Suchergebnisse

AbstractPublic–private partnerships (PPPs) can potentially overcome financial, quality, and efficiency issues common to public service provision in developing cities. The management of long-term infrastructure PPP requires complex administrative and regulatory inputs and sound institutional underpinnings to ensure partners' commitment to the contract over long time frames. Additionally, PPP governance typically necessitates adaptation mechanisms in order to accommodate high degrees of uncertainty and deal with changing operational conditions and new information. This paper proposes that PPP performance – both relational and instrumental – is contingent on a delicate, dynamic balance of credible commitment and adaptive capacity. Comparative case analysis offers a dynamic picture of how rules, relationships, and the quality of regulation shape a PPP's capacity to adapt to external shocks and new information. The cases also demonstrate the tradeoffs of promoting fidelity to the partnership agreement and making needed adjustments to contract settings and further show that PPP resilience may be positive or negative. For example, high degrees of uncertainty in the operating environment can lock in the PPP decision and, thus, promote survival at the cost of instrumental performance.

Disruption of infrastructure services can cause significant social and economic losses, particularly in the event of a natural disaster. The World Bank Group and the Government of Japan established the Quality Infrastructure Investment Partnership to focus attention on the quality dimensions of infrastructure in developing countries, with a focus on promoting disaster resilience. Moreover, to support infrastructure investment decision making for sustainable and resilient development, the World Bank and Kyoto University have operationalized key resilience concepts at the project level and developed quantitative indicators capturing key aspects of infrastructure resilience related to the road transport sector. These indicators estimate resilience, expressed as functionality loss and recovery time across four dimensions: travel time, economic benefit, provision of life-saving services, and provision of relief goods. The paper applies indicator calculations to three case studies of proposed bypass roads in Japan and provides an example comparison of calculated indicators across the three projects for each resilience dimension. Further piloting of the approach will help refine the indicators, test their relative utility in decision making, and offer a better understanding of the data and analytical demands.

Governments worldwide face the difficult challenge of deciding which infrastructure projects to prioritize and select for implementation, given the limits of available funding and the need to attain their developmental goals. The key objective of this report is to conduct a comparative exercise between the World Bank's Infrastructure Prioritization Framework, a multicriteria analysis–based methodology to project prioritization, and a more complex cost-benefit analysis–based approach. The report focuses on Chile, which has a well-institutionalized evaluation process that uses cost-benefit analysis to assess projects on their quality and ability to generate value for money. The analysis compares the results of the Infrastructure Prioritization Framework alongside Chile's current cost-benefit analysis–based and multicriteria analysis approaches to the same subsets of projects in the road transport and water reservoir subsectors, respectively. The results show that the Infrastructure Prioritization Framework has application beyond its original proposition and can complement a traditional cost-benefit analysis by directly considering social and environmental policy goals that are otherwise difficult to quantify in a cost-benefit analysis. The analysis also finds that in Chile there is a discrepancy between the stated goals and objectives of the appraisal system and the actual implementation. In the case of transport sector projects, there is an evident deviation between cost-benefit analysis–based selection policy and actual decisions made for project implementation. In the case of water catchment selection, there is a bias toward projects with higher financial-economic performance as compared to social-environmental performance, despite policy intentions to afford consideration to environmental and social development goals.

Infrastructure services are significant determinants of economic development, social welfare, trade, and public health. As such, they typically feature strongly in national development plans. While governments may receive many infrastructure project proposals, however, resources are often insufficient to finance the full set of proposals in the short term. Leading up to 2020, an estimated US$836 billion - 1 trillion will be required each year to meet growth targets worldwide (Ruiz-Nunez and Wei, 2014; World Bank). Global estimates of infrastructure investments required to support economic growth and human development lie in the range of US$65-70 trillion by 2030 (OECD, 2006), while the estimated pool of available funds is limited to approximately US$45 trillion (B20, 2014). The past twenty years have also seen a shift towards decentralized infrastructure planning. Many subnational governments, regional entities, and sector agencies have been delegated responsibility for infrastructure planning promote local responsiveness, but responsibility for allocating funds often remains with a centralized finance agency (CFA). While constituencies may propose numerous projects, governments often have insufficient financial resources to implement the full suite of proposals. This report presents the IPF methodology and results of the pilot application to a select set of transport and water and sanitation projects in Panama. The report first gives background information on infrastructure prioritization in Panama, then follows with a description of the IPF in technical and implementation terms. Next, we present the results of the pilot and close with recommendations for implementing IPF to a wider set of projects.

Governments are challenged to balance multiple policy goals and make difficult choices when selecting infrastructure projects for public investment, particularly since available funds are often insufficient to implement the full suite of proposals. This paper presents the application of the Infrastructure Prioritization Framework, a systematic, multi-criteria approach to infrastructure project prioritization, to inform the selection of water supply investments in Sri Lanka. A set of 28 proposed water supply projects was prioritized at the request of the National Planning Department of Sri Lanka, based on consideration of multiple goals, including improved water quality and service, network extension, service provision to poor communities, job creation, and sound financial performance. This paper reviews the Infrastructure Prioritization Framework methodology; presents the results of the prioritization exercise, including an expanded sensitivity analysis; and discusses the way forward to apply the Infrastructure Prioritization Framework to inform infrastructure investment decisions.

Governments must decide how to allocate limited resources for infrastructure development, particularly since financing gaps have been projected for the coming decades. Social cost-benefit analysis provides sound project appraisal and, when systematically applied, a basis for prioritization. In some instances, however, capacity and resource limitations make extensive economic analyses across all projects unfeasible in the immediate term. This paper responds to a need for expanding the available set of tools for project selection by proposing an alternative prioritization approach that is systematic and feasible within the current resource means of government. The Infrastructure Prioritization Framework is a multi-criteria decision support tool that considers project outcomes along two dimensions, social-environmental and financial-economic. When large sets of small- to medium-sized projects are proposed, resources are limited, and basic project appraisal data (but not full social cost-benefit analysis) are available, the Infrastructure Prioritization Framework can inform project selection by combining selection criteria into social-environmental and financial-economic indexes. These indexes are used to plot projects on a Cartesian plane, and the sector budget is imposed to create a project map for comparison along each dimension. The Infrastructure Prioritization Framework is structured to accommodate multiple policy objectives, attend to social and environmental factors, provide an intuitive platform for displaying results, and take advantage of available data while promoting capacity building and data collection for more sophisticated appraisal methods and selection frameworks. Decision criteria, weighting, and sensitivity analysis should be decided and made transparent in advance of selection, and analysis should be made publicly available and open to third-party review.