Public perceptions of infrastructure funding
By César Navarro · Data Consultant at GAD3
The tragedy in Adamuz has reopened a deep debate about the management of public resources, adding to the collective memory of events such as the DANA floods in Valencia, the volcanic eruption on La Palma, the nationwide power blackout, and the forest fires that struck Spain this summer. In addition, the subsequent introduction of speed restrictions on several railway lines has acted as a wake-up call for society, prompting greater attention to the actual state of infrastructure. In this article, we review public opinion on the funding of public infrastructure in order to better understand this growing sense of discontent.
A perceived infrastructure investment deficit
Drawing on data from the 2024 Fiscal Barometer, Spaniards perceive a clear mismatch between the level of funding that should be allocated to public infrastructure (roads, railways, bridges, airports, water infrastructure, public lighting, etc.) and the amount they believe is actually being invested.
Funding for public infrastructure is a clear priority for the Spanish population: 86% believe that a substantial or very substantial level of public funding should be allocated to it — a figure comparable to those for healthcare, education and social services. By contrast, only 55% believe that a substantial or very substantial share of tax revenue is currently being invested in infrastructure, creating a 31-point gap between the perceived ideal and reality.
Willingness to contribute in exchange for results
Another way of assessing the importance citizens attach to infrastructure is to examine whether they would be willing to pay higher taxes in order to strengthen or improve it.
The Barometer shows that 54% of the population would be willing to pay more in taxes if they were assured that this would lead to improvements or reinforcements in public infrastructure. Notably, this willingness does not differ significantly between those who believe too little is currently being invested and those who believe investment levels are adequate. In fact, 52% of those who consider current infrastructure funding to be insufficient would still be prepared to pay higher taxes, provided they were guaranteed tangible improvements.
Can trust be restored?
As long as public perceptions remain unchanged, incidents of this kind will continue to reopen debates about the management of tax revenue.
Citizens themselves point to what would be needed to rebuild trust in the tax system. 66% of the population believe that improving the management of public spending is essential — delivering better services with the resources available — while 62% also stress the need for greater transparency regarding how tax revenues are spent.
Conclusion
The Adamuz tragedy has reopened the debate on public management, particularly in relation to railway funding, as citizens perceive that fewer resources are being allocated to public infrastructure than are actually needed.
Despite this mismatch, half of the population would be willing to pay higher taxes in order to strengthen infrastructure. In return, they ask for just two things: improved management and greater transparency in public spending.
