Tag Archives: PPP

Has Trump Deep-Sixed His Own Infrastructure Agenda?

Image by Henry Teitelbaum

A once-in-a-generation opportunity to restore America’s failing infrastructure is being squandered by a dysfunctional White House.

By Henry Teitelbaum, Editor, P3 Planet

It would be difficult to overstate just how wide the chasm running through the American political landscape has become since Donald Trump entered the White House. It is evident on the streets, at town halls, and in every proposal that comes before Congress. Even so, there is a lot of common ground when it comes to appreciating the need to invest in restoring the country’s crumbling infrastructure.

America has some of the oldest, most inadequate and poorly maintained public roads, bridges, transit systems, waterways and sewage infrastructure in the developed world. Its condition is seriously affecting everyone’s quality of life, whether through clogged roads, flight delays or flooded homes. In the face of challenges ranging from the threat of bridges collapsing to an entire city’s water supply becoming tainted, there should be no scope for partisan disagreement on the need to act quickly.

Failing Infrastructure’s Real Cost

In the just-released 2017 Infrastructure Report Card, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave a particularly grave assessment of the state of these critical public assets. The nation received another cumulative GPA of D+, unchanged from the previous survey in 2013 and consistent with “D” grades going back to 1998. That’s an exceptionally poor performance for a country with the kind of wealth America has, particularly given the number of high-profile infrastructure-related emergencies that have hit since the last survey. Lead tainted drinking water in Flint, Michigan in 2014 and this year’s evacuation of 200,000 people living downstream from the Oroville Dam in California are two incidents that made headlines, but there are many others.

One might have hoped that such crises would focus more minds on the condition of the nation’s dams and drinking water infrastructure. Sadly, according to the report, this has yet to happen. Both got “D” grades, which is one level above failing, just like last time. Meanwhile, the condition of America’s neglected transit systems, parks and solid waste infrastructure meanwhile, has actually worsened, according to the ASCE. In 2013, for example, it found that only 51% of people in America are able to use public transit to do their grocery shopping. This means more cars on the road, more unnecessary traffic congestion, more pollution, and more cost to those who can least afford it.

The reason, according to the ASCE, is that America is paying only about half of its infrastructure bill, and this is creating a funding gap of the kind that costs businesses and the economy hugely in terms of lost sales and productivity. This gap is estimated to total somewhere around $1.44 trillion between 2016 and 2025, or just under half of the nation’s $3.32 trillion infrastructure funding needs for the period. The cost to the US GDP, according to the report, will grow to an estimated $3.9 trillion by 2025 should infrastructure needs continue to be ignored.

The Case for Investing

Aside from the economic costs of not fixing America’s broken infrastructure, there are excellent reasons for making new investments in it today. Borrowing now, while interest rates are still low, reduces the cost of financing, which improves the financial feasibility of long-term projects. This makes them more attractive to the types of investors that are structurally geared toward this type of investment.

Increasingly, for example, pension funds see infrastructure as a good way to invest safely over the long term. When they are operational, public assets such as toll roads generate secure long-term, even inflation-indexed cash flows that are easy for pension funds to match to their liabilities. At a time when large pension funds in the US are lamenting the lack of attractive long-term investments at home due to low yields on government bonds, infrastructure could provide just the kinds of returns they seek to meet the needs of a growing population of retirees.

Infrastructure investment also has a long-standing history of generating high-quality jobs, both directly in the construction industry and in a range of services to local economies. Building a better physical infrastructure that brings benefits for future generations can also encourage stronger communities. It does this by helping to restore a sense of common purpose to a nation where faith in government has been eroded and where voters worry about their future and their children’s future.

Does Washington Know About This?

So why is it taking so long for Washington to get behind a big infrastructure plan? For the answer, look no further than President Donald Trump’s failing leadership and divisive style of governing.

It’s not just that the US President has failed to set, lead or seriously promote his infrastructure agenda so much as his inability to engage seriously with any issue long enough to see it through. Infrastructure, as much as any legislative program, requires discipline, bipartisanship and patience – none of which has been in evidence from the Oval Office.

“…the Trump Administration quietly moved to Plan B, and practically nobody noticed.”

Over the past six months, we’ve instead witnessed a distracted and belligerent President failing to push through any of his campaign’s legislative agenda, whether it’s tax reform or his repeated efforts to repeal and/or replace Obamacare. The way with which Trump moves from failure to failure while blaming everyone else is as astonishing as it is consequential. Which brings us to Trump’s infrastructure agenda.

During the campaign, Trump promised to spend $1 trillion on infrastructure over the next 10 years. The original proposal, the “Trump Private Sector Financing Plan,” relied on passage of a huge, heavily flawed and ultimately un-passable overhaul of the entire US tax system. This would have included reducing taxes on the repatriation of US corporate overseas profits from 35% to as low as 10%, if companies then invested those profits into infrastructure redevelopment. Some $2.5 trillion of deferred taxes overseas earnings could then be eligible for investment in rebuilding America’s roads, airports and water systems, and other essential assets.

But because the Trump administration doesn’t have a budget bill yet, even with Republicans dominating both houses of Congress, none of these overseas profits are available for investment. So when “Infrastructure Week” came around a few months ago, the Trump Administration quietly moved to Plan B, and practically nobody noticed.

Stealing A Page From Hillary

The proposal that was finally unveiled bears very little in common with his original infrastructure proposal other than the $1 trillion aspirational figure over 10 years. Instead of relying on tax revenue and credit giveaways to incentivize private sector equity investment, though, the plan appears to rely almost entirely on Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) to bring private financing and expertise to the task.

Even to the untrained eye, this looks an awful lot like the infrastructure plan that Republicans ridiculed and then blocked for much of President Obama’s eight years in office. It’s also very much like the plan put forward by Hillary Clinton during the campaign, which envisioned mobilizing private capital for investment in public infrastructure through the PPP model.

PPP, or as it’s called in the US and Canada, P3, is a model for procuring and managing long-term infrastructure that has been used successfully around the world in both developed and developing countries. It requires private consortia, typically construction firms and their financial backers competitively bid for a contract to design, finance, build, operate and maintain a public asset. The private companies also shoulder the risks around project delivery and face stiff financial penalties for failing to perform contracted duties. In this and other ways,P3 is distinct from privatization because the asset, whether a road, an airport or a school district, remains publicly owned.

People debate the merits of this model as opposed to traditional public sector borrowing and spending. But in an age when governments, including the US, are close to broke, it has broad appeal. In Canada it has become something of the default procurement option for the government because it delivers reasonable value for money and better mobilizes the skills, discipline, financial capacities and risk management capabilities of the private sector.

Dysfunctionality As Policy

So what does the Trump administration’s failure to push through a corporate tax reform bill linked to his original infrastructure agenda, or for that matter even a budget, mean for America over the next three and a half years?

We will have to see after the summer recess. But it doesn’t take a tarot card reader to tell you that the signs are not good. A federal government led by an incompetent administration that stumbles from crisis to crisis of its own making is unlikely to follow through on any kind of infrastructure agenda. That would be a huge lost opportunity for America because an infrastructure-led government agenda could go a long way towards putting investments to work in restoring the country’s competitiveness while delivering the jobs that Mr. Trump boasts about creating.

With or without support from the current administration, P3 projects are destined to become a permanent part of the infrastructure investment landscape in the US because the alternatives are expensive and sometimes deliver poor value for the public funds that are invested. In Canada, they account for some 36% of all infrastructure investment while in the US it’s 1%.

The most likely scenario for the next few years will be for many of the 33 states that have PPP-enabling legislation in place to formulate their own infrastructure agenda, perhaps in cooperation with each other. This could go some ways towards making sure these next few years are not wasted while waiting for Trump’s dysfunctional government in Washington to do its job.

This blog post has also appeared in The Market Mogul.

Brexit: What Happens When Governments Stop Investing

By Henry Teitelbaum, Editor, P3 Planet

The Brexit vote not only exposed how out of touch the government here is from British voters, it laid bare the extent to which its leaders have failed to address the twin issues of low growth and rising inequality that led to this fiasco.

More than anything else about the UK referendum decision to leave the European Union (EU), it was middle class economic insecurity and diminished hope for the future that allowed people to be influenced by mostly false propaganda about immigration, compromised independence and lost identity.

Assigning blame for the conditions that led to these misconceptions is the easy part. Prime Minster David Cameron and Chancellor  George Osborne had tough choices to make starting in 2010 as they tried to navigate the UK economy out of the worst recession in the modern era. They  consistently made the wrong ones, and it is fitting that they should now resign.

As Goes Britain…

The question for Britain and the many other western countries that face populist rebellions, is whether their leaders will have the courage to do things differently before they too feel the wrath of a despairing and disenfranchised electorate. It could well become the ultimate measure of success in post-globalization politics across Europe and the US.

I am of course referring to fiscal policy, or in the case of this Tory government, the absence of one. It always seemed counter-intuitive, to put it mildly, to expect that piling  austerity onto one of the worst hit economies of the 2007-2009 financial crisis would produce anything other than misery.

But that’s exactly what they did. Public spending has been cut by 8.3% since 2010, and there’s no end in sight,  with the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) now estimating that it will be 2020 before the budget is balanced.  Benefits were cut without consideration for the massive workplace displacements that people were experiencing, and investment in  public infrastructure was drastically reduced after Osborne decided in 2011 to suspend Private Finance Initiatives. This is no different from the ruinous austerity that has prolonged recessions and hobbled growth across the EU for the past seven years.

Stoking A New Housing Bubble

But Cameron and Osborne have done even worse. Instead of using ultra-low borrowing rates to encourage productive investment in long-term growth, they reflated the housing bubble with questionable programs such as Funding for Lending. Near-term, this  generated some stamp duty revenue for the government, but not nearly enough to close the budget deficit.

It also did nothing to create jobs outside of the real estate business. In fact, it probably added to peoples’ sense of financial insecurity by putting the cost of home ownership even further out of reach.

The result of these policies has been one of the most uneven recoveries, and one of the world’s most persistently wide income gaps.

 

Historically, this level of income inequality would be resolved in one of three ways. Politically, it could happen through tax policies that re-distribute wealth. Economically, it could result in financial collapse, which causes massive bond defaults that disproportionately destroy the wealth of those with income to invest. Or it could happen by way of  Europe’s traditional equalizer: war.

Britain’s Infrastructure Deficit

But there is a much less painful way out of this mess. And all it requires to produce real results for people, their communities and the economy at large is some big picture thinking and the courage to grasp the opportunity.

Britain is sitting on a more than £60 billion deficit between what is needed and what is currently being spent on public infrastructure. This is not unlike other parts of Europe, where government spending has become a dirty word. What needs to happen here is to make infrastructure development a priority the way it was during the depression era, because this investment creates stable, well-paid jobs in precisely those sectors of the economy where middle-class incomes have eroded.

Investments in infrastructure, whether financed by the government or through partnerships with private sector delivery organizations, create enormous value for the economy in both the short- and long- term that fully justifies their cost. In the short-term, new jobs restore middle class incomes, and get money circulating in the real economy. This supplies a key ingredient that has been missing from this recovery, where  aggregate demand has been  too weak to prevent price deflation.

Longer-term, the essential assets that are delivered  – modern roads, railroads or better schools and hospitals – boost productivity and attract new investment at home and from abroad.

The Multiplier Bonus

There’s also a big bonus from the multiplier effect. This is the impact on GDP from the increased amount of money that people spend as a result of  job creation and the contribution that the new asset itself makes to economic activity. According to Standard & Poor’s Corp., the UK would benefit twice as much from this multiplier effect than would Germany or France. It also specified that an increase in infrastructure spending of 1% of GDP returns 2.5 times as much as the cost of that investment over a three-year period.

Government tax collections meanwhile typically increase dramatically due to  all of this additional consumer spending, eliminating the deficit far more quickly than any policy fix this government has tried.

The UK government’s updated National Infrastructure Plan (NIP), published at the end of 2014 and updated last year, contained 550 projects and programs with a combined capital value of £413bn. The pipeline of planned projects includes investments in the energy, transport, flood defense, waste water and communications sectors and features 40 major infrastructure projects termed as high priority.

It would be nice during his remaining time in office to see Mr. Cameron put an effort into mobilizing the nation around delivering  these projects before interest rates start to rise. It would go a long way towards giving people hope for a better future, as well as bringing a new sense of identity and purpose to the nation.

Can P3 Help Tackle Asia’s Corruption Problems?

By Henry Teitelbaum, P3 Planet

(A version of this story previously appeared on Aon One Brief)

The Big Picture

Economic growth, supported by huge flows of foreign capital, has expanded prosperity in many countries across the South and East Asian region, leading to declines both in poverty and political risk.

But now, as China’s growth engine for the region subsides, regional competition for capital is likely to increase. While economic challenges in the short term create uncertainty, a renewed focus on anti-corruption efforts in the region could help states remain preferred destinations for foreign investment over the long-term.

The impact of anti-corruption campaigns in China, India, Indonesia and Malaysia are already being felt, according to the 2016 findings of Aon’s annual Political Risk Map. Across the Asia-Pacific region, tackling corrupt practices in both public and private sectors could not only reduce political risk, but also economic inefficiency. This in turn should support resilience in individual Asian economies at a time when emerging economies remain under intense pressure, helping them to more effectively address their growing infrastructure needs.

The challenge is very real. Urbanization and population growth is driving huge demand for basic essentials such as water, sanitation, transportation and electricity. This will place a clear focus on inclusive, sustainable development, that will reduce the already significant impact of development projects on the environment. At the same time, public financial resources are stretched and existing multilateral bank funding is insufficient.

New multi-lateral lenders, including the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) may help to attract private investment to meet the region’s infrastructure needs. But ensuring this foreign capital remains for the long-term may also depend on progress in anti-corruption efforts. Clearer legal and regulatory frameworks and more transparent procurement structures could become important ways to accomplish both goals.

Deep Dive

Developing countries in Asia – including India, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and the Philippines – have achieved great success in generating prosperity, alleviating poverty, and encouraging political stability over the past 20 years. Much of this has been due to their ability to attract foreign investment through skilled labor, low wages, pro-market policies and political stability.

Political and economic risks in many Asian countries have also declined as stable currencies, and in some countries the adoption of pro-market policies the spread of democracy have expanded prosperity and created middle classes. But now, the physical infrastructure that is needed to keep apace with the demands of growing and increasingly urbanized populations is proving inadequate to the task. Asia’s infrastructure market is set to grow to 60% of global demand by 2025, according to PwC’s Capital project and infrastructure spending: Outlook to 2025.

Balancing Reform, Growth and Uncertainty

Nevertheless, as the Political Risk Map reported, countries such as China may face uncertainties in economic policy as their governments try to strike a balance between implementing reform and managing growth. In China, President Xi Jinping continues to consolidate power through his anti-corruption campaign – the economic outcomes of which are likely to be positive – while in India, Indonesia and Malaysia measures to counter corruption are expected to improve political and economic resilience.

“Anti-corruption campaigns may rebalance concerns regarding a stalling Chinese economy, but improvements in political risk do not necessarily translate into economic gains,” says Karl Hennessy, President of Aon Broking and CEO of the Global Broking Centre in London.

“Macroeconomic drivers are behind the current slowdown in China,” Hennessy continues. “While a war on graft is likely to have a positive, long-term impact on China, it may also reflect efforts to stabilize an economy going through an unprecedented deceleration. Following stock market uncertainties earlier in the year and a slide in GDP, Beijing may be turning to additional levers to instill greater confidence in its future economic program.”

The Rise Of Institutional And Private Funding

Outside of China, public funding resources for investing in this infrastructure are largely not up to the task. This is especially the case in poorer countries, where scarce government funding is needed to care for poor, largely rural populations. In countries such as India, this leaves little discretionary public funding available to support investments that would allow public infrastructure to keep pace with growing demands for better schools, healthcare facilities, care for the elderly, water, waste, electricity, broadband and other basic requirements.

As long-term investors in developed countries seek ways to diversify globally, opportunities to attract private investment from abroad to help meet this demand are increasing. However, competition for capital from other countries in the region also means that foreign investors will be weighing the relative risks more carefully than ever.
Existing multi-lateral lenders such as the Asia Development Bank (ADB) are inadequately funded to meet expanding demand for infrastructure, bureaucratic and slow. New multi-lateral lenders, such as the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and possible increased in capital flows from regional trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) may help to attract private investment to meet infrastructure needs.

The robustness of legal, regulatory and market structures are important factors for determining where this private capital will gravitate. But corruption, in addition being a drain on public finances, is a major risk factor for both public and private investors and is a key determinant in their choice of where to invest.

In China, where state-controlled enterprises, including infrastructure developers, absorb a huge proportion of the country’s financial resources, the government’s current anti-corruption drive is a central part of its goals to make the state more efficient, thereby freeing up capital in the more efficient private sector.

Some Asian countries, notably India, have significant Public-Private Partnership (P3) programs underway to help tackle their infrastructure needs. When they work well, the competitive bidding and need for transparency involved in P3 tendering can itself help to reduce or eliminate corrupt influences. At the same time, the contract forces greater accountability on to the private sector by specifying penalties for inadequate delivery or maintenance of the asset.

Partnership structures such as these can also bring stability to foreign investment flows into the country, create local jobs, encourage the development of a domestic investor base and even respect for the rule of law. At the same time, foreign institutional investors gain investment and currency diversification and the potential to earn strong returns on investment.

For Asian economies to overcome the potential ripple effect of China’s current economic slowdown and secure sustainable long-term growth, increasing political stability can play a key part. While much progress has been made in recent years, as seen in the findings of Aon’s Political Risk Map, there is still work to be done – and political stability is only part of the story.

Climate Change Reshapes Infrastructure Investing Frontier

By Henry Teitelbaum
Editor, P3 Planet

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you may have noticed that  climate change investing is finally starting to get the widespread attention it deserves.

In this regard, December’s COP 21 Paris Climate Change Conference was the watershed moment we’d been waiting for. The signed document that came out of that particular event legally binds all countries to work towards limiting the rise in average global temperature to less than 2% from pre-industrial levels. In terms of adaptation effort, it also brings clarity to how the government and business need to proceed with their investments in the physical infrastructure.

“COP 21 was a clear signal to business that any investment in infrastructure has to be low carbon,” Laetitia De Marez, senior climate policy analyst at Climate Analytics Inc. in New York tells P3 Planet. She says the international agreement to limit CO2 in the atmosphere means that governments can no longer commit public funds or, for that matter facilitate private sector funding for carbon-intensive projects. Beyond funding issues, she believes there is a growing risk that these investments will create “stranded assets” as economies shift towards renewables.

Stranded assets are investments, such as those in fossil fuels, technologies or related businesses, that suffer premature write-downs or conversion to liabilities. This reduction in their value becomes more likely as regulatory, tax and other indirect costs penalize the burning of carbon.

Climate Change Tops Risk Survey

The speed with which climate change has moved to the top of the global agenda is evident in January’s World Economic Forum 2016 Global Risks Report http://www3.weforum.org/docs/Media/GRR16_ExecutiveSummary_ENG.pdf. The 11th edition of the report found that the possible failure of climate change mitigation efforts is for the first time the top concern among survey respondents. What’s more, concerns about cascading risks related to climate change, including water crises and large scale involuntary migration are now in the top five concerns in terms of potential impact.

There is also a growing recognition of the investment opportunities in delivering the physical infrastructure that addresses climate change risks. Business leaders understand that green infrastructure, whether for public transportation, renewable energy or climate adaptation projects such as flood barriers, sea-walls and coastline conservation, is a good investment in and of itself. Not only do these  investments help to safeguard human and natural habitat, they are capable of generating  stable  long-term returns.

Mobilizing the private sector is important for two reasons. One is that we live in an age of fiscal austerity and constrained public budgets. This means that achieving any of the targets set by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will require private sector funding, particularly in underdeveloped countries. The other is that many investments in public infrastructure generate economic growth in both the short and long-term that more than justifies the initial expense.(http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2012/november/highway-grants/)

PPP Model Draws New Interest

One UNFCCC-supported approach to tapping into the financial resources, efficiencies and technologies that the private sector brings to efforts to tame global warming is through the Public Private Partnership model.

PPPs are partnerships between public institutions or non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and private sector developers, who in addition to providing expertise bring their own financing to the table. In the context of climate change mitigation efforts, they have been already been successfully used to support forest and coastal wetlands conservation efforts, among others. Looking ahead to the growing challenge that global warming poses to existing economic and social infrastructure, their use is becoming even more important as the rising cost of adaptation places a greater burden on public finances in both developed and developing economies.

The growing interest in attracting private sector investment to climate change mitigation also comes at a time when there is strong structural investment demand for the assets that are created.

Rising Demand, Constrained Supply

Institutional investors in the developed world, particularly those with very long investment horizons such as public pension funds, are finding it challenging to meet their liabilities as more and more baby boomers reach retirement age. More than a decade of low interest rates has meant that many of these funds can no longer expect government bonds to provide the yield they are committed to paying out to pension recipients. As a result, trillions of long-term investment dollars are searching far and wide for high-quality cash-generating investments backed by physical assets with sufficient yield to cover their liabilities. And this increasingly points them towards investments in green infrastructure projects.

There is much work to do. Years of under-investment and neglect of physical infrastructure in developed and developing economies alike have left many countries with huge infrastructure deficits. McKinsey & Co. has estimated the global infrastructure deficit for the period from 2013 to 2030 at around $57 trillion. http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/financial_services/money_isnt_everything_but_we_need_$57_trillion_for_infrastructure

Governments, typically burdened with shorter-term political priorities, have consistently failed to make the necessary long-term investments that would put a dent on this deficit. Many have also been unwilling or unable to incentivize private sector investment by extending credit guarantees, and some do not even have the legal and regulatory structures in place. A further complication is that some of the private sector banks that used to play leading roles in arranging project financing have withdrawn from the sector since the financial crisis.

Institutions Becoming Early Stage Investors

One important development has been for pension funds, private equity firms and other long-term investors to take on leading roles in the financing of PPP projects themselves. In more and more cases, this means leaving their comfort zone and find new ways to manage the risks involved in early stage investment.

Public sector authorities around the world can do much to encourage this trend at minimal cost. Among the several ways they can help to incentivize private sector investment in climate resilient infrastructure would be to adopt PPP enabling legislation. Beyond this, governments should  provide credit guarantees to enhance the credit quality of debt funding for specific projects, remove structural impediments to infrastructure development, and promote best practice by establishing local centers of excellence.

A multilateral facility whose advancement would also support these efforts is the UNFCCC’s Green Climate Fund. This fund is designed to encourage programs and policies to support thematic investments in climate change mitigation, such as in climate resilient infrastructure for developing countries. It currently has more than $10 billion of funding in place and a goal of raising $100 billion by 2020. But the fund, which was established more than five years ago, is beset by disagreement over board transparency, country ownership and the role private enterprise should play in financing solutions. Developing countries want fund resources to focus on financing locally sourced solutions that support small- and medium-sized businesses. But developed countries are pushing for a Private Sector Facility that focuses on tapping into the huge capital resources available from institutional investors.

Explosive Growth Of Green Bonds

Other facilities for attracting private investment to climate change mitigation projects are faring better. Early progress from multilateral and national development banks in developing a global market for Green Bonds has led to explosive growth in the past three years. New issuance topped $41.8 billion in 2015, and is expected to rise to $100 billion in 2016, according to the Climate Bonds Initiative. https://www.climatebonds.net/

Governments and public sector authorities at every level can help to deepen the liquidity of this market further by issuing their own green bonds. But they should also consider offering credit enhancements such as guarantees to improve the risk profiles of important projects. Tax incentives are another tool that could be used to attract long-term investors. http://www.climatebonds.net/files/files/10%20point%20policy%20guide.pdf

What the world’s climate cannot afford is a drawn out debate over modalities. Global warming is a reality that cannot wait for consensus. We need to act now.

If you’d like to support P3 Planet’s mission to promote sustainable public infrastructure, please contact Henry at hthq@hotmail.com.

Global Climate May Be Biggest Loser In India’s Growth Budget

By Henry Teitelbaum
Editor, P3 Planet

A lot of positive press has been directed at Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi for a budget that promotes long-term economic growth by investing in infrastructure and reforming the way it is delivered. But insufficient attention is being given to the disastrous long-term climate change implications of its heavy reliance on coal.

Supporters of sustainable growth inside and outside the country need to do a lot more than cheer-lead for Modi’s agenda if they want to prevent a potentially catastrophic rise in carbon emissions from what is already the world’s third largest CO2 producing country.

Modi’s 2015-2016 budget focus is geared heavily towards spending and investment to develop the country’s transportation infrastructure. High on the agenda is ensuring that regulatory and land acquisition issues that have hobbled the completion of rail and road links are corrected. For years, these issues have prevented India from making effective use of its existing Public Private Partnership (PPP) model for transportation infrastructure, particularly highways. An estimated $10 billion of such projects are uncompleted due to the inability to secure the land that is needed to finish them.

PPPs allow governments in developing countries such as India to get the infrastructure they need without adding massively to public debt by allowing private investment capital to pay for much of the upfront development costs. In return, the private sector project delivery businesses that are selected receive the right to design and build the asset. Once the project is operational, they get paid to operate and maintain it over the long-term through a share of the tolls collected or from dedicated government tax revenue streams.

To give an idea of how much of this infrastructure is needed, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that India, with the world’s second largest population, needs an additional $1 trillion in investment in the medium term.

Infrastructure’s Multiplier Effect

The experience in neighboring China over the past 20 years suggests the Modi government is right to view investment in infrastructure as central to India achieving its potential as a global manufacturing hub. With its stable democracy and vast pool of young, highly skilled workers, India has drawn interest from around the world, including from China, as a future export manufacturing center because wages are so low. But until now, the poor state of the country’s infrastructure has held India back.

Modi’s program for investment in infrastructure promises to do a lot to turn that around. His  pro-growth policies, which include business tax cuts and measures to promote bank lending, are likely to support continued strong GDP growth, currently estimated to be over 7%. According to the OECD, India is already on course to become the fastest growing large economy in the world by next year.

A focus on domestic infrastructure investment is particularly appropriate for India because it quickly puts money in the pockets of working people. According to a recent study by Standard & Poor’s Corp., the “multiplier effect”, that is the increase in final income arising from any new injection of spending, is particularly strong in developing countries. It estimates that in India, any increase in infrastructure investment would result in a boost to GDP of at least double that increase. So a little investment in India’s infrastructure can go a long way towards addressing wealth inequalities in one of the world’s most economically polarized societies.

Elephant in the Room

But Modi’s strategy also brings big environmental challenges that few seem to want to discuss. These derive mainly from the fact that the government intends to rely on domestic energy resources, chiefly coal, to power its economic expansion. Considering the size of India, unchecked expansion of India’s use of coal at a time when other coal consuming countries are either cutting back or have plans to do so could soon turn India into the world’s largest carbon emitting nation.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), more than 80% of electricity generation in India comes from fossil fuels, with the power generation sector alone consuming about 70% of the domestically produced coal. Developing modern economic infrastructure is very energy-intensive by definition, requiring vast amounts of cement, bricks, lime, steel and aluminum. Heavy industry in India is already heavily reliant on coal, which is also the only fossil fuel for which domestic reserves are still plentiful. So it’s not hard to to see where the energy for the vast majority of India’s growth agenda is going to come from, or why.

Worse yet, coal-fired energy production in India is currently very inefficient by global standards, running at around 31% at a time when efficient rates of 45% have been achieved, according to the IEA Clean Coal Centre.

There’s no reason to doubt Modi’s word when he expressed  the hope that India will become the “renewable energy capital of the world” through its focus on solar and wind deployments. But the government has released few details about how its renewable energy plan can be made to meet the country’s energy needs. In the meantime, its stated goal remains to double coal production to one billion tons annually within five years.

The Deafening Silence From Abroad

Perhaps the absence of a roadmap to sustainability in energy wouldn’t matter so much if there was at least a blueprint for eventually reducing India’s reliance on coal.

Unlike China, which concluded a bilateral deal with the US last November committing both countries to begin reducing carbon emissions, no such deal was struck with India when US President Barack Obama visited the country in January. And while China aims to start lowering carbon emissions by 2030, the best Obama could come away from India with was an agreement in which the US will financially support India in five clean energy programs.

It’s not just the US that’s been willing to overlook the potential for environmental degradation and global warming that will accompany India’s head-long rush for growth. IMF chief Christine Lagarde said nothing about the issue during her recent visit to India, where she instead heaped praise on the government for its pro-growth policies.

For the record, India’s latest budget does present some practical measures to fund renewable energy projects, notably a doubling of the coal tax for a second consecutive year. That represents about 10% of the price of coal and should bring in about $2 billion a year in revenue. This at least should start to encourage greater efficiency and lower CO2 emissions. But that revenue estimate will still bring in far less that the $100 billion commitment that Modi has made toward reaching India’s renewable energy targets of 100GW of solar and 175GW of total renewables by 2022.

Promoting Private Sector Involvement 

So it would seem likely that a great deal of private sector participation, particularly from foreign investors, will be required if there is to be any chance of achieving these targets. In other countries where PPP is in use, the need to mobilize vast quantities of private capital to deliver such improvements would present an excellent opportunity for using this model. But India’s poor record of project delivery through PPP, particularly in road transportation projects, is likely to cause a great deal of hesitation among foreign investors.

The modal unit for PPPs in new and renewable Energy at India’s Ministry of Finance didn’t respond to numerous efforts seeking to discuss specific plans for encouraging private investment in renewables.

In all likelihood, India’s government will need to find other ways to encourage private investment in public infrastructure, particularly for frontier technologies in wind and solar energy. This could be done through the issuance of low-interest projects loans, guarantees, or some form of credit enhancement facility.

India’s increasing reliance on coal could also make it an attractive proving ground for carbon capture and storage technologies, particularly as carbon taxes continue to rise. The retrofitting of existing coal-powered energy facilities, as well as the design and construction of new ones, could prove more attractive and perhaps less risky for foreign  private investors than PPP infrastructure, at least in the near term.

Ultimately, the best guarantee of performance for the energy and transportation infrastructure that India needs to reach  its potential in a globalized economy will be for the government to ensure that its PPP reforms are effective. That means doing what needs to be done to make sure projects achieve completion and deliver value for money.

 

GOP Should Put Infrastructure Back On US Agenda

By Henry Teitelbaum, Editor, P3 Planet

Over the past six years, Republicans have become very adept at blocking US President Barack Obama from achieving anything in Washington, often through tactics that could have done lasting damage to the nation’s credit standing in the world.

Now that the Republicans have control over both houses of Congress, it’s time for them to grow up. The 114th Congress  brings with it just about enough time before the  2016 Presidential election campaign for the Republicans to craft a meaningful federal agenda that will prove it is more than just the party that says “no”.

While there is already talk of working together on a tax reform or immigration agenda over the next six months, it’s hard to imagine a breakthrough on issues of such long-standing disagreement between the two parties.

Continue reading GOP Should Put Infrastructure Back On US Agenda

Mexico’s Infrastructure Plan Makes Compelling Case For Foreign Investment

by Henry Teitelbaum, Editor, P3 Planet

It probably comes as no surprise to investors that great diversity exists among the countries that make up the world’s emerging markets. Yet, when a financial crisis strikes them, it’s often because the foreign portfolio managers that run giant global investment funds indiscriminately dump their holdings of emerging market debt and equity at more or less the same time.

This behavior has often been triggered by country-specific credit issues or by changes in interest rate expectations in the US or elsewhere. But the impact on many of these countries is both immediate and far-reaching, often dramatically raising the cost of financing for governments and businesses in those countries that rely on foreign borrowings to service their debt. Typically, this leads to liquidity shortages as buyers disappear, steep losses for investors, bank runs, government and private sector defaults, and catastrophic job losses.

It doesn’t end there either. The contagion that follows reaches across borders to engulf whole economic regions. Of course, this domino effect is rarely justified by the underlying economic reality, and many western institutional investors have become adept at exploiting such short-term selloffs to pick up stocks for their portfolios on the cheap or to lock-in high yields on bonds that have been beaten down by panic selling.

Correlations In Emerging Markets Declining

Lately, this pattern has started to break down. Individual country performances seem to be reflecting a more diverse range of economic and business conditions across emerging markets better than they have in the last 20 years, and investors appear to be standing by their convictions. This is a good thing, and the surest evidence yet that emerging markets have grown up in a very short period of time. Emerging markets have not only grown dramatically just in the past five years, they now offer more ways to diversify risk across credit and equity markets.

Naturally, investors will look at broader macro-economic factors affecting individual economies such as external debt, current account, domestic deposits and foreign currency reserves. But they are also looking more closely at the policy priorities within individual countries that affect long-term stability, including progress in political and economic reform, and at the choices governments make when investing for the long-term prosperity of their people.

The selloff in January 2014 was a case in point. Emerging market countries where reforms have been implemented, where governments have limited their borrowing and where domestic savings are growing, proved resilient to the selloff. Many of these mostly Asian and Southeast Asian markets have more than recovered the steep losses that followed the change in dollar interest rate expectations.

Investors are also drawing distinctions among emerging market countries based on major programs and policy initiatives. One good example of how this is playing out can be found in Mexico. The country, which has historically been a target for foreign investment due to its oil and gas resources and proximity to the US, has lately been garnering attention for its open, progressive and highly credible approach to developing public infrastructure.

Making Mexico Investment-Friendly

And it should be. Mexico’s 2014-2018 national infrastructure plan outlined earlier this year by President Enrique Peña Nieto is an excellent example of how to structure a large-scale investment program to make it attractive to private investors. Not only  has the government incentivized domestic institutions such as pension funds to invest in early stage Public-Private Partnership projects, it has created the structures that will ensure that financing is available to get them off the ground.

The plan is nothing if not ambitious, envisioning some 7.75 trillion pesos ($590 billion) in public and private investment in infrastructure. There are 743 projects outlined for investment, and these focus heavily on energy, communications and transport. But the plan also includes new projects in housing and urban development, health and tourism.

To support investment, Mexico’s government-run infrastructure bank and fund trustee, Banobras (Banco Nacional de Obras y Servicios Publicos) has been given the capacity and the legal and structural mechanisms to make public private partnerships (PPP) “bankable” for a broad range of long-term investors, including foreign institutions.

What that means is that Banobras and Fonadin, the infrastructure trust fund that it runs, may help to catalyze private investment in infrastructure investment by taking the financial risks that private investors are unwilling to take. This is especially important in the early stages of construction, when risks are at their highest. They are also willing to provide long-term financing for projects, including PPPs that have low yields but high social impact.

Mexico, which has the world’s 14th largest economy, could really benefit from the investment, as its infrastructure places it only 64th of 148 countries in the World Economic Forum’s global competitiveness index. This was recognized as a key driver in the government’s decision to dramatically boost infrastructure investment. It also provides any and all potential investors with clarity on the value that the government places on the success of these projects.

A Helping Hand For The Poor 

Mexico’s government has gone further than most in trying to ensure that the investment capital is channeled to infrastructure development in parts of the country where it can make a big difference. Finance Minister Luis Videgaray indicated early this year that the plan places special emphasis on Mexico’s poorest states in the south and southeastern regions of the country.

By targeting these regions for infrastructure investment, there’s a good chance the investment will do “double duty”, and have an outsized impact on the economy of these regions. That’s because in addition to creating public assets that boost local productivity and competitiveness over the long-term, the investment will bring a near-term boost to regional economies through the jobs it creates.  Taken as a whole,  the program amounts to a powerful instrument for  addressing income inequality and increasing social stability throughout the country.

Foreign investors seem to have taken notice. The country’s equity market has been a strong performer in 2014, and currently stands out for both its emerging market-leading forward price/earnings ratio, and for its performance in relation to historical averages.

Could Mexico’s model for infrastructure development also be giving the country a leg up on the other emerging market countries with which it competes for  stable, long-term foreign investment?

I wouldn’t want to generalize about individual investment decisions. But for any investor comparing long-term prospects in emerging markets around the world, Mexico’s PPP-driven infrastructure push sure seems to tick a lot of boxes.

full disclosure: the author holds listed shares in the iShares MSCI Mexico Capped ETF

This article has also been published in The Conde Report on U.S.-Mexico Relations