Economist Impact Infrascope 2024 Report ENG

Infrascope
2023/24
Measuring the enabling environment for
public-private partnerships in infrastructure
in Latin America and the Caribbean
Commissioned by
Infrascope 2023/24: Latin America and the Caribbean 2
Contents
3 About this report
6 Acknowledgments
7 Infrascope categories and indicators
11 Introduction
12 Executive summary
15 Key findings
26 Category findings
36 Country summaries
©Economist Impact 2024

About this report
The analysis and content of this index cover the 2023/24 methodology updates
period from August 2023 to December 2023.
As best practices, needs and information about
This document is the eighth edition of an infrastructure PPPs have continued to evolve,
informational tool and benchmarking index that Economist Impact with IDB has made minor
assesses the capacity of countries in Latin America updates to the methodology to ensure the
and the Caribbean to carry out sustainable, impact- continued rigor and accuracy of the information in
driven and efficient public-private partnerships the Infrascope, reflected in the latest 2023/24 report.
(PPPs) in infrastructure. The first study was
developed in 2009 and updated in 2010, 2012, These updates primarily affect 18 indicators, most
2015, 2017, 2019 and 2021/22. often through clarifications to scoring guidance
and terminology. As a result of these updates,
The index was built by Economist Impact and retrospective revisions are shown for the 2021/22
is supported financially by the Inter-American scores cited in this edition, ensuring a consistent
Development Bank (IDB). The views and opinions reference frame for comparison between 2021/22
expressed in this publication are those of Economist and 2023/24. However, the original 2021/22
Impact and do not necessarily reflect the official website and PDF reports (as published) have not
position of the IDB. Any comments, corrections or been revised or reissued, so those should not be
questions can be directed to Economist Impact. considered comparable with this edition.
To view a summary of the changes, visit

To cite this report, please use: impact.economist.com/new-globalisation/
Economist Impact. 2024. Infrascope 2023/24: infrascope-2024/en/about/
Evaluating the environment for public-private
partnerships in Latin America and the Caribbean.
New York, NY.
For further information, please contact:
Economist Impact
Explore the index
Vaibhav Sahgal,
The complete index, as well as detailed country Project Director: [email protected]
analyses and methodological information, can be
viewed on the Infrascope 2023/24 website: Matt Terry,
economistimpact.com/infrascope Project Manager: [email protected]

Inter-American Development Bank About the Inter-American

Gastón Astesiano, Development Bank
Public-Private Partnerships Team Leader: The Inter-American Development Bank’s mission
[email protected] is to improve lives. Founded in 1959, the IDB is
one of the main sources of long term financing for
Ancor Suárez Alemán,
economic, social and institutional development
Public-Private Partnerships Lead Specialist and
in Latin America and the Caribbean. The IDB
Project Director: [email protected]
also conducts cutting-edge research projects and
Maria Pilar Castrosin, provides policy advice, technical assistance, and
Public-Private Partnerships Senior Associate and training to public and private clients throughout
Project Manager: [email protected] the region.
The IDB PPP Single Window works to improve

the development of PPP projects in the economic
About Economist Impact and social infrastructure sectors in the region. Its
Economist Impact combines the rigor of a main goal is to strengthen the capacity of countries
think-tank with the creativity of a media brand to implement well-prepared, socioeconomically
to engage an influential global audience. We profitable, fiscally responsible, sustainable, efficient
work with corporations, foundations, NGOs and bankable PPP projects. The IDB PPP Single
and governments across big themes including Window focuses its activity in three main areas:
sustainability, health and the changing shape
of globalization to catalyze change and enable • supporting the development and improvement
progress. With the power of The Economist of regulatory and institutional frameworks for
Group behind it, Economist Impact crafts PPPs, including policies, regulations, manuals,
bespoke engagements using a potent portfolio of planning processes and project prioritization
capabilities including: activities, among others;
• supporting the preparation and structuring
• policy research and insights
of PPP projects in economic and social
• branded content infrastructure sectors, collaborating hand
• media & advertising in hand with governments to prepare PPP
projects with the highest standards of efficiency
• design thinking and data visualisation
and sustainability; and
• global and bespoke events
• generating and disseminating PPP analyses,
We conduct research through interviews, best practices, information, knowledge products
regulatory analysis, quantitative modelling and and evidence that result in practical policy
forecasting, and display the results via interactive recommendations that support both regulatory
data visualization tools. We bring a 75-year track and institutional strengthening, as well as the
record of evidence-based policy research across preparation and structuring of PPP projects.
205 countries. Our global team sheds light on
policy choices through benchmarks, economic
and social impact analysis, white papers,
forecasting and scenario modelling.
For more information, visit impact.economist.com

The IDB Group’s Institutional Strategy renews

the Bank’s mission to be the partner of choice
for Latin America and the Caribbean, with
a commitment to addressing the region’s
vulnerabilities and unlocking its potential to
foster transformative social and economic
progress while actively combating climate
change. It sets the Group’s strategic direction
through 2030 to bring a new level of impact and
scale in the region, defining a new chapter in
our history that we call IDBImpact+.
For more information, visit www.iadb.org

Acknowledgments
The following researchers, country analysts and IDB members providing advice and support:
specialists contributed to this report. We thank Carolina Lembo, Daniel Vieitez, Denis Leduc, Diego
them for their participation. De Pablos, Eduardo Pacheco, Enrique Dominguez,
Jaime Perez, Juan Pablo Mendez, Marcos Siqueira,
Index review and analysis: Miryam Banda, Natalie Rojas Gonzalez, Pablo
Namita Karnik, Eve Labalme, Camilo Guerrero Pereira, Ricardo Costa Vieira Da Silva, Romina
Stawsky Lopez and Shernett Roberts
Model workbook production:
Marcus Krackowizer
Writing and editing:

Camilo Guerrero, David Ramirez, Amanda Simms
Website and report production:

Isabel Jimenez, Ben Willers, Mari Danzi, Jacob
Spradley, Andrew McClay, Róisín McKenna Crick,
GC Design Communication
Country analysis:
Manaus, LLC
Experts interviewed:
As part of the research process for this project,
we conducted more than 80 in-depth interviews
with policymakers and country infrastructure
experts from multilateral and consulting
institutions, public sector organizations and
the private sector. We would like to express our
thanks to all interviewees for their input. A list of
these experts is in the Bibliography section of the
Methodology appendix.

Infrascope categories and indicators
The 2023/24 Infrascope index consists of

5 categories, 19 sub-categories, 54 indicators
and 106 sub-indicators, both qualitative and
quantitative.
Data for the quantitative indicators are drawn from

The Economist Intelligence Unit, IJ Global, Infralatam,
the World Economic Forum and the World Bank
Public Participation in Infrastructure (PPI) Database.
The qualitative data come from a range of primary
sources (legal texts,1 government websites, press
reports and interviews) and industry reports.
The index framework is included on the following

pages of this report.
The Methodology appendix also outlines the

2023/24 Infrascope’s updated indicator framework Infrascope
2023/24
and provides detailed definitions for the complete Methodology appendix
list of sub-indicators.
Methodology appendix
Commissioned by
1
Legal systems across Latin America and the Caribbean include both civil law and common law traditions.
Regulatory frameworks governing PPPs have been assessed accordingly.

Category 1) Regulations and institutions
Sub-category 1.1) Conducive regulatory environment 1.4) Fairness and openness of contract
Indicator
and political support for PPPs changes
Sub-indicator 1.1.1) Public procurement and PPP contracts 1.4.1) Contract disputes and arbitration
1.1.1.a) Existence of laws 1.4.1.a) Appeal procedures
1.1.1.b) Minimum standards 1.4.1.b) Time for ruling
1.1.1.c) Consistency with national procurement laws 1.4.1.c) International arbitration
1.1.2) Codification 1.4.1.d) Independent tribunal
1.1.2.a) Existence 1.4.2) Renegotiation procedures
1.1.2.b) Availability 1.4.2.a) Transparent system
1.1.3) Inter-agency co-ordination 1.4.2.b) Grounds for termination
1.1.3.a) Codification of processes 1.4.2.c) Compensation
1.1.3.b) Overlapping jurisdictions 1.4.3) Transparency and oversight
1.1.3.c) Awarding PPPs vs. regulating standards 1.4.3.a) Disclosure of renegotiations
1.1.4) Political will and support for PPPs 1.4.3.b) Signoff
1.1.4.a) High-level support
1.1.4.b) Bipartisan/multiparty support
1.1.4.c) Opposition
1.1.4.d) Political effectiveness
1.2) PPP dedicated agency

1.2.1) Existence of national PPP agency
1.2.1.a) Existence of national PPP agency
1.2.2) Staffing of national PPP agency
1.2.2.a) Capacity
1.2.2.b) Training/certification
1.3) Competitiveness and openness of

bidding
1.3.1) Competitive bidding regulations
1.3.1.a) Competitive bidding regulations
1.3.2) Unsolicited bids/proposals
1.3.2.a) Unsolicited bids/proposals
1.3.3) PPP registry
1.3.3.a) PPP registry
1.3.4) Publication of bidding materials
1.3.4.a) Bidding/Q&A documents
1.3.4.b) Contracts
1.3.4.c) Evaluations/debriefs

2) Project preparation and sustainability 3) Financing
2.1) Project selection 3.1) Structure and sources of financing

2.1.1) Selection and prioritization 3.1.1) Finance structure
2.1.1.a) National infrastructure plan 3.1.1.a) Finance structure
2.1.1.b) Prioritization strategy 3.1.2) Performance-based payments
2.1.1.c) Needs assessments 3.1.2.a) Performance-based payments
2.1.2) Economic principles for project selection 3.1.3) Sources of financing (project bonds)
2.1.2.a) Cost-benefit analysis 3.1.3.a) Project bonds
2.1.2.b) Fiscal affordability 3.1.4) Sources of financing (sustainable financing)
2.1.2.c) Value for money 3.1.4.a) Sustainable financing
2.2) Project preparation facilities 3.1.5) Sources of financing (multilateral banks)
2.2.1) Preparation facilities 3.1.5.a) Multilateral banks
2.2.1.a) Standard processes 3.1.6) Sources of financing (institutional investors)
2.2.1.b) Standardized tracking platform 3.1.6.a) Institutional investors
2.2.1.c) Budgeting 3.2) Access to financing
2.2.2) Project support 3.2.1) Average cost of capital
2.2.2.a) Project development fund 3.2.1.a) Average cost of capital
2.2.2.b) Viability gap fund 3.2.2) Government financial support
2.3) Efficiency of project preparation 3.2.2.a) Government financial support
2.3.1) Financial close 3.2.3) Capital portability
2.3.1.a) Financial close 3.2.3.a) Capital portability
2.3.2) Level of concentration in the industry 3.2.4) Debt performance
2.3.2.a) Level of concentration in the industry 3.2.4.a Debt performance
2.3.3) Land administration 3.3) Macro environment
2.3.3.a) Permits, licenses, protections and dispute
3.3.1) Country risk
resolution
2.3.3.b) Government support 3.3.1.a) Sovereign risk
3.3.1.b) Currency risk
2.4) Environmental and social
sustainability 3.3.1.c) Banking sector risk
2.4.1) Environmental and community impacts 3.3.1.d) Political risk
2.4.1.a) Environmental impact statement 3.3.1.e) Economic structure risk
2.4.1.b) Climate regulatory criteria 3.3.1.f ) Interest rate risk
2.4.1.c) Consultation with communities 3.3.2) Financial maturity
2.4.1.d) Resilience 3.3.2.a) Marketable debt

2.4.2) Social equitability 3.3.2.b) Market environment
2.4.2.a) Social inclusion 3.3.2.c) Health of local banks
2.4.2.b) Gender
2.4.2.c) Job creation
2.4.2.d) MSMEs

4) Risk management and contract 5) Performance evaluation and impact

monitoring (ex-post)
4.1) Risk allocation 5.1) Ex-post evaluation of PPP projects

4.1.1) Risk identification and allocation 5.1.1) Agency and evaluations
4.1.1.a) Risk identification and allocation 5.1.1.a) Agency and requirement
4.1.2) Contingent liabilities 5.1.1.b) Project evaluations implementation
4.1.2.a) Regulation 5.1.1.c) Project evaluations content
4.1.2.b) Risk framework 5.2) Maturity and quality
4.1.3) Lenders’ step-in rights 5.2.1) Project mortality rate
4.1.3.a) Lenders’ step-in rights 5.2.1.a) Project mortality rate
4.1.4) Government guarantees 5.2.2) Value of PPP investment
4.1.4.a) Government guarantees 5.2.2.a) Value of PPP investment
4.1.5) Financial auditing and reporting standards 5.2.3) Quality of infrastructure
4.1.5.a) Financial auditing and reporting standards 5.2.3.a) Quality of infrastructure
4.2) National monitoring and reporting 5.3) Impact on infrastructure quality/
4.2.1) Contract management outcomes
4.2.1.a) Construction and operation 5.3.1) Quality monitoring and reporting
4.2.1.b) Project performance data 5.3.1.a) Standardized framework
4.2.2) Published reports 5.3.1.b) Key performance indicators
4.2.2.a) Ongoing projects 5.3.1.c) Project data
4.2.2.b) Project pipeline 5.4) Impact on environmental and social
4.3) Disaster risk outcomes
4.3.1) Disaster risk sensitive investment (regulation) 5.4.1) Climate outcomes
4.3.1.a) Regulation 5.4.1.a) Climate outcomes
4.3.2) Disaster risk sensitive investment (insurance) 5.4.2) Progress toward SDGs
4.3.2.a) Insurance 5.4.2.a) Progress toward SDGs
4.3.3) Disaster risk management
4.3.3.a) Force majeure
4.4) Risk of government action

4.4.1) Government risks
4.4.1.a) Expropriation
4.4.1.b) Payment default
4.4.1.c) Price revisions
4.4.2) Contract termination
4.4.2.a) Investor appeal
4.4.2.b) Contract transfer
4.4.2.c) Indemnities
4.4.2.d) Procedure
4.4.3) Regulatory risk
4.4.3.a) Enforceability of contracts
4.4.3.b) Bureaucratic effectiveness

Introduction
How will Latin America and the

Caribbean rise to meet the challenge
of sustainable development by 2030?
According to recent projections by the Inter- Furthermore, as infrastructure needs continue to
American Development Bank, the region must evolve, so do the factors supporting successful
invest a staggering US$2.2trn in critical sectors infrastructure development; therefore, this report
like water, sanitation, energy, transport and also pays special attention to the growing need for
telecommunications. Achieving the Sustainable progress in sustainability and impact assessments.
Development Goals (SDGs) will require a
monumental annual investment of 3.12% of GDP—a With growing environmental pressures and the
significant leap from the 1.8% average in 2008-19.2 looming effects of climate change, it is crucial
that sustainability and resiliency is embedded in
To bridge this infrastructure financing gap, project selection, design and implementation.
increased private sector participation is crucial. Infrastructure projects must support communities
Fortunately, public-private partnerships (PPPs) are and ecosystems while demonstrating resilience
gaining traction, with US$160bn in transactions to climate shifts and extreme weather events.
recorded between 2014 and 2023. Governments Adopting an impact-driven approach will be
are increasingly aware of PPPs’ potential to essential for ensuring that projects align with
encourage innovative, sustainable and efficient national development goals and promote social,
investments. However, the complexity and risks economic and environmental advancements—
associated with large-scale, long-term projects a vision encapsulated in the UN’s call for
necessitate strong institutions, capabilities and “people-first PPPs.”
robust legislation for effective public-private
project development. Ultimately, achieving meaningful impact requires
meticulous planning and measurement throughout
This edition of the Infrascope examines the the project lifecycle. This involves continuous
region’s recent strides in building solid legal learning from best practices and past experiences,
frameworks, enhancing expertise and fortifying and ensuring that outcomes are comprehensively
institutions to optimize every step of the PPP evaluated in terms of their contribution to climate
lifecycle. These foundations are essential for resilience and advancement of the SDGs.
unlocking the full potential of PPPs, and in turn
enabling countries to maximize efficiencies and
optimize costs and risk management.
2
https://publications.iadb.org/en/infrastructure-gap-latin-america-and-caribbean-investment-needed-through-2030-meet-sustainable
3
https://www.un.org/esa/ffd/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Promoting-People-first-Public-Private-Partnerships-PPPs-for-the-UN-SDGs_UNECE_IATF-
Issue-Brief.pdf

Executive summary
The landscape of infrastructure PPPs in Latin Infrascope 2023/24

America and the Caribbean has seen remarkable Overall score
growth over the past decade, with approximately 1 st Brazil 77.9
640 projects totaling US$160bn in financing 2 nd Chile 76.9
recorded between 2014 and 2023.4 Since the 3 rd Colombia 70.3
2021/22 Infrascope was published, several 4 th Uruguay 65.8
countries in the region have taken significant 5 th Peru 65.2
steps forward in creating environments conducive 6 th Jamaica 62.9
to efficient, impact-driven and sustainable PPPs. 7 th Panama 60.3
8 th Mexico 59.4
Brazil and Chile continue to lead the region with 9 th Ecuador 56.8
exceptional performance. Notably, this year’s top 10 th Costa Rica 56.3
improvers—Belize, Ecuador, Jamaica, Suriname, 11 th Guatemala 54.1
Barbados and the Bahamas—demonstrate a 12 th Honduras 53.6
growing commitment from smaller and emerging 13 th Dominican Republic 50.8
PPP markets. Additionally, emerging PPP markets 14 th Paraguay 50.7
such as the Dominican Republic or Paraguay Average 46.4
have seen their PPP programs evolve since the 15 th El Salvador 43.2
last edition, highlighting the region’s potential for 16 th Argentina 41.6
dynamic growth. 17 th Bahamas 38.5
18 th Guyana 34.7
To capitalize on this momentum and foster 19 th Nicaragua 34.2
greater PPP maturity, countries need to focus on 20 th Belize 33.0
establishing robust project selection processes, 21 st Trinidad and Tobago 25.5
strong institutions, effective legislation and rigorous 22 nd Barbados 22.1
reporting systems.5 This edition of the Infrascope 23 rd Bolivia 21.5
explores the region’s advancements in these crucial 24 th Suriname 17.3
areas, uncovering several key findings about the 25 th Haiti 16.6
building blocks of successful PPP development: 26 th Venezuela 16.0
Nascent Emerging Developed Mature

0 to <30 30 to <60 60 to <80 80 to 100
Score 0-100 where 100=best. Rank out of 26 countries

across LAC, 1st=best, = before the rank indicates a tie.
4
Source: IJ Global, cross-checked with the World Bank PPI database. Data may include projects that are developed under PPP, sectoral or concession laws,
with differences among countries. Focuses on greenfield and brownfield projects; excludes asset acquisition, company acquisition, securitization and
refinancing transactions.
5
https://infrastructuregovern.imf.org/content/dam/PIMA/Forum/IGEUR/Activities/CEF_nov2019/Day3/Understanding%20Fiscal%20Costs%20and%20
Fiscal%20Risks%20from%20PPPs.pdf

Investment in infrastructure PPPs has Across much of the region, the quality of staffing
increased by almost 14% across Latin America and training remains a concern, but several
and the Caribbean. There is a growing appetite countries have taken key steps to improve this
for PPPs, with total project investment in the past (the Dominican Republic, Ecuador and Belize,
decade (2014-23) reaching US$160bn across the among others). Overall, project preparation
region—a 14% increase from US$141bn during capabilities are lacking in 15 countries, and
2011-20 (the period analyzed in the previous project support funds are similarly uncommon.
edition). Over the most recent decade, PPPs
have accounted for 11% of total infrastructure The share of tendered PPPs reaching
spending, on average, up from 9% during 2011-20. successful financing remains below 60%.
Headwinds include rising capital costs, gaps
The number of PPP projects has grown by in risk management and inadequate project
more than 25% since the 2021/22 Infrascope preparation. Across the region, less than 60%
edition. There were about 640 total PPPs of tendered PPPs reached financial close
financed in Latin America and the Caribbean in during the past decade, a rate that has held
2014-23 (covered in this edition), up from about steady since the previous edition. Elevated
500 during 2011-20 (covered in the previous borrowing costs in recent years stand out as
edition). The transport and renewables sectors a key challenge for financing infrastructure
make up the largest share of projects, at 37% and projects, with institutional investor participation
36% respectively.6 in PPPs also stagnating in recent years. Further
deterrents include gaps in risk management
PPPs are a growing priority in national policies and inadequate practices around project
agendas, especially in smaller countries. prioritization and preparation.
Two countries have codified new PPP policies
(Belize) or procurement guidance for PPPs Only a quarter of countries formally integrate
(Barbados) for the first time.7 Meanwhile, four lessons from completed PPPs into future
emerging markets have implemented key projects. This gap puts the region at risk of
PPP updates (Ecuador, Jamaica, Paraguay, and repeating the same infrastructure mistakes
Trinidad and Tobago). Political commitment again and again. To accelerate progress toward
to PPPs has generally strengthened across the an impact-driven PPP ecosystem, countries
region, but some political obstacles are evident need a disciplined approach to assessing the
in El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua. quality outcomes of operational infrastructure,
evaluating results and lessons from completed
Institutional capacity to support PPPs projects, and integrating those lessons into
remains a critical and persistent challenge project selection. However, most countries lack
across the region. PPP agencies are fully comprehensive practices in these areas.
operational in just half of the region’s 26
countries. Another seven have PPP units with
limited functionality, jurisdiction or public
activity, and six countries have no PPP unit at all.
6
7
Barbados’s guidance is contained within the country’s 2021 Public Procurement Act.

Incorporating sustainability criteria in In summary, this edition of the Infrascope reveals

PPP frameworks is still a major gap, with a region with marked disparities in its readiness
only three countries showing improvement to conduct efficient, sustainable, and impact-
since 2021/22. Performance across the index’s driven PPPs. The best-performing markets, such
sustainability-related indicators is generally as Brazil, Chile and Colombia, lead in financial
low, with only Brazil reaching an average score maturity and in developing strong regulatory
of 50 on these indicators, which span multiple frameworks and institutions. However, the region
categories. Progress also remains slow, with just still faces a long road ahead in strengthening
three countries (Ecuador, Jamaica and Paraguay) areas such as project preparation support,
showing improvement in this edition. Key gaps sustainability criteria, risk management, contract
include transparency requirements, social monitoring and impact evaluation (see figure 1).
sustainability criteria and disaster risk.
Figure 1
Top performers and average regional scores across the Infrascope’s five categories
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1) Regulations and institutions
Average Chile
66.9 97.5
2) Project preparation and sustainability
Average Peru
38.1 71.6
3) Financing
Average Brazil
51.8 82.8
4) Risk management and contract monitoring
Average Chile
48.4 80.4
5) Performance evaluation and impact (ex-post)
Average Brazil
26.5 72.1
Source: Economist Impact

Key findings
Investment in infrastructure PPPs

has increased by almost 14% across
Latin America and the Caribbean
The landscape of infrastructure PPPs in Latin Not only has investment in PPPs grown, but
America and the Caribbean has witnessed other maturity attributes show progress too. For
significant growth in the past decade, reflecting a instance, the value of infrastructure PPPs signed
growing appetite for PPPs. Total project investment in the past ten years has risen from 9% to 11% of
in the region reached more than US$160bn in total infrastructure spending since the last edition,
this edition of the Infrascope (covering 2014-23), growing especially in Ecuador, Colombia and
up by 14% from the US$141bn registered in the Brazil. The latter two feature the highest share of
previous edition (covering 2011-20).8 In year-on- PPPs as a percentage of infrastructure spending,
year terms, the investment trend between 2011 at 25% and 30% respectively.
and 2023 has risen steadily at a rate of about
3.8% per year (see figure 2).
Figure 2
PPP investment is rising in Latin America and the Caribbean
PPP investment, US$bn
22.1
21.1 20
20.9
20.3
Trend
16.4 15
13.2
12.2 12.0
11.1 11.2 10
10.0
7.1 7.6
5
0
2011 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
8
These periods correspond to the years analyzed in the 2023/24 and 2021/22 Infrascope

293
The number of PPP projects has

grown by more than 25% since the
2021/22 Infrascope edition
The region has successfully financed about
640 projects in 2014-23. This also represents a 195
significant increase compared with 2011-20, when
around 500 projects were reported.
The most significant project gains have been

concentrated in Brazil and Colombia (see figure 3),
but smaller countries are expanding their activity
as well, with countries like the Dominican Republic
and Paraguay doubling the number of PPPs signed.
Figure 3
Number of PPPs reaching financial close in a ten-year period
2011-20 2014-23
74
68 69
52
49
43 44
40
28
23
20 22
Uruguay Argentina Peru Chile Mexico Colombia Brazil
18
10 10 11 12
7 9
4 6 6 6
2 3 3
Dominican Paraguay Jamaica El Salvador Ecuador Honduras Panama

Republic
nil nil nil 1 2 1 2 2 2
Barbados Belize Bolivia Suriname Costa Rica Guatemala Bahamas
nil nil nil nil nil

Guyana Haiti Nicaragua Trinidad and Venezuela
Tobago

The transport and renewables sectors account for

the largest share of infrastructure PPPs in the region,
at 37% and 36% respectively. These are followed
by energy (non-renewables) with 16%, water and
waste (6%), and social infrastructure (4%).
The distribution of PPPs across sectors has held

fairly steady since the 2021/22 Infrascope, with
transport and water projects experiencing very
slight gains.
Figure 4
Number of PPPs by sector, 2014-23
Transport
237
Renewables
233
Energy (non-renewables)
104
Water and waste
39
Social infrastructure
27

PPPs are a growing priority in

national agendas, especially in
smaller countries
This edition of the Infrascope records a noteworthy Figure 5
improvement in the quality of legal and regulatory Examples of updated laws, regulations
environments for PPPs across the region. In total, and guidelines
11 countries saw performance increases in the
index’s Regulations and institutions category. Barbados
2021: the new Public Procurement Act incorporated
Two markets have codified PPP policies or guidelines for PPP contracting processes and pre-
selection requirements within the framework of public
PPP procurement guidance for the first time
procurement laws.
(Barbados and Belize9), and three emerging PPP
markets have implemented key PPP regulatory Belize
updates (Ecuador, Paraguay, and Trinidad and 2021: a new PPP policy formalized PPP contracts in public
Tobago). Jamaica, a developed PPP market, also procurement, established a PPP unit, and streamlined
implemented substantial new policy guidance regulatory processes and guidelines for PPPs.
around climate and disaster risk. The major
developments observed in this edition are Ecuador
2023: new updates to the PPP regulatory framework
presented in figure 5.
were passed in June and December. Numerous other
PPP procedural guides have also been published,
Aside from policy developments, two countries adding clarity to project development processes.
issued new national infrastructure plans. Bolivia
launched its Development Plan for 2021-2025, Guatemala
which aims to promote national and international 2021: the new Initiatives Manual for Development of
integration by strengthening the country’s Economic Infrastructure was published, serving as an
productive centers through road, air, rail, river implementation guide for PPP projects.
and urban transportation systems. Meanwhile,
Jamaica
Costa Rica adopted its National Plan 2023-
2023: the PPP policy was amended, and a new climate-
2026, which prioritizes infrastructure projects related operational guide for PPPs was issued, improving
under PPPs and emphasizes initiatives such disaster risk regulations and insurance coverage.
as modernizing urban and rural infrastructure
through road and bridge construction. Paraguay
2020: a new decree (4183) was issued, streamlining PPP
National infrastructure plans are vital for processes by specifying timelines, selection criteria, risk
optimizing a country’s performance in allocation and measures for transparency and efficiency.
infrastructure PPPs by strategically aligning
projects with national goals, prioritizing Trinidad and Tobago
2023: a new public procurement law became fully
investments, allocating resources efficiently,
implemented, which complements the country’s
managing risks and facilitating long-term planning. existing PPP law.
Note: not all policy updates shown here necessarily result in comparable
score changes in the Infrascope (for example, when a new policy replaces a
previously functional framework, this may result in no score change).
9
Suriname has also made a push toward developing a PPP policy. The Minister of Public Works has developed an informal list of proposed guidelines for the
procurement and processing of PPPs, but this has not yet been codified into law or formally approved

Finally, political support for PPPs has grown

in Barbados, Belize, Costa Rica and Uruguay,
while minor instances of opposition have been
resolved in Bolivia and Brazil. Notably, Costa
Rica has achieved bipartisan support for PPPs,
with multiple parties endorsing them in official
documents and statements.
Despite this progress, there have been a few

instances where PPPs have encountered new
resistance. In El Salvador, the abolishment of
the PPP-supporting agency PROESA and the
introduction of the more broadly focused INVEST
agency has left uncertainties in the country’s PPP
regulatory environment and its commitment to
PPPs. In Honduras, no clear PPP agenda under the
new administration has been announced, and no
projects have been implemented in recent years,
a notable shift from previous administrations.
Meanwhile, in Nicaragua, high-level political figures
have also shown minimal support for PPPs, with
the latest medium-term budget plan (approved in
2021) indicating low commitment to PPP initiatives.

Institutional capacity to support

PPPs remains a critical and
persistent challenge across
the region
As countries embark on PPP projects, it is Overall, the region’s lack of project preparation
necessary to create institutional capacity to support mechanisms stands out as a significant
manage their often-high levels of complexity. barrier to the formation of high-quality projects.
Without such resources in place to guide
stakeholders, PPP laws can only accomplish Although progress has been slow at building up
so much. Well-staffed PPP units and project institutional capacity and resources in the region,
preparation facilities are two essential institutional there are some bright spots. Ecuador particularly
dimensions highlighted in the Infrascope. stands out across a few of the above dimensions
for recent efforts to develop a collection of
Although 20 of 26 countries in the region have PPP preparation guides, strengthen its PPP
established some type of PPP unit—at least on agencies and make financial support available
paper—our assessment shows that just 13 of these during project preparation through a project
are fully operational (see figure 6). Moreover, there development fund and other trust funds.
are significant gaps when it comes to the capacity
of these bodies: just 11 PPP agencies have sufficient
staffing, 12 provide technical training and only four
countries have registered any improvement on Figure 6
these metrics (Belize, Ecuador, Honduras and the PPP units across Latin America and the
Dominican Republic). The most visible progress Caribbean
was observed in Belize, where the 2021 PPP policy Across 26 countries
mandated the creation of a new PPP unit providing
oversight and technical support. Fully operational PPP units
13 countries
Similarly, project preparation facilities have
seen little growth in the region, despite being 50%
an essential enabler for assisting stakeholders
in navigating feasibility studies, technical
assessments, financial modeling, risk analysis and
other complex aspects of contracting. Only 11
countries have such facilities, with no countries
having established new ones (although Panama
has secured new funding for its facilities). Panama
27% 23%
has also joined Ecuador in adopting the SOURCE
platform for co-ordinating project preparation.
Financial support for project development efforts A PPP unit exists, but it has No PPP unit
is even more rare. Project development funds are limited functionality, 6 countries
lacking in 15 countries, while viability gap funding jurisdiction or public activity
is formalized only in Brazil and Mexico and 7 countries
functionally permitted in the Bahamas.

The share of tendered PPPs

reaching successful financing
remains below 60%
Headwinds include rising capital costs, gaps risks across stakeholders, and only half grant
in risk management and inadequate project step-in rights to lenders, giving them the chance
preparation. Following the covid-19 pandemic, to remedy a contract breach before the contract is
the Latin America and the Caribbean region terminated. Government guarantees are similarly
has seen improving macroeconomic conditions absent in 17 countries. Rectifying these types of
and some growth in overall financial maturity. oversights can go a long way toward creating
However, key obstacles remain when it comes more attractive conditions for private investment.
to PPP financing efficiency. Despite growing
investment in PPPs, less than 60% of tendered Finally, project preparation remains a weak point for
projects successfully reach financial close, a rate the region, as noted previously. Across the Project
that has held steady since the previous edition. preparation and sustainability category, the average
score was just 38 out of 100—the second lowest
To more effectively attract and engage the private category score. This reflects widespread weakness
sector as a partner for infrastructure development, in prioritizing the best projects, facilitating
the region needs to overcome key headwinds, project preparation activities and incorporating
including rising borrowing costs, gaps in risk sustainability criteria into the development process.
management and inadequate project preparation. When these elements are lacking, it should not be
surprising to see persistently low efficiency in the
With international conditions leading to increases
rate that projects are financed.
in borrowing costs, raising funds has become
even more challenging. Compared with 2021/22, When it comes to systematically prioritizing
most countries in the region face higher capital projects, Peru leads with a perfect score, but gaps
costs (measured via country risk premiums) and
remain for nearly every country. While many outline
worsening debt performance (measured via the
strategies for aligning PPPs with their national
prevalence of non-performing loans).
infrastructure plans, only Peru and Ecuador utilize
In addition, the participation of institutional clear rules for ranking and/or ordering PPPs.
investors in Latin American PPPs has stagnated in
Furthermore, many countries lack standardized,
the latest index, with the greatest declines recorded
published methodologies for evaluating the
in Argentina, El Salvador, Jamaica, Panama and
prospective impacts of new projects. Only seven
Uruguay. The reasons for this may be varied, but
countries score above 50/100 for the rigor of these
they do not necessarily suggest a recent challenge.
processes. Once again, Peru stands far above the
The issue is longstanding: nearly 70% of countries in
rest in this regard, but other typical heavy hitters
the region have not involved institutional investors
like Brazil and Chile fall to the middle of the pack.
in PPPs during the past ten years, up from 54% in
Peru obtains almost full marks, thanks to the
the 2021/22 Infrascope edition.
availability of methodologies and tools for cost-
Other key headwinds are policy-related, with the benefit, value-for-money and fiscal affordability
region showing notable gaps in risk frameworks analysis—not to mention its comprehensive
designed to promote trust and incentivize private criteria around social impact.
participation. For example, only about half of the
countries use risk matrices to allocate project

Only a quarter of countries formally

integrate lessons from completed
PPPs into future projects
This gap puts the region at risk of repeating the
same infrastructure mistakes again and again.
To accelerate progress toward impact-driven
results across the PPP ecosystem, countries need
a disciplined approach across three key areas:
• assessing the quality and impacts of operational

infrastructure;
• evaluating the results and lessons from
completed projects; and
• integrating those lessons into project selection
and design.
However, progress is lacking in each of these areas.

Although most countries monitor the quality
of their operational PPPs, few have adequate
procedures for standardizing these efforts
and publishing data or reports on operational
infrastructure performance. Just six score above
50/100 on indicators for quality monitoring and
reporting, adopting the majority of best practices.
Brazil and Chile are the leaders in this regard,
followed by Uruguay, Ecuador, Colombia and
Guatemala. Recommendations for progress
include standardizing the monitoring process,
publishing reports on infrastructure quality,
regularly reviewing key performance indicators
and making operational project data available.
Concerningly, the measurement of environmental

and social impact remains the least developed
area across the study, with only Jamaica and
Costa Rica having made any efforts to assess
infrastructure performance against metrics such
as national climate change goals or the UN’s
Sustainable Development Goals.

When it comes to evaluating the overall results of

completed PPPs, the majority of the region shows
notable gaps (see figure 7). Only ten countries
designate an agency to oversee ex-post project
evaluations, and only seven actively conduct
such evaluations. Only five publish the results,
and only three (Brazil, Honduras and Colombia)
specify that the evaluations should cover both risk
performance and cost-benefit analysis. Meanwhile,
about a quarter of countries have processes to
integrate ex-post lessons into future projects.
Incorporating lessons from completed PPPs

into the project selection and design process is
a vital— and widely overlooked—step to ensure
that future projects do not experience the same
challenges as previous ones. Many countries
struggle to break long-term cycles of poorly
implemented projects, which is why ex-post
evaluation is a key focus area for the Infrascope.
Figure 7
The region is largely lacking when it comes to ex-post project evaluation
Number of countries that…
10/26 7/26 5/26

countries countries countries
…designate an agency to …conduct ex-post evaluations …publish results of ex-post

oversee ex-post evaluations in practice evaluations
3/26 7/26
countries countries
…cover risk performance and …have processes to integrate

cost-benefit analysis lessons into future projects

Incorporating sustainability criteria

in PPP frameworks is still a major
gap, with only three countries
showing improvement since 2021/22
Performance across the index’s sustainability-
related indicators is generally low, with only
Brazil reaching an average score of 50 on these
indicators (see figure 8). The pace of progress
also remains slow—in this edition only three
countries have demonstrated any improvements
( Jamaica, Paraguay and Ecuador—the latter of
which stands out for its progress across multiple
sustainability indicators).
Figure 8
Few countries have shown improvement on sustainability-related indicators
Average performance across sustainability-related indicators, score out of 100
2021/22 2023/24
50 50 47 44 44 40 40 39 39 37 35 35
20
12
Brazil Ecuador Chile Nicaragua Peru Jamaica Argentina
35 35 35 35
29 29 28 28 27 27 25 25 22 22
Costa Rica Mexico Colombia Venezuela Panama Guatemala Uruguay
18
12 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 10 10 9 9
7
Paraguay Belize Honduras Guyana Dominican Haiti El Salvador

Republic
8 8 5 5 2 2 0 0 0 0
Bolivia Bahamas Suriname Barbados Trinidad and
Tobago
Note: Sustainability-related indicators include those listed in figure 9.


Figure 9
Region-wide performance across sustainability-related indicators is lagging
Average scores across 26 countries
23/100 33/100 15/100 33/100 2/100
Average 2.4.1) Environmental 2.4.2) Social 4.3) Disaster risk 5.4) Impact on
sustainability and community equitability environmental and
score impacts social outcomes
Environmental and community impacts can However, Peru—the overall leader in this area—did
be a mixed bag: nearly all countries require launch a National Sustainable Infrastructure Plan
environmental impact studies, but beyond this, for Competitiveness in 2022, further strengthening
countries often lack consistent methodologies, the country’s ongoing efforts to prioritize socially,
public transparency and incentives to promote economically and environmentally sustainable
future-proofing and resilience. Since the 2021/22 projects, particularly PPPs.
edition, only Ecuador and Paraguay have
strengthened these processes. Ecuador recently Despite Latin America and the Caribbean being
published guidelines around PPP prioritization one of the most vulnerable regions to climate
that establish criteria for projects to be rated change and extreme weather events, its progress
based on climate resilience parameters and in adopting disaster risk criteria for PPPs has been
strategies. Meanwhile, Paraguay issued a guide slow. Only Jamaica achieves a “developed” status
to establish minimum environmental criteria in this area (scoring at least 60/100). Alongside
and procedures for environmental assessments, Ecuador, Jamaica is the only country that has made
including integrating national climate change improvements related to disaster risk. Recently,
criteria into their PPP identification, selection the Development Bank of Jamaica’s PPP unit took
and development processes. instrumental steps in publishing new guidelines
focused on integrating climate resilience into PPPs.
Community consultations—a vital tool for keeping It also instituted new requirements for disaster risk
sustainability and impact at the center of PPP insurance coverage for PPP contracts.
development—generally lack transparency in
the region. Only Brazil, Chile, Guatemala and To achieve long-lasting and comprehensive results
Panama legally require findings from community when it comes to sustainability, such principles
consultations to be published. Since the must be deeply integrated into all stages of PPP
previous edition, no countries have registered development, not just addressed in broad terms
improvements in this area. in regulatory documents. This means embedding
sustainability criteria into policy frameworks,
Similarly, criteria for guiding PPPs toward greater project preparation guides, management
social equity remain rare across the region. Only processes and, crucially, into project evaluation.
Ecuador has improved in this area, owing to new Without rethinking sustainability as a core guiding
guidelines for PPP prioritization that address principle of PPPs, the region will face challenges in
gender and MSMEs.10 realizing its environmental and social goals.
10
Micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises.

Category findings
1. Regulations and institutions Infrascope 2023/24

1. Regulations and institutions
This remains the strongest category across
1 st Chile 97.5
the region by a considerable margin,
2 nd Brazil 90.3
with some newer PPP markets recording
3 rd Panama 89.8
significant progress
4 th Colombia 88.7
Chile leads again by a comfortable margin in this 5 th Uruguay 88.2
edition’s Regulations and institutions category. 6 th Dominican Republic 86.8
For 30 years, Chile has maintained a stable and 7 th Paraguay 86.2
efficient PPP framework, a strong PPP agency, and 8 th Peru 85.9
competitive and transparent standards for bidding 9 th Ecuador 83.6
processes and contract changes. Despite political 10 th Jamaica 83.0
turbulence in recent years, its commitment to PPPs 11 th Mexico 78.6
remains strong, with recent initiatives targeting 12 th Honduras 77.7
social infrastructure projects to address social 13 th Costa Rica 75.4
inclusion challenges.
14 th Guatemala 72.7
This category features not only the strongest Average 66.9

average performance across the region, but it 15 th Guyana 66.0
has also seen the largest increase in scores— 16 th Belize 63.3
particularly in some emerging markets. This 17 th El Salvador 59.8
underscores the importance that countries are 18 th Argentina 55.1
placing on strengthening their PPP foundations 19 th Bahamas 54.0
through new regulations. Since 2021/22, the 20 th Nicaragua 53.8
most significant improvements have been seen 21 st Trinidad and Tobago 40.1
in Belize (a 44-point gain), Barbados (+19) and 22 nd Barbados 39.1
Ecuador (+11), all of which passed notable 23 rd Haiti 38.3
pieces of legislation. 24 th Bolivia 33.1
25 th Venezuela 31.8
In Belize, the enactment of a national PPP policy
26 th Suriname 19.8
in 2021 formalized PPP contracts in public
procurement, created a PPP unit and established
a host of basic regulations. Barbados’ improvement
stems from the implementation of the Public 0 to <30 30 to <60 60 to <80 80 to 100
Procurement Act of 2021; previously lacking Score 0-100 where 100=best. Rank out of 26 countries
specificity for the procurement process, across LAC, 1st=best, = before the rank indicates a tie.

1. Regulations and institutions
the new act clarifies minimum standards

for PPPs, inter-agency co-ordination, and
transparency and oversight for bidding and
renegotiation. Ecuador’s improvement is tied to
efforts to strengthen the PPP unit’s staff training
and to better contract transparency.
Meanwhile, competitive bidding environments

have been strengthened in a few countries,
owing to new developments around unsolicited
proposals (Belize), PPP registries (Brazil) and
transparency in contract awards (Belize and
Barbados). Arbitration procedures have also
been improved in the Bahamas and Barbados,
and renegotiation procedures have been
strengthened in Barbados and Belize.
Political support for PPPs among high-level

politicians, major parties and influential
organizations has undergone a somewhat mixed
evolution in the past two years. Improvements
in countries like Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil,
Costa Rica and Uruguay contrast with elements
of weakened support in El Salvador, Honduras,
Mexico, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic.

2. Project preparation and Infrascope 2023/24

2. Project preparation and sustainability
sustainability
1 st Peru 71.6
Despite widespread gains, performance in
2 nd Brazil 71.1
this category remains weak, with the region
3 rd Mexico 65.6
still short on project preparation capacity and
4 th Chile 63.0
attention to sustainability
5 th Colombia 61.6
Peru stands out in this category for its region- 6 th Ecuador 55.9
leading project selection processes, which 7 th Costa Rica 54.4
earn a sub-category score of 96.7, far ahead of 8 th Panama 53.9
any other country. Specifically, Peru conducts 9 th Jamaica 53.5
comprehensive national infrastructure planning, 10 th Uruguay 45.6
sets detailed guidance around PPP prioritization 11 th Argentina 43.6
and implements economic and feasibility studies 12 th Honduras 43.5
based on standardized tools and methodologies. 13 th Paraguay 43.2
In addition, the country features strong project 14 th Guatemala 38.3
preparation supports and a project development Average 38.1
fund, ensuring it is well positioned to prepare 15 th Bahamas 35.0
effective projects. 16 th Dominican Republic 34.2
17 th El Salvador 33.8
Across the region, this category shows significant
18 th Nicaragua 23.0
room for improvement. The average score (38
out of 100) is the lowest of any category, save the 19 th Belize 19.5
last. However, progress may be beginning to pick 20 th Bolivia 19.3

up: this category saw widespread improvement, 21 st Venezuela 18.5
with the majority of countries registering a 22 nd Trinidad and Tobago 14.0
positive performance boost. Most notable 23 rd Guyana 13.6
among them was Ecuador, which saw a 23-point 24 th Barbados 6.8
improvement, and Panama and Suriname, each 25 th Haiti 4.9
with an 8-point gain. 26 th Suriname 4.3
Ecuador owes its improvement to wide-

ranging policy efforts centered on some of the
0 to <30 30 to <60 60 to <80 80 to 100
region’s most troubling weak spots: a strategy
for prioritizing PPPs, a platform for tracking Score 0-100 where 100=best. Rank out of 26 countries
preparation efforts, methodologies for project across LAC, 1st=best, = before the rank indicates a tie.
evaluation, project development funds, and the

prioritization of social equity criteria.
Most countries still show key gaps in their

institutional environments and project
prioritization strategies. Although some of these
gaps can be difficult to fill, others stand out as
“easy wins” for many countries.

2. Project preparation and

sustainability
For example, standardized tracking platforms,

which promote co-ordination and transparency
during project development, are absent in 23
countries and could be a quick efficiency booster.
Environmental and social sustainability is another
area of low-hanging fruit for many countries,
where simple updates to PPP evaluation criteria
could have significant impacts.

3. Financing Infrascope 2023/24

3. Financing
The region as a whole has seen modest
1 st Brazil 82.8
improvement in its financing environment
2 nd Chile 82.5
since the pandemic, but individual countries
3 rd Colombia 76.9
have experienced significant variability
4 th Mexico 76.5
Brazil and Chile once again lead this category, 5 th Uruguay 76.1
displaying consistent improvement since 2021/22. 6 th Peru 75.5
Alongside them, several other countries have 7 th Jamaica 63.0
made significant progress, most notably Suriname, 8 th Panama 62.8
Belize, Guatemala, Guyana, Jamaica and the 9 th Guatemala 61.7
Bahamas. Some of these have seen improvements 10 th Honduras 58.6
in how they structure and source PPP financing, 11 th Paraguay 56.2
while others have expanded the availability of 12 th El Salvador 52.1
government financial support for PPPs. Average 51.8
Performance in this category has seen the least 13 th Costa Rica 50.7
growth overall, with the average score increasing 14 th Argentina 48.6

only slightly from 51.5 to 51.8. However, across 15 th Trinidad and Tobago 48.3
countries there have been significant ups and 16 th Dominican Republic 48.2
downs, reflecting a wide range of financial 17 th Ecuador 47.8
developments in the region and inconsistent use 18 th Bahamas 43.7
of best practices when it comes to PPP financing. 19 th Guyana 42.9
Macro environments have seen mixed progress 21 st Barbados 37.8
since the pandemic: country risk outlooks
22 nd Belize 37.5
have improved in nearly every country, but
23 rd Bolivia 33.8
financial market health has also taken a hit
24 th Suriname 25.1
in most. Headwinds have also arisen when it
25 th Venezuela 9.8
comes to access to capital, with most countries
26 th Haiti 9.2
experiencing higher premiums, worse debt
performance and lower capital flows.
With respect to PPP financing efforts, performance 0 to <30 30 to <60 60 to <80 80 to 100
has also been mixed. A number of countries have
Score 0-100 where 100=best. Rank out of 26 countries
expanded their use of financing sources across project across LAC, 1st=best, = before the rank indicates a tie.
bonds, sustainable instruments and multilateral banks.
However, the region has also seen a general decline
in institutional investor participation in PPPs in
the past decade, and many countries have utilized
project financing mechanisms less frequently. The
latter is true even in mature markets like Brazil,
Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Uruguay and Panama.11
11
Source: IJ Global, cross-checked with the World Bank PPI database. Data may include projects that are developed under PPP, sectoral or concession
laws, with differences among countries. Focuses on greenfield and brownfield projects; excludes asset acquisition, company acquisition, securitization
and refinancing transactions.

3. Financing
Other positive developments include the

expanded availability of government financial
support for PPPs in two countries, Jamaica and
Guatemala. Such support can be instrumental in
improving the bankability of projects. In addition,
several countries have begun using sustainable
financing instruments for PPPs (Bahamas, Belize
and Ecuador), bringing the total in the region
to 16 countries. The Bahamas, for example,
introduced a sustainable financing instrument
via a US$200m policy-based guarantee in
2022 to boost ocean productivity and health—
including funds to strengthen the institutions
involved in coastal and nature-based (green)
infrastructure.12,13 In Ecuador, the government
introduced the Sovereign Green Bonds
Framework in 2023, aiming to incorporate green
bonds into planning and budgeting processes to
finance environmentally sustainable projects.
12
https://www.iadb.org/en/news/bahamas-advances-creation-social-and-inclusive-blue-economy-using-idb-guarantee
13
https://www.iadb.org/en/project/BH-U0001

4. Risk management and contract Infrascope 2023/24

4. Risk management and contract
monitoring
monitoring
Progress in this category is mostly clustered 1 st Chile 80.4
across a few ambitious countries; others have 2 nd Brazil 73.1
seen little change, with attention to disaster 3 rd Colombia 69.2
risk and project monitoring remaining 4 th Uruguay 69.1
significantly underdeveloped
=5 th Jamaica 68.1
Relative stability has characterized Brazil and =5 th Panama 68.1
Chile, the two category leaders. Brazil stands out 7 th Costa Rica 67.3
for its comprehensive risk allocation and project 8 th Guatemala 66.0
monitoring practices, while Chile is stronger in its 9 th Ecuador 59.4
integration of disaster risk processes and excels at 10 th Mexico 58.7
minimizing risks driven by government action. 11 th Dominican Republic 57.2
12 th Peru 56.3
Although this category has seen the strongest Average 48.4
performance improvement, on average, over the
past two years, most of it is clustered among a
14 th Honduras 46.1
few countries that have made notable progress,
15 th El Salvador 44.1
including Jamaica, Ecuador and the Dominican
16 th Argentina 43.3
Republic, all with double-digit score increases.
17 th Guyana 43.2
Region-wide, disaster risk processes stand out as
18 th Paraguay 43.0
a glaring underdeveloped area, with only Jamaica
19 th Bahamas 39.1
and Ecuador seeing a change across any of the
20 th Belize 32.2
disaster risk indicators, thanks to their adoption
of new climate-related guidelines for PPPs. 21 st Haiti 28.2
22 nd Suriname 23.6
A second area of concern is related to national 23 rd Barbados 22.0
monitoring and reporting of active PPPs: across 24 th Trinidad and Tobago 20.1
these indicators, only the Dominican Republic, 25 th Bolivia 16.6
Jamaica and Ecuador achieved any improvement. 26 th Venezuela 16.2
The Dominican Republic now ranks second in the
region in this aspect, owing to its recent efforts to Nascent Emerging Developed Mature
improve transparency by publishing regular reports
0 to <30 30 to <60 60 to <80 80 to 100
on ongoing PPP projects and updates to its project
pipeline, available on the PPP unit’s website. Score 0-100 where 100=best. Rank out of 26 countries
Scores in the risk allocation subcategory have
risen for the majority of countries since 2021/22,
driven by stronger financial auditing and reporting
standards in nearly every country. However, there
has also been a notable decline in the availability
of sovereign guarantees for PPPs, with such
support lapsing in four countries.

4. Risk management and contract

monitoring
Risk allocation policies have largely been

untouched in the last two years, but Barbados and
Belize stand out for adopting improved practices.
Barbados’ new Public Procurement Act of 2021
now requires risk identification as part of PPP
development. Meanwhile, Belize’s 2021 PPP Policy
mandates both risk identification and contingent
liability accounting (these liabilities must be
disclosed in financial statements, especially for
“user-pays” PPPs).
Lastly, when it comes to addressing government-

driven risks, the Bahamas is the only country
to implement any policy improvements. Its
Public Procurement Act of 2023 has put in place
guarantees for investors to appeal in case of
contract termination by the government. The act
provides extensive procedures for challenges and
appeals, including complaint submission, tribunal
appeal, and potential court of appeal recourse for
legal matters.

5. Performance evaluation and Infrascope 2023/24

5. Performance evaluation and impact
impact (ex-post)
(ex-post)
This category remains the least developed 1 st Brazil 72.1
across the region, highlighting a universal 2 nd Chile 61.2
need for countries to adopt impact-driven 3 rd Colombia 55.0
evaluation and reporting 4 th Uruguay 50.0
Brazil is a regional leader once again in this category, 5 th Jamaica 46.8
thanks to its maturity in ex-post evaluation of PPPs 6 th Honduras 42.3
and measurement of infrastructure quality and 7 th Ecuador 37.5

outcomes. The oversight of federal PPP projects 8 th Peru 37.0
falls under the purview of Brazil’s National Court of 9 th Costa Rica 33.5
Auditors (TCU), which helps to ensure transparency 10 th Guatemala 31.8
and efficiency in project evaluation. The TCU 11 th Dominican Republic 27.7
mandates annual performance reports from project 12 th Panama 26.7
authorities and enables public scrutiny by allowing Average 26.5
petitions about any irregularities. 13 th El Salvador 26.1
14 th Paraguay 25.0
By a significant margin, this is the least developed
15 th Bahamas 20.6
category across the region, but some noteworthy
16 th Argentina 17.5
gains have been seen across both well-established
17 th Mexico 17.4
markets (Brazil, Chile, Peru and Mexico) and some
18 th Suriname 13.5
newer ones (Ecuador, the Bahamas and Suriname).
19 th Belize 12.2
However, progress for most of these countries
20 th Guyana 7.9
during the past two years has not been driven
by policy updates but by the evolving quality of 21 st Nicaragua 7.4
their PPP portfolios (their project mortality rate =22 nd Barbados 4.8
and value of PPP investment, etc). A couple of =22 nd Bolivia 4.8

countries have seen notably weaker scores in =22 nd Trinidad and Tobago 4.8
this category, particularly Nicaragua (a worsened 25 th Venezuela 3.9
project mortality rate) and, to a lesser extent, 26 th Haiti 2.2
Panama (reduced value of PPP investment).
As discussed previously, the region has a history
0 to <30 30 to <60 60 to <80 80 to 100
of widespread underperformance when it comes
to conducting ex-post evaluations of PPPs and Score 0-100 where 100=best. Rank out of 26 countries
measuring impacts on infrastructure quality and
sustainability. Peru and Ecuador are the only
countries to have made any progress in either
of these areas. Peru has recently published a
comprehensive report with ex-post analyses of
the past 20 years of PPP activity.

5. Performance evaluation and

impact (ex-post)
Meanwhile in Ecuador, Executive Decree No. 788

of 2023 now mandates regular and standardized
monitoring and reporting on the quality of
services from operational infrastructure assets.
Finally, no country has made any improvements

in terms of measuring PPPs’ impacts on
environmental and social outcomes. As the region
looks ahead to a future rife with uncertainty,
greater attention needs to be paid to analyzing
the environmental and social effects of PPPs,
understanding how these projects are contributing
to national goals, and applying those lessons to
future infrastructure development.

Country summaries
Argentina Full profile
Score: 41.6 Rank: 16th

out of 100 out of 26 countries
Argentina has an overall index score of 41.6 out of 100 (ranking 16th of 26 in the region, just below
the average). Although the country has a basic regulatory and institutional foundation for public-
private partnerships (PPPs), political commitment has been volatile through the end of 2023. Recent
legislative developments in 2024 have shown increased support for PPPs, but this time frame is not
covered in the index.14
Bahamas Full profile

The Bahamas has an overall index score of 38.5 out of 100 (17th of 26 in the region), demonstrating
emerging potential in its public-private partnership (PPP) capabilities. The Bahamas has a
relatively favorable risk environment and passed a new PPP policy in 2018; however, most
institutional aspects of the policy have yet to be implemented.
Barbados Full profile
Score: 22.1 Rank: 22nd

Barbados has an overall index score of 22.1 out of 100 (22nd of 26 in the region). It scores relatively low
in all five categories and has not yet implemented any public-private partnerships (PPPs), although it did
recently pass a new National Public Procurement Act in 2021. As a high-income country, Barbados sees
its best ranking in the financing category.
14
Note: index data collection concluded in December 2023.

Belize Full profile

Belize has an overall index score of 33 out of 100 (20th of 26 in the region). This reflects substantial
progress since the 2021/22 edition, with Belize seeing a greater score increase (12 points) than any other
country. The country’s new public-private partnership (PPP) policy provides a promising foundation;
however, additional strengthening of PPP processes is needed to address key gaps.
Bolivia Full profile
Score: 21.5 Rank: 23rd

Bolivia has an overall index score of 21.5 out of 100 (23rd of 26 in the region). The country does not
have experience with public-private partnerships (PPPs); although regulations permit certain alliances
between state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and the private sector, these have not been used. The country
also faces significant challenges in terms of project preparation, sustainability, risk management,
contract monitoring and performance evaluation.
Brazil Full profile
Score: 77.9 Rank: 1st

Brazil has an overall index score of 77.9 out of 100 (1st of 26 in the region, unchanged from 2021/22),
continuing to demonstrate the region’s strongest performance and experience with public-private
partnerships (PPPs), and ranking near the top of most of the index’s five categories.
Note: Brazil is a large and complex market with many different subnational PPP contexts. Future
research will look to understand these realities at a state level.
Chile Full profile
Score: 76.9 Rank: 2nd

Chile has an overall index score of 76.9 out of 100 (2nd of 26 in the region). Chile ranks highly across all
categories in the index, with especially strong performance for Regulations and institutions as well as
Risk management and contract monitoring, where it leads the region.

Colombia Full profile
Score: 70.3 Rank: 3rd

Colombia, one of the region’s fastest-growing markets for PPPs, has an overall index score of 70.3 out
of 100 (3rd of 26 in the region), demonstrating a strong performance across all categories. The country
stands out for its robust regulatory framework, comprehensive public-private (PPP) institutions and
favorable financing environment.
Costa Rica Full profile

Costa Rica has an overall index score of 56.3 out of 100 (10th of 26 in the region). The country’s score is
supported by a robust risk management environment and above-average project preparation processes.
However, the country is still lacking in terms of co-ordinated oversight of public-private partnership
(PPP) efforts and effective PPP financing.
Dominican Republic Full profile

The Dominican Republic has an overall index score of 50.8 out of 100 (13th in the region),
demonstrating one of the region’s stronger regulatory and institutional foundations (for which it
ranks 6th), owing to recent legislative efforts in 2020. Across the remaining index categories, the
country still exhibits an average performance.
Ecuador Full profile

Ecuador attains an overall index score of 56.8 out of 100 (9th of 26 in the region). It has
also seen a substantial improvement since 2021/22 owing to multiple new pieces of legislation
and guidelines covering public-private partnerships (PPPs). Ecuador demonstrates a strong
performance across sustainability and social inclusion indicators, and also stands out for its
attention to performance evaluation and impact monitoring.

El Salvador Full profile

El Salvador has an overall index score of 43.2 out of 100 (15th of 26 in the region). The country has
seen a notable drop since the previous edition, following recent legislative alterations to its public-
private partnership (PPP) framework and the dissolution of its previous PPP unit. The country ranks
highest in the Financing category, where it places 12th, although PPP activity has slowed since 2021.
Guatemala Full profile

Guatemala has an overall index score of 54.1 out of 100 (11th of 26 in the region). Despite the
country’s well-established public-private partnership (PPP) laws and co-ordinating institutions, it
still has limited experience with PPPs and struggles to approve new projects in the pipeline, which
often require congressional signoff. However, there are strong risk management and performance
evaluation processes in place to manage active PPPs.
Guyana Full profile

Guyana has an overall index score of 34.7 out of 100 (18th of 26 in the region). The country’s
regulatory foundation is relatively new and reasonably solid; however, the country lacks experience
with public-private partnerships (PPPs) and has limited capacity for preparing, implementing and
evaluating projects.
Haiti Full profile

Haiti has an overall index score of 16.6 out of 100 (25th of 26 in the region). Its performance is near the
bottom of the region, even in the country’s strongest-performing categories. Haiti’s score has declined
somewhat since the 2021/22 edition, given recent political instability and the worsening economic crisis.

Honduras Full profile

Honduras has an overall index score of 53.6 out of 100 (12th of 26 in the region). Despite having
signed no new projects recently, Honduras benefits from having several basic institutions and
regulations. Its strongest score in relative terms is in Performance evaluation and impact (ex-post),
where it ranks sixth in the region.
Jamaica Full profile

Jamaica has an overall index score of 62.9 out of 100 (6th in the region), demonstrating robust
regulatory and institutional capacity to implement successful public-private partnerships (PPPs),
despite the island’s limited experience and market size.
Mexico Full profile

Mexico has an overall index score of 59.4 out of 100 (8th of 26 in the region). Despite some regulatory
and institutional gaps in its public-private partnership (PPP) framework, the country exhibits one of
the region’s strongest project preparation environments. Overall, Mexico’s performance tends to vary
significantly across the index’s categories.
Nicaragua Full profile

Nicaragua has an overall index score of 34.2 out of 100 (19th of 26 in the region). The country’s
regulatory foundation for public-private partnerships (PPPs) is below average, but it has comparatively
high scores for building environmental safeguards into its project prioritization and risk identification
processes. However, political support for PPPs has lagged in recent years, and no projects have been
signed since the 2016 PPP law was passed.

Panama Full profile

Panama has an overall index score of 60.3 out of 100 (7th in the region). Its 2019 public-private
partnership (PPP) legislation contributes to its high performance in the Regulations and institutions
category, where it ranks third. Performance in other categories is relatively strong, but there are
still notable gaps, highlighting the country’s need to build up capacity, especially when it comes to
performance evaluation.
Paraguay Full profile

Paraguay has an overall index score of 50.7 out of 100 (14th of 26 in the region). The country’s recent
legislative efforts have resulted in one of the region’s more promising regulatory and institutional
foundations for public-private partnerships (PPPs), although gaps still emerge in areas such as financing,
risk management, contract monitoring and performance evaluation.
Peru Full profile

Peru has an overall index score of 65.2 out of 100 (5th of 26 in the region). The country showcases a
strong ecosystem for public-private partnership (PPP) development, with a well-established regulatory
framework, comprehensive institutional support, and one of the region’s most robust project
preparation environments.
Suriname Full profile

Suriname has an overall index score of 17.3 out of 100 (24th of 26 in the region), demonstrating
significant need for improvement in establishing both regulatory and institutional foundations to
support successful public-private partnerships (PPPs).

Trinidad and Tobago Full profile
Score: 25.5 Rank: 21st

Trinidad and Tobago has an overall index score of 25.5 out of 100 (21st of 26 in the region).
Despite its limited experience with public-private partnerships (PPPs), the country has
meaningful potential to capitalize on its favorable financing environment and on the PPP
regulations it already has in place.
Uruguay Full profile

Uruguay has an overall index score of 65.8 out of 100 (4th of 26 in the region), supported by
strong public-private partnership (PPP) institutions, which are highly successful at financing and
overseeing projects. The country has also earned a reputation for fairness and flexibility regarding
contractual changes. Despite these strengths, Uruguay still faces some challenges in areas such as
project preparation and sustainability.
Venezuela Full profile

Venezuela has an overall index score of 16.0 out of 100 (ranking last of 26 countries in the region).
This can mainly be attributed to the lack of a regulatory framework focused on public-private
partnerships (PPPs) in infrastructure, the dearth of political will for such projects and a poor
financing environment. It ranks near the bottom of all five index categories.

While every effort has been taken to verify the accuracy of this
information, Economist Impact cannot accept any responsibility
or liability for reliance by any person on this report or any of the
information, opinions or conclusions set out in this report.
The findings and views expressed in the report do not necessarily
reflect the views of the sponsor.

LONDON GENEVA WASHINGTON DC
The Adelphi Rue de l’Athénée 32 1920 L street NW Suite 500
1-11 John Adam Street 1206 Geneva Washington DC
London WC2N 6HT Switzerland 20002
United Kingdom Tel: (41) 22 566 2470 United States
Tel: (44) 20 7830 7000 Fax: (41) 22 346 93 47 Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
NEW YORK DUBAI

900 Third Avenue Office 1301a
16th Floor Aurora Tower
New York, NY 10022 Dubai Media City
United States Dubai
Tel: (1.212) 554 0600 Tel: (971) 4 433 4202
Fax: (1.212) 586 1181/2 Fax: (971) 4 438 0224
HONG KONG SINGAPORE

1301 8 Cross Street
12 Taikoo Wan Road #23-01 Manulife Tower
Taikoo Shing Singapore
Hong Kong 048424
Tel: (852) 2585 3888 Tel: (65) 6534 5177
Fax: (852) 2802 7638 Fax: (65) 6534 5077

Economist Impact Infrascope 2024 Report ENG

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Economist Impact Infrascope 2024 Report ENG

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Economist Impact Infrascope 2024 Report ENG

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Infrascope

3 About this report

7 Infrascope categories and indicators

©Economist Impact 2024

About this report

To view a summary of the changes, visit

For further information, please contact:

©Economist Impact 2024

Inter-American Development Bank About the Inter-American

The IDB PPP Single Window works to improve

For more information, visit impact.economist.com

©Economist Impact 2024

The IDB Group’s Institutional Strategy renews

For more information, visit www.iadb.org

©Economist Impact 2024

Writing and editing:

Website and report production:

©Economist Impact 2024

Infrascope categories and indicators

The 2023/24 Infrascope index consists of

Data for the quantitative indicators are drawn from

The index framework is included on the following

The Methodology appendix also outlines the

©Economist Impact 2024

Category 1) Regulations and institutions

1.2) PPP dedicated agency

1.3) Competitiveness and openness of

©Economist Impact 2024

2) Project preparation and sustainability 3) Financing

2.1) Project selection 3.1) Structure and sources of financing

2.4.1) Environmental and community impacts 3.3.1.d) Political risk

2.4.1.a) Environmental impact statement 3.3.1.e) Economic structure risk

2.4.1.b) Climate regulatory criteria 3.3.1.f ) Interest rate risk

2.4.1.c) Consultation with communities 3.3.2) Financial maturity

2.4.1.d) Resilience 3.3.2.a) Marketable debt

©Economist Impact 2024

4) Risk management and contract 5) Performance evaluation and impact

4.1) Risk allocation 5.1) Ex-post evaluation of PPP projects

4.4) Risk of government action

©Economist Impact 2024

How will Latin America and the

©Economist Impact 2024

The landscape of infrastructure PPPs in Latin Infrascope 2023/24

Nascent Emerging Developed Mature

Score 0-100 where 100=best. Rank out of 26 countries

©Economist Impact 2024

©Economist Impact 2024

Incorporating sustainability criteria in In summary, this edition of the Infrascope reveals

1) Regulations and institutions

2) Project preparation and sustainability

4) Risk management and contract monitoring

5) Performance evaluation and impact (ex-post)

Source: Economist Impact

©Economist Impact 2024

Investment in infrastructure PPPs

©Economist Impact 2024

The number of PPP projects has

The most significant project gains have been

Uruguay Argentina Peru Chile Mexico Colombia Brazil

Dominican Paraguay Jamaica El Salvador Ecuador Honduras Panama