Explore the vast range of titles available.

Infrastructure plays a key role in fostering growth and productivity and has been linked to improved earnings, health, and education levels for the poor. Yet Latin America and the Caribbean are currently faced with a dangerous combination of relatively low public and private infrastructure investment. Those investment levels must increase, and it can be done. If Latin American and Caribbean governments are to increase infrastructure investment in politically feasible ways, it is critical that they learn from experience and have an accurate idea of future impacts. This book contributes to this aim by producing what is arguably the most comprehensive privatization impact analysis in the region to date, drawing on an extremely comprehensive dataset.

This book reviews Latin America's experience with infrastructure reform over the last fifteen years. It argues that the region's infrastructure has suffered from public retrenchment and unrealistic expectations about private involvement. Poor infrastructure now hampers productivity, growth, and poverty reduction. Addressing this requires more and better spending, and acceptance that governments remain central to infrastructure provision and supervision, although the private sector still has an important role to play.

Workers' remittances have become a major source of financing for developing countries and are especially important in Latin America and the Caribbean, which is at the top of the ranking of remittance receiving regions in the world. While there has been a recent surge in analytical work on the topic, this book is motivated by the large heterogeneity in migration and remittance patterns across countries and regions, and by the fact that existing evidence for Latin America and the Caribbean is restricted to only a few countries, such as Mexico and El Salvador. Because the nature of the phenomenon varies across countries, its development impact and policy implications are also likely to differ in ways that are still largely unknown. This book helps fill the gap by exploring, in the specific context of Latin America and Caribbean countries, some of the main questions faced by policymakers when trying to respond to increasing remittances flows. The book relies on cross-country panel data and household surveys for 11 Latin American countries to explore the development impact of remittance flows along several dimensions: growth, poverty, inequality, schooling, health, labor supply, financial development, and real exchange rates.

This study assesses the potential for job creation through infrastructure investment in the Middle East and North Africa. The region has experience in making the most of infrastructure investments, but maintaining and spreading the momentum in infrastructure will be important to support future growth and job creation. To do so, policymakers will have to recognize that there are large differences in initial conditions across the region in terms of starting stock, needs, fiscal commitments, private sector participation and job creation potential. Overall, the region’s infrastructure needs through 2020 are quite large and estimated at about 106 billion dollars per year or 6.9 percent of the annual regional GDP. The differences in infrastructure and maintenance needs across sub-regions are also impressive, with developing oil exporters expected to require almost 11 percent of their GDP annually, while the oil importing countries and the GCC oil exporters expected to need approximately 6 and 5 percent of their GDP, respectively. Investment and rehabilitation needs are likely to be especially high in the electricity and transport sectors, particularly roads. Rehabilitation needs are expected to account for slightly more than half of total infrastructure needs. While oil exporters will be able to meet their national infrastructure needs if they maintain investment spending at rates prevailing in the 2000s, oil importers will fall short. The infrastructure sector has the potential to contribute to employment creation in MENA. The region could generate 2.0 million direct jobs and 2.5 million direct, indirect and induced infrastructure-related jobs just by meeting estimated, annual investment needs. However, the potential varies greatly across countries, and infrastructure alone will not resolve MENA’s unemployment problem. Going forward, decisions on what types of public spending to expand and what to downsize in order to achieve balanced budgets will have important implications for jobs. In designing country specific solutions, governments will have to tackle predictable challenges: the governance of job creation, the proper targeting and fiscal costs assessment of subsidies needed to create jobs, the design and fiscal costs of the (re)training programs needed and the expectations on the job creation effects of infrastructure.

The report starts with an overview and introduces the main findings. It addresses major constraints, instruments, and outcomes important to unleash the potential of infrastructure investments and policy fine-tuning. Chapter one discusses the infrastructure and growth nexus, given the country's macroeconomic scenario. It examines the long-term sustainability, particularly considering the Mahinda Chintana's high infrastructure investment targets, and how the country can achieve its high economic growth targets, given its historical and current investment levels. Chapter two argues that the two principal drivers of sustained high economic growth and productive employment are: (a) international competitiveness that results in export-led growth; and (b) urbanization that facilitates productive economic activity. Chapter three reviews key infrastructure sectors to identify the regulatory issues that need to be addressed and estimate the needed investment. Redressing infrastructure constraints, however, cannot be piecemeal and product specific. Instead, a sector-wide approach is needed. In light of the large investment requirement and high public debt and deficit, chapter four discusses the potential of public-private partnership in infrastructure delivery and supportive regulatory reform. Finally, chapter five concludes the analysis, summarizing major highlights.

What transforms a desirable project on a government wish list to an attractive investment opportunity in the eyes of a potential private sector partner? This guide seeks to enhance the chances of developing effective partnerships between the public and the private sectors by addressing one of the main obstacles to the effective delivery of public-private partnership (PPP) projects: having the right information on the right project for the right partners at the right time. Data from the World Bank and the Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility (PPIAF) private participation in infrastructure (PPI) project database indicate that private sector investment in infrastructure in developing economies grew steadily over the past decade. By 2007 the levels had finally surpassed the peak levels seen in 1997, the end of the previous growth spurt. This guide focuses specifically on what should be done, and when, in order to prepare projects to attract the right long-term private partners, procure their involvement, and manage the partnership. This guide is not a detailed project preparation manual; rather, it seeks to provide an overview of the process and what is involved so that greater realism can be applied to this challenging task and adequate resource plans can be developed.

Multilateral development banks (MDBs) are crucial in promoting economic growth through their project finance activities. Meanwhile, to address negative effects arising from their development projects, MDBs increasingly have focused their attention on the environmental and social impacts of their supported projects in recent decades. This article analyzes the relationship between the Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) adopted by the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). It argues that better compliance with MEAs by the AIIB and its borrowers in implementing AIIB-supported development projects will be achieved only if its independent accountability mechanism (IAM) can actively examine project compliance with the ESF in the light of MEAs. The AIIB has an opportunity to provide leadership in promoting the fulfilment of MEA obligations in development finance. However, this is contingent on ensuring effective oversight by its newly established IAM moving forward.

Advocates of public-private partnerships (PPPs) for infrastructure services in developing countries have long battled criticism of these arrangements by civil society groups. The view among PPP advocates generally has been that these criticisms are mostly ideological polemics that mix opinion with selected but often misinterpreted facts. But over the last two decades, as the experience with PPPs has increased in both developed and developing countries, a different kind of critique has emerged, one that is based on non-ideological empirical research, and is sometimes expressed by PPP advocates. These studies often focus on individual aspects of PPPs, and usually do not claim to be “PPP evaluations” or express opinions on the overall value of PPPs. Taken together, a powerful, evidence-based critique of PPPs is emerging, but one that is more measured than much of the criticism of the last two decades. This new critique recognizes many cases in which PPPs have not been successful, but also some situations in which PPPs can generate value for money. Because of its critical tone, some of this research is now regularly cited by the civil society critics of PPPs, giving their arguments more weight than was the case a decade ago. This paper attempts to summarize some of the most compelling examples of this kind of emerging critique, and uses the summary to assess the practicality of the G20’s recent advocacy of large, “transformational” PPPs as tools for dealing effectively with infrastructure challenges in low-income countries.

This paper develops a growth model with specialized goods where inefficient and corrupt bureaucracies interact with the provision of public investment services in affecting the productivity of private capital, specialization, and growth. The model provides potential explanations for the contradictory empirical results on the effects of public investment found in the literature as well as for the role of the quality of public infrastructure investment in creating a gap between rich and poor countries. From a policy perspective, the paper suggests that the link between public investment and growth depends critically on the quality and efficiency of public capital.

The article first describes characteristics of major infrastructure projects. Second, it documents a much neglected topic in economics: that ex ante estimates of costs and benefits are often very different from actual ex post costs and benefits. For large infrastructure projects the consequences are cost overruns, benefit shortfalls, and the systematic underestimation of risks. Third, implications for cost–benefit analysis are described, including that such analysis is not to be trusted for major infrastructure projects. Fourth, the article uncovers the causes of this state of affairs in terms of perverse incentives that encourage promoters to underestimate costs and overestimate benefits in the business cases for their projects. But the projects that are made to look best on paper are the projects that amass the highest cost overruns and benefit shortfalls in reality. The article depicts this situation as ‘survival of the unfittest’. Fifth, the article sets out to explain how the problem may be solved, with a view to arriving at more efficient and more democratic projects, and avoiding the scandals that often accompany major infrastructure investments. Finally, the article identifies current trends in major infrastructure development. It is argued that a rapid increase in stimulus spending, combined with more investments in emerging economies, combined with more spending on information technology is catapulting infrastructure investment from the frying pan into the fire.