Search results

Cost and schedule overruns are rife in dam projects. Normative evidence espouses overruns as though they are inimical to development and prosperity aspirations of stakeholders. This study examines the causal relationship between project financing and overruns.

Causative data were extracted from completion reports of 28 major dam projects in Africa. Each of the projects was financed jointly by up to 10 international development lenders. Relationships between causes of overruns and project outcomes were analysed.

Analyses elicit indicators of remarkable correlations between finance procedures and project outcomes. Lenders’ disposition to risk attenuation was the main debacles to project success. Interests had mounted, whilst release of fund was erratic and ill-timed. Finance objectives and mechanisms were grossly inadequate for projects’ intense bifurcations. Projects had slowed or stalled because lenders’ risks attenuation processes were purposed to favour lenders’ objectives, and not projects’ interests. In addition, findings also show project owners’ own funds and the number of lenders to a single project correlate with overruns.

Findings imply commercial complexities around major projects. They also show transactions are shaped by subtle (mis)trust behaviours in project finance procedures. Thus, scholarly solutions to project performance issues should consider behavioural issues of stakeholding parties more broadly, beyond contractors and project owners. Project finance ecosystems are vulnerable to major actors’ self-interests, opportunism and predatory conducts. Borrowers would manage this by developing and improving their capacity to build resilience and trust. Evidence shows intense borrower nations in Africa have limited capacity and acuity for these.

This study contextualises megaprojects in complexity rather than cost. Its additionality is in how finance steers absolute control of project environment away from project owners and how finance administration triggers risks and overrun.

This chapter insists that local cocreation projects need not only good intentions and the hard work of volunteers but also require funding and financing of the design and implementation of new solutions. It draws a conceptual distinction between funding and financing and explains who may help to provide funding and financing and why they may do so. As a part of this discussion, attention is drawn to the importance of writing good and persuasive funding applications and drawing up a strong and convincing business case to secure financing of new solutions. The new and emerging strategy for mobilizing private capital to help finance SDG projects is explained and illustrated, before closing the chapter with a discussion of the need to develop a proper system for fiscal accounting and auditing, which can prevent mismanagement and misconduct that eventually undermine popular support for local SDG projects.

The Equator Principles are a transnational corporate social responsibility initiative in the project finance sector. In 2013, the Equator Principles Association celebrated the tenth anniversary of its principles and at the same time the formal launch of the latest generation of the Equator Principles (EP III). The paper describes the historic development of the Equator Principles – from the initial drafting process in the early 2000s up to the latest review process which led to the third generation of the Equator Principles. The paper also analyzes the current state of affairs of the Equator Principles (Association) and gives a brief outlook on potential lines of (future) development. In particular, the paper deals with the following questions: What are the main characteristics of the Equator Principles framework? What are the relevant actors involved in the drafting and reviewing process? Why are the EPs and other organizational and associational codes of conduct in the finance sector so important? What has been achieved so far by the Equator Principles (Association) and the participating (financial) institutions and what remains to be done?

The purpose of this paper is to compare the stringency of different types of public financing institutions' safeguard mechanisms in the financing of large dams in developing countries. It seeks to do so by examining: the institutional strategies and policies currently in place in a set of key public financing institutions; and project‐level case studies of dams financed by these institutions and the stringency with which existing policies are applied by the key financing institutions. It aims then to cite the key factors determining why the “safeguard‐performance” between these types of financing institutions differs and what the implications are for leaders working to effect improvements in these areas.

The study compares the safeguard mechanisms of two types of financing institutions by applying a set of benchmark criteria to both existing strategy and policy documents and to the actual application of those policies at the project level, through correspondence, interviews, and site visits.

The study argues that leaders may make a difference on improving the sustainability performance gap in the financing of large dams – with more difficulty in those cases where the current gap is mainly to be explained by “systemic” factors; and arguably with more ease in cases where the current gap is caused mostly by other factors.

The study leads to the above findings for the case of public financing institutions and large infrastructure projects (with a focus on dams). To make for greater generalisability of the findings, future research should complement this work by focusing on private financing institutions and on the financing of other types of projects.

Large infrastructure projects have massive social and environmental impacts, and public financial institutions have a large stake in determining the sustainability (or otherwise) of these projects. The paper seeks to help make large infrastructure investments more sustainable by providing guidance to leaders as to where and how sustainability aspects could best be integrated in financing decisions for these projects.

The value added lies in helping leaders define where sustainability efforts in large infrastructure finance are warranted – and where, conversely, they represent largely wasted efforts.

An appropriate space allocation among different residence types gives higher profitability and liquidity for cash flow management in real estate projects for developers. Thereby, a balance between debt and equity should be kept for capital formation in developers where high level of cost, profit and risk exists. The purpose of this paper is to provide cash flow optimization under debt and equity financing while providing an appropriate space allocation of residence types via synchronous consideration of profitability and liquidity.

A novel optimization methodology that includes project financing, optimization and experimental design modules is proposed. The first module, project financing, considers the flexibility of utilizing one or both of debt financing and equity financing when making capital. The optimization module addresses space allocation among different residence types for a construction while maximizing profitability and liquidity using two mixed-integer linear programming models in a pre-emptive manner. The experimental design module assesses the effects of decisive parameters within the methodology via multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA).

The proposed methodology is applied to a real-life residential project in Istanbul. The optimization module yielded 42.5% profitability via the first linear programming model and 2.2% trade-off between liquidity and profitability while minimizing the payback period by the second linear programming model. Meanwhile, MANOVA results showed that profit per square meter and sale rate trends are the most prominent factors considering their significant effects on net present value and payback period.

To the best knowledge of the author, related papers focused only on profitability under equity financing. Liquidity (as an objective) and equity financing (as a financing method) have not been handled. Hence, this paper not only performs profitability and liquidity-oriented cash flow optimization under debt and equity financing but also optimizes space allocation of residences for the first time.