Need for Promoting Public-Private Partnership

(edit: few changes have been made to this articles after it was first published in The News. These changes include change of title and few textual changes.)

With increasing cost of construction, frequent occurrence of large-scale natural disasters, and ongoing fight against insurgents, it has become impossible for the government to continue financing infrastructure projects. This can be seen from the recent reductions in the budget of public sector development projects (PSDP). Historically, PSDP has been the main source of finance in addition to foreign loans. Much of the international aid, however, was directed towards social sector projects which were arguably of temporary relief.

To deal with these challenging circumstances, IMF has highlighted some key issues which need to be looked at when undertaking any infrastructure development project. These include: what investments offer the biggest boost to growth? How much investment is needed and by whom? How to finance this investment without taking on too much debt? Without looking at these issues, there remains a much higher probability that the project will get delayed to an extent that it no longer remains needed. If the project does get completed, long delays will push the cost to an extent that the cost-benefit analysis done when the project was conceived is no longer valid. Countries like Pakistan which are very much financially constrained must realise these issues and bring out policies aimed at utilising their full strength.

In answer to the first question, National Trade Corridor Management Unit (NTCMU) was established to come up with projects which help improve trade-related infrastructure facilities with the end goal of making Pakistan a regional trade hub. However, projects are still being approved in isolation with no broader vision of achieving sustainable growth. Ideally, a strategy should have been prepared by now and we should have moved on towards implementation stage.

Similarly, there is a need for improving PC-I with respect to involving private sector in development projects. The entire PC-I documents, expect the project to be fully financed from the PSDP. Instead, it should be made sure that first the project is floated to the private sector for take up with full ownership and if not successful, only then the government is approached for funding. Another section on ‘Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Option Analysis’ in the PC-I document, as suggested by the Infrastructure Management Unit (IMU), can be a good addition.

IMU (2007) has also done an extensive and useful study on constraints to private sector investment in infrastructure. But much needs to be done in removing these constraints. Some of the key constraints highlighted by the study are related to ‘procurement laws’ and ‘procurement processes’. Existing procurement laws do not include a requirement for the public body to consider infrastructure service delivery through the private sector. Procurement processes, on the other hand, are too centralised. All procurement decisions for a value as low as US $4-5 million are made at the highest level of the government. This is the case even for projects which are 100 per cent PPP and will not require any public expenditure.

Despite considerable realisation and wide consensus, Pakistan is still to come up with a detailed yet clear framework on PPP. This is mainly because the direction, content and the responsibility for the PPP framework still remains unsettled. Restriction on local governments against financing development projects through user charges or fees is also a major constraint to PPP at municipal level. Knowing that various amendments are being considered in local government law at provincial levels, these issues can be revisited with the approach of promoting private sector in infrastructure projects. Furthermore, land acquisition laws are currently in conflict with international norms. It is one of the major issues and has often resulted into delays and sometimes abandonment of the project.

National Highway Authority Act, which does not contain any requirement for PPP Option Analysis, also appears to discourage private sector participation. It does not empower assignment of toll receivables in favour of the private project company executing the project. Another issue is that of competition with public sector construction firms. It is argued by the private construction companies that lucrative projects are always given to public sector corporations in a non-transparent and discriminatory manner. Such attitude discourages growth of private sector firms and hence their ability to undertake projects which are spread thin over the time horizon. 

The 'New Growth Strategy' being drafted by the Planning Commission does highlight these challenges and proposes relevant reforms in this sphere. 

Answering the critics: New Growth Strategy

Much of the response received by the Growth document of planning commission has so far remained very much encouraging. It will be alright for me to reveal that significant number of comments received from the civil society, youth, educationists, donor agencies etc. have been incorporated in the revised draft which will be shared in few weeks time. However, there still are some comments which can only be answered through increased interaction between the growth team lead by Dr. Nadeem Ul Haque and interested community.

Following are some of the criticisms which have been observed on different forums:

Whats so ‘New’ about it?

The word ‘new’ is often received with lots of skepticism. A clear distinction needs to be observed between growth theory and strategy. While the growth theory remains the same, overall strategy is significantly new when looked at in context of Pakistan. In economics, growth (output) is treated as a function of productivity, labour and capital. Throughout Pakistan’s history, productivity has been observed as an exogenous variable – something that will happen on its own. The ‘New Growth Strategy’ endogenizes productivity by looking at the microeconomic underpinnings of this macroeconomic problem. The result will be improved growth levels through enhanced productivity even if labour and capital do not change.

Expecting people’s welfare from Private Sector?

The strategy does not talk about complete withdrawal of government from market management. Instead it is to confine its role to market regulation: away from its current approach of acting as an active market player.

Formulating and implementing regulations is a sufficient tool to deal with cartels/monopolies. One needs not be a market player but require a strong regulatory framework in the form of regulatory bodies such as competition commission, PTA etc. 

Why do we still have cartels despite having numerous regulatory bodies? We often tend to hear this question in response to the idea of government withdrawing itself as a market player. Answer to this question lies in the strengthening of regulatory bodies and not in government re-entering the market. Our existing institutions not only lack the required strength but in some cases their own organizational structure is also contrary to promoting competition and fighting cartels. It is well established that privatization without regulation often leads to consumer exploitation. This is exactly what the role of government should be – ensuring that overall consumer welfare is not marginalized.  

Why talk about cities alone?

In almost all the conferences organized by the Planning Commission as a part of consultative process, one standard question was always raised. What about the rural areas? This takes us to another interesting question. What are cities? Out of many things, cities must also be seen as markets for rural areas. It is in the cities where much of the rural products are bought and sold. Therefore cities are the only place where major chunk of rural income is generated.

However, the Growth document is still not silent on rural development. Under the ‘Markets’ pillar, the document talks about agricultural markets in great detail. Similarly, constraints to infrastructure development at municipal level are also highlighted under ‘Connectivity’ theme.

‘Implementation’

Here comes the tricky bit! Ask this question and many policy makers would prefer to shy away. In my personal view, it’s not up to any policy maker to implement his/her policy unless the public wants it. This is especially true when you are a democratic country. Why is it that the judiciary gets restored despite significant pressure from the opposing group? The answer is simple. Our general public wanted it to happen.

What we here at Planning Commission intend to do is to get people to own this strategy. It is exactly this reason why this wide consultative process is being carried out. It is exactly this reason why we are doing our best to incorporate majority of the received comments. And it is exactly this reason why we are having this much more direct and interactive blog to reach people. Once people – like the respected reader – start owning the Growth document and wish for the proposed changes to take place, implementation will soon follow its own course.