Authors:
(1) Matthew Sprintson
(2) Edward Oughton Table of Links Abstract and Introduction 2. Literature Review 2.1 Reviewing Broadband Infrastructure’s Impact on the Economy 2.2 Previous Research into IO Modeling of Broadband Investment 2.3 Context of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act through Previous Research 3. Methods and 3.1 Leontief Input-Output (IO) Modeling 3.2 Ghosh Supply-Side Assessment Methods for Infrastructure 3.3 Data and Application 4. Results and 4.1 To what extent does the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law allocate funding to unconnected communities in need? 4.2 What are the GDP impacts of the three funding programs within the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law? 4.3 How are the supply chain linkages affected by allocations from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law? 5. Discussion 5.1 To what extent does the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law allocate funding to unconnected communities in need? 5.2 What are the GDP impacts of the three funding programs within the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law? 5.3 How are supply chain linkages affected by allocations from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law?" Conclusion Acknowledgements and References 4.2 What are the GDP impacts of the three funding programs within the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law? Via the model we specify, we estimate that the total macroeconomic impact of the US $59.7 billion direct federal investment allocated through programs of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law could result in a total US $146 billion increase in GDP (subject to the methodology employed in this paper, and limitations discussed later). This constitutes .657% of the US GDP. We visualize the potential upstream and downstream effects in Figure 3 by relevant NAICS code for the absolute macroeconomic impact in Billions, US$ (sectoral results reported in section 4.3). The upstream output consequences indicate industries that receive a positive economic activity impact as a result of increasing broadband demand. These are the industries that provide production impacts to the telecommunications sector to produce more infrastructure, from civil engineering (e.g., installing trenching/ducting) to electronics (active equipment, such as fiber optic, routers, etc.) to basic resource inputs (concrete, steel, etc.). In contrast, the downstream output consequences indicate industries that gain positive economic activity by utilizing broadband as a production input. Our estimate suggests a direct impact of US $74.5 billion (0.319% of US GDP) from the three broadband investment programs and household spending, a US $90.7 billion (0.408%) implicit downstream benefit, and a US $ 26.1 billion (.117%) implicit upstream benefit. Moreover, the model estimates that the BEAD Program may increase GDP by as much as US $84.8 billion (.381%), compared to a GDP increase for the American Connectivity Program by up to US $55.2 billion (.248%), and a GDP increase for the TBCP up to US $5.99 billion (.0269%) When considering the package of all three initiatives, Figure 4 visualizes the total indirect macroeconomic impacts, reaching as much as US $116.8 billion. This translates to a Keynesian multiplier of 2.45 for the broadband investment associated with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Specifically, this relates to Keynesian multipliers for the BEAD program of 2.00, the ACP program of 3.89, and the TBCP program of 2.00. We can attribute ACP's high multiplier to the independent household investment that arises from the subsidy, as 48.8% is provided by the government and 51.2% is spent by households. When accounting for this, the overall Keynesian multiplier for the program and independent investment is 1.90, and the package has an estimated Keynesian multiplier of 1.96. This paper is available on arxiv under CC0 1.0 DEED license. Authors: (1) Matthew Sprintson (2) Edward Oughton Authors: Authors: (1) Matthew Sprintson (2) Edward Oughton Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Abstract and Introduction 2. Literature Review 2.1 Reviewing Broadband Infrastructure’s Impact on the Economy 2.1 Reviewing Broadband Infrastructure’s Impact on the Economy 2.2 Previous Research into IO Modeling of Broadband Investment 2.2 Previous Research into IO Modeling of Broadband Investment 2.3 Context of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act through Previous Research 2.3 Context of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act through Previous Research 3. Methods and 3.1 Leontief Input-Output (IO) Modeling 3. Methods and 3.1 Leontief Input-Output (IO) Modeling 3.2 Ghosh Supply-Side Assessment Methods for Infrastructure 3.2 Ghosh Supply-Side Assessment Methods for Infrastructure 3.3 Data and Application 3.3 Data and Application 4. Results and 4.1 To what extent does the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law allocate funding to unconnected communities in need? 4. Results and 4.1 To what extent does the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law allocate funding to unconnected communities in need? 4.2 What are the GDP impacts of the three funding programs within the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law? 4.2 What are the GDP impacts of the three funding programs within the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law? 4.3 How are the supply chain linkages affected by allocations from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law? 4.3 How are the supply chain linkages affected by allocations from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law? 5. Discussion 5.1 To what extent does the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law allocate funding to unconnected communities in need? 5.1 To what extent does the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law allocate funding to unconnected communities in need? 5.2 What are the GDP impacts of the three funding programs within the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law? 5.2 What are the GDP impacts of the three funding programs within the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law? 5.3 How are supply chain linkages affected by allocations from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law?" 5.3 How are supply chain linkages affected by allocations from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law?" Conclusion Conclusion Acknowledgements and References Acknowledgements and References 4.2 What are the GDP impacts of the three funding programs within the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law? Via the model we specify, we estimate that the total macroeconomic impact of the US $59.7 billion direct federal investment allocated through programs of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law could result in a total US $146 billion increase in GDP (subject to the methodology employed in this paper, and limitations discussed later). This constitutes .657% of the US GDP. We visualize the potential upstream and downstream effects in Figure 3 by relevant NAICS code for the absolute macroeconomic impact in Billions, US$ (sectoral results reported in section 4.3). The upstream output consequences indicate industries that receive a positive economic activity impact as a result of increasing broadband demand. These are the industries that provide production impacts to the telecommunications sector to produce more infrastructure, from civil engineering (e.g., installing trenching/ducting) to electronics (active equipment, such as fiber optic, routers, etc.) to basic resource inputs (concrete, steel, etc.). In contrast, the downstream output consequences indicate industries that gain positive economic activity by utilizing broadband as a production input. Our estimate suggests a direct impact of US $74.5 billion (0.319% of US GDP) from the three broadband investment programs and household spending, a US $90.7 billion (0.408%) implicit downstream benefit, and a US $ 26.1 billion (.117%) implicit upstream benefit. Moreover, the model estimates that the BEAD Program may increase GDP by as much as US $84.8 billion (.381%), compared to a GDP increase for the American Connectivity Program by up to US $55.2 billion (.248%), and a GDP increase for the TBCP up to US $5.99 billion (.0269%) When considering the package of all three initiatives, Figure 4 visualizes the total indirect macroeconomic impacts, reaching as much as US $116.8 billion. This translates to a Keynesian multiplier of 2.45 for the broadband investment associated with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Specifically, this relates to Keynesian multipliers for the BEAD program of 2.00, the ACP program of 3.89, and the TBCP program of 2.00. We can attribute ACP's high multiplier to the independent household investment that arises from the subsidy, as 48.8% is provided by the government and 51.2% is spent by households. When accounting for this, the overall Keynesian multiplier for the program and independent investment is 1.90, and the package has an estimated Keynesian multiplier of 1.96. This paper is available on arxiv under CC0 1.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC0 1.0 DEED license. available on arxiv

Part of HackerNoon's growing list of open-source research papers, promoting free access to academic material.

How Are Supply Chain Linkages Affected by Allocations From the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law?

State-by-State Analysis of Broadband Investment and ACP Enrollment

Keynesian.TECH

Too Long; Didn't Read

CTA: Download the FREE AI Productivity Shift report

What Are the GDP Impacts of the Three Funding Programs Within the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law?

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Untitled Story

Why Trend Inflation Volatility is Key for Future Economic Forecasts

The Contribution of U.S. Broadband Infrastructure Subsidy and Investment Programs to GDP

How Broadband Infrastructure Drives Economic Growth and Entrepreneurship

Exploring the Macroeconomic Impacts of Broadband Investment Using IO Modeling

How Previous Research Informs the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act’s Approach to Broadband Gaps

Why Trend Inflation Volatility is Key for Future Economic Forecasts

The Contribution of U.S. Broadband Infrastructure Subsidy and Investment Programs to GDP

How Broadband Infrastructure Drives Economic Growth and Entrepreneurship

Exploring the Macroeconomic Impacts of Broadband Investment Using IO Modeling

How Previous Research Informs the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act’s Approach to Broadband Gaps

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps