Publication: Malawi's Infrastructure: A Continental Perspective
Loading...
Date
2010-03
ISSN
Published
2010-03
Author(s)
Shkaratan, Maria
Editor(s)
Abstract
Infrastructure contributed 1.2 percentage points to the annual per capita growth of Malawi's gross domestic product (GDP) over the past decade, thanks mainly to the revolution in information and communication technology (ICT). Raising the country's infrastructure endowment to that of the region's middle-income countries could further boost annual growth by 3.5 percentage points per capita. Today, Malawi's basic infrastructure indicators look relatively good when compared with other low-income countries in Africa, although the performance of that infrastructure could be significantly improved. Malawi is one of the few African countries to have already reached the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) for water, almost a decade ahead of the target. The private sector has made Global Management System (GSM) telephone signals widely available without public subsidy. A substantial road investment program has raised the average condition of the country's road network, and a foundation for institutional reform has been laid in the ICT, power, and road transport sectors. Even if those inefficiencies could be eliminated, Malawi will still face an infrastructure funding gap of almost $300 million a year. This could be lessened to $100 million by engaging in regional trade of electricity, using lower-cost supply modalities in water supply and sanitation, and adopting appropriate technologies for road sector development. As long as efficiency gains are captured and spending sustained at the levels of the recent past, the country's infrastructure targets could be reached within 16 years.
Link to Data Set
Citation
“Shkaratan, Maria; Foster, Vivien. 2010. Malawi's Infrastructure: A Continental Perspective. © World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/27769 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.”
Associated URLs
Associated content
Other publications in this report series
Journal
Journal Volume
Journal Issue
Related items
Showing items related by metadata.
Publication Malawi’s Infrastructure : A Continental Perspective(2011)Infrastructure contributed 1.2 percentage points to Malawi's annual per capital GDP growth over the past decade. Raising the country's infrastructure endowment to that of the region s middle-income countries could increase that contribution by 3.5 percentage points. Malawi's successes in infrastructure development include reaching the Millennium Development Goals for water and making GSM telephone signals widely available without public subsidy. Challenges include improving the reliability and sustainability of the power sector, raising funding for road maintenance, preventing overengineering of roads, enhancing market access in agricultural areas, and lowering the cost of information and communications services. The latter goal may be achievable by securing competitive access to the new submarine infrastructure on the East African coast.Addressing Malawi's infrastructure deficit would require sustained expenditures of almost $600 million per year over the decade 2006-15. During the mid-2000s, the country spent close to $200 million per year, about half of which went to the transport sector. Because of widespread inefficiencies -- underpricing of power, improperly maintained roads, and utility distribution losses --about $200 million is wasted each year. But even if those inefficiencies were eliminated, Malawi would still face an annual infrastructure funding gap of almost $300 million. That gap could be cut to $100 million by engaging in regional trade of electricity, using lower-cost technologies in water and sanitation, and adopting less-ambitious road-building technologies. If inefficiencies were eliminated and recent spending levels sustained, Malawi could reach its infrastructure targets within 16 years.Publication Tanzania’s Infrastructure : A Continental Perspective(2012-02-01)Infrastructure contributed 1.3 percentage points to Tanzania's annual per capital GDP growth during the 2000s. If the country's infrastructure endowment were improved to the level of the African leader, Mauritius, annual per capita growth rates could increase by 3.4 percent. Tanzania has made great progress in reforming its trunk roads, improving the quality of the road network. The country has also seen significant gains in ICT networks, and has one of the most competitive domestic air transport sectors in Africa. The power sector poses Tanzania's most serious infrastructure challenge. Despite significant improvements in pricing and operational performance in recent years, inefficiency still absorbs about 1.4 percent of GDP. Moreover, due to heavy reliance on hydro-power the sector remains vulnerable to climate variability. The port of Dar es Salaam also suffers from performance problems as rapid traffic growth has increasingly exposed deficiencies in storage and access to the port. Poor access to safe water is another challenge, exacerbated by poor budget execution in the sector. Tanzania would need to invest $2.4 billion annually for 10 years to meet its infrastructure targets. Spending at that level would absorb just over 20 percent of the country's GDP. Existing spending stands at $1.2 billion a year. Tanzania loses $0.5 billion each year to inefficiencies such as underpricing, undercollection of revenue, overstaffing, and lack of budget prioritization. But even if inefficiencies could be fully captured, an annual funding gap of $0.7 billion would remain. That gap could be shrunk to $0.4 billion if lower-cost technologies were adopted and if regional power trade could be further developed.Publication Kenya's Infrastructure(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2010-03)This study is a product of the Africa Infrastructure Country Diagnostic (AICD), a project designed to expand the world's knowledge of physical infrastructure in Africa. The AICD provides a baseline against which future improvements in infrastructure services can be measured, making it possible to monitor the results achieved from donor support. It also offers a solid empirical foundation for prioritizing investments and designing policy reforms in Africa's infrastructure sectors. The AICD is based on an unprecedented effort to collect detailed economic and technical data on African infrastructure. The project has produced a series of original reports on public expenditure, spending needs, and sector performance in each of the main infrastructure sectors, including energy, information and communication technologies, irrigation, transport, and water and sanitation. The focus of the AICD country reports is on benchmarking sector performance and quantifying the main financing and efficiency gaps at the country level. These reports are particularly relevant to national policy makers and development partners working on specific countries. This report presents the key AICD findings for Kenya, allowing the country's infrastructure situation to be benchmarked against that of its African peers. Given that Kenya is a relatively well-off low-income country that aspires to become a middle-income country, two sets of African benchmarks will be used to evaluate Kenya's situation. Detailed comparisons will also be made with immediate regional neighbors in the East African community.Publication Kenya’s Infrastructure : A Continental Perspective(2011-03-01)In the past decade, infrastructure contributed 0.5 percentage points to Kenya's annual per capita GDP growth. Raising the country s infrastructure endowment to that of Africa's middle-income countries could increase that contribution by 3 percentage points. Several accomplishments are notable. More than 90 percent of the population has access to GSM cell signals. A successful public-private partnership in air transport has made Kenya's airline a top carrier in the region and its international airport a key gateway to Africa. Institutional reforms in the power sector have reduced the burden of subsidies on the public by approximately 1 percent of GDP. But the power sector continues to pose Kenya's greatest infrastructure challenge. Over the next decade, current capacity will have to double. A second challenge is to improve the efficiency of operations at the Port of Mombasa. Other concerns include low levels of access to household services, underfunding of road maintenance, and negative progress on the Millennium Development Goals for water supply and sanitation. Addressing Kenya's infrastructure deficit will require sustained expenditures of approximately $4 billion per year (20 percent of GDP) over the next decade. As of 2006, Kenya needed and additional $2.1 billion per year (11 percent of GDP) to meet that funding goal. The gap could be halved through the use of more efficient technologies to meet infrastructure targets in the transport and WSS sectors. If Kenya is unable to increase infrastructure spending, it could nevertheless meet infrastructure targets in 18 years by eliminating existing inefficiencies in infrastructure sectors.Publication Côte d’Ivoire’s Infrastructure : A Continental Perspective(2011-03-01)Infrastructure contributed 1.8 percentage points to Cote d'Ivoire's annual per capita GDP growth over the mid-2000s before conflict began to erase the country's infrastructure and its growth contributions. Raising the country's infrastructure endowment to the level of the region's middle-income countries could boost the growth rate by a further 2 percentage points. Private sector contracts signed in the 1990s resulted in improved operational performance and funding for investments in the water, power, transport, and ICT sectors. Impressively, those contracts survived the crisis and delivered uninterrupted service. But private investment flows have decreased since the mid-2000s. Cote d'Ivoire's most pressing infrastructural challenge will be to regain the financial equilibrium needed to restore a reliable energy supply. Reestablishing the prominence of Abidjan's port will require investments in terminal capacity and road and rail infrastructure upgrades on hinterland linkages. The underfunding of road maintenance and poor sanitation are additional challenges. Cote d'Ivoire's annual infrastructure spending was $750 million in the mid-2000s, with going to power sector operations and maintenance. If the underpricing of power and other inefficiencies (valued at $200 million annually) were eliminated, the country s annual infrastructure funding gap would amount to $1 billion, and infrastructure goals could be reached within 20 years. Cote d'Ivoire's has relatively good prospects for bridging its funding gap by raising public investment from its low current level, choosing more efficient technologies, and harnessing additional private investment for infrastructure.
Users also downloaded
Showing related downloaded files
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 Design Thinking for Social Innovation(2010-07)Designers have traditionally focused on enchancing the look and functionality of products.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 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 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.