Search the Knowledge Hub

The circular economy is now core policy for a growing number of countries with leadership from Finland, the European Union and Canada, but it is also taking a strong hold in Asia as Japan and China implement circular economic policies to transition them to a sustainable inclusive future.

Contractual disagreements and disputes are common in PPPs during both construction and operational periods.

Private partner profit motives are frequently cited as a failure of the public-private partnership (PPP) approach. But those profit motives are also part of the fundamental make up of the PPP approach and why it has the potential to deliver better outcomes for the public.

By their very nature as long-term large infrastructure projects, public-private partnership (PPP) projects involve a vast array of interconnecting relationships. Core to any PPP project is the long-term contractual relationship between the government’s procuring authority and the private party (the project company). This is one of many relationships that will affect the success of a PPP.

Disputes in public-private partnerships (PPPs) globally involving key performance indicators (KPIs) represent 20 per cent of all disputes, as highlighted in our data using a representative sample of projects from around the world.

The purpose of this blog series is to highlight some of the interesting aspects of the PPP Contract Management Tool to facilitate discussion around those issues. PPP approaches and practices are constantly evolving, and it is important to debate interesting topics to develop better practices and help governments deliver higher quality PPP projects.

While the infrastructure financing gap is huge, one of the main constraints to infrastructure development is not a lack of finance, but instead, a lack of well-prepared, bankable infrastructure projects.

With a growing global focus on attracting private sector investment into infrastructure and utilising the public-private partnership (PPP) model, it is crucial that governments focus on the entire duration of a PPP contract. Efforts need to extend beyond ‘achieving financial close’ and beginning construction or ‘cutting the ribbon’ for commencement of services.

This publication from the IADB his publication covers PPPs with a focus on the implications for public finances in developing economies.

Risks can be hard to define, manage and mitigate. In infrastructure projects that cross regional or national borders and involve multiple parties from both the public and private sector, these risks may be amplified.

Investors need certainty of the division of responsibilities between the various parties involved in the project, as well as a clear commitment of payment from the parties, before becoming involved in the project themselves. This requires countries to have reached a clear and durable commitment to their respective responsibilities.

Talk of trade tariffs and heightened geopolitical tensions are dominating news headlines recently. As developed economies consider escalating protectionist policies, it’s easy to forget about the situation many emerging markets face.

As outlined earlier in this blog series, private investors are looking for reliable returns to justify the risks that they are taking. Financing and procurement of cross-border projects will often be more complex than national projects due to the scale of the project and compounded risks, and the financial returns may be more uncertain than for national projects.

Infrastructure can often be used as a pawn in the political chess game, not only at a federal level between political parties, but at a foreign policy level too. It’s crucial that a cross-border infrastructure project has political support and cooperation from all parties involved, and that it’s being supported not for political gain, but to further regional development. A lack of strong political leadership can be detrimental to a cross-border project, and weak capacity can be a deterrent to investors.

The participants of the second Regional Roundtable on Infrastructure Governance held in Côte D’Ivoire last week reinforced the need for good governance across all stages of infrastructure delivery. The Regional Roundtable was the second of its kind, with the first held in South Africa in November 2017.

When we as consumers decide to invest our money—whether through shares, bonds, or other instruments—we look at whether our investment will deliver a solid financial return. It makes sense then that the same risk-return principle is applied to investments in infrastructure.

In the world of infrastructure, technological change presents both a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge arises because of the large capital investments which infrastructure projects normally require and the threat that the infrastructure may become obsolete before the investors – whether they are public or private investors – can fully recover their costs. At the same time, there is an opportunity, namely that by using new technologies, we can deliver infrastructure services to the public in a way that is both more efficient and more effectiv