If Asia’s emerging markets are to avoid the middle income trap, they need to create foundations for the next phase of growth — they need to invest in infrastructure.
In the early stages of development, moving a worker from the land to a factory quadruples their value-added contribution to the economy on average. Much of Asia’s extraordinary growth to date has been underwritten by this one-off transition, but the windfall gains of rapid industrialization are starting to decline and if the region is to continue on the road to prosperity, it needs to find ways to boost productivity and encourage new economic activity.
At the moment, inadequate infrastructure is possibly the biggest brake on emerging markets’ medium-term growth prospects. It stunts both production and investment — few businesspeople will invest in large-scale production capacity when they cannot guarantee a reliable supply of electricity. Few farmers will upgrade their land if their crops are going to rot before they get to market because of bad roads and inadequate warehousing.
With some standout exceptions, such as Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan, the problem is particularly acute in Asia. It is estimated that urbanization alone will require about US$11 trillion worth of infrastructure investment in Asia over the next 15 years.
The first priority is to maximize the efficiency and impact of current spending by fast-tracking infrastructure delivery and clearing bottlenecks to create a pipeline of transparent, well-structured projects. Infrastructure will also benefit from a robust and predictable regulatory environment that assures investors that schemes will not be canceled or stalled halfway through construction.
Although basic infrastructure needs are relatively easy to determine at the early stages of the development cycle, there comes a point where the market mechanisms become the most effective way to allocate capital to the most economically productive infrastructure projects.
Infrastructure has traditionally been paid for by government, and although governments will continue to play a key role, the old model has inherent weaknesses.
The first is governments do not have the necessary human and financial resources.
In the short term, a liquid banking market in Asia, working with export credit agencies and multilateral institutions, can provide significant amounts of cost-efficient financing. However, over time the sheer size of the funding required will mean that alternative financing sources will be vital to plug what will otherwise become an infrastructure funding gap.
Mobilizing private capital on the scale needed to prepare emerging markets for their next phase of growth will not be easy, though.
Although Asian bond markets have developed rapidly since the 1997 to 1998 financial crisis, they still lack the depth, liquidity and legal safeguards necessary to attract the sort of investment required to fund the region’s infrastructure needs and serve as a more effective mechanism for converting Asia’s savings into investment.
Policymakers, regulators and market participants are working to develop regional bond markets, notably through the Asian Bond Market Initiative, but it will not happen overnight. Initially it is expected that capital markets financing will gravitate toward less risky existing projects, allowing bank financing to be recycled into new greenfield developments.
Multilateral institutions will have a key part to play. Traditional institutions like the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, as well as newer entrants like the New Development Bank — otherwise known as the BRICS development bank — and the proposed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank do not have sufficient resources to fill the infrastructure funding gap on their own. However, they can leverage their credit-worthiness to guarantee infrastructure bonds issued by local entities to mobilize Asian capital for Asian growth.
The issuance of local currency infrastructure bonds with a meaningful amount guaranteed by big multilateral agencies would achieve several goals simultaneously. It would raise the money needed to build roads, bridges and power stations; it would create deeper, more liquid bond markets that private enterprises could use to raise capital for investment in new growth opportunities created by improved infrastructure; it would eliminate the potential danger of currency and maturity mismatches; and, last, but not least, it would provide a pool of secure long-term investments for Asia’s aging population.
The second key element to any infrastructure solution will be to tap into the skills and credibility of the private sector through public-private partnerships that offer reliable, legally enforceable long-term returns to private investors in exchange for creating the sort of public goods that give broader benefits to society as a whole.
Asia needs to improve connectivity through upgraded intraregional roads, railways and ports that connect manufacturers with consumers. Regional banks, multilateral financing institutions and agencies can assist by promoting regulatory standardization and designing financing structures that can be used across markets.
Asia’s inadequate infrastructure could hobble its attempts to achieve strong, sustainable growth, but if handled right, it could also be the solution to a range of challenges. The sort of financial and legal architecture that will funnel resources toward building highways, power networks and ports will go on to provide the capital to fund the new wave of growth that improved infrastructure will make possible.
Gordon French is head of global banking and markets, Asia-Pacific, at HSBC.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95