Building with Words: The Subtle Power of Language in Shaping Public Works

Considering the language we use and a different perspective on the proposed Department of Infrastructure

What comes to mind when you hear the term 'infrastructure'?

It probably doesn’t prompt much immediate thought, but if pushed, you’d likely start imagining examples of the built environment related to housing, transport, energy and water.

The ‘infrastructure’ term on its own, often fails to conjure immediate or specific views of conceived development. Its sound and origin as a Latinate word, leaves it more abstract or indifferent - rather than clear and illustrative.

This issue relates to the preliminary proposal by the Taoiseach and leader of Fine Gael for a new Department of Infrastructure.

Unless you’re an engineer, architect, or from an associated sector, that abstract nature of the term 'infrastructure', means it can often fail to resonant – let alone inspire.

Perhaps within those professions already referenced, and other captains of industry, there are enough captive audiences to be engaged. However, there may be lessons from recent history to better communicate and frame the broader ambition that lies behind the proposal. The evolution and history of the term ‘infrastructure’, and what came before it, is worth recalling in relation to considering its intended future use.

We’ll come back to that history in a moment, and the communication and framing of this proposal, but first and foremost, the policy and practical elements would certainly need to deliver on a renewed ambition, added imputes, and increased coordination on marshalling capital investment for major projects. From that practical perspective, housing, transport, health and education all obviously have their own designated departments, with developed long-term strategies to pursue. The one area, that was specifically called out by the Taoiseach for this proposed department, was the goal of developing an offshore wind industry that could provide a surplus and sustainable energy supply for Ireland and Europe, along with an economic boon for the country and its coastal communities. There has been some frustration with the perceived twin-track approach of both Ireland’s Offshore Wind Industrial Strategy launched this year through the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, and the subsequent launch of The Future Framework for Offshore Renewable Energy by the Department of Environment, Climate and Communications. Aside from the title and prospect of this proposed new portfolio, providing a more centralised focus for the coordination and accelerated development of the ports and supply chain infrastructure required, would be a clear reason and true test for such a new department and dedicated minister.

In relation to the history of the term ‘infrastructure’, the story is best told by Henry Petroski, who was a professor of civil engineering and history at Duke University in North Carolina. He died last year but his account lives on in his book The Road Taken: The History and Future of America’s Infrastructure, along with an episode of 99% Invisible, where he outlines the basis of our built environment, or ‘the physical part of civilisation’ as he called it, and how the term ‘infrastructure’ - in America at least - is relatively new.

Before the term started to become more commonly used, it was preceded in the collective understanding and common use as ‘public works’. This reflected the reality that these major capital projects were undertaken by and for the people.

However, the framing and perception of ‘public works’ would then become tainted in its reputation during the 1970s and 80s. This was a consequence of being increasingly associated with political corruption and various scandals of so-called ‘pork barrel’ spending at the time. Bribes and votes being exchanged for political support on public works in a representative’s local district. Ireland, of course, has not been immune to such issues in the past.

As time has passed, and progress made since then in relation to regulatory oversight and transparency, there is a case for the term “public works” to be reclaimed and repurposed – as Professor Petroski would have been supportive of.

This brings us back around to the latest proposal in Ireland for a Department of Infrastructure. Before we get back to the term and title, there have been various arguments made against the broad proposal, for reasons of increased cost, conflated responsibility, and inflated bureaucracy. Aside from those concerns - and on the basis of more detail to come - if it is to be pursued, then its title should be considered more broadly, to avoid any apathy or ambivalence from the public. 

While it mirrors similarly named departments in Australia, Canada and the Netherlands, and also in Stormont, that doesn't mean any future government should feel bound by such convention and language. Instead of a Department of Infrastructure, a Department of Public Works (DPW) could give it that clear and simple resonance, both for those working within it, but also the wider public it would serve - mitigating any possible indifference.

This would also more align with the existing Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (DPER). The natural course being for the National Development Plan (NDP) Delivery remit, that currently resides within DPER, transferring across to the new portfolio.

Also moving over would be some of the current roles and responsibilities within the existing Office of Public Works (OPW), that includes the Head of Planning and Climate Adaptation, and also the State Architect, who has the designated oversight for Major Project Delivery.

To avoid confusion and provide further clarity of purpose, the OPW would be renamed (with its own suitable new acronym) to better reflect its primary focus on historic property management and heritage services.

A positive consequence of a new DPW (as has likely been intended within the preliminary proposal) would be enabling DPER to then concentrate efforts on its initial priorities at the time of its formation around public service reform, people and pay.

The brief and title of a new Department of Public Works would also not preclude it, in parallel with the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund (Isif), from leveraging the public private partnerships to provide the capital funding required for future infrastructure development.

The current Central Public Private Partnership (PPP) Unit would also naturally transfer over from DPER to the new department, as would the recently announced advisory partnership between the Department of Transport and the European Investment Bank (EIB) in relation to the development of Ireland’s port infrastructure - as the backbone of offshore wind projects in the future.

Aside from policy and implementation, an added political benefit of this new portfolio is an increased spread of ministerial options for briefs that encapsulate multiple macro areas and matters of State. Something that should allow considerations around coalition formulation and cohesion more amenable for leaders in a government of three to four parties – as is more likely in the months and years to come.

Beyond the political and pragmatic considerations, from a communication perspective, the true power of language and the words we use is often more impactful when framed in simple terms. Plain language paints clear pictures for people - more than technical or abstract terms. The current Taoiseach is more adept at this skill then many in his field. If the Department of Public Works doesn’t fit, then it is important when referring to ‘infrastructure’ in the future, that it’s brought to life in what it actually means for the economic, cultural and social structure of people’s everyday lives.