Syndicate content


Record investment in transport boosts overall private participation in infrastructure in 2014

Henry Kasper's picture

Imagine record commitments in transport that are 26% higher than the next best year since the inception of the Private Participation in Infrastructure (PPI) Database in 1990. That’s exactly what took place in 2014—massive private participation in transport that culminated in the fourth highest level of global investment (transport, energy, and water) ever recorded. Indeed, the PPI Database’s 2014 Global Update released in June, 2015, shows that total investment in transport hit a record high of US$36.5 billion, driven by a handful of outsized deals in
Latin America and, more specifically, Brazil—including a mega airport project totaling US$10 billion. Meanwhile, energy fell 19 percent year-over-year due to fewer commitments in five out of six regions, while water grew 14 percent, driven by key deals in Brazil, Mexico, and Peru. In a separate report, Telecom showed modest year-over-year declines, extending a trend of fewer projects and lower investment over the past five years.  

Indonesian Public-Private Partnerships now speak with one voice

Sinthya Roesly's picture
City and traffic lights at sunset in Jakarta, Indonesia

Translation of PPP Reference Guide into Bahasa Indonesia strongly supports national PPP delivery efforts

Indonesia’s strategy to become one of the 10 major world economies by 2025 – part of a long-term program outlined in its Masterplan for Acceleration and Expansion of Indonesia's Economic Development (MP3EI) – relies heavily on how quickly it can build new infrastructure to support its rapid growth. This entails cooperation among the central government, local governments, state owned enterprises, and the private sector. Of the four parties, according to experts on the ground, “the private sector has a vital role to play in this masterplan (in the form of PPP schemes), as it is expected to contribute the bulk of financing.”

5 ways to close the global innovation divide

Anabel Gonzalez's picture
Participants gather at a hackathon in Nairobi, Kenya (Photo by Flickr user Erik (HASH) Hersman)

High income economies are dominating global innovation. Led by Switzerland, the top 10% are outpacing the rest in innovation as measured by the 2014 Global Innovation Index. This rich-poor innovation divide is striking with a handful of high income countries, mostly in Europe accounting for most of the top 10%. The bottom quintile consists of predominantly low income economies with more than half from Sub Saharan Africa.

 Global Innovation Index Report, 2014
Source: Global Innovation Index Report, 2014

The top innovating economies rate strongly on the quality of their institutions including a stable political environment and an effective regulatory and business environment. They benefit from and continue to invest heavily in human capital, research and development and infrastructure. They score highly on business and market sophistication – good management is fundamental for private sector innovation. They have also established most if not all of the elements of a successful innovation ecosystem. These countries consequently dominate in knowledge outputs including on most measures of knowledge creation, impact and diffusion as well as in technology and creative outputs.

It is difficult to imagine that poor countries or emerging markets without innovation will be able to catch up and become high-income economies in the 21st Century, an era already characterized by previously unimaginable technological progress and, importantly, international diffusion. Populations in these countries are in dire need of innovative solutions to deliver clean water and energy, health and education services, better housing, sanitation and transportation and increased food production while battling the adverse impacts of climate change. These economies need to create jobs for millions of unemployed youth leveraging the benefits of an increasingly digital global economy.

What can be done to bridge this yawning innovation and competitiveness gap?

Does political risk deter FDI from emerging markets?

Laura Gómez-Mera's picture

Investors touring a factory in Canada. Source - Province of British Columbia“Ask anyone you meet on the street whether political risk has risen in the last few years, and you’d likely get a convincing yes,” a high official from Canada’s Export Development Center recently wrote.
Investors have always worried about the political landscape in host markets. But it’s true. Concerns over political risk are on the rise.
The most recent EIU’s Global Business Barometer shows that the proportion of executives that identified political risk as one of their main concerns increased from 36 percent in 2013 to 42 percent in 2014. MIGA’s Political Risk Survey tells a similar story: 20 percent of investors identified political risk as the most important constraint on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in developing economies. Indeed, according to risk management firm AON, political risk is now tenth on the list of main risks facing organizations today and is likely to rise in the ranking in the next few years.
With FDI from emerging markets also on the rise, are the concerns of these investors any different?

The case for a global carbon pricing framework

Jeff Swartz's picture
Carbon pricing map. State & Trends of Carbon Pricing

By Jeff Swartz, Director of International Policy at the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA)

With carbon pricing policies emerging around the world and the recent show of public support for carbon pricing from 74 national governments and more than 1,000 businesses, one piece of the puzzle that needs to be solved is how to connect systems to create an international carbon pricing framework.

In the lead up to the Paris negotiations this December, governments from around the world – including China, South Africa and Russia – have signaled their willingness to apply a price on carbon, yet businesses and civil society know that we will not be able to move towards a fully functional low-carbon global economy by operating under a fragmented system of international carbon pricing policies. Furthermore, the IPCC’s verdict on the need to increase international cooperation on climate mitigation policies highlights the need for an international carbon pricing framework. 

GDP is Not Destiny

Roxanne Bauer's picture
In a 1968 speech, Robert Kennedy recognized gross national product “measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”

Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki Moon agreeed in 2012 suggesting, “We need to move beyond gross domestic product as our main measure of progress, and fashion a sustainable development index that puts people first,” and Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said in 2008, “GDP tells you nothing about sustainability.”

Even Simon Kuznets, who first coined the term GDP acknowledged in his original report to the US Congress 1934 that, "The welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income."

Taking up the call for a better, more wholesome way to measure progress, the Social Progress Index, offers a framework for measuring the multiple aspects of social progress based on three dimensions: basic needs for survival, foundations of wellbeing, and opportunity.  It does not measure how much money is spent on policies or services that support these dimensions, but rather the experiences of citizens.

Michael Green, CEO of the Social Progress Index, gives the following Ted Talk to explain how the index measures the welfare of societies and what its policy implications are. He reveals a dramatic reordering of nations according to social progress.
What the Social Progress Index can reveal about your country

Inequality and Africa’s IDA Middle Income Trap

Ravi Kanbur's picture

Inequality is of concern for at least three reasons. First, lower inequality per se is an objective for a decent society. Second, lower inequality improves the efficiency of economic growth in achieving poverty reduction. Third, high inequality impedes growth itself, through its impact on social cohesion and the investment climate.

Quote of the Week: Zhang Lei

Sina Odugbemi's picture

"You need to have the ability to delay gratification. You have to focus and you have to have a clear mind.”

- Zhang Lei, Chairman and CEO of Hillhouse Capital Management, one of the largest equities investment firms in Asia, speaking on his longterm investment strategy.  Hillhouse, based in Beijing, typically invests in consumer, internet and media, medical treatment and healthcare, advanced manufacturing and commodity related sectors and manages $10 billion for leading endowments, sovereign funds, pensions and family offices.  Zhang also serves as a board member for several Asian companies, including Jingdong (formerly 360Buy), Blue Moon, Qunar and MNC/Global Mediacom. 

Weekly Wire: The Global Forum

Roxanne Bauer's picture

These are some of the views and reports relevant to our readers that caught our attention this week.

Three reasons investors are beginning to take sustainability seriously
The Guardian
Most of the ingredients for a healthy, secure, and fulfilling existence come to us from nature. Food, clean water, pollination, and natural hazard protection are all essential goods and services that underpin our economy and secure our wellbeing. But business models that exploit these benefits unsustainably are intensifying pressure on our planet's natural resources, putting their future – and ours – in jeopardy. How can we relieve this pressure before it is too late? As a first step, we need to recognise that rapidly declining natural systems are bad news for business. There is a two-way street between the economy and the environment: businesses damage the environment, and the damaged environment then creates risks to the bottom lines of businesses. But why should members of the investment community care?

Does transparency improve governance? Reviewing evidence from 16 experimental evaluations
Journalist's Resource- Harvard Kennedy School
The idea that transparency can make institutions more effective and provide greater accountability and better results for the public seems uncontroversial on the surface. But scholars and bureaucrats who have been involved in the wave of transparency initiatives over the past decade continue to debate the particular merits of various approaches. Some commentators have been troubled that as a reaction to scrutiny, malfeasance and inefficiency could increasingly be kept hidden and transparency could erode public trust in institutions and personal privacy. The many types of transparency initiatives around the globe are often confused, making sharp distinctions all the more essential.