India’s agriculture sector—including animal husbandry, forestry, and fishing—has always been one of the country’s core economic sectors, accounting for about 16 percent of India’s GDP and employing nearly half of the working population. Although India has the second largest arable land pool in the world, agriculture is still mired by challenges such as low effective yield and underemployment. Underinvestment in agri-infrastructure, fragmented land holdings, and lack of knowledge and skills among farmers, are some of the key causes. These challenges in turn have aggravated issues like inflation, farmer distress and unrest, political and social disaffection—all of which have severe socioeconomic ripple effects on other sectors. This significantly curtails the ability of India’s economy to touch double-digit growth.
Photo: Carol Mitchell | Flickr Creative Commons
As the backbone of development, infrastructure provides vital support for the twin goals of poverty reduction and shared prosperity. Considering the different needs, roles, and responsibilities of men and women in infrastructure design makes the achievement of these goals more sustainable.
Women and men face constraints both as beneficiaries and producers of infrastructure services. For example, there can be inequitable access to roads, financing for electricity connections, or clean water. There are also inequities in the infrastructure business value chain: Do utilities have a balance of women and men on technical and leadership teams? Is there diversity on boards, with regulators or policy makers? Are women-owned firms in supply chains?
Photo: Adam Cohn | Flickr Creative Commons
India, until recently the fastest growing economy in the world, realized long ago the need for developing infrastructure to fuel its growth. The government also realized that doing so with public funds would not be sufficient. Hence, India rolled out one of the largest Public-Private Partnership (PPP) programs in the world over the first decade of the 21st century.
But India’s massive program also brought with it some challenges, which eventually slowed down the growth of PPPs over the last five years. Yet, this was not the end of the program or our national infrastructure ambitions. This was a learning period, and the relevant government agencies have been efficient in mapping out the constraints that plagued the PPP market and are working on policies to remedy them. It remains to be seen whether or not the implementation of these corrective measures will put the jewel back in the crown of Indian PPPs, but it is a step in the right direction.
Photo Credit: Axel Drainville via Flickr Creative Commons
Our research at the Stanford Global Projects Center aims to improve the way institutional capital is invested in critical public infrastructure. On one side, we research how institutional investor capital that has a commercial objective can be pooled most efficiently for infrastructure. On the other side we research government policies and practices to procure infrastructure assets through Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) and other methods most effectively. In this blog we highlight a few specific initiatives that have been set up to achieve these two objectives holistically, a few of which we touched upon in our first blog.
The Indian State of Bihar, by population, is larger than the Philippines. Or, if you prefer, by the number of residents, Bihar would be the 13th largest country in the world. Yet Bihar’s health indicators are consistently worse than India’s average. And despite accounting for nearly 9% of India’s population, not a single specialty health facility in Bihar is among the nearly 340 Indian hospitals accredited by the National Accreditation Board of Hospitals & Healthcare Providers.
The combination of a high population and a significant lack of quality specialty healthcare facilities has a profound negative impact on the people of Bihar. This is an onerous burden in a state that is already one of the five poorest in India, with a per capita income only half of that of the country as a whole.
Imagine you fall ill or have a serious accident. You survive, but to recover you need extensive medical care. The problem? You don’t have insurance and have to pay out of pocket. Your life savings are quickly drained away, as are your dreams. Your children lose hope for higher education; your well-researched business plan becomes a work of fiction.
Just fourteen projects in energy, transport and water/sanitation. In only eight countries. Totaling $2.7 billion.
There are 56 IDA countries (excluding three “inactive” and a few rich enough to count as “IDA blend”) defined as having per capita income under $1,215. This 2.7 billion in IDA countries compares to total private infrastructure investment commitments of $111.6 billion in all emerging markets in 2015 per the recently released Private Participation in Infrastructure database.
In recent years, the number of projects and investment amounts of private infrastructure in IDA countries hasn’t increased. If people living in the poorest countries are to get better access to energy, transport and water services, and if we believe that the innovation, management capacity and financing of the private sector working together with governments is essential to help make that happen … well, then we need a step change.
We know to make a difference requires dedication and a long term vision. One part of that ambitious change is the Global Infrastructure Facility (GIF). The GIF is a global open platform to help partners prepare and structure complex infrastructure public-private partnerships (PPPs) in emerging markets, and to bring in private sector and institutional investor capital. The GIF platform integrates the efforts of multilateral development banks (who as Technical Partners choose which projects to submit for GIF funding), private sector investors and financiers, and governments to bring infrastructure projects and programs to market. No single institution can achieve these goals alone. The GIF’s Advisory Partners, which include insurers, fund managers, and commercial lenders, and which together have $13 trillion in assets under management, provide feedback to governments on the bankability of projects.
Translations available in Chinese and Spanish.
Many of you are already familiar with the PPP (Public-Private Partnerships) Group’s Private Participation in Infrastructure (PPI) Database. As a reminder for those who aren’t, the PPI Database is a comprehensive resource of over 8,000 projects with private participation across 139 low- and middle-income economies from the period of 1990-2015, in the water, energy, transport and telecoms sectors.
We recently released the 2015 full year data showing that global private infrastructure investment remains steady when compared to the previous year (US$111.6 billion compared with US$111.7 the previous year), largely due to a couple of mega-deals in Turkey (including Istanbul’s $35.6 billion IGA Airport (which includes a $29.1 billion concession fee to the government). When compared to the previous five-year average, however, global private infrastructure investment in 2015 was 10 percent lower, mainly due to dwindling commitments in China, Brazil, and India. Brazil in particular saw only $4.5 billion in investments, sharply declining from $47.2 billion in 2014 and reversing a trend of growing investments over the last five years.
- private sector
- Private Sector Development
- Global Economy
- Financial Sector
- The World Region
- South Asia
- Middle East and North Africa
- Latin America & Caribbean
- Europe and Central Asia
- East Asia and Pacific
- El Salvador
with research contributions from Zichao Wei
At conferences, in meetings, and even during casual work conversations, I am asked the same two questions: “Which countries are ideal for investments in infrastructure? Where should the investors invest and what new opportunities should they look toward?”
While sitting in the World Bank gives us a bird’s-eye view of emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs), it doesn’t offer the up-close-and-personal perspective that investors demand in order to answer these questions in a succinct way. Not that there’s any shortage of synoptic responses. Any number of “market gurus” can assess projects in a second, gathering all the low hanging fruits which are out there in EMDEs. If there is a private deal to be made, then the deal is already done.
The PPI database suggests that approximately 40 percent of all projects are valued at less than $50 million, and approximately 25 percent of all projects are less than $25 million (Figure below). However, the database misses out on projects in several emerging sectors at the sub-national level. While non-traditional sectors are captured in country and sub-national databases, few of these databases are readily available in the public domain.