Introduction

After decades of neglect, and despite many other distractions in the global economy, infrastructure has finally made it to the top of the political agenda. According to a recent survey, 77 percent of senior business executives believe that the current level of public infrastructure is inadequate to support their companies' long-term growth. These executives believe that over the next five years, infrastructure will become a more important factor in determining where they locate their operations.1

The public also has awakened to the consequences of neglecting our roads, bridges, public transit, electricity grid and other social infrastructure (such as hospitals and schools). According to a recent poll, 94 percent of Americans are concerned about the condition of the nation's infrastructure. Remarkably, 81 percent said they are willing to pay 1 percent more on their federal income tax to improve America's infrastructure.2

Table 1. 2009 global stimulus programs with a significant infrastructure component

Country

Spending on infrastructure

Australia

Around AUD 28 billiona

Canada

CAD 12 billionb

China

Around USD 438 billionc

European Union

Around EUR 173 billiond

France

Upward of EUR 10.5 billione

Germany

Around EUR 19 billionf

Japan

Around JPY 2.6 trilliong

India

Around USD 33.5 billionh

Sweden

SEK 1 billioni

United Kingdom

GBP 3 billion (in capital spending brought forward)j

United States

Around USD 113 billionk




______________________________________________________________

a  Gemma Daley, "Australian Senate Passes Rudd's A$42 Billion Stimulus," Bloomberg News, February 13, 2009 <http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=apqK4QGQTUSY>.

b  "$12B for Infrastructure Forms Key Pillar of Stimulus Package," CBC News, January 27, 2009 <http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/01/27/budget2009-infrastructure.html>.

c  Bill Powell, "Should China and the U.S. Swap Stimulus Packages?," Time, March 05, 2009 <http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1883277,00.html>.

d  International Federation of Consulting Engineers, "Fiscal Stimulus Package Survey 2009" <http://www1.fidic.org/about/infra09/>.

e  "Sarkozy Outlines €26 billion French Stimulus Plan," New York Times, November 4, 2008 <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/business/worldbusiness/04iht-04franc.18398529.html>.

f  Daniel Schmachtenberg, "German Infrastructure Stimulus Packages: Necessity Is the Mother of Invention," January 2009 <www.ashursts.com/doc.aspx?id_Content=4161>.

g  "Japan Unveils New Economic Stimulus of 15.4 Trln Yen," Reuters, April 10, 2009 <http://www.reuters.com/article/usDollarRpt/idUST26081720090410>.

h  International Federation of Consulting Engineers, "Fiscal Stimulus Package Survey 2009."

i  "Worldwide Inventory of Infrastructure Spending Plans," Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, January 21, 2009 <http://www.international.gc.ca/canadexport/articles/90121h.aspx>.

j  Ibid.

k  Infrastructure and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009," Deloitte, March 12, 2009.

Thanks to the stimulus packages unveiled in many countries during 2009 (see table 1), public infrastructure is receiving both long overdue attention and a significant infusion of public funds. While these are welcome developments, the level of direct government funding proposed will meet only a tiny fraction of infrastructure needs around the world. In the United States, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers, there is a $2.2 trillion gap between the supply of and demand for roads and bridges, water and sewage systems, public transit systems and other public infrastructure (see appendix A).3 The infrastructure stimulus money from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) addresses less than 5 percent of these infrastructure needs.

That said, the current confluence of events does present government leaders with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make a timely and economically productive down-payment on closing the global infrastructure gap.

Funding is not the only challenge. A business-as-usual approach by the public sector will waste an important opportunity to make our infrastructure safer, more efficient and more effective. The inadequate, and in some cases dangerous, state of certain infrastructure demands new thinking to speed its improvement. This means using the full complement of innovative infrastructure financing and delivery solutions that are available, while also developing new approaches to address today's challenging credit markets.

To be sure, the landscape for public and private infrastructure financing has changed dramatically since the financial crisis began in 2008. Just as governments are strapped for cash, some private firms have and may continue to face difficulty raising capital in constricted financial markets. This does not mean, however, that private involvement is now off the table. Among other things, this study explores how governments can make limited public dollars go further by leveraging the $180 billion in private equity that has reportedly been raised by infrastructure funds over the past few years (which could theoretically translate to over $300 billion of incremental leveraged purchasing power).4

To effectively capitalize on this rare window of opportunity, governments need to look beyond the short-term influx of stimulus dollars and articulate a much broader vision for enhancing infrastructure as measured not just by jobs, but by enhanced productive capacity for the future. The purpose of this study is to help government leaders address the longer-term issues associated with pursuing their infrastructure objectives in today's environment. Specifically, this study will help government leaders answer the following question: How can the optimal mix of public and private sector involvement for any given project be determined so that limited public dollars can create maximum public value?