Rallo vs Garzón on road spending

Juan Ramón Rallo replies to Eduardo Garzón that a chart of road spending not adjusted for inflation exaggerates the increase. Once the price effect is corrected, by his calculation, spending per kilometre is at the same level as in 2012.

The controversy erupted on social media over a chart. **Juan Ramón Rallo** responded to **Eduardo Garzón** that comparing road spending without correcting for inflation distorts the conclusion. His thesis: once deflated, spending per kilometre is at the same level as in **2012**. The dispute is no small matter, because it determines whether the conclusion is that investment effort has soared or that, in real terms, it has held steady.

## What deflating a spending series changes

A chart in current euros mixes two things: how much is spent and what those euros are worth. With accumulated inflation, the same nominal figure buys less than it did years ago. Deflating means expressing each year in the euros of a reference year, so that the series reflects real volume and not just the effect of prices. Without that adjustment, any nominal rise looks like an increase in effort when it may be, in part, a simple loss of purchasing power.

Hence Rallo's objection: the original chart, by not correcting for inflation, would exaggerate the increase. His calculation puts spending per kilometre, once deflated, at the **2012** level. It is a claim he maintains and should be read as such, not as an official figure.

## Why spending per kilometre matters

Dividing spending by the kilometres of road adds another layer. The total can grow because more kilometres are built, not because each kilometre costs more. Rallo points to a second adjustment, by number of kilometres, to isolate the unit cost. Without that adjustment, a larger network on its own justifies higher spending.

The practical conclusion is that the same series allows opposite readings depending on how it is measured. In nominal terms, spending rises. Deflated and per kilometre, according to Rallo's calculation, it is where it stood in **2012**.

## The detail that decides the debate

The discrepancy lies not in the raw numbers but in the method. A chart without deflation and without dividing by kilometres can sustain a story of spending expansion that the real adjustment contradicts or qualifies. That is why the exchange matters beyond the anecdote: it is a lesson in how economic series are presented and what gets left out when choosing them.