kathimerini.gr
Greece's Infrastructure Deficit: A Call for Private Investment
Greece invests only 4.8% of its GDP in construction, lagging behind the EU average (11.5%) and countries like Romania (16.7%), despite large public works programs; private investment through PPPs is proposed as a solution.
- Why does Greece lag significantly behind the EU average in construction investment despite large public works programs?
- Greece lags significantly behind the EU average in construction investment as a percentage of GDP. Despite substantial recent public works projects (2021-2024), only 4.8% of GDP is allocated to construction and infrastructure, compared to the EU average of 11.5% and 16.7% in Romania.
- How can increased private sector involvement through PPPs and concessions address the funding gap for infrastructure projects in Greece?
- This disparity highlights Greece's underinvestment in infrastructure despite large-scale projects. Private sector engagement through Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) and concessions is proposed as a solution to address this funding gap and accelerate infrastructure development.
- What are the potential long-term economic and social impacts of shifting towards private investment in infrastructure, particularly concerning public access and affordability?
- The prioritization of private investment addresses the limitations of public funding, particularly given reduced EU funding for road infrastructure. This shift toward PPPs and concessions could improve efficiency and attract more private investment but may also increase private sector influence.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames Greece's low investment in construction as a problem primarily caused by insufficient public funding and the need for private investment. While this is a significant aspect, the article neglects to explore other potential contributing factors, such as bureaucratic hurdles or regulatory complexities. The emphasis on the need for private sector involvement, particularly PPPs, may be considered as framing the issue through a certain lens.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral, but the frequent use of terms like "ούραγος" (last) to describe Greece's position and phrases emphasizing the "problem" and the need for private sector solutions could subtly influence the reader's perception. The use of the term "μπρα ντε φερ" (struggle) adds a negative connotation to the discussions with the government, while the suggested solutions are presented with a positive and confident tone.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the perspective of Mr. Souretis and the challenges faced by the construction sector, potentially omitting other viewpoints on infrastructure investment strategies or alternative solutions. The lack of diverse opinions might create a biased perception of the issue.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the solution to Greece's infrastructure problems solely as a choice between increased public funding (deemed insufficient) and private investment through PPPs. It overlooks alternative funding models or strategies.