Version classiqueVersion mobile

A European Public Investment Outlook

 | 
Floriana Cerniglia
, 
Francesco Saraceno

Part I. Outlook

1. Europe Needs More Public Investment

Rocco Luigi Bubbico, Philipp-Bastian Brutscher et Debora Revoltella

Texte intégral

1Public investment went through a prolonged contractionary phase over the past decade. Between 2008 and 2016 public investment in the European Union declined from 3.4 % of GDP to 2.7 %. Despite a slight rebound in 2017 and 2018, public investment still stands at only 2.9 % of GDP, 15 % below its pre-crisis levels.

2Fiscal consolidation pressure was at the core of the decline in public investment. This is witnessed by particularly strong falls in public investment in countries that experienced a strong pressure to tighten their budgets. The negative effect of fiscal consolidation was in many cases amplified by a re-prioritization of public outlays away from investment towards current expenditures.

3Infrastructure investment was disproportionately affected by the decline in public investment. The European Investment Bank (EIB) estimates show that overall infrastructure investment declined by about 25 % between 2008 and 2016; with the government sector accounting for the lion’s share of this fall. From a sectorial perspective, investment in transport and education infrastructure experienced the strongest decline.

4The fall in government infrastructure investment does not reflect a saturation effect. About one in three municipalities in the EU report that infrastructure investment activities in the last five years were below needs. In addition, the fall in infrastructure investment activities was particularly pronounced in regions with a poor infrastructure quality to start with. Moreover, construction of new infrastructure seems to continue producing large positive economic spillover effects (EIB 2018). Overall, using a bottom-up approach, the annual infrastructure investment gap is estimated to be about €155 bn.

5Sound project selection, preparation and implementation are key to reversing the negative trend in investment activities in the EU, in addition to overcoming funding constraints. To ensure the efficient use of available funds, sound infrastructure governance is key. This requires a comprehensive analysis of all economic and social costs and benefits. However, often such technical capacity is particularly weak in areas that invest little and face a range of other socio-economic challenges (EIB 2018). Addressing investment gaps, thus, calls for a series of complementary policies to increased spending, including lending, blending and technical advisory activities.

1.1. Recent Public Investment Trends in Europe

6After a strong decline in public investment activities following the global financial crisis and subsequent sovereign debt crisis, public investment has started to gradually recover in recent years (Figure 1). After hitting its lowest level in two decades in 2016 (at 2.7 % of GDP), government investment increased slightly in 2017 (to 2.8 %) and 2018 (2.9 %). Despite the reversal of the negative trend, public investment remains well below its long-term average of 3.1 % of GDP between 1995 and 2017.

Fig. 1 Public Investment by country group (1995–2020)

Fig. 1 Public Investment by country group (1995–2020)

Note: this chart reports Gross Fixed Capital Formation of the General Government as % of GDP.
Forecast for 2019 and 2020. Data are missing for Croatia in 1995–2000.

Source of data: Eurostat, AMECO. Figure created by the authors.

7The recent increase in public investment was driven by investment activities in the Cohesion countries. In this group, gross fixed capital formation of the public sector increased from 3.6 % of GDP to 4.3 %. While positive, at least part of the increase reflects a mere rebound effect after a strong decline in investment activities in 2016 due to the start of a new programming period of European Structural and Investment Funds. Public investment in other parts of Europe remained broadly unchanged from their 2016 levels and well below their long-term averages.

  • 4 Cyprus registered the strongest increase in public investment in Europe. However, the strong increa (...)

8From a cross-country perspective, investment increased markedly in Cyprus, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Croatia and Bulgaria. The increase in Cyprus was, however, largely due to one-off accounting measures.4 In Greece public investment continued to decline. Italy and the Netherlands also recorded declines in public investment, albeit more modest ones than in Greece, putting their investment levels at their lowest in twenty-five years, relative to GDP.

Fig. 2 Public Investment in 2018 by Member States (1995–2018)

Fig. 2 Public Investment in 2018 by Member States (1995–2018)

Note: this chart reports Gross Fixed Capital Formation of the General Government as % of GDP. Vertical black lines report the range of values observed in 1995–2018. Thresholds for ‘in line’ with long-term average: +/- 0.25 % from average. Data are missing for Croatia in 1995–2000.

Source of data: AMECO. Figure created by authors.

9Tight fiscal budgets and a change in spending priorities are at the core of the decline in public investment in recent years. Public investment has fallen most in countries that experienced strong pressure to tighten their budgets. The negative effect of fiscal consolidation was in many cases amplified by a re-prioritization of public outlays away from investment towards current expenditures. The budget share of current expenditures increased, for example, from 84.4 % on average between 1995 and 2017 to 87.7 % in 2018 (Figure 3). Instead, the budget share of capital spending dropped from 9.3 % to 8.4 %.

Fig. 3 Change in public expenditure composition (2018 versus 1995–2017 average)

Fig. 3 Change in public expenditure composition (2018 versus 1995–2017 average)

Note: this chart reports the changes in public expenditure composition from a long-term average
(1995–2017) to 2018 by expenditure category. The sum of the components equals zero. Capital
expenditure includes Gross Fixed Capital Formation, capital transfers paid and other capital
expenditures.

Source of data: AMECO. Figure created by the authors.

10After the considerable fiscal contraction of 2011–2013, the fiscal stance of the EU has started to improve (Figure 4). There are no signals, however, that this will translate into a strong pick-up in public investment any time soon. The fiscal forecasts of the European Commission suggest that, despite the positive fiscal outlook, public investment will increase only slightly in 2019 and 2020, to 3.0 % of GDP.

11What is more, there is no sign of a reversal of the deprioritization of public investment (so far): public investment as a percentage of total expenditure is expected to remain stable in 2019 and even decline slightly as a percentage of current expenditure; suggesting no change in expenditure prioritization between current outlays and gross fixed capital formation (Figure 5).

Fig. 4 Fiscal stance in the European Union

Fig. 4 Fiscal stance in the European Union

Note: output gap as difference between actual and potential gross domestic product. 2019 and 2020:
forecast.

Source of data: AMECO. Figure created by the authors.

12Taking a medium-term perspective, public investment is projected to remain below its long-term average. The Stability and Convergence Programmes submitted during the 2019 European Semester show a steady outlook for public investment in the medium term. Budgetary plans report an aggregate public investment equal to around 2.9 %–3.0 % of GDP in Europe in 2019–2022 budget plans, which is below its long-term average of 3.2 %.

13The 2019 European Semester shows awareness of the issue. Compared to previous exercises, it has a stronger focus on investment. One of the general recommendations is to continue steps towards a ‘growth-enhancing’ composition of public spending. Member States with adequate scope, notably Germany and the Netherlands, are recommended to use fiscal and structural policies to increase public investment. The Commission also singles out, in each Member State, investment priorities. The Commission recommends most Member States to focus spending more on R&D and innovation, sustainable transport and energy (network infrastructure, low-carbon transition and/or energy efficiency).

Fig. 5 Fiscal stance and capital expenditure in the European Union

Fig. 5 Fiscal stance and capital expenditure in the European Union

Note: forecast for 2019 and 2020.

Source of data: AMECO. Figure created by the authors.

1.2. Infrastructure Has Declined Substantially

  • 5 We define proxy infrastructure investment as gross fixed capital formation in other buildings and s (...)

14An area that suffered disproportionately from the fall in public investment is infrastructure investment. Applying the EIB methodology to proxy infrastructure investment,5 we find that infrastructure investment continuously declined since 2009. At 1.7 % of GDP, overall infrastructure investment now stands at about 75 % of its pre-crisis level (Figure 6).

15The government sector is the main driving force behind the decline. Government infrastructure investment declined between 2009 and 2017 by 0.5 % of GDP. Over the same time horizon corporate infrastructure investment increased by 0.1 % of GDP while infrastructure investment activities by Special Purpose Vehicles declined by 0.1 % of GDP. The decline in government infrastructure investment (as a share of GDP) corresponds to a fall of 37 %; which is more than the fall in public investment reported earlier, suggesting that the latter affected infrastructure investment activities disproportionately.

Fig. 6 Infrastructure investment by sector and promoter

Fig. 6 Infrastructure investment by sector and promoter

Note: based on EIB Infrastructure Database. Data are missing for Belgium, Croatia, Lithuania,
Poland, Romania and the UK. PPP: public-private partnership.

Source of data: Eurostat, Projectware, EPEC. Figure created by the authors.

16Government infrastructure investment includes fewer sectors and asset types than overall public investment. While public investment spans all sectors of economic activities including, for example, defence, security and recreational activities, infrastructure investment is limited to a narrower set of activities. Notably, for this paper it includes transport, energy, water, ICT, health and education. In addition, whereas public investment does not differentiate between investments in different asset classes, infrastructure investment activities are limited to gross fixed capital formation in ‘other buildings and structures’; therefore excluding investments in machinery, equipment, vehicles and intellectual property. To the extent that infrastructure investment activities are often much more bulky than non-infrastructure public investment, they lend themselves more easily to delays and/or cuts (EIB 2017).

17The decline in government infrastructure investment has affected primarily the transport sector and educational sector. Government infrastructure investment accounts for the biggest share of total infrastructure investment in the transport and education sector (with 80 % and 90 % of total infrastructure investment, respectively). The share of government investment is lower in other sectors (55 % in health; 30 % in the utilities sector; and 10 % in ICT). If we compare the evolution of infrastructure investment across the various economic sectors, it is, therefore, not surprising to find that — on the back of the strong contraction of government investment in these sectors — it is in particular transport and education that saw the strongest declines in overall investment activities.

18Sub-national governments reduced their infrastructure investment activities disproportionately. Subnational investment accounts for more than half of overall government infrastructure investment (Figure 7). If we compare the fall in overall government infrastructure investment and the change in sub-national infrastructure investment, we find that changes in overall government infrastructure investment often came with disproportionate changes at the subnational level in the same direction. This is true in particular in regions with little fiscal autonomy (EIB 2017).

19The fall in government infrastructure investment does not reflect a saturation effect. The fall in infrastructure investment activities was particularly pronounced in regions which had a poor infrastructure quality to start with (EIB 2018). However, were the drop infrastructure investment driven by diminishing returns to the construction of new infrastructure, the opposite would be the case. In addition, the EIB Municipalities Survey shows that about one in three municipalities report that infrastructure investment activities in the last five years were below needs (Figure 8). Finally, and again in contrast with the view of a saturation-driven decline in infrastructure investment activities, there is evidence that the construction of new infrastructure continues to produce large positive economic spillover effects (EIB 2018).

Fig. 7 Change in subnational investment share by overall government investment trend

Fig. 7 Change in subnational investment share by overall government investment trend

Note: blue bars in Panel b refer to countries in which regions have relatively high fiscal autonomy, red bars to countries in which fiscal autonomy is relatively low. The change in subnational investment share by fiscal autonomy is based on a relatively small number of observations and should therefore be taken as indicative.

Source of data: Eurostat, Projectware, EPEC (for infrastructure investment) and Eurostat for subnational government investment in infrastructure sectors. Fiscal autonomy data comes from Hooghe et al. (2018). Figure created by the authors.

20Weak infrastructure investment has led to substantial investment gaps. A bottom-up estimation suggests an annual “investment gap” of roughly €155 bn for the EU27 (i.e. all Member States except the United Kingdom) until 2030. This corresponds to 1.2 % of the current EU27 GDP and 5.8 % of Gross Fixed Capital Formation (Table 1). The investment gap is defined as the difference between investment needs and current investment levels. The infrastructure investment gap of €155 bn per year is only one part of the estimated overall investment gap of €403 bn, as investment needs in innovation and energy efficiency are also substantial. If dynamics in infrastructure investment do not reverse, this gap is likely to increase.

Fig. 8 Underprovision of infrastructure by Country and Sector

Fig. 8 Underprovision of infrastructure by Country and Sector

Note: the Figure plots the net balance of municipalities that report underinvestment by country/ region and sector. A green circle signifies a share of mentions below the median; a red circle above the median. The number inside each circle states the net balance of municipalities that report underinvestment vis-à-vis over-investment for a particular area in a country/country grouping.
Question: for each of the following, would you say that, overall, past investment in your municipality has ensured the right amount of infrastructure, or led to an underprovision or overprovision of infrastructure capacity?

Source of data: EIB Municipality Survey. Figure created by the authors.

Table 1 Annual infrastructure investment gaps for EU 27

Table 1 Annual infrastructure investment gaps for EU 27

Note: GDP and Gross Fixed Capital Formation (GFCF) refer to 2017. All numbers refer to EU27, i.e. all Member States except the UK. Estimates of infrastructure investment gaps are based on EU policy targets and EIB expert judgements. Notably, EU policy targets for broadband (European Gigabit Society targets), energy (EU 2030 climate and energy targets) and water and sanitation (compliance with EU Directives) are considered. For mobility and social infrastructure, investment needs reflect past investment backlogs combined with higher future needs to accommodate demographic trends, migration and other megatrends.

Source of data: estimates by the EIB Projects Department.

Fig. 9 Infrastructure financing and infrastructure quality

Fig. 9 Infrastructure financing and infrastructure quality

Note: bottom (top) tercile refers to the third of municipalities reporting the lowest (highest) average infrastructure quality relative to country mean.
Questions: can you tell me approximately what proportion of your infrastructure investment activities were financed by each of the following? Thinking about all of the external finance you used for your infrastructure investment activities, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with: the number of available external funding sources; amount of external funding available; interest rates offered; maturities available (i.e. the length of time over which the external finance has to be repaid); administration/documentation requirements associated with the external finance?

Source of data: EIB Municipalities Survey 2017. Figure created by the authors.

1.3. How to Support More Infrastructure Investment

21Tight funding conditions are a key bottleneck to more infrastructure investment. This is true in particular for regions with low infrastructure quality. Cities with a low infrastructure quality (relative to the country average) perceive external finance, the budget balance and debt limits more often as major obstacles than municipalities with high infrastructure quality, according to the EIB Municipalities Survey 2017 (Figure 9). The Survey also shows that municipalities with low infrastructure quality fund their infrastructure more often through transfers and external financing. This may reflect that those municipalities more often face fiscal constraints.

22Besides overcoming funding constraints, careful project selection and implementation are key to ensure that the funding goes to where it is needed the most. Cities that report infrastructure gaps seem to suffer more often from technical deficiencies in selecting and implementing complex infrastructure projects. 43 % of municipalities that report their infrastructure quality to be lower than their within-country peers also report the technical capacity to implement infrastructure projects as being major obstacle, compared to 30 % for within-country peers with high quality infrastructure. Moreover, municipalities with low infrastructure quality conduct independent assessments along different dimensions less often before going ahead with an infrastructure project. They also consider this kind of information to be important or highly important less often when taking decisions on individual projects (Figure 10). This is problematic as it suggests that, even if the necessary funding were available, municipalities may have difficulties in using it effectively to address gaps due to limited infrastructure governance.

23The need to increase infrastructure spending and building up technical capacity must be assessed in the context of other challenges (EIB 2018). Notably, geographical and socioeconomic obstacles can create spending pressures and hamper governments’ ability to invest more and better. The EIB Municipalities Survey suggests that low infrastructure quality is often associated with geographical challenges constraining the ability to upgrade infrastructure. For example, municipalities with low infrastructure quality tend to be more often characterised by a small population, a lower population density and are situated in border areas. Moreover, municipalities that assess the quality of their infrastructure to be low also face a number of socioeconomic challenges more often. They suffer more often from weaker safety conditions, lower income per capita, a lower share of fast-growing firms and employment ratios.

1.4. Policy Implications

24Public investment and government infrastructure investment activities have been exceptionally weak in recent years. Despite increased fiscal space in most parts of Europe, thus far we see, at best, a modest reversal in the negative trend in public investment.

Fig. 10 Independent assessment of projects and infrastructure quality

Fig. 10 Independent assessment of projects and infrastructure quality

Note: bottom/top third refers to the third of municipalities reporting the lowest (highest) average infrastructure quality relative to the country mean. Panel a. reports the share of municipalities that respond “always” or “frequently” to the question “Before going ahead with an infrastructure project, do you carry out an independent assessment of…?”. Panel b. reports the share of municipalities that respond “critical” or “important” to the question “And how important would you say are the results of the independent assessment/s when deciding whether or not to go ahead with a project?”

Source of data: EIB Municipalities Survey 2017. Figure created by the authors.

25The sluggish investment performance cannot be explained by saturation effects, but rather reflects underinvestment. Notably, spillovers to new infrastructure investment for the business sector continue to remain high. Moreover, one in three municipalities state that recent investment volumes have been below their needs. In some parts of Europe (particularly in weaker regions), this share is even higher.

26Sound project selection, preparation and implementation are key to addressing infrastructure gaps, in disadvantaged and leading regions. Evidence suggests that a key obstacle to more investment is access to funding. However, infrastructure investment is also often hampered by limited implementation and planning capacity (Oprisor et al. 2015). To ensure the efficient use of available funds, sound infrastructure governance is key. A comprehensive analysis of all economic and social costs and benefits should thus accompany any spending increase (Kline and Moretti 2014). Application procedures for EU funds can be used to promote the comprehensive use of cost-benefit analysis.

27The EU’s upcoming Multiannual Financial Framework provides an opportunity to address the identified infrastructure gaps through a coherent policy mix. The first proposal of the European Commission (EC) includes important steps in this direction (European Commission 2018). Notably a countercyclical investment support scheme is envisaged, to avoid a lasting decline in infrastructure investment after economic downturns. Moreover, the EC proposal aims to strengthen the link between EU funding and respect for the rule of law. It also includes proposals to expand the Reform Support Programme, which offers technical and financial support for reforms. Such initiatives can ensure that infrastructure planning, governance and funding go hand in hand. The EIB has traditionally worked towards delivering such coherent policy solutions. Notably, the EIB combines the financing of projects with high socioeconomic returns, including those with high risks, with technical assistance solutions.

Bibliographie

References

Calderon, C. and Serven L. (2014) Infrastructure, Growth and Inequality: An Overview. Washington, DC: World Bank, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/322761468183548075/pdf/WPS7034.pdf

EIB (2017) EIB Investment Report 2017/2018: From Recovery to sustainable growth. Luxembourg: European Investment Bank, https://www.eib.org/attachments/efs/economic_investment_report_2017_en.pdf

EIB (2018) EIB Investment Report 2018/2019: Retooling Europe’s Economy. Luxembourg: European Investment Bank, https://www.eib.org/attachments/efs/economic_investment_report_2018_en.pdf

EPEC/Eurostat (2016) “A Guide to the Statistical Treatment of PPPs”. Report. Eurostat and the European PPP Expertise Centre, https://www.eib.org/attachments/thematic/epec_eurostat_statistical_guide_en.pdf

European Commission (2017a) “Government Investment in the EU: The Role of Institutional Factors”. Report on Public Finances in EMU, Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), European Commission, https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/economy-finance/ip069_iv_government_investment_in_the_eu.pdf

European Commission (2017b) My Region, my Europe, our Future: Seventh Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion. Brussels: European Commission.

European Commission (2018) A Modern Budget for a Union that Protects, Empowers and Defends the Multiannual Financial Framework for 2021–2027. Communication from the Commission, COM (2018), 2 May 2018. Brussels: European Commission, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2018%3A321%3AFIN

Kline, P. and E. Moretti (2014) “People, Places, and Public Policy: Some Simple Welfare Economics of Local Economic Development Programs”, Annual Review of Economics 6 (1): 629–62.

Oprisor, A., G. Hammerschmid, and L. Löffler (2015) The Hertie School — OECD Global Expert Survey on Public Infrastructure. Berlin: Hertie School of Governance.

Revoltella, D. and P.-B. Brutscher (2018) “Infrastructure Investment in Europe: New Data, Market Dynamics, Policy Actions, and the Role of the European Investment Bank”, in Finance and Investment: The European Case, ed. by C. Meyer, S. Micossi, M. Onado, M. Pagano and A. Polo (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 299–316.

Revoltella, D., P.-B. Brutscher, A. Tsiotras and C. T. Weiss (2015) “Linking Local Business with Global Growth Opportunities: The Role of Infrastructure”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 32 (3): 410–30, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grw019

World Economic Forum (2017a) World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Indicators. Geneva: World Economic Forum.

World Economic Forum (2017b) “Migration and its Impact on Cities”. Report in collaboration with PwC, October, http://www3.weforum.org/docs/Migration_Impact_Cities_report_2017_HR.pdf

Notes

4 Cyprus registered the strongest increase in public investment in Europe. However, the strong increase was largely due to one-off accounting measures.

5 We define proxy infrastructure investment as gross fixed capital formation in other buildings and structures in the infrastructure sectors (Revoltella et al. 2015).

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1 Public Investment by country group (1995–2020)
Légende Note: this chart reports Gross Fixed Capital Formation of the General Government as % of GDP.Forecast for 2019 and 2020. Data are missing for Croatia in 1995–2000.
URL http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/13607/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 29k
Titre Fig. 2 Public Investment in 2018 by Member States (1995–2018)
Légende Note: this chart reports Gross Fixed Capital Formation of the General Government as % of GDP. Vertical black lines report the range of values observed in 1995–2018. Thresholds for ‘in line’ with long-term average: +/- 0.25 % from average. Data are missing for Croatia in 1995–2000.
URL http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/13607/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 32k
Titre Fig. 3 Change in public expenditure composition (2018 versus 1995–2017 average)
Légende Note: this chart reports the changes in public expenditure composition from a long-term average(1995–2017) to 2018 by expenditure category. The sum of the components equals zero. Capitalexpenditure includes Gross Fixed Capital Formation, capital transfers paid and other capitalexpenditures.
URL http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/13607/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 21k
Titre Fig. 4 Fiscal stance in the European Union
Légende Note: output gap as difference between actual and potential gross domestic product. 2019 and 2020:forecast.
URL http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/13607/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 32k
Titre Fig. 5 Fiscal stance and capital expenditure in the European Union
Légende Note: forecast for 2019 and 2020.
URL http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/13607/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 28k
Titre Fig. 6 Infrastructure investment by sector and promoter
Légende Note: based on EIB Infrastructure Database. Data are missing for Belgium, Croatia, Lithuania,Poland, Romania and the UK. PPP: public-private partnership.
URL http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/13607/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 57k
Titre Fig. 7 Change in subnational investment share by overall government investment trend
Légende Note: blue bars in Panel b refer to countries in which regions have relatively high fiscal autonomy, red bars to countries in which fiscal autonomy is relatively low. The change in subnational investment share by fiscal autonomy is based on a relatively small number of observations and should therefore be taken as indicative.
URL http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/13607/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 32k
Titre Fig. 8 Underprovision of infrastructure by Country and Sector
Légende Note: the Figure plots the net balance of municipalities that report underinvestment by country/ region and sector. A green circle signifies a share of mentions below the median; a red circle above the median. The number inside each circle states the net balance of municipalities that report underinvestment vis-à-vis over-investment for a particular area in a country/country grouping.Question: for each of the following, would you say that, overall, past investment in your municipality has ensured the right amount of infrastructure, or led to an underprovision or overprovision of infrastructure capacity?
URL http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/13607/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 42k
Titre Table 1 Annual infrastructure investment gaps for EU 27
Légende Note: GDP and Gross Fixed Capital Formation (GFCF) refer to 2017. All numbers refer to EU27, i.e. all Member States except the UK. Estimates of infrastructure investment gaps are based on EU policy targets and EIB expert judgements. Notably, EU policy targets for broadband (European Gigabit Society targets), energy (EU 2030 climate and energy targets) and water and sanitation (compliance with EU Directives) are considered. For mobility and social infrastructure, investment needs reflect past investment backlogs combined with higher future needs to accommodate demographic trends, migration and other megatrends.
URL http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/13607/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 16k
Titre Fig. 9 Infrastructure financing and infrastructure quality
Légende Note: bottom (top) tercile refers to the third of municipalities reporting the lowest (highest) average infrastructure quality relative to country mean.Questions: can you tell me approximately what proportion of your infrastructure investment activities were financed by each of the following? Thinking about all of the external finance you used for your infrastructure investment activities, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with: the number of available external funding sources; amount of external funding available; interest rates offered; maturities available (i.e. the length of time over which the external finance has to be repaid); administration/documentation requirements associated with the external finance?
URL http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/13607/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 21k
Titre Fig. 10 Independent assessment of projects and infrastructure quality
Légende Note: bottom/top third refers to the third of municipalities reporting the lowest (highest) average infrastructure quality relative to the country mean. Panel a. reports the share of municipalities that respond “always” or “frequently” to the question “Before going ahead with an infrastructure project, do you carry out an independent assessment of…?”. Panel b. reports the share of municipalities that respond “critical” or “important” to the question “And how important would you say are the results of the independent assessment/s when deciding whether or not to go ahead with a project?”
URL http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/13607/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 36k

Auteurs

Policy Advisor, European Investment Bank’s Permanent Representative Office — Brussels.

Economics Department — European Investment Bank.

Director of the Economics Department — European Investment Bank.

Acheter

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search