Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Governments and their multilateral partners are increasingly recognizing the importance of incorporating climate and disaster resilience considerations into infrastructure development plans as well as the related construction and financing decisions. The potential medium- and long-term benefits of increased resilience must be considered alongside short-term costs of resilient design and implementation. The objective of this paper to estimate the resiliency benefits, in terms of key socioeconomic outcomes, under several road upgradation options and rainfall scenarios. The estimated benefits are compared against the related lifecycle costs to inform investment decisions. The analysis is based on the methodology developed by the World Bank and Kyoto University to operationalize and measure key infrastructure resilience concepts at the project level. The East Road in Malaita in the Solomon Islands is used to pilot the this methodology and examine its applicability. The parameters selected to measure resiliency are based on the key benefits the road provides to the people living around it: economic benefits proxied by travel time, access to hospitals, and access to markets. Due to data constraints in Malaita, the report is based primarily on expert inputs and geo-spatial data. It considers mainly technical improvements to road upgradation that might impact resiliency.

Climatic changes.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Infrastructure services are significant determinants of economic development, social welfare, trade, and public health. As such, they typically feature strongly in national development plans. While governments may receive many infrastructure project proposals, however, resources are often insufficient to finance the full set of proposals in the short term. Leading up to 2020, an estimated USD 836 billion - 1 trillion will be required each year to meet growth targets worldwide (Ruiz-Nunez and Wei, 2014; World Bank). Global estimates of infrastructure investments required to support economic growth and human development lie in the range of USD 65-70 trillion by 2030 (OECD, 2006), while the estimated pool of available funds is limited to approximately USD 45 trillion (B20, 2014). The past twenty years have also seen a shift towards decentralized infrastructure planning. Many subnational governments, regional entities, and sector agencies have been delegated responsibility for infrastructure planning promote local responsiveness, but responsibility for allocating funds often remains with a centralized finance agency (CFA). While constituencies may propose numerous projects, governments often have insufficient financial resources to implement the full suite of proposals. This report presents the IPF methodology and results of the pilot application to a select set of transport and water and sanitation projects in Panama. The report first gives background information on infrastructure prioritization in Panama, then follows with a description of the IPF in technical and implementation terms. Next, we present the results of the pilot and close with recommendations for implementing IPF to a wider set of projects.

Communities --- Cost-Benefit analysis --- Economic Development --- Employment --- Equality --- Equity --- Finance --- Health --- Indigenous Peoples --- Infrastructure --- Infrastructure Economics --- Infrastructure Economics and Finance --- Infrastructure Investment --- Land --- Mobility --- Private Participation in Infrastructure --- Productivity --- Risk --- Roads --- Rural Development --- Rural Services and Infrastructure --- Sanitation --- Subnational Governments --- Technical Assistance --- Transparency --- Transport --- Urban Areas --- Urban Development --- Urban Services to the Poor --- Water --- Water Supply

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

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 USD 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).

Contract Cancellation --- Linear Spline --- Mixed-Effect Probit Model --- PPP --- Public-Private Partnership

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Governments must decide how to allocate limited resources for infrastructure development, particularly since financing gaps have been projected for the coming decades. Social cost-benefit analysis provides sound project appraisal and, when systematically applied, a basis for prioritization. In some instances, however, capacity and resource limitations make extensive economic analyses across all projects unfeasible in the immediate term. This paper responds to a need for expanding the available set of tools for project selection by proposing an alternative prioritization approach that is systematic and feasible within the current resource means of government. The Infrastructure Prioritization Framework is a multi-criteria decision support tool that considers project outcomes along two dimensions, social-environmental and financial-economic. When large sets of small- to medium-sized projects are proposed, resources are limited, and basic project appraisal data (but not full social cost-benefit analysis) are available, the Infrastructure Prioritization Framework can inform project selection by combining selection criteria into social-environmental and financial-economic indexes. These indexes are used to plot projects on a Cartesian plane, and the sector budget is imposed to create a project map for comparison along each dimension. The Infrastructure Prioritization Framework is structured to accommodate multiple policy objectives, attend to social and environmental factors, provide an intuitive platform for displaying results, and take advantage of available data while promoting capacity building and data collection for more sophisticated appraisal methods and selection frameworks. Decision criteria, weighting, and sensitivity analysis should be decided and made transparent in advance of selection, and analysis should be made publicly available and open to third-party review.

Banks and Banking Reform --- Communities & Human Settlements --- Decision Support --- Economic Theory & Research --- Finance and Financial Sector Development --- Housing & Human Habitats --- ICT Policy and Strategies --- Information and Communication Technologies --- Infrastructure --- Macroeconomics and Economic Growth --- Multi-Criteria Analysis --- Policy Planning --- Prioritization --- Project Selection --- Transport --- Transport Economics Policy and Planning