Devapriya, K A K (2003) Donor-intervention and debt capacity in private infrastructure project finance in developing countries. In: Greenwood, D J (ed.) Proceedings of 19th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2003, Brighton, UK.
Abstract
The popular application of project finance (PF) for private infrastructure projects (PIPs) in developing countries (DCs) in the 1990s has highlighted a number of issues and constraints, when arranged through bank-dominated financial systems with comparatively weak economic institutions in DCs. Multilateral and bilateral agencies' participation in PIPs works to ease these constraints and create an enabling environment for private financing of infrastructure in DCs. Their intervention gives incentives for mobilization of private capital for PIP finance. Based upon this premise, this paper empirically examines implication of donor-intervention on the debt capacity of PIPs arranged through PF arrangements. Econometric results confirm that the development agencies' instruments, namely credit support/enhancement and guarantees function to improve the debt capacity of PIP finance and thereby improve the viability of PIPs in weak legal, political and financial environments. These results shed light into the structuring of PF arrangements into PIPs and effectiveness of development agencies' participation towards a sustainable PIP finance in DCs.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | debt capacity; development agencies; institutional environment; project finance; private infrastructure project finance |
| Index terms: | econometric, agency, effectiveness, developing country, project finance, financing, donor, development agency, infrastructure project, guarantee |
| Subjects: | sociology, performance management, development economics, infrastructure and transport systems, financial management, economic analysis, administrative law, contract structure |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Procurement, Research Practice, International Construction, Engineering Principles, Quality Management, Cost Management, Legal Issues, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here