The world economy needs a growth-lifting strategy, and infrastructure financing seems to hold the key. Based on the New Structural Economics (Lin, 2010; 2012) we discuss the heterogeneity of capital focusing on the long-term versus short-term orientation (STO). Traditional neoliberalism assumes that capital is homogenous, complete capital account liberalization is “beneficial”. However, previous studies have found evidence of long-term orientation (LTO) in the culture of many Asian economies (Hofstede, 1991). In this exploratory paper, we suggest that the LTO can be considered a special endowment which, under certain circumstances, can be developed into a comparative advantage (CA) in patient capital. If these countries can turn their latent CA into a revealed CA in patient capital, and develop the ability to “package” profitable and non-profitable projects in meaningful ways, they would have a “revealed” competitive advantage in infrastructure financing. The ability to “package” public infrastructure and private services is one of the key institutional factors for success in overseas cooperation.

Against the backdrop of anti-globalization rhetoric, this paper summarizes our joint book entitled Going Beyond Aid (Lin and Wang, 2017a) and discusses the prospects for development finance in the broad context of Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Based on the New Structural Economics (Lin, 2010; 2011), here we focus on China’s demonstrated comparative advantages in infrastructure, e.g. in hydropower and high-speed railways (HSR). In addition, long-term orientation (LTO) and patient capital are latent comparative advantages that many Asian economies possess, and are critical for the Belt and Road Initiative. Only if these comparative advantages are utilized can these economies cooperate to potentially achieve win-win.

Infrastructure development is critical for sustaining Asia’s economic growth. Unfortunately, huge financing gaps—estimated by a recent Asian Development Bank study to be USD22.5 trillion—constrain the ability of most emerging Asian countries to fully realize the benefits of infrastructure development. For instance, over 70% of infrastructure investments in Asia are still funded by public resources, which pose acute financing challenges for many countries with limited budgets and fiscal constraints. This paper discusses some of the challenges associated with public financing of infrastructure projects in emerging Asian countries, before introducing some new options for alleviating their infrastructure investment needs. In particular, it proposes a new approach to infrastructure financing by utilizing the spillover effects of infrastructure investment, where additional revenues generated from such investment can be channeled back to investors as subsidy to increase the returns to their investment. The paper also argues the need for Asian countries to implement fiscal reforms and to develop a more balanced approach to financing, one that involves both the private and public sector. 

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) hopes to deliver trillions of dollars in infrastructure financing to Asia, Europe, and Africa. If the initiative follows Chinese practices to date for infrastructure financing, which often entail lending to sovereign borrowers, then BRI raises the risk of debt distress in some borrower countries. This paper assesses the likelihood of debt problems in the 68 countries identified as potential BRI borrowers. We conclude that eight countries are at particular risk of debt distress based on an identified pipeline of project lending associated with BRI.

Because this indebtedness also suggests a higher concentration in debt owed to official and quasi-official Chinese creditors, we examine Chinese policies and practices related to sustainable financing and the management of debt problems in borrower countries. Based on this evidence, we offer recommendations to improve Chinese policy in these areas. The recommendations are offered to Chinese policymakers directly, as well as to BRI’s bilateral and multilateral partners, including the IMF and World Bank. 

Starting from the ‘90s, there has been a significant increase in PPP use in the public sector in Europe, benefiting the implementation of infrastructure projects. In Italy, PPP is still much more limited than in such countries as the UK and France: the projects funded are smaller and the sectors involved are less appropriate. Based on the economic literature, European initiatives and international comparisons, the paper examines aspects of regulations that could encourage the appropriate use of PPP and considers the problems with the Italian regulations, while proposing some corrective measures. The main limitations involve: i) the absence of adequate preliminary assessments about the advantages of using PPP rather than the traditional procurement, ii) the relative lack of attention to the contract terms, iii) inadequate safeguards to ensure the bankability of the projects, and iv) limited information transparency and accessibility.