That’s how it always goes: an explosion in a nucler power station, a ship that is driven aground or that sinks, the collapse of a bridge: when a disaster of significant proportions occurs somewhere, the governments of other countries rush to show how well they are prepared to counter a similar emegrency.

Not just in Malta but right across Europe, statements were issued to set minds at rest regarding what is being done or not to ensure that the bridges through which heavy traffic passes are kept secure. But what faith can be placed in such statements?

If for one reason or another, in the past a given structure was allowed to develop some defect, even if today adequate maintenance is being carried out, it cannot be easy to wipe out the damage that has already been done. In allsituations there will be certain margins of risk for accidents to happen and these cannot be suppressed so easily.

Beyond questions of security however, what happened in Genoa does raise questions which merit consideration.

*** 

Private public partnership

The collapsed bridge was part of a transport infrastructure that right from the start was run according to a private public partnership. This has become quite a widespread model, including here, by which tasks that formerly belonged to the state, were transferred to the private sector, considered to be more efficient than government.

On its basis, the public purpose – that of providing citizens with needed services – is satisfied without spending too much state money, since the funds required areforked out by the private entrepreneurs involved.   These then get their money back with a profit since they will run the facility at an “agreed” price for whoever will be “buying” the service, whether it is the government itself (as for a hospital) or citizens (as in the case of a highway).

In the whole issue, a problem remains that it is still not easy to say who benefits most from such an arrangment. Is it true that the public purpose can always be safeguarded one hundred per cent? I doubt it.

*** 

Maintenance

An argument raised by Italian minister of the interior Salvini (who does not only spout stupid provocations but sometimes talks sense) goes as follows: as a result of the austerity that has been practised in Europe these past years in order to maintain the financial targets of the euro zone, governments continued to rein in their outlays. They did this in areas of capital investment and of recurrent expenditures which would be least noticed.

Was maintenance of the infrastructure among sectors being treated in this way? That would not surprise me, for good maintenance sometimes involves certain outlays which seem to be... in fact they are... close to capital expenditures.Even postponement of some maintenance can account for significant savings fromyear to year. But in a longer term perspective, such an approach could lead to disaster.

Salvini’s assessment carries two objections in its wake: Up to not so long ago, his party, the Lega, was insisting that public capital expenditures in Italy were enough to cover arising needs.And secondly, it was not the government but the private sector which was running the bridge that collapsed in Genoa.