Day: October 7, 2016
Private investment for public infrastructure
Deea Ariana, who graduated with a master’s from SAIS last spring, writes:
One of the inevitable costs of conflict is the damage to critical infrastructure that provides basic services to people and stimulates economic growth. Yet infrastructure procurement in post-conflict contexts is often slow and unable to cope with rising demand. Raffi Mardirosian argued that in the aftermath of conflict, an environment fraught with financial and political risks and weak legal structures hinders the construction and operation of infrastructure projects.
Conflict-affected states lack capital, technology, and skilled management that are essential to constructing new infrastructure. Consider Syria: The International Monetary Fund (IMF) states that rebuilding damaged physical infrastructure will be a “monumental task,”with cost estimates in the range of $100-$200 billion. That is nearly three times the country’s GDP back in 2010, before the conflict erupted.
The ongoing war continues to take a heavy toll on civilians and infrastructure. As Merriam Mashatt, Daniel Long, and James Crum note:
In conflict-sensitive environments, the condition of infrastructure is often a barometer of whether a society will slip further into violence or make a peaceful transition out of the conflict cycle. The rapid restoration of essential services, such as water, sanitation, and electricity, assists in the perception of a return to normalcy and contributes to the peace process.
Increasing access to infrastructure service delivery amid fiscal and capacity constraints calls for an alternative to the traditional public provision of infrastructure.
The idea of private investment in infrastructure has gained currency in recent years, leading to creation of public-private partnerships, or PPPs. These are a way for governments to implement infrastructure and services by utilizing the expertise of the private sector. Both parties share significant risks and management responsibilities.
Gonzalo Araya and Jordan Schwartz explain that private participation in infrastructure in countries emerging from conflict typically requires six to seven years to attract significant levels of investment from the day that the conflict is officially resolved. Usually the first infrastructure investments to arrive in conflict-affected countries are in sectors where financial risk is relatively low, which is mostly in telecommunications, as in Afghanistan and Iraq. Private investments in sectors where assets are harder to secure, such as water, power, or roads, are slower to appear or simply never occur.
There are several challenges to infrastructure reconstruction in conflict-sensitive environments that need to be addressed. P. B. Anand delves into these, explaining that weak governance entails corruption and flawed regulatory oversight, insecurity, and fragmented legal systems that discourage foreign investments. The government of a conflict-affected country must mitigate these challenges to nurture a favorable investment climate and encourage private investment in PPPs.
Donor support can also go a long way. As Andre Jones writes, PPP transactions are likely to rely on donor support in the form of capital subsidies, guarantees, or other mechanisms to facilitate private investment. An often-cited example is that of the restoration of Liberia’s power sector following the civil war in 2003. With support from the Norwegian government, the Liberia Electricity Cooperation (LEC) handed over its management to a Canadian power company, which boosted results. LEC began rebuilding electrical distribution in Monrovia, which led to more people having access to electricity and a significant increase in revenue. Losses were curtailed, peak load more than doubled, and fuel efficiency improved.
While public infrastructure projects accrue a net benefit to society as a whole, they nonetheless result in winners and losers. It is necessary to ensure that services also reach those people who are otherwise socially excluded. This guarantees that the society does not risk relapsing into another fresh bout of conflict by fighting over scarce resources.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Filling my gaps
A number of readers have pointed out gaps in the piece I published yesterday on Macedonia. So here are my feeble attempts to fill the lacunae.
Yes, Martin Naunov (who commented on yesterday’s post), judicial accountability is also important. I should have mentioned the special prosecutor and the need to support her fully. But beyond that I don’t usually comment on judicial matters. People should be presumed innocent and tried in court, not in public opinion, no matter who they are or what positions they hold or may have held in the past. Elections should be no shield from judicial accountability. The special prosecutor last month indicted more than a dozen people, but their names are not yet known. They will have to defend themselves in court.
One Twitter critic denounced me for ignoring the Albanians in Macedonia, who he said have suffered from former Prime Minister Gruevski’s Macedonian nationalism. But my piece focused on what I perceive to be the major issues that most concern Washington, not those of most concern to Albanians and Macedonians. Ethnic tension would concern Washington. The wire tapping scandal and its ramifications have not however on the whole generated ethnic tension but rather ethnic cooperation in protests (and to some degree protection from them). Another critic suggested that I should have focused negative attention on Ali Ahmeti, who leads the Albanian political party that was in Gruevski’s coalition. I don’t see how that would have helped me to explain what is of most concern to Washington.
Another critic questioned why Macedonia should want to become a member of NATO, since it is already surrounded by NATO members. That’s not literally true, since neither Kosovo nor Serbia is a NATO member, but it is also irrelevant, as Macedonia really faces no threat from a neighboring state. It has faced serious threats from Albanian extremists, in part exported from Kosovo, but well below the threshold for triggering NATO obligations.
Macedonian citizens give many varied reasons for wanting NATO membership. Some think it is an elite, democratic club that represents an important way station on the path to the European Union. Others believe that the military reforms Skopje has undertaken and the performance of its troops in Afghanistan merit recognition through NATO membership. Albanians in Macedonia tell me they regard NATO membership as an important guarantee of the country’s multiethnic democracy and maintenance of its constitutional protection.
It is all of those things, and more. But for the US, the key is this: Macedonian army soldiers have fought integrated with the Vermont National Guard in Afghanistan. That’s enough for me to think that the Alliance would gain something from Macedonian membership. If its citizens also think there is something to be gained, let’s make a deal.
RSS - Posts
