Syndicate content

infrastructure financing

Approaches to selecting infrastructure financing options

Ferdinand Pecson's picture


Photo: GotCredit| Flickr Creative Commons 

Whether an infrastructure project should be pursued through government funding, official development assistance (ODA), a Public-Private Partnership (PPP), or a hybrid, is a matter of finding the solution that best meets a government’s objective given a set of constraints and the risks presented by each option. 

Boosting access to market-based debt financing for sub-national entities

Kirti Devi's picture



Many countries are experiencing urbanization within the context of increased decentralization and fiscal adjustment. This puts sub-national entities (local governments, utilities and state-owned enterprises) in the position of being increasingly responsible for developing and financing infrastructure and providing services to meet the needs of growing populations.
 
However, decentralization in many situations is still a work in progress. And often there is a mismatch between the ability of sub-nationals to provide services, and the autonomy or authority necessary to make decisions and access financing—often leaving them dependent on national governments. Additionally, they may also contend with inadequate regulatory and policy frameworks and weak domestic financial and capital markets. 

Sub-national pooled financing: Lessons from the United States

Kirti Devi's picture

As infrastructure projects are increasingly decentralized to sub-national governments (SNGs) in many countries, policymakers are keenly interested in developing sub-national bond markets to open up access to private-sector financing. However, the transaction costs of bond issuance are still prohibitive for small SNGs.
 
Pooled financing—through regional infrastructure funds, municipal funds, or bond banks—is being explored as a solution. Yet, many questions remain: 

Financial viability support: global efforts to create commercially viable PPPs

Kalpana Seethepalli's picture
Credit: Paul Carmona 

The story of infrastructure financing revolves around varying infrastructure needs—from basic to complex, interconnected infrastructure. And as this narrative develops, it’s becoming clear that by 2030, the additional infrastructure financing required to keep up with projected global GDP growth is an estimated $57 trillion.

Because public finances are overstretched, governments must consider alternative financing models to leverage private capital into infrastructure, along with strategic use of International Financial Institutions (IFI) financing to crowd in private investments. At the same time, developments in global financial markets are fundamentally reshaping how capital is transmitted and invested around the world, including in infrastructure. A key element of attracting private sector debt and equity into infrastructure is to make the underlying transactions commercially viable through clear, transparent Financial Viability Support (FVS) mechanisms.
 
During the past few years, our Singapore-based team has spent significant time exploring the way that FVS mechanisms can make a difference in PPPs around the world. In the new issue of Partnerships IQ, we discuss in great detail how FVS is being implemented across the globe, and its potential for even greater impact. Here, we’d like to discuss FVS a little more broadly, introducing our ideas for how and where it might operate most efficiently.

Pushing water downhill: Considering ICT PPPs

Jeff Delmon's picture
Students using new high-speed Internet in Tonga. Photo: World Bank Group

For private financiers, official government support to information and communications technology (ICT) projects might seem like trying to push water downhill. After all, isn’t ICT incredibly profitable? What’s the point of a public-private partnership (PPP) in this sector, anyway?

Here’s the rest of that familiar argument: Government should stay out of the way and let the private sector carry the communications sector; it is a waste of effort and inefficient to try to push forward something that has its own momentum. Like a rushing river, the naysayers conclude, ICT needs no help advancing down its inevitable course.

It sounds reasonable in theory, but in practice, that approach just doesn’t work. The government needs to guide the river down the best course for the citizens it serves, building a weir or mill to help the river provide maximum benefits to the people who need it. And, just as water is the foundation of life, communication technologies are necessary to prosper in today’s world. Knowledge is power. And specifically, access to markets is improved by mobile phones, as is access to banking services, finance, investment opportunities, and education.

Successful ICT strategies usher in jobs, empowerment and economic growth.

​Why institutional infrastructure is as important as physical infrastructure: Southeast Asia’s experience with air liberalization policies

Cledan Mandri-Perrott's picture
As a Singapore-based public-private partnerships (PPP) team focused largely on infrastructure development, we look closely at infrastructure’s impact on our region’s economic health. The governments in our area also track this in great detail, coordinating efforts through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
 
Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Among other benefits, ASEAN gives countries a platform to develop coordinated ways in which member countries can accelerate economic growth alongside social progress. An important focus for ASEAN members is how this large, diverse group can build infrastructure that will bring valuable public benefits to all of its citizens. This includes infrastructure development, some by way of traditional PPPs,that improve road networks, trade connectivity, mobility, power, and other public services in developing regions.
 
Yet in the ASEAN community, as everywhere else, building infrastructure cannot be done in a vacuum.  Developing institutional infrastructure and improving the quality and efficient use of existing physical infrastructure is as important as creating physical infrastructure. The right policies and programs can ensure that existing infrastructure is efficient, provides quality services and is used to optimal capacity. As ASEAN’s successes have demonstrated, these goals are contingent on good planning and coordination among users and agencies.

One question, eight experts, part eight: Thomas Maier

Thomas Maier's picture
Almaty, Kazakhstan. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

To gain a better understanding of how innovation in public-private partnerships (PPPs) builds on genuine learning, we reached out to PPP infrastructure experts around the world, posing the same question to each. Their honest answers redefine what works — and provide new insights into the PPP process. This is the question we posed: How can mistakes be absorbed into the learning process, and when can failure function as a step toward a PPP’s long-term success?

Our eighth and final response in this eight-part series comes from Thomas Maier, Managing Director, Infrastructure with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD).

For countries new to PPPs, there is no doubt a steep learning curve. Fortunately, there is also a growing body of experience that such countries can learn from — the key is to understand the essence of the lessons and then incorporate these changes into the design of government support for PPPs.

Ultimately there is, of course, no substitute for good project preparation, local capacity and the development of solid legal frameworks and local capital markets — we all know these are the building blocks for the long-term success of any country’s PPP program.

Focusing on lessons learned from EBRD’s region, two current examples from Kazakhstan and Turkey come to mind.

​Developing municipal credit markets: Experience with pooled finance

Kirti Devi's picture

Urbanization is a defining trend of our time. In 1900, 13 percent of the world’s population was urban. Today more than half of the estimated population of 7.2 billion lives in cities. And this growth has happened in one century.
 
On the upside: Urbanization and economic development are correlated and there are other benefits of density and agglomeration economies. Production is concentrated in cities, which are also centers of demand and social convergence. No country has achieved high-income status without significant urbanization. However, increasing energy use, accelerating CO2 emissions and more environmental pressures will accompany GDP growth. Mismanaged urbanization will impose social and environmental costs that will be difficult to reverse.
 
In many countries, this urbanization trend is playing out within the context of increased decentralization and fiscal adjustment, and local governments are increasingly responsible for the provision and financing of public infrastructure for their constituencies. This has placed an increased strain on local financing resources and led to an emphasis on the development of local credit markets and resorting to public-private partnerships (PPPs).

​Toward an effective PPP business model: An eight-point plan for closing the infrastructure gap

Thomas Maier's picture
Photo: Wikimedia Commons
The global need for infrastructure is significant, particularly in emerging markets. By consensus estimates from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to the Boston Consulting Group and the World Bank Group, the estimated annual global infrastructure investment need is about US$3.7 trillion – of which only about $2.7 trillion is currently met on an annual basis. 

This much-discussed “infrastructure gap” is large and it is widening. Even if fiscal conditions in developed and emerging economies improve, the need introduced by the infrastructure financing gap is unlikely to be met from public sources alone. This generates an expectation that private capital and user charges must be mobilized to fill these gaps.

But this is an entirely predictable problem, and over many years the international community has made efforts to provide assistance in building public-private partnership (PPP) capacity in emerging markets. Finding ways to leverage private sector investment through sound, consistent and sustained public sector policies should be a focal point for governments around the world.  International financial institutions (IFIs), given their unique relationships with emerging market governments, can and do play an important role. The community of professionals in multilateral development banks (MDBs) is listening; MDBs are willing and able partners.

Of course, stating that idea is one thing; practicing it is another. Here are eight ways that together, we can move from the theoretical to the actual and reach our goals for infrastructure.

How national PPP units can influence regional performance: Korea’s experience

Kang-Soo Kim's picture

Kang-Soo Kim is Executive Director, Public and Private Infrastructure Investment Management Center (PIMAC), at the Korea Development Institute (KDI), the Republic of Korea’s leading think tank on national economic development. In this blog entry, he explains how national Public-Private Partnership (PPP) units can influence regional economic performance.

Photo: Wikimedia Commons

What advice would you give governments creating a PPP unit?

First, for a government considering this, the vision for PPP needs to be established and shared with others. Second, clearly distinguished roles and functions must be institutionalized. Third, expertise needs to be developed in fields like law, finance, accounting, economics, development, and engineering. Fourth, active benchmarking of developed PPP economies and cooperation with other PPP units should be encouraged and promoted

Overall, it’s critical to remember that a PPP unit’s expertise and capacity is not built overnight. So my final piece of advice is that while experience is built, remaining patient is just as important as maintaining a clear vision of PPP.

What makes PIMAC effective?

The legal and institutional system that guarantees independence and objectivity to the evaluation body is the most important element here. A PPP unit should not be in any way influenced by other players in a PPP project — whether the budget authority, the competent authority, or the private concessionaire. The government is vulnerable to political influence although the private sector is the project stakeholder. Independent and objective assessment by the PPP unit is therefore all the more crucial. It is important that the government lends its support, and that all decision-making reflects evaluations made by the PPP unit.


Pages