Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 11 items for :

  • "public investment in LIDCs" x
Clear All
Daniel Gurara, Mr. Vladimir Klyuev, Miss Nkunde Mwase, Mr. Andrea F Presbitero, and Mr. Geoffrey J Bannister
This paper examines trends in infrastructure investment and its financing in low-income developing countries (LIDCs). Following an acceleration of public investment over the last 15 years, the stock of infrastructure assets increased in LIDCs, even though large gaps remain compared to emerging markets. Infrastructure in LIDCs is largely provided by the public sector; private participation is mostly channeled through Public-Private Partnerships. Grants and concessional loans are an essential source of infrastructure funding in LIDCs, while the complementary role of bank lending is still limited to a few countries. Bridging infrastructure gaps would require a broad set of actions to improve the efficiency of public spending, mobilize domestic resources and support from development partners, and crowd in the private sector.
Daniel Gurara, Mr. Vladimir Klyuev, Miss Nkunde Mwase, Mr. Andrea F Presbitero, and Mr. Geoffrey J Bannister

. Selected Infrastructure Indicators Figure 2. Perceptions of Infrastructure Quality Figure 3. Public Investment: 2000-2016 Figure 4. Public Investment in LIDCs by Sub-groups Figure 5. Public investment/GDP in LIDCs Figure 6. Changes in Public Saving and Investment in LIDCs Figure 7. Public Investment, Public Saving and General Government Debt in LIDCs Figure 8. Public Investment in Infrastructure Figure 9. Flows of PPPs to LIDCs and Elvis Figure 10. Flows of PPPs Commitments In LIDCs, by Sector Figure 11. Selectoral Allocation of Infrastructure ODF to

International Monetary Fund

. Natural Disasters in LIDCs: Impulse Response Functions 34. Food Supply Crisis in Comparison (1990–2009) 35. Food Decline Vulnerability Index 36. LIDCs: Public Debt 37. LIDCs: External Debt by Concessionality 38. LIDCs: Changes in Public Debt Ratios, 2007–13 39. LIDCs: Changes in PPG External and Domestic Debt-to-GDP Ratios by Country Groups 40. Early-HIPCs: Net Lending Flows 41. LIDCs: Debt Service on External Debt 42. LIDCs Public Debt Decomposition, 2007–13 43. LIDCs: Changes in Expenditures and Revenue , 2007–13 44. LICDs: Public Investment in

International Monetary Fund

. Selected Infrastructure Indicators 41. Public Investment: 2000–2015 42. Public Investment in LIDCs by Subgroup 43. Public Investment, Public Saving, and Public Debt in LIDCs 44. Public Investment in Infrastructure 45. Public Infrastructure Investment in LIDCs, by Sector 46. Flows of PPP Commitments to LIDCs, by Sector 47. Official Development Financing for Infrastructure in LIDCs 48. Sectoral Allocation of Infrastructure ODF to LIDCs, 2006–14 49. Syndicated Lending for Infrastructure in LIDCs 50. ODF Disbursements and Syndicated Loans (excl. MDB) 51

Daniel Gurara, Mr. Vladimir Klyuev, Miss Nkunde Mwase, Mr. Andrea F Presbitero, and Mr. Geoffrey J Bannister

, that the public sector provides the bulk of infrastructure in these countries. In addition, as we show below for a limited sample of countries, investment in economic infrastructure constitutes a large share of total public investment so that the latter can serve as a reasonable proxy for the former. Thus, we start our analysis by examining trends in public investment. Public investment in LIDCs is higher as a percent of GDP than in emerging and advanced economies and has followed a general upward trend since 2000, first surging before the Global Financial Crisis

International Monetary Fund

that benefited from debt relief during that period (“late HIPCs”), while remaining substantially unchanged in diversified LIDCs. Average public investment levels exceeded 10 percent of GDP during 2011–15 in 12 LIDCs—representing a sizeable scaling-up from pre-GFC levels. This group of countries is diverse, but in many cases—e.g., Congo ( Alter et al., 2015 ) and Ethiopia ( Box 7 )—the investment surge reflects national development agendas centered on improving infrastructure. Figure 42. Public Investment in LIDCs by Subgroup (Median, percent of GDP

International Monetary Fund
This paper is the third in a series assessing macroeconomic developments and prospects in low-income developing countries (LIDCs). The first of these papers (IMF, 2014a) examined trends during 2000–2014, a period of sustained strong growth across most LIDCs. The second paper (IMF, 2015a) focused on the impact of the drop in global commodity prices since mid-2014 on LIDCs—a story with losers (countries dependent on commodity exports, notably fuel) and winners (countries with a more diverse export base, where growth remained robust). The overarching theme in this paper’s assessment of the macroeconomic conjuncture among LIDCs is that of incomplete adjustment to the new world of “lower for long” commodity prices, with many commodity exporters still far from a sustainable macroeconomic trajectory (Chapter 1). The analysis of risks and vulnerabilities focuses on financial sector stresses and medium-term fiscal risks, pointing to the actions, including capacity building, needed to manage and contain these challenges over time (Chapter 2). With 2016 the first year of the march towards the 2030 development goals, the paper also looks at how infrastructure investment can be accelerated in LIDCs, given that weaknesses in public infrastructure (such as energy, transportation systems) in LIDCs are widely seen as a key constraint on medium-term growth potential (Chapter 3). With the sharp adjustment in commodity prices now into its third year, some of the key messages of the paper are familiar: a) many commodity exporters, notably fuel producers, remain under significant economic stress, with sluggish growth, large fiscal imbalances, and weakened foreign reserve positions; b) countries with a more diversified export base are generally doing well, although several have been hit by declines in remittances, conflict/natural disasters, and the contractionary impact of macroeconomic stabilization programs; c) widening fiscal imbalances, in both commodity and diversified exporters, have resulted in rising debt levels, with severe financing stress emerging in some cases; and d) financial sector stresses have emerged in many LIDCs, with expectations that these strains will increase in many commodity exporters over the next 12–18 months. Key messages on financial sector oversight, on medium-term fiscal risks, and on tackling infrastructure gaps are flagged below. Read Executive Summary in: Arabic; Chinese; French; Spanish
International Monetary Fund
This report examines macroeconomic developments and related vulnerabilities in low-income developing countries (LIDCs)—a group of 60 countries that have markedly different economic features to higher income countries and are eligible for concessional financing from both the IMF and the World Bank. Collectively, they account for about one-fifth of the world’s Population.
International Monetary Fund

in Democratic Republic of Congo, The Gambia, and Côte d’Ivoire. In early HIPCs , the increase in public investment has generally been more muted in recent years, as most of them achieved high levels of investment immediately after receiving debt relief (prior to 2007). Nevertheless, as in late HIPCs, some countries have recently undertaken large investment projects aiming to improve their infrastructure (Cameroon, Sierra Leone, and Rwanda). Figure 44. LICDs: Public Investment in LIDCs 1/ (In percent of GDP) Source: IMF, WEO. 1/ Afghanistan

International Monetary Fund
Public investment supports the delivery of key public services, connects citizens and firms to economic opportunities, and can serve as an important catalyst for economic growth. After three decades of decline, public investment has begun to recover as a share of GDP in emerging markets (EMs) and low income developing countries (LIDCs), but remains at historic lows in advanced economies (AEs). The increase in public investment in EMs and LIDCs has led to some convergence between richer and poorer countries in the quality of and access to social infrastructure (e.g., schools and hospitals), and, to a lesser extent, economic infrastructure (e.g., roads and electricity). However, the economic and social impact of public investment critically depends on its efficiency. Comparing the value of public capital (input) and measures of infrastructure coverage and quality (output) across countries reveals average inefficiencies in public investment processes of around 30 percent. The economic dividends from closing this efficiency gap are substantial: the most efficient public investors get twice the growth “bang” for their public investment “buck” than the least efficient.