Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development

Journal Information
ISSN / EISSN : 2572-7923 / 2572-7931
Current Publisher: EnPress Publisher (10.24294)
Total articles ≅ 74
Current Coverage

Latest articles in this journal

Jyoti Bisbey, Seyed Hossein Hosseini Nourzad, Ching-Yuan Chu, Maryam Ouhadi, Lili Li, Qingyang Gu
Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, Volume 5; doi:10.24294/jipd.v5i1.1238

Ajay Chhibber
Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, Volume 5; doi:10.24294/jipd.v5i1.1253

India entered its so-called demographic dividend around 2005—expected to last until 2055. India has already utilized almost a third of the period of its demographic dividend—it saw a period of explosive growth from 2003–2012—but has not been able to sustain that growth. And since 2012, growth has generated less and less employment, as it has turned inward, and so it is not helping the working-age population get usefully employed. The labor force participation rate for women has been low and is now falling. What can be done to use India’s underlying factors of production better to generate greater, more inclusive, and sustained prosperity for its citizens? These second-generation reforms are not easy, as they need cooperative federalism and much broader consensus, but without them India’s demographic dividend may become a disaster.
Homi Kharas
Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, Volume 5; doi:10.24294/jipd.v5i1.1245

COVID-19 and the economic response have amplified and changed the nature of development challenges in fundamental ways. Global development cooperation should adapt accordingly. This paper lays out the urgency for new methods of development cooperation that can deliver resource transfers at scale, oriented to addressing climate change and with transparency and better governance. It looks at what is actually happening to major donor countries’ development cooperation programs and where the principal gaps lie, and offers some thoughts on how to move forward, notwithstanding the clear geopolitical rivalries that are evident.The most immediate challenge is to provide a level of liquidity support to countries ravaged by the global economic downturn. Many developing countries will see double-digit declines in GDP, with some recording downturns not seen in peacetime. Alongside the short-term challenge of recovery, COVID-19 has laid bare longer-term trends that have pointed for some time to the lack of sustainability—environmental, social, and governance—in the way economic development was occurring in many places, including in advanced economies. This new landscape has significant implications for development cooperation in terms of scale, development/climate co-benefits, and transparency and accountability.
Ehtisham Ahmad
Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, Volume 5; doi:10.24294/jipd.v5i1.1251

COVID-19 has amplified existing imbalances, institutional and financing constraints associated with a development strategy that did not take sufficient account of challenges with emissions, environmental damage and health risks associated with climate change in a number of countries, including China. The recovery from the pandemic can be combined with appropriately designed investments that take into account human, social, natural and physical capital, as well as distributional objectives, that can also address commitments under the Paris agreement. An important criterion for sustainable development is that the tax regimes at the national and sub-national levels should reflect the same criteria as the investment strategy. Own-source revenues, are essential to be able to access private financing, including local government bonds and PPPs in a sustainable manner. Governance criteria are also important including information on the buildup of liabilities at all levels of government, to ensure transparent governance.Despite differences in political systems, the Chinese experiences are relevant in a wide range of emerging market countries as the measures utilize institutions and policies reflecting international best practices, including modern tax administrations for the VAT, and income taxes, and benefit-linked property taxes, as well as utilization of balance sheets information consistent with the IMF’s Government Financial Statistics Manual, 2014. The options have significant implications for policy advice and development cooperation for meeting global climate change goals while ensuring sustainable employment generation with transparency and accountability.
Sreyus Palliyani,
Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, Volume 5; doi:10.24294/jipd.v5i1.1254

Ride-hailing or private hire has taken the Singapore transport network by storm in the past few years. Singapore has had more than three revisions of its ride-hailing regulation in the six years since the arrival of the disruptive technology. Often quoted in the list of cities with commendable public transport policy, Singapore still manages to find a viable and significant position for ride-hailing. Cities from around the world are all searching for a model of regulation for ride-hailing that can be elevated as a benchmark. Singapore, to a large extent, has formulated a successful model based on current market parameters and, more importantly, an adaptive one that evolves constantly with the constantly disruptive technology. The experts and regulators of the Singapore transport sector were interviewed in depth, tapping into their opinions and technocratic commentaries on the city-state’s Point-to-Point, or P2P, sector regulation. The data were analyzed using the three-element model of social practice theory as an alternative to conventional behavioral studies, thereby eliminating bias on the commuters and rather shifting focus to the practice. Content analysis utilizing QDA is executed for categorization through fine-level inductive matrix coding to elaborate upon the policy derivatives of the Singapore model. The unique addition of the research to ride-hailing policy is the comprehension of the commonalities and patterns across industrial and technological disruption, practice and policy irrespective of sectoral variations, thanks to the utilization of social practice theory. The first-of-its-kind policy exercise in the sector can be repeated for any city, which is a direct testament to the simplicity and exhaustivity of the methodology, benefiting both operators and investors through equitable policy formulation.
Yimiao Gu, Hui Shan Loh, Wei Yim Yap
Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, Volume 5; doi:10.24294/jipd.v5i1.1249

Jyoti Bisbey, Lili Li, Qingyang Gu, Ching-Yuan Chu
Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, Volume 4, pp 179-216; doi:10.24294/jipd.v4i2.1199

Cross-border infrastructure projects offer significant economic and social benefits for the Asia-Pacific region. If the required investment of $8 trillion in pan-Asian connectivity was made in the region’s infrastructure during 2010–2020, the total net income gains for developing Asia could reach about $12.98 trillion (in 2008 US dollars) during 2010–2020 and beyond, of which more than $4.43 trillion would be gained during 2010–2020 and nearly $8.55 trillion after 2020. Indeed, infrastructure connectivity helps improve regional productivity and competitiveness by facilitating the movement of goods, services and human resources, producing economies of scale, promoting trade and foreign direct investments, creating new business opportunities, stimulating inclusive industrialization and narrowing development gaps between communities, countries or sub-regions. Unfortunately, due to limited financing, progress in the development of cross-border infrastructure in the region is low.This paper examines the key challenges faced in financing cross-border projects and discusses the roles that different stakeholders—national governments, state-owned enterprises, private sector, regional entities, development financing institutions (DFIs), affected people and civil society organizations—can play in facilitating the development of cross-border infrastructure in the region. In particular, this paper highlights the major risks that deter private sector investments and FDIs and provides recommendations to address these risks.
Anastasios Mouratidis
Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, Volume 4, pp 249-260; doi:10.24294/jipd.v4i2.1174

The expansion of road networks, taken place during the last decades, was driven by technological progress and economic growth. The most innovative products of this trend—modern motorways and international road corridors—provide an excellent level of service, traffic safety and necessary information to travelers. However, despite this undeniable progress, major impediments and respective challenges to road authorities and operators still remain. The present paper analytically presents the main current challenges in the road engineering field, namely: a) financing new projects, b) alternative energy resources, especially renewable energy, c) serviceability, including maintenance of road infrastructure, traffic congestion and quality of the network, d) climate change hazards due to greenhouse gas emissions increase, e) environmental impacts, f) safety on roads, streets and motorways, and g) economy and cost-effectiveness. In each country and over each network, challenges and concerns may vary, but, in most cases, competent authorities, engaged in road development policies, have to deal with most of these issues. The optimization of the means to achieve the best results seems to be an enduring stake. In the present paper, the origin and the main features of these challenges are outlined as well as their tendency to get amplified or diminished under the actual evolving economic conditions worldwide, where growth alternates with crisis and social hardship. Moreover, responses, meant to provide solutions to the said challenges, are suggested, including research findings of Aristotle University and innovative technological achievements, to drive the transition to a more sustainable future.
Yimiao Gu, Hui Shan Loh, Wei Yim Yap
Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, Volume 4, pp 228-248; doi:10.24294/jipd.v4i2.1227

This paper reviews and compares the opportunities and challenges in terms of port and intermodal development in China and India—the two fast-growing economic giants in the world. The study analyzes the future direction of these two countries’ port-hinterland intermodal development from the sustainability perspective. Both China and India face some major opportunities and challenges in port-hinterland intermodal development. The proposal of the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st-century Maritime Silk Road, also known as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), offers plentiful opportunities for China. A challenge for China is that its development of dry ports is still in the infancy stage and thus it is unable to catch up with the pace of rapid economic growth. As compared with China, India focuses more on the social aspect to protect the welfare of its residents, which in turn jeopardizes India’s port-hinterland intermodal development in the economic sense. The biggest challenge for India is its social institution, which would take a long time to change. These in-depth comparative analyses not only give the future direction of port-hinterland intermodal development in China and India but also provide references for other countries with similar backgrounds.
Back to Top Top