Procuring Infrastructure Public-Private Partnerships

Procuring Infrastructure PPPs 2018 Key Findings


Below are some of the key findings of the report. For a more detailed summary of the report, please consult the Executive Summary available here.

 

The higher the income level of the group, the higher the performance in the assessed thematic areas. Preparation and contract management are the areas that have the most room for improvement across all income level groups (Figure 1). Performance varies greatly by region. The high-income economies of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the Latin American and Caribbean regions perform at or above the average in all thematic areas. In contrast, Sub-Saharan Africa and the East Asia and Pacific region have the lowest average scores across thematic areas.

Figure 1 Procuring Infrastructure PPPs 2018 average scores by income group (score 1–100)

Image

The Procuring Infrastructure PPPs 2018 data reveal regional and income group differences in the average score for the preparation of PPPs (Figure 2). The OECD high-income region is ahead of all the other regions. South Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Europe and Central Asia also score equal or above average. Latin America and the Caribbean has the highest intraregional variance, ranging from 2 to 90 points. Disaggregating the data by income level clearly reveals that the lower the income group level, the lower the average scores on project preparation.

Figure 2 Preparation of PPPs, score by region and income group (score 1–100)

Image

The Procuring Infrastructure PPPs 2018 data reveal regional and income group differences in the average score for PPP procurement (Figure 3). The OECD high-income region leads in the scoring, followed by Europe and Central Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and South Asia. There is a prominent discrepancy between the performance of the best performing region (79 points) and the worst one (53 points). The East Asia and Pacific region not only has the lowest average score, but it also has the greatest intraregional variance by far, with scores ranging from 7 points to 82 points. When disaggregated by income level, the data reveal the following trend: the lower the income level of a country, the lower its the scores on PPP procurement.

Figure 3 PPP procurement, score by region and income group (score 1–100)

Image

The Procuring Infrastructure PPPs 2018 data reveal regional and income group differences in the average score for PPP contract management (Figure 4). The Latin American and Caribbean region has the highest score, followed by the OECD high-income region. Intraregional variance is high in all regions in this thematic area. For example, scores within the East Asia and Pacific region are as low as 9 points and as high as 88 points. In contrast, there is little variation across regions. The average for leading region (Latin America and the Caribbean) 63 is only 17 points ahead of the worst-performing region (East Asia and Pacific). When the data are disaggregated by income level, there is a clear pattern showing that the lower the income group level, the lower the average scores.

Figure 4 PPP contract management, score by region and income group (score 1–100)

Image

The Procuring Infrastructure PPPs 2018 data reveal regional and income group differences in the average score for USPs (Figure 5). The OECD high-income, South Asia, and Latin American and Caribbean regions stand out from the rest of the regions. East Asia and Pacific has the lowest average score, whereas the Latin America and Caribbean region has the highest variation in scores among economies within the region, ranging from as low as 13 to as high as 100. Disaggregated the data by income level reveals a clear pattern: the higher the income group level, the higher the average scores on USPs.

Figure 5 USPs, score by region and income group (score 1–100)

Image