top of page
Action for Economic Reforms

PRIVATE PARTICIPATION IN INFRASTRUCTURE PROVISION?

Mr. Llanto is Vice-President of state-run Philippine Institute for Development Studies, and a Research Fellow of the Rural Development Research Consortium at the University of California in Berkeley.


The specter of crippling fiscal deficits and the inability to produce

revenues for infrastructure provision prodded the government to turn to

private participation as the efficacious solution to the acute

infrastructure lack that has turned off investors, constrained economic

growth and contributed to the lack of competitiveness of the economy.


With the passage of the Build-Operate-Transfer law in 1990 and a

subsequent amendment in 1994, the Philippines became the first country

in the ASEAN region to use private participation as a critical strategy

for infrastructure provision.


The approach was credited for solving the power crisis of the nineties

albeit with generous government assistance through comprehensive

guarantees given to the independent power producers (IPPs).

Private sector participation (PSP) was also employed in other sectors

such as transport, water distribution, etc. with some positive results

in terms of greater access to those utilities by more households.


However, today it looks like the private sector has beaten a hasty

retreat from infrastructure provision and the government facing a

staggering fiscal deficit estimated at 4.59% of GDP in 2003 is once

more in a quandary on how to address the severe inadequacy of

infrastructure.


More than 30% of the 2004 national budget is slated for debt service

(interest payments) while the rest of the budget mainly pays for

salaries and wages of bureaucrats, leaving very little elbow room for

maintenance and capital expenditures. On the other hand, the public

outcry against the controversial power purchase agreements (PPAs) with

IPPs spawned a lingering doubt over the supposed benefits of private

participation in infrastructure.


The power purchase agreements with the IPPs are being blamed for the

prohibitive cost of electric power to many households and firms. Thus,

various interest groups scandalized by the burden especially to poor

households and emboldened by frequent government intervention in the

rate-setting process, have railed against increases in tariffs in

water, electric power and transport.


Indeed, the incoming administration (post-election) faces a

debilitating fiscal deficit that hinders public provision of

infrastructure. Official development assistance is available but cannot

be effectively utilized because of budgetary constraints and

inefficient project implementation while private sector interest seems

to have waned.


There is a crisis of confidence in privatization and in public-private

partnership in infrastructure provision. For example, what was once

proudly described as the largest privatization of water distribution

through a concession agreement with local and foreign investors has

been labeled a failure by some civil society groups because of

perceptions that it has harmed the poor.


Unfortunately, the government failed to provide a cogent explanation

that consumers, especially the poor were paying much, much more for

informally purchased water than after the privatization. Sometimes, the

problem with sustaining policy reforms is that those who benefit do not

march to the streets in support of those reforms that have improved

their welfare while it seems that the ‘losers’ in the policy reform

process are easier to galvanize into a formidable opposition force.


It seems that the government has forgotten a basic thing on the road to

privatization. The benefits of privatization in terms of proceeds from

the sale of public assets or from licensing the private sector to

operate the utility have been mainly used by the government to support

its weak fiscal position. Thus, at one time, the government could even

crow about having a fiscal surplus.


On the other hand, there is a legitimate and moral case for using those

proceeds to make life a little better for the poor, for example, by

subsidizing water connections of the poor, financing rural

electrification extensions to uneconomic areas in more innovative ways.

Where there are direct and tangible demonstrations of such benefits,

there will be a groundswell of public support to government efforts and

programs.


Among other things, to restore confidence in the economy, the

government should first learn how to prioritize infrastructure

projects, improve the review of project and sector economics as well as

have more efficient policy coordination and implementation. It should

think about a better way of “compensating” those adversely affected by

the reforms, including privatization of infrastructure provision. It

should dispel doubts about the effectiveness and stability of contracts

and install credible regulatory frameworks. Unfortunately, in the rush

to privatize, the government forgot to deal with the need to have an

independent regulatory capacity, leaving regulatory institutions open

to opportunistic political intervention.


On top of the list, is the need to look for innovative public-private

provision models. It is critical to revisit the Build-Operate-Transfer

law, review its implementation and introduce a clearer framework for

market-based competition and unsolicited bids in infrastructure

projects.


It is equally important to develop the government’s capacity to assess

and manage risks in infrastructure projects. The experience with IPP

contracts drove a lesson: No government guarantee should be given to

shield private investors from commercial risks. The problem of

developing a suitable framework for managing contingent liabilities

arising from government guarantees stands out as a crucial area to

address.


Infrastructure provision is not an either government or private sector

effort; in many instances, it is both the public and private sector

complementing each other in the daunting task of providing this country

21st-century infrastructure. But it is the government and Congress that

set the tone, create the mood and stoke investor interest in having

more effective public-private partnership in the economy.

bottom of page