Posted on October 6, 2025 | Policy Brief, Policy Papers

European Union flag waving during a public demonstration, symbolizing support and integration efforts related to EU Pre-Accession Funds.

In advance of formal membership, candidate countries are offered three pillars of EU assistance: trade concessions, stabilization and association agreements and financial support. These instruments aim both to prepare candidates economically, politically and administratively, and to signal accession’s benefits to their populations. In this paper we describe the channels in which the third pillar – the EU pre-accession funds – affected Poland’s economic and institutional development ahead of its 2004 membership. The funds were designed to accelerate institutional transformation, modernize agriculture, strengthen rural communities, improve transport networks, and promote environmental protection. In Poland, between the mid-1990s and 2003, they supported extensive investments that produced unprecedented improvements in technical infrastructure. Poland’s accession referendum in 2003 turned decisively in favor of EU membership, despite strong regional variation in support. While no causal evidence is available, we argue that without the EU-funded infrastructural transformation, its outcome would have been less certain. For current EU candidate countries, Poland serves as an excellent example of how targeted external financial assistance can support structural transformation ahead of integration with the EU.

Introduction

Seven countries are currently eligible to receive financial support through the European Union’s Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA III): Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, and Türkiye. The funding allocated within the program for the 2021–2027 period amounts to 14.162 billion EUR (in 2021 prices; European Commission, 2024). IPA III is the successor to the former two IPA editions, which have provided support exceeding 24 billion EUR since 2007 to countries in the then EU enlargement region. IPA aims to support countries that have entered a pathway to EU membership, expected in the foreseeable future, to facilitate progressive alignment with EU rules, values, and various standards and policies enforced in the European Union before they become full members. It constitutes one of the pillars of assistance offered by the EU to countries with a prospect of membership, with trade concessions and stabilization and association agreements (SAAs) serving as the other two.

Next in line to obtain financial help through the pre-accession funding are Moldova and Ukraine, both of which were granted candidate status by the European Council fairly recently. While they have already started their accession negotiations and may benefit from trade concessions and SAAs, they still need to fulfill certain requirements to be eligible for IPA. Though formally also a candidate since late 2023, the accession process of Georgia is currently suspended due to concerns about democratic backsliding, implementation of controversial laws and disputed parliamentary elections.

In this paper, we examine Poland’s experience in utilizing the funding available prior to the 2004 EU enlargement to undergo important structural and systemic changes. Given the goals of the funding, we discuss the evolution of a number of economic indicators which can serve as evidence of the socio-economic advancement that occurred in Poland in the years leading to its EU accession. These examples illustrate different dimensions of development that societies in countries embarking on the EU accession process could benefit from on their way towards full integration.

EU Pre-accession Funding Options in the 1990s

Together with nine other countries, mainly from the Eastern European region and the former communist bloc (Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Slovakia, and Slovenia), Poland joined the EU in 2004. It was the largest enlargement of the European community both in terms of the number of new countries and population-wise.

On the pathway to EU membership, these candidates benefited from a coordinated set of financial instruments designed to accelerate their political, economic, and institutional development. During the 1990s and early 2000s, three programs offered financial assistance: Phare, SAPARD, and ISPA. Each addressed a different strategic challenge that candidates faced during their accession period – many of which underwent the transition from centrally planned to free market economies.

From the pool of soon-to-be EU members, Hungary and Poland were the first among the post-communist Central and Eastern European countries to formally start the accession process as early as 1994 (Cyprus and Malta applied in 1990). These two countries also inaugurated the distribution of financial assistance among the EU applicants. They became the first beneficiaries of the Phare program, which concentrated on supporting public administration reform, improving institutional capacity, and preparing regions for effective absorption of EU structural funds. It also helped modernize local infrastructure and provided targeted assistance to sectors undergoing major restructuring. Phare was soon extended to cover all other candidate countries.

The second initiative – SAPARD, concentrated on the needs of the agricultural sector and rural communities. The goal was to raise the competitiveness of local farming and modernize food production.

The third program, ISPA, funded major environmental and transportation initiatives.

These three programs helped close the gap between the candidate countries and older EU member states by improving infrastructure and enhancing the functioning of their institutions. Formally, they also helped ensure that the new members met EU strict standards and legal directives and built the foundations for their long-term cohesion. More detailed descriptions of the objectives of each program, with a special focus on Poland, are included in Box 1.

Figure 1 presents the annual expenditures between 1990 and 2003 within each of the three analyzed instruments provided by the European Union to Poland (bars, left axis). With connected lines, we show the scope of each program in cumulative amounts over time (right axis). During the 1990s, the budget spent on Poland under the Phare program was kept under 200 million EUR annually (in the last year of the decade, it increased to almost 300 million EUR). However, after the program’s restructuring since the beginning of the 2000s, annual spending through this instrument doubled. Among the three, Phare was the major funding source for Poland, as the country received a total of 3.5 billion EUR until 2003 (equivalent to 1.9% of the Polish GDP in 2003) – almost five times more than under the SAPARD program. Poland also obtained the highest total amount of funding of all candidate countries at the time, corresponding to 30% of the overall provided financial assistance (Kawecka-Wyrzykowska & Ambroziak 2006).

Figure 1. Values of  EU pre-accession funds in Poland

Source: Own compilation based on Tables 3, 4, 6 from Kawecka-Wyrzykowska & Ambroziak (2006). Note: in 2003 prices.

In 2000, ISPA and SAPARD were introduced to further support specific areas identified during the 1990s as critical and requiring targeted funding – the agricultural sector, initiatives to enhance the transportation network, and environmental protection. Through SAPARD, projects related to farming and rural infrastructure received approximately 150 million EUR per year in Poland, accumulating to 700 million EUR over the four-year period until 2003. Since one of the prerequisites in SAPARD was national co-funding of ca. 25% of the public contribution in the investments, overall 1.1 bn EUR (0.6% of the 2003 GDP) of public money was committed to different projects in Poland through this instrument (ARiMR 2025; investments consisted in 50% of private resources).

Projects supported within ISPA on average obtained 300 million EUR annually in Poland, with total spending reaching 1.4 billion EUR until 2003 (0.8% of the 2003 GDP). Poland was still the major beneficiary of these two types of financial support, though the total share of the funding received within each of them was much lower than in the Phare program, respectively 32% in SAPARD and 34% in ISPA (Kawecka-Wyrzykowska & Ambroziak 2006).

 

Box 1. Financial instruments offered in the 1990s on the pathway to EU membership: Phare, SAPARD, ISPA

Originally known as Poland and Hungary Assistance for Restructuring of the Economy, Phare was launched in 1989 at a pivotal moment in European history. Initially designed to support the two countries in their transition from communism to democracy and a market economy, Phare quickly expanded to cover other parts of Central and Eastern Europe. Its mission was not only to help rebuild economies, but also to support political democratization. At first, it operated through national programs, but as regional cooperation gained importance, Phare introduced international initiatives to foster cross-border collaboration. The evolving challenges faced by the transforming countries led to a significant change in the program’s operation in the late 1990s. Financial support was now focused on two main pillars: investment in essential infrastructure, which consumed about 70 per cent of resources, and institutional development, which received the remaining 30 per cent. Poland benefited from several specialized initiatives within Phare. Socio-Economic Cohesion focused on modernizing regional infrastructure and preparing Polish regions to efficiently absorb EU structural funds. Cross-Border Cooperation strengthened ties between Poland and its neighbors. Institutional Building contributed to more efficient and transparent public administration.

The Special Accession Program for Agriculture and Rural Development, SAPARD, was established in 1999 to help transform the agricultural sectors and rural economies of ten countries aspiring to join the EU at the time. The goal was to prepare farmers and food processors to meet strict EU sanitary and veterinary standards. In Poland, SAPARD played a major role given the country’s vast rural landscape and the important role of agriculture in the economy – accounting for 7% of the GDP in 1995 (CSO 2014). Around 75% of the total budget was allocated from EU funds, with the remainder covered by national co-financing. However, the rules required an own contribution from each beneficiary, thus around half of the total value of all investments realized through SAPARD was private capital (Supreme Audit Office, 2002). SAPARD in Poland focused on, on the one hand, the modernization of agriculture and, on the other, on rural development. A large part of the program went into modernizing agricultural holdings, supporting farmers in buying new machinery, improving farm buildings, and upgrading agricultural production to meet EU standards. Equally important was the modernization of food processing industries, like meat, dairy, fruits and vegetables. Another significant part of the program concentrated on infrastructure in rural communities — building roads, sewage systems, and improving basic services. To encourage economic diversification, assistance was provided to develop non-farming businesses and create new job opportunities outside of agriculture (EU Council, 1999a).

Created in 1999, the main goal of ISPA was to finance large-scale projects in two critical sectors: transportation and environmental protection. Projects selected for funding were typically expensive, exceeding 5 million EUR, and had a strategic, national or at least regional impact (EU Council, 1999b). From the society’s perspective, these initiatives improved living standards, protected public health and the natural environment and promoted sustainable development. In the environmental sector, ISPA focused mainly on critical areas, including improving the quality of drinking water, building modern sewage treatment plants, managing waste more efficiently, and reducing air pollution. Given the EU’s strict environmental directives, addressing these issues was a fundamental condition for accession. ISPA concentrated also on modernizing and expanding major roadways and railway lines, especially those which were signified as part of the Trans-European Transport Network. Improved transport connections facilitated trade, mobility, and regional development, essential for increasing economic competitiveness and tightening of physical linkage with the rest of Europe.

The total amount of received funding was only one of the factors that may have played a role in the scope and pace of overall socio-economic changes in Poland. Importantly, the spatial distribution of investments provided a unique opportunity to reduce the geographical inequalities deeply rooted in Polish history and related, in particular, to the partitions of Poland lasting from the late 1700s till the end of World War I (Becker et al. 2016; Grosfeld & Zhuravskaya 2015). The eastern regions of Poland were historically much less developed, with the agricultural sector maintaining a critical position in economic activity and employment.

To illustrate the differences in regional distribution of the funding, we use a number of indicators related to investments realized with the help of the SAPARD instrument – which was specifically targeted at supporting infrastructure in rural areas and advancements in the agricultural sector. In Figure 2, we present three measures of investment allocation – the total (public+private) value of investments completed in each region (a), total value of investments per capita (b), and per hectare of agricultural land (c). Depending on the analyzed indicator, we obtain a slightly different picture of the distribution of the investments in SAPARD throughout the country. It appears that the Western regions of Poland received the least funding from SAPARD, whereas the Eastern and most rural regions were less successful in securing the funding. In all three cases, though, the Wielkopolskie Voivodship – a region in the Central-Western part of Poland – stands out as the one that collected the highest funding not only overall, but also when calculated per inhabitant or, most crucially, per area of agricultural land.

Figure 2. Spatial distribution of the SAPARD investments in Poland, total amount (public+private) for the period 2000-2003

Source: Own compilation based on Table 7.2 from Rudnicki (2008). Note: Converted from PLN to EUR using 4PLN/EUR exchange rate; c) per hectare of agricultural land. As compared to Fig. 1 the amounts for SAPARD include private resources spent

The most likely reason behind the particular allocation of the funding is related to the application process. The total amount of the funding was granted to Poland with limited distributional guidelines, and the funds were allocated on the first-come, first-served basis (ARiMR 2003). The maps in Figure 2 suggest that farmers, agricultural producers and manufacturers, and rural municipalities in Wielkopolskie region were quick and efficient when it came to funding applications. The scale and scope of the investments, though – looking at the three different measures – shows the flow of substantial benefits to all central and eastern regions.

Infrastructural Metamorphosis of Poland in the 1990s

As described above, an exceptional stream of additional funds from the EU was directed to Poland from the early days of its transition. The funding programs evolved with time during the 1990s and became more specialized closer to EU accession to address the specific needs of the candidate countries. While causal evidence of the impact of EU pre-accession funds on evolving infrastructure remains scarce and is methodologically challenging (with just a few exceptions on more recent pre-accession funding schemes, like Denti 2013), a simple overview of a number of key indicators might serve as strong suggestive evidence that the funds actually made a significant difference. In this part of the paper, we take a closer look at some examples of Polish infrastructure that underwent enormous progress in the late 1990s and early 2000s. We stipulate that the EU funding played a crucial role in the acceleration of this development.

All three analyzed EU instruments – Phare, SAPARD and ISPA – shared some common objectives, for instance, increasing access to clean water in the population, reducing pollution in lakes, rivers, and the sea, and improving road conditions, especially the low-rank ones in remote, rural areas. In Figures 3-5, we present the scale of improvement observed in these three areas on the lowest level of regional disaggregation, namely, in Polish municipalities. We compare the three selected indicators over almost a decade, between 1995, the initial year of data availability, and 2004.

We begin with Figure 3, which depicts the expansion of the water pipe network measured in kilometers per 1,000 inhabitants in each municipality. As specified in the legend, the darker the green category, the higher the density of the water pipe network. The rapid expansion of the network between 1995 and 2004 is evident, especially in some parts of the country. Most often, the upgrade to the top category happened in regions that lagged well behind the rest of the country in 1995. Here, the notable examples are the central regions of Poland (Kujawsko-Pomorskie and Lodzkie Voivodships, including the northern part of the Mazowieckie Voivodship) and the north-eastern frontiers (Podlaskie and Warminsko-Mazurskie Voivodships).

Figure 3. Length of the water pipe system (in km) per 1000 inhabitants in Polish municipalities in 1995 and 2004

Source: Own compilation based on the statistics from the CSO Local Data Bank (BDL); Geodata: National Register of Boundaries (PRG). Note: The legend is based on 2004 data: the two top and bottom categories in the legend cover 10% of observations each, and the rest of the categories cover 20% of observations each. Municipality borders marked in white, voivodship borders in yellow. Poland underwent an important administrative reform in 1999, when 49 voivodships were aggregated into the current 16. For the year 1995, we use the post-reform voivodship division of the country. Between 1995 and 2004, only negligible administrative changes took place at the municipal level.

In Figure 4, we show the share of the population enjoying access to sewage treatment plant services. The progress over time in this respect was related, on the one hand, to the construction of new treatment facilities and, on the other, to the concurrent expansion of the sewage pipeline network, which resulted in a higher share of users for the existing wastewater treatment plants. The increase in the usage of the treatment plants over time is striking, especially given that at the starting point, in 1995, only a limited number of municipalities had a wastewater treatment plant in operation. These municipalities were mainly concentrated in the northwestern corner of Poland and in the southwestern region of Silesia.

In comparison to the water pipe system in Figure 3, the development of sewage treatment plant access was concentrated in regions that were already ahead of the rest of Poland in 1995 – specifically, the northwestern and southwestern ones. However, a substantial increase in access to sewage treatment services is also visible in central and eastern parts of Poland, where in 1995 plants offering these services were extremely rare. This particular type of development can also be viewed from the perspective of the extent of pollution reduction in Poland’s internal waters. The number of scientific reports documented a sharp decline in biochemical factors of industrial, agricultural and household origin, hazardous to both humans and the environment, commonly polluting Polish rivers and lakes in the 1990s (Gorski et al, 2017; Marszelewski & Piasecki, 2020).

Figure 4. Number of residents connected to sewage treatment plants per 1000 inhabitants in Polish municipalities in 1995 and 2004

Source: see Figure 3. Note: The legend is based on 2004 data: due to high prevalence of zeros the bottom category in the legend covers 30% of observations, the rest of categories cover 10% of observations each. Municipality borders marked in white, voivodship borders in yellow (see Notes in Figure 3 for details).

The third pair of maps (Figure 5) illustrates the development of the country’s road network. The Figure shows the expansion and modernization of the lower rank roads administered by municipalities, which seem particularly important from the point of view of day-to-day transportation and quality of life of local populations.

Figure 5. Length of the municipality road network (in km) per 1000 inhabitants in Polish municipalities in 1995 and 2004

Source and Note: see Figure 3.

The data in Figure 5 cover both paved or hard-surfaced roads and dirt roads. One point to keep in mind here is that with an overall development of a municipality and of the neighboring region, the status of the municipality’s small-scale road may be updated to a higher rank, administered by the county or even by the voivodship. Figure 5 does not account for such an update of rank (in the Figure of roads), so the numbers presented are likely to represent a lower bound of the actual advancement. The maps in Figure 5 compare the length of municipal roads per 1000 inhabitants in 1995 and 2004. While a significant improvement in the road system is visible almost all over the country, the central regions seem to have gained the most, at least when it comes to this particular type of roads.

Investments and Development vs. Public Perception

Overall, all three figures above demonstrate that during the decade before Poland integrated with the EU, significant progress was achieved in terms of improving the quality of life, increasing accessibility of public utilities, reducing environmental degradation and capturing sustainable urban development. Substantial investments in rural areas had an important impact on reducing regional disparities.

Another important observation when examining all three figures together is that, while advancement occurred throughout the country, the bulk of improvement in each of the considered aspects was concentrated in slightly different parts of it, and almost all Polish municipalities recorded an important inflow of investments related to the pre-accession funding. While again we cannot provide any causal evidence, below we confront the spatial distribution of infrastructural modernization from Figures 3-5 with public support for joining the EU expressed in the referendum organized in 2003, a year before accession.

Figure 6. Support for the EU accession in the referendum in 2003

Source: Own compilation based on the statistics from the National Electoral Commission; Geodata: National Register of Boundaries (PRG). Note: The bottom category in the legend covers municipalities that voted against EU integration (12.3% of observations), the rest of the categories cover 25% of the remaining observations each. Municipality borders marked in white, voivodship borders in yellow.

In Figure 6, we present the results of the vote on the municipal level, with darker blue shades indicating higher support for EU membership. The map clearly highlights high geographical variation in support for European integration, with much stronger proportions of votes in favor of EU membership in western and northern Poland. In contrast, the support in central and eastern Poland was substantially lower, reflecting a higher degree of skepticism towards the benefits of the EU. Clearly, many factors influenced people’s choices at the time of the referendum. They depended on their economic conditions, the degree of exposure to relations with Western European countries, the level of awareness of the potential gains from integration, as well as fears concerning the future of local economies and those related to cultural influences.

Just by looking at the map of support, it is impossible to say much about the degree to which the EU pre-accession funds affected the outcome of the referendum. For that, we would need to know more about the dynamics of support across regions. Yet, while the share of votes in favor of integration in many eastern municipalities was below 50%, people in a substantial majority of localities expressed overwhelming support for joining the EU. The result of the referendum was 77,45% in favor. Although no causal analysis linked the results to EU pre-accession funds, the scale of investment and its visibility, as well as its tangible effects – the direct translation of EU funds into daily quality of life all across Poland, are very likely to have turned many people’s votes in the EU’s favor.

Conclusion

Since the early 1990s, on the path to EU membership in 2004, Poland, like other candidate countries, received generous European pre-accession financial assistance. The combination of three financial instruments in operation at the time – Phare, SAPARD, and ISPA – enabled Poland to make substantial investments in key economic sectors, including public administration, agriculture, environmental protection, and physical infrastructure. The early launch of the Phare program prepared Poland to follow various EU standards and prerequisites, and contributed to the implementation of the cohesion policy. Initiation of assistance within SAPARD and ISPA instruments since 2000 strengthened the rural economy and competitiveness of Polish agriculture, and allowed for modernization of the transportation and environmental infrastructure. In pre-accession assistance, Poland received a total of 5.5 billion euro (over 3% of the 2003 GDP), by far the highest support provided to the candidate countries at the time.

Substantial investments made during the 1990s and early 2000s, largely covered by pre-accession financial aid, had a remarkable impact on the quality of existing infrastructure in Poland. Kilometers of roads were built and renovated in Polish municipalities, thousands of households acquired a connection with the water pipe network, and hundreds of wastewater treatment plants were constructed. This is only a small subset of selected advancements that can be demonstrated using quantitative data collected in a comparable way over time. Numerous other types of infrastructure received substantial investments to support development, modernization or enhancement. On top of that, all these improvements have likely contributed to further spill-over effects through higher levels of regional growth, a boost in the labor market with the creation of new jobs, a reduction of unemployment, or enhanced labor productivity. All these changes, taken together, played a key role in determining the overall quality of life for the Polish population, reducing regional economic inequalities, and improving the quality of the local natural environment, etc.

The distribution of support for Poland’s accession to the EU, as reflected in the 2003 referendum results, differed significantly by region. Enthusiasm for the EU was significantly lower in the eastern parts of the country, while residents of many western municipalities voted overwhelmingly in favor of membership. Yet, even at a very fine geographical distribution, we see only a relatively small group of municipalities – 12.3% – where less than 50% of residents voted in favor of EU membership, and the overall outcome across the country was a decisive “YES”. Thus, although the substantial advancement in infrastructural development all across the country did not convince the majority of residents in each and every locality, the number and geographical scope of those voting in favor was very decisive. It is impossible to say how high/low the support would have been without the received support. Yet, given the scale of the resulting changes in various basic dimensions of quality of life, it seems safe to say that, thanks to the funds, many voters looked at the future integration with a higher degree of appreciation. Naturally, other factors played a role in determining people’s decisions in the referendum, with economic conditions and prospects for socio-economic development being just one factor, albeit a likely important one.

Pre-accession funds in the current candidate countries, how they are used, distributed, and how they change people’s daily lives, will again prove important in showcasing the benefits of integration. At the same time, to secure the kind of support that the Polish population expressed in the 2003 referendum, it will be important to also highlight the broader benefits of integration and address fears and concerns of various population groups.

The experience of Poland and other member countries from Central and Eastern Europe can serve not only as an example of the benefits of pre-accession funds, which we studied in this policy paper. The countries’ socio-economic success and the changes in the quality of life, both before and after accession, should be seen as a clear case of fundamental changes, which would have been highly unlikely had the countries decided to stay out of the European Union.

Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge the support from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Sida. We are grateful to Patryk Markowski for his assistance in preparing this analysis and detailed background research.

References

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.

Road Congestion Pricing with A Public Transport Cashback Mechanism

Posted on February 3, 2025 | Policy Brief

Traffic congestion during rush hour – a challenge congestion pricing aims to solve.

Traffic jams are a major problem in cities leading to wasted time, air pollution, reduced accessibility, and, in turn, lower economic activity. Transport economists widely agree that charging drivers fees for using busy roads during rush hours (congestion pricing) is the best answer to road congestion problems. However, such a policy is rarely used, mostly because people see it as unfair in how it affects different income groups. We propose an innovative personalized public transport cashback mechanism to make congestion pricing more acceptable. Recent surveys in Riga and Vienna show that people are more willing to support the introduction of congestion pricing when it includes a cashback component.

Road Congestion Pricing and Its Discontent

Road Congestion Pricing

Traffic jams happen when too many cars at the same place and at the same time use a road of a limited capacity. Building new roads or lanes is expensive, especially in cities, and it only provides short- and medium-term traffic improvements, with little impact on congestion in the long term (Ossokina et al., 2023; Hymel, 2019). Duranton and Turner (2011) show that when major roads are expanded, more people start using them and, over time, congestion returns to the same level as before. Meanwhile, a travel mode shift from cars to public transport and bicycles also requires investments and is difficult to implement in practice.

Dynamic congestion pricing, when road tolls vary based on the time of day, is designed to spread out traffic flow over time without the need to expand road infrastructure (Small and Verhoef, 2007). Notably, this approach does not aim to reduce the total number of cars on the road. Instead, it encourages them to spread their travel times more evenly, ensuring that the road capacity can handle the traffic without congestion.

Dynamic congestion pricing typically works as follows: there is no charge at night, the toll is small in the early morning, then it gradually increases during the morning until it reaches its peak. The toll then decreases in the afternoon before rising again during the evening. This system works in a congestion zone, which is usually the busiest areas of a city. When a car enters the zone, video cameras automatically identify it without stopping the car. There are no toll booths on the streets – an electronic system calculates the toll based on the time of day and charges the driver automatically through a linked account. Cities can tailor the system to fit their specific geography and infrastructure, offering exemptions for certain vehicles and pass-through traffic (for practical examples, visit the Swedish Transport Agency’s website to learn more about congestion pricing in Stockholm and Gothenburg).

By reducing the number of cars during congested hours, such dynamic pricing benefits both the city and its residents:

  • (i) Drivers enjoy faster travel times as road toll allows them to gain time in exchange for money. For example, in the morning, drivers can leave for work later as they no longer need to account for time spent in traffic jams.
  • (ii) Non-drivers enjoy congestion-free neighborhoods with improved air quality and overall higher quality of life.
  • (iii) The city can tackle congestion without making large investments in new roads. The funds collected from drivers not only cover the toll system maintenance, but also contribute to the cost of the infrastructure they use. The funds may also be used to improve public transportation.

Low Public Acceptability

In light of the benefits of congestion pricing, it seems surprising that very few cities actually use it. Notable examples include London, Singapore, Stockholm and Gothenburg. New York City introduced its congestion charge on the 5th of January 2025, the first in the US. This stands in stark contrast to paid on-street parking, another transport policy measure that has been successfully implemented in almost every large city across Europe. The disparity arises because the general public often sees congestion pricing as an additional tax, believing it unfairly affects lower-income individuals. Presumably, low-income individuals have less flexible work schedules and fewer travel choices, making it harder for them to avoid traveling during high-toll periods (Selmoune et al., 2020). Moreover, they would spend a larger share of their income on road tolls compared to wealthier drivers, which makes congestion pricing a regressive policy.

Even though congestion pricing is not a tax and is not meant to redistribute funds, it may still appear as such to the public. This perception leads to vocal public resistance to road pricing which, in turn, discourages politicians from implementing the policy. Another reason for public skepticism is a lack of trust in politicians and municipal officials to manage the collected funds effectively, with concerns that the money may not be spent in ways that benefit the city.

Public Transport Cashback

Cashback Mechanism

To address the perceived unfairness of congestion pricing and fears about the misuse of collected funds, we propose a personalized public transport cashback mechanism – a novel approach that has not yet been implemented anywhere. Instead of collecting the tolls, we suggest immediately transferring the money back to drivers in the form of public transport vouchers or cashback. That is, when a driver pays road toll, almost the entire amount is credited directly to their personal public transport account/card as cashback, while a small portion of the toll is retained to cover maintenance costs of the road pricing system. The cashback can only be used to pay for public transport. Since the road toll is returned to drivers in the form of public transport cashback, there is no need for money redistribution by public authorities.

Our pricing mechanism retains the core feature of conventional dynamic road pricing: the road toll motivates drivers to adjust their travel times, helping to prevent traffic jams. The toll values are likely to be different though, as the toll now has additional value to drivers who might use the cashback for public transport. While this feature reduces the efficiency of the toll compared to conventional congestion pricing, the cashback mechanism also introduces a new beneficial property. By motivating some drivers to occasionally switch to public transport, it further reduces car use and helps ease congestion. The interplay between these two factors ultimately determines the required congestion toll values.

The cashback can be accumulated over several years and is non-transferable to prevent drivers from using their cars more often. The cashback mechanism would likely work for private cars only, though exceptions and specific features can be adjusted to local circumstances. Public transport companies are likely to benefit from additional revenue through increased ticket sales and unused, expired cashback. However, since public transport ticket prices do not always cover the full cost of providing the service, it is important to balance the additional costs of implementing the cashback mechanism with the expected revenue gains. This could potentially be done by reducing the cashback portion relative to the toll share retained for system maintenance.

However, congestion pricing with a cashback mechanism is not a standalone solution or a silver bullet. It works best when combined with improvements of the public transport network, as this encourages drivers to make regular use of their cashback.

Transport Survey Data

The key idea behind the cashback mechanism is that it gives drivers direct and transparent control of their money, which is expected to make road pricing policy more acceptable. Whether this holds true or not is an empirical matter. This was tested by considering the means of a representative survey conducted in Riga (Latvia) and Vienna (Austria) in the summer of 2024. The survey includes 1,000 residents in both capitals and their respective surrounding municipalities. It features questions about respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics, current travel options, commute patterns (including accompanying trips with children), and their political and social attitudes. It also includes two stated-choice experiments exploring the acceptability of congestion pricing and potential changes in travel behaviour if such pricing is introduced. While detailed data analysis is still ongoing, this policy brief highlights some intriguing preliminary insights.

In the survey, we ask the respondents whether they would vote in a referendum in favor of congestion pricing under four different scenarios for using the collected toll funds: (i) transferring them as a public transport cashback, (ii) sharing them equally among all city inhabitants, (iii) leaving the allocation decisions to local politicians, or (iv) using them to support eco-friendly transport. Respondents were familiarized with the topic before answering the question by participating in a stated-choice experiment about congestion pricing acceptability. The experiment included a detailed explanation of how congestion pricing works, along with a potential congestion zone map. Figure 1 shows responses from Riga, and Figure 2 from Vienna.

Figure 1. Responses from Riga. “Would you support congestion pricing in a referendum if the collected toll funds were used this way?”

Source: Representative survey in Riga in summer 2024.

Figure 2. Responses from Vienna. “Would you support congestion pricing in a referendum if the collected toll funds were used this way?”

Source: Representative survey in Vienna in summer 2024.

In Riga, the cashback option is the most popular, with more participants supporting than opposing it. The overall positive attitude towards congestion pricing with the cashback option suggests that Riga might already be ready to implement it. In Vienna, the cashback ranks a close second after the green transport option. This result shows that cashback might be a viable option also in Vienna.

Conclusion

To overcome public skepticism towards road congestion pricing, we propose a cashback mechanism. It involves returning toll money back to drivers as public transport cashback. The cashback mechanism has several benefits: drivers retain some control of their money, there is no need to redistribute collected toll funds, and it helps reduce congestion without major investments in road infrastructure. Surveys in Riga and Vienna in 2024 show support for the cashback option. While the specifics of such a solution should be tailored to each city’s needs, many cities struggling with congestion could benefit from implementing road congestion pricing with a public transport cashback mechanism.

Acknowledgment

This policy brief is based on a collaborative research effort by economists Sergejs Gubins from Riga (BICEPS) and Stefanie Peer and Martina Reggerova from Vienna (WU) as part of the “Tolls That Work” project, supported by the ERA-NET research grant. Agreement No ES RTD/2023/11. See project updates on the webpage:

https://www.wu.ac.at/en/spatialeconomics/projects/city-tolls-that-work

References

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.

For a Better Budget Management of Infrastructure Investments

Posted on April 19, 2021 | Policy Brief

Aerial photo of buildings and roads representing infrastructure investments

Many developing countries rely on investment-to-GDP metrics as a sign of progress towards their development goals. Unfortunately, too often the focus on investment pushes aside the issues of adequately maintaining existing infrastructure. The result could be disastrous to human lives, health, and well-being. Lack of maintenance of existing infrastructure is a well-known problem, not only in developing economies but also in some developed countries. However, how much the government should plan to spend on maintenance over the lifetime of infrastructure assets is neither a simple nor straightforward question. In this policy brief, we examine the cases of two transition economies – Georgia and Estonia – and provide a more general discussion of the challenges and possible solutions to infrastructure maintenance issues. We argue that relevant research along with properly aligned incentives could help the countries overcome these problems and optimize infrastructure spending.

Introduction

The efficiency of infrastructure investment has gotten quite some attention in the past years. A recent book by G. Schwartz et al. (2020) shows that countries waste about 1/3 (and some even more) of their infrastructure spending due to inefficiencies. With poor management, the major budgetary efforts undertaken to make room for infrastructure investments go to waste. The question of how much the country should plan to spend on maintenance over the lifetime of infrastructure assets is neither simple nor straightforward. In two recent ISET-PI blog posts, Y. Babych and L. Leruth (2020a, b) stress the importance of striking the right balance between new infrastructure investments and the rehabilitation and maintenance of existing infrastructure. Without this balance, the up-keep of public infrastructure could either be too expensive for the budget to handle, or, at the other extreme, would quickly deteriorate to the point where it is no longer operational and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up (which is the case in many developing countries, including Georgia, Armenia, Ukraine, and others). This policy brief focuses on the reasons why developing (and even some developed) countries tend to invest too little in public infrastructure maintenance and what can be done to solve this problem. We first examine the cases of Georgia and Estonia, two post-Soviet transition economies with different approaches to infrastructure maintenance financing. This analysis is then followed by a more general discussion about the infrastructure maintenance challenges and potential solutions.

Maintenance vs. Investment: the Cases of Georgia and Estonia

Developing countries tend to use investment (public or private) as a share of GDP to measure their economic progress and prospects. Georgia is one of the countries that has invested a lot in public infrastructure. Public investment grew sharply between 2003-2007 to 8% of GDP and settled at 6% of GDP after 2017 (PIMA GEO 2018).  The capital stock is about 90% of GDP. In comparison, in Estonia, another post-Soviet economy, public investment was about 4% of GPD, whereas the capital stock was 57% of GDP in 2015. Yet, the quality of Georgia’s public infrastructure is much lower than in Estonia (Georgia is in 69th place globally according to Global Competitiveness Index 2017-2018, while Estonia is in 32nd place).  The reason for this is quite simple:  management, especially the maintenance of public infrastructure. Both countries recently went through a Public Investment Management Assessment (PIMA), a comprehensive framework developed by the IMF to assess infrastructure governance. The results suggest that Georgia is much weaker than Estonia in planning, budgeting, and maintenance. (A complete summary of the assessment results can be found here).

Georgia’s case is far from unique. The country belongs to the vast majority of emerging economies that have not efficiently linked their medium- and long-term infrastructure plans within a sustainable fiscal framework. Moreover, infrastructure planning deficiencies spread way beyond the emerging markets: Allen et al. (2019) estimate that 56% of all world countries do not have a proper Public Investment Program.

Why is Infrastructure Maintenance a Challenge for Many Countries?

Even though maintenance, rehabilitation, and new investments are intrinsically linked, the practical process of integrating these three infrastructure components is complex. Blazey et al. (2019), for example, identify the following reasons:

  • Political economy reasons—governments will opt for a ribbon-cutting rather than maintaining existing assets;
  • Fiscal reasons—budget funding for operations and maintenance is prone to be cut when fiscal space is limited;
  • Institutional reasons—in many countries, separate agencies still prepare investment and current expenditure budgets;
  • Capacity reasons— up-to-date information on the state of assets may not be readily available.

A number of international studies (usually sectorial) point to the high cost of neglecting maintenance. A study on the upkeep of bridges and roads in the US shows that 1$ of deferred maintenance will cost over 4$ in future repairs. The same holds for airports. In Africa, the World Bank estimates that timely road expenditure of $12 billion spent in the 80s would have saved $45 billion in reconstruction costs during the next decade. It is not only rehabilitation costs that increase with poor maintenance: user costs can increase dramatically (Escobal and Ponce, 2003); health costs in terms of injuries or deaths; and ecological costs (the water lost daily because of leaks could satisfy the needs of 200 million people according to the World Bank, 2006).

Conceptually, however, the link between maintenance, rehabilitation, and new investments is simple to understand. Figure 1 below, adopted from Thi Hoai Le et al. (2019), clarifies this point. As discussed in Babych and Leruth (2020b), when planned maintenance activities (such as planned repair, upkeep, etc.) are insufficient, then the rate at which infrastructure is deteriorating will be high, and the unplanned maintenance costs will increase as well. This response would, in turn, result in a higher total cost. If the amount of planned maintenance activities is excessive, then the unplanned costs may be low, but the total cost is higher than optimal. In order to strike the optimal balance, there need to be just enough planned maintenance activities. 

Figure 1. Optimal zone of maintenance.

Source: Thi Hoai Le et al., (2019).

Conceptually simple maybe, but the devil(s) is (are) in the details. We have already listed above some of the reasons why integration is complex. Data availability is another issue raised by numerous Public Investment Management Assessments made by the IMF. The reporting standards are simply not built in a way that would allow for the compilation of maintenance and rehabilitation data (although aggregate estimates of investment data are available). In any case, the Government Finance Statistics Manual of the IMF (2014) does not separate maintenance expenditure, which is undoubtedly an area that requires further deepening.  More fundamentally perhaps, as pointed out long ago by Schick (1966), there is an additional issue relating to governance philosophy: “planning and budgeting have run separate tracks and have invited different perspectives, the one conservative and negativistic, the other innovative and expansionist …”. Finally, with governments looking for the ‘cheap’ route through public-private partnerships (PPPs) to finance infrastructure development, fiscal risks have increased in advanced and emerging economies in the early 2000s (IMF, 2008). To our knowledge, there have been no systematic assessments of PPP-related fiscal risks since IMF’s report in 2008, but as fiscal positions have deteriorated with the Covid-19 pandemic, PPP projects are likely even riskier today.

What Can Be Done to Improve Infrastructure Maintenance?

Leaving the data, PPPs, and inter-departmental culture issues aside, several considerations that emerge from a closer look at Figure 1 can feed the policy discussions. Let us first consider the notion of planned maintenance (the orange line). In principle, as a project is developed, the cost of maintenance is projected over its life cycle. If the infrastructure is maintained accordingly, its life span may even exceed the projections. At the time the project is conceived, a schedule of maintenance expenditure is also planned and integrated into the analysis. In the figure above, one would expect that these cost assumptions are located in the ‘optimal maintenance zone’ with a limited amount to be spent on unplanned maintenance later on. This level of planned maintenance should then be integrated as a ‘given’ in all subsequent budgets. Usually, as we have already mentioned, it is not.

If we now move to ‘unplanned’ maintenance (the line in blue), we are really referring to situations when infrastructure must be brought back to shape after months (or even years) of neglect. In some cases, this can no longer be labeled as maintenance, and it becomes rehabilitation. Reduce regular maintenance a bit more and the authorities must start over.

Finally, the continuity of the curves is misleading: it is wrong to say that things are necessarily smooth even in the optimal zone.

Let us look more closely at the leading causes and the ways to overcome the problems that arise when optimizing maintenance expenditure.

Setting benchmarks: One explanation for the shortage of maintenance planning outlined above is the lack of information on the practical implementation of such planning.  There are too few studies on maintenance expenditure for policymakers to set benchmarks and develop reliable estimates. The existing studies in this area tend to focus on OECD countries (where data availability is less of a constrain) and on the transportation sector (roads, rail, etc.) perhaps because the private sector is more often involved (see, for example, the American Society of Civil Engineers from 2017, that concluded that 9 percent of all bridges are structurally deficient). Some studies have looked at buildings (e.g., Batalovic et al., 2017 or the Ashrae database, 2021) and unsurprisingly concluded that the age of the construction and its height are significant variables to explain maintenance outlays. However, we are not aware of studies that would, for example, distinguish between different types of maintenance in order to limit overall costs. We are neither aware of studies investigating which organizational arrangements are the most efficient (as discussed by Allen et al., 2019). The bottom line is that there is not much to use as a benchmark, and an effort must be made to build reliable estimates.

Policy dialogue on maintenance is needed:  The abovementioned considerations of the consequences of delayed, unplanned, and sometimes unexpected maintenance bring us to our next point. Things break down when they are not maintained (and sometimes break down when they are maintained too), and such long-term aspects must be more present in the policy dialogue with developing countries. Clearly, delaying maintenance increases fiscal costs in the short- and longer-term (Blazey et al., 2019).

The smoothness of the curves in Figure 1 can be misleading because insufficient maintenance may suddenly trigger a major problem (a bridge or a dam can collapse, as it happened in Italy and in India recently,)  and this will entail high costs, even disasters involving in human lives. The major collapses of nuclear plants (as in Chornobyl, Ukraine, and more recently in Fukushima, Japan) are other examples of the same problem. In addition, studies estimate that poor maintenance of transmission lines could be one of the reasons for electricity blackouts (Yu and Pollitt, 2009). In fact, the lack of maintenance increases the speed at which the value of the existing capital of infrastructure is eroding. While politicians may well hope that this will not happen during their tenure, the probability of a failure increases as maintenance decreases.

On top of the above, inefficiency in maintenance expenditures can be aggravated by wrongly set incentives, both for domestic actors and foreign donors. Indeed, the latter play an important role in infrastructure investment in many developing countries. In Georgia, for example, 40% of infrastructural projects are funded by foreign donors. Setting the right incentives for both parties, as well as their interplay, are thus of immense importance.

Aligning the incentives: Incentives are against maintenance. As pointed out by Babych and Leruth (2020a), capital investment and rehabilitation look good on paper. Maintenance, on the other hand, is considered a current expenditure item in the Government Finance Statistics (GFS) (IMF, 2014). Spending more on maintenance will therefore not look good since 1) more maintenance will reduce government savings in the short term; 2) spending less on maintenance will increase the need for virtuous-looking investment expenditure in the medium and long term. Yet, in spite of the lack of clear benchmarks, donors can play an essential role by stressing the need to systematically integrate maintenance in the budget and in the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF). To some extent, it is already the case. In Georgia, projects that are funded by donors tend to follow better appraisal procedures. However, ex-post audits are irregular – e.g., no individual projects audits were completed by State Audit Office during 2015-2017 (PIMA GEO, 2018). If donors could include these audits in their dialogue, it would clearly be helpful. Training subnational governments in proper maintenance management would be even more critical as capacities tend to be weaker than in the center.

Overcoming a potential moral hazard problem of donor involvement: Excessive donor involvement in new investments could also be counterproductive. Donors should carefully examine the need to build new infrastructure and first consider the possibility of performing some rehabilitation while holding the authorities accountable for the maintenance of existing ones. If the authorities are expecting a donor to eventually replace a piece of infrastructure that does not function, the incentives to maintain it are greatly reduced.

Conclusion

  • Developing economies, but also emerging ones like Georgia, as well as Armenia, Ukraine and others, would benefit from proper incentives and support from the international donors to integrate maintenance into the infrastructure planning framework;
  • This is especially important for local governments, who lack the financial and human capital resources to maintain local infrastructure properly, making regions outside of the capital city less attractive places to invest or live in;
  • Given the absence of transparent and comparable sources of information about the composition of maintenance expenditures – for example, the Government Finance Statistics (IMF), which does not distinguish between maintenance and rehabilitation expenditures, – donors could insist that governments compile these expenditures and report on them, at least for the major projects;
  • The culture of maintaining rather than rehabilitating or replacing is directly linked to the sustainable development goals and the circular economy concept. In light of their commitment to Agenda 2030, the international community and the national governments in countries like Georgia should consider prioritizing and implementing the set of reforms suggested in their respective PIMAs.

References

  • Allen, R., M. Betley, C. Renteria and A. Singh, “Integrating Infrastructure Planning and Budgeting,” in Schwartz et al. (2020), pp. 225-244 (2019).
  • American Society of Civil Engineers, Infrastructure Report Card, Reston, Va, (2017).
  • ASHRAE, Purpose of The Service Life and Maintenance Cost Database, available at., (2021).
  • Babych, Y., and L. Leruth, “Tbilisi: a Growing City with Growing Needs,” ISET-PI Blog available at, (2020a).
  • Babych, Y., and L. Leruth, “To Prevent, to Repair, or to Start Over: Should Georgia Put’ Maintenance’ Ahead of ‘Investment’ in Its Development Dictionary?,” ISET-PI Blog available at, (2020b).
  • Batalovic, M., K. SokolijaM. Hadzialic, and N. Batalovic, “Maintenance and Operation Costs Model for University Buildings,” Tehnicki Vjesnik, 23(2), pp. 589-598, (2017).
  • Blazey, A., F. Gonguet, and P. Stokoe, “Maintaining and Managing Public Infrastructure Assets,” in Schwartz et al. (2020), pp. 265-281 (2019).
  • Escobal, J. and C. Ponce, “The Benefits of Rural Roads: Enhancing Income Opportunities for the Rural Poor,” Working Paper 40, Grupo de Analysis Para el Desarrollo (GRADE), Lima, Peru, (2003).
  • IMF, “Fiscal Risks—Sources, Disclosure, and Management,” Fiscal Affairs Department, Washington DC,(2008).
  • IMF, GFS, Government Finance Statistics Manual, IMF, Washington DC, (2014).
  • PIMA EST, Republic of Estonia: Technical Assistance Report-Public Investment Management Assessment, IMF, Washington DC, (2019).
  • PIMA GEO, Republic of Georgia: Technical Assistance Report-Public Investment Management Assessment, IMF, Washington DC, (2018).
  • Rozenberg, J., and M. Fay, eds, “Beyond The Gap: How Countries Can Afford The Infrastructure They Need While Protecting The Planet,” Sustainable Infrastructure Series, The World Bank, Washington DC, (2019)
  • Schick, A., “The Road to PPB: The Stages of Budget Reform,” Public Administration Review, 26(4), pp. 243-258, (1966).
  • Schwartz, G., M. Fouad, T. Hansen, and G. Verdier, Well Spent : How Strong Infrastructure Governance Can End Waste in Public Investment, IMF, Washington DC, (2020).
  • Thi Hoai Le, A., N. Domingo, E. Rasheed, and K. Park, “Building Maintenance Cost Planning and Estimating: A Literature Review,” 34th Annual ARCOM Conference, Belfast, UK (2019).
  • World Bank, The Challenge of Reducing Non-Revenue Water in Developing Countries – How The Private Sector Can Help,” Water Supply and Sanitation Board Discussion Paper Series No 8, Washington DC, (2006).
  • Yu, W., and M. Pollitt, “Does Liberalization Cause More Electricity Blackouts?,” EPRG Working Paper 0827, Energy Policy Research Group, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, (2009).

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.

Five Million Tourists in Georgia by 2015 – a Myth or a Nightmarish Reality?

Posted on December 5, 2011 | Policy Brief

Five Million Tourists in Georgia Image

Anybody traveling on the Georgian countryside will be astonished by the pace of development. Mestia, the capital of Svaneti, resembles one big construction site. The new concrete road from Zugdidi promises to shorten the travel time to 2 hours. A whole network of ski lifts is currently being planned, carrying a promise of turning Svaneti, a long-isolated region of Georgia, into the Switzerland of the Caucasus.

Mestia and Svaneti are representative of a broader effort by the Georgian government, assisted by international financial institutions, to develop the Georgian tourism sector. This has mainly involved infrastructure projects and tax breaks to encourage private investment in the tourism industry. A very partial list of touristic destinations that have received or are receiving a major facelift includes Old Tbilisi, Mtskheta, Signagi, Kutaisi, Gudauri, Mestia, Batumi, Kobuleti and Anaklia.

Tourism is one of Georgia’s main exporting sectors and earns hard currency and helps to reduce the current account deficit. As a labor intensive industry, it helps to create a lot of formal and informal jobs (particularly in the periphery where they are most needed). The growth in tourism also spurs business development in many related sectors of the economy – agriculture, transportation services, arts and crafts to name just a few.

Georgia is not the only country in the world riding on the wave of tourism expansion. Tourism is currently the fastest growing sector in the global economy, particularly important for developing countries. According to UNWTO tourism barometer, the flow of foreign tourists into developing countries increased by 4.5% in 2011 compared to the previous year. The rate of increase stands at 9% for Central and Eastern European countries.

For Georgia, however, the growth of tourism has been truly spectacular. According to the Georgian Border Security statistics, the number of foreigners visiting Georgia during the first 10 months in 2011 increased by 42% compared to the same period last year. While not reflecting the actual number of tourists (as opposed to foreigners working in Georgia and buyers of re-exported cars), these data illustrate a steep upward trend. Even under most conservative assumptions, the total number of border crossings by foreigners will reach about 2.6 million by the end of 2011, which is 28% above the 2010 level.

Since 2004, incoming tourism has expanded at an impressive average rate of 32% per year, nearly doubling every three years. A simple (simplistic) extrapolation suggests that in four more years, by 2015, Georgia may be receiving more than 5million tourists a year. Is this a realistic estimate? Would it be a blessing or a curse?

What the border crossings statistics conceal is that Georgia remains a very expensive destination, especially during the short high season. According to Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index for 2011, Georgia is ranked 73rd among 139 countries, the same ranking as in 2009. In particular, Georgia ranked 82nd on information and communication technologies, 105th on air transportation infrastructure and 94th on general infrastructure. Overall, Georgia does better than its South Caucasus neighbors Armenia (100th) and Azerbaijan (87th) but worse than Russia (53rd) and Turkey (50th).

At present, tourists are willing to pay a significant premium to satisfy their curiosity for this Eastern outpost of Western civilization. Despite high prices and mediocre quality of services, Georgia has so far been able to maintain its attraction as an island of democracy; exotic, underexplored and yet secure location with good food and wine. However, as the country enters a period of two closely watched elections in 2012 and 2013, what will be at stake, among other things, is Georgia’s status as a destination of choice for investors, donors, and tourists. As far as mass tourism is concerned, a setback in the global public relations battle could bring into play the “value for money“ factor, making further expansion in the sector more tightly related to infrastructure and service improvements.

Slower growth in tourism may be a blessing in disguise. From the purely economic point of view one has to consider the impact of tourism on long-term economic growth. Unfortunately, tourism – like many other labor intensive service industries – has little potential for substantial productivity growth: it takes about the same amount of labor to cook one khachapuri today as it did in the 19th century. As wages are typically tied to productivity this means that tourism has little potential for long-term income growth. Wages in tourism may eventually increase – a phenomenon known to economists as “Baumol’s cost disease” – when other sectors improve their productivity and start competing for workers with the tourism industry.

Thus, the Georgian government should be advised to worry, not about the sheer number of tourists, but rather the amount of money the tourists spend in the country. According to this view, Georgia should strive to increase the share of relatively wealthy tourists from Western Europe and North America. These tourists account for a meager 3.6% of total border crossings by foreigners in the first 10 months of 2011. A closely related goal should be to smooth the sharp seasonal fluctuations currently plaguing the industry. High season tourism (mainly from the CIS) at “peak load” prices has been growing so far, but there is ultimately a limit to how many tourists Batumi, Kobuleti and Anaklia can absorb in July and August. After all, there are cheaper and better mass-tourism alternatives on the Turkish side of the border. Conversely, increasing offseason tourism would help attract additional investment in human and physical capital and raise the quality of services to a level appropriate for high-end tourism.

Along with the economic pitfalls outlined above, the danger associated with becoming just another “Disneyland” of mass tourism is in losing the very reason why people would want to come to Georgia, as well as losing a part of the national identity. The magnificence of Georgian landscapes is in the wild, untamed nature of their beauty. It is also one of the very few places in Europe where one can still witness and appreciate the tenacity and courage of people who do not merely survive, but “live with” the land, with the nature that is both generous and unforgiving.

Of course, we almost always accept as inevitable the sacrifice of “tradition” for “progress”. Most of the time, it is difficult to tell whether the changes we are going through are for the better or for the worse. In particular, it may depend on what people perceive to be the “core” of their identity. Our feeling is that Georgians as a people have been formed to a great extent by the freedom, the wilderness, and the power of their mountains. Any successful and smart approach to developing the tourism industry would take into consideration these important cultural aspects as well.

▪