Search results

This study investigates the relation between ESG-driven investment strategies and the performance of infrastructure funds. More specifically, this study examines the impact of the different dimensions – environmental (E), social (S) and governance (G) – of the ESG profile of infrastructure funds on their performance.

To study the risk-return properties of infrastructure funds and the relationship with their ESG profiles, an econometric analysis is conducted, based on a sample of 180 listed, ESG-oriented infrastructure funds identified through Refinitiv Eikon.

The results show that infrastructure funds with more solid environmental investment policies experience a lower performance, while those with a stronger social orientation yield a superior performance. Governance-related investment policies seem trivial in determining the performance of these funds. Further analysis shows that ESG controversies have a negative impact on infrastructure funds' performance, whereas Emissions and Resource Use scores, both proxying for different elements under the environmental pillar, have opposite signs. Finally, the Community score has a positive impact on funds' performance consistent with the positive impact of the social pillar score. The study also provides a number of sub-sample analyses to shed light on the conditions under which each pillar has significant impact on funds’ performance.

First, infrastructure funds should choose the composition of their portfolio holdings in a way that the total return is not penalized by the prevalence of the tricky E aspects (compliance with environmental regulations) over the main benefits of the S dimension. Second, fund managers need to bet on infrastructures with an expected impact on the social pillar dimension such as those aimed at promoting the wealth of the local communities (e.g. hospitals, schools). Third, to strengthen the fund's social dimension, fund managers must increase the dollar amount of the assets under management to count on a higher firepower.

This study makes three contributions to literature. First, the ESG profiles of the infrastructure funds operating both at local and global level and their relationship with annual performance are studied. Second, the different dimensions of the ESG profile of infrastructure funds are investigated by measuring their impact on performance. Third, the study sheds light on some detailed but relevant aspects of this phenomenon by analyzing the breakdown of the ESG profile of infrastructure funds into four sustainability sub-scores capturing their efforts to reduce CO2 emissions, the use of polluting materials and to influence local communities as well their exposure to the risk of litigation due to the occurrence of ESG controversies. This study addresses the extent to which the adoption of ESG investment policies by the infrastructure funds have an impact on their performances.

This paper aims to identify gaps and critical issues in policy framework for infrastructure debt fund (IDF) to become financially viable in the Indian context. Growth of any economy is dependent on successful implementation of infrastructure projects. However, infrastructure development is linked to availability of equity and debt funds to finance these projects. IDF is an instrument which aims at enabling financing of infrastructure.

The exploratory research adopted is qualitative and based on secondary data related to infrastructure needs, challenges, factors influencing infrastructure financing and options available for infrastructure financing in the Indian context. It investigates the relationship between external factors, internal factors and viability of IDF and provides recommendations to policy makers to roll-out an enabling policy and regulatory environment.

Findings show that issues such as entry barriers for banks, insufficient tax incentives, restrictions on type of projects to be considered for funding and meeting the expectation of low-cost funds need to be addressed so that IDFs can contribute toward funding requirement of the infrastructure sector.

IDFs have been recently introduced in India and the use of primary and secondary data has been limited. Comparison of IDF guidelines in India with guidelines for similar instruments in developed countries has been left for a later stage.

Value of this study is that it identifies the issues in current guidelines of IDF through the understanding of the policy and regulatory framework that governs IDF. The study also makes recommendations to the government and regulators which would enable IDF to become a viable instrument.

Developing countries are increasingly looking to private sector investment for infrastructure development. Successful development of private infrastructure projects, however, depends on adequate availability of long-term debt to complement private sector equity. As domestic bond markets in many emerging countries are not very deep, availability of long-term debt funding for infrastructure has been limited. Recently, a new form of financial intermediation has emerged in India with the creation of infrastructure debt funds (IDFs) to create capital pools for long-term debt funding. This paper aims to analyse the effectiveness of IDFs for financing infrastructure projects.

This paper uses a case study approach. The case studies were written using both secondary and primary information. Secondary information was obtained from various sources such as policy papers, websites and other published sources. Primary information was obtained from interviews with the top management of three IDFs. Information obtained from multiple sources was triangulated for consistency and correctness.

IDFs have emerged as an effective intermediation mechanism for attracting long-term capital by offering a new investment product with appropriate risk-adjusted returns. For the fund seekers, IDFs are able to provide long-term capital at lower rates and higher flexibility. Unlike commercial banks, IDFs are able to add value to the projects apart from funding by periodic monitoring of the projects.

Creating new forms of financial intermediation can help in reducing the financing gap for infrastructure projects, especially in emerging countries.

IDFs have been analysed from a perspective of financial intermediation. The effectiveness of IDFs in bridging the funding shortfall has been evaluated from multiple perspectives.

This study explores the challenges of access to finance from local financial institutions (LFIs), i.e. local banks, for public–private partnership (PPP) infrastructure project delivery in Nigeria. The aim is to provide useful insights that could inform policy solutions to ease the local funding of PPP infrastructure projects in Nigeria and, by extension, other developing economies.

Adopting a qualitative research methodology, the study engaged PPP stakeholders involved in securing funds for PPP infrastructure projects in Nigeria. A total of 15 PPP stakeholders, drawn from the public and private sectors, were purposively selected and their views on the research problem obtained through recorded telephone interviews. The opinions of the research participants were subsequently analyzed and the results discussed with the outcome of the examination of relevant literature.

The study found that the significant factors affecting access to local finance for PPP infrastructure projects in Nigeria include low capital base by LFIs, weak project viability, lack of capacity to manage PPP-related activities, inconsistent government policy, poor legal framework and public perception of PPP.

Insights from this study are useful for PPP stakeholders in mitigating the barriers that influence access to local finance for PPP infrastructure projects in Nigeria and other developing economies. This study is also useful in enhancing the current policy structure in developing countries as a way of revamping the existing infrastructure framework through LFIs.

This study provides clarity on the peculiar challenges impeding access to finance from LFIs for PPP infrastructure projects in Nigeria and will be useful for debt providers and policymakers in evaluating the bankability of PPP infrastructure projects in Nigeria and other developing countries.

Infrastructure financialization plays a critical role in infrastructure development and urban growth around the world. However, on the one hand, the existing research on the infrastructure financialization focuses on qualitative and lacks quantitative country-specific studies. On the other hand, the spatial heterogeneity and influencing factors of infrastructure financialization are ignored. This study takes China as a typical case to identify and analyze the spatial characteristics, development process and impact factors of infrastructure financialization.

To assess the development and characteristics of infrastructure financialization in China, this study constructs an evaluation index of infrastructure financialization based on the infrastructure financialization ratio (IFR). This study then analyzes the evolution process and spatial pattern of China's infrastructure financialization through the spatial analysis method. Furthermore, this study identifies and quantitatively analyzes the influencing factors of infrastructure financialization based on the spatial Dubin model. Finally, this study offers a policy suggestion as a governance response.

The results demonstrate that infrastructure financialization effectively promotes the development of infrastructure in China. Second, there are significant spatial differences in China’s infrastructure financialization. Third, many factors affect infrastructure financialization, with government participation having the greatest impact. In addition, over-financialization of infrastructure has the potential to lead to government debt risks, which is a critical challenge the Chinese Government must address. Finally, this study suggests that infrastructure financialization requires more detailed, tailored,and place-specific policy interventions by the government.

This study not only contributes to enriching the knowledge body of global financialization theory but also helps optimize infrastructure investment and financing policies in China and provides peer reference for other developing countries.

I analyze cash flow and transparency characteristics of listed infrastructure investment companies and funds and compare this unique infrastructure sample with a non-infrastructure reference group. I confirm the common hypothesis that infrastructure investments provide more stable cash flows than non-infrastructure investments. However, I do not find that investors positively value this cash flow stability. Instead, more volatile cash flows are valued with a premium. On the other hand, earnings management is valued with a discount. Together with a punishment for complex financial and governance structures this indicates a punishment for a lack of transparency by investors. My chapter also offers evidence that infrastructure investments in general are valued with a positive “infrastructure premium” that is not driven by more stable cash flows. I find additional evidence that sector specifics and regulatory risk play a significant role for the valuation of infrastructure investment companies and funds.

The purpose of this paper is to understand how the nature of infrastructure as a public good has traditionally lent itself to state provision and to review how land-based financing (LBF) can be used to overcome the public infrastructure funding constraints in South Africa.

The paper is largely based on a review and analysis of the academic literature, government reports and reports from research institutions such as the World Bank, Department for International Development, Urban Land Institute and the Lincoln Institute.

The paper finds that although a number of LBF instruments are being used in South Africa, the majority of them are not suited to addressing the current infrastructure funding constraint. However, the paper finds that some LBF mechanisms, such as tax-increment financing (TIF), that are currently not used could play a role provided that certain preconditions are met.

LBF has only partially been implemented in South Africa, thus the paper is limited to exploring the issues, challenges and necessary policy and regulatory changes needed to support LBF.

The review of LBF mechanisms currently being used in South Africa highlights many of their practical limitations. Furthermore, concrete proposals and legislative amendments are proposed in the paper regarding the implementation of additional funding instruments such as TIF.

Infrastructure is regarded as a key precondition for socio-economic development. LBF offers a viable and important alternative for fiscally constraint governments in emerging economies to fund infrastructure provision.

The main contribution of the paper is its focus on the use of LBF in the under-researched Sub-Saharan African context.

Renewable energy infrastructure is an important asset class in the context of reducing global carbon emissions going forward. This includes solar power, wind farms, hydro, battery storage and hydrogen. This paper examines the risk-adjusted performance and diversification benefits of listed renewable energy infrastructure globally over Q1:2009–Q4:2022 to examine the role of renewable energy infrastructure in a global infrastructure portfolio and in a global mixed-asset portfolio. The performance of renewable energy infrastructure is compared with the other major infrastructure sectors and other major asset classes. The strategic investment implications for institutional investors and renewable energy infrastructure in their portfolios going forward are also highlighted. This includes identifying effective pathways for renewable energy infrastructure exposure by institutional investors.

Using quarterly total returns, the risk-adjusted performance and portfolio diversification benefits of global listed renewable energy infrastructure over Q1:2009–Q4:2022 is assessed. Asset allocation diagrams are used to assess the role of renewable energy infrastructure in a global infrastructure portfolio and in a global mixed-asset portfolio.

Listed renewable energy infrastructure was seen to underperform the other infrastructure sectors and other major asset classes over 2009–2022. While delivering portfolio diversification benefits, no renewable energy infrastructure was seen in the optimal infrastructure portfolio or mixed-asset portfolio. More impressive performance characteristics were seen by nonlisted infrastructure funds over this period. Practical reasons for these results are provided as well as effective pathways going forward are identified for the fuller inclusion of renewable energy infrastructure in institutional investor portfolios.

Institutional investors have an important role in supporting reduced global carbon emissions via their investment mandates and asset allocations. Renewable energy infrastructure will be a key asset to assist in the delivery of this important agenda for a greener economy and addressing global warming. Based on this performance analysis, effective pathways are identified for institutional investors of different size assets under management (AUM) to access renewable energy infrastructure. This will see institutional investors embracing critical investment issues as well as environmental and social issues in their investment strategies going forward.

This paper is the first published empirical research analysis on the performance of renewable energy infrastructure at a global level. This research enables empirically validated, more informed and practical decision-making by institutional investors in the renewable energy infrastructure space. The ultimate aim of this paper is to articulate the potential strategic role of renewable energy infrastructure as an important infrastructure sector in the institutional real asset investment space and to identify effective pathways to achieve this renewable energy infrastructure exposure, as institutional investors focus on the strategic issues in reducing global carbon emissions in the context of increased global warming.

Accelerating the influences of external stakeholders in any construction project is inevitable. Studies on external stakeholder influence on construction projects and literature on external stakeholder management in irrigation infrastructure projects executed with donor funds are scarce. Thus, this study aimed to investigate how to manage the external stakeholders' influence on donor-funded irrigation infrastructure projects effectively.

A mixed approach consisting of 17 semi-structured interviews and two rounds of questionnaire surveys was adopted to rank the following: the types of external stakeholders who can significantly influence irrigation infrastructure projects, significant influencing strategies used by those stakeholders, and significant strategies that can be adopted to manage external stakeholder influence on the projects.

In total, 12 of external stakeholders who can significantly influence irrigation infrastructure projects were identified; 17 significant influencing strategies used by external project stakeholders and 22 significant strategies used to manage external stakeholder influence on the projects were identified. The influencing/management strategies specific to each external stakeholder type and those that are common to all external stakeholder types were identified separately. The grievance redress mechanism should be activated for managing external stakeholder influence on donor-funded irrigation infrastructure projects.

This study contributes to theory by identifying significant strategies that can be used to manage external stakeholder influence on donor-funded irrigation infrastructure projects during the planning and design stages. The study will help project teams to handle external stakeholder influence on the projects successfully, accomplish project objectives, and make maximum utilization of the donor funds received.