This article creates an unnecessary false dilenma. It needs not be infrastructure or capacity development. It can actually be both and should be both.

It also shows some very ahistorical thinking, wrongly construing key moments in history and avoidng those moments that would have easily invalidated its claims.

You also overstated Mao’s part in building capacity in China. China’s big break was actually after Mao left the stage for Deng.

Look at FDR’s New Deal, infrastructure development was a huge part of it, even America’s progresive era involved a lot of work on the roads. The reason no one developed roads (and rails) from Roman era till after the IR is actually more simple than you think. Cars had not been invented yet (and trains were not widespread) so the roads needed for horse travel did not need to be improved upon.

There are so many cases where infrastructure preceded new industrialization booms or a change in the scale of earlier booms.

Development involves a strategic mix of infrastructural investment, capacity building, enterprise policies e.t.c that will lead to sustained growth. None of the above is a panacea on its own and countries that seek to develop fast try to get all the ingredients together. This is why the countries who have boomed in the latter part of the 20th century have done so in record time. They learnt from those who took 1000 years of trial and error to build and put the ingredients they learnt together as quickly as possible.

If our government can borrow sustainably to build while we skill up, they should. The issue is, is there a good plan for this?