I've been thinking about a distinction between 'offensive' and 'defensive' infrastructure:

The end result of completing a defensive infrastructure project is simply maintenance of a status quo (avoiding a deterioration), rather than a leap forward. Defensive projects are necessary and worthwhile, but a patchwork of smaller-scale, easier-to-fund defensive projects may crowd out offensive projects that require higher political vision and a longer payoff time.

Examples

Offensive

The Snowy: A History

Bradfield Scheme

Defensive:

Reflections

Environmental impact: Offensive infrastructure is more likely to be high-impact on the environment, and increased environmental controls (a good thing!) may be a reason we see less of this now. It is probably self-evident why we haven't actually attempted to dam and drain the Mediterranean, or even San Francisco Bay as per the Reber Plan — this isn't necessarily evidence of stagnation, but rather a reasonable retrenchment of high modernism. But there are lots of opportunities for offensive infrastructure that isn't high-impact on the environment, such as things like broadband, satellites, and enabling research infrastructure, as well as social infrastructure.

Developed world maintenance and stagnation: A certain kind of project (eg highway, rail corridor) might be 'offensive' in a developing country’s context, but only 'defensive' in another that is already developed. This doesn’t excuse the developed country: it needs to find new offensive avenues to invest in. For example, rather than only rebuilding roads forever, it needs to maintain its roads but also launch satellites. Major physical infrastructure projects (of all kinds, but especially offensive) seem to have slowed in recent decades, possibly due to increased red tape and resistance from special interest groups — see Patrick Collison's site.

Climate projects: Renewable transition projects are an interesting case - the whole project of dealing with climate change by shifting to a renewable-energy economy might be viewed as defensive. But for individual companies or societies, the transition creates offensive opportunities. For example, Australian investment in infrastructure like SunCable or renewables + hydrogen for smelting clean metals could open up an opportunity for significant economic growth.

Superpower: Australia's low-carbon opportunity

Live and dead players: Societies or governments that can only build defensive infrastructure, which is basically upgrading infrastructure types that they already have and know how to build, are more likely to be 'dead players'. Conversely an ability to generate offensive infrastructure is reflective of a live player — China's activities in the South China Sea and the Belt and Road Initiative (investing heavily in foreign construction, rather than just domestic) are good examples.

Live players and dead players (Burja)

Micro applicability: At a small scale such as within a company or team, it's interesting to reflect on what time investments are going to offensive infrastructure, vs defensive infrastructure, vs non-infrastructure items that don't generate a future payoff. If the latter two dominate and there is little capacity or drive to work on offensive infrastructure, there is likely to be stagnation.

Evaluating projects in Australia

Reviewing Infrastructure Australia's current list of priority projects:

current_priority_list.pdf