Another potential redoubt of a free zone is the possibility of converting the northern border into a pole of high attractiveness for consumption, where at least in principle it is assumed that there will be low prices.
The previous thing would imply a great attractiveness for national and foreign investments, in expansion or new, to the attractive new region of presumed high consumption. Similarly, basing manufacturing processes, from agroindustry to high technology could find some opportunities for lower operating, productive and logistics costs.
The foregoing implies a possible investment trend exalted for the region. Then, it is where the argument of physical infrastructure is required. And is that the northern border, contrary to the absurd arguments of the fiscal reform initiative 2014, really has demerit in its infrastructure in general, and only a few cities, with a slightly favorable scenario in the field, but with relevant omissions.
Therefore, a road structure, not only vertical, but transversal, better airports, railroad, customs facilities, and urban mobility, are basic investments required to assimilate the growing investment potential to be developed.
On the other hand, investment should encourage competition. Well, although there may be a monopolistic investment, it is neither desirable nor less legal. It would even cause inflation. Therefore, the authorities must ensure to exalt competing investments.
The investment supported by the potential consumption to grow generates important possibilities for the better quality of life of the residents of the northern border. But, they are not enough elements. Until productivity increases, economic development will not come, for more expansive programs, whether fiscal or monetary.
(continue at 6th part)
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario