2018年-IMF国际货币组织全球_Public_Investment_Efficiency_in_Sub

Summary of Public Investment Efficiency in Sub-Saharan African Countries: What Lies Ahead?

Core Content

This report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) African Department examines the efficiency of public investment in Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries and its implications for economic growth and development. It highlights the challenges and opportunities in improving public investment efficiency, the role of institutions, and the impact of global and regional factors on investment trends and outcomes.

Main Viewpoints

1. Importance of Investment for Growth and Development

• Investment—both public and private—is a key driver of growth and job creation.
• Public investment has supply-side effects, acting as a catalyst for private sector development and productivity growth.
• Reliable infrastructure (transportation, energy, communication) is essential for unlocking private investment.
• Education and health systems are critical for building human capital and enhancing competitiveness.

2. Challenges in Public Investment Efficiency

• Despite increased investment in SSA over the past two decades, the region's efficiency remains low compared to other regions.
• Public investment efficiency is below that of regional comparators such as Emerging and Developing Asia (EDA), Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), and others.
• The efficiency gap is significant, with estimates suggesting that SSA could improve investment efficiency by up to 35 percent.

3. Factors Affecting Efficiency

• The quality of institutions is the main determinant of public investment efficiency.
• Strong institutions (measured by control of corruption and regulatory quality) are associated with higher efficiency.
• Countries with high dependency on natural resources tend to have lower efficiency.
• The impact of natural resource dependency on efficiency was not statistically significant in the analysis.

4. Infrastructure Gap and Quality

• SSA lags behind in infrastructure quantity and quality compared to regional peers.
• Infrastructure deficits exist in electricity supply, road density, education, health, and water access.
• The relationship between public capital stock and infrastructure quality is weak, indicating inefficiency in the use of public investment.

5. Public Investment Management Assessment (PIMA)

• The PIMA framework suggests that improving public investment management practices can significantly reduce the efficiency gap.
• Key areas for improvement include PPP planning and selection, multiyear budget credibility, project appraisal and selection, implementation monitoring, and infrastructure asset registration.

Key Information

Investment Trends in SSA

• Investment rates in SSA increased by 3.5 percent of GDP between 2000 and 2015.
• Public investment increased by 3 percent, and private investment by 2 percent of GDP.
• Despite these increases, investment in SSA has not translated into better growth performance compared to other regions.

Infrastructure Indicators

• Physical indicator: Combines economic and social infrastructure data (roads, electricity, water, education, health).
• Survey-based indicator: Reflects perceptions of infrastructure quality based on business leaders' views.
• Hybrid indicator: A synthetic index combining physical and survey-based indicators.

Efficiency Gaps

• Physical indicator: SSA's average efficiency score is 0.46, indicating a 54% gap from best performers.
• Survey-based indicator: SSA's average efficiency score is 0.80, indicating a 20% gap from best performers.
• Hybrid indicator: SSA's average efficiency score is 0.64, indicating a 36% gap from best performers.

Regional and Country Performance

• SSA as a region has lower efficiency than EDA, LAC, and other regions.
• Within SSA, countries in the East African Community (EAC) outperform those in the Central African Economic and Monetary Community (CEMAC) and West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU).
• Oil-exporting countries have lower investment efficiency than non-resource-intensive ones.

Institutional Factors

• Institutional quality (control of corruption, regulatory quality) is a major driver of public investment efficiency.
• Strong institutions are linked to higher efficiency and reduced efficiency gaps.
• Institutional reforms are essential for improving efficiency and should focus on legal and governance changes.

Financing Trends

• Bank lending has become the major source of private financing for infrastructure in SSA.
• Traditional European banks have reduced their involvement post-2008 crisis, with new lenders not yet filling the gap.
• FDI and alternative financing mechanisms (e.g., PPPs, crowdfunding) have played a role in some countries.

Conclusion

• Improving public investment efficiency in SSA is crucial for sustainable development and growth.
• Institutional reforms and better management practices are key to reducing the efficiency gap.
• Enhancing infrastructure quality and coverage, while ensuring fiscal sustainability, should be a priority for SSA countries.

Annexes

Annex 1: Public Investment Management Assessment (PIMA)

• Provides a framework for evaluating public investment management practices.
• Highlights areas needing improvement: PPP planning, multiyear budgeting, project appraisal, monitoring, and asset registration.

Annex 2: Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) Methodology

• A nonparametric method used to estimate efficiency scores.
• Efficiency scores are calculated based on input-output ratios for different infrastructure indicators.

Annex 3: Alternative Methodology

• Includes a Tobit model and survey-based efficiency scores.
• Results are consistent with DEA findings, reinforcing the importance of institutional quality.

Tables

Table 1: Average Public Investment Efficiency Index by Regional Group

Table 2: Average Public Investment Efficiency Index

Table 3: Determinants of Public Investment Efficiency

• Control of corruption
• Regulatory quality
• Official development assistance
• Percentage of urban population
• Dependency on natural resources

Table 4: Determinants of Public Investment Efficiency, Alternative Methodology

• Same variables as Table 3, but using a Tobit model and survey-based efficiency scores.

References

• Warner, A. (2014)
• Gupta, S., et al. (2014)
• McKinsey Global Institute (2013)
• Berg, A., et al. (2015)
• Herrera, J., and Pang, L. (2005)
• Grigoli, F., and Kapsoli, S. (2013)
• Albino-War, M., et al. (2014)
• World Economic Forum (WEF)
• World Development Indicators (WDI)
• IMF staff estimates

Figures

Figure 1: Trends in Investment and Capital Stock, 2000–15 (Percent of GDP)

• Shows investment and capital stock trends in SSA compared to other regions.

Figure 2: Measures of Infrastructure

• Illustrates different infrastructure indicators across SSA and other regions.

Figure 3: Selected Quantitative Indicators of Infrastructure, 2015 (Normalized indices, LAC = 1)

• Highlights infrastructure quality and access in SSA.

Figure 4: Infrastructure Quality, 2006–15 (Scale: 1–7 [best])

• Demonstrates the relative quality of infrastructure in SSA compared to peers.

Figure 5: Real Public Investment and Quality of Overall Infrastructure, 2015 (Scale: 1–7 [best])

• Shows the weak correlation between public capital stock and infrastructure quality.

Figure 6: GDP per Capita versus Gross Fixed Capital Formation, 2015

• Indicates the weak relationship between investment and growth in SSA.

Figure 7: Efficiency Gap in Sub-Saharan African Countries

• Visualizes the efficiency gap across different regions and countries.

Annex Figure 1.1: Public Investment Management Assessment Framework

• Describes the PIMA framework for assessing public investment practices.

Annex Figure 2.1: Efficiency Frontier

• Illustrates the efficiency frontier using DEA methodology.

Annex Figure 2.2: Technical and Allocative Efficiency Measures

• Explains the technical and allocative efficiency dimensions in public investment.