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.

The US Infrastructure Investment and Job Act (IIJA), also commonly referred to as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, passed in 2021, has drawn international attention. It aims to help to rebuild US infrastructure, including transportation networks, broadband, water, power and energy, environmental protection and public works projects. An estimated $1.2 trillion in total funding over ten years will be allocated. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill is the largest funding bill for US infrastructure in the recent history of the United States. This review article will specifically discuss funding allocations for roads and bridges, power and grids, broadband, water infrastructure, airports, environmental protection, ports, Western water infrastructure, electric vehicle charging stations and electric school buses in the new spending of the Infrastructure Investment and Job Act and why these investments are urgently necessary. This article will also briefly discuss the views of think tank experts, the public policy perspectives, the impact on domestic and global arenas of the new spending in the IIJA, and the public policy implications.

Public works (PWs) in Jordan seek to deliver public services that contribute to socio-economic growth and service provision. A clear framework for initiating PWs investments is lacking in Jordan to meet the required level of development of the country. This work sought to develop a framework for delivering the right PWs investments. The study found that there are several steps that need to be followed to deliver a desired project’s objectives. The study employed a qualitative method using semi-structured interviews. Besides the interviews, the document analysis approach was used and an extensive literature review was conducted. Experts in Jordan regarding PWs development were selected to participate in this study of developing a framework for the initiation of PWs investments. The study found that the framework should involve different steps and measures. They are integrated together to create a framework reflecting international practices in the context of Jordan.

Using a newly-developed data set for Portugal, we analyze the industry-level effects of infrastructure investment. Focusing on the divide between traded and non-traded industries, we find that infrastructure investments have a non-traded bias, as these shift the industry mix towards private and public services. We also find that the industries that benefit the most in relative terms are all non-traded: construction, trade, and real estate, among the private services, and education and health, among the public services. Similarly, emerging trading sectors, such as hospitality and professional services, stand to gain. The positive impacts on traded industries are too small to make a difference. These results highlight that infrastructure-based strategies are not neutral in terms of the industry mix. Moreover, with most of the benefits accruing to non-traded industries, such a development model that is heavily based on domestic demand may be unsustainable in light of Portugal’s current foreign account position. 

The paper examines the motivations, financing, expansion and challenges of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The BRI was initially designed to address China’s overcapacity and promote economic growth in both China and in countries along the “Belt” and “Road” through infrastructure investment and industrial capacity cooperation. It took into account China’s strategic transition in its opening-up policy and foreign policy to pay more attention to the neighboring countries in Southeast Asia and Central and West Asia when facing greater strategic pressure from the United States in East Asia and the Pacific region. More themes have been added to the initiative’s original framework since its inception in 2013, including the vision of the BRI as China’s major solution to improve international economic cooperation and practice to build a “community of shared future for mankind”, and the idea of the Green Silk Road and the Digital Silk Road. Chinese state-owned enterprises and policy and commercial banks have dominated investment and financing for BRI projects, which explains the root of the problems and risks facing the initiative, such as unsustainable debt, non-transparency, corruption and low economic efficiency. Measures taken by China to tackle these problems, for example, mitigating the debt distress and improving debt sustainability, are unlikely to make a big difference anytime soon due to the tenacity of China’s long-held state-driven investment model.