The
shortage of infrastructure in developing countries is an
important obstacle to meet the needs of the population,
enterprise development and achieve the Millennium Development
Goals (MDG). The needs for infrastructure investment worldwide
in the coming decades are estimated at levels exceeding
US$1,800 bn per year (OECD, 2007). To meet MDGs for infrastructure,
for example, Africa needs an estimated US$5-12 bn a year
as additional infrastructure finance (Estache, 2004). If
such amounts are to be raised, policy makers need to mobilize
all potential sources of capital and consider innovative
schemes for infrastructure financing. To sustain infrastructure
systems, adequate financing is also necessary (Fox, 1994).
Traditional sources for the initial investment are central
government grants, donor funds and private-equity (or self-help)
financing with user fees being the most viable option in
the operational and maintenance stage.
Limited
public resources for infrastructure provision and the promise
of better efficiency from private funding of public infrastructure
have led to the transfer of risks to private parties through
privatization of public infrastructure enterprises for existing
assets and Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) for new assets.
In most countries, the principal vehicle of delivering PPPs
is through Private Finance Initiative (PFI). Extensive literature
exists on PPPs and PFIs mainly on United Kingdom (UK) and
on other countries following the UK lead. Dixon et al.
(2005) and Hodge (2004) present comprehensive overviews
of the PPP market in UK and Australia, respectively. Structured
debt or Asset-Backed Securitization (ABS) is seen as an
innovative way of funding infrastructure. For instance,
when Macquarie Infrastructure Group (MIG) and its Spanish
partner, Cintra, paid US$3.8 bn for a 75-year lease on the
Indiana Toll Road in the US this year, they put up US$385
bn of equity for their US$1.9 bn stake. The balance of US$1,515
bn was in the form of structured debt (Chancellor, 2007). |