Publication: Current Debates on Infrastructure Policy
Loading...
Date
2009
ISSN
Published
2009
Author(s)
Estache, Antonio
Editor(s)
Abstract
This paper provides an overview of the major current debates on infrastructure policy. It reviews the evidence on the macroeconomic significance of the sector in terms of growth and poverty alleviation. It also discusses the major institutional debates, including the relative comparative advantage of the public and the private sector in the various stages of infrastructure service delivery as well as the main options for changes in the role of government (i.e. regulation and decentralization).
Link to Data Set
Citation
“Estache, Antonio; Fay, Marianne. 2009. Current Debates on Infrastructure Policy. Commission on Growth and Development Working Paper;No. 49. © World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/27762 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.”
Associated URLs
Associated content
Other publications in this report series
Journal
Journal Volume
Journal Issue
Collections
Related items
Showing items related by metadata.
Publication Current Debates on Infrastructure Policy(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2007-11)This paper provides an overview of the major current debates on infrastructure policy. It reviews the evidence on the macroeconomic significance of the sector in terms of growth and poverty alleviation. It also discusses the major institutional debates, including the relative comparative advantage of the public and the private sector in the various stages of infrastructure service delivery as well as the main options for changes in the role of government (i.e. regulation and decentralization).Publication Infrastructure Gap in South Asia : Infrastructure Needs, Prioritization, and Financing(World Bank Group, Washington, DC, 2014-09)If the South Asia region hopes to meet its development goals and not risk slowing down or even halting growth, poverty alleviation, and shared prosperity, it is essential to make closing its huge infrastructure gap a priority. Identifying and addressing gaps in the data on expenditure, access, and quality are crucial to ensuring that governments make efficient, practical, and effective infrastructure development choices. This study addresses this knowledge gap by focusing on the current status of infrastructure sectors and geographical disparities, real levels of investment and private sector participation, deficits and proper targets for the future, and bottlenecks to expansion. The findings show that the South Asia region needs to invest between US$1.7 trillion and US$2.5 trillion (at current prices) to close its infrastructure gap. If investments are spread evenly over the years until 2020, the region needs to invest between 6.6 and 9.9 percent of 2010 gross domestic product per year, an estimated increase of up to 3 percentage points from the 6.9 percent of gross domestic product invested in infrastructure by countries in the region in 2009. Given the enormous size of the region's infrastructure deficiencies, it will need a mix of investment in infrastructure stock and supportive reforms to close its infrastructure gap. One major challenge will be prioritizing investment needs. Another will be choosing optimal forms of service provision, including the private sector's role, and the decentralization of administrative functions and powers.Publication How to Revitalize Infrastructure Investments in Brazil : Public Policies for Better Private Participation, Volume 1. Main Report(Washington, DC, 2007-01)Amid a shifting policymaking environment from private to public, volume one of this report discusses how public policies could attract more and better private investments. In attracting back private capital, this report argues that Brazil must do three things. First, it must eliminate remaining regulatory bottlenecks and policy uncertainties in selected sectors. Secondly, design infrastructure concessions to avoid "excessive" renegotiations while simultaneously guaranteeing an adequate rate of return for investors and protecting consumers' welfare. And finally, strengthen the quality of the regulators for technically sound and coherent decision-making processes. Volume two is the background report and looks at infrastructure statistics in Brazil and international benchmarks, regulatory policy issues, contract negotiations, and gives conclusions and policy implications on these topics.Publication Private Participation in the Road Sector in Brazil : Recent Evolution and Next Steps(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2010-03)Today, Brazil has the second longest highway network under private concessions in the world. This paper analyzes Brazil's experience under the two first phases of the federal road concession program, and highlights some of the program's strengths and areas for further development. Despite the unfolding world financial and economic crisis, the potential for further private participation in the sector appears very good. This paper essentially argues that it may be time for Brazil to revamp its current models for private participation in the sector, which may soon reach their limit in terms of being able to meet efficiently the needs of a growing economy. In summary, Brazil could: 1) diversify its toll road model to allow for more innovative public-private partnership structures; 2) update its toll regulatory and contractual framework to overcome some of the design problems that have led to relatively inefficient tolling; 3) consolidate the institutional framework for road concessions to give a stabilized basis for further developments; 4) develop a policy framework adapted to the current Brazilian environment, taking into account the need to ensure harmonized levels of service and tolls across the country; and 5) adapt the sector financing framework to the rising capacity of private markets.Publication Urban Transport : Can Public-Private Partnerships Work?(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2014-05)Cities exist, grow, and prosper because they take advantage of scale economies and specialization wrought by agglomeration. But output growth inevitably stresses transport infrastructure because production requires space and mobility. To prevent congestion from crowding out agglomeration benefits and to expand the supply of urban land, cities must invest in transport infrastructure. Yet balancing the growing demand for infrastructure with its supply is often difficult. In particular, many cities lack the funding to maintain and expand streets and urban highways. Also problematic is that roads are managed like a social service rather than subjected to market discipline. This leads to the central question of this chapter: Can public-private partnerships (PPPs) deal with these problems better than conventional public provision and ensure proper maintenance, timely expansion, and less congestion? And if so, how? To answer these questions, the paper examines what PPPs can do and what they need to work, focusing in particular on the role of institutions. This is followed by an investigation of common PPP pitfalls and the ways in which they can be avoided. The paper concludes with a case study of a successful transportation PPP in Chile that emphasizes the importance of planning.
Users also downloaded
Showing related downloaded files
Publication Design Thinking for Social Innovation(2010-07)Designers have traditionally focused on enchancing the look and functionality of products.Publication Governance Matters VIII : Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators 1996–2008(2009-06-01)This paper reports on the 2009 update of the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) research project, covering 212 countries and territories and measuring six dimensions of governance between 1996 and 2008: Voice and Accountability, Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism, Government Effectiveness, Regulatory Quality, Rule of Law, and Control of Corruption. These aggregate indicators are based on hundreds of specific and disaggregated individual variables measuring various dimensions of governance, taken from 35 data sources provided by 33 different organizations. The data reflect the views on governance of public sector, private sector and NGO experts, as well as thousands of citizen and firm survey respondents worldwide. The authors also explicitly report the margins of error accompanying each country estimate. These reflect the inherent difficulties in measuring governance using any kind of data. They find that even after taking margins of error into account, the WGI permit meaningful cross-country comparisons as well as monitoring progress over time. The aggregate indicators, together with the disaggregated underlying indicators, are available at www.govindicators.org.Publication Government Matters III : Governance Indicators for 1996-2002(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2003-08)The authors present estimates of six dimensions of governance covering 199 countries and territories for four time periods: 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002. These indicators are based on several hundred individual variables measuring perceptions of governance, drawn from 25 separate data sources constructed by 18 different organizations. The authors assign these individual measures of governance to categories capturing key dimensions of governance and use an unobserved components model to construct six aggregate governance indicators in each of the four periods. They present the point estimates of the dimensions of governance as well as the margins of errors for each country for the four periods. The governance indicators reported here are an update and expansion of previous research work on indicators initiated in 1998 (Kaufmann, Kraay, and Zoido-Lobat 1999a,b and 2002). The authors also address various methodological issues, including the interpretation and use of the data given the estimated margins of errors.Publication Measuring Financial Inclusion : The Global Findex Database(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2012-04)This paper provides the first analysis of the Global Financial Inclusion (Global Findex) Database, a new set of indicators that measure how adults in 148 economies save, borrow, make payments, and manage risk. The data show that 50 percent of adults worldwide have an account at a formal financial institution, though account penetration varies widely across regions, income groups and individual characteristics. In addition, 22 percent of adults report having saved at a formal financial institution in the past 12 months, and 9 percent report having taken out a new loan from a bank, credit union or microfinance institution in the past year. Although half of adults around the world remain unbanked, at least 35 percent of them report barriers to account use that might be addressed by public policy. Among the most commonly reported barriers are high cost, physical distance, and lack of proper documentation, though there are significant differences across regions and individual characteristics.Publication Governance Matters IV : Governance Indicators for 1996-2004(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2005-06)The authors present the latest update of their aggregate governance indicators, together with new analysis of several issues related to the use of these measures. The governance indicators measure the following six dimensions of governance: (1) voice and accountability; (2) political instability and violence; (3) government effectiveness; (4) regulatory quality; (5) rule of law, and (6) control of corruption. They cover 209 countries and territories for 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004. They are based on several hundred individual variables measuring perceptions of governance, drawn from 37 separate data sources constructed by 31 organizations. The authors present estimates of the six dimensions of governance for each period, as well as margins of error capturing the range of likely values for each country. These margins of error are not unique to perceptions-based measures of governance, but are an important feature of all efforts to measure governance, including objective indicators. In fact, the authors give examples of how individual objective measures provide an incomplete picture of even the quite particular dimensions of governance that they are intended to measure. The authors also analyze in detail changes over time in their estimates of governance; provide a framework for assessing the statistical significance of changes in governance; and suggest a simple rule of thumb for identifying statistically significant changes in country governance over time. The ability to identify significant changes in governance over time is much higher for aggregate indicators than for any individual indicator. While the authors find that the quality of governance in a number of countries has changed significantly (in both directions), they also provide evidence suggesting that there are no trends, for better or worse, in global averages of governance. Finally, they interpret the strong observed correlation between income and governance, and argue against recent efforts to apply a discount to governance performance in low-income countries.