What Abundance Can't Achieve

Growth is worthwhile in itself — but it's not a cure for populism.

- Janan Ganesh

Marina Bay in Singapore was a less desirable address half a century ago. I don't mean that it had fewer residential towers with drone-like views of the Grand Prix circuit. I mean the land itself was water; yet to be hard-won from the Strait. Like the growth of Changi, the carpeted and plant-filled resort that it pleases some to call an airport, this reclamation scheme has helped the island accommodate six million, up from 2.5 million when I was there as an infant.

There are other "bay areas," of course. In the book of the hour, Abundance, authors Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson often cite San Francisco, California, as what happens when red tape, bureaucratic inertia, judicial review, and raw Nimbyism (not in my backyard) smother growth projects. That is, depopulation and homelessness: almost a paradox of failure.

Other Democratic jurisdictions have the same issues. People elsewhere notice, shudder, and vote accordingly. "A liberalism that builds"—not one that is obsessed with the distribution of scarce resources—can win them over.

Almost everything the authors propose is worth doing for its own sake. More stuff for more people is an honorable cause. Listen, I would build a fourth runway at Heathrow.

Just don't expect it to make the slightest dent on politics.