While there has been much discussion about the large infrastructure needs in Asia and the Pacific, less attention has been paid to public expenditure efficiency in infrastructure services delivery. New constructions are not the only solution, especially when governments have limited capital to invest. Globally, new infrastructure projects face delays and cost overruns, leading to an inefficient use of public resources. The root causes include the lack of transparency in project selection, the lack of project preparation, the silo approach by public entities in assessing feasibility studies, and the lack of public sector capacity to fully develop a bankable pipeline of projects. To tackle these issues, governments need a smarter investment approach and to do so, enhancing public service efficiency is very crucial. The paper suggests a “whole life cycle” (WLC) approach as the main strategic solution for the discussed issues and challenges. We expand the definition of WLC to include the entire life cycle of the infrastructure asset from need identification to its disposal. The stages comprise planning, preparation, procurement, design, construction, operation and maintenance, and disposal. This is because we believe any efficient or inefficient decision throughout such a wide life cycle influences the quality of public services. Hence, in this holistic approach, infrastructure life cycle consists of four phases: planning, preparation, procurement, and implementation. Governments could enhance public efficiency and thus improve access to finance throughout the WLC by several solutions. These are (i) preparing infrastructure master plan and pipelines and long-term budgeting during the planning phase; (ii) establishing framework and guidelines and improving governance during preparation phase; (iii) promoting standardization, transparency, open government, and contractual consistency during the procurement phase; and finally (iv) continued role of government and total asset management during the implementation phase. In addition to these phase-specific means, key WLC solutions include proper use of technology, capacity building, and private participation in general and public-private partnership (PPP) in particular.

Cross-border infrastructure projects offer significant economic and social benefits for the Asia-Pacific region. If the required investment of $8 trillion in pan-Asian connectivity was made in the region’s infrastructure during 2010–2020, the total net income gains for developing Asia could reach about $12.98 trillion (in 2008 US dollars) during 2010–2020 and beyond, of which more than $4.43 trillion would be gained during 2010–2020 and nearly $8.55 trillion after 2020. Indeed, infrastructure connectivity helps improve regional productivity and competitiveness by facilitating the movement of goods, services and human resources, producing economies of scale, promoting trade and foreign direct investments, creating new business opportunities, stimulating inclusive industrialization and narrowing development gaps between communities, countries or sub-regions. Unfortunately, due to limited financing, progress in the development of cross-border infrastructure in the region is low.

This paper examines the key challenges faced in financing cross-border projects and discusses the roles that different stakeholders—national governments, state-owned enterprises, private sector, regional entities, development financing institutions (DFIs), affected people and civil society organizations—can play in facilitating the development of cross-border infrastructure in the region. In particular, this paper highlights the major risks that deter private sector investments and FDIs and provides recommendations to address these risks.

This paper assesses South Africa’s massive infrastructure drive to revive growth and increase employment. After years of stagnant growth, this is now facing a deep economic crisis, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. This drive also comes after years of weak infrastructure investment, widening the infrastructure deficit. The plan outlines a R1 trillion investment drive, primarily from the private sector through the Infrastructure Fund over the next 10 years (Government of South Africa, 2020). This paper argues that while infrastructure development in South Africa is much-needed, the emphasis on de-risking for private sector buy-in overshadows the key role the state must play in leading on structurally transforming the economy.

The implementation of government decentralization in Indonesia is facing regulatory problems for autonomous regions’ financing sources. Therefore, attention to regional finance is increasingly needed given that autonomous regions are required to carry out various central government interests in addition to their affairs. This leads to a split of power over financing development policy by the regional government. However, this does not mean that the local government’s financial needs must be free from the central government’s intervention. This study briefly compares financing regional autonomy in Indonesia, France, Germany and Thailand. The results show that the distribution of financial resources between the central government and regional governments is inconsistent with Article 18A section 2 of Law No.1/2022. The results also show that the provisions of various sources of taxation and levy have not met the financial needs of regions in Indonesia. Financial balance in the form of Natural Resources Production Sharing Fund from various natural resources owned by regions that only share unrenewable resources such as mining excavated materials remains unequally distributed between regions that have natural resources.

The project finance scenario has changed significantly around the world after the 2008 financial crisis and following the subsequent Basel III recommendations. Project finance loans from commercial banks and financial institutions have largely dried up, leaving it mostly to the export credit agencies and the bilateral and multilateral development banks to provide the institutional credit. Unfortunately, those sources are not enough, given the huge needs for construction of new infrastructure and renovation of the old ones across Asia, Africa and Latin America. The need for capital markets, through market listed financial products across asset class, unlocking a large part of domestic and corporate savings, has never been felt as strongly before. This article seeks to analyze the development story of various Asian capital markets and examine financial products, which have succeeded in their short history in receiving investor interest. The article also delves into the challenges to market development, policy imperatives and the issues relating to market liquidity and credit rating, which are the most significant influencers for public market float and investor interest.