The paper lays out basic design options for infrastructure policy. It first sketches mechanisms to assess demand. Then it sets out a hierarchy of issues starting with choice of market structure followed by conduct regulation. Ownership options are largely a function of market structure choices. The implications for finance—the topic of much day-to-day discussion in infrastructure policy-making—follow from these various prior choices. The discussion naturally circumscribes the role for the so-called public-private partnerships, their uses and pitfalls.

This study aimed to analyze government policies in education during the Covid-19 pandemic and how teachers exercised discretion in dealing with limitations in policy implementation. This research work used the desk review method to obtain data on government policies in the field of education during the Covid-19 pandemic. In addition, interviews were conducted to determine the discretion taken in implementing the learning-from-home policy. There were three learning models during the pandemic: face-to-face learning in turns (shifts), online learning, and home visits. Online learning policies did not work well at the pandemic’s beginning due to limited infrastructure and human resources. To overcome various limitations, the government provided internet quota assistance and curriculum adjustments and improved online learning infrastructure. The discretion taken by the teachers in implementing the learning-from-home policy was very dependent on the student’s condition and the availability of the internet network. The practical implication of this research is that street-level bureaucrats need to pay attention to discretionary standards when deciding to provide satisfaction to the people they serve.

Developing countries have witnessed a rise in infrastructure spending over the past decades; however, infrastructure spending in most developed countries, particularly the US, continues to decline. As a result, in 2021, the US Congress passed a Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, which invests $1 trillion in the country’s infrastructure every year. Using the principal component analysis and VAR estimation, we analyzed the impact of infrastructure (transportation and water, railway networks, aviation, energy, and fixed telephone lines) on economic growth in the US. Our findings show that infrastructure spending positively and significantly impacted economic growth. Additionally, the impulse response analysis shows that shocks to infrastructure spending had positive and persistent effects on economic growth. Our results suggest that infrastructure investment spurs economic growth. Based on our findings, sustained public spending on transport and water, railway networks, aviation, energy, and fixed telephone lines infrastructure by the US government will positively impact economic growth in the country. The study also suggests that policies that promote infrastructure spending, such as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act) passed by the US Congress, should be enhanced to boost economic growth in the US. 

This paper proposes a floating-interest-rate infrastructure bond, where the interest of a government bond is paid to investors during the period of construction and the early period of operation. Unlike the usual government bond, which provides a fixed interest rate, the proposed floating-interest-rate infrastructure bond pays a floating interest, the rate of which depends on spillover tax revenues. Effective infrastructure projects have a positive effect on the economic growth of a region, known as the spillover effect. When user charges and the return from spillover tax revenues are below the fixed rate of the government bond, the interest rate will equal to the fixed rate of the government bond. In this case, investors in the infrastructure will receive interest on the government bond at the minimum rate. As the spillover effect of the infrastructure increases, the rate of return for infrastructure investment will become greater than the fixed rate of the government bond. The success of the floating-interest-rate infrastructure bond depends on the spillover effect and on transparency and accountability. Policy recommendations are provided in this paper on how to increase the spillover effect and improve transparency and accountability. 

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.