Government spending remains one of the hottest issues this week and, most likely, will stay in the public spotlight for a long time. Especially after the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Welfare, when speaking about optimizing functions, publicly suggested that perhaps the road network should be reduced and “power lines to remote homesteads cut off.” To understand what exactly this “austerity mode” means, BNN asked political scientist and co-owner of the company Mediju tilts, Filips Rajevskis.
“Such contrasts, like a ‘road to a remote homestead’ versus cutting administrative expenses, from a communication perspective send a signal – which is more important: the individual or some abstract expenditures on abstract things,” Rajevskis explained. According to him, the government currently fails to clearly communicate to the public which expenses should remain and why they matter. “On one hand, we hear that some state expenses should be reduced, and some are reduced, but on the other hand, there’s messaging that, in fact, nothing is being cut. These messages contradict each other, and people – as they traditionally do – lean toward the negative interpretation, saying nothing is being done.”
Asked about the idea of “cutting off electricity” to homesteads, Rajevskis noted that since urbanization people have moved to cities, life in countryside homesteads has become a sort of exclusive lifestyle – and that is normal. “When people lived in homesteads, the standards and expectations for quality of life were different. Today they are entirely different. Comparing rural life with life in Riga, one could talk about access to high-quality specialized healthcare services, for example. It’s clear – if you want to live deep in the woods, in a remote farmhouse, you must accept a compromise: no one will build a hospital, school, or kindergarten right next door. But you will have peace, quiet, and clean nature. Everyone must choose what they truly want,” Rajevskis said, adding that
from the state’s point of view, priority goes to areas with higher population density.
When asked by BNN about people in rural homesteads who also pay taxes and might dislike the idea of having to finance their own electricity connections, the political scientist replied that there are indeed certain basics that should not be touched. “Electricity should not be cut off if a property already has a connection. But if today you want to build a new homestead in the countryside and bring electricity there, then that is exclusive and costly. Reflecting on the Parliamentary Secretary’s words about each ministry having an ‘Ulmanis-era legacy’ that we can no longer afford to maintain, I’d remind that during Ulmanis’ time many farms built their own power lines and roads. If someone wants to live in a remote farmhouse today, there’s no problem – let them build the infrastructure themselves and enjoy life.”
Rajevskis also pointed to the broader issue of common benefit: should all taxpayers and those who pay for distribution network services really fund one person’s exclusive wish to live in the countryside? “However, where infrastructure already exists and is in use, it should not be dismantled.
If people live there, the existing infrastructure must be maintained.”
When asked whether reducing the road network would harm the economy, since production traditionally develops where there is good road infrastructure, Rajevskis replied that modern production requires modern roads anyway, and these are considered when building new factories. “If a factory is important to the state, the state participates in building the necessary infrastructure. Not every road leads to a factory; it’s a much more complex matter. Another nuance – no one will build a factory next to a road in the middle of nowhere where there are no people to work there.”
Finally, asked by BNN how to assess the fact that ministries’ savings of €170 million will not make much of a difference to next year’s state budget (as the baseline budget is planned €150 million higher), Rajevskis noted that budget issues are always very interesting, though discussions about them are often avoided. “Given economic growth and inflation, state budget revenues keep increasing if there is no recession. Yet very rarely do we hear a discussion like: next year revenues will grow by this much, the total budget will be this much, and we will operate with that. Instead, different terms and numbers are used, making it much harder for people to follow what’s going on,” the political scientist said.
Read also: BNN IN FOCUS | Rajevskis: Latvia tackles demographic crisis with promises, not solutions