上海，它已经自豪的宣称14条地下线，一条高速的磁悬浮列车服务，2个巨大的现代机场，大约20条高速公路和每三分钟就一次的子弹铁路的启程处，将添加超过一件的基础设施---新的金砖四国的发展银行的总部。中国正在和大的正在出现的市场（巴西，俄罗斯，印度以及南非)的其他四个成员一起建立一个银行。
适当的是，银行将聚焦于借给更穷的国家的基础设施。中国也致力于建立其他的多边借主，亚洲的基础设施投资银行，它，正如名字所暗示的那样，将会聚焦在相同的事情上。拥有了这两个新的银行，中国正在出口中心特征的发展模型运送到世界的其他地方。根据
麦肯锡全球机构，中国正在花费自身的8.5%的自身的GDP投资于基础设施。这意味着多于任何的其他国家，并且远远超过发展中国家的2-4%的GDP的发展中国家。
考虑到中国的增长---在那段时间它的经济已经扩张了七倍---投资在基础设施的智慧看起来似乎是不言而喻的。研究大体上总结在基础设施投资和增长之间的积极关系，特别是在更穷的国家。根据世界银行给的文化方面的一个宽泛调查，使得拉丁美洲的基础设施和东亚的基础设施一样好，在一些国家有最坏的道路和电话，能够增长每年5%的增长率。
但是孤立任何给定的事物的增长率的精确的影响是困难的。投资通常给予GDP以直接的提升，是否它包括通往任何地方的一座桥，或者是到达拥挤的岛屿的一座桥。更重要的是长期的影响力。随着时间的过去，基础设施能够从两个主要方面激起成长。如果降低的交易费用能够提高贸易它就能够带来收入的增长。并且基础设施能够导致更大的信息分享和因此提高生产率，它就能提高生产率。但是这些影响很难衡量，因为基础设施投资和经济增长通常一致，引起对因果律的怀疑。请问新的道路促进了增长，亦或者是更快的增长提高了对他们的需求。
中国提供了一个理想的实验场地。不仅政府投入巨大资金用于建设，政府还把钱用在需求还不总是很明显的地方。使得经济学家更容易孤立作为一个独立变量的投资的影响力。越来越多的研究正在观看基础设施狂欢的影响力。
在最近的工作文件中，清华大学的王洋和吴斌镇观看了高海拔的铁路，它连接了青海到西藏的领域。他们宣称，要尽可能的接近自然实验。这个区域是中国最穷的区域之一，意味着最初的增长并不能推进投资。这个路线由它的技术可能性决定，而不是当地的经济。使他更类似于一个随机的审判。他们发现，这个影响力是巨大的。和那些没有铁路的郡相比那些有铁路的郡每人的GDP有33%的增长。它等同于每年有额外GDP120亿，超过了刚开始三年的330亿。这个收入增长的主要渠道是当地的生产商卖给国家市场的新发现的能力。
SHANGHAI, which already boasts 14 subway lines, a high-speed maglev service, two huge modern airports, some 20 expressways and a bullet-train departure every three minutes, is about to add one more piece of infrastructure—the headquarters of the new BRICS development bank. China is setting up the bank together with the four other members of the BRICS club of big emerging markets: Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa.
Fittingly, the bank will focus on infrastructure lending to poorer countries. China is also pushing to establish another multilateral lender, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which, as its name suggests, will concentrate on the same thing. With these two new banks, China is exporting a central feature of its development model to the rest of the world. It spent 8.5% of its GDP investing in infrastructure from 1992 to 2011, according to the McKinsey Global Institute. That was more than any other country, and well above the developing-country norm of 2-4% of GDP.
Given China’s growth—its economy expanded seven-fold during that time—the wisdom of investing in infrastructure seems self-evident. Research generally turns up a positive relationship between infrastructure investment and growth, especially in poorer countries. According to one broad survey of the literature by the World Bank, making Latin America’s infrastructure as good as East Asia’s would increase annual growth rates by as much as five percentage points in the countries with the worst roads and phones.
Yet it is difficult to isolate the precise effect on growth of any given project. Investment normally gives an immediate lift to GDP, whether it involves a bridge to nowher or one to a crowded island. What matters is the long-run impact. Over time, infrastructure can gin up growth in two main ways. It can generate a rise in incomes if reduced transaction costs promote trade. And it can raise growth rates if it leads to greater information sharing and thus improved productivity. But these effects are hard to measure because infrastructure investment often coincides with economic growth, casting doubt on causality. Did the new roads boost growth or did faster growth increase demand for them?
China provides an ideal testing ground. Not only has the government thrown vast sums into construction, it has also directed the money at places wher demand is not always apparent, making it easier for economists to isolate the effects of the investment as an independent variable. A growing body of research looks at the impact of China’s infrastructure binge.
In a recent working paper, Yang Wang and Binzhen Wu of Tsinghua University look at the high-altitude railway connecting the province of Qinghai to Tibet. It is, they argue, as close to a natural experiment as possible. The region was one of China’s poorest, meaning that prior growth did not prompt the investment. The route was determined by its technical feasibility, not the economy of the local area, making it akin to a randomised trial. The impact, they find, was vast: a 33% increase in GDP per person in counties that got the railway compared with those that did not. That equates to about 12 billion yuan ($1.9 billion) extra GDP a year, exceeding its 33 billion yuan cost in just three years. The main channel for this rise in income was the new-found ability of local manufacturers to sell to a national market.
