While there has been much discussion about the large infrastructure needs in Asia and the Pacific, less attention has been paid to public expenditure efficiency in infrastructure services delivery. New constructions are not the only solution, especially when governments have limited capital to invest. Globally, new infrastructure projects face delays and cost overruns, leading to an inefficient use of public resources. The root causes include the lack of transparency in project selection, the lack of project preparation, the silo approach by public entities in assessing feasibility studies, and the lack of public sector capacity to fully develop a bankable pipeline of projects. To tackle these issues, governments need a smarter investment approach and to do so, enhancing public service efficiency is very crucial. The paper suggests a “whole life cycle” (WLC) approach as the main strategic solution for the discussed issues and challenges. We expand the definition of WLC to include the entire life cycle of the infrastructure asset from need identification to its disposal. The stages comprise planning, preparation, procurement, design, construction, operation and maintenance, and disposal. This is because we believe any efficient or inefficient decision throughout such a wide life cycle influences the quality of public services. Hence, in this holistic approach, infrastructure life cycle consists of four phases: planning, preparation, procurement, and implementation. Governments could enhance public efficiency and thus improve access to finance throughout the WLC by several solutions. These are (i) preparing infrastructure master plan and pipelines and long-term budgeting during the planning phase; (ii) establishing framework and guidelines and improving governance during preparation phase; (iii) promoting standardization, transparency, open government, and contractual consistency during the procurement phase; and finally (iv) continued role of government and total asset management during the implementation phase. In addition to these phase-specific means, key WLC solutions include proper use of technology, capacity building, and private participation in general and public-private partnership (PPP) in particular.

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.