Fatih Şahin Фатіх Шахін Ukraine, business and international experience — since 2004
Energy & Infrastructure

Who pays for infrastructure

A road, a water plant and a port berth are financed in entirely different ways, and choosing the wrong instrument is how good projects fail.

Novoazovs'kyi district, Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine   panoramio (4)
Photo: Владимир Рязанцев · CC BY 3.0

Every infrastructure project has to answer one question before any other: who bears the cost, over what period, and against what revenue. The available answers are few and each suits a different kind of asset.

The budget

Direct state funding. Simple, immediate, and constrained by the annual budget cycle, which is a poor fit for anything taking longer than a year to build.

Development bank lending

Long tenors, low rates, and conditions: procurement rules, environmental and social standards, and independent supervision. Those conditions are frequently described as a burden and are in practice the main reason the projects get built to specification.

Concession

A private operator finances, builds and operates an asset for a defined period, taking revenue from users, then hands it back. This works where there is a reliable user charge — a port terminal, a toll road, an airport — and fails where the revenue depends on a government promise to pay.

The critical term is risk allocation: whoever can best control a risk should carry it. Concessions that put demand risk on a party unable to influence demand end in renegotiation.

Municipal borrowing

Cities with their own revenue base can borrow against it, which is the natural instrument for water, heating and local transport. It requires audited municipal accounts and a legal framework that lets a lender enforce.

Blended finance

Public money used to absorb the first loss so private capital will come in behind it. Efficient when it makes a viable project bankable; wasteful when it subsidises a project that should not proceed at all.

The rule of thumb

Match the tenor to the asset life and the revenue to the payer. Most infrastructure failures are financing structure failures dressed up as engineering ones.

A good project financed through the wrong instrument wastes more time than a bad one, because everybody believes it will go ahead. I have seen this repeatedly on the equipment side: reserving a production slot for work that had budget approval but no financing structure, and then cancelling it. Choosing the instrument matters as much as choosing the project, and it is discussed far less.

Related reading

Comments

If you have something to add, please do. Comments are read and approved before they appear.

Published after approval.