The Importance of Public Private Partnerships in Accomplishing True, Lasting Global Development
September 27, 2017
The World Bank Group: A case in point
By Kirtika Challa
In 2016 the World Bank Group committed nearly $64.2 billion in loans, grants, equity investments and guarantees to its members and private businesses . On the other hand, as of 2016, total GDP for Emerging markets and developing economies (EM), based on Purchasing Power Parity, totaled $69.67 trillion, compared to $50.22 trillion for advanced economies . The EM GDP passed developed GDP for the first time in 2008 and the gap has only continued to widen with the IMF forecasting EM GDP to compose more than 60% of the global GDP by 2020. It is evident then, that the need significantly outweighs the scale of the resources that the World Bank has at its disposal to achieve its dual mandate of ending extreme poverty and promoting shared prosperity.
On a more granular level, annual infrastructure investment needs in emerging markets total approximately Given the scale of the need it is apparent that for the World Bank to have a significant impact on development in the world, it must be able to leverage its own resources through the crowding in of private capital. This is the basis of current World Bank President Jim Kim’s “cascade” approach to the group’s development goals and why the WBG’s two institutions focused on private sector development. The International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), are at the center of this strategy.
Since 1956, the IFC has leveraged about $2.6 billion in capital from member governments to deliver more than $245 billion in financing for development . In 2016, IFC’s clients provided 2.4 million jobs, helped educate 4.6 million students, and treated nearly 32 million patients. They generated power for 48 million people, distributed water to nearly 22 million, and provided gas to more than 50 million . This level of impact is only possible through leveraging of private markets. As an example of IFC’s ability to crowd in investment, a few years ago IFC provided financing for an investment in cell phone towers in an emerging market country; a key infrastructure investment important to increase access to mobile data service where it doesn’t exist. IFC provided project financing in the form of a 9-yr loan to the client. Just recently, the company was able to refinance the loan using private capital, reducing the interest rate on the loan by 400 basis points relative to the IFC financing. Thus, IFC’s willingness and ability to successfully invest in more frontier markets clearly gave private capital the confidence to enter these markets, providing investors with good returns while also reducing the financing costs of the incumbent. Further, it frees up IFC capital to invest in regions or projects that do not yet have access to capital, to hopefully repeat the outcome.
The benefits from Public Private Partnerships can also be clearly seen at MIGA. As of FY 2016, MIGA’s outstanding gross exposure was $14.2bn  of which 45% was in IDA-eligible countries , 10% were in FSC countries  and $7.5Bn of this exposure was syndicated out to the private market, clearly demonstrating the ability of MIGA to leverage its capital. Furthermore, just in 2016 MIGA issued $4.3Bn in guarantees, which catalyzed $27.3Bn of investments, providing access to $787mm of financing for SMEs, g 24.2 million people with power, and providing employment to approximately 24,000 people.
As the political dynamic of the world shifts and larger member nations of the World Bank shift away from a global approach to progress and growth towards a more nationalistic view, the importance of the public private partnership becomes even more important. The only path forward for development then lies in creating markets and environments to incentivize capital inflow and the creation of bankable projects. More importantly, although aid and grants are important to achieve development goals, the more sustainable path forward is to create marketplaces where return is also achievable. Only then will development be lasting and self-sustaining. The World Bank Group’s ability to truly meet its dual mandate relies on these public private partnerships.
 IMF DataMapper, http://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/PPPGDP@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD
 The International Development Association (IDA) is an international financial institution which offers concessional loans and grants to the world’s poorest developing countries. As of 2012, to borrow from the IDA’s concessional lending programs, a country’s gross national income (GNI) per capita must not exceed US$1,175.
Student Blog Disclaimer
The views expressed on the Student Blog are the author’s opinions and don’t necessarily represent the Penn Wharton Public Policy Initiative’s strategies, recommendations, or opinions.
Picture this: you’re tired of the spam in your inbox, so you download a new app for your browser that blocks it. While downloading, the Terms of Agreement pop up, and you click ‘Agree’ – because why wouldn’t you? Unbeknownst to you, while you are now enjoying your spam-free email, the Slice Technologies app is analyzing your emails for purchase receipts and selling this anonymized data to hedge funds. Is that an invasion of privacy? Not quite, as you agreed to the terms. But why would hedge funds, and other investment advisers, want this information? Well, with this kind of alternative data, investment firms can make much more accurate predictions about a company’s sales revenue and its health. This new world of alternative data poses incredible alpha-creating potential for investment advisers, as well as new legal concerns for the courts and regulators.
American law enforcement agencies are advocating that technology companies be forced to compromise the encryption used in their products, to facilitate ongoing investigations. Encryption is the computational tool used to protect every American’s digital communications and data from eavesdropping and tampering, and it plays a vital role in our economy and national security. A misguided attempt to weaken encryption would only damage our national interests, both with respect to economic wellbeing and business security. Hackers and foreign nations will target the introduced weaknesses, domestic firms’ ability to build and export security innovations will decrease, and the American competitive advantage in the technology sector will be lessened.
The legacy of the Silk Road is acting as inspiration for what President Xi Jinping calls the “project of the century.” Yi dai yi lu, or “One Belt One Road” (OBOR), is Xi’s signature foreign policy enterprise: a commitment of more than $1 trillion for Chinese development banks to invest in a sweeping Eurasian and African infrastructure initiative. OBOR operates both as a result of recent economic trends in China and as a milestone in Chinese foreign policy. The plan creates an outlet for Chinese products which are outgrowing domestic demand, but also has significant geopolitical potential. This article will examine OBOR and its consequences on Chinese partnerships across Eurasia and Africa and also how the results of this project relate to US foreign policy.
Where Do You Draw the Line? Exploring Antitrust Enforcement and the Regulation of Big Business in Modern AmericaIn towns and cities across America, mom and pop shops seem to be closing down at a rampant rate. It is no secret that as America moves further into the 21st century, consolidation is placing more power in the hands of fewer companies. With billion dollar companies becoming the norm and giants like Target and Walmart seemingly on every corner, it becomes hard to understand the dynamics of today’s complex economy. There is a strong argument against big businesses; it is bad for the average consumer and allowing companies to grow only allows them more ability to exercise their advantage and prey on consumers. On the other side, there is compelling theory that with healthy competition, big business expedites innovation and optimizes production in ways small companies cannot, which results in lower prices and a more efficient consumer experience. Within this environment, the regulation of big business is known as antitrust law and as the economy grows more complex, so does the enforcement of these laws in America.
Land-use regulation usually comes in the form of permits or codes, and is intended “to ensure [that] private use of land resources [is] aligned with policy standards.” In other words, it is a way for the government to control how certain privately-owned areas are used. There are clear benefits associated with these permits and codes – for instance, they may help ensure the preservation of a particularly historic area of a town. That said, land regulation also triggers some economic collateral concerns that are often overlooked, such as lost business profits and a widening income gap.
The 2000 presidential election posed countless issues, including butterfly ballots, partially punched cards, four to six million lost votes, and outraged citizens across the political spectrum. These issues led California Institute of Technology president David Baltimore and Massachusetts Institute of Technology president Charles Vest to approach the election technology failure more scientifically. With a team of computer scientists, mechanical engineers, and political scientists, they reimagined—and reengineered—the election process. Although Baltimore and Vest pioneered advancements in the election process, the reliability of voting infrastructure today still remains questionable. As we approach the upcoming election cycle this Fall, policy and technology experts must come together to rectify a failing system.
Despite a modest decline in private vehicle ownership in the last four years, many Americans still employ cars as their primary mode of transportation. Comparisons among census trends in the past few decades indicate that private vehicles amassed popularity among American households following more extensive car-centric city planning beginning in the early 1960s.
At the end of the last century, the digital revolution ushered in technological advancements that most consumers would not want to live without. Information and communication technology (ICT), such as computers, cell phones and the Internet, have proliferated worldwide entering our homes, offices and classrooms.  However, while the expansion of this technology has been impressive, it has not been even. At both the national and global levels, access to ICT is still far from universal and its disparity reflects and exacerbates the inequalities that exist offline. According to the International Telecommunications Union, the Internet user gender gap was as high as 31% in some developing countries and 12% globally in 2016.  As ICT becomes increasingly important, those left behind face growing socioeconomic barriers. This is what is known as the digital divide. People unfamiliar or unable to access ICTs are disadvantaged when trying to enter higher paid jobs, join solidarity networks, utilize educational information and accrue cultural capital.
Kaylee Heffelfinger of Arizona and Shahriar Jabbari of California had sued Wells Fargo for opening seven unauthorized bank accounts in their names, but their lawsuits were dismissed due to analogous mandatory arbitration clauses. Their cases were part of a larger scandal in which Wells Fargo opened at least 3.5 million unauthorized accounts on behalf of their customers but then astonishingly held those customers to the mandatory arbitration clauses they had signed for their legitimate accounts. Given the harm that mandatory arbitration may cause consumers, it is critical for policymakers to consider the implications of mandatory arbitration.
In June of 2016, former Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter removed one of the final barriers to military service by announcing new rules that would allow transgender individuals to openly serve in the military. Prior to this, transgender people would have been discharged or otherwise separated from the military just for their gender under Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 6130.03: Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction in the Military Services. Just one year later, in July 2017, President Donald Trump tweeted that the U.S. “will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. military” because the military “must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgenders in the military would entail”.