PPP investment has grown but remains uneven across regions and sectors
Middle-income nations hold nearly two-thirds of the world’s infrastructure shortfall, yet attract relatively little private finance . Within the developing world, most PPP deals occur in the largest markets (e.g. China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, Turkey) where local capital markets or sovereign finance can support large projects.
Sectorally, data indicate that PPP investment is heavily skewed toward energy and transport. A World Bank
analysis finds about 50% of infrastructure investment goes to energy and 45% to transport , reflecting the scale and revenue potential of power plants, toll roads, ports and the like. Recent trends show a surge in “green” PPPs in renewables: in 2021 renewable energy projects made up nearly 60% of private infrastructure investment . Even so, investment outside the power and transport sectors (e.g. water, sanitation, hospitals, schools) remains a small share in most countries.
Regional examples: In South Asia,
India has built one of the world’s largest PPP programs: it reports
roughly 2,000 PPP projects in implementation across highways, ports, power, urban transit and more .
India’s National Infrastructure Pipeline (2020–25) explicitly relies on PPPs to help deliver over $1.5 trillion of planned investment . In Southeast Asia, the Philippines has similarly pursued PPPs for airports, water and energy; as of mid-2025 it had about 230 PPPs in the pipeline (≈Php 2.86 trillion, or ~$50 billion) . In Africa, PPPs are less common: of 335 PPP projects over 25 years, nearly half have been in just four countries (South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda) . Recent African PPPs have concentrated in renewables (≈78%) and transport (22%) . These regional examples show that while PPPs are being used to bridge investment gaps, they are not evenly adopted; country context, market size and project attractiveness vary widely.
PPPs introduce both opportunities and risks. On the one hand, transferring risk to the private partner (and their lenders) can discipline project delivery. On the other, it can create new fiscal and operational risks if not managed carefully. For example, PPP projects typically involve higher transaction and financing costs than conventional contracts, since private-sector lenders require a return on equity and risk margin. If a project’s cash flows fall short, the burden may shift to government (through minimum revenue guarantees or higher user tariffs).
Capacity Building and Policy Alignment. Implementing PPPs at scale requires strong technical capacity and aligned policies. Many developing countries initially lack the in-house expertise to prepare bankable PPP projects, negotiate complex contracts, or conduct value-for-money analysis.
Institutional alignment is also crucial. PPP initiatives must mesh with national development plans, sector policies and regulation. For example, a transport PPP should fit within the country’s urban mobility strategy and regulatory regime. Coordination across finance, sector ministries and regulators helps ensure consistency. Developing local private-sector capacity is part of the goal: well-designed PPPs often include provisions for local subcontractors or technical transfer, building a domestic base of expertise. Over time, governments can “graduate” from small pilot PPPs (with more government risk-support) to larger projects, as investor confidence and institutional experience grow.
Recent audits of
PPP programs in the EU have highlighted common problems: unclear policy, off-balance-sheet financing, and unbalanced risk-sharing can undermine value for money. In several cases studied, PPP projects suffered significant cost overruns and delays (one review found seven of nine audited PPPs incurred major delays or cost hikes). Often the public authority underestimated demand risk or gave away too much protection to the private party. Such findings underscore the need for strong risk management: contracts must be rigorously reviewed for affordability, and governments must limit guarantees.
Transparency is very important. PPP contracts should be made public and subjected to independent audit to prevent corruption or vested interests. Civil society and parliaments need access to key information on project costs, financing terms and performance. Without oversight, PPPs can become opaque “off-balance-sheet” debts. Adopting
guidelines on contingent liabilities and subjecting PPP units to fiscal rules can help governments manage the long-term risks.
PPPs can help governments do more with less. By involving private partners, the public sector can spread out large upfront costs and often achieve better value through efficiency. Of course, PPPs are not “free money” – the public still ultimately pays for the infrastructure over time – but smart structuring can mean projects get built sooner and with life-cycle cost savings.
Empty space, drag to resize
