To analyze the effect of an increase in the quantity or quality of public investment on growth, this paper extends the World Bank’s Long-Term Growth Model (LTGM), by separating the total capital stock into public and private portions, with the former adjusted for its quality. The paper presents the LTGM public capital extension and accompanying freely downloadable Excel-based tool. It also constructs a new infrastructure efficiency index, by combining quality indicators for power, roads, and water as a cardinal measure of the quality of public capital in each country. In the model, public investment generates a larger boost to growth if existing stocks of public capital are low, or if public capital is particularly important in the production function. Through the lens of the model and utilizing newly-collated cross-country data, the paper presents three stylized facts and some related policy implications. First, the measured public capital stock is roughly constant as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) across income groups, which implies that the returns to new public investment, and its effect on growth, are roughly constant across development levels. Second, developing countries are relatively short of private capital, which means that private investment provides the largest boost to growth in low-income countries. Third, low-income countries have the lowest quality of public capital and the lowest efficient public capital stock as a share of GDP. Although this does not affect the returns to public investment, it means that improving the efficiency of public investment has a sizable effect on growth in low-income countries. Quantitatively, a permanent 1 ppt GDP increase in public investment boosts growth by around 0.1–0.2 ppts over the following few years (depending on the parameters), with the effect declining over time.

Learning from experience to improve future infrastructure public-private partnerships is a focal issue for policy makers, financiers, implementers, and private sector stakeholders. An extensive body of case studies and “lessons learned” aims to improve the likelihood of success and attempts to avoid future contract failures across sectors and geographies. This paper examines whether countries do, indeed, learn from experience to improve the probability of success of public-private partnerships at the national level. The purview of the paper is not to diagnose learning across all aspects of public-private partnerships globally, but rather to focus on whether experience has an effect on the most extreme cases of public-private partnership contract failure, premature contract cancellation. The analysis utilizes mixed-effects probit regression combined with spline models to test empirically whether general public-private partnership experience has an impact on reducing the chances of contract cancellation for future projects. The results confirm what the market intuitively knows, that is, that public-private partnership experience reduces the likelihood of contract cancellation. But the results also provide a perhaps less intuitive finding: the benefits of learning are typically concentrated in the first few public-private partnership deals. Moreover, the results show that the probability of cancellation varies across sectors and suggests the relative complexity of water public-private partnerships compared with energy and transport projects. An estimated $1.5 billion per year could have been saved with interventions and support to reduce cancellations in less experienced countries (those with fewer than 23 prior public-private partnerships).

The provision of infrastructure and related services in developing Asia via public–private partnership (PPP) increased rapidly during the late 1990s. Theoretical arguments support the potential economic benefits of PPPs, but empirical evidence is thin. This paper develops a framework identifying channels through which economic gains can be derived from PPP arrangement. The framework helps derive an empirically tractable specification that examines how PPPs affect the aggregate economy. Empirical results suggest that increasing the ratio of PPP investment to GDP improves access to and quality of infrastructure services, and economic growth will potentially be higher. But this optimism is conditional, especially on the region’s efforts to further upgrade its technical and institutional capacity to handle complex PPP contracts.

This study examines conditions that impact PPP delivery success or failure in the roadways sector in India using Qualitative Comparative Analysis. QCA is well-suited for problems where multiple factors combine to create pathways leading to an outcome. Past investigations have compared PPP and non-PPP project delivery performance, but this study examines performance within PPPs by uncovering a set of conditions that combine to influence the success or failure road PPP project delivery in India. Based on data from 21 cases, pathways explaining project delivery success or failure were identified. Specifically, PPPs with high concessionaire equity investment and low regional industrial activity led to project delivery success. Projects with lower concessionaire equity investment and low reliance on toll revenue and with either: (a) high project technical complexity or (b) high regional industrial activity, led to project delivery failure. The pathways identified did not have coverage values that they were extremely strong. Coverage strength was hindered by lack of access to information on additional conditions that could be configurationally important. Further, certain characteristics of the Indian market limit generalization. Identification of combinations of conditions leading to PPP project delivery success or failure improves knowledge of the impacts of structure and characteristics of these complex arrangements. This study is one of the first to use fuzzy QCA to understand project delivery success/failure in road PPP projects. Moreover, this study takes into account factors specific to a sector and delivery mode to explain project delivery performance.

By reviewing US state-level panel data on infrastructure spending and on per capita income inequality from 1950 to 2010, this paper sets out to test whether an empirical link exists between infrastructure and inequality. Panel regressions with fixed effects show that an increase in the growth rate of spending on highways and higher education in a given decade correlates negatively with Gini indices at the end of the decade, thus suggesting a causal effect from growth in infrastructure spending to a reduction in inequality through better access to education and opportunities for employment. More significantly, this relationship is more pronounced with inequality at the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution. In addition, infrastructure expenditures on highways are shown to be more effective at reducing inequality. By carrying out a counterfactual experiment, the results show that those US states with a significantly higher bottom Gini coefficient in 2010 had underinvested in infrastructure during the previous decade. From a policy-making perspective, new innovations in finance for infrastructure investments are developed, for the US, other industrially advanced countries and also for developing economies.