Photo: auphoto / Shutterstock.com
As Washington, D.C.’s infrastructure braces for its first winter freeze and 2017 draws to a close, this feels like the right moment for a recap on what the year has brought us in terms of closing the infrastructure gap across emerging markets and developing economies; policy directions within and outside of the World Bank Group; new instruments, tools, and resources; and—the proof in the pudding—actual investment levels.
There may not be one blog that can capture all of those themes in detail, but here is a brief overview of what 2017 has meant and what is on the docket for 2018 and beyond.
The APMG PPP Certification Program enables participants to take their skills to the next level, and the Certified PPP Professional (CP3P) credential is a means to officially convey that expertise and ability. Whether you’re thinking about signing up, or already enrolled, in this series we share some insight from practitioners who have already passed the test. This week, we caught up with Paul Barbour, Senior Risk Management Officer at the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA). Read his answers below.
Editor's Note: Join us April 22nd at 10AM ET for the 2017 Global Infrastructure Forum when the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), the United Nations, the G-20, and development partners from around the world meet to discuss opportunities to harness public and private resources to improve infrastructure worldwide, and to ensure that investments are environmentally, social and economically sustainable. Check out the event site to view the livestream on April 22.
Imagine the difficulty of designing, financing, building and operating a €360 million, 1,000-bed hospital campus that serves a region of 1.6 million people? This is exactly what the government of Turkey is doing in Elaziğ, a city of 350,000 in eastern Anatolia. The facility will serve and accommodate about 20,000 patients and their relatives per day with a broad range of services including women and children’s health, psychiatric services, and a dental clinic.
A project of this size is bound to be challenging and complex. But the approach taken by the Turkish Government has been a success—to involve a private-sector partner through a public-private partnership (PPP) with support from multilateral development banks. How did they do it?
On a recent trip to the Caribbean, I was in a meeting at the Ministry of Finance of one of the region’s largest economies. The topic under discussion was all too familiar: the difficulty of attracting overseas investment into the country’s public infrastructure projects.
To enliven things, I began thinking aloud about an idea I’d been musing on for a while and was asked to outline my idea. Let me first set the context.
The last few years have brought an uptick in the number of mining investments that have been the subject of disputes between investors and governments. This trend is of considerable concern to the players in the sector across the globe.
Yet, there is a wealth of wisdom to be—pardon the pun—mined from the literature over the past few decades in an attempt to distill what the main risk factors are in agreements that govern investments in the sector, with specific focus on taxation regimes.
Number of Expropriatory Acts by Sector – three-year rolling averages
Source: Chris Hajzler (2010), “Expropriation of Foreign Direct Investments: Sectoral Patterns from 1993 to 2006,” University of Otago in MIGA,World Investment and Political Risk 2011
Supporting populations in fragile and conflict-affected situations (FCS) is a key priority for the World Bank Group. The Group’s President, Jim Yong Kim, has repeatedly stressed the importance of finding ways to bring sustainable peace and development to these difficult contexts. According to the World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security, and Development, more than 1.5 billion people in today’s world live in FCS, or in countries with high levels of criminal violence.
Apart from the very human cost of fragility, it colors foreign investors’ perceptions of risk, especially political risk, affecting private sector activity. This begets a vicious cycle, where economies worsen, increasing fragility. The importance of political risk, including political violence, in the perceptions of investors is well documented, including in the annual MIGA-EIU surveys presented in MIGA’s World Investment and Political Risk report. In particular, MIGA’s 2011 report focused specifically on investing into FCS, and the survey results demonstrate that political violence remains a very serious factor inhibiting investment.
Aside from capital, foreign direct investment (FDI) can bring essential knowledge and technology across borders. These benefits are often what make FDI so sought-after by policy makers. But investors have to consider the return on their investment relative to the risks they are taking, especially political risks such as expropriation, currency convertibility and transfer restrictions, breach of contract by the sovereign, and war and civil disturbance.
Al-Arabiya reported a few weeks ago that the political crisis in Ukraine and Russia is threatening the availability of food in Egypt and Jordan. Food prices becoming hostage to political crises is certainly not a new phenomenon: food plays an important role in the stability of societies through its availability, affordability, and quality. We learned this lesson from the 1789 French Revolution and more recently, many commentators link soaring food prices in 2010 with the events leading up to the ‘Arab Spring.’ The latter is not surprising when Arab countries import 56% of their cereal consumption, and some Arab countries import 100% of their wheat consumption. These recent market dynamics have led many countries to revisit their food security strategies with an eye to securing food supply.
There is a vigorous debate over the reasons pertaining to the food price increases in 2008, 2010, and 2012. Many highlight the effects of seasonal, short and medium term factors such as weather changes and biofuel-related crop conversions as well as long term factors such as population growth, income growth, and climate change. These price increases in food have enormous effects on people, for example, the 2008 food crisis pushed 105 million people into poverty.
- private sector
- land governance
- environmental and social performance standards
- King Abdullah’s Initiative for Agricultural Investment Abroad
- banned food exports
- food crisis
- Arab Spring & food
- agriculture FDI
- foreign direct investment
- Political Risk Insurance
- Agriculture and Rural Development
- The World Region
- Middle East and North Africa
- Saudi Arabia
On February 22, MIGA partnered with the Singapore Management University (SMU) and International Enterprise Singapore (IE Singapore), to launch the most recent World Investment and Political Risk Report in Asia. The event, at SMU’s downtown campus, focused on the key issues of sovereign and political risk and how foreign investors can mitigate them.
The latest World Investment and Political Risk report is the fourth in a series that we’ve recently launched in London and Washington, DC as well. There are some important nuggets on FDI trends and perceptions this year. The report notes that foreign investors, attracted by stronger economic growth in developing countries while mindful of risks, still remain optimistic about these destinations.
This past Monday I was present as the 250 megawatt Bujagali hydropower plant on Uganda’s River Nile – supported by MIGA, as well as our sister institutions the World Bank and IFC – was commissioned into active service.
After many years of preparation and planning, this was an auspicious moment indeed for Uganda, with the plant’s opening coinciding with the Jubilee celebrations marking the country’s 50 years of national independence. The new Bujagali power plant comes close to doubling the country’s electricity capacity and in a single step has elevated Uganda to having the second largest kilowatt consumption per capita in East Africa, following Kenya.
I’ve considered whether MIGA guarantees are, in effect, governance products. Readers might rightly ask how I’ve come to this conclusion. Consider what a governance product is: something that supports good governance (and by this we mean, first and foremost, eliminating corruption and its incentives). Thus, could not a MIGA guarantee be recognized as a governance product from two perspectives—that of the company that is our guarantee holder and that of the country host to a MIGA-insured investment?