Using a newly developed data set, we analyze the effects of infrastructure investment on economic performance in Portugal. A vector-autoregressive approach estimates the elasticity and marginal products of twelve types of infrastructure investment on private investment, employment, and output. We find that the largest long-term accumulated effects come from investments in railroads, ports, airports, health, education, and telecommunications. For these infrastructures, the output multipliers suggest that these investments pay for themselves through additional tax revenues. For investments in ports, airports and education infrastructures, the bulk of the effects are short-term demand-side effects, while for railroads, health, and telecommunications, the impact is mostly of a long-term and supply-side nature. Finally, investments in health and airports exhibit decreasing marginal returns, with railroads, ports, and telecommunications being relatively stable. In terms of the other infrastructure assets, the economic effects of investments in municipal roads, electricity and gas, and refineries are insignificant, while investments in national roads, highways, and waste and waste water have positive economic effects but too small to improve the public budget. Clearly, from a policy perspective, not all infrastructure investments in Portugal are created equal.

Over the past decade, Ontario has seen a renewal in efforts to stimulate economic growth by investing in infrastructures. In this paper, we analyze the impact of public infrastructure investment on economic performance in this province. We use a multivariate dynamic time series methodological approach, based on the use of vector autoregressive models to estimate the elasticities and marginal products of six different types of public infrastructure assets on private investment, employment and output. We find that all types of public investment crowd in private investment while investment in highways, roads, and bridges crowds out employment. We also find that all types of public investment, with the exception of highways, roads and bridges, have a positive effect on output. The relatively large range of results estimated for the impact of each of the different public infrastructure types suggests that a targeted approach to the design of infrastructure investment policy is required. Infrastructure investment in transit systems and health facilities display the highest returns for output and the largest effects on employment and labor productivity. In terms of the nature of the empirical results presented here it would be important to highlight the fact that investments in health infrastructures as well as investments in education infrastructures are of great relevance. This is a pattern consistent with the mounting international evidence on the importance of human capital for long term economic performance.

Japan’s investment in the domestic construction industry has fallen to less than half its peak in 1992. Given the country’s declining population, Japanese construction companies must go global to remain profitable. To what extent the Japanese government and Japanese companies can contribute to meeting the growing infrastructure needs in the region is unclear as Japanese companies have long been operating primarily in Japan. The Japanese government has in recent years passed a series of new laws that encourage private sector participation in financing, building and operating public infrastructure. Through involvement in such public projects, Japanese companies have developed the skills and technologies to build a variety of infrastructures that are resilient to natural disasters and adaptable to various geographical conditions and social and economic development. But the major challenge for Japanese companies is to transform their business model drastically from one that relies on the domestic market to one that contributes to the social and economic development of third countries.

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.