Rules
Of Attraction
In Latin America
When
the World Economic Forum met in Davos some months ago, as usually is the
case, there followed a flurry of studies and meat and potato issues beyond
the immediate financial and national leaning headlines playing on television
and in business journals .
Whilst looking at new markets, some answers to
the question, “Can Latin America upgrade airports and cargo facilities
with private capital it attracts from around the world.” gained
some further understanding in a World Economic Forum study titled, “Latin
America: Benchmarking National Attractiveness for Private Investment in
Infrastructure,” authored by Irene Mia, Julio Estrada and Thierry
Geiger.
The study assesses the main drivers of private
investment in infrastructure projects for ports, airports, roads and electricity
covering 12 economies in Latin America and the Caribbean.
This is the first time that the
World Economic Forum has developed an index specifically analyzing the
investment environment for infrastructure.
Chile, Brazil, Colombia and Peru lead the region
with respect to the attractiveness of their private investment climate
for infrastructure.
It’s worth noting that Peru follows the
top three closely, while Venezuela, Bolivia and Dominican Republic have
the least attractive environment.
Extensive and high-quality infrastructure is an
essential driver of competitiveness, impacting significantly on economic
growth and reducing income inequalities and poverty in a variety of ways.
In this regard, a well-developed transport and
communications infrastructure network is a prerequisite for the efficient
functioning of markets and for export growth, as well as for poor communities’
ability to connect to core economic activities and schools; similarly,
improved water infrastructure can considerably reduce child mortality
rates and boost overall health levels.
Indeed, a 1996 study found that over 30% and 40%,
respectively, of the growth differential between Africa and East Asia
and low and high growth countries could be traced back to differences
in the effective use of infrastructure.
 |
Latin America has made progress
in the quality and extension of its infrastructure network in the last
decade, especially in terms of improved access to water and sanitation,
electricity and communication.
However, at the same time, the region has lost
ground with respect to other regions of the world, with the partial exception
of water and sanitation.
In 1980, Latin America displayed a more extended
road, electricity and telecommunications infrastructure than the East
Asian Tigers; in 2004, however, the latter had overcome the former by
a factor of three to two.
This important infrastructure gap hinders the
region’s growth prospects and poverty alleviation strategies: it
has been estimated that an upgrade of Latin America’s infrastructure
to the level of South Korea would generate annual GDP per capita increases
on the order of 1.1-4.8% and could reduce inequality by 10-20%.
The reasons for the widening infrastructure gap
between Latin America and East Asia have much to do with the drastic fiscal
adjustment programs adopted in the region in the aftermath of the debt
crisis of 1982.
The governments in the region, faced with the
necessity of reducing their expenditures, opted for significantly cutting
their investment in infrastructure, politically easier than cutting salaries
and pensions.
As a consequence, public investment in infrastructure
fell from above 3% of GDP in 1988 to 1.6% in 1998. Considering
that the public sector had traditionally catered for the bulk of infrastructure
investment for political and social reasons, the region found itself with
the need to rethink the infrastructure-financing model followed until
then, by adopting regulatory and financial innovation that would allow
delegation of financing, as well as infrastructure provision, to the private
sector.
Public-private partnerships (PPPs) in infrastructure
financing increasingly became the norm in the region, varying from full
privatization to different degrees of private participation (concessions,
management or lease contracts).
In general, the region has been fairly successful
in developing PPPs, attracting half of the total US$ 786 billion that
went to the developing world in PPP financing between 1990 and 2003, and
has significantly transformed the infrastructure provision paradigm. Indeed,
by 2003, private utilities were managing 86%, 60% and 11%, respectively,
of telecoms subscriptions and electricity and water connections.
Still, the private investment flowing to the region
was never enough to compensate for the fall in public funding and tended
to benefit only selected countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia,
Peru and Mexico accounted for around 90% of all investment in Latin America)
and sectors (mainly telecommunications, followed by energy and transport)
in the region.
Against such a background, it is estimated that
Latin America needs to invest between 2.5% and 6% of GDP to upgrade and
extend the regional infrastructure.
Considering that a substantial increase in government
spending is limited by the still-high public indebtedness levels and low
taxation capacity, and that lending from multinational development banks
has recently been falling, it is of utmost importance for governments
in the region and multinational institutions alike to promote and rethink
PPP financing models, taking advantage of the considerable growth of private
capital markets, which in 2003 accounted for 360% of global GDP.
Gordon Feller |