You are on page 1of 114

I

O
B

S
t
u
d
y

|

n
o
.

3
7
8
IOB Study
literature review | IOB Study | no. 378 | Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries | IOB Study | no. 378 | Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
Public-Private Partnerships
in developing countries
A systematic literature review

April 2013
IOB Study
Public-Private Partnerships
in developing countries
A systematic literature review
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 3 |
Preface
Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are a relatively recent phenomenon in international
development cooperation. Current policy documents frequently refer to expectations
regarding their potential contributions to global development goals.
In 2000, the Dutch Minister for Development Cooperation and the Minister for Foreign
Trade submited a joint leter to parliament regarding the role of private sector in reducing
poverty.
1
In this document hardly any reference was made to Public-Private Partnerships.
The roles and articulation of public and private agents were still referred to in rather general
terms like fnding the right balance, demarcating responsibilities and right interplay.
Only once, a PPP is mentioned, namely a Worldbank-led initiative for giving policy advice to
governments of development countries to involve the private sector in fnancing and
operating infrastructure (the Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility - PPIAF).
In the international debate on the efectiveness of aid taking place within the OECD
Development Assistance Commitee (DAC), the private sector was until recently hardly
invited as a stakeholder to join the discussions. The atention for multi-stakeholder
partnerships for pursuing development objectives received a major stimulus at the UN
World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD), held in Johannesburg (South Africa) in
2002. During the winding up of the debates at the 4th High Level Forum on Aid
Efectiveness taking place in Busan (South-Korea) in the period November 29
th
December
1th 2011 thorough atention was given to the role of public-private partnerships in
development cooperation.
This growing atention was frmly backed by the Netherlands government. Nowadays PPPs
are increasingly considered to be an atractive development instrument and are ofen being
used in the Dutch development programs. However, there are still few diagnostic tools
available to determine when and how PPPs represent a preferred institutional arrangement.
Moreover, the empirical evidence on the efectiveness and efciency of PPPs is notably
scarce.
The study provides insights in the wide variety of PPP arrangements and the sometimes
rather difuse contractual framework under which PPPs take place. Due atention is given to
the motives and rationale for relying on PPPs and the expected outcomes of PPP
arrangements. A major conclusion derived from this review is that PPP evaluations focus
more on resource sharing but pay litle atention to the risk-sharing and revenue
distribution dimension of partnerships.
The Policy and Operations Evaluation Department (IOB) of the Netherlands Ministry of
Foreign Afairs commissioned a research team from APE (Aarts De Jong Wilms Goudriaan
Public Economics bv) to undertake a systematic review of available professional literature
1
In Business against Poverty, Parliamentary Papers, House of Representatives, 2000-2001 session, 27
467, no. 1.
| 4 |
Preface
and evaluation reports regarding the performance of PPPs. Main questions guiding the
systematic review refer to:
What can be considered to be a public-private partnership?
What is the intervention logic of PPPs?
What results can be expected from PPPs?
What are critical success factors of PPPs?
The APE-team was composed by Stefanie Bouman, Rafq Friperson, Maartje Gielen and Peter
Wilms. Guidance has been provided by a reference group composed by Natalie den Breugom
de Haas and Anno Galema (both Ministry of Foreign Afairs). Comments were received from
Renko Campen (independent consultant). Internal supervision and quality assurance has
been provided by Max Timmerman and Jiska Gietema of IOB.
The Policy and Operations Evaluation department (IOB) sincerely hopes that this
publication will encourage the refections and debates on the options and opportunities for
public-private partnerships in developing cooperation.
Prof. dr. Ruerd Ruben
Director Policy and Operations Evaluation Department (IOB)
Ministry of Foreign Afairs, The Netherlands
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 5 |
Table of Contents
Preface 3
Table of Contents 5
List of tables, fgures and textboxes 7
Acronyms and abbreviations 7
Summary and conclusions 11
1 Background 15
2 Objective 16
3 Defnition of key terms 17
4 Research steps 20
5 Overview and classifcation 21
6 Defnition and key criteria of developmental PPPs 23
6.1 Defnition developmental PPPs 23
6.2 Five key criteria of developmental PPPs 23
6.3 Summary table (case studies) 24
7 Intervention logic 25
7.1 Rationale of the PPP 25
7.2 Goals and expected results of PPP 27
8 Results of PPP 28
8.1 Output 28
8.2 Outcome 33
8.3 Impact 36
8.4 PPP pathways 36
8.5 Transaction costs 37
8.6 Risk sharing 37
8.7 Proft sharing 38
9 Success and failure factors 39
| 6 |
Table of contents
10 Answers on research questions 42
11 Outlook: Evaluating Public-Private Partnerships 44
12 References 50
Annexes
Annex 1 About IOB 57
Annex 2 Research methodology 59
Annex 3 Coding sheet systematic review 64
Annex 4 Summary tables case studies 67
Annex 5 Summary table reviews (overview studies) 93
Evaluation reports of the Policy and Operations Evaluation Department
(IOB) published 2008-2013 108
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 7 |
List of tables, fgures and textboxes
Tables
Table 1 Dutch spending on PPPs in 2011 15
Table 2 Number of studies by sector 21
Table 3 Number of studies by region 21
Table 4 Number of studies by type of PPP 22
Table 5 Five key criteria on developmental PPPs (case studies) 24
Table 6 Efect of PPP intervention on output (case studies) 28
Table 7 Efect of PPP intervention on output (reviews) 32
Table 8 Efect of PPP intervention on outcome (case studies) 34
Table 9 Efect of PPP intervention on outcome (reviews) 35
Table A-1 Number of articles collected and remaining afer check for relevance title/
abstract 60
Table A-2 Number of articles remaining afer check on title/abstract and quality 62
Table A-3 Number of case studies by MSSM 63
Table A-4 Defnition and type of PPP (case studies) 67
Table A-5 Intervention logic (case studies) 74
Table A-6 Results of PPP (case studies) 82
Table A-7 Summary table reviews 93
Figures
Figure 1 Remaining number of studies afer each selection step 20
Figure 2 Word cloud of PPP defnitions in reviewed case studies 23
Figure 3 Relationship between PPP design and output 31
Figure 4 Relationship between key PPP design and outcome 35
Figure 5 PPP Transaction costs 48
Textboxes
Box 1 Five key criteria of developmental PPPs 17
Box 2 Types of (developmental) Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) 18
Box 3 Implement a PPP to increase efectiveness 26
Box 4 Evaluation methodology of PPRS program 29
Box 5 Punjabi Education Foundation 31
Box 6 The weak output of the African horticulture partnership 33
Box 7 ASAQ Winthrop led to price reduction of ATCs 34
Box 8 The failure of the Bolivia water concession 36
Box 9 No proft no loss prices 37
Box 10 Critical success factors of PPPs 39
Box A-1 Keywords used for fnding relevant articles 59
Box A-2 Quality criteria (knock-out) 61
Box A-3 MSSM levels and description 62
| 8 |
Acronyms and abbreviations
Acronyms and abbreviations
3IE International Initiative for Impact Evaluation
ADB Asian Development Bank
AfDB African Development Bank
AVRCD The World Vegetable Center
CGAP Consultative Group to Assist the Poor
CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
CIMMYT The International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre
DAC Development Assistance Commitee
DBFMO Design Build Finance Maintain Operate
DEReC DAC Evaluation Resource Centre
DFID Department for International Development (United Kingdom)
Evalnet DAC network on Development Evaluation
ERR External Rate of Return
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FLO Fairtrade Labelling Organisation
GAFSP Global Agriculture and Food Security Program
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GNI Gross National Income
HH Household
ICARDA International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas
ICRAF The World Agroforestry Centre
ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics
ICS Internal Control System
IDB Inter-American Development Bank
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute
IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
IOB Policy and Operations Evaluation Department
IPM Integrated Pest Management
IRR Internal Rate of Return
IRRI International Rice Research Institute
KIT Royal Tropical Institute
MDG Millennium Development Goal
MFA Ministry of Foreign Afairs
MV Modern Varieties
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NPV Net Present Value
NRM Natural Resources Management
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OPV Open Pollinated Varieties
PARC Pan African Rinderpest Eradication Campaign
PETT The Peruvian Rural Land Titling Programme
PPIAF Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 9 |
PPP Public-Private Partnership
SSA Sub-Saharan Africa
WB World Bank
WDR World Development Report
WFP World Food Programme
WSSD World Summit for Sustainable Development
Summary and conclusions
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 11 |
Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs or 3P) are increasingly envisaged as an atractive
proposition for involving the private sector in international development cooperation. In
practice, however, PPPs include a wide variety of arrangements and are not always
uniformly defned. We therefore categorized developmental PPPs according to a set of
criteria related to the degree of cooperation in terms of shared goal, joint funding, resource
and activity sharing and risk distribution.
Since 2002 the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Afairs has been increasingly using PPPs for the
execution of development cooperation programs. In 2011, Dutch government spent 48.3
million on 54 PPPs mainly in sectors like healthcare, water and sanitation and food security.
Moreover, substantial funding is provided to worldwide strategic product development
coalitions as well as to thematic multi-donor trustfunds that operate in close alliance with
the private sector. Finally, also Dutch non-governmental organizations are engaged in
several partnerships with the private sector.
PPPs are generically defned as a form of cooperation between government and business
agents sometimes also involving voluntary organizations (NGOs, trade unions) or
knowledge institutes that agree to work together to reach a common goals or carry out a
specifc task, while jointly assuming the risks and responsibilities and sharing resources and
competences. While there are many conceptual studies available that provide insights in
the principles and potentials of PPPs in international development cooperation, empirical
evidence that highlights the (developmental) rationale and the actual outcomes for
stakeholders is still scarce.
This systematic review of the available evidence regarding the development impact of PPPs
is based on a careful search and selection process following the guidelines and procedures
of the Campbell protocol. From an initial collection of 1.433 studies derived from several
sources (i.e. articles from scientifc portals and development evaluation studies) fnally
remained 81 studies that qualifed as valid evaluative reports. Afer a further screening
regarding the reporting on PPP results, 47 studies fnally remained that provide empirical
evidence on PPP efectiveness, including 18 case studies and 29 reviews. We summarize the
main fndings and conclusions below:
1. Evaluation studies make diference between various types of PPPs that difer with
respect to the degree of sharing resources, responsibilities and risks.
Most evaluation evidence is available from PPP arrangements that are characterized as
joint ventures and management contracts. In addition, many PPPs rely on a
combination of various contractual principles. Subsidies and concessions to private
partners for the execution of development programs could also qualify as a PPP, since
these are usually assigned for outsourcing of activities. Otherwise, grants and revenue
subsidies (tax breaks) are considered as specifc incentives for enabling private sector
involvement in particular sectors that are economically viable (e.g. providing a net
beneft to society) but that are fnancially not yet sufciently atractive.
| 12 |
Summary and conclusions
2. PPPs are currently used in diferent sectors, but evidence is mainly available for PPPs in
healthcare (insurance), infrastructure (including transport and energy), water supply
and agriculture.
Important areas for PPP development are found in sectors where substantial initial
capital investments are required and that ofer real opportunities for cost recovery
through payment of tarifs and fees. Notably few PPP evaluations are registered in the
felds of education and environment. PPPs seem to focus on activities that could
beneft from production and/or distribution technologies that are widely available
from private sector agents. Most evaluative evidence regarding PPPs is available from
Africa and Asia, particularly referring to setings of market failure.
3. Many PPP evaluations focus on resource sharing, while litle atention is usually given
to the risk-sharing and revenue distribution dimension of partnerships.
More than half of the PPP evaluative case studies pay no atention to the distribution of
risks between public and private partners. The partnership is usually conceived as a
cooperative agreement focusing on common goals and sharing inputs and resources.
Clear arrangements for the distribution of revenues and rules for assigning
responsibilities for potential losses are commonly absent. Moreover, rules for
distribution of public and private shares are defned mechanically or on an ad-hoc
base; bidding schemes are hardly used to identify appropriate private partners.
4. The rationale for relying on PPPs is mostly based on resource mobilization motives
rather than for efectiveness reasons.
In theory, PPPs can be considered a preferred option when market and/or institutional
failures exist that prevent the delivery of goods and services with a net development
impact. In practice, however, most PPPs are motivated for fnancial reasons in order to
mobilize additional resources that enable the execution of large public programs. Few
evaluation reports mention overcoming fnancial market failure and product/market
risks as a motive for public engagement. Market failures may be a relevant motive for
justifying PPPs in medicine research and agricultural product development where high
sunk costs inhibit private start-ups. Government failures can be equally relevant to
pursue PPPs if the adequate provision of public goods is at stake.

5. The goals perceived by PPPs are ofen defned in a very general way and criteria for
specifc, measurable, atainable, relevant and timely objectives are usually absent.
Many PPP evaluation studies mention perceived goals that are defned at a rather high
level of aggregation and that are difcult to assess empirically at the end of the
program. Process-type of goals (beter cooperation) are frequently forwarded, while
output-oriented goals are scarcely specifed. Especially the time dimension is usually
overlooked in PPP evaluations. An adequate time frame for evaluation is required,
since initially high transaction costs during the start-up phase of PPPs could be
compensated by lower costs during implementation.
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 13 |
6. Reported efects of PPPs are rather positive at output level, but also weak, mixed and
negative efects are registered in several occasions.
In 15 of the 18 reviewed case studies there was reporting on the efect of the PPP on
output. The majority (13 out of 15) describes a positive efect, 2 studies fnd no efect
and 1 study registers a negative efect. A similar picture emerges from the review
studies. In most reports it remains unclear whether the efect can be atributed to the
PPP. Moreover, clients or benefciaries of PPPs are not always unambiguously defned.
No straightforward relationship has been found between the compliance on PPP
characteristics and the efect of PPPs on delivering output.
7. Development outcomes and efectiveness: some but rather weak evidence
The developmental outcome and impact of PPPs is assessed in half of the available case
studies (9 out of 18) and in 7 out of 9 cases positive efects are registered. However, the
robustness of these results is rather limited with low scores on the Maryland Scale of
Scientifc Methods (MSSM). Results were reported in terms of higher education scores,
beter treatment rates, lower consumer prices and adoption of new production
technologies, but no systematic relationship with PPP design features could be proven.
PPP projects focusing on privatization of public services (water, electricity) sometimes
cause tarif increases that may afect poorer households. Almost no evidence was found
regarding the cost-efectiveness and the environmental benefts of PPPs.
8. The evidence base on PPP evaluations is still scarce and hardly relies on sound and
robust empirical counterfactual analysis.
The large majority of the PPP evaluations are not based on robust impact analysis. Only
one study provides a counterfactual (e.g. situation without PPP intervention). This
implies that atribution of efects to particular PPP features is not possible. However,
some specifc pathways for generating PPP results could be discerned, with most
notable outcomes found in activities related to training and professional development,
R&D support, knowledge sharing and leverage of technical and managerial expertise,
work and participation incentives, and price controls and tarif ceiling measures.
9. Systematic analysis of PPP performance could provide more insights in the success and
failure factors underlying PPP efectiveness.
The professional literature provides several overviews of factors that infuence success
or failure of PPPs. Critical success factors refer to (a) standard seting and permanent
involvement of public agencies, (b) clear formation requirements (goals, inputs and
expectations), (c) sound regulatory framework regarding costs recovery and beneft
distribution, (d) adequate partner selection arrangements (based on compatibility,
capability, commitment and control), (e) common vision and mutual trustful
relationships and (f ) transparent negotiation on multiple interests of key participants.
The validity of these factors is confrmed from the case studies, but their mutual
interaction and relative importance remains subject to debate.
| 14 |
Summary and conclusions
10. Decision-making regarding the reliance on PPPs for development could be supported
with a clear framework for selecting and designing PPPs and should provide insights in
the rationale and intervention logic of PPPs in any specifc situation.
Since PPPs cannot be universally defned and they can include a variety of diferent
organizational features, their selection fnally depends in particular on a judgment
regarding appropriateness and expected results that can be reached in any particular
situation. Therefore, it might be useful to identify key constraints that hinder local
development and to outline whether or not PPPs can be considered as an adequate
strategy for addressing these constraints. For making such judgments, it is considered
particularly important to clearly defne PPP eligibility criteria and to compare the PPP
option with alternative implementation arrangements.
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 15 |
1 Background
Growing role of private sector
Involving the private sector is a growing priority in Dutch development cooperation. Since
2002 the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Afairs (MFA) has increasingly used Public-Private
Partnerships (PPPs) for the execution of aid programs. The PPPs are designed to bring the
realization of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) closer (MFA, 2010).
Dutch spending on developmental PPPs is concentrated in healthcare and water.
Currently the Dutch government is involved in PPPs in several African- (such as
Mozambique, Rwanda and Burundi) and Asian developing countries (such as Indonesia and
Mongolia). Examples of concrete projects are worldwide coalitions such as the so-called
Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI), partnerships with individual
companies like the Dutch energy company Nuon in the Foundation for Rural Energy
Services (FRES) in Mali and product development partnerships (PDPs). In 2011, the Dutch
government spent 48,3 million on 54 PPPs. The projects were concentrated in the sectors
food security/PSD, water, sanitation & hygiene and healthcare, see Table 1.
Table 1 Dutch spending on PPPs in 2011
Theme Number of projects Spending (x mln.)
Food security/PSD 17 8,7
Water, sanitation & hygiene 15 13,5
Healthcare 13 24,5
Innovative fnance 6 0,3
Climate and energy 3 1,3
Total 54 48,3
Source: Tweede Kamer, 2011-2012 32 503 nr. 6
| 16 |
Objective
2 Objective
Our main research question
The main research question of this review is: what is the evidence for the efectiveness and efciency
of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) in international development cooperation as derived from credible and
valid evaluative studies?.
covers fve key issues.
The specifc research questions can be divided across fve key issues:
1. Precise defnition of developmental PPPs
a. What are the criteria for an intervention to be considered developmental PPPs?
2. Categorization of diferent types of PPPs according to diferent intervention
strategies
a. Which types of developmental PPPs can be distinguished?
b. What is the intervention strategy of developmental PPPs?
c. Which pathways in developmental PPPs can be distinguished?
d. What is the relation between diferent types of PPPs and the intervention strategy?
3. Identifcation of results of PPPs pathways at outcome and possibly impact level
a. What are the outputs of PPPs in developing countries?
b. What are the outcomes PPPs in developing countries?
c. What are the impacts of PPPs in developing countries?
4. Analysis of the efectiveness of PPP pathways according to relevant evaluative studies
a. Why did a PPP produced the desired results or not?
b. Are there general paterns in success or failure factors?
5. Synthesis of the available information of PPP efciency.
a. What are the benefts of the PPPs compared to the costs?
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 17 |
3 Defnition of key terms
Before answering the research question we defne the key terms in our research questions.
This entails the defnition of PPP, output, outcome, impact and intervention logic.
No broad accepted defnition of PPP
There is no universal accepted defnition of Public Private Partnership (PPP). Marin (2009)
illustrates this point: there is no single defnition of PPP. It covers a wide range of
transactions where the private sector is assigned some responsibility, including investment.
It ranges from management contracts with no investment obligations to concessions
contracts with signifcant investment obligations in addition to operational and
management obligations (Marin, 2009).
but defnitions do have common characteristics.
Although defnitions vary, they do have some common characteristics. Illustrative for this is
the analysis in a forthcoming paper of Da Rosa et al. (2012). Da Rosa et al. (2012) present an
extensive overview of 28 PPP defnitions which they score along 14 dimensions. They fnd
that most defnitions describe that PPPs: have diferent societal backgrounds (18 out of 28),
share objectives, goals and problems (17 out of 28), are for the provision of public goods
(14), beneft from complementary resources (14) and have partners which collaborate in an
interdependent and interactive way (Da Rosa et al., 2012).
We use the defnition of the Dutch MFA
Given the context of our review we use the PPP defnition from the Dutch Ministry of
Foreign Afairs (MFA, 2010): A form of cooperation between government and business (in
many cases also involving NGOs, trade unions and/or knowledge institutions) in which they
agree to work together to reach a common goal or carry out a specifc task, jointly assuming
the risks and responsibility and sharing their resources and competences.
and derive fve key criteria of developmental PPPs.
Based on the MFA defnition, defnitions from key developmental institutions (such as
OECD, World Bank and IMF) and the analysis of Da Rosa et al. (2012) we derive fve key
criteria of developmental PPPs, see Box 1. In our systematic review we will score the PPPs in
the case studies on these criteria.
Box 1 Five key criteria of developmental PPPs
# Characteristic
1 A cooperation between the public and private sector (also NGOs, trade organizations and
knowledge institutes) with a common (development) goal;
2 A clear agreement between the public and private party on the goal(s) of the PPPs;
3 A combination of Public and Private funding
4 A clear agreement between the public and private party on the sharing of resources and tasks;
5 Distribution of risks between the public and the private sector.
| 18 |
Defnition of key terms
Types of developmental PPPs.
Within this framework there are several types of developmental PPPs. On a scale from
public to private we distinguish the following types of PPPs (ADB, 2008):
2
Service contract
Management contract
Afermage and lease contracts
Concession
Buildoperatetransfer (BOT) and similar arrangements (including BTO, BOO, DBO, DBFO)
Joint venture
These types are described in Box 2.
Box 2 Types of (developmental) Public Private Partnerships (PPPs)
Form Description (quoted from ADB, 2008)
Service
contract
The government (public authority) hires a private company or entity to carry
out one or more specifed tasks or services for a period, typically 13 years.
The government pays the private partner a predetermined fee for the service,
which may be based on a one-time fee, unit cost, or other basis.
Management
contract
A management contract expands the services to be contracted out to include
some or all of the management and operation of the public service (i.e., utility,
hospital, port authority, etc.). Obligation for service provision remains in the
public sector, while daily management control and authority is assigned to the
private partner or contractor.
The private contractor is paid a predetermined rate for labor and other anticipa-
ted operating costs. The contractor is paid an additional amount for achieving
prespecifed targets or the management contractor can be paid a share of
profts. The public sector retains the obligation for major capital investment.
Afermage or
Lease contracts
Under an afermage or a lease contract, the private partner is responsible for
the service in its entirety and undertakes obligations relating to quality and
service standards. Except for new and replacement investments, which remain
the responsibility of the public authority, the operator provides the service at
his expense and risk. The duration of the leasing contract is typically for 10
years and may be renewed for up to 20 years.
Under a lease contract the fnancial risk for operation and maintenance is
borne entirely by the private sector operator. The private sector retains
revenue collected from customers and makes a specifed lease payment to the
contracting authority.
An afermage allows the private sector to collect revenue from the customers
(typically an agreed rate per unit sold), pays the contracting authority an
afermage fee, and retains the remaining revenue.
2
In our opinion the ADB handbook on PPP provided the most broad and thorough overview of
developmental PPPs.
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 19 |
Form Description (quoted from ADB, 2008)
Concession A concession makes the private sector operator (concessionaire) responsible for
the full delivery of services in a specifed area, including operation, maintenance,
collection, management, and construction and rehabilitation of the system. The
operator is responsible for all capital investment. The public sector is responsible
for establishing performance standards and ensuring that the concessionaire
meets them. A concession contract is typically valid for 2530 years.
The concessionaire collects the tarif directly from the system users.
Buildoperate
transfer (BOT)
and similar
arrangements
(including BTO,
BOO, DBO,
DBFO)
Under a BOT and similar arrangements a private frm or consortium fnances and
develops a new infrastructure project or a major component according to
performance standards set by the government. The private partner provides the
capital required to build the new facility. At the end of the contract, the ownership
is transferred to the public sector. Variations on the basic BOT structure are:
buildtransferoperate (BTO) where the transfer to the public owner takes
place at the conclusion of construction rather than at the end of the contract;
buildownoperate (BOO) where the developer constructs and operates the
facility without transferring ownership to the public sector;
design buildoperate (DBO) where the private sector provides design,
construction, and operation of the infrastructure project;
designbuildfnanceoperate (DBFO) where the responsibilities for designing,
building, fnancing, and operating are bundled together and transferred to
private sector partners.
Joint venture Under a joint venture, the public and private sector partners can either form a
new company or assume joint ownership of an existing company through a
sale of shares to one or several private investors. Both public and private
partners invest in the company and share risks.
Source: ABD (2008)
Output (immediate results)
We defne output as the number of goods or services produced by the PPP. For instance the
number of mosquito nets or malaria medicines. These are the most immediate results of
activities (OECD, 2001).
Outcome (intermediate efects)
We defne outcome as the intermediate (short term) efect of the PPP on the community.
Examples: since the PPP in water service more people have access to clean drinking water. Ofen
the time frame is such that outcomes can be achieved within the project life cycle (OECD, 2001).
Impact (fnal goal)
We defne impact as the causal efect (net efect) of the PPP intervention on the fnal goal. For
instance: less people die of water pollution because of the PPP intervention. The casual efect of
PPP should be indicated by counterfactual analysis, therefor a strong counterfactual is needed.
Intervention logic
Intervention logic we describe as all the activities and expected efects (outputs, results and
impacts) of an intervention, as well as the assumptions that explain how the activities will
lead to the efects in the context of the intervention (European Commission, 2006).
| 20 |
Research steps
4 Research steps
Six research steps
In our systematic review we followed the guidelines and procedures mentioned in the
Campbell protocol for systematic reviews. We followed six research steps to fnd, select, and
analyze relevant studies:
Step 1: keyword search
Step 2: quick scan articles on title and abstract
Step 3: assessing general characteristics of studies
Step 4: check on quality (6 knock-out criteria)
Step 5: scoring of remaining case studies on counterfactual
Step 6: in depth analysis of remaining studies
An extensive description of the research steps can be found in Annex 2 (research
methodology).
resulted in 18 case studies and 29 reviews.
The search process resulted in 18 case studies and 29 reviews. In Figure 1 we visualize the
number of remaining studies afer each selection step.
Figure 1 Remaining number of studies afer each selection step
1433
studies found
81
afer title/
abstract check
47
afer quality
check
18
case studies
29 reviews
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 21 |
5 Overview and classifcation
Majority of reviewed PPPs are in healthcare, infrastructure and agriculture
We reviewed PPP evaluations in a broad number of sectors. Most of them were in healthcare
(11), infrastructure (6) and water supply (5). See Table 2.
Table 2 Number of studies by sector
Case studies Reviews
(overview
studies)
Total
Agriculture 0 4 4
Education 2 0 2
Energy 2 1 3
Environment 1 1 2
Healthcare 6 5 11
Housing (construction) 1 2 3
Infrastructure 3 3 6
Transport 1 2 3
Water 0 5 5
Multiple sectors 0 3 3
Other 2 3 5
Total 18 29 47
Majority of reviewed PPP were in Asia and Africa
We reviewed evaluations from PPP in various developing countries. Most PPP were situated
in Asia (19) and Africa (11). See Table 3.
Table 3 Number of studies by region
Case studies Reviews
(overview
studies)
Total
Asia 10 9 19
Asia (various countries/regions) 1 3 4
China 2 0 2
India 2 3 5
Lebanon 1 0 1
Malaysia 0 1 1
Nepal 1 0 1
Pakistan 3 1 4
Yemen 0 1 1
| 22 |
Overview and classifcation
Africa 4 7 11
Africa (various countries/regions) 3 4 7
Ghana 0 1 1
East Africa 0 1 1
Nigeria 1 0 1
Tanzania 0 1 1
Latin America 1 3 4
Latin America (various countries/
regions)
0 3 3
Peru 1 0 1
Various continents 3 10 13
Total 18 29 47
Majority of reviewed PPP are joint ventures and management contracts
We reviewed several diferent types of partnership contracts. Most PPP contracts are joint
ventures (11) and management contracts (9). See Table 4.
Table 4 Number of studies by type of PPP
Case studies Reviews
(overview
studies)
Total
Concession 1 0 1
Buildoperatetransfer (BOT) and similar
arrangements (including BTO, BOO, DBO, DBFO)
2 1 3
Joint Venture 8 3 11
Lease contract 1 0 1
Management contract 4 5 9
N/A 0 4 4
Various (combinations of above) 2 16 18
Total 18 29 47
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 23 |
6 Defnition and key criteria of
developmental PPPs
In this section we take a closer look at the defnition and characteristics of the PPPs in the 18
reviewed case studies. How is PPP defned in the reviewed studies and do these PPPs fulfll
the fve key criteria of developmental PPPs? In the next paragraph we discuss the defnitions
and we assess whether the reviewed PPPs fulfll the fve key criteria of developmental PPPs.
We fnish this section with a summary table on the key characteristics of the reviewed case
studies.
6.1 Defnition developmental PPPs
Most studies dont give an explicit defnition of PPP
A substantial amount of authors use the term Public Private Partnership without actually
explaining what the term means. This refects our fnding that there isnt a consistent
defnition of PPP. In only 4 out of the 18 case studies the defnition of PPP is explained (see
Annex 4 for these defnitions per case study). We have summarized these defnitions in a
so-called Word cloud (see Figure 2). The fgure shows that most defnitions contain the
words joint, government and collaborations.
Figure 2 Word cloud of PPP defnitions in reviewed case studies
Source: reviewed case studies
6.2 Five key criteria of developmental PPPs
Most studied PPP projects fulfll majority of the fve criteria of developmental PPPs
We looked whether the in the case studies described PPP projects fulflled each of the fve
PPP criteria (see Box 1). We found that a majority of these PPP projects fulfll three or more
of the fve PPP criteria. See Table 5 (an overview per study is presented in Annex 4).
| 24 |
Defnition and key criteria of developmental PPPs
Table 5 Five key criteria on developmental PPPs (case studies)
# Key criterion Yes No Total
1 Cooperation between public- and private party 18 0 18
2 Clear agreement on goal 16 2 18
3 Combination of public- and private funding 13 5 18
4 Agreement on sharing of resources and tasks 17 1 18
5 Distribution of risks between the public and the private sector 8 10 18
1. All (in the case studies reviewed) PPP projects fulfll criterion 1 (cooperation between public
and private sector). So in each PPP case study there is some form of cooperation between the
public and the private sector described. We expected this because we selected the studies on
this criterion. A few notable examples: The Chad-Cameroon petroleum development and
pipeline project, a collaborative venture between an oil consortium and the governments of
Chad and Camroon (Utzinger, 2005); Rescue-15, an Emergency Service Medical (EMS)
partnership between the Islamabads Police Department, NGOs and the private sector.
2. 16 out of 18 PPPs in the studies fulfll criterion 2 (clear agreement between public and
private party on the goals). For example the Womens Health Initiative (WHI), a PPP where
the parties agreed to improve reproductive and maternal health for woman and girls in
India. (Kruesmann and Timmermann, 2009).
3. 13 out of 18 case studies explicitly mention that the PPP goes with a combination of public
and private funding (criterion 3). However, the division of the budget (between the
public- and private party) is not always mentioned.
4. 17 out of 18 reviewed PPP projects fulfll criterion 4 (clear agreement on sharing of
resources and tasks). Notable example is the Lebanese network and telecom PPP
concession. The private sector became responsible for building and operating the network
and the public sector for regulation (Jamali, 2004).
5. The distribution of risks is addressed in 8 out of 18 of the studied PPP projects. A notable
example is presented by Shen et al. (2006) in the article on the partnership between the
Hong Kong
3
government and private sector (Walt Disney Company) on the development of
Disney Land. In this PPP project acquisition-, legal- and policy risks are allocated to the
public sector. While the design-, construction-, operation and industrial action risk are
allocated to the private sector. Developmental risk, market risk and fnancial risk are
shared between the partners (Shen et al., 2006).
6.3 Summary table (case studies)
In Annex 4 we present a summary table of the 18 reviewed case studies by sector. For each case
study we describe the subsector, region, exact defnition of PPP (quote), key characteristics, type
and budget. If we couldnt derive a characteristic from a study (because it was not available or
relevant) we noted this as NA. We have writen the most important fndings in bold.
3
Since 1997 Hong Kong isnt a developing country according to the IMF (IMF, 1998). However, we
decided to include this case study in our review because the partnership was set-up in the late
1990s. Thereby Hong Kong is part of China, which is a developing country.
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 25 |
7 Intervention logic
Before looking at the efects of PPPs in terms of output, outcome and impact it is important
to consider the so-called intervention logic of PPPs: what is the reason to implement PPP in
development countries? What are the goals for PPP and the expected results? We consider
the later questions in this section. In paragraph 7.1 we discuss the rationale of PPP in the
reviewed case studies. In paragraph 7.2 we discuss the goals and expected results of PPP in
the reviewed case studies.
7.1 Rationale of the PPP
PPPs can be implemented for (a combination of ) fnancial, developmental, efciency, ideological and
political reasons.
The rationale to implement the PPP is described in 12 of the 18 reviewed case studies. These
reasons can be grossly divided in: (1) fnancial reasons (including risk diversifcation), (2)
development reasons (3) efciency reasons and (4) ideological/political reasons
(see Annex 4 for details per case study):
Financial reasons (including risk diversifcation, 7 studies): in a substantial amount of the
reviewed case studies PPP is implemented because the local government doesnt have
enough resources to carry out a task alone: the government of Pakistan decided to
implement PPP in education because they did not have the resources to accomplish the
gigantic task of providing quality education and meeting the targets of the Millennium
Development Goals alone (Malik, 2010). The Lebanese government considered PPP in
telecom because they wanted to reform public enterprise but lacked fnancial resources
(Jamali, 2004). In their case studies on Chinese subway PPPs De Jong et al. (2010) state
that the use of PPP in (large) infrastructure projects has mainly risen because the
government has insufcient fnancial resources: In many cases local ofcials believe that
only funding from the private sector can fll the immense gap between the limited
presence of public resources and rapidly growing sustainable urban infrastructure needs.
(de Jong et al., 2010). Risk diversifcation is also mentioned as a motive to implement
PPP. For example the PSOM (Cooperation Emerging Markets) PPP which was
implemented to encourage investment project that would otherwise not have been
carried out because of the high product/market risks (Triodos Facet, 2010).
Development reasons (3 studies): the realization of (Millennium) development goals or
certain international standards is mentioned in 3 of the 18 studies as reason to implement
PPP: the government of India implemented ICTD to distribute the benefts of the IT
sector in rural regions and make more persons e-literate (Kuriyan and Ree, 2008). In their
review on PPPs in tuberculosis research (not in summary table) Dewan et al. (2006)
mention that collaborations between the public and private health sectors, or public-
private mix, may be an important solution to the problem that diagnosis, treatment, and
reporting practices ofen do not meet national or international standards for
tuberculosis.
| 26 |
Intervention logic
Efciency reasons (3 studies): in their extensive review on PPPs on East African Export-Oriented
Horticulture, Pfsterer et al., (2009) state the rationale of the horticulture PPP can be found in
market failure and government failure.
Market failure means that private frms fail to innovate and ensure continuous improvement in
product and process development (Pfsterer et al., 2009) because this is not proftable for
them. This kind of market failure is also addressed by Grace and Duce (2011). In their review on
drug development PPP in developing countries (not in summary table). They state that PPP is
implemented because the private parties on their own do not invest enough in diseases that are
especially occurring or have a diferent disease paterns in developing countries, because for these
medicine research [Aids, TB and malaria] is needed that is hardly relevant for developed countries
(Grace and Duce, 2011) See also Box 3.
Government failure means that the government fails to secure accountability between decision
makers and horticulture industry (Pfsterer et al., 2009). A PPP can efectively address these
failures.
Ideological/political reasons (3 studies): Kuriyan and Ree (2008) mention that PPPs has gained
support in the 1990s because of the international environment that strongly supported economic
liberalization and less state intervention. Kuriyan and Ree (2008) mention that ICTD-PPPs in India
were also enforced because the state was trying to make visible its atempts to accommodate the
rural electorate. Furthermore Kruesmann and Timmerman (2009) note (in their short review of the
Womens Health Initiative, a PPP to improve reproductive and maternal health for woman and girls
in India) that in India the government acknowledges that partnerships with the private sector
-both the for-proft and non-proft- are important to atain public health goals and to improve the
health delivery system (Kruesmann and Timmerman, 2009)
Box 3 Implement a PPP to increase efectiveness
In the past the public sector had the primary responsibility for the provision of
household waste management services but it was not very successful. In order to
increase efectiveness in the service delivery the Kwara State Government contracted a
private company in 2004 and was charged with the responsibility of keeping Iloring
clean, and to formalize the recycling process. Currently, the private company and the
Kwara State Waste Management Council (a government agency) are in charge of
household waste management services in Ilorin. The Waste Management Council plays
a supervisory role, while the private company is in charge of collection of household
waste. The challenge of efective and efcient household waste management strategy
has become a priority for policymakers in Kwara State. The people who are in support
of more private companies argue that if more private companies are involved in waste
management services it will lead to competition between the companies, increase
efectiveness and consequently improve environmental quality. Before involving more
private companies in the provision of household waste management services it is
important to have an overview of how Ilorin residents perceive the present household
waste management services. This is the aim of the study, as well as the examination of
some socio-economic factors infuencing their perceptions.
Source: Ezebilo and Animasaun (2012)
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 27 |
7.2 Goals and expected results of PPP
Goals of PPPs are ofen very general and not SMART formulated
The goal of the PPP is described in almost all reviewed case studies (see Annex 4). However
the described goals in the case study evaluations are ofen very general and not SMART
(specifc, measurable, atainable, relevant, timely) formulated especially the dimension
timely ofen isnt fulflled. Some typical examples:
The goal of Rescue-15 (an emergency service partnership between the Islamabad Police
Department NGOs and the private sector) was [to] boost public confdence and to
inculcate a spirit of citizen-friendly policing with community participation. (Ali, 2006).
This is an example of a goal that is neither measurable (because its not clear how public
confdence and a sense of citizen-friendly policing would be measured), nor atainable
(because its not clear how the goals will be achieved) or timely (because its not stated
when the goal should be reached).
The Hong Kong International Theme Parks Limited joint venture aimed to provide
recreational facilities for general public in Hong Kong and contribute to the Hong Kong
economy. The later goal is neither measurable (because it is not clear how the
contribution to the economy will be measured) nor timely (because it is not stated when
the goal should be reached).
The goal of the Lebanese telecom PPP was seting up an afordable telecommunication
network (Jamali, 2004). This goal is neither specifc (what is afordable?) nor measurable
or timely.
Ofen unclear on what expected results are based
The expected results of PPP are described in 11 of the 18 reviewed case studies. However its
not always clear on which arguments those expected results are based, see Annex 4.
| 28 |
Results of PPP
8 Results of PPP
In this section we present the results of the PPPs in the reviewed studies. In paragraph 8.1
we discuss the output of PPP in the reviewed case studies. In paragraph 8.2 we discuss the
outcome and in paragraph 8.3 the impact. Where applicable we complement these fndings
with the results in the overview studies. In paragraph 8.4 we discuss the pathways/strategies
of the PPPs in the reviewed case studies. We end this chapter with a discussion on
transaction costs (8.5), risk- (8.6) and proft sharing (8.7).
8.1 Output
Case studies
Most case studies present a positive efect of the PPP on output
We have defned output as the number of goods or services produced by the PPP. In 15 out of
18 reviewed case studies we were able to derive an efect of PPP on output. The majority of
those studies (13 out of 15) describes a positive efect of the PPP on output. 2 studies
describe no efect on output and zero studies describe a negative efect.
but the evidence is weak and limited.
The majority of studies has a no counterfactual. As we note in Annex 2, in the ideal situation
the study should compare the situation with PPP with the situation that would have
happened without PPP. So the outcome of PPP in a region should be compared with a
comparable region without PPP (a robust comparable control group while controlling for
external factors), MSSM level 5. In only 1 study the efect of the PPP intervention is
estimated with the use of a counterfactual on MSSM level 3 (output before/afer and control
group). The remaining counterfactuals are on level 2 (output before/afer) and 1 (only
output at 1 point in time), see Table 6.
Table 6 Efect of PPP intervention on output (case studies)
Efect on output
MSSM level (see box A-3 for description)
Total 1 2 3 4 5 NA
+ (positive efect in general) 13 4 8 1 - -
-
+/- (mixed efect) - - - - - -
-
- (negative efect in general) - - - - - -
-
0 (no efect in general) 2 2 - - - -
-
NA (not available/applicable) 3 1
2
Total 18 7 8 1 - -
2
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 29 |
Only one study presents a positive efect on output with a counterfactual on MSSM level 3.
The one study with a counterfactual on MSSM level 3 is about the provision of primary education
through PPP in Pakistan. This resulted in the so-called Promoting Low-Cost Private Schooling
in Rural Sindh (PPRS) program: Goal of the PPRS program was to take advantage of the local
knowledge and underutilized resources within [rural] communities to provide viable,
appropriate, and afordable education (Barrera-Osorio et al., 2011). Within the PPRS program
private entrepreneurs could start their own school and receive a per-child fee from the
government. The government selected these entrepreneurs within a random sample of 100
villages chosen from a sample of 163 qualifying [villages] (Barrera-Osorio et al., 2011). The
remaining 63 villages remained in the control group. Barrera-Osorio et al. (2011) estimate the
efect on school enrolment while controlling for child- and household characteristics and
district fxed efects. They fnd that the intervention had a signifcant positive efect on school
enrolment, (see also Box 4): enrolment increases by 51 percentage points in treated villages.
Thereby girls have a 4-5 points greater increase than boys (Barrera-Osorio et al., 2011).
4
Box 4 Evaluation methodology of PPRS program
In order to identify the causal impact of the intervention, the qualifying localities were
randomly assigned to the control and two treatment groups, thereby ensuring that
receipt of a school is uncorrelated with village characteristics that may infuence the
efcacy of the program. Insofar as randomization has established statistically indistin-
guishable groups across the control and treatment villages, any diferences between
them can be atributed to the intervention. The participating villages were chosen
according both to their need as well as the ability of the entrepreneur to secure an
adequate facility for conducting classes and qualifying teachers to lead them.
A baseline survey was conducted in all qualifying villages in February, 2009.
Following the survey, the villages were randomly assigned to the two treatments
and one control group. The schools were then established in the summer of 2009.
Because the new school term normally commences in spring, the students received
an abbreviated term their frst year. In anticipation of conducting the follow-up
survey, a census was conducted of treatment and control villages in June 2010. In
both the baseline survey and the census, socio-demographic information was
collected. The content of these two surveys was slightly diferent, however. While
they both included questions on the age, gender and enrollment status of all
children ages 5-9 in the household, the census also collected information about
children ages 10-15. The follow-up survey will include numeric and literacy tests for
all children between the ages of 5 and 10 in a randomly chosen sample of house-
holds from each village. In addition, reported enrollment will be verifed through
school surveys. This will allow us to establish the efectiveness of the intervention
in increasing enrollment and test scores.
Source: Barrera-Osorio et al., (2011)
4
Despite the success of the program, in 2012 100 schools were closed because they were within
within the radius of 1.5km of government schools. Now all these are declared in close proximity
of government schools (Dawn, 2012).
| 30 |
Results of PPP
8 case studies present positive efect on output with a counterfactual on MSSM level 2.
Utzinger (2005) fnds that afer implementation of the Chad/Camroon PPP on petroleum
development and pipeline project malaria rates amongst project workers in Chad decreased.
Ali et al. (2006) fnd that since the implementation of Rescue-15 the number of calls
requiring medical services has increased.
According to Newell (2004) the implementation of a public private partnership for control
of tuberculosis in Nepal has led to 1328 patients registered patients with tuberculosis: 210
(15.8%) of these were referrals from private practitioners, the remainder being self-referrals
to DOTS [direct observation of treatment] centers (Newell, 2004).
Jamali (2004) fnd that afer the implementation of the Lebanon telecom PPP the number
of cellular subscribers and international coverage increased. However it should be noted
that this PPP was not a success in qualitative terms. There was litle regulatory oversight
and poor communication between the partners: neither the public nor the private sector
approached the new project in a spirit of true partnership. There was suspicion from the
start in public circles about the inclination of the new operators to openly share and
disclose information (Jamali, 2004).
Triple value (2009) reports that afer implementation of the so-called Sustainable Trade
Agreement (Initiatief Duurzame Handel, IDH) partnership: (a) cacao productivity
increased and quality improved, (b) a code of conduct was implemented for the
improvement of labor standards in natural stone production and (c) an increase of RTRS
(Round Table of Responsible Soy) members by 42.
Triodos Facet (2010) reports that afer implementation of the Programme for Cooperation
with Emerging Markets (PSOM) 205 projects are complemented since the start of the
program [] 275 are ongoing and 176 have stopped, 120 of which prematurely. (Triodos Facet,
2010).
Bompart et al. (2011) report ASAQ Winthrop (a malaria medicine developed by a PPP) was
registered in 30 sub-Saharan African countries and in India, with over 80 million
treatments distributed in 21 countries. 6 million treatments in 2008, 25 million in 2009,
over 45 million in 2010 (Bompart et al., 2011).
Malik (2010) fnds that afer implementation of the Punjab Education Foundation (PEF, a
government organization in Pakistan that sponsors PPPs in education) the number of
schools and students rose, see Box 5.
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 31 |
Box 5 Punjabi Education Foundation
The PEF [Punjabi Education Foundation] was established through the Punjab
Education Foundation Act of 1991 by the Punjab Assembly. This legislation stipula-
ted that the PEF would advance loans and grants to private entrepreneurs for the
construction of schools as a way of promoting accessibility to education. Even afer
the passage of the Punjab Education Foundation Act of 2004, the PEFs mission
remained broadly the same: support the eforts of private schools to provide
education to the poor.
There was a sharp rise in the number of schools and a meteoric rise in the number
of students between 2005 and 2008. For starters, there was an increase of 720.5%
in the number of students in 2006 compared to 2005. The increases continued
every year: 264.6% in 2007, 75.4% in 2008, and 17.7% in 2009. By 2008 the PEF,
through the FAS program, supported 1,337 schools with 529,210 students. In
Pakistan, more than 40% of students drop out of school by the time they reach
Grade 4, but in FAS partner schools the dropout rate is zero.
Source: Malik (2010).
Is there a relationship between the output of PPPs and the design of PPPs? We address this
question in Figure 3. In this fgure we present the relationship between the output and the
key PPP characteristics. The fgure shows no relationship between the key PPP
characteristics and the efect of the PPP on output.
Figure 3 Relationship between PPP design and output (n=18)
c
-
e
s
1z
1s
nc yes nc yes nc yes nc yes nc yes
Chur.
(Cccperuticn)
Chur. z
(Agreement)
Chur.
(lunding)
Chur.
(Shuring)
Chur.
(Risks)
+ (pcsitive eect) o (nc eect) nA
Source: reviewed case studies
| 32 |
Results of PPP
Reviews
Positive efects of PPP on output are refected in the reviews (overview studies)
The positive fndings in the case studies are refected in the reviews, see Table 7 (in Annex 5
we present a table per review).
Table 7 Efect of PPP intervention on output (reviews)
Efect on output
+ (positive efect in general)
8
+/- (mixed efect)
3
- (negative efect in general)
1
0 (no efect in general)
1
NA (not available/applicable)
16
Total
29

Some notable examples of reviews that fnd a positive efect of PPP on output:
De Pinho Campos et al. (2011) studied the efect of product development (PD) PPPs for
disease control. They conclude that PD PPPs led to the creation of drugs or vaccines in
low and middle-income countries.
Dewan et al. (2006) looked at PPP in tuberculosis treatment. They fnd that in nine (75%)
of the 12 public-private mix projects, observed treatment met or exceeded the Indian
tuberculosis programme target of 85% treatment success. However: in two projects
where treatment outcomes of public sector administered and private provider
administered directly observed treatment were compared, no signifcant diferences were
found (Dewan et al. 2006).
but also some PPPs with weak, mixed or negative efects...
Finally, there are some PPPs with a weak or sometimes even negative efect on output. An
example of a PPP with a weak efect on output is the so-called WSSD (World Summit on
Sustainable Development) partnership, horticulture PPP in various African country, where
the output mostly consists of explorative studies en business plans, see Box 6.
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 33 |
Box 6 The weak output of the African horticulture partnership
The [WSSD] partnership aims to be a vehicle to address those botlenecks in and
around the export horticulture chain in both fowers and vegetables & fruits that
could only be tackled in a public-private partnership. The objective of the WSSD
partnership is twofold. First, market access to the European market is aimed
at through capacity building to comply with food safety regulations. Second,
strengthening structures and awareness is aimed at to contribute to sustainable
development, not only economic but also social and ecological.
The activities undertaken by the partners resulted in a variety of project outputs
such as products and services. One obvious criterion is the extent to which the
project objectives have been achieved. The fnalized projects under review largely
met their original objectives. For ongoing projects some frst outputs were
identifed When examining the results it demonstrated that most outputs are
results of explorative studies such as business plans, reports or frameworks. Almost
all projects plan to implement these outputs in project extension phases.
Source: Pfsterer et al. (2009)
and its not always clear if the efect is due to PPP
Thereby it isnt always clear if the positive efect of output is caused by the PPP or by another
reason - for instance a substantial increase in government spending. Tann (2012) looked at
water privatization in Malaysia and found that there was an increase in pipe length and
water production afer implementation of the PPP. However Tann (2012) notes: Based on
the evidence, it is not clear if increases in production capacity and pipe length were due to
PPI given that these corresponded with signifcant increases in government fnancing.
Moreover, large improvements were made by public and corporatized states in production
capacity while increases in pipe length were related to water distribution which remained in
the public sector for all states except Selangor (publicprivate) afer 2005 and Johor
(private) (Tann, 2012).
8.2 Outcome
Case studies
Most case studies present a positive efect of the PPP on outcome, but evidence is weak.
We have defned outcome as the intermediate (short term) efect of the PPP on the
community: 9 of the 18 reviewed case studies describe an efect of the PPP on outcome. In 7
of those 18 studies the result on outcome is positive. However as we noted when
discussing the efect on output the MSSM score in these studies is low: none of the studies
have a counterfactual on MSSM level 4 or higher. See Table 8.
| 34 |
Results of PPP
Table 8 Efect of PPP intervention on outcome (case studies)
Efect on outcome
MSSM level (see box A-3 for description)
Total 1 2 3 4 5 NA
+ (positive efect in general)
7 1 5 1 - - -
+/- (mixed efect)
1 1 - - - - -
- (negative efect in general)
1 1 - - - - -
0 (no efect in general)
- - - - - - -
NA (not available/applicable)
9 - - - - - 9
Total
18
3 5 1 - -
9
5 case studies present positive efect on outcome with a counterfactual on MSSM level 2
Malik (2010) fnds that afer implementation of the Punjab Education Foundation (PEF, a
government organization that sponsors PPPs in education) dropout rates decreased and
test scores increased.
Ali et al. (2006) fnd that since the implementation of Rescue-15 the mean response time
became approximately 10 minutes. This is close to international standards.
Newell (2004) notes that the establishment the public private partnership for control of
tuberculosis has led to an increase in case notifcation and treatment success rates
(>90%): more than exceeding international targets (Newell, 2004).
Triodos Facet (2010) fnds the establishment of the PSOM/PSI PPP generated 81 direct
jobs. In 17 projects new products were launched in the recipient country and in 23
projects a new technology for producing existing products was developed.
Bompart et al. (2011) fnd that ASAQ Winthrop (a new anti-malarian combination
implemented by a PPP) led to a decrease of the prices of so-called ACTs (Artesunate-based
Combination Therapy, malaria drugs), see Box 7.
Box 7 ASAQ Winthrop led to price reduction of ATCs
[The] partnership was initiated in 2004 between the Drugs for Neglected Diseases
initiative (DNDi) and sanof-aventis [a private frm] to develop together a fxed-
dose combination of artesunate and amodiaquine, one of the forms of ACT
recommended by the WHO, which at that time only existed as a non-fxed
combination of the two drugs.
The availability of a new medicine does not imply access in the feld. As such, the
partnership made two bold commitments. First, the product would receive no
patent protection. Second, the partners set a target price of one USD per treatment
for adults and 0.5 USD cents for children. Before ASAQ Winthrops introduction to
the marketplace, the price for most ACTs in public markets was approximately 2.50
USD for an adult treatment. Afer ASAQ Winthrops introduction, the global
reference price for ACTs on public markets decreased to approximately 1 USD
Source: Bompart et al. (2011)
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 35 |
Is there a relationship between the outcome of PPPs and the design of PPPs? We address
this question in Figure 4. In this we fgure present the relationship between the output and
the key PPP characteristics. The fgure shows no relationship between the key PPP
characteristics and the efect of the PPP on output.
Figure 4 Relationship between key PPP design and outcome (n=18)

no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes


Char. 1
(Cooperation)
Char. 2
(Agreement)
Char. 3
(Funding)
Char. 4
(Sharing)
Char. 5
(Risks)
+ (positive eect) +/- (mixed eect) - (negative eect) NA
Source: reviewed case studies
Reviews
Few reviews describe efects of PPP on outcome
The evidence of the efects of PPP on outcome is also limited in the reviews. We could derive
an efect of PPP on outcome from 7 reviews, see Table 9 (for details we refer to Annex 5).
Table 9 Efect of PPP intervention on outcome (reviews)
Efect on outcome (average efect over all reviewed studies) reviews
+ (positive efect in general) 5
+/- (mixed efect) 2
- (negative efect in general) -
0 (no efect in general) 1
NA (not available/applicable) 21
Total 29
| 36 |
Results of PPP
Some reviews discuss PPP projects which had a negative efect on outcome. Most notable
example in the literature is the Bolivia water concession: a PPP implemented in 1999 to
improve water provision and services for the population of Cochabamba (Bolivia). See Box 8.
Box 8 The failure of the Bolivia water concession
Various factors led to the failure of the concession soon afer water service
management was privatized. In an area where two-thirds of the population live[s]
below the poverty line, tarif increases led to extraordinarily high and unafordable
water prices and clashes with the community, including street protests. The
protests grew so violent that President Banzer placed Bolivia under martial law for
90 days. The contract was ultimately terminated and responsibility for water
services was turned over to a coalition of protesters, which also took over SEMAPA
s US$35 million debt.
Analysis: Private investment seeks projects that can be self-fnancing in the long
term, however, project feasibility is primarily dependent on local conditions and
political risks. Concessions are not a suggested feasible project structure [according
to a fgure called the project feasibility map].
Source: Vives et al. (2006)
8.3 Impact
One study about the impact of PPP
We defned impact as the net-efect of an intervention. To estimate the net-efect a control
group is needed, therefore the counterfactual should at least be at MSSM level 3. Therefore
only Barrera-Osorio et al. (2011) present an efect of PPP on impact: The intervention has
had a large impact on enrollment, suggesting that the previously low enrollment rate
ranging between 23.74% and 29.35% across the three groups according to the baseline, or
31.13% in the census for control villages was being driven largely by supply constraints
rather than a lack of demand.
8.4 PPP pathways
Half of studies present a PPP pathway
In the analyzed studies each PPP had a certain developmental goal. For each study we
checked through which pathway the PPP fulflled its goal. We were able to derive the
following PPP pathways from 8 out of 18 case studies (details are presented in Annex 4):
Training/professional development, Monetary rewards, Public participation, Knowledge
sharing standards, Political agenda seting, R&D support, price control/tarif ceiling and no
proft-no loss prices, see Box 9.
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 37 |
Box 9 No proft no loss prices
ASAQ Winthrop [a malaria medicine developed by a PPP] was made available
through a tiered-pricing policy that includes no proft - no loss prices for ASAQ
Winthrop in the public sector, while the same drug is sold in the private sector
under a diferent brand name at market prices. The proft margins made through
sales in the private sector ensure that the mechanisms that enable very low no
proft - no loss prices in the public sector can be sustained over the long-term
Source: Bompart et al. (2011)
8.5 Transaction costs
High transaction costs in startup phase can be compensated by lower operational costs in implementation
phase
In their synthesis review on horticulture PPPs in Africa Pfsterer et al. (2009) mention that
high transaction costs can occur because of complex negotiations between the partners
when starting the project. However these high start up costs can be compensated in the
implementation phase: [the transaction costs in the startup phase] could be outweigh by
less costs for the actors involved in the implementation phase and the internal efciency
gains due to shared goals and a steeper learning curve of a large number of partners,
especially for focal organizations in Kenya (Pfsterer et al., 2009).
8.6 Risk sharing
Few of the reviewed studies discuss the notion on risk sharing in developmental PPPs:
Lobina et al. (2003) notes that PPPs are in theory expected to unleash the efciencies of
the private sector and deliver social and environmental benefts subject to the efective
allocation of operating and political risks to the parties best placed to minimize and
manage such risks. It is generally assumed that private operators are ablest at dealing
with operating risks while public bodies should preferably retain the political risks
involved with PPPs.
Shen et al. (2006) concludes that [the] allocation of site acquisition risks, inexperienced
private partner risk and legal and policy risks to the public sector is appropriate. Also,
allocation of the design and construction risks, operation risks and industrial action risks
to the private sector, and sharing of development risks, market risks, fnancial risks and
force majeure between the two parties is important.
Phlix et al. (2011) mention that the main risks of the UAFC Joint Programme are
appropriately identifed, well documented and managed. This is being done for the UAFC
Joint Programme as a whole and for its components and country programmes
separately. Bompart (2011) notes that the risks of ASAQ are shared through a Risk
Management Plan.
| 38 |
Results of PPP
8.7 Proft sharing
Unequal proft sharing can threaten partnership strength
Pfsterer et al. (2009) note that cost and benefts arent always equally shared between
partners. This can have consequences for the strength of the partnership: major
inequalities in the distribution of gains and losses between partners can threaten the
strength of the partnership unless these inequalities have been anticipated. This was the
case in Kenya, where the focal partners were expected to have higher gains of the
partnership compared to the partners supporting the implementation (Pfsterer et al.,
2009).
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 39 |
9 Success and failure factors
Government involvement, a sound regulatory framework and a common vision
In our opinion Jamali (2004) presents the most comprehensive overview of critical success
factors of PPPs. These factors are explicit applicable to PPPs and therefore highly relevant.
We present these factors in Box 10.
Box 10 Critical success factors of PPPs
Factor Explanation
Permanent government
involvement
The public sector should continue to set standards and
monitor product safety, efcacy and quality and establish
systems whereby citizens have adequate access to the
products and services they need (Jamali, 2004).
A sound regulatory
framework
Regulation provides assurance to the private partner
that the regulatory system includes protection from
expropriation, arbitration of commercial disputes,
respect for contract agreements, and legitimate recovery
of costs and proft proportional to the risks undertaken
(Jamali, 2004).
Fulfllment of key
formation requirements
Jamali (2004) refers to Samii et al. (2002) when addressing
key formation requirements of efective PPPs. These
requirements include resource dependency, commitment
symmetry, common goal symmetry, intensive communi-
cation, alignment of cooperation learning capability, and
converging working cultures Finally Jamali (2004) refers
to Kanter (1994) who emphasizes individual excellence,
importance, interdependence, investment, information,
integration, institutionalization, and integrity as the key
ingredients of efective collaboration (Jamali, 2004).
Four Cs in partner
selection
The four Cs of compatibility, capability, commitment
and control as critical for successful pre-selection of
alliance partners (Hagen, 2002). Particularly important are
the notions of compatibility, which entails identifying
complementary strengths and weaknesses and commit-
ment as refected in the formalized commitment of
necessary time energy and resources
A common vision and
trusty relationship
between partners
Some of the traditional constraints in the way of a
successful realization of a PPP [] the hold-up problem
caused by a change in the position of partners; []
reductionist measures instilling competitive norms instead
of cooperative ones; and
cultural diferences between private and public partners
(Nijkamp et al., 2002; Scharle, 2002).
| 40 |
Success and failure factors
Factor Explanation
Ensure that the multiple
interests of key partici-
pants are
skillfully negotiated and
packaged.
Partnerships appear to be most justifed where: traditional
ways of working independently have a limited impact on a
problem; the specifc desired goals can be agreed on by
potential collaborators; there is relevant complementary
expertise in both sectors; the long-term interests of each
sector are fulflled; and the contributions of expertise of
the diferent sectors are reasonably balanced (Linder, 1999).
Source: Jamali (2004)
We found some notable examples of success and failure factors in our reviewed studies.
Malik (2010) fnds that the Punjab Education Foundation (PEF, a government
organization that sponsors PPPs in education) the overall governance and management
[were] critical to the successful design and implementation of PPP programs. Despite the
early successes, program growth ground to a halt in 2008 as a result of abrupt changes in
the governance and management of the PEF, and as a result of a changeover in the
national government. (=success factor 1 and 2)
Aziz et al. (2011) investigated success- and failure factors of housing PPP in Malaysia. They
therefore did a literature review and surveyed 184 public agencies. Aziz et al. (2011)
assessed factors which had a positive efect when they existed and negative efect when
absent. Aziz et al. fnd that action against errant developers is the most important
factor in predicting PPP success (=success factor 2). Thereby the absence of a clear and
robust agreement is the factor which has the highest negative efect when absence
(=success factor 6). Other important factors are reputable developer, consistent
communication, developers proft-sharing accountability and developers social
accountability (Aziz et al., 2011) (=success factor 2 and 3).
Triodos Facet (2010) mentions: the main reason for failure of projects was problems with
one (or more) of the partners in the projects. Weak fnancial performance, wrong
expectations, miscommunication etc. could be avoided if the partners have already
worked together and know each other (Triodos Facet, 2010) (=success factor 4, 5 and 6).
Galilea and Medda (2012) did an empirical analysis on success factors of transport PPPs.
They predicted PPP success (which means a project is under construction, operational or
concluded) using a database of 856 PPP transport countries across 72 countries.
5
Galilea
and Medda (2012) predict PPP success by a log linear model and control for region, past
experience with PPP, total investment value of the project, number of multilateral
lenders in countries, GDP growth and the countries corruption index. Galilea and Medda
(2012) fnd that the following factors have a signifcant positive efect on PPP success: (i) A
countrys past experience in PPP agreements; (ii) A countrys macroeconomic
performance (GDP growth and current account) (iii) The corruption index: corruption has
a negative efect on the success of PPPs (=success factor 2). This efect is especially large in
5
In [the sample of Galilea and Medda] 804 of the 856 projects were in this status (94%) (Galilea
and Medda, 2012).
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 41 |
Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America. Shortcoming of the analysis of Galilea and
Medda (2012) is their defnition of success. This implies it is not clear whether the success
factors also have a positive efect on output, outcome and impact.
Finally, in their synthesis review about horticulture PPPs in Africa Pfsterer et al. (2009)
conclude that partnership performance is grossly based on (a) context factors and (b)
partnership design factors.
- Context factors are:
(i) The willingness of (semi) governmental organizations to start the partnership, (ii)
the experience/tradition of the country with PPP and, (iii) the right moment to start
with PPP (Pfsterer et al., 2009).
- Partnership design factors entail:
(i) The possibility to build the partnership on an existing structure. (ii) Time and
capacity to steer participatory processes by the government [in the case of the Dutch
horticulture PPP the Dutch Ambassady, EKN], (iii) Level of commitment by
individuals, (iv) Time and capacity for active participation by partners and (v) The
level of ownership (Pfsterer et al., 2009). (=success factor 4).
| 42 |
Answers on research questions
10 Answers on research questions
1. Precise definition of developmental PPPs
a. What are the criteria for an intervention to be considered developmental PPPs?
There is no universal accepted defnition of Public Private Partnership (PPP). Based on
defnitions from the Dutch MFA, key developmental institutions (such as OECD, World Bank
and IMF) and the analysis of Da Rosa et al. (2012) we derive fve key criteria of developmental
PPPs:
A cooperation between the public and private sector (also NGOs, trade organizations and
knowledge institutes with a common (development) goal;
A clear agreement between the public and private party on the goal(s) of the PPPs;
A combination of public and private funding;
A clear agreement between the public and private party on the sharing of resources and
tasks;
Distribution of risks between the public and the private sector.
2. Categorization of different types of PPPs according to different intervention
strategies
a. Which types of developmental PPPs can be distinguished?
On a scale from public to private we can distinguish the following types of PPPs (ADB, 2008):
Service contract;
Management contract;
Afermage and lease contracts;
Concession;
Buildoperatetransfer (BOT) and similar arrangements (including BTO, BOO, DBO, DBFO;
Joint venture.
b. What is the intervention strategy of developmental PPPs?
We operationalized the intervention strategy as the fve key criteria of developmental PPPs.
We fnd that most PPPs are implemented for fnancial reasons. The majority of studies
fulflls key criteria 1 through 4 of developmental PPPs. Exception is the distribution of risks
which is addressed in 8 out of 18 case studies.
c. Which pathways in developmental PPPs can be distinguished?
We were able to derive the following PPP pathways from 8 out of 18 case studies: Training/
professional development, Monetary rewards, Public participation, Knowledge sharing
standards, Political agenda seting, R&D support, price control/tarif ceiling and no
proft-no loss prices.
d. What is the relation between diferent types of PPPs and the intervention strategy?
We were not able to derive a relationship between the diferent types of PPPs and the
intervention strategy.
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 43 |
3. Identification of results of PPPs pathways at outcome and possibly impact level
What are (a) the outputs, (b) outcomes and (c) impacts of PPPs in developing countries?
The evidence on the efects of developmental PPPs on output, outcome and impact is
limited. Relatively many articles are about the process of PPP and not about the actual
results in quantitative terms of the PPP. This refects the fact that PPP in developing
countries is a relatively young instrument.
We were able to derive an efect of PPP on output in 15 out of 18 reviewed case studies.
The majority of those studies (13 out of 18) describe a positive efect of the PPP on output,
2 studies describe no efect on output and zero studies describe a negative efect. The
counterfactual in most studies is weak in terms of the MSSM. This means the positive
efect on output might also have arisen in the situation without PPP.
We were able to derive an efect of PPP on outcome in 9 out of 18 reviewed case studies. 7
out of those 9 studies describe a positive efect of the PPP on outcome, 1 study describes a
mixed efect on outcome and the fnal study fnds no efect. The counterfactual in most
studies is weak in terms of the MSSM. So the positive efect on outcome might also have
arisen in the situation without PPP.
We found a positive efect of PPP on impact in 1 case study. The other case studies did not
present the efect of the PPP on impact.
4. Analysis of the effectiveness of PPP pathways according to relevant evaluative
studies
(a) Why did a PPPs produced the desired results or not?
(b) Are there general paterns in success or failure factors?
Jamali (2004) presents the most comprehensive overview of success factors for PPPs.
Permanent government involvement
A sound regulatory framework
Fulfllment of key formation requirements
Four Cs in partner selection (compatibility, capability, commitment and control)
A common vision and trusty relationship between partners
Ensure that the multiple interests of key participants are
Skillfully negotiated and packaged.
We fnd that most PPPs in the case studies succeed or failed because of the above success
factors.
5. Synthesis of the available information of PPP efficiency.
a. What are the benefts of the PPPs compared to the costs?
Given the limited evidence we are not able to indicate the benefts of PPPs compared to the
costs. Further research is needed to answer this question.
| 44 |
Outlook: Evaluating Public-Private Partnerships
11 Outlook: Evaluating Public-
Private Partnerships
Since several years, Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) are increasingly used in international
cooperation as a device for executing development aid programs. Voluntary, multi-
stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development were an important outcome of the
UN World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD), held in Johannesburg (South
Africa) in 2002. Most PPPs were initially used for a broad range of development activities
focusing on public service provision (e.g. utilities and infrastructure; social services) but
gradually expanded their operations towards private business promotion. Actually PPPs are
sometimes also considered as instruments for peace building and for the promotion of
social cohesion (Abramov, 2010). This paragraph refects on lessons learned and provides an
outlook for evaluation of PPPs in the near future.
PPPs are commonly defned as a form of cooperation between government and business
agents sometimes also involving voluntary organizations (NGOs, trade unions) or knowledge
institutes that agree to work together to reach a common goals or carry out a specifc task,
while jointly assuming the risks and responsibilities and sharing resources and competences
(MFA, 2010). These are structured institutional or contractual arrangements of long-term
cooperation between public and private agents for joint production of goods and/or services
based on sharing risks, costs, knowledge and resources (van Ham & Koppenjan, 2001).
Overall, PPPs seem to unite at least two dimensions. The frst dimension refers to fnance
and defnes the arrangements for engaging public and private actors fnancially in PPPs. The
second dimension is organizational and defnes the roles and responsibilities for
dovetailing public and private actors in a single coordinated executive framework. Both
dimensions interact tightly in such a way that the mobilization of resources should satisfy
both the individual objectives of each agent and provides sufcient incentives for
enhancing their durable cooperation.
Contradictory evidence from Western PPPs
Many early studies regarding PPP performance are based on experiences in Western
countries and are strongly linked to privatization programs in the 1990s. Evaluation
designs used for these studies have most ofen been weak, and the data mostly fawed. It is
therefore litle wonder that evaluations thus far clearly point to contradictory assessments
of their performance (Hodge & Grave, 2011). Despite growing interest in PPPs, the evidence
base on results is still sparse and successful partnerships have been elusive.
At the positive end, estimates of efciencies to be gained through PPPs include a 17 percent
cost savings in an analysis of 29 British infrastructure business cases, and a 10 to 20 percent
cost reduction in school construction in Australia (Shepherd, 2000; Nisar, 2007). Perceived
savings in these business cases are mainly atributable to the calculus of risk transfers from
the public to the private sector. Pollit (2005) gives a careful pass mark to PPPs, observing
them successful for prisons and roads but of limited value in hospitals and school projects.
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 45 |
Based on a sample of 10 major PPP evaluations undertaken, good value for money was
achieved in eight of the 10 cases. Several other studies report PPPs as being delivered on-time
and on-budget far more ofen than traditional infrastructure provision arrangements.
From a more critical side, Blanc-Brude et al. (2006) conducted a careful regression analysis
across EU countries and found that PPPs were 24% more expensive than expectations from
traditional procurement and registered about the same magnitude of traditional project
cost-over-runs. Fitzgerald (2004) argued that the size of costs savings claimed for Australian
PPPs was largely dependent on the discount rate used (with a lower discount rate suggesting
a cost increase of 6 percent rather than the 9 percent cost saving estimated using the higher
discount rate). Hodge (2005) therefore concluded that public agencies need a careful
judgment before entering into PPPs. Vining and Boardman (2008) judged only one half of
the Canadian PPPs reviewed as successful, and in a similar vein Jupe (2009) viewed PPPs as
an imperfect solution for transport in the UK.
Evaluation of PPPs in Development Cooperation
Since PPPs can be envisaged as a specifc way for producing output and generating impact
by combining diferent types of resources (e.g. fnance, resources, expertise, networks,
R&D, etc.) from various cooperating agents, it is important to evaluate PPPs against the
background of perceived performance indicators. Most important commonly agreed
evaluation criteria include:
Relevance: (ex-post) contribution of PPPs to envisaged development goals;
Efectiveness: PPPs focusing on most-limiting factors (binding constraints) and selection
of activities where PPPs can make the diference;
Efciency: realizing provision at low unit costs (per client) and avoiding market
distortions;
Sustainability: contributing to long-term performance, and guaranteeing ownership and
governance of PPPs;
Coherence: consistency of PPPs with other policies (trade, competition) and optimizing
complementarities between aid modalities.
This systematic review of PPPs only focused atention on the available empirical evidence
on the relevance, efectiveness and efciency of PPPs in international development
cooperation as derived from credible and valid evaluative studies. It was based on a
selection of evidence-based assessments that are published by evaluation agencies and
research institutions that satisfy the minimum quality criteria for independent evaluation.
One of the most striking outcomes of the systematic review is that the evidence on PPP
performance is still rather sparse. Robust empirical analyses regarding the net efect of PPPs
(including both before-and-afer analysis and compared to a counterfactual of either public
or private program execution) are virtually absent. This can be partly explained by the wide
range of cooperative arrangements that are included under the PPP umbrella, but is also
due to the inherent complexities for assessing net efects of such multi-agency
arrangements.
| 46 |
Outlook: Evaluating Public-Private Partnerships
In this fnal section, we further elaborate the analytical foundations for evaluating
developmental PPPs by outlining a number of key methodological principles that enable an
adequate assessment of the fundamental features of PPPs. We therefore discuss three
issues:
When is engagement in PPPs justifed?
Why is engagement in PPPs proposed?
How is engagement in PPPs assessed
When to engage in PPPs?
PPPs are envisaged as suitable arrangements for promoting development goals under
conditions where market and/or institutional failures are constraining the provision of
public goods and services (particularly physical and social infrastructure). They involve a
clearly defned activity that is co-fnanced with the private sector, which shares the
associated risks and rewards with the public sector. In addition, PPPs are forwarded in
situations where high contextual risks may inhibit the engagement of the private sector in
investments or market exchange. In this seting, the intention with PPP is that risks could
be shared with the party best able to manage them, and that this transfer of risk is priced
into any PPP contract. Finally, PPPs can be used to foster innovations in such a way that
start-up costs are shared and some public insurance is provided to account for possible
failure. In all cases, PPPs are considered as a strategy for guaranteeing earlier project
delivery and on-budget project management.
The appreciation whether these conditions actually exist is by no way easy in the context of
international development cooperation. In practice, many PPPs are started by donors to
overcome fnancial and fscal constraints or to control management complexities. The
engagement of the public (donor)sector is then mainly foreseen to reduce interest charges
for privately-made sunk cost investments with a relatively long gestation period (like e.g. in
drug development). Moreover, the incentive structure of private partners may favor the
timely execution of projects, but also requires thorough supervision on quality compliance
by the PPP unit. PPPs that were least efective are usually located in countries where
indicators of government efectiveness are relatively weak as well (PPIAF and World Bank,
2007). On the other end, private partners may face information constraints regarding
potential demand that public agents can more easily overcome.
Identifying the existence of market failures in developing countries requires a careful
appraisal. Whereas private frms consider the risk-adjusted net present value of future cash
fows to evaluate proftability, the public sector uses an opportunity cost and risk-adjusted
net present value of future public beneft to evaluate projects. These diferent appraisal
procedures could lead to another appreciation of the feasibility of projects and relevance of
potential investments. The PPP framework is designed to bridge these diferences, by
focusing on overcoming key constraints that limit local development. The appraisal
procedures become even more complicated when the government of the developing country
needs to be taken into account. It remains unclear to what extent PPPs (initiated by Western
actors) involve these local government actors and/or market actors in developing countries.
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 47 |
It should, however, be carefully prevented that PPPs lead to new market failures or
substantially change the level playing feld for other private agents. It has been argued that
PPPs will only be able to achieve efciency improvements if the state can achieve
competitive tension in the PPP procurement process and real risks are transferred to the
private partners. This implies that governments need to approach the market with a
well-defned PPP proposition through an open bidding process (World Bank Institute,
2012). Where this is not the case, bids may be incomparable or deliberately low and
remaining uncertainties are usually arranged in post-bid negotiations of PPP contracts.
On the other end, some more recent PPPs tend to start from a private initiative that search
for public co-funding. These so-called Private Sector Initiative (PSI) projects aim to foster
private sector activities to promote economic growth in emerging markets with high risk
investment opportunities, taking advantage of the ability of the public sector to leverage
fnancing. Private sector involvement is expected to create sustainable employment, spur
innovation, improve access to new markets, and/or stimulate trade. Most commonly
applied PSI funding mechanism to support innovation and commercial upgrading help to
ofset some of the initial investment costs for enhancing the competitiveness and
performance of the private sector. Careful atention needs to be given to the real
additionality of such PSI programs that may not disturb the existing competitive
relationships in the home market. Moreover, diferent fnancial tools - ranging from
guarantees to loans - may be applied to safeguard these interests.
Why engaging in PPPs? . towards a PPP Theory
The rationale for close cooperation between the public and private parties is usually based
on principal agency theory that leads to a number of propositions for combining the
comparative advantages of the private sector and the public sector. PPPs become an
interesting option when independent (or even competing) actors may act as potential
partners who - although fundamentally diferent in nature - collaborate in realizing a joint
project, when circumstances are conducive to it, and - indeed because they are diferent in
nature - share the risks involved.
There is a rationale for closer cooperation between the public and the private agents,
especially when:
(a) the public sector wants to leverage its limited resources by using taxpayers money as a
catalyst for atracting private funding (more projects can thus be completed and the
provision of services increases as a result);
(b) the public sector wants to avail itself of the skills of the private sector, which could
provide beter management in a number of situations; and
(c) the private and the public sectors wish to limit their exposure to the risks involved in
large-scale projects (of public interest) by allocating these risks - depending on who is
best able to bear them - among themselves or to a third party.
There are particular situations where the partnership may beneft if the private frm shares
some of the risks with the public sector, for example when a company is at an early stage of
| 48 |
Outlook: Evaluating Public-Private Partnerships
development and therefore does not have easy access to fnancial markets (i.e. the risk
premium is too high), or when some of the risks involved cannot be insured or adequately
diversifed by the private frm (e.g. for macroeconomic shocks or for a liquidity risk caused
by a credit crunch).
While providing scope for deriving substantial benefts from cooperation, including for
sharing risks more efciently, PPPs also add a new type of risks: those associated with the
contractual arrangement (as opposed to those associated with the project) which are ofen
ignored but typically borne by the principal (the taxpayers). Delegating responsibility to the
private sector (through a contract) adds a set of compliance risks distinct from those
associated with the project.
In particular, in situations where incentives cannot be perfect, they could lead to moral hazard
issues on the part of the private agent. This confict of incentives between partners implies
that the public principal will try to reduce these moral hazard issues as best it can, for example
by using auditing services to fnd out which PPP outputs are efectively delivered.
It is considered helpful to clearly recognize the comparative advantages as well as the
diferences in incentives between public and private execution of a particular program
before deciding whether a PPP construction can be considered as the optimum contract
choice. Whereas private partners tend to be more capable in providing incentives to
maintain productivity (compared to their public counter parts), the public sector is usually
beter equipped to account for collective externalities (see Figure 5). PPPs may become a
preferred option to balance these mixed motives in a cost-efective manner. The
counterfactual could be proven by measurement against the proxies of fully public (or private)
execution (the so-called Public Sector Comparison or PSC) or through benchmarking.
Figure 5 PPP Transaction costs
Transaction Costs
Collective interest surveillance
Output monitoring
Public PPP Private
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 49 |
How to engage in PPPs?
The cooperation between public and private agents in a PPP framework asks for clearly
specifed contractual terms. Key conditions for such a contract include (de Palma et al.,
2009):
Fully specifed and enforceable contract between the state and private parties;
Stable terms of contract over time;
Measurable output indicators and service delivery that can be monitored;
Credible punishment in case cheating is proven;
Clear defnition of residual value.
The contractual terms for a PPP arrangements thus require an explicit defnition of the
mutual contributions (inputs), the generated output and the distribution of the risks and
the rights on the residual value of the program. The absence of conscious and systematic
atempts to manage and arrange negotiation processes at the start of PPPs may result in
contractual arrangements that are largely incomplete with respect to risk allocation, lifetime
costs distribution and rights to residue value allocation (Nisar, 2007). These conditions
apply in a western context and are maybe even more important for PPPs in international
development cooperation.
It should be recognized that PPPs can also create substantial implicit liabilities for
governments when guarantees cost more than scheduled. If governments engage in PPPs,
the diferent types of (internal and external) risks involved need to be specifed in a
quantitative manner, and expectations regarding value streams over the lifetime of the
program should to be made explicit. Without such a full assessment, fnal judgments about
value for money will be virtually impossible. Many PPPs in the feld of international
development cooperation fail to specify these contractual conditions and the related
enforcement mechanisms.
| 50 |
References
12 References
Selected studies for review
Abdul-Aziz, A.-R. & Kassim, P.S.J. (2011) Objectives, success and failure factors of housing
public-private partnerships in Malaysia. Habitat International, 35, 150-157
Ali, M., Miyoshi, C. & Ushijima, H. (2006) Emergency medical services in Islamabad,
Pakistan: a publicprivate partnership. Public Health, 120, 50-57
Barrera-Osorio, F., Blakeslee, D.S., Hoover, M., Linden, L.L. & Raju, D. (2011) Expanding
Educational Opportunities in Remote Parts of the World: Evidence from a RCT of a Public-Private Partnership
in Pakistan (World Bank)
Bompart, R., Kiechel, J.R., Sebbag, R. & Pecoul, B. (2011) Innovative public-private
partnerships to maximize the delivery of anti-malarial medicines: lessons learned from the
ASAQ Winthrop experience. BioMed Central/Malaria Journal 2011, 10(143)
Bowden, A.C. & Al-Sakaf, E.O.H. (2009) Public Private Partnership Review Mission for the Embassy of
the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Final Report)
Buse, K. & Harmer, A.M. (2006) Seven habits of highly efective global public-private health
partnerships: Practice and potential. Social Science & Medicine, 64, 259-271
Chowdhury, A. N. & Charoenngam, C. (2009) Factors infuencing fnance on IPP projects in
Asia: A legal framework to reach the goal. International Journal of Project Management, 27, 51-58
Chowdhury, S.K. (2002) Ataining Universal Access: Public-private partnership and Business-NGO
partnership (Discussion Papers on Development Policy, 48)
De Pinho Campos, K., Norman, C.D. & Jada, A.R. (2011) Product development public-private
partnerships for public health: A systematic review using qualitative data. Social Science &
Medicine, 73, 986-994
Dewan, P.K., Lal, S. S., Lonnroth, K., Wares, F., Uplekar, M., Sahu, S., Granich, R. & Chauhan,
L.S. (2006). Improving tuberculosis control through public-private collaboration in India:
literature review. British Medical Journal, 332(7541), 574-578
Ezebilo, E.E. & Animasaun, E.D. (2012) Public-private sector partnership in household waste
management as perceived by residents in south-west Nigeria. Waste Management & Research,
30, 781
Farlam, P. (2005) Working Together: Assessing Public Private Partnerships in Africa (Nepad Policy
Focus Report No. 2)
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 51 |
Franceys R. & Weitz, A. (2003) Public-private community partnerships in infrastructure for
the poor. Journal of International Development 15(8), 1083-1098
Fuesta, V. & Hafnerb, S.A. (2007) PPP - policies, practices and problems in Ghanas urban
water supply, Water Policy 9, 169-192
Galilea, P. & Medda, F. (2010) Does the political and economic context infuence the success
of a transport project? An analysis of transport public-private partnerships. Research in
Transportation Economics, 30, 102-109
Gia, L.H. & Fugelsnes, T. (2010) A review of progress in seven African countries Public-Private
Partnerships For Small Piped Water Schemes, Water and Sanitation Program (Field note)
Grace, C. & Druce, N. (2009) External Review of Product Development Partnership Grant Framework
Hartwich, F. & Tola, J. (2007) Public-private partnerships for agricultural innovation:
concepts and experiences from 124 cases in Latin America. International Journal of Agricultural
Resource, Governance and Ecology, 6(2), 240-255
Itika, J.S., Mashindano, O., Kessy, F. (2011) Successes and constraints for improving public private
partnerships in Tanzania, Economic and Social Research Foundation (Discussion Paper No.36)
Jamali, D. (2004) Success and failure mechanisms of public private partnerships in
developing countries: insights from Lebanon, Emerald The International Journal of Public Sector
Management, 17(5), 414-430
Jong, M. de, Rui, M., Stead, D., Yongchi, M. & Bao, X. (2010) Introducing publicprivate
partnerships for metropolitan subways in China: what is the evidence? Journal of Transport
Geography, 18, 301-312
Kateja, A. (2012) Building infrastructure: Private participation in emerging economies. Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 37, 368-378
Kirkemann, P. & Appelquist, M.L. (2008) Evaluation Study Public Private Partnership Programme,
DANIDA
Kruesmann, M. & Timmermann, M. (2009) Partnerships for Womens Health - Striving for Best
Practice within the UN Global Compact (Research Brief )
Kuriyan, R. & Ray, I. (2009) Outsourcing the State? PublicPrivate Partnerships and
Information Technologies in India, World Development, 37(10), 1663-1673
Lobina, E. & Hall, D. (2003) Problems with private water concessions: a review of experience. Public
Services International Research Unit (PSIRU)
| 52 |
References
Lund-Thomsen, P. (2007) Assessing the Impact of Public-Private Partnerships in the Global South The
Case of the Kasur Tanneries Pollution Control Project, Markets, Business and Regulation Programme.
United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (Paper Number 4)
Malik, A.B. (2010), Public-Private Partnerships in Education: Lessons Learned from the Punjab Education
Foundation (Asian Development Bank)
Marin, Ph. (2009) Public-Private Partnerships in Transport, Trends and Policy Options, 8(1)
Newell, J.N., Pande, S.B., Baral, S.C., Bam, D.S. & Malla, P. (2004), Control of tuberculosis in
an urban seting in Nepal: public-private partnership, Bulletin of the World Health Organization,
82(2), 92-98
Oyediran, O., Ddumba, E.M., Ochola, S.A., Lucas, A.O., Koporc, K. & Dowdle, W.R. (2002) A
public-private partnership for malaria control: lessons from the Malarone Donation
Programme, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 80, 817-821
Pfsterer, S., Boer, D. de, Mudde, H., Dijk, M.P. van, Tulder, R. van. (2009) The Efectiveness of
Public Private Partnerships in East African Export-Oriented Horticulture Review of the World Summit on
Sustainable Development Public-Private Partnership Programme in Tanzania, Kenya, Ethiopia (Zambia and
Uganda) (Final Report)
Phlix, G., Sloot, H., Jurgens, E., Schwerzel, P., Stoop, P., Amah, A.A. & Amole, D. (2011) End of
Term Evaluation of the UAFC Joint Programme, ACE Europe (Final Evaluation Report)
Poulton, C. & Macartney, J. (2012) Can Public-Private Partnerships Leverage Private
Investment in Agricultural Value Chains in Africa? A Preliminary Review, World Development,
40(1), 96-109
Rao, H.S. (2009) Evaluation Study on ADB Assistance for Public-Private Partnerships in Infrastructure
Development (Asian Development Bank)
Sengupta, U. (2005) Government intervention and public-private partnerships in housing
delivery in Kolkata, Habitat International
Shen, L.Y., Platen, A. & Deng, X.P. (2006) Role of public private partnerships to manage
risks in public sector projects in Hong Kong, International Journal of Project Management, 24,
587-594
Singh, A. & Prakash, G. (2010), Public-Private Partnerships in Health Services Delivery. Public
Management Review, 12 (6), 829-856
Soplop, J.C., Weterberg, A., Indriartoto, I., De Len Pellecer, M.J., Goicolea, T.L., &
Roman-Lacayo, M.A. (2009) Increasing development impact: Channeling corporate social responsibility
funds through public-private partnerships, RTI press (Research Report)
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 53 |
Sprat, S. & Collins, L.R. (2012) Development Finance Institutions and Infrastructure: A Systematic
Review of Evidence for Development Additionality
Stuart, J.B., Walker, J.T. & Minzer, A. (2011) A Critical Review of Partnership Capacity and Efectiveness:
Moving from theory to evidence (ABT Associates Inc.)
Tan, J. (2012) The Pitfalls of Water Privatization: Failure and Reform in Malaysia. World
Development, 40(12), 2552-2563
Triodos Facet B.V. (2010) Final Report Evaluation PSOM/PSI 1999-2009 and MMF (Final Report)
Triple Value (2009) Duurzame handel: Van slagboom naar hefoom. Quick-scan onderzoek naar de
resultaten over het eerste operationele jaar van het Initiatief Duurzame Handel (IDH)
United Nations (2011), Public-Private Partnerships in Africas Energy Sector: Challenges, best practices,
and emerging trends, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa
Utzinger, J., Wyss, K. Moto, D.D., Yemadji, ND., Tanner, M. & Singer. B.H. (2005) Assessing
health impacts of the ChadCameroon petroleum development and pipeline project:
challenges and a way forward. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25, 63-93
Vives, A., Paris, A.M., Benavides, J., Raymond, P.D., Quiroga, D. & Marcus, J. (2006), Financial
Structuring of Infrastructure Projects in Public-Private Partnerships: An Application to Water Projects
(Inter-American Development Bank)
Other sources
Abramov, I. (2010), Building Peace in Fragile States Building Trust is Essential for Efective
Public-Private Partnerships, Journal of Business Ethics, January 28, 2010.
ADB (2008), Public-Private partnership Handbook, Asian Development Bank.
Banerjee and Dufo (2011), Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global
Poverty, Public Afairs.
Blanc-Brude, F., H. Goldsmith and T. Valila (2006), Ex-Ante Construction Costs in the
European Road Sector: A Comparison of Public-Private Partnerships and Traditional Public
Procurement, European and Financial Report 2006/01, European Investment Bank.
Campbell Cooporation, What is a systematic review?
htp://www.campbellcollaboration.org/what_is_a_systematic_review/index.php.
Dawn (2012), 100 schools closed. Dawn Newspaper, 21-01-2013
htp://dawn.com/2012/10/14/100-schools-closed/.
| 54 |
References
De Palma, A., Leruth, L. & Prunier, G. (2009), Towards a principal-agent based typology of
risks in public-private partnerschips, working paper hal-00419234, HAL.
Da Rosa, Andrea, Rob van Tulder and Stella Pfsterer (2012), A systematic analysis of
defnitions, draf version of paper (forthcoming).
European Commission (2006), Methodological bases Evaluation process, Intervention Logic
htp://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/evaluation/methodology/methods/mth_log_en.htm#01.
Fitzgerald, P. (2004), Review of Partnerships Victoria Provided Infrastructure, Growth
Solution Group, Melbourne.
Ham, H. van & Koppenjan, J. (2001). Building Public-Private Partnerships, Public Management
Review, Vol. 4 (1), 593-616.
Hodge, Graeme (2005). Public-Private Partnerships: The Australasian Experience with
Physical Infrastructure, in G. Hodge and C. Greve (Eds.), The Challenge of Public-Private
Partnerships: Learning from International Experience. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar,
305-331.
Hodge, G.A. & Greve, C. (2011), Theorizing Public-Private Partnership Success. Paper for the
Public Management Research Conference, Syracuse University, 2-4 June 2011.
IMF (1998), World Economic Outlook, Financial Crises: Causes and Indicators, May 1998
htp://www.imf.org/external/pubs/f/weo/weo0598/index.htm.
Jupe, R. (2009), New Labour, Public-private Partnerships and Rail Transport Policy. Economic
Afairs, Vol. 29 (1), 20-25, March 2009. Available at SSRN: htp://ssrn.com/abstract=1375945 or
htp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0270.2009.01862.x.
Klein Haarhuis, C., M. van Ooyen-Houben, E. Kleemans and F.Leeuw (2005),
Rechtshandhaving gevalueerd. Een synthese van 31 beleidsevaluaties, Den Haag, WODC,
Cahier 2005-5.
MFA (2010), A Guide to Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs), The Hague.
Nisar, T.M. (2007), Risk management in public-private partnership contracts, Public
organization review, vol. 7, 1-19.
OECD (2001), Result based management in the development of co-operation Agencies. A
review of experience: background report.
Pollit, Michael (2005). Learning from UK Private Finance Initiative Experience, in G. Hodge
and C. Greve (Eds.), The Challenge of Public-Private Partnerships: Learning from
International Experience. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 207- 230.
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 55 |
Shepherd, T. (2000), A practitioners perspective, presentation tot the productivity
commission workshop on Private Sector Involvement in Provision of Public Infrastructure,
12-13 october, Melbourne.
Tweede Kamer (2000), In Business against Poverty, Parliamentary Papers, 2000-2001
session, 27 467, no. 1.
Vining, A.R., & Boardman, A.E. (2008), Public-Private Partnerships in Canada: Theory and
Evidence, Canadian Public Administration 51(1): 9-44.
World Bank Instititute & PPIAF (2012), Public Private Partnerships: reference guide, The
World Bank.
Annexes
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 57 |
Annex 1 About IOB
Objectives
The remit of the Policy and Operations Evaluation Department (IOB) is to increase insight
into the implementation and efects of Dutch foreign policy. IOB meets the need for the
independent evaluation of policy and operations in all the policy felds of the Homogenous
Budget for International Cooperation (HGIS). IOB also advises on the planning and
implementation of evaluations that are the responsibility of policy departments of the
Ministry of Foreign Afairs and embassies of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Its evaluations enable the Minister of Foreign Afairs and the Minister for Development
Cooperation to account to parliament for policy and the allocation of resources. In
addition, the evaluations aim to derive lessons for the future. To this end, eforts are made
to incorporate the fndings of evaluations of the Ministry of Foreign Afairs policy cycle.
Evaluation reports are used to provide targeted feedback, with a view to improving the
formulation and implementation of policy. Insight into the outcomes of implemented
policies allows policymakers to devise measures that are more efective and focused.
Organisation and quality assurance
IOB has a staf of experienced evaluators and its own budget. When carrying out evaluations
it calls on assistance from external experts with specialised knowledge of the topic under
investigation. To monitor the quality of its evaluations IOB sets up a reference group for
each evaluation, which includes not only external experts but also interested parties from
within the ministry and other stakeholders. In addition, an Advisory Panel of four
independent experts provides feedback and advice on the usefulness and use made of
evaluations. The panels reports are made publicly available and also address topics
requested by the ministry or selected by the panel.
Programming of evaluations
IOB consults with the policy departments to draw up a ministry-wide evaluation
programme. This rolling multi-annual programme is adjusted annually and included in the
Explanatory Memorandum to the ministrys budget. IOB bears fnal responsibility for the
programming of evaluations in development cooperation and advises on the programming
of foreign policy evaluations. The themes for evaluation are arrived at in response to
requests from parliament and from the ministry, or are selected because they are issues of
societal concern. IOB actively coordinates its evaluation programming with that of other
donors and development organisations.
Approach and methodology
Initially IOBs activities took the form of separate project evaluations for the Minister for
Development Cooperation. Since 1985, evaluations have become more comprehensive,
covering sectors, themes and countries. Moreover, since then, IOBs reports have been
submited to parliament, thus entering the public domain. The review of foreign policy and
a reorganisation of the Ministry of Foreign Afairs in 1996 resulted in IOBs remit being
extended to cover the entire foreign policy of the Dutch government. In recent years it has
Annexes
| 58 |
extended its partnerships with similar departments in other countries, for instance through
joint evaluations and evaluative activities undertaken under the auspices of the OECD-DAC
Network on Development Evaluation.
IOB has continuously expanded its methodological repertoire. More emphasis is now given
to robust impact evaluations implemented through an approach in which both quantitative
and qualitative methods are applied. IOB also undertakes policy reviews as a type of
evaluation. Finally, it conducts systematic reviews of available evaluative and research
material relating to priority policy areas.
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 59 |
Annex 2 research methodology
Step 1: keyword search
We started searching for scientifc studies which were published between 2000 and 2013. We
searched for these studies between September 24
th
and October 19
th
2012. In Box A-1 we
present the keywords we used to fnd relevant studies.
Box A-1 Keywords used for fnding relevant articles
Keyword (Boolean operators)
Public Private Partnership* AND Devel* AND Impact
Public Private Partnership* AND Devel* AND Eval*
Public Private Partnership* AND Devel* AND Ef*
PPP* AND Devel* AND Impact
PPP* AND Devel* AND Eval*
PPP* AND Devel* AND Ef*
Public Private Partnership* in devel*
PPP* in devel*
Public Private Partnership* AND Transition* AND Impact
Public Private Partnership* AND Transition* AND Eval*
Public private partnership* AND Transition* AND Ef*
We used the databases ScienceDirect, Sirius and Web of Science to fnd scientifc studies
published in peer reviewed scientifc journals, working papers and dissertations. We also
searched in several developmental evaluation portals (such as Seach4Dec and Eldis) and
concluded our search by checking websites from developmental institutions (such as ADB,
AfDB and World Bank). In Table A-1 we present an overview of all used sources.
Step 2: quick scan articles on titles and abstract
Our keyword search resulted in 1294 articles published between 2000 and 2013. We frst
screened these studies on title and abstract and excluded articles that were not relevant for
our review, see Table A-1.
Annexes
| 60 |
Table A-1 Number of articles collected and remaining afer check for relevance title/abstract
Source Articles
a
Title/abstract
KEYWORD SEARCH
1) Scientifc literature
ScienceDirect 308 26
Sirius (excl. ScienceDirect) 59 4
Web of Science (excl. ScienceDirect and Sirius) 667 14
2) Developmental evaluation portals
Research in Agricultural and Applied Economics 11 1
DAC Evaluation Resource centre 13641
b
1
Seach4Dec 4 0
3ie 7 1
Eldis 149 2
3) Developmental institutions
Asian Development Bank 42 1
African Development Bank 0 0
European Bank for Reconstruction and Devel. 6 0
Inter-American Development Bank 15 1
International Finance Cooperation 26 0
Kreditanstalt fr Wiederaufau 0 0
Worldbank 2062
b
0
Subtotal articles keyword search 1294 51
OTHER SOURCES
4) MFA, proposal phase
MFA: PSD Evaluation 96 12
MFA: Evaluation reports of Dutch PPPs 21 6
Collected during proposal phase 15 8
Received from experts 7 4
Subtotal articles other sources 139 30
Total number of articles 1433 81
a
Excluding duplicate articles
b
This is the total number of hits (including duplicate hits/articles)
Besides the keyword search we also obtained 139 articles through so-called other sources:
we received 117 articles directly from the Dutch MFA of which 96 articles MFA used in the
PSD evaluation and 21 reports of Dutch PPPs. Thereby we collected 15 articles during the
proposal phase of the systematic literature review. Finally we received 7 articles from experts
on PPP.
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 61 |
This brings the total amount of articles to 1433. Of those articles 81 remained afer quick
scanning them for relevance on title and abstract. The studies were mainly excluded for the
following reasons
6
:
Approximately 70% of the 1433 studies were excluded because they clearly didnt have
anything to do with Public-Private-Partnerships at all. For instance studies about
Purchasing Power Parities, pre-pump pulse and precise point positioning etc.
Approximately 35% of the 1433 studies were excluded because they werent about
developing countries. For instance studies about Public-Private-Partnerships in
Switzerland, Australia or Japan.
Finally a substantial amount of the 1433 studies (circa 35%) were excluded because they
werent an evaluation of Public-Private-Partnerships. For instance a study about the role
of fnancial advisors in PPP and a typology of strategic behavior in PPPs.
Step 3: assessing general characteristics of studies
In step 3 we flled in a list of general characteristics for the remaining studies, such as the
year, country, and type of study. For the full list of characteristics we refer to the coding
sheet in Annex 3.
Step 4: check on quality (6 knock-out criteria)
We checked the remaining 81 articles on quality. A study which scored insufcient on one of
the six criteria in Box A-2 was excluded from our review. If we had doubt about one of the
scores the study was included in our review. The six knock-out criteria are derived from a
checklist of 20 quality criteria MFA used to assess the quality of PSD evaluations. From this
checklist we only used the six knock-out criteria because these criteria could be applied to
all (scientifc) articles, while most of the other criteria were only applicable to policy
evaluations. In Box A-2 we present the six knock-out criteria.
Box A-2 Quality criteria (knock-out)
# Quality criteria
1 Operationalization of result indicators through indicators
a
2 The solidity and transparency of data collection, analyzing and processing.
3 The extent to which conclusions can be drawn from the fndings.
4 Justifcation of the representativeness of the sample or case study selection.
b
5 Independence of sources.
6 Independence of researchers.
a
We have only applied this criterion to case studies.
b
In case of a literature review the score is based on the representativeness (selection) of the underlying studies.
6
The total sum is more than 100% because some studies were excluded for multiple reasons.
Annexes
| 62 |
Afer our quality check 47 studies remained
7
, of which 18 case studies and 29 reviews, see
Table A-2. The list of selected studies can be found in the references.
Table A-2 Number of articles remaining afer check on title/abstract and quality
Title/abstract Sufcient quality
Case study
(empirical study of 1 or multiple PPPs)
29 18
Reviews (overview studies/more general studies of efects/
aspects of PPP)
52 29
Total 81 47
Step 5: scoring of remaining case studies on counterfactual
The casual efect of PPP should be indicated by counterfactual analysis. Therefore we scored
the 18 remaining case studies on the strength of the counterfactual.
8
In the ideal situation the
study should compare the situation with PPP with the situation that would have happened
without PPP. So the outcome of PPP in a region should be compared with a comparable
region without PPP (a robust comparable control group) to indicate the casual efect of the
instrument PPP. The later is the highest level of strength of the counterfactual on the
so-called Maryland Scale of Scientifc Methods (MSSM). The MSSM is a fve-point scale that is
used to measure the strength of scientifc evidence for a certain intervention. The MSSM rates
from 1 to 5, where 5 is the highest level of strength, see Box A-3 (Klein Haarhuis et al., 2005).
Box A-3 MSSM levels and description
Level Description
Level 1
A correlation between PPP and the outcome variable at a certain point in time
Level 2
A score on the outcome variable before and afer implementation of PPP without a
comparable control group (a region without PPP)
Level 3
A score on the outcome variable before and afer implementation of PPP measured in
an experimental (the region were PPP is implemented) and comparable control group
(a comparable region without PPP)
Level 4
A score on the outcome variable before and afer implementation of the PPP measured
in an experimental and comparable control group controlling for other factors
Level 5
A score on the outcome variable before and afer the implementation of PPP, measured
in an experimental and comparable control group where the PPP was random
assigned to experimental and control regions
Source: Klein Haarhuis e.a. (2005)
7
The number of studies that survived the quality check is relatively high. This can be explained by
the fact that a substantial amount (approximately 80%) of all studies was published in (peer
reviewed) scientifc journals with similar quality standards.
8
Reviews were not scored on the counterfactual because the MSSM is only applicable to case
studies (empirical evaluation studies of one or multiple PPP projects).
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 63 |
We fnd that most case studies scored low on the MSSM. None of the studies had a
counterfactual above level 3, see Table A-3.
Table A-3 Number of case studies by MSSM
Title/abstract
Level 1 6
Level 2 9
Level 3 1
Not applicable 2
Total 18
Step 6: in depth analysis of studies
We concluded the systematic review with an in depth analysis of the remaining 47 studies.
For each study we collected information on a number of characteristics, such as the results
of PPP (output, outcome and impact), the intervention logic and the pathway/strategy to
PPP. For the full list of characteristics we refer to our coding sheet in Annex 3.
Annexes
| 64 |
Annex 3 coding sheet systematic review
Screen the study on relevance for the review
a. Is the study published between 2000 and 2013?
b. Is the study about an evaluation of PPP in a development country?
c. Does the study contain the following three terms in the title or abstract?
- Public-Private Partnership(s)/PPP(s)
- Eval* OR Imp* OR Efect* OR Emp* OR Evid*
- Devel* (or the name of a developing region, such as Tanzania, Ghana etc.)
Yes the study is included in the review
No the study is excluded from the review
Note the following characteristics of the study
Author(s)
Year
Research question
Type of study Casestudy (empirical study of 1 project)
Multiple casestudies (empirical study of multiple projects)
Literature review
Other (survey, position paper, theoretical literature etc.)
Sector
Country/region
Screen the studies on quality criteria (all criteria are rated as sufcient/
insufcient or doubtable). Studies which score insufcient on one of these
criteria (marked) are excluded from the review.
Quality criteria
Operationalization of result indicators through indicators
This criterion is only scored for case studies
Sufcient
Insufcient excluded
The solidity and transparency of data collection, analyzing and
processing
Sufcient
Insufcient excluded
The extent to which conclusions can be drawn from the fndings Sufcient
Insufcient excluded
Justifcation of the representativeness of the sample or case
study selection
In case of a literature review: check the study on the representativeness of
the underlying selected studies
Sufcient
Insufcient excluded
Independence of sources Sufcient
Insufcient excluded
Independence of researchers Sufcient
Insufcient excluded
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 65 |
In case of a case study
Check the study on counterfactual (MSSM)
MSSM 1: A correlation between PPP and the outcome variable at a
certain point in time
2: A score on the outcome variable before and afer imple-
mentation of PPP without a comparable control group (a
region without PPP)
3: A score on the outcome variable before and afer imple-
mentation of PPP measured in an experimental (the region
were PPP is implemented) and comparable control group (a
comparable region without PPP)
4: A score on the outcome variable before and afer imple-
mentation of the PPP measured in an experimental and
comparable control group controlling for other factors
5: A score on the outcome variable before and afer the
implementation of PPP, measured in an experimental and
comparable control group - were the PPP was random
assigned to experimental and control regions
Note the following characteristics of the study
Characteristics of PPP
Research question
Study area
Evaluation period
Goal(s) of PPPs
Precise defnition of PPP
Financial size of PPP
Type of PPP Service contract excluded, no PPS
Management contract
Concession
Lease/Afermage
BOT (or variant like DBFMO)
Joint venture
Conclusion
Intervention logic
Description of PPP
Reason for PPP
Expectation of PPP
Possible alternatives for PPP
Results
Output
Outcome
Impact
Annexes
| 66 |
EHEC criteria
Efciency
Efectiveness
Sustainability
Coherence
Relevance
Turnover
Sharing of risk
Sharing of ownership
Sharing of knowledge
Pathways
In case of a review
Note the following characteristics of the study
Characteristics of PPP
Research question
Study area
Evaluation period
Type of PPP Service contract excluded, no PPS
Management contract
Concession
Lease/Afermage
BOT (or variant like DBFMO)
Joint venture
Goal(s) of PPP
Conclusion
Results
Output
Outcome
Impact
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 67 |
Annex 4 summary tables case studies
T
a
b
l
e

A
-
4

D
e
f
n
i
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

t
y
p
e

o
f

P
P
P

(
c
a
s
e

s
t
u
d
i
e
s
)

S
t
u
d
y

(
a
u
t
h
o
r

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
)
S
u
b
s
e
c
t
o
r
R
e
g
i
o
n
E
x
a
c
t

d
e
f
n
i
t
i
o
n

o
f

P
P
P

(
q
u
o
t
e
)
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

o
f

P
P
P
K
e
y

c
h
a
r
.
(
s
e
e

T
a
b
l
e

5
)
T
y
p
e

F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

s
i
z
e
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
M
a
l
i
k

(
2
0
1
0
)
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
P
a
k
i
s
t
a
n
N
A
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

P
u
n
j
a
b

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

(
P
E
F
)
.

A

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

t
h
a
t

s
p
o
n
s
o
r
s

P
P
P
s

i
n

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
:

P
E
F

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
s

t
h
e

e
f
o
r
t
s

o
f

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

s
c
h
o
o
l
s

t
o

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
o
o
r

.
1
,
2
,
3
,
4
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
3
,
1
0
0

m
i
l
l
i
o
n

P
a
k
i
s
t
a
n

R
u
p
e
e
s

i
n

2
0
0
9
B
a
r
r
e
r
a
-
O
s
o
r
i
o

e
t

a
l
.

(
2
0
1
1
)
P
r
i
m
a
r
y

s
c
h
o
o
l
s
P
a
k
i
s
t
a
n
N
A
P
r
i
v
a
t
e

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

c
a
n

s
t
a
r
t

t
h
e
i
r

o
w
n

s
c
h
o
o
l
s

a
n
d

g
e
t

a

f
e
e

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

f
o
r

e
a
c
h

s
t
u
d
e
n
t
.

T
h
e

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

a
r
e

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e

f
o
r

t
h
e

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e

s
c
h
o
o
l
s
.

1
,
2
,
3
,
4
A
f
e
r
m
a
g
e

(
H
o
w
e
v
e
r

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
a
r
t
y

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e

f
o
r

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e

s
c
h
o
o
l
)
N
A

(
t
o
t
a
l

b
u
d
g
e
t

o
f

P
P
P

i
s

n
o
t

m
e
n
t
i
o
n
e
d

i
n

s
t
u
d
y
)
E
n
e
r
g
y
U
t
z
i
n
g
e
r

e
t

a
l
.

(
2
0
0
5
)
P
e
t
r
o
l
e
u
m

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
h
a
d
C
a
m
e
r
o
o
n
N
A

T
h
e

C
h
a
d
-
C
a
m
e
r
o
o
n

p
e
t
r
o
l
e
u
m

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

p
i
p
e
l
i
n
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

i
s

a

a

c
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
v
e

v
e
n
t
u
r
e

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

t
h
e

c
o
n
s
o
r
t
i
u
m

a
n
d

t
h
e

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
s

o
f

C
h
a
d

a
n
d

C
a
m
e
r
o
o
n
.

1
,
2
,
3
,
4
,
5
C
o
n
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
3
,
7

b
i
l
l
i
o
n


Annexes
| 68 |
S
t
u
d
y

(
a
u
t
h
o
r

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
)
S
u
b
s
e
c
t
o
r
R
e
g
i
o
n
E
x
a
c
t

d
e
f
n
i
t
i
o
n

o
f

P
P
P

(
q
u
o
t
e
)
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

o
f

P
P
P
K
e
y

c
h
a
r
.
(
s
e
e

T
a
b
l
e

5
)
T
y
p
e

F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

s
i
z
e
C
h
o
w
d
h
u
r
y

e
t

a
l
.

(
2
0
0
9
)
P
o
w
e
r
/
e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y
C
h
i
n
a
,

I
n
d
o
n
e
s
i
a
,

I
n
d
i
a
,

P
a
k
i
s
t
a
n

A

c
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

w
i
t
h

s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s

f
r
o
m

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

s
i
d
e

a
n
d

o
n
e

o
r

t
w
o

b
o
d
i
e
s

f
r
o
m

p
u
b
l
i
c

s
i
d
e

s
u
c
h

a
s

C
e
n
t
r
a
l

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
,

S
t
a
t
e

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

a
n
d
/
o
r

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

o
w
n
e
d

a
g
e
n
c
y
,

w
h
e
r
e

t
h
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

s
e
c
t
o
r

h
a
s

a

p
r
o
f
o
u
n
d

r
o
l
e

a
n
d

c
a
n

i
n
f
u
e
n
c
e

f
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
.

C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

p
o
w
e
r

p
r
o
d
u
c
e
r
s

t
o

s
e
t

u
p

i
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

p
o
w
e
r

p
r
o
d
u
c
e
r
s

(
I
P
P
)
.

1
,
2
,
3
,
4
,
5
C
h
i
n
a

a
n
d

I
n
d
i
a
:

B
O
T

I
n
d
o
n
e
s
i
a

a
n
d

P
a
k
i
s
t
a
n
:

B
O
O
T
o
t
a
l

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

c
o
s
t
s

i
n

U
S

d
o
l
l
a
r

M
i
l
l
i
o
n
C
h
i
n
a
:

6
1
6

I
n
d
o
n
e
s
i
a
:

2
7
0
0

I
n
d
i
a
:

2
9
0
0

P
a
k
i
s
t
a
n
:

1
8
3
3
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
E
z
e
b
i
l
o

a
n
d

A
n
i
m
a
s
a
u
n

(
2
0
1
2
)
W
a
s
t
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
N
i
g
e
r
i
a
N
A
P
u
b
l
i
c

P
r
i
v
a
t
e

P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p

(
P
P
P
)

i
n

H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

W
a
s
t
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

i
n

I
I
o
r
i
n

(
S
o
u
t
h
-
W
e
s
t

N
i
g
e
r
i
a
)
.

T
h
e

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

c
o
m
p
a
n
y

a
n
d

t
h
e

K
w
a
r
a

S
t
a
t
e

W
a
s
t
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

(
a

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

a
g
e
n
c
y
)

a
r
e

i
n

c
h
a
r
g
e

o
f

h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

w
a
s
t
e

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

s
e
r
v
i
-
c
e
s

i
n

I
l
o
r
i
n
.
1
,
2
,
4
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
N
A
H
e
a
l
t
h
c
a
r
e
A
l
i

e
t

a
l
.

(
2
0
0
6
)
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y

M
e
d
i
c
a
l

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
(
E
M
S
)
P
a
k
i
s
t
a
n
N
A
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

t
h
e

I
s
l
a
m
a
b
a
d

s

P
o
l
i
c
e

D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
,

N
G
O

s

a
n
d

t
h
e

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

s
e
c
t
o
r
.

T
h
i
s

r
e
s
u
l
t
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y

M
e
d
i
c
a
l

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

(
E
M
S
)

c
a
l
l
e
d

R
e
s
c
u
e
-
1
5


1
,
2
,
3
,
4
J
o
i
n
t

v
e
n
t
u
r
e
N
A
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 69 |
S
t
u
d
y

(
a
u
t
h
o
r

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
)
S
u
b
s
e
c
t
o
r
R
e
g
i
o
n
E
x
a
c
t

d
e
f
n
i
t
i
o
n

o
f

P
P
P

(
q
u
o
t
e
)
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

o
f

P
P
P
K
e
y

c
h
a
r
.
(
s
e
e

T
a
b
l
e

5
)
T
y
p
e

F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

s
i
z
e
K
r
u
e
s
m
a
n
n

a
n
d

T
i
m
m
e
r
m
a
n
n

(
2
0
0
9
)
H
e
a
l
t
h

s
e
c
t
o
r
I
n
d
i
a

B
y

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p

t
h
e

s
t
u
d
y

m
e
a
n
s

t
o

d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e

a

s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n

w
h
e
r
e

p
a
r
t
i
e
s

i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d
,

e
.
g
.
,
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
,

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

o
r

N
G
O

s
h
a
r
e

c
o
s
t

a
n
d
/
o
r

i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t

i
n

t
h
e

p
r
o
d
u
c
-
t
i
o
n

a
n
d
/
o
r

p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n

o
f
t
e
l
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
.

T
h
e

W
o
m
e
n

H
e
a
l
t
h

I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e

(
W
H
I
)
:

a

s
o
-
c
a
l
l
e
d

t
r
i
l
a
t
e
r
a
l

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

K
a
r
l

S
t
o
r
z

(
p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
a
r
t
y
)
,

t
h
e

D
e
u
t
s
c
h
e

G
e
s
e
l
l
s
c
h
a
f

f
u
r

T
e
c
h
n
i
s
c
h
e

Z
u
s
a
m
m
e
n
a
r
-
b
e
i
d

(
p
u
b
l
i
c

p
a
r
t
y
)

a
n
d

t
h
e

U
n
i
t
e
d

N
a
t
i
o
n
s

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
.
1
,
2
,
3
,
4
J
o
i
n
t

v
e
n
t
u
r
e
N
A
P
h
l
i
x

e
t

a
l
.

(
2
0
1
1
)
F
e
m
a
l
e

c
o
n
d
o
m
s
N
i
g
e
r
i
a
,

C
a
m
e
r
o
o
n
N
A
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
a
l

A
c
c
e
s
s

t
o

F
e
m
a
l
e

C
o
n
d
o
m

(
U
A
F
C
)

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.

T
h
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

w
a
s

i
n
i
t
i
a
t
e
d

b
y

f
o
u
r

o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n

t
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
:

t
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s

M
i
n
i
s
t
r
y

o
f

F
o
r
e
i
g
n

A
f
a
i
r
s
,

O
x
f
a
m

N
o
v
i
b
,

i
+

s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

R
u
t
g
e
r
s

W
P
F
.

A
i
m

o
f

t
h
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

w
a
s

t
o

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

f
e
m
a
l
e

c
o
n
d
o
m
s
.

1
,
2
,
3
,
4
,
5
J
o
i
n
t

v
e
n
t
u
r
e
N
i
g
e
r
i
a

E
U
R

2
,
8
2
8
,
4
8
7
.

C
a
m
e
r
o
o
n

E
U
R

2
,
1
2
6
,
8
8
0
N
e
w
e
l
l

(
2
0
0
4
)
T
u
b
e
r
c
u
l
o
s
e

c
o
n
t
r
o
l
N
e
p
a
l
N
A

A

l
o
c
a
l

w
o
r
k
i
n
g

g
r
o
u
p

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d

a

P
P
P

f
o
r

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

o
f

T
B
,

w
h
i
c
h

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

d
i
a
g
n
o
s
i
s

b
y

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
r
a
c
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
s
,

d
i
r
e
c
t

o
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

t
r
a
c
i
n
g

o
f

p
a
t
i
e
n
t
s

w
h
o

m
i
s
s
e
d

a
p
p
o
i
n
t
m
e
n
t
s

b
y

N
G
O
s
,

a
n
d

p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g

a
n
d

d
r
u
g
s

b
y

t
h
e

N
e
p
a
l

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
B

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e

(
N
T
P
)
.

1
,
2
,
4
J
o
i
n
t

v
e
n
t
u
r
e
N
A
Annexes
| 70 |
S
t
u
d
y

(
a
u
t
h
o
r

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
)
S
u
b
s
e
c
t
o
r
R
e
g
i
o
n
E
x
a
c
t

d
e
f
n
i
t
i
o
n

o
f

P
P
P

(
q
u
o
t
e
)
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

o
f

P
P
P
K
e
y

c
h
a
r
.
(
s
e
e

T
a
b
l
e

5
)
T
y
p
e

F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

s
i
z
e
O
y
e
d
i
r
a
n

(
2
0
0
2
)
M
a
l
a
r
i
a

m
a
l
a
r
o
n
e

K
e
n
y
a

a
n
d

U
g
a
n
d
a
N
A
T
h
e

M
a
l
a
r
o
n
e

(
m
e
d
i
c
i
n
e

a
g
a
i
n
s
t

m
a
l
a
r
i
a
)

D
o
n
a
t
i
o
n

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e

(
M
D
P
)

w
a
s

i
n
i
t
i
a
t
e
d

a
s

a

p
i
l
o
t

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

i
n

A
p
r
i
l

1
9
9
9

a
n
d

e
n
d
e
d

i
n

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
0
1
.

T
h
e

f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

M
D
P

w
e
r
e

s
h
a
p
e
d

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n
v
o
l
v
i
n
g

G
l
a
x
o

W
e
l
l
c
o
m
e
,

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

m
a
l
a
r
i
a

e
x
p
e
r
t
s
,

a
n
d

v
a
r
i
o
u
s

i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

W
H
O

a
n
d

t
h
e

U
n
i
t
e
d

K
i
n
g
d
o
m

D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t

f
o
r

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
-
m
e
n
t

(
D
F
I
D
)
.

1
,
2
,
4
J
o
i
n
t

v
e
n
t
u
r
e
N
A
B
o
m
p
a
r
t

(
2
0
1
1
)
H
e
a
l
t
h

c
a
r
e
/
m
a
l
a
-
r
i
a
3
0

s
u
b
-
S
a
h
a
r
a
n

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s

a
n
d

I
n
d
i
a
.
N
A
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p

(
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
e
d

i
n

2
0
0
4
)

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

t
h
e

D
r
u
g
s

f
o
r

N
e
g
l
e
c
t
e
d

D
i
s
e
a
s
e

i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e

(
D
N
D
i
)

a
n
d

s
a
n
o
f
-
a
v
e
n
t
i
s
.

D
N
D
i

i
s

f
o
u
n
d
e
d

b
y

(
m
a
i
n
l
y
)

p
u
b
l
i
c

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
.

S
a
n
o
f
-
a
v
e
n
t
i
s

i
s

a

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

c
o
m
p
a
n
y
.

1
,
2
,
3
,
4
,
5
J
o
i
n
t

v
e
n
t
u
r
e

(
t
w
o

s
i
d
e
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
)
N
A
H
o
u
s
i
n
g

a
n
d

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

S
h
e
n

e
t

a
l
.

(
2
0
0
6
)
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

H
o
n
g

K
o
n
g
N
A
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

H
o
n
g

K
o
n
g

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

s
e
c
t
o
r

(
W
a
l
t

D
i
s
n
e
y

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
)

o
n

t
h
e

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

o
f

D
i
s
n
e
y

L
a
n
d
.

T
h
i
s

r
e
s
u
l
t
e
d

i
n

a

j
o
i
n
t

v
e
n
t
u
r
e

c
o
m
p
a
n
y
:

H
o
n
g

K
o
n
g

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
h
e
m
e

P
a
r
k
s

L
i
m
i
t
e
d
.
1
,
2
,
3
,
4
,
5
J
o
i
n
t

v
e
n
t
u
r
e
N
A
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 71 |
S
t
u
d
y

(
a
u
t
h
o
r

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
)
S
u
b
s
e
c
t
o
r
R
e
g
i
o
n
E
x
a
c
t

d
e
f
n
i
t
i
o
n

o
f

P
P
P

(
q
u
o
t
e
)
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

o
f

P
P
P
K
e
y

c
h
a
r
.
(
s
e
e

T
a
b
l
e

5
)
T
y
p
e

F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

s
i
z
e
I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

J
a
m
a
l
i

(
2
0
0
4
)
T
e
l
e
c
o
m
L
e
b
a
n
o
n

A

P
P
P

i
s

a
n

i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
-
z
e
d

f
o
r
m

o
f

c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

p
u
b
l
i
c

a
n
d

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

a
c
t
o
r
s
,

w
h
i
c
h
,

o
n

t
h
e

b
a
s
i
s

o
f

t
h
e
i
r

o
w
n

i
n
d
i
g
e
n
o
u
s

o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
,

w
o
r
k

t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r

t
o
w
a
r
d
s

a

j
o
i
n
t

t
a
r
g
e
t
.

P
P
P
s

r
a
t
h
e
r

i
m
p
l
y

a

s
o
r
t

o
f

c
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

t
o

p
u
r
s
u
e

c
o
m
m
o
n

g
o
a
l
s
,

w
h
i
l
e

l
e
v
e
r
a
g
i
n
g

j
o
i
n
t

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

a
n
d

c
a
p
i
t
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

o
n

t
h
e

r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e

c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
c
e
s

a
n
d

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
s

o
f

t
h
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

a
n
d

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
.

T
h
e

L
e
b
a
n
e
s
e

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

a
w
a
r
d
e
d

t
w
o

G
S
M

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

c
o
n
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
s

t
o

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

c
o
m
p
a
n
i
e
s

.
T
h
e

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

s
e
c
t
o
r

w
o
u
l
d

b
e

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e

f
o
r

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

a
n
d

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

n
e
t
w
o
r
k

a
n
d

t
h
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

s
e
c
t
o
r

w
o
u
l
d

b
e

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e

f
o
r

r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
.

1
,
4
,
5
C
o
n
c
e
s
s
i
o
n

(
u
n
d
e
r

a

B
O
T

c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
)
N
A
K
u
r
i
y
a
n

a
n
d

R
e
e

(
2
0
0
8
)
I
C
T
D

(
I
C
T

f
o
r

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
)
I
n
d
i
a
N
A
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

I
n
d
i
a
n

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

I
T

s
e
c
t
o
r

t
o

s
e
t
-
u
p

s
o
-
c
a
l
l
e
d

I
C
T
D

t
e
l
e
c
e
n
t
e
r
s

(
k
i
o
s
k

w
e
r
e

t
h
e

l
o
c
a
l

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

c
a
n

u
s
e

c
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
s
)
.

T
h
e

s
t
u
d
y

r
e
v
i
e
w
s

f
o
u
r

I
C
T
D

P
P
P

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.

O
n
e

i
n

K
e
r
a
l
a

a
n
d

t
h
r
e
e

i
n

A
n
d
r
a

P
r
a
d
e
s
h

(
A
P
)
1
,
3
,
4
L
e
a
s
e

c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
(
h
o
w
e
v
e
r

t
h
e

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
a
r
t
y

w
a
s

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e

f
o
r

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e

k
i
o
s
k

a
n
d

p
u
r
c
h
a
s
i
n
g

i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
)
N
A
Annexes
| 72 |
S
t
u
d
y

(
a
u
t
h
o
r

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
)
S
u
b
s
e
c
t
o
r
R
e
g
i
o
n
E
x
a
c
t

d
e
f
n
i
t
i
o
n

o
f

P
P
P

(
q
u
o
t
e
)
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

o
f

P
P
P
K
e
y

c
h
a
r
.
(
s
e
e

T
a
b
l
e

5
)
T
y
p
e

F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

s
i
z
e
C
h
o
w
d
h
u
r
y

(
2
0
0
2
)
T
e
l
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
-
t
i
o
n
P
e
r
u
,

B
a
n
g
l
a
d
e
s
h

(
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

N
G
O
-
P
P
P
)
F
I
T
E
L

(
F
o
n
d
o

d
e

I
n
v
e
r
s
i

n

e
n
T
e
l
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
c
i
o
n
e
s
)
:

a

P
u
b
l
i
c
-
P
r
i
v
a
t
e

P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

p
u
b
l
i
c

a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y

a
n
d

p
r
i
v
a
t
e
T
e
l
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

.

N
o
t
e
:

t
h
e

s
t
u
d
y

a
l
s
o

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
s

a

s
o
-
c
a
l
l
e
d

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

N
G
O

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p

i
n

B
a
n
g
l
a
d
e
s
h
.

B
u
t

t
h
i
s

i
s

n
o
t

r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

f
o
r

o
u
r

r
e
v
i
e
w
.
1
,
2
,
3
,
4
C
o
n
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
P
e
r
u
:

U
S

d
o
l
l
a
r

3
.
7
2
7
.
3
7
9

i
n
s
t
a
l
l
m
e
n
t

c
o
s
t
s
,

9
9
8
.
4
6
5

f
o
r

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

a
n
d

m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
.
O
t
h
e
r
T
r
i
p
l
e

v
a
l
u
e

(
2
0
0
9
)
C
a
c
a
o
,

S
o
j
a

a
n
d

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

s
t
o
n
e

C
a
c
a
o
:

I
v
o
o
r
k
u
s
t
,

G
h
a
n
a
,

N
i
g
e
r
i
a
,

I
n
d
o
n
e
s
i
a
,

C
a
m
e
r
o
o
n
,

I
n
d
i
a
.
N
a
t
u
r
a
l

s
t
o
n
e
:

C
h
i
n
a
,

I
n
d
i
a

a
n
d

T
u
r
k
i
j
e

S
o
j
a
:

B
r
a
z
i
l
,

A
r
g
e
n
t
i
n
e
,

P
a
r
a
g
u
a
y
,

P
e
r
u
,

U
r
u
g
u
a
y
,

C
h
i
n
a
,

I
n
d
i
a
N
A
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

s
o
-
c
a
l
l
e
d

S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

T
r
a
d
e

A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t

(

I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
e
f

D
u
u
r
z
a
m
e

H
a
n
d
e
l
,

I
D
H

)
.

T
h
i
s

i
s

a

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

s
e
c
t
o
r
,

N
G
O

s

a
n
d

l
o
c
a
l

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
s
.
1
,
2
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t

C
a
c
a
o
:


1
2

m
l
n
.
S
o
j
a
:


6
5
0
.
0
0
0
N
a
t
u
r
a
l

s
t
o
n
e
:


4
6
0
.
0
0
0
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 73 |
S
t
u
d
y

(
a
u
t
h
o
r

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
)
S
u
b
s
e
c
t
o
r
R
e
g
i
o
n
E
x
a
c
t

d
e
f
n
i
t
i
o
n

o
f

P
P
P

(
q
u
o
t
e
)
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

o
f

P
P
P
K
e
y

c
h
a
r
.
(
s
e
e

T
a
b
l
e

5
)
T
y
p
e

F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

s
i
z
e
T
r
i
o
d
o
s

F
a
c
e
t

(
2
0
1
0
)
P
o
v
e
r
t
y

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
E
t
h
i
o
p
i
a
,

G
h
a
n
a
,

I
n
d
o
n
e
s
i
a
,

M
o
z
a
m
b
i
q
u
e
,

S
u
r
i
n
a
m
,

V
i
e
t
n
a
m
N
A

T
h
e

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e

f
o
r

C
o
o
-
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

w
i
t
h

E
m
e
r
g
i
n
g

M
a
r
k
e
t
s

(
P
S
O
M
)

w
a
s

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

D
u
t
c
h

M
i
n
i
s
t
e
r

f
o
r

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

C
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
t

t
h
e

e
n
d

o
f

1
9
9
8
.

I
n

2
0
0
8

P
S
O
M

c
a
m
e

t
o

a
n

e
n
d

a
n
d

i
n

2
0
0
9

a

n
e
w
,

b
u
t

s
i
m
i
l
a
r

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e

w
a
s

s
e
t

u
p
:

t
h
e

P
r
i
v
a
t
e

S
e
c
t
o
r

I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e

(
P
S
I
)
.

T
h
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
s

a
r
e

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
g
e
n
t
s
c
h
a
p

N
L
,

t
h
e

a
g
e
n
c
y

o
f

t
h
e

M
i
n
i
s
t
r
y

o
f

E
c
n
o
m
i
c

A
f
a
i
r
s

f
o
r

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

a
n
d

c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

w
h
i
c
h

i
s

w
i
t
h
i
n

t
h
e

r
e
m
i
t

o
f

t
h
e

M
i
n
i
s
t
e
r

f
o
r

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

C
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
.

1
,
2
,
3
,
4
,
5
J
o
i
n
t

v
e
n
t
u
r
e
3
9
1

m
i
l
l
i
o
n

s
u
b
s
i
d
y
.

T
h
e

s
u
b
s
i
d
y

e
q
u
a
l
s

5
0
/
6
0
%

o
f

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

c
o
s
t
s
.
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
d
e

J
o
n
g

e
t
.

a
l

(
2
0
1
0
)
P
u
b
l
i
c

t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t

(
s
u
b
w
a
y
s
)
C
h
i
n
a

T
h
e
r
e

i
s

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

a
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t

t
h
a
t

P
P
P

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

i
n
v
o
l
v
e

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
a
r
t
i
e
s

i
n

t
h
e

d
e
s
i
g
n
,

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,

m
a
i
n
t
e
-
n
a
n
c
e

a
n
d

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

a

p
u
b
l
i
c

i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

o
n

t
h
e

b
a
s
i
s

o
f

l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m

c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
s

o
r

a
r
r
a
n
g
e
-
m
e
n
t
s
.

P
P
P

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

o
n

s
u
b
w
a
y

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

i
n

s
e
v
e
n

m
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

a
r
e
a
s

i
n

C
h
i
n
a
.

V
a
r
y
i
n
g

f
r
o
m

B
O
T

t
o

j
o
i
n
t

v
e
n
t
u
r
e
s
.
1
,
2
,
3
,
4
,
5
V
a
r
i
o
u
s

(
B
O
T
,

B
D
O
T

a
n
d

j
o
i
n
t

v
e
n
t
u
r
e
s
)
1
0
0
,
5
3

b
i
l
l
i
o
n

(
t
o
t
a
l
)
Annexes
| 74 |
T
a
b
l
e

A
-
5

I
n
t
e
r
v
e
n
t
i
o
n

l
o
g
i
c

(
c
a
s
e

s
t
u
d
i
e
s
)

S
t
u
d
y

(
a
u
t
h
o
r

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
)
R
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
e

(
w
h
y

P
P
P
)
T
y
p
e

o
f

f
a
i
l
u
r
e
G
o
a
l

o
f

P
P
P
E
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
M
a
l
i
k

(
2
0
1
0
)
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

r
e
a
s
o
n
s
,

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

r
e
a
s
o
n
s

T
h
e

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

o
f

P
a
k
i
s
t
a
n

a
l
o
n
e

c
a
n
n
o
t

a
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h

t
h
e

g
i
g
a
n
t
i
c

t
a
s
k

o
f

p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

m
e
e
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

t
a
r
g
e
t
s

o
f

t
h
e

M
i
l
l
e
n
n
i
u
m

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

G
o
a
l
s

(
M
D
G
s
)

a
n
d

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

A
l
l

(
E
F
A
)
.

T
h
a
t

i
s

w
h
y

t
h
e

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

n
o
w

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
s

t
h
e

u
s
e

o
f

p
u
b
l
i
c

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s

(
P
P
P
s
)

i
n

i
t
s

e
f
o
r
t
s

t
o

i
m
p
r
o
v
e

t
h
e

e
q
u
i
t
y

a
n
d

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

o
f

t
h
e

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

s
y
s
t
e
m

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

f
a
i
l
u
r
e
:

T
h
e

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

o
f

P
a
k
i
s
t
a
n

a
l
o
n
e

c
a
n
n
o
t

a
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h

t
h
e

g
i
g
a
n
t
i
c

t
a
s
k

o
f

p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g

q
u
a
l
i
t
y
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

m
e
e
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

t
a
r
g
e
t
s

o
f

t
h
e

M
i
l
l
e
n
n
i
u
m

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

G
o
a
l
s

(
M
D
G
s
)

a
n
d

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r

A
l
l

(
E
F
A
)
.

A
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

t
h
e

u
n
d
e
r
p
r
i
v
i
l
e
g
e
d

P
E
F

S
u
p
p
o
r
t
s

t
h
e

e
f
o
r
t
s

o
f

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

s
c
h
o
o
l
s

t
o

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

t
o

t
h
e

p
o
o
r

.
S
p
e
c
i
f
c

g
o
a
l
s

f
o
r

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
:
-

T
h
e

C
P
D
P

(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s

P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
)

a
i
m
s

t
o

i
m
p
r
o
v
e

s
t
u
d
e
n
t

l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g

o
u
t
c
o
m
e
s

i
n

l
o
w
-
t
u
i
t
i
o
n

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

s
c
h
o
o
l
s

b
y

p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g

e
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

m
e
n
t
o
r
i
n
g

t
o

t
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
.

-

T
I
C
C
S

(
T
e
a
c
h
i
n
g

i
n

C
l
u
s
t
e
r
s

b
y

S
u
b
j
e
c
t

S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
)
:

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

b
y

v
i
s
i
t
s

o
f

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

s
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
.
-

T
h
e

E
V
S

(
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

V
o
u
c
h
e
r

S
c
h
e
m
e
)

a
i
m
s

t
o

p
r
o
m
o
t
e

f
r
e
e
d
o
m

o
f

c
h
o
i
c
e
,

e
f
c
i
e
n
c
y
,

e
q
u
i
t
y
,

a
n
d

s
o
c
i
a
l

c
o
h
e
s
i
o
n
.
N
A
B
a
r
r
e
r
a
-
O
s
o
r
i
o

e
t

a
l
.

(
2
0
1
1
)
N
A
N
A

B
y

g
i
v
i
n
g

t
o

l
o
c
a
l

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

f
o
r

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

t
h
e
s
e

s
c
h
o
o
l
s
,

c
o
u
p
l
e
d

w
i
t
h

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

a
n
d

o
v
e
r
s
i
g
h
t

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
,

t
h
e

P
P
R
S

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

s
e
e
k
s

t
o

t
a
k
e

a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

t
h
e

l
o
c
a
l

k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

a
n
d

u
n
d
e
r
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
d

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

w
i
t
h
i
n

t
h
e
s
e

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s

t
o

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

v
i
a
b
l
e
,

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
,

a
n
d

a
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

t
h
e
s
e

r
e
m
o
t
e
,

a
n
d

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y

n
e
g
l
e
c
t
e
d
,

a
r
e
a
s
.

I
t

i
s

h
o
p
e
d

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

o
f

t
h
e

s
u
b
s
i
d
y
,

a

f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n

e
n
r
o
l
l
e
d
,

i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
s

a

s
t
r
o
n
g

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e

f
o
r

t
h
e

s
c
h
o
o
l

o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r

t
o

u
n
d
e
r
t
a
k
e

i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

a
c
t
i
o
n
s

t
o

a
t
r
a
c
t

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n

t
o

s
c
h
o
o
l
.
E
n
e
r
g
y
U
t
z
i
n
g
e
r

(
2
0
0
5
)

N
A
M
a
r
k
e
t

f
a
i
l
u
r
e
:

T
h
e

h
i
g
h

c
o
s
t
s

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

o
i
l
f
e
l
d

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
,

p
a
i
r
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

i
n
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

h
i
n
d
e
r
e
d

i
t
s

e
a
r
l
i
e
r

e
x
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

w
a
s

s
e
e
n

a
s

a

u
n
i
q
u
e

o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y

f
o
r

C
h
a
d

t
o

e
s
c
a
p
e

i
t
s

e
x
t
r
e
m
e

p
o
v
e
r
t
y
.

S
e
c
o
n
d
,

t
h
e
r
e

w
a
s

a

n
e
e
d

f
o
r

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

a
n

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y

a
n
d

s
o
c
i
a
l
l
y

s
o
u
n
d

m
a
n
n
e
r
,

t
o

a
v
o
i
d

n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t

i
n

o
t
h
e
r

p
e
t
r
o

s
t
a
t
e
s

i
n

t
h
e

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g

w
o
r
l
d

N
A
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 75 |
S
t
u
d
y

(
a
u
t
h
o
r

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
)
R
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
e

(
w
h
y

P
P
P
)
T
y
p
e

o
f

f
a
i
l
u
r
e
G
o
a
l

o
f

P
P
P
E
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

C
h
o
w
d
h
u
r
y

e
t

a
l
.

(
2
0
0
9
)
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

r
e
a
s
o
n
s

A
t
r
a
c
t
i
n
g

f
o
r
e
i
g
n

f
u
n
d
s

f
o
r

i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

i
s

o
n
e

o
f

t
h
e

c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

i
s
s
u
e
s

f
o
r

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
.

D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c

c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

b
a
n
k
s

a
r
e

r
e
l
u
c
t
a
n
t

t
o

c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e

h
e
a
v
i
l
y

t
o

t
h
e

c
a
p
i
t
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

l
a
r
g
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.

T
h
e

d
o
m
e
s
t
i
c

c
a
p
i
t
a
l

m
a
r
k
e
t

i
s

n
o
t

s
t
r
o
n
g

a
n
d

u
n
s
t
a
b
l
e

t
o
o
.

T
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,

t
h
e

r
e
a
l
i
t
y

i
s
,

m
o
s
t

o
f

t
h
e

f
u
n
d
i
n
g

g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
s

f
r
o
m

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

f
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
,

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

o
f
s
h
o
r
e

b
a
n
k
s

a
n
d

e
x
p
o
r
t

c
r
e
d
i
t

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
.

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

h
a
s

t
o

s
e
e
k

f
o
r
w
a
r
d

t
o

t
h
e
s
e

i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s

w
h
e
r
e

i
t

h
a
s

s
t
r
o
n
g

t
i
e

a
n
d

g
o
o
d

r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p

t
o

m
o
b
i
l
i
z
e

f
n
a
n
c
e

w
i
t
h

e
a
s
e
.

T
h
e

c
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

p
r
o
t
e
c
t
s

t
h
e

c
o
m
p
a
n
i
e
s

a
g
a
i
n
s
t

c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

a
n
d

p
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

r
i
s
k
s

o
f

n
o
t

b
e
i
n
g

p
a
i
d

w
h
i
l
e

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

a
b
r
o
a
d
.

N
A
P
r
o
v
i
d
e

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s

w
i
t
h

p
o
w
e
r
N
A
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
E
z
e
b
i
l
o

a
n
d

A
n
i
m
a
s
a
u
n

(
2
0
1
2
)
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

r
e
a
s
o
n
s
I
n

t
h
e

p
a
s
t

t
h
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

s
e
c
t
o
r

h
a
d

t
h
e

p
r
i
m
a
r
y

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

w
a
s
t
e

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s

b
u
t

i
t

w
a
s

n
o
t

v
e
r
y

s
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
.

I
n

o
r
d
e
r

t
o

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

e
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

i
n

t
h
e

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

t
h
e

K
w
a
r
e

S
t
a
t
e

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
e
d

a

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

c
o
m
p
a
n
y

i
n

2
0
0
4

a
n
d

w
a
s

c
h
a
r
g
e
d

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

k
e
e
p
i
n
g

I
l
o
r
i
n
g

c
l
e
a
n
,

a
n
d

t
o

f
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e

t
h
e

r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

f
a
i
l
u
r
e
:

T
h
e

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

w
a
s

n
o
t

a
b
l
e

t
o

s
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
l
y

f
u
l
f
l
l

t
h
e

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
-
t
i
e
s

o
f

h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

w
a
s
t
e

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
.
A
n

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e

h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

w
a
s
t
e

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

i
n

I
l
o
r
i
n

(
c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

w
h
i
c
h

j
u
s
t

t
h
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

s
e
c
t
o
r

h
a
d

t
h
e

p
r
i
m
a
r
y

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

w
a
s
t
e

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
)
.

I
t

w
a
s

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

P
P
P

i
n
t
e
r
v
e
n
t
i
o
n

w
i
l
l

b
e

m
o
r
e

s
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s

s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

w
h
e
r
e

t
h
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

s
e
c
t
o
r

w
a
s

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e

f
o
r

h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

w
a
s
t
e

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

.
H
e
a
l
t
h
c
a
r
e
Annexes
| 76 |
S
t
u
d
y

(
a
u
t
h
o
r

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
)
R
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
e

(
w
h
y

P
P
P
)
T
y
p
e

o
f

f
a
i
l
u
r
e
G
o
a
l

o
f

P
P
P
E
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

A
l
i

e
t

a
l
.

(
2
0
0
6
)
N
A
N
A

T
h
e

m
a
i
n

i
d
e
a

w
a
s

t
o

b
o
o
s
t

p
u
b
l
i
c

c
o
n
f
d
e
n
c
e

a
n
d

t
o

i
n
c
u
l
c
a
t
e

a

s
p
i
r
i
t

o
f

c
i
t
i
z
e
n
-
f
r
i
e
n
d
l
y

p
o
l
i
c
i
n
g

w
i
t
h

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
.

I
t

w
a
s

m
e
a
n
t

t
o

w
i
n

c
i
t
i
z
e
n
s

c
o
n
f
d
e
n
c
e

a
n
d

t
o

i
m
p
r
o
v
e

t
h
e

t
a
r
n
i
s
h
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
c

i
m
a
g
e

o
f

t
h
e

p
o
l
i
c
e
.

K
r
u
e
s
m
a
n
n

a
n
d

T
i
m
m
e
r
m
a
n
n

(
2
0
0
9
)
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

r
e
a
s
o
n
s
,

p
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

r
e
a
s
o
n
s

P
u
b
l
i
c

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s

s
u
g
g
e
s
t

o
n
e

p
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

f
o
r

e
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

a
c
t
i
o
n

[
t
o

a
d
d
r
e
s
s

c
o
m
p
l
e
x

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s

s
u
c
h

a
s

i
l
l
e
g
a
l

a
b
o
r
t
i
o
n
s
,

p
o
o
r

i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
-
t
u
r
e
,

i
n
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e

e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y

t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t

s
y
s
t
e
m
s

e
t
c
]
.

I
n

r
e
c
e
n
t

y
e
a
r
s

t
h
e
s
e

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s

h
a
v
e

c
o
m
e

t
o

b
e

s
e
e
n

a
s

v
i
a
b
l
e

o
p
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

i
m
p
r
o
v
i
n
g

h
e
a
l
t
h

c
a
r
e
.

I
n

I
n
d
i
a
,

t
h
e

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
s

t
h
a
t

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

s
e
c
t
o
r

-
b
o
t
h

t
h
e

f
o
r
-
p
r
o
f
t

a
n
d

n
o
n
-
p
r
o
f
t
-

a
r
e

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t

t
o

a
t
a
i
n

p
u
b
l
i
c

h
e
a
l
t
h

g
o
a
l
s

a
n
d

t
o

i
m
p
r
o
v
e

t
h
e

h
e
a
l
t
h

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

s
y
s
t
e
m
.

N
A

T
h
e

g
o
a
l

o
f

t
h
e

W
o
m
e
n

s

H
e
a
l
t
h

I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e

(
W
H
I
)

i
s

t
o

i
m
p
r
o
v
e

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
-
t
i
v
e

a
n
d

m
a
t
e
r
n
a
l

h
e
a
l
t
h

f
o
r

w
o
m
a
n

a
n
d

g
i
r
l
s

i
n

I
n
d
i
a
.

T
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

p
r
i
n
c
i
p
a
l

o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e

w
a
s

t
o

t
r
a
i
n

s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d

d
o
c
t
o
r
s

i
n

e
n
d
o
s
c
o
p
i
c

m
e
t
h
o
d
s

o
f

d
i
a
g
n
o
s
e
s

a
n
d

t
h
e
r
a
p
y

a
t

s
i
x

E
n
d
o
s
c
o
p
y

T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g

C
e
n
t
r
e
s

(
E
T
C
s
)

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

a
t

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

I
n
d
i
a
n

h
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
s

(
f
o
u
r

p
u
b
l
i
c

a
n
d

t
w
o

p
r
i
v
a
t
e
)
.

T
h
i
s

s
t
r
a
i
g
h
t
f
o
r
w
a
r
d

o
b
j
e
c
t
s

w
a
s

a
u
g
m
e
n
t
e
d

t
o

a

n
e
w

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

o
f

i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

a

f
o
c
u
s

o
n

s
e
l
f
-
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g

,

g
u
i
d
e
d

b
y

t
r
a
n
s
p
a
r
e
n
t

a
n
d

i
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
,

a
n
d

c
o
u
p
l
e
d

w
i
t
h

e
x
p
l
i
c
i
t

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

U
n
i
t
e
d

N
a
t
i
o
n
s

G
l
o
b
a
l

C
o
m
p
a
c
t

(
U
N
G
C
)

i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
.

N
A
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 77 |
S
t
u
d
y

(
a
u
t
h
o
r

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
)
R
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
e

(
w
h
y

P
P
P
)
T
y
p
e

o
f

f
a
i
l
u
r
e
G
o
a
l

o
f

P
P
P
E
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

P
h
l
i
x

e
t

a
l
.

(
2
0
1
1
)
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

r
e
a
s
o
n
s
,

p
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

r
e
a
s
o
n
s

I
n

o
r
d
e
r

t
o

o
b
t
a
i
n

t
h
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

g
o
a
l
s

a

p
u
b
l
i
c
-
p
r
i
v
a
t
e

a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h

i
s

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

t
o

b
e

s
u
r
e

t
h
e

f
e
m
a
l
e

c
o
n
d
o
m

g
e
t
s

t
h
e

a
t
e
n
t
i
o
n

i
t

d
e
s
e
r
v
e
s

b
y

p
u
t
i
n
g

i
t

o
n

t
h
e

p
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

a
g
e
n
d
a

a
n
d

e
n
s
u
r
i
n
g

f
u
n
d
i
n
g

.
M
a
r
k
e
t

f
a
i
l
u
r
e
:

O
n
l
y

t
h
e

F
e
m
a
l
e

H
e
a
l
t
h

C
o
m
p
a
n
y

(
F
H
C
)

h
a
s

i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

f
e
m
a
l
e

c
o
n
d
o
m
s

o
n

t
h
e

g
l
o
b
a
l

m
a
r
k
e
t
.

C
o
m
p
a
n
i
e
s

w
i
s
h
i
n
g

t
o

e
n
t
e
r

t
h
e

m
a
r
k
e
t

w
i
t
h

v
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

t
h
e

f
e
m
a
l
e

c
o
n
d
o
m

a
r
e

f
a
c
i
n
g

c
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s

t
o

m
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g

t
h
e
i
r

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

o
n

a

l
a
r
g
e

s
c
a
l
e

f
o
r

s
e
v
e
r
a
l

r
e
a
s
o
n
s
.

A
s

a

c
o
n
s
e
q
u
e
n
c
e
,

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

(
l
a
r
g
e
r
)

c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
o
r
s

h
a
v
e

c
o
m
e

t
o

t
h
e

c
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n

t
h
a
t

i
n
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

i
n

f
e
m
a
l
e

c
o
n
d
o
m
s

i
s

n
o
t

c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
l
y

v
i
a
b
l
e
.

T
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,

t
o

d
a
t
e
,

t
h
e

m
o
n
o
p
o
l
y

p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

F
H
C

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
s

t
o

e
x
i
s
t
.

T
h
e

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
a
l

A
c
c
e
s
s

t
o

F
e
m
a
l
e

C
o
n
d
o
m
s

J
o
i
n
t

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e

a
i
m
s

t
o

m
a
k
e

f
e
m
a
l
e

c
o
n
d
o
m
s

a
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
e
,

a
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e

a
n
d

a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

f
o
r

a
l
l

.
T
h
e

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t

o
f

a
n

a
c
t
i
v
e

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

p
l
a
t
f
o
r
m

w
i
t
h

m
o
r
e

t
h
a
n

5
0

o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

a
t

l
e
a
s
t

s
i
x

d
o
n
o
r

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

a
n
d

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
n
g

i
n

t
h
e

p
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
;

T
h
e

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

a
d
v
o
c
a
c
y

t
o
o
l
k
i
t
;

T
h
e

i
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

f
e
m
a
l
e

c
o
n
d
o
m

i
n

g
e
n
d
e
r

a
n
d

h
e
a
l
t
h

p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s

b
y

o
n
e

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
N

a
g
e
n
c
y

a
n
d

t
h
r
e
e

d
o
n
o
r

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
;

T
h
e

g
u
a
r
a
n
t
e
e
d

f
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
s

o
f

a
t

l
e
a
s
t

t
h
r
e
e

o
t
h
e
r

d
o
n
o
r

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

(
o
t
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

H
e
w
l
e
t

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
,

D
A
N
I
D
A

a
n
d

D
G
I
S
)

t
o

t
h
e

U
A
F
C

J
o
i
n
t

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
,

f
o
r

a

t
o
t
a
l

a
m
o
u
n
t

o
f

E
U
R

1
7
.
8

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
.
N
e
w
e
l
l

(
2
0
0
4
)
E
f
c
i
e
n
c
y

r
e
a
s
o
n
s
N
o
r
m
a
l
l
y

t
b
c

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

i
s

f
o
r

5
0
%

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

b
y

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
r
a
c
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
s

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

u
r
b
a
n

c
e
n
t
r
e
s
.

T
h
e
s
e

p
a
t
i
e
n
t
s

a
r
e

u
n
r
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

a
n
d

t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e

h
a
r
d

t
o

m
o
n
i
t
o
r

t
h
e
s
e

p
a
t
i
e
n
t
s
.

A

p
p
p

c
a
n

b
e

t
h
e

s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

t
o

t
h
i
s

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
M
a
r
k
e
t

f
a
i
l
u
r
e
:

I
n

u
r
b
a
n

a
r
e
a
s
,

5
0
%

o
f

p
a
t
i
e
n
t
s

w
i
t
h

T
B

a
r
e

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

t
o

b
e

m
a
n
a
g
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

s
e
c
t
o
r

(
1
4
)

(
a
l
m
o
s
t

a
l
l

l
i
c
e
n
c
e
d

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
r
a
c
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
s

a
r
e

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

u
r
b
a
n

c
e
n
t
r
e
s
)
;

t
h
e
s
e

p
a
t
i
e
n
t
s

a
r
e

u
n
r
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
.

T
h
e

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

o
f

c
a
r
e

f
o
r

T
B

p
a
t
i
e
n
t
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

b
y

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
r
a
c
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
s

g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
y

i
s

v
e
r
y

p
o
o
r

(
1
5
)
,

l
e
a
d
i
n
g

t
o

d
e
l
a
y
e
d

c
u
r
e
,

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

n
u
m
b
e
r
s

o
f

c
h
r
o
n
i
c

t
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
e
r
s
,

a
n
d

d
r
u
g

r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
,

a
n
d

h
e
n
c
e

t
o

a
n

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g

i
n
c
i
d
e
n
c
e

o
f

T
B

A
v
o
i
d

p
o
o
r

o
r

i
n
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
,

w
h
i
c
h

c
a
n

l
e
a
d

t
o

r
e
l
a
p
s
e
,

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

t
r
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
,

a
n
d

d
r
u
g
-
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
t

T
B
,

W
H
O

a
n
d

t
h
e

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

U
n
i
o
n

A
g
a
i
n
s
t

T
u
b
e
r
c
u
l
o
s
i
s

a
n
d

L
u
n
g

D
i
s
e
a
s
e

a
d
v
o
c
a
t
e

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

D
O
T
S

s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
.

A

k
e
y

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
i
s

s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y

i
s

d
i
r
e
c
t

o
b
s
e
r
-
v
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

(
D
O
T
)
:

t
h
a
t

i
s
,

t
h
e

p
a
t
i
e
n
t

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d

a
s

h
e

o
r

s
h
e

s
w
a
l
l
o
w
s

e
a
c
h

d
o
s
e

o
f

a
n
t
i
-

T
B

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

f
o
r

a
t

l
e
a
s
t

t
h
e

f
r
s
t

t
w
o

m
o
n
t
h
s

o
f

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

b
y

a

p
e
r
s
o
n

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e

t
o

t
h
e

h
e
a
l
t
h

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s

.

-

h
i
g
h
e
r

c
u
r
e

r
a
t
e
s

-

h
i
g
h
e
r

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
e
s
-

l
e
s
s

p
e
o
p
l
e

d
i
a
g
n
o
s
e
d

w
i
t
h

t
b
c
Annexes
| 78 |
S
t
u
d
y

(
a
u
t
h
o
r

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
)
R
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
e

(
w
h
y

P
P
P
)
T
y
p
e

o
f

f
a
i
l
u
r
e
G
o
a
l

o
f

P
P
P
E
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

O
y
e
d
i
r
a
n

(
2
0
0
2
)
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

r
e
a
s
o
n
s

T
h
e

c
o
m
p
l
e
x

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

m
a
k
e
s

t
h
e

d
r
u
g

e
x
p
e
n
s
i
v
e

t
o

m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e

a
n
d

i
t
s

p
r
i
c
e

i
s

b
e
y
o
n
d

t
h
e

r
e
a
c
h

o
f

m
o
s
t

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s

a
n
d

h
e
a
l
t
h

c
a
r
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
s

i
n

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s

w
h
e
r
e

m
a
l
a
r
i
a

i
s

e
n
d
e
m
i
c
.

M
a
r
k
e
t

f
a
i
l
u
r
e
:

G
l
a
x
o

W
e
l
l
c
o
m
e

u
n
d
e
r
t
o
o
k

n
o
t

t
o

e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e

o
r

c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
l
y

p
r
o
m
o
t
e

t
h
e

t
h
e
r
a
p
e
u
t
i
c

u
s
e

o
f

M
a
l
a
r
o
n
e

i
n

a
r
e
a
s

o
f

e
n
d
e
m
i
c
i
t
y

o
u
t
s
i
d
e

t
h
e

d
o
n
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e

a
n
d

n
o
t

t
o

s
e
l
l

t
h
e

d
r
u
g

a
t

a

d
i
s
c
o
u
n
t
e
d

p
r
i
c
e

i
n

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s

w
h
e
r
e

t
h
e

d
i
s
e
a
s
e

w
a
s

e
n
d
e
m
i
c
,

s
i
n
c
e

i
t
s

h
i
g
h

p
r
i
c
e

w
a
s

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d

a

m
a
j
o
r

b
a
r
r
i
e
r

t
o

i
n
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e

u
s
e

.
-
h
e
l
p

r
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

g
l
o
b
a
l

b
u
r
d
e
n

o
f

m
a
l
a
r
i
a

-
a
v
o
i
d

p
r
e
m
a
t
u
r
e

w
i
d
e
s
p
r
e
a
d

a
n
d

i
n
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e

u
s
e

o
f

M
a
l
a
r
o
n
e

s
o

a
s

t
o

m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e

t
h
e

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

o
f

r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

t
h
a
t

m
i
g
h
t

m
a
k
e

t
h
e

d
r
u
g

i
n
e
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

f
o
r

f
u
t
u
r
e

m
a
l
a
r
i
a

c
o
n
t
r
o
l
.
N
A
B
o
m
p
a
r
t

(
2
0
1
1
)
N
A
N
A

I
n

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
0
4
,

D
N
D
i

a
n
d

s
a
n
o
f
-
a
v
e
n
t
i
s

d
e
c
i
d
e
d

t
o

j
o
i
n

f
o
r
c
e
s

t
o

f
o
r
m

a

p
u
b
l
i
c
-
p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e

o
f

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g

a

n
o
n
-
p
a
t
e
n
t
e
d

f
x
e
d
-
d
o
s
e

c
o
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

a
r
t
e
s
u
n
a
t
e

a
n
d

a
m
o
d
i
a
q
u
i
n
e

t
h
a
t

w
o
u
l
d

b
e

m
a
d
e

a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

a
t

p
r
i
c
e
s

l
o
w
e
r

t
h
a
n

t
h
o
s
e

a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

a
t

t
h
e

t
i
m
e
,

i
.
e
.

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

U
S
$
1

f
o
r

a
n

a
d
u
l
t

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

U
S
$
0
.
5
0

f
o
r

a

c
h
i
l
d

s

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

i
n

t
h
e

n
o
n
p
r
o
f
t

p
u
b
l
i
c

s
e
c
t
o
r

.
I
t

w
a
s

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

n
e
w

c
o
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

(
a
t

t
h
a
t

t
i
m
e

e
x
i
s
t
e
d

o
n
l
y

a
s

a

n
o
n
-
f
x
e
d

c
o
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

t
w
o

d
r
u
g
s
)

w
o
u
l
d

b
e

n
e
e
d
e
d

t
o

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

e
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

a
g
a
i
n
s
t

m
a
l
a
r
i
a
.
H
o
u
s
i
n
g

a
n
d

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

S
h
e
n

e
t

a
l
.

(
2
0
0
6
)
N
A
N
A

P
r
o
v
i
d
e

r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

p
u
b
l
i
c

i
n

H
o
n
g

K
o
n
g

a
n
d

c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e

t
o

t
h
e

H
o
n
g

K
o
n
g

e
c
o
n
o
m
y

T
h
e

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

p
a
r
k

w
i
l
l

g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e

s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l

l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m

e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

r
e
t
u
r
n
s

t
o

t
h
e

t
e
r
r
i
t
o
r
y

a
n
d

i
s

a

k
e
y

s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c

i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t

o
f

a

r
e
n
e
w
e
d

a
n
d

r
e
i
n
v
i
g
o
r
a
t
e
d

m
o
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n

t
o

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
e
n

a
n
d

c
o
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
e

H
o
n
g

K
o
n
g

s

p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

a
s

a

m
u
s
t
-
s
e
e

t
o
u
r
i
s
m

d
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 79 |
S
t
u
d
y

(
a
u
t
h
o
r

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
)
R
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
e

(
w
h
y

P
P
P
)
T
y
p
e

o
f

f
a
i
l
u
r
e
G
o
a
l

o
f

P
P
P
E
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

J
a
m
a
l
i

(
2
0
0
4
)
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

r
e
a
s
o
n
s

T
h
e

L
e
b
a
n
e
s
e

e
c
o
n
o
m
y

h
a
s

t
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y

b
e
e
n

d
o
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

s
e
c
t
o
r
.

A
f
e
r

n
e
a
r
l
y

t
w
o

d
e
c
a
d
e
s

o
f

c
i
v
i
l

u
n
r
e
s
t
,

t
h
e

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

o
f

t
h
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

s
e
c
t
o
r

d
e
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
t
e
d

d
u
e

t
o

p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l

d
a
m
a
g
e
,

l
a
c
k

o
f

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

s
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
i
o
n
,

a
n
d

s
c
a
r
c
i
t
y

o
f

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.

T
h
e

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d

r
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
-
i
n
g

a
n
d

r
e
f
o
r
m
i
n
g

p
u
b
l
i
c

e
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
s
,

w
h
i
c
h

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

s
i
g
n
i
f
c
a
n
t

f
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

t
h
a
t

w
e
r
e

l
a
c
k
i
n
g
.

C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e

e
f
e
c
t
s

o
f

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
,

f
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
,

i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
,

a
n
d

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
,

P
P
P
s

w
e
r
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

a
s

a

p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e

s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

t
o

l
e
v
e
r
a
g
e

n
e
e
d
e
d

t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e
r
i
a
l

e
x
p
e
r
t
i
s
e
,

s
e
c
u
r
e

c
a
p
i
t
a
l

i
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

g
r
e
a
t
e
r

e
f
c
i
e
n
c
y
.

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

f
a
i
l
u
r
e
:

R
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
i
n
g

a
n
d

r
e
f
o
r
m
i
n
g

p
u
b
l
i
c

e
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
c
e
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

s
i
g
n
i
f
c
a
n
t

f
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

t
h
a
t

w
e
r
e

n
o
t

a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

i
n

t
h
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

s
e
c
t
o
r
.
S
e
t
i
n
g

u
p

a
n

a
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e

t
e
l
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
-
t
i
o
n

n
e
t
w
o
r
k
.

S
e
e

a
l
s
o

r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
e
A
n

a
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e

G
S
M

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
,

w
h
i
c
h

w
i
l
l

r
e
s
u
l
t

i
n

m
a
n
y

s
u
b
s
c
r
i
b
e
r
s
K
u
r
i
y
a
n

a
n
d

R
e
e

(
2
0
0
8
)
I
d
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

r
e
a
s
o
n
s
,

p
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

r
e
a
s
o
n
s
-

F
i
r
s
t
,

P
P
P
s

i
n

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

g
a
i
n
e
d

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

i
n

t
h
e

1
9
9
0
s

i
n

a
n

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t

t
h
a
t

s
t
r
o
n
g
l
y

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
d

e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

l
i
b
e
r
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

l
e
s
s

s
t
a
t
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
.

S
e
c
o
n
d
,

I
n
d
i
a

s

m
u
c
h

a
c
c
l
a
i
m
e
d

s
u
c
c
e
s
s

i
n

t
h
e

I
T

i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y

p
r
o
m
p
t
e
d

t
h
e

s
t
a
t
e

t
o

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e

t
h
e

b
e
n
e
f
t
s

o
f

I
C
T
s

m
o
r
e

b
r
o
a
d
l
y

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

I
C
T

a
n
d

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

.
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

f
a
i
l
u
r
e
:

P
r
i
v
a
t
e

s
e
c
t
o
r

f
r
m
s
,

m
u
l
t
i
l
a
t
e
r
a
l

o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
,

a
n
d

s
t
a
t
e

o
f
c
i
a
l
s

t
h
e
m
s
e
l
v
e
s

c
l
a
i
m

t
h
a
t

P
P
P

m
o
d
e
l
s

a
r
e

b
e
c
o
m
i
n
g

t
h
e

n
o
r
m

f
o
r

I
C
T
D

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

i
n

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

t
o
s
t
r
e
t
c
h
e
d

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

b
u
d
g
e
t
s
,

t
h
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

s
e
c
t
o
r

s

i
n
e
f
c
i
e
n
c
y

a
s

t
h
e

s
o
l
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r

o
f

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
o
o
r
,

a
n
d

t
h
e

l
o
s
s

o
f

s
t
a
t
e

p
o
w
e
r

i
n

a

l
i
b
e
r
a
l
i
z
i
n
g

g
l
o
b
a
l

e
c
o
n
o
m
y

(
C
e
r
n
y
,

1
9
9
5
;

M
c
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
,

1
9
9
6
)

.
K
e
r
a
l
a
:

T
h
e

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

i
n
i
t
i
a
t
e
d

t
h
e

A
k
s
h
a
y
a

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

i
n

2
0
0
2

t
o

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h

o
v
e
r

5
0
0
0

n
e
t
w
o
r
k
e
d

m
u
l
t
i
-
p
u
r
p
o
s
e

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

c
e
n
t
e
r
s
,

t
h
u
s

e
v
e
n
t
u
a
l
l
y

p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

g
o
v
e
r
n
a
n
c
e

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

I
C
T

a
c
c
e
s
s

t
o

t
h
e

e
n
t
i
r
e

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
.

I
t

a
l
s
o

a
i
m
e
d

t
o

m
a
k
e

a
t

l
e
a
s
t

o
n
e

p
e
r
s
o
n

i
n

e
a
c
h

o
f

6
5
0
,
0
0
0

f
a
m
i
l
i
e
s

i
n

t
h
e

s
t
a
t
e

e
-
l
i
t
e
r
a
t
e

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

a
n

e
-
l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

o
r

b
a
s
i
c

c
o
m
p
u
t
e
r

t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g

c
o
u
r
s
e

s
u
b
s
i
d
i
z
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t


A
P

(
3

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
)
:

a
l
l

t
h
r
e
e

A
P

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

s
h
a
r
e

t
h
e

g
o
a
l
s

o
f

e
f
c
i
e
n
t

a
n
d

t
r
a
n
s
p
a
r
a
n
t

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

o
f

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
.
.
.

T
h
e

P
P
P

w
o
u
l
d

s
t
i
m
u
l
a
t
e

e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

a
n
d

s
o
c
i
a
l

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

o
f

I
n
d
i
a
.

S
e
e

a
l
s
o

g
o
a
l
.
Annexes
| 80 |
S
t
u
d
y

(
a
u
t
h
o
r

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
)
R
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
e

(
w
h
y

P
P
P
)
T
y
p
e

o
f

f
a
i
l
u
r
e
G
o
a
l

o
f

P
P
P
E
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

C
h
o
w
d
h
u
r
y

(
2
0
0
2
)
E
f
c
i
e
n
c
y

r
e
a
s
o
n
s
P
e
r
u

w
a
n
t
e
d

t
o

d
e
s
i
g
n

a

p
o
l
i
c
y

w
h
i
c
h

m
a
x
i
m
i
z
e
d

e
f
c
i
e
n
c
y

b
y

e
n
s
u
r
i
n
g

a

c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t

b
u
t

a
t

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

t
i
m
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s

u
n
i
v
e
r
s
a
l

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
.

T
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e

t
h
e
y

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d

F
I
T
E
L
,

a

f
u
n
d

w
h
i
c
h

w
o
u
l
d

s
u
b
s
i
d
i
z
e

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

t
e
l
e
c
o
m

c
o
m
p
a
n
i
e
s

t
o

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

u
n
i
v
e
r
s
a
l

a
c
c
e
s
s
.

T
h
e
s
e

s
u
b
s
i
d
i
e
s

a
r
e

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

a
n

a
u
c
t
i
o
n
.


G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

f
a
i
l
u
r
e
:

A
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g

t
o

t
h
e

P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

H
o
u
s
i
n
g

C
e
n
s
u
s

o
f

1
9
9
3
,

a
r
o
u
n
d

6

m
i
l
l
i
o
n

i
n
h
a
b
i
t
a
n
t
s

i
n

P
e
r
u

l
i
v
e

i
n

m
o
r
e

t
h
a
n

7
0
,
0
0
0

r
u
r
a
l

s
e
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
s

t
h
a
t

a
r
e

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
e
d

b
y

l
a
c
k

o
f

b
a
s
i
c

i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s

s
u
c
h

a
s

e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y
,

w
a
t
e
r

a
n
d

s
e
w
a
g
e

T
h
e

p
r
i
m
a
r
y

o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e

o
f

t
h
e

f
u
n
d

i
s

t
o

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

a
c
c
e
s
s

f
o
r

r
u
r
a
l

p
e
o
p
l
e

t
o
p
u
b
l
i
c

t
e
l
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s

w
h
e
r
e

t
h
e

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

s
e
c
t
o
r

a
c
t
s

a
s

a

t
e
l
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
.

T
h
e

t
a
r
g
e
t

o
f

t
h
e

a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y

i
s

t
o

i
n
s
t
a
l
l

a
t

l
e
a
s
t

o
n
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

p
h
o
n
e

f
o
r

e
a
c
h

v
i
l
l
a
g
e
.

T
o

h
a
v
e

a
n

i
d
e
a

o
f

t
h
e
i
m
p
a
c
t

a
n
d

b
e
n
e
f
t

o
f

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,

i
t

c
a
n

b
e

m
e
n
t
i
o
n
e
d

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

e
x
e
c
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
i
s

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

w
i
l
l
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
b
l
y

d
e
c
r
e
a
s
e

t
h
e

d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

t
o

t
h
e

n
e
a
r
e
s
t

t
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e

f
o
r

t
h
e

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
,

a
n
d

w
i
l
l
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

w
i
t
h

t
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e

a
c
c
e
s
s

i
n

t
h
a
t

z
o
n
e

f
r
o
m

4
8

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

t
o
8
8

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
.

O
t
h
e
r
T
r
i
p
l
e

v
a
l
u
e

(
2
0
0
9
)
N
A
N
A
-

M
o
r
e

s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
a
c
a
o
,

s
o
j
a

a
n
d

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

s
t
o
n
e
.

-

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

p
o
v
e
r
t
y

i
n

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
.

-

I
m
p
r
o
v
e

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

a
n
d

b
i
o
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
.
-

I
m
p
r
o
v
e

s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

t
r
a
d
e

i
n

v
a
l
u
e

c
h
a
i
n
s
.

C
a
c
a
o
:

m
o
r
e

c
e
r
t
i
f
e
d

a
n
d

t
r
a
i
n
e
d

f
a
r
m
e
r
s
.

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
e
r
t
i
f
e
d

c
a
c
a
o
.

I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

o
f

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

a
n
d

q
u
a
l
i
t
y
.
N
a
t
u
r
a
l

s
t
o
n
e

(
2
0
0
9
)
:

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
d
e

o
f

c
o
n
d
u
c
t
.

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

l
a
b
o
u
r

c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.

I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

h
e
a
l
t
h

s
u
p
p
l
i
e
s

f
o
r

m
i
g
r
a
n
t
s
.
S
o
j
a
:

d
o
u
b
l
i
n
g

o
f

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
n
g

p
r
o
d
u
c
e
r
s

i
n

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

(
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
)
.

I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

t
h
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s

(
s
u
p
p
l
y

a
n
d

d
e
m
a
n
d
)
.

I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

o
f

m
e
m
b
e
r
s

f
r
o
m

4
5

t
o

1
2
2
.
T
r
i
o
d
o
s

F
a
c
e
t

(
2
0
1
0
)
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
l

r
e
a
s
o
n
s
,

R
i
s
k

d
i
v
e
r
s
i
f
c
a
t
i
o
n

T
o

c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e

t
o

p
o
v
e
r
t
y

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

b
y

s
t
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
n
g

s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s

i
n

i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
v
e

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

i
n

s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
.

T
h
e

i
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
n

i
s

t
o

e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e

i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

t
h
a
t

w
o
u
l
d

n
o
t

o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e

h
a
v
e

b
e
e
n

c
a
r
r
i
e
d

o
u
t

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

h
i
g
h

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
/
m
a
r
k
e
t

r
i
s
k
s
.
N
A

T
h
e

o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e

o
f

P
S
O
M

(
C
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

E
m
e
r
g
i
n
g

M
a
r
k
e
t
s
)

i
s

t
o

m
o
t
i
v
a
t
e

D
u
t
c
h

c
o
m
p
a
n
i
e
s

t
o

i
n
v
e
s
t

i
n

i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
v
e

p
i
l
o
t

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

o
r

i
n

l
a
s
t
i
n
g

t
r
a
d
e

r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s

i
n

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
.

N
A
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 81 |
S
t
u
d
y

(
a
u
t
h
o
r

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
)
R
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
e

(
w
h
y

P
P
P
)
T
y
p
e

o
f

f
a
i
l
u
r
e
G
o
a
l

o
f

P
P
P
E
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
d
e

J
o
n
g

e
t
.

a
l

(
2
0
1
0
)
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

r
e
a
s
o
n
s
,

r
i
s
k

d
i
v
e
r
s
i
f
c
a
t
i
o
n

-
1
s
t

s
u
b
w
a
y

l
i
n
e

i
n

C
h
o
n
g
q
i
n
g
:

T
h
e

C
h
o
n
g
q
i
n
g

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

c
h
o
s
e

P
P
P

d
u
e

t
o

f
s
c
a
l

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
s
a
n
d

t
h
e

w
i
s
h

t
o

t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

r
i
s
k
s

t
o

a

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
l
a
y
e
r
.

-
1
s
t

s
u
b
w
a
y

l
i
n
e

i
n

H
a
r
b
i
n
:

S
i
n
c
e

t
h
e

H
a
r
b
i
n

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

n
e
e
d
e
d

t
o
c
o
l
l
e
c
t

3
8
.
4

b
i
l
l
i
o
n

Y
u
a
n

f
o
r

t
h
e

s
u
b
w
a
y

l
i
n
e

a
l
o
n
e
,

i
t

h
a
d

t
o

r
e
l
y

o
n

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

f
n
a
n
c
e

a
n
d

a
n

e
x
t
e
n
s
i
v
e

t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

o
f

r
i
s
k
s

t
o

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
l
a
y
e
r
s
.

-
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

4
t
h

s
u
b
w
a
y

l
i
n
e

i
n

S
h
e
n
z
h
e
n
:

A

B
u
i
l
d
-
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
-
O
p
e
r
-
a
t
e
-
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

(
B
D
O
T
)

p
r
o
c
u
r
e
m
e
n
t

m
o
d
e
l

i
s

b
e
i
n
g

u
s
e
d

i
n

w
h
i
c
h

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
l
a
y
e
r
s

s
u
b
s
i
d
i
s
e

b
o
t
h

t
h
e

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s

f
r
o
m

p
r
o
f
t
s

o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d

i
n

r
e
a
l

e
s
t
a
t
e

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,

f
r
e
e
i
n
g

t
h
e

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

d
u
t
y

t
o

s
u
b
s
i
d
i
s
e

p
u
b
l
i
c
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
.

-
3
r
d

s
u
b
w
a
y

l
i
n
e

i
n

S
h
a
n
g
a
i
:

N
A

(
a
l
l

p
a
r
t
i
e
s

i
n

t
h
i
s

P
P
P

a
r
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

o
w
n
e
d
)
-
O
l
y
m
p
i
c

G
a
m
e
s

s
u
b
w
a
y

l
a
t
e
r
a
l

i
n

B
e
i
j
i
n
g
:

N
A
-
4
t
h

s
u
b
w
a
y

l
i
n
e

i
n

B
e
i
j
i
n
g
:

F
i
s
c
a
l

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
s

d
r
o
v
e

t
h
e

B
e
i
j
i
n
g

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

t
o

e
m
b
r
a
c
e

t
h
e

i
d
e
a

o
f

s
e
t
i
n
g

u
p

a

j
o
i
n
t

v
e
n
t
u
r
e

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
,
t
h
e

m
a
i
n

a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

w
h
i
c
h

i
s

t
h
a
t

l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m

s
u
b
s
i
d
i
e
s

t
o

t
h
e

s
u
b
w
a
y

o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r

w
i
l
l

n
o
t

b
e

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

(
C
h
a
i
,

2
0
0
6
)
.

-
5
t
h

s
u
b
w
a
y

l
i
n
e

i
n

B
e
i
j
i
n
g
:

N
A
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

f
a
i
l
u
r
e
:

D
u
e

t
o

f
s
c
a
l

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
s

a
n
d

t
h
e

w
i
s
h

t
o

t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

r
i
s
k
s

t
h
e

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d

a

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
a
r
t
y
.

-
1
s
t

s
u
b
w
a
y

l
i
n
e

i
n

C
h
o
n
g
q
i
n
g
:

F
o
r

t
h
e

s
u
b
w
a
y

l
i
n
e
,

t
h
e

m
a
i
n

o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e

w
a
s

t
o

c
r
e
a
t
e

a
n

i
n
t
e
r
m
o
d
a
l

n
e
t
w
o
r
k

b
y

c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g

t
w
o

b
r
i
d
g
e
s

-
1
s
t

s
u
b
w
a
y

l
i
n
e

i
n

H
a
r
b
i
n
:

T
h
e

m
a
i
n

d
r
i
v
e
r
s

b
e
h
i
n
d

t
h
e

i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t

s
c
h
e
m
e

w
e
r
e

t
o

c
o
m
b
a
t

H
a
r
b
i
n

s

g
r
o
w
i
n
g

c
o
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
,

t
o

a
t
e
m
p
t

t
o

a
p
p
l
y

s
o
m
e

i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
v
e

f
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

t
o

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g

s
e
a
m
l
e
s
s

t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

d
i
f
e
r
e
n
t

t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t

m
o
d
e
s

-
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

4
t
h

s
u
b
w
a
y

l
i
n
e

i
n

S
h
e
n
z
h
e
n
:

r
a
p
i
d

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s

i
n

c
a
r

t
r
a
f
c

i
n

t
h
e

c
i
t
y

(
w
i
t
h

8
0
0

e
x
t
r
a

c
a
r
s

o
n

t
h
e

r
o
a
d

e
a
c
h

d
a
y

l
e
a
d
i
n
g

t
o

a

d
o
u
b
l
i
n
g

o
f

c
a
r

o
w
n
-
e
r
s
h
i
p

e
v
e
r
y

2

3

y
e
a
r
s
)

a
n
d

t
h
e
g
o
a
l

o
f

t
r
a
f
c

c
o
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

-
3
r
d

s
u
b
w
a
y

l
i
n
e

i
n

S
h
a
n
g
h
a
i
:

N
A

(
a
l
l

p
a
r
t
i
e
s

i
n

P
P
P

a
r
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

o
w
n
e
d
)
-
O
l
y
m
p
i
c

G
a
m
e
s

s
u
b
w
a
y

l
a
t
e
r
a
l

i
n

B
e
i
j
i
n
g
:

B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

t
h
e

8
t
h

s
u
b
w
a
y

l
i
n
e

a
h
e
a
d

o
f

s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e

a
s

a
n

O
l
y
m
p
i
c

s
u
b
w
a
y

l
a
t
e
r
a
l

w
a
s

j
u
s
t
i
f
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

o
f

t
r
a
f
c

d
e
m
a
n
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

O
l
y
m
p
i
c

G
a
m
e
s

a
n
d

t
h
e

d
e
s
i
r
e

t
o

i
m
p
r
o
v
e

t
h
e

a
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

t
h
e

O
l
y
m
p
i
c

A
r
e
a

b
y

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

l
i
n
k
s

t
o

o
t
h
e
r

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

s
u
b
w
a
y

l
i
n
e
s
.

-
4
t
h

s
u
b
w
a
y

l
i
n
e

i
n

B
e
i
j
i
n
g
:

N
A
-
5
t
h

s
u
b
w
a
y

l
i
n
e

i
n

B
e
i
j
i
n
g
:

T
h
e
m
a
i
n

m
o
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
i
s

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

w
a
s

t
h
e

n
e
e
d

f
o
r

a

d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

f
a
s
t

N
o
r
t
h

S
o
u
t
h

l
i
n
k

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

C
e
n
t
r
a
l

B
e
i
j
i
n
g

t
o

r
e
l
i
e
v
e

c
o
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

a
l
s
o

a
b
s
o
r
b

a

c
e
r
t
a
i
n

a
m
o
u
n
t

o
f

p
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

O
l
y
m
p
i
c

G
a
m
e
s

i
n

2
0
0
8

N
A
Annexes
| 82 |
T
a
b
l
e

A
-
6

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

o
f

P
P
P

(
c
a
s
e

s
t
u
d
i
e
s
)
*

S
t
u
d
y
M
a
i
n

P
P
P

p
a
t
h
w
a
y

O
u
t
p
u
t
(
I
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s
/

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

)
O
u
t
c
o
m
e

(
I
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

/
s
h
o
r
t

t
e
r
m

e
f
e
c
t

o
n

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
)
I
m
p
a
c
t
(
N
e
t
-
e
f
e
c
t
)
M
S
S
M
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
M
a
l
i
k

(
2
0
1
0
)
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

T
h
e

B
o
a
r
d

o
f

D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
s

f
o
r
m
u
l
a
t
e
d

t
h
e

s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y

o
f

t
h
e

P
E
F
,

a
d
o
p
t
i
n
g

a

f
e
x
i
b
l
e

a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
.

T
h
e

f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

w
o
u
l
d

h
e
l
p

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

b
e
t
e
r

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

t
o

t
h
e

p
o
o
r

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

t
h
e

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

s
e
c
t
o
r

b
y

o
f
e
r
i
n
g

t
e
a
c
h
e
r

t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g

a
n
d

p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

f
o
r

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

s
c
h
o
o
l
s

i
n

l
e
s
s

a
f
u
e
n
t

a
r
e
a
s
,

a
n
d

b
y

p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g

f
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

t
o

s
c
h
o
o
l
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

v
o
u
c
h
e
r
s

g
i
v
e
n

t
o

h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s

i
n

t
h
e

s
l
u
m

a
r
e
a
s
.

M
o
n
e
t
a
r
y

r
e
w
a
r
d
s

T
h
e

P
E
F

w
o
u
l
d

a
l
s
o

g
r
a
n
t

m
o
n
e
t
a
r
y

r
e
w
a
r
d
s

a
n
d

f
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

t
o

s
c
h
o
o
l
s

w
i
t
h

g
o
o
d

t
r
a
c
k

r
e
c
o
r
d
s
,

a
n
d

w
o
u
l
d

m
a
k
e

a

s
p
e
c
i
a
l

e
f
o
r
t

t
o

e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e

t
h
e

e
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t

o
f

f
e
m
a
l
e

s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
.

+-

A

s
h
a
r
p

r
i
s
e

i
n

t
h
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

s
c
h
o
o
l
s

a
n
d

a

m
e
t
e
o
r
i
c

r
i
s
e

i
n

t
h
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

2
0
0
5

a
n
d

2
0
0
8
.

F
o
r

s
t
a
r
t
e
r
s
,

t
h
e
r
e

w
a
s

a
n

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

o
f

7
2
0
.
5
%

i
n

t
h
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

i
n

2
0
0
6

c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d

t
o

2
0
0
5
.

T
h
e

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d

e
v
e
r
y

y
e
a
r
:

2
6
4
.
6
%

i
n

2
0
0
7
,

7
5
.
4
%

i
n

2
0
0
8
,

a
n
d

1
7
.
7
%

i
n

2
0
0
9
.

B
y

2
0
0
8

t
h
e

P
E
F
,

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

t
h
e

F
A
S

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
,

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
d

1
,
3
3
7

s
c
h
o
o
l
s

w
i
t
h

5
2
9
,
2
1
0

s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

.
-

T
h
e

P
E
F

t
r
a
i
n
e
d

8
6
,
0
2
7

t
e
a
c
h
e
r
s

f
r
o
m

2
0
0
5

t
o

2
0
0
9
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

1
7
,
2
0
5

m
a
l
e

t
e
a
c
h
e
r
s

(
2
0
%
)

a
n
d

6
8
,
8
2
2

f
e
m
a
l
e

t
e
a
c
h
e
r
s

(
8
0
%
)
.

T
h
e

T
e
a
c
h
i
n
g

i
n

C
l
u
s
t
e
r
s

b
y

S
u
b
j
e
c
t

S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s

(
T
I
C
S
S
)

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d

t
h
e

a
c
a
d
e
m
i
c

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

o
f

t
h
e

s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
,

r
a
i
s
i
n
g

t
h
e

m
e
a
n

g
r
a
d
e

p
o
i
n
t

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

f
r
o
m

3
3
%

t
o

5
5
%

w
i
t
h
i
n

t
h
e

3

y
e
a
r
s

o
f

t
h
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
.

-

I
n

2
0
0
6

1
0
5
3

s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

w
e
r
e

b
e
n
e
f
t
i
n
g

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

v
o
u
c
h
e
r

s
c
h
e
m
e
,

i
n

2
0
0
9

t
h
i
s

n
u
m
b
e
r

w
a
s

r
a
i
s
e
d

t
o

1
5
0
0
0
.

+-
I
n

P
a
k
i
s
t
a
n
,

m
o
r
e

t
h
a
n

4
0
%

o
f

s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

d
r
o
p

o
u
t

o
f

s
c
h
o
o
l

b
y

t
h
e

t
i
m
e

t
h
e
y

r
e
a
c
h

G
r
a
d
e

4
,

b
u
t

i
n

F
A
S

p
a
r
t
n
e
r

s
c
h
o
o
l
s

t
h
e

d
r
o
p
o
u
t

r
a
t
e

i
s

z
e
r
o
.

-
a

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

i
n

t
h
e

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

s
c
o
r
i
n
g

m
o
r
e

t
h
a
n

9
0
%

i
n

t
h
e

Q
A
T
s

f
r
o
m

a
b
o
u
t

1
%

i
n

2
0
0
6

t
o

o
v
e
r

1
7
%

i
n

2
0
0
9
,

a
n
d

-

a

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s

d
e
c
r
e
a
s
e

i
n

t
h
e

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

s
c
o
r
i
n
g

u
n
d
e
r

4
0
%

f
r
o
m

o
v
e
r

2
1
%

i
n

2
0
0
6

t
o

j
u
s
t

o
v
e
r

4
%

i
n

2
0
0
9
.

-
T
h
e

E
V
S

h
a
s

a
l
s
o

h
a
d

t
h
e

e
f
e
c
t

o
f

s
i
g
n
i
f
c
a
n
t
l
y

r
e
d
u
c
i
n
g

c
h
i
l
d

l
a
b
o
r
.


[
N
o
t
e
:

s
i
g
n
i
f
c
a
n
t
l
y

i
s

a

r
a
t
h
e
r

s
t
r
o
n
g

t
e
r
m

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

t
h
e
r
e

i
s

n
o

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

g
r
o
u
p
]
.

N
A
2
*
L
e
g
e
n
d
:

+

(
i
n

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

e
f
e
c
t
)

-

(
i
n

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e

e
f
e
c
t
)
,

0

(
i
n

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

n
o

e
f
e
c
t
)
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 83 |
S
t
u
d
y
M
a
i
n

P
P
P

p
a
t
h
w
a
y

O
u
t
p
u
t
(
I
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s
/

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

)
O
u
t
c
o
m
e

(
I
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

/
s
h
o
r
t

t
e
r
m

e
f
e
c
t

o
n

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
)
I
m
p
a
c
t
(
N
e
t
-
e
f
e
c
t
)
M
S
S
M
B
a
r
r
e
r
a
-
O
s
o
r
i
o

e
t

a
l
.

(
2
0
1
1
)
N
A
+
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
e
d

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

w
e
r
e

a
s
k
e
d

t
o

a
p
p
l
y

t
o

t
h
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

b
y

s
u
b
m
i
t
i
n
g

p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
s

t
o

s
e
t

u
p

a
n
d

o
p
e
r
a
t
e

p
r
i
m
a
r
y

s
c
h
o
o
l
s

i
n

r
u
r
a
l

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s

w
i
t
h
i
n

t
h
e
s
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
.

+
T
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
e
n
t
i
o
n

h
a
s

h
a
d

a

l
a
r
g
e

i
m
p
a
c
t

o
n

e
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
,

s
u
g
g
e
s
t
i
n
g

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y

l
o
w

e
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t

r
a
t
e

-

r
a
n
g
i
n
g

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

2
3
.
7
4
%

a
n
d

2
9
.
3
5
%

a
c
r
o
s
s

t
h
e

t
h
r
e
e

g
r
o
u
p
s

a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g

t
o

t
h
e

b
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
,

o
r

3
1
.
1
3
%

i
n

t
h
e

c
e
n
s
u
s

f
o
r

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

v
i
l
l
a
g
e
s

-

w
a
s

b
e
i
n
g

d
r
i
v
e
n

l
a
r
g
e
l
y

b
y

s
u
p
p
l
y

c
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s

r
a
t
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

a

l
a
c
k

o
f

d
e
m
a
n
d
.

+

(
i
d
e
m

o
u
t
c
o
m
e
)

T
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
e
n
t
i
o
n

h
a
s

h
a
d

a

l
a
r
g
e

i
m
p
a
c
t

o
n

e
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
,

s
u
g
g
e
s
t
i
n
g

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y

l
o
w

e
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t

r
a
t
e

-

r
a
n
g
i
n
g

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

2
3
.
7
4
%

a
n
d

2
9
.
3
5
%

a
c
r
o
s
s

t
h
e

t
h
r
e
e

g
r
o
u
p
s

a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g

t
o

t
h
e

b
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
,

o
r

3
1
.
1
3
%

i
n

t
h
e

c
e
n
s
u
s

f
o
r

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

v
i
l
l
a
g
e
s

-

w
a
s

b
e
i
n
g

d
r
i
v
e
n

l
a
r
g
e
l
y

b
y

s
u
p
p
l
y

c
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s

r
a
t
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

a

l
a
c
k

o
f

d
e
m
a
n
d
.

3
Annexes
| 84 |
S
t
u
d
y
M
a
i
n

P
P
P

p
a
t
h
w
a
y

O
u
t
p
u
t
(
I
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s
/

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

)
O
u
t
c
o
m
e

(
I
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

/
s
h
o
r
t

t
e
r
m

e
f
e
c
t

o
n

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
)
I
m
p
a
c
t
(
N
e
t
-
e
f
e
c
t
)
M
S
S
M
E
n
e
r
g
y
U
t
z
i
n
g
e
r

(
2
0
0
5
)

C
l
o
s
e

m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

o
f

h
e
a
l
t
h

i
m
p
a
c
t
T
h
e

s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y

i
s

d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

s
o
-
c
a
l
l
e
d

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

P
l
a
n

(
E
M
P
)
:

P
l
a
n

(
E
M
P
)
:

B
l
z
.

8
0
-
8
1
:

T
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s

q
u
a
r
t
e
r
l
y

r
e
p
o
r
t
s

d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e

t
h
a
t

g
r
a
n
d

e
f
o
r
t
s

h
a
v
e

b
e
e
n

m
a
d
e

t
o

a
v
o
i
d

o
r

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e

h
e
a
l
t
h

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

a
m
o
n
g

w
o
r
k
e
r
s

s
i
n
c
e

t
h
e

b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g

o
f

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
0
0
.

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

w
o
r
k
e
r
s

o
n
s
i
t
e

s
a
f
e
t
y

t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g

s
e
s
s
i
o
n
s
,

p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

s
p
e
c
i
a
l

w
o
r
k
i
n
g

c
l
o
t
h
s

(
e
.
g
.

s
a
f
e
t
y

s
h
o
e
s
)

a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e

g
e
a
r
s

(
e
.
g
.

h
e
a
r
i
n
g

p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
)
,

p
r
o
m
p
t

a
c
c
e
s
s

t
o

c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

m
e
d
i
c
a
l

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

b
y

w
e
l
l
-
t
r
a
i
n
e
d

a
n
d

a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
l
y

e
q
u
i
p
p
e
d

o
n
-
s
i
t
e

m
e
d
i
c
a
l

t
e
a
m
s
.

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

t
o

a
v
o
i
d

e
x
a
c
e
r
b
a
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

s
p
r
e
a
d

o
f

H
I
V
/
A
I
D
S

a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r

S
T
I
s

t
h
a
t

a
l
r
e
a
d
y

e
x
i
s
t

i
n

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

a
r
e
a
s
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

c
a
m
p
a
i
g
n
s

f
o
r

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

w
o
r
k
e
r
s
,

t
h
e

r
e
a
d
y

a
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

c
o
n
d
o
m
s

P
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n

o
r

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

m
a
l
a
r
i
a

i
s

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
d

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

t
h
e

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s

g
e
n
e
r
i
c

m
a
l
a
r
i
a

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e

+
m
a
l
a
r
i
a

i
n
c
i
d
e
n
c
e

r
a
t
e
s

a
m
o
n
g

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

w
o
r
k
e
r
s

a
r
e

s
e
v
e
r
a
l
-
f
o
l
d

l
o
w
e
r

t
h
a
n

t
h
o
s
e

o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d

a
m
o
n
g

i
n
h
a
b
i
t
a
n
t
s

o
f

t
h
e

r
e
g
i
o
n
.

+
/
-
:

t
h
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

d
i
a
g
n
o
s
e
d

S
T
I
s

p
e
r

1
0
0
0

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

w
o
r
k
e
r
s

w
a
s

c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
l
y

h
i
g
h
e
r

i
n

C
a
m
e
r
o
o
n

t
h
a
n

i
n

C
h
a
d


+
/
-
:

w
h
i
l
e

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n

o
f

S
T
I
s

d
i
a
g
n
o
s
e
d

a
m
o
n
g

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

w
o
r
k
e
r
s

i
n

C
h
a
d

s
h
o
w
s

a

d
e
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g

t
r
e
n
d

f
r
o
m

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

t
o

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
0
3

o
n
w
a
r
d
s
,

t
h
e

o
p
p
o
s
i
t
e

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d

i
n

C
a
m
e
r
o
o
n

f
r
o
m

J
u
n
e

-
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
0
2

t
o

J
u
n
e
-
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
0
3
.

N
A
N
A
(

H
e
a
l
t
h

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

a
m
o
n
g

s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
-
t
i
e
s
,

a
n
d

c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

h
e
a
l
t
h

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

i
n

t
h
e

l
a
r
g
e
r

r
e
g
i
o
n

w
e
r
e

n
o
t

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d

i
n

a

c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e

w
a
y

)
2
C
h
o
w
d
h
u
r
y

e
t

a
l
.

(
2
0
0
9
)
N
A
+T
h
e

P
P
P

p
o
w
e
r

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

r
e
s
u
l
t
e
d

i
n
p
o
w
e
r

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

t
o

t
h
e

c
o
u
n
t
r
y
.

T
h
e

P
P
P

p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

t
h
e

f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

p
o
w
e
r

(
i
n

t
e
r
m
s

o
f

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

i
n

t
h
e

c
o
u
n
t
r
y
)
:
0
.
3
3
%

(
C
h
i
n
a
)
,

5
%

(
I
n
d
o
n
e
s
i
a
)
,

2
.
6
%

(
I
n
d
i
a
)

a
n
d

9
.
4
%

(
P
a
k
i
s
t
a
n
)
N
A
N
A
1
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 85 |
S
t
u
d
y
M
a
i
n

P
P
P

p
a
t
h
w
a
y

O
u
t
p
u
t
(
I
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s
/

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

)
O
u
t
c
o
m
e

(
I
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

/
s
h
o
r
t

t
e
r
m

e
f
e
c
t

o
n

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
)
I
m
p
a
c
t
(
N
e
t
-
e
f
e
c
t
)
M
S
S
M
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
E
z
e
b
i
l
o

a
n
d

A
n
i
m
a
s
a
u
n

(
2
0
1
2
)
N
A
N
A
+
/
-

T
w
e
n
t
y
-
t
h
r
e
e

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e

r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

w
e
r
e

o
f

t
h
e

o
p
i
n
i
o
n

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

p
u
b
l
i
c
-
p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p

h
a
d

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d

h
o
u
s
e
-
h
o
l
d

w
a
s
t
e

m
a
n
a
g
e
-
m
e
n
t

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,

w
h
e
r
e
a
s

7
7
%

s
a
i
d

i
t

h
a
d

n
o
t

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d

t
h
e

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
.

B
a
s
e
d

o
n

t
h
e

r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s


o
p
i
n
i
o
n

r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g

t
h
e

p
u
b
l
i
c
-
p
r
i
v
a
t
e

s
e
c
t
o
r

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
,

t
h
e

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p

h
a
s

n
o
t

b
e
e
n

a
b
l
e

t
o

i
m
p
r
o
v
e

t
h
e

h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

w
a
s
t
e

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s

i
n

I
l
o
r
i
n
.

p
7
8
4

.
N
A
1
H
e
a
l
t
h
c
a
r
e
A
l
i

e
t

a
l
.

(
2
0
0
6
)
N
A
+
A
n

i
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l

t
r
e
n
d

i
n

c
a
l
l
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
i
n
g

m
e
d
i
c
a
l

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s


+
T
h
e

m
e
a
n

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

t
i
m
e

o
f

R
e
s
c
u
e
-
1
5

v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s

w
a
s

a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y

1
0

m
i
n
.

C
l
o
s
e

t
o

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

N
A
2
K
r
u
e
s
m
a
n
n

a
n
d

T
i
m
m
e
r
m
a
n
n

(
2
0
0
9
)
N
A
N
A

(
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
c
u
s
e
s

o
n

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
,

r
o
l
e

o
f

d
i
f
e
r
e
n
t

p
a
r
t
i
e
s

e
t
c
.
)
.
T
h
e

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

i
t
s
e
l
f

c
a
n

b
e

s
e
e
n

a
s

a

s
u
c
c
e
s
s
:

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s

w
e
r
e

e
n
g
a
g
e
d

a
n
d

r
e
m
a
i
n
e
d

c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d

a
n
d

c
o
m
m
i
t
e
d
,

E
T
C
s

w
e
r
e

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
,

e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t

w
a
s

s
u
p
p
l
i
e
d
,

t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g

w
a
s

u
n
d
e
r
t
a
k
e
n
,

a
n
d

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s

w
e
r
e

c
a
r
r
i
e
d

o
u
t

w
h
i
l
e

s
t
r
i
v
i
n
g

f
o
r

t
r
a
n
s
p
a
r
e
n
t
,

o
p
e
n

a
n
d

a
c
c
o
u
n
t
a
b
l
e

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.

N
A
N
A
N
A
Annexes
| 86 |
S
t
u
d
y
M
a
i
n

P
P
P

p
a
t
h
w
a
y

O
u
t
p
u
t
(
I
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s
/

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

)
O
u
t
c
o
m
e

(
I
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

/
s
h
o
r
t

t
e
r
m

e
f
e
c
t

o
n

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
)
I
m
p
a
c
t
(
N
e
t
-
e
f
e
c
t
)
M
S
S
M
P
h
l
i
x

e
t

a
l
.

(
2
0
1
1
)
T
h
r
e
e
f
o
l
d

s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
:

R
&
D

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
,

l
a
r
g
e

s
c
a
l
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
,

p
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

a
g
e
n
d
a

s
e
t
i
n
g

T
o

r
e
a
l
i
z
e

i
t
s

g
o
a
l
s
,

t
h
e

U
A
F
C

J
o
i
n
t

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e

h
a
s

a

t
h
r
e
e
f
o
l
d

s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

-

S
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

a
n
d

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

o
n

f
e
m
a
l
e

c
o
n
d
o
m
s

a
n
d

t
h
e
i
r

a
c
t
u
a
l

m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
-
i
n
g
;

-

S
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

t
w
o

l
a
r
g
e
-
s
c
a
l
e

c
o
u
n
t
r
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
s

i
n

N
i
g
e
r
i
a

a
n
d

C
a
m
e
r
o
o
n
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

a

c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e

p
a
c
k
a
g
e

o
f

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

t
o

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

t
h
e

d
e
m
a
n
d

f
o
r

f
e
m
a
l
e

c
o
n
d
o
m
s
,

t
o

e
n
s
u
r
e

a

s
t
e
a
d
y

s
u
p
p
l
y

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
m
m
o
d
i
t
y

a
n
d

t
o

e
n
s
u
r
e

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

(
p
r
o
m
o
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

a
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f
)

f
e
m
a
l
e

c
o
n
d
o
m
s

(
a
s

w
e
l
l

a
s

t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g

a
n
d

I
E
C

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
)

a
r
e

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

i
n

r
e
g
u
l
a
r

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n

w
i
t
h
i
n

o
n
-
g
o
i
n
g

n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
s
;

-

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

a
d
v
o
c
a
c
y

i
n

t
h
e

U
A
F
C

J
o
i
n
t

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s

(
N
i
g
e
r
i
a

a
n
d

C
a
m
e
r
o
o
n
)

a
n
d

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

a
d
v
o
c
a
c
y

t
o

e
n
s
u
r
e

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

f
e
m
a
l
e

c
o
n
d
o
m

g
e
t
s

t
h
e

a
t
e
n
t
i
o
n

i
t

d
e
s
e
r
v
e
s

b
y

p
u
t
i
n
g

i
t

o
n

t
h
e

p
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

a
g
e
n
d
a

a
n
d

e
n
s
u
r
i
n
g

f
u
n
d
i
n
g
.

+-

T
h
e

U
A
F
C

J
o
i
n
t

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

s
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l

i
n

n
e
g
o
t
i
a
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

F
C
2

p
r
i
c
e

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

F
e
m
a
l
e

H
e
a
l
t
h

C
o
m
p
a
n
y

s
o

a
s

t
o

o
b
t
a
i
n

a

p
r
i
c
e

o
f

U
S
D

0
,
3
5

p
e
r

u
n
i
t
,

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

l
i
f
e
t
i
m
e

o
f

t
h
e

U
A
F
C

J
o
i
n
t

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
.
-

T
h
e

U
A
F
C

J
o
i
n
t

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e

h
a
s

s
u
c
c
e
s
f
u
l
l
y

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
d

t
h
r
e
e

f
e
m
a
l
e

c
o
n
d
o
m

m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
r
s

i
n

o
r
d
e
r

t
o

o
b
t
a
i
n

t
h
e

W
H
O

a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l

f
o
r

t
h
r
e
e

n
e
w

f
e
m
a
l
e

c
o
n
d
o
m

t
y
p
e
s
,

w
h
i
c
h

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

i
n

m
o
r
e

c
o
n
d
o
m

t
y
p
e
s

a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
.
+-

M
o
r
e

w
o
m
e
n

w
h
o

u
s
e

a

f
e
m
a
l
e

c
o
n
d
o
m
.
-

T
h
e

U
A
F
C

J
o
i
n
t

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e

h
a
s

b
e
c
o
m
e

a

l
e
g
i
t
i
m
a
t
e

a
n
d

c
r
e
d
i
b
l
e

a
d
v
o
c
a
t
e

f
o
r

t
h
e

f
e
m
a
l
e

c
o
n
d
o
m
.

T
h
i
s

h
a
s

r
e
s
u
l
t
e
d

i
n

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

a
t
e
n
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

t
h
e

f
e
m
a
l
e

c
o
n
d
o
m

a
t

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

l
e
v
e
l

a
n
d

i
n

t
h
e

t
w
o

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
.
N
A
1
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 87 |
S
t
u
d
y
M
a
i
n

P
P
P

p
a
t
h
w
a
y

O
u
t
p
u
t
(
I
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s
/

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

)
O
u
t
c
o
m
e

(
I
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

/
s
h
o
r
t

t
e
r
m

e
f
e
c
t

o
n

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
)
I
m
p
a
c
t
(
N
e
t
-
e
f
e
c
t
)
M
S
S
M
N
e
w
e
l
l

(
2
0
0
4
)
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

s
h
a
r
i
n
g
,

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

S
e
t

u
p

a

D
O
T
S

(
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d

o
f

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
)

c
o
m
m
i
t
e
e

t
o

f
o
s
t
e
r

g
r
e
a
t
e
r

u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g

o
f

T
B

a
n
d

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

o
f

T
B

a
m
o
n
g

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
s

.

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e

t
a
i
l
o
r
-
m
a
d
e

c
a
s
e

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e

b
o
o
k
l
e
t
s

t
o

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
r
a
c
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
s

t
o

m
a
k
e

t
h
e
m

a
w
a
r
e

o
f

a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e

d
i
a
g
n
o
s
t
i
c

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
,

d
r
u
g

r
e
g
i
m
e
n
s
,

a
n
d

p
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s

o
f

c
a
s
e

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t


I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
s

o
f

f
r
e
e

s
p
u
t
u
m
-
s
m
e
a
r

m
i
c
r
o
s
c
o
p
y

a
n
d

m
a
k
e

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
r
a
c
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
s

a
w
a
r
e

t
h
a
t

t
h
e
i
r

p
a
t
i
e
n
t
s

c
a
n

u
s
e

t
h
e
m


I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
s

o
f

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

(
D
O
T
)

a
n
d

m
a
k
e

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
r
a
c
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
s

a
w
a
r
e

t
h
a
t

t
h
e
y

c
a
n

r
e
f
e
r

p
a
t
i
e
n
t
s

t
o

t
h
e
m
.


I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e

g
r
o
u
p
s

t
o

b
e

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e

f
o
r

l
a
t
e

p
a
t
i
e
n
t

t
r
a
c
i
n
g

a
n
d

e
n
s
u
r
e

t
h
a
t

D
O
T

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
s

a
r
e

a
w
a
r
e

t
h
e
y

c
a
n

u
s
e

t
h
e
m

P
r
o
v
i
d
e

f
r
e
e

a
n
t
i

t
u
b
e
r
c
u
l
o
s
i
s

d
r
u
g
s

t
o

a

l
i
m
i
t
e
d

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e

n
o
n
g
o
v
e
r
n
-
m
e
n
t
a
l

o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
-
t
i
o
n
s

b
u
t

n
o
t

t
o

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
r
a
c
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
s


I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

a

c
h
e
s
t

s
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t

p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d

t
o

a
c
c
e
p
t

f
r
e
e

r
e
f
e
r
r
a
l

o
f

c
o
m
p
l
i
c
a
t
e
d

c
a
s
e
s


A
d
v
i
s
e

a
l
l

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
r
a
c
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
s

o
f

t
h
e

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s

a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

t
o

t
h
e
m

.

+I
n

t
h
e

f
r
s
t

3
6

m
o
n
t
h
s

a
f
e
r

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
-
t
i
o
n
,

1
3
2
8

p
a
t
i
e
n
t
s

w
i
t
h

T
B

w
e
r
e

r
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
:

2
1
0

(
1
5
.
8
%
)

o
f

t
h
e
s
e

w
e
r
e

r
e
f
e
r
r
a
l
s

f
r
o
m

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
r
a
c
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
s
,

t
h
e

r
e
m
a
i
n
d
e
r

b
e
i
n
g

s
e
l
f
-
r
e
f
e
r
r
a
l
s

t
o

D
O
T
S

c
e
n
t
r
e
s
.
+
T
h
e

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

c
a
s
e

n
o
t
i
f
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

s
p
u
t
u
m
-
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

p
a
t
i
e
n
t
s

i
n

t
h
e

s
t
u
d
y

a
r
e
a

f
r
o
m

a

p
r
e
-
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

l
e
v
e
l

o
f

5
4

p
e
r

1
0
0

0
0
0

t
o

1
0
2

p
e
r

1
0
0

0
0
0

p
o
s
t
-
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
,

a

r
a
t
e

t
h
a
t

h
a
s

r
e
m
a
i
n
e
d

s
t
e
a
d
y

o
v
e
r

t
h
e

t
h
r
e
e

y
e
a
r
s

o
f

t
h
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
.

O
v
e
r

t
h
e

f
r
s
t

t
h
r
e
e

y
e
a
r
s
,

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

s
u
c
c
e
s
s

r
a
t
e
s

w
e
r
e

>
9
0
%
,

a
n
d

<
1
%

o
f

p
a
t
i
e
n
t
s

d
e
f
a
u
l
t
e
d
,

m
o
r
e

t
h
a
n

e
x
c
e
e
d
i
n
g

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

t
a
r
g
e
t
s
.

N
A
2
O
y
e
d
i
r
a
n

(
2
0
0
2
)
N
A
+
O
f

t
h
e

1
6
1
0
7
9

p
a
t
i
e
n
t
s

c
l
i
n
i
c
a
l
l
y

d
i
a
g
n
o
s
e
d

a
t

t
h
e

p
i
l
o
t

s
i
t
e
s

a
s

h
a
v
i
n
g

m
a
l
a
r
i
a
,

1
1
0
1

(
0
.
6
8
%
)

m
e
t

a
l
l

t
h
e

c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

w
i
t
h

M
a
l
a
r
o
n
e
.

M
D
P

h
a
d

a

p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

e
f
e
c
t

a
t

t
h
e

p
i
l
o
t

s
i
t
e
s

b
y

i
m
p
r
o
v
i
n
g

t
h
e

d
i
a
g
n
o
s
i
s

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

m
a
l
a
r
i
a
.

N
A
N
A
1
Annexes
| 88 |
S
t
u
d
y
M
a
i
n

P
P
P

p
a
t
h
w
a
y

O
u
t
p
u
t
(
I
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s
/

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

)
O
u
t
c
o
m
e

(
I
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

/
s
h
o
r
t

t
e
r
m

e
f
e
c
t

o
n

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
)
I
m
p
a
c
t
(
N
e
t
-
e
f
e
c
t
)
M
S
S
M
B
o
m
p
a
r
t

(
2
0
1
1
)
N
A
+
A
S
A
Q

W
i
n
t
h
r
o
p

w
a
s

r
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

i
n

3
0

s
u
b
-
s
a
h
a
r
a
n

A
f
r
i
c
a
n

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s

a
n
d

i
n

I
n
d
i
a
,

w
i
t
h

o
v
e
r

8
0

m
i
l
l
i
o
n

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d

i
n

2
1

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
.

6

m
i
l
l
i
o
n

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s

i
n

2
0
0
8
,

2
5

m
i
l
l
i
o
n

i
n

2
0
0
9
,

o
v
e
r

4
5

m
i
l
l
i
o
n

i
n

2
0
1
0

.
+
B
e
f
o
r
e

A
S
A
Q

W
i
n
t
h
r
o
p

s

i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

t
o

t
h
e

m
a
r
k
e
t
p
l
a
c
e
,

t
h
e

p
r
i
c
e

f
o
r

m
o
s
t

A
C
T
s

i
n

p
u
b
l
i
c

m
a
r
k
e
t
s

w
a
s

a
p
p
r
o
x
i
-
m
a
t
e
l
y

2
.
5
0

U
S
D

f
o
r

a
n

a
d
u
l
t

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
.

A
f
e
r

A
S
A
Q

W
i
n
t
h
r
o
p

s

i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
,

t
h
e

g
l
o
b
a
l

r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

p
r
i
c
e

f
o
r

A
C
T
s

o
n

p
u
b
l
i
c

m
a
r
k
e
t
s

d
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

t
o

a
p
p
r
o
x
i
-
m
a
t
e
l
y

1

U
S
D

N
A
2
H
o
u
s
i
n
g

a
n
d

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

S
h
e
n

e
t

a
l
.

(
2
0
0
6
)
N
A
N
A
s
t
u
d
y

i
s

a
b
o
u
t

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

r
i
s
k
s
N
A
:

s
t
u
d
y

o
n
l
y

a
s
s
e
s
s
e
s

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

r
i
s
k
s
N
A
:

s
t
u
d
y

o
n
l
y

a
s
s
e
s
s
e
s

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

r
i
s
k
s
N
A
I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

J
a
m
a
l
i

(
2
0
0
4
)
N
A
+
B
y

a
l
l

q
u
a
n
t
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
,

t
h
e

P
P
P

e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

a

s
u
c
c
e
s
s
.

T
h
e

c
e
l
l
u
l
a
r

m
a
r
k
e
t

p
e
a
k
e
d

a
t

7
5
9
,
3
0
0

s
u
b
s
c
r
i
b
e
r
s

i
n

J
u
n
e

2
0
0
1
,

a
n

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

f
r
o
m

2
6
7
,
3
5
0

i
n

J
u
l
y

1
9
9
7

T
h
e

L
e
b
a
n
e
s
e

m
o
b
i
l
e

s
e
g
m
e
n
t

h
a
s

i
n
d
e
e
d

r
e
a
c
h
e
d

h
i
g
h

p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

l
e
v
e
l
s

e
v
e
n

b
y

r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.

L
e
b
a
n
o
n

h
a
d

i
n

2
0
0
2

a

r
a
t
i
o

o
f

c
e
l
l
u
l
a
r

s
u
b
s
c
r
i
b
e
r
s

p
e
r

c
a
p
i
t
a

h
i
g
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

E
g
y
p
t
,

M
o
r
o
c
c
o
,

J
o
r
d
a
n
,

S
a
u
d
i

A
r
a
b
i
a

a
n
d

O
m
a
n

T
h
e

o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s

h
a
v
e

a
l
s
o

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

t
h
e
i
r

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

c
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
.

R
o
a
m
i
n
g

a
r
r
a
n
g
e
m
e
n
t
s

h
a
v
e

r
e
a
c
h
e
d

6
7

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s

a
n
d

m
o
r
e

t
h
a
n

7
5

o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s

f
o
r

C
e
l
l
i
s

a
n
d

8
0

l
i
v
e

n
e
t
w
o
r
k
s

i
n

5
5

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s

f
o
r

L
i
b
a
n
c
e
l
l
.

N
A
N
A
2
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 89 |
S
t
u
d
y
M
a
i
n

P
P
P

p
a
t
h
w
a
y

O
u
t
p
u
t
(
I
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s
/

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

)
O
u
t
c
o
m
e

(
I
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

/
s
h
o
r
t

t
e
r
m

e
f
e
c
t

o
n

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
)
I
m
p
a
c
t
(
N
e
t
-
e
f
e
c
t
)
M
S
S
M
K
u
r
i
y
a
n

a
n
d

R
e
e

(
2
0
0
8
)
I
n
t
e
r
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
s
t

s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y

(
K
e
r
e
l
a
)
C
l
o
s
e

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

i
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t

w
i
t
h

P
P
P
.

I
n

K
e
r
a
l
a

t
h
e

s
t
a
t
e

s
e
e
s

t
h
e

t
e
l
e
c
e
n
t
e
r
s

a
s

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

i
n
t
e
r
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

r
e
m
a
i
n
s

c
o
m
m
i
t
e
d

t
o
t

i
t
s

t
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n

o
f

p
r
o
m
o
t
i
n
g

s
o
c
i
a
l

w
e
l
f
a
r
e

.
.
.

I
t

s
u
b
s
i
d
i
z
e
s
a
n

e
-
l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g

p
h
a
s
e

t
o

m
a
k
e

c
o
m
p
u
t
e
r

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
e

a
n
d

a
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e

f
o
r

a
l
l
.

I
t

a
s
s
i
s
t
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

t
o

r
e
p
a
y
t
h
e
i
r

l
o
a
n
s
;

i
t

d
o
e
s

t
h
i
s

p
a
r
t
i
a
l
l
y

b
y

p
a
y
i
n
g

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

f
o
r

e
a
c
h

h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

w
h
o
s
e

m
e
m
b
e
r

a
t
e
n
d
s

t
h
e

e
-
l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
.

O
u
t
s
o
u
r
c
i
n
g

s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y

(
A
P
)
L
e
s
s

s
t
a
t
e

i
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t

i
n

P
P
P
I
n

A
P

t
h
e

s
t
a
t
e

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

m
a
k
e

c
o
n
c
e
r
t
e
d

e
f
o
r
t

t
o

t
a
r
g
e
t

p
o
o
r

u
s
e
r
s

o
r

t
o

e
m
p
h
a
s
i
z
e

s
o
c
i
a
l

g
o
a
l
s

.
0F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

b
e
n
e
f
t
s

f
o
r

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

i
n

I
C
T
D

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

a
r
e

m
i
n
i
m
a
l
.

A

n
o
n
-
r
a
n
d
o
m

s
a
m
p
l
e

o
f

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

m
e
a
n

p
r
o
f
t

i
s

p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

i
n

E
s
e
v
a

(
$
1
3
4

a

m
o
n
t
h
)

a
n
d

A
k
s
h
a
y
a

(
$
5

a

m
o
n
t
h
)

b
u
t

n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e

i
n

R
S
D
P
s

(
-
$
2
2

a

m
o
n
t
h
)

a
n
d

R
a
j
i
v

(
-
$
3
6

a

m
o
n
t
h
)
.
-R
e
s
u
l
t
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

m
i
d
d
l
e

c
l
a
s
s

i
n
s
t
e
a
d

o
f

t
h
e

p
o
o
r

i
s

m
o
s
t
l
y

b
e
n
e
f
t
i
n
g

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

t
e
l
e
c
e
n
t
e
r
s
:

M
o
s
t

t
e
l
e
c
e
n
t
e
r

u
s
e
r
s

i
n

K
e
r
a
l
a

a
n
d

A
P

a
r
e

m
e
n

w
i
t
h

s
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

s
c
h
o
o
l

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

h
i
g
h
e
r

w
h
o

e
a
r
n

w
e
l
l

o
v
e
r

$
2
6
2
/
y
e
a
r
,

1
9

t
h
e

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

p
e
r

c
a
p
i
t
a

i
n
c
o
m
e

f
o
r

r
u
r
a
l

I
n
d
i
a
.

F
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g

(
K
a
s
h
y
a
p

&

R
a
u
t
,

2
0
0
7
)
,

t
h
e

m
a
j
o
r
i
t
y

c
a
n

b
e

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
e
d

a
s

m
i
d
d
l
e

o
r

h
i
g
h

i
n
c
o
m
e
,

n
o
t

j
u
s
t

b
y

t
h
e
i
r

w
e
a
l
t
h

b
u
t

a
l
s
o

b
y

t
h
e
i
r

l
i
f
e
s
t
y
l
e
s

a
n
d

a
s
p
i
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
.

T
h
e

t
e
l
e
c
e
n
t
e
r

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
,

t
h
e

m
o
s
t

p
r
o
m
i
n
e
n
t

f
a
c
e

o
f

I
C
T
D

i
n

K
e
r
a
l
a

a
n
d

A
P
,

a
r
e

n
o
t

(
y
e
t
)

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
i
n
g

a
n
y

f
o
r
m

o
f

I
C
T
D

t
o

t
h
e

p
o
o
r
e
s
t
.

N
e
v
e
r
t
h
e
l
e
s
s
,

o
u
r

r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

s
h
o
w
s

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

a
t
e
m
p
t

t
o

p
o
r
t
r
a
y

a

n
e
w

f
o
r
m

o
f

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

i
s

b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g

t
o

i
n
f
u
e
n
c
e

a
t

l
e
a
s
t

s
o
m
e

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

o
f

t
h
e

r
u
r
a
l

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
.

N
A
1
Annexes
| 90 |
S
t
u
d
y
M
a
i
n

P
P
P

p
a
t
h
w
a
y

O
u
t
p
u
t
(
I
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s
/

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

)
O
u
t
c
o
m
e

(
I
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

/
s
h
o
r
t

t
e
r
m

e
f
e
c
t

o
n

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
)
I
m
p
a
c
t
(
N
e
t
-
e
f
e
c
t
)
M
S
S
M
C
h
o
w
d
h
u
r
y

e
t

a
l
.

(
2
0
0
9
)
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l

o
b
l
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s

T
o

e
n
s
u
r
e

u
n
i
v
e
r
s
a
l

a
c
c
e
s
s
,

P
e
r
u

h
a
s

f
o
l
l
o
w
e
d

a

t
w
o
-
p
r
o
n
g
e
d

p
o
l
i
c
y
.

F
i
r
s
t

c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l

o
b
l
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s

t
o

i
n
s
t
a
l
l

a
n
d

m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n

p
u
b
l
i
c

p
h
o
n
e
s

i
n

a
l
l

l
o
c
a
l
i
t
i
e
s

w
i
t
h

m
o
r
e

t
h
a
n

5
0
0

i
n
h
a
b
i
t
a
n
t
s

b
y

t
h
e

e
n
d

o
f

1
9
9
9
.

A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
n
g

f
u
n
d
s

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

a
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

S
e
c
o
n
d
,

t
h
e

s
e
t
i
n
g

u
p

o
f

a

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

f
u
n
d

n
a
m
e
d

F
I
T
E
L

w
a
s

i
n
v
i
t
e
d

t
o

f
n
a
n
c
e

t
h
e

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
e
l
e
c
o
m

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s

i
n

p
l
a
c
e
s

w
h
e
r
e

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s

d
o

n
o
t

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
.

T
h
e

f
u
n
d

i
s

a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

b
y

a
n

a
u
c
t
i
o
n
.

+E
x
t
r
a

t
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e

l
i
n
e
s

a
n
d

p
u
b
l
i
c

t
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
s
.

N
o
t
e
:

s
o
m
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

s
t
i
l
l

i
n

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

p
h
a
s
e
.

N
A
S
u
r
v
e
y

u
n
d
e
r

h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s

t
o

c
h
e
c
k

u
s
e
r
s

o
p
i
n
i
o
n

o
n

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

o
f

u
n
i
v
e
r
s
a
l

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

a
c
c
e
s
s
:

A
b
o
u
t

h
a
l
f

o
f

t
h
e

s
u
r
v
e
y
e
d

h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r

t
h
e

p
r
e
s
e
n
t

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

u
n
d
e
r

t
h
e

F
I
T
E
L

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

i
s

b
e
t
e
r

t
h
a
n

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

(
g
o
o
d
)

a
n
d

t
h
e

o
v
e
r
w
h
e
l
m
i
n
g

m
a
j
o
r
i
t
y

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

i
s

n
o
t

p
o
o
r

.
N
A
1
O
t
h
e
r
T
r
i
p
l
e

v
a
l
u
e

(
2
0
0
9
)
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
,

l
a
b
e
l
s

a
n
d

k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

p
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
s
C
a
c
a
o
:

s
e
t

u
p

a

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

f
o
r

d
u
r
a
b
l
e

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
,

s
h
a
r
i
n
g

k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

a
n
d

t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g

f
a
r
m
e
r
s
.

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

s
t
o
n
e
:

i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

a

s
o
-
c
a
l
l
e
d

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

s
t
o
n
e

l
a
b
e
l
,

c
r
e
a
t
i
n
g

a
n
d

s
t
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

s
u
p
p
l
y

o
f

d
u
r
a
b
l
e

p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

s
t
o
n
e
,

c
r
e
a
t
i
n
g

d
e
m
a
n
d

f
o
r

d
u
r
a
b
l
e

p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

s
t
o
n
e

o
n

D
u
t
c
h

m
a
r
k
e
t
.
S
o
j
a
:

c
r
e
a
t
e

a

p
l
a
t
f
o
r
m

f
o
r

s
h
a
r
i
n
g

k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

o
n

s
o
j
a

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
,

c
r
e
a
t
e

a

c
o
d
e

o
f

c
o
n
d
u
c
t

f
o
r

t
h
e

s
o
j
a

s
e
c
t
o
r
,

e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

R
T
R
S

(
R
o
u
n
d

T
a
b
l
e

o
n

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e

S
o
y
)

+C
a
c
a
o

2
0
0
9
:

1
8
2
4

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

c
e
r
t
i
f
e
d
,

2
8
0
0

f
a
r
m
e
r
s

t
r
a
i
n
e
d
,

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

o
f

2
5

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
.

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
d
.
N
a
t
u
r
a
l

s
t
o
n
e

2
0
0
9
:

c
o
d
e

o
f

c
o
n
d
u
c
t

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
.

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

l
a
b
o
r

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.

P
o
l
i
c
y

p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l

o
n

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

m
i
g
r
a
n
t

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
.

S
o
j
a
:

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

o
f

R
T
R
S

b
y

4
2

m
e
m
b
e
r
s
.

R
T
R
S

p
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s

f
o
r

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e

s
o
y

i
s

e
n
f
o
r
c
e
d

b
y

a
l
l

m
e
m
b
e
r
s

o
f

t
h
e

R
T
R
S
.

N
A

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

i
s

a

q
u
i
c
k
s
c
a
n
.

N
A
2
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 91 |
S
t
u
d
y
M
a
i
n

P
P
P

p
a
t
h
w
a
y

O
u
t
p
u
t
(
I
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s
/

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

)
O
u
t
c
o
m
e

(
I
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

/
s
h
o
r
t

t
e
r
m

e
f
e
c
t

o
n

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
)
I
m
p
a
c
t
(
N
e
t
-
e
f
e
c
t
)
M
S
S
M
T
r
i
o
d
o
s

F
a
c
e
t

(
2
0
1
0
)
N
A
+
S
i
n
c
e

1
9
9
9
,

a

t
o
t
a
l

o
f

6
5
6
P
S
O
M
/
P
S
I

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

w
e
r
e

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

i
n

5
6

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
.

O
f

t
h
e
s
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
,

2
0
5

h
a
v
e

b
e
e
n

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
,

2
7
5

a
r
e

o
n
g
o
i
n
g

a
n
d

1
7
6

h
a
v
e

s
t
o
p
p
e
d
,

1
2
0

o
f

w
h
i
c
h

p
r
e
m
a
t
u
r
e
l
y
.

M
o
s
t

o
f

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

a
r
e

D
u
t
c
h
,

m
a
l
e

a
n
d

t
h
e
o
w
n
e
r

o
f

a

s
m
a
l
l

o
r

m
e
d
i
u
m
-
s
i
z
e
d

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

.

+
T
h
e

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

P
S
O
M
/
P
S
I

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
s

8
1

d
i
r
e
c
t

j
o
b
s

(
n
=
1
9
7
)
,

w
h
i
c
h

i
s

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
b
l
y

h
i
g
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

o
f

5
5

d
i
r
e
c
t

j
o
b
s

(
n
=
5
5
)
,

b
u
t

l
o
w
e
r

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

f
o
u
n
d

i
n

2
0
0
5
,

w
h
i
c
h

w
a
s

1
4
7

j
o
b
s
/
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.

-

F
o
r

5
2

o
f

t
h
e

-
s
a
m
p
l
e

o
f
-

6
0

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

t
h
e

t
y
p
e

o
f

i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n

c
o
u
l
d

b
e

m
e
n
t
i
o
n
e
d
.

I
n

1
7

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
,

t
h
e

i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n

c
a
n

b
e
s
t

b
e

d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d

a
s

t
h
e

l
a
u
n
c
h

o
f

a

n
e
w

p
r
o
d
u
c
t

i
n

t
h
e

r
e
c
i
p
i
e
n
t

c
o
u
n
t
r
y
,

i
n

2
3

c
a
s
e
s

a

n
e
w

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

w
a
s

u
s
e
d

t
o

p
r
o
d
u
c
e

a
n

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

p
r
o
d
u
c
t

a
n
d

i
n

f
o
u
r

c
a
s
e
s

a

c
o
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

a

n
e
w

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

a
n
d

a

n
e
w

p
r
o
d
u
c
t

w
a
s

f
o
u
n
d
.

I
n

e
i
g
h
t

c
a
s
e
s

a

d
i
f
e
r
e
n
t

t
y
p
e

o
f

i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n

w
a
s

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
.

N
A
2
Annexes
| 92 |
S
t
u
d
y
M
a
i
n

P
P
P

p
a
t
h
w
a
y

O
u
t
p
u
t
(
I
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s
/

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

)
O
u
t
c
o
m
e

(
I
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

/
s
h
o
r
t

t
e
r
m

e
f
e
c
t

o
n

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
)
I
m
p
a
c
t
(
N
e
t
-
e
f
e
c
t
)
M
S
S
M
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
d
e

J
o
n
g

e
t
.

a
l

(
2
0
1
0
)
N
A
0-
1
s
t

s
u
b
w
a
y

l
i
n
e

i
n

C
h
o
n
g
q
i
n
g
:

A
p
a
r
t

f
r
o
m
t
h
i
s

c
o
s
t

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
,

t
h
e

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p

s
o

f
a
r

a
p
p
e
a
r
s

q
u
i
t
e

s
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
.

-
1
s
t

s
u
b
w
a
y

l
i
n
e

i
n

H
a
r
b
i
n
:

N
A
-
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

4
t
h

s
u
b
w
a
y

l
i
n
e

i
n

S
h
e
n
z
h
e
n
:

A
l
t
h
o
u
g
h

t
h
e

s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
d

t
h
a
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

w
e
r
e

t
o

t
a
k
e

p
l
a
c
e

f
r
o
m

2
0
0
4

t
o

2
0
0
8

a
n
d

b
e

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d

a
t

t
h
e

e
n
d

o
f

t
h
i
s

t
i
m
e
,

l
a
r
g
e
-
s
c
a
l
e

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

h
a
d

n
o
t

y
e
t

e
v
e
n

b
e
g
u
n

i
n

2
0
0
9
.

T
o

d
a
t
e
,

M
T
R

h
a
s

e
a
r
n
e
d

p
r
o
f
t
s

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

o
f

r
e
a
l

e
s
t
a
t
e

b
u
t

h
a
s

n
o
t

y
e
t

p
u
t

t
h
i
s

m
o
n
e
y

i
n
t
o

s
u
b
w
a
y

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,

w
h
i
c
h

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

p
o
s
t
p
o
n
e
d

t
i
m
e

a
n
d

a
g
a
i
n
.

A
s

s
u
c
h
,

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

c
a
n
n
o
t

b
e

r
e
g
a
r
d
e
d

a
s

a

s
u
c
c
e
s
s

s
t
o
r
y

-
3
r
d

s
u
b
w
a
y

l
i
n
e

i
n

S
h
a
n
g
a
i
:

S
h
a
n
g
h
a
i

s

3
r
d

s
u
b
w
a
y

l
i
n
e

c
a
n

g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
y

b
e

r
e
g
a
r
d
e
d

a
s

a

s
o
l
i
d
,

i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,

w
h
e
r
e

t
i
m
e

s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
s

w
e
r
e

m
e
t

a
n
d

t
h
e

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

o
f

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

t
a
s
k
s

h
a
v
e

b
e
e
n

l
a
r
g
e
l
y

s
u
f
c
i
e
n
t
.

P
r
e
c
i
s
e

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

o
n

c
o
s
t
s

c
o
u
l
d

n
o
t

b
e

o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d

h
o
w
e
v
e
r
.

-
O
l
y
m
p
i
c

G
a
m
e
s

s
u
b
w
a
y

l
a
t
e
r
a
l

i
n

B
e
i
j
i
n
g
:

T
h
i
s

B
T

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

c
a
n

b
e

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d

s
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l

a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g

t
o

m
a
n
y

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
.

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
,

e
v
e
n
t
u
a
l

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

c
o
s
t
s

a
n
d

t
i
m
e

s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
,

a
l
l

w
e
r
e

f
a
v
o
u
r
a
b
l
e
.

-
4
t
h

s
u
b
w
a
y

l
i
n
e

i
n

B
e
i
j
i
n
g
:

I
t

i
s

s
t
i
l
l

p
r
e
m
a
t
u
r
e

t
o

s
p
e
a
k

o
f

s
u
c
c
e
s
s

o
r

f
a
i
l
u
r
e

i
n

t
h
i
s

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,

b
u
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t
s
,

s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e

a
n
d

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

h
a
v
e
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

a
p
p
r
a
i
s
a
l
s

t
o

d
a
t
e

-
5
t
h

s
u
b
w
a
y

l
i
n
e

i
n

B
e
i
j
i
n
g
:

T
h
e

e
n
d

r
e
s
u
l
t

i
s

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

w
a
s

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d

o
n

t
i
m
e
,

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

a
r
e

a
b
o
v
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

a
n
d

t
h
a
t

p
u
b
l
i
c

f
u
n
d
i
n
g

(
p
a
r
t
l
y

d
e
r
i
v
e
d

f
r
o
m

p
u
b
l
i
c

l
o
a
n
s
)

r
a
t
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

f
n
a
n
c
e

p
a
i
d

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.

N
A
N
A
1
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 93 |
Annex 5 summary table reviews (overview studies)
T
a
b
l
e

A
-
7

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

t
a
b
l
e

r
e
v
i
e
w
s
*
S
t
u
d
y

(
a
u
t
h
o
r

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
)
S
u
b
s
e
c
t
o
r
R
e
g
i
o
n
T
o
p
i
c

(
t
i
t
l
e
)

O
u
t
p
u
t
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
S
p
r
a
t

a
n
d

C
o
l
l
i
n
s

(
2
0
1
2
)
A
g
r
i
-
i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
r
e
g
i
o
n
:

A
f
r
i
c
a
:

2
4
.
7

%

o
f

t
h
e

s
t
u
d
i
e
s

A
s
i
a
:

3
0
.
8
%

o
f

t
h
e

s
t
u
d
i
e
s

E
u
r
o
p
e
:

1
2
.
1
%

o
f

t
h
e

s
t
u
d
i
e

L
A
C
:

3
2
.
4

%

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

F
i
n
a
n
c
e

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s

[
D
F
I
]

a
n
d

I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
:

A

S
y
s
t
e
m
a
t
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

o
f

E
v
i
d
e
n
c
e

f
o
r

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y

S
p
r
a
t

a
n
d

C
o
l
l
i
n
s

l
o
o
k
e
d

a
t

t
h
e

e
f
e
c
t

o
f

D
F
I

o
n

s
o
-
c
a
l
l
e
d
:
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
t
y

(

d
o
e
s

D
F
I

e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

c
r
o
w
d

o
u
t

(
i
.
e
.

r
e
d
u
c
e
)

o
r

c
r
e
a
t
e

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

(
i
.
e
.

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
)

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t

i
n

i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
?

)
D
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
-
l
i
t
y

(

W
h
a
t

i
n
f
u
e
n
c
e

d
o
e
s

D
F
I

e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

h
a
v
e

o
n

t
h
e

p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

s
u
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

s
e
c
t
o
r

f
u
n
d
e
d

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

i
n

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
?

)
D
e
s
i
g
n

a
n
d

p
o
l
i
c
y

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
t
y

(

W
h
a
t

i
n
f
u
e
n
c
e

d
o
e
s

D
F
I

e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

h
a
v
e

o
n

i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

d
e
s
i
g
n

a
n
d

t
h
e

p
o
l
i
c
y

c
o
n
t
e
x
t

w
i
t
h
i
n

w
h
i
c
h

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

o
c
c
u
r
?

)
.
N
A
+
/
-
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
:

+
:

1
8

c
a
s
e
s
0
:

1
0

c
a
s
e
s
N
o
t

p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
:

8

c
a
s
e
s
D
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
-
l
i
t
y
:
P
o
s
t
i
v
e
:

5
N
e
g
a
t
i
v
e

o
r

f
a
i
l
e
d

a
t
e
m
p
t
:

1

D
e
s
i
g
n

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
:
G
r
o
w
t
h
:

1
4

c
a
s
e
s
P
o
v
e
r
t
y

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
:

6

c
a
s
e
s
F
a
i
l
e
d
:

6

c
a
s
e
s
P
o
l
i
c
y

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
:

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
d

l
e
g
a
l

f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
:

4

c
a
s
e
s
F
a
i
l
e
d
,

n
o

r
o
o
m

f
o
r

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
:

1
N
A
*
L
e
g
e
n
d
:

+

(
i
n

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

e
f
e
c
t
)

-

(
i
n

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e

e
f
e
c
t
)
,

0

(
i
n

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

n
o

e
f
e
c
t
)
Annexes
| 94 |
S
t
u
d
y

(
a
u
t
h
o
r

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
)
S
u
b
s
e
c
t
o
r
R
e
g
i
o
n
T
o
p
i
c

(
t
i
t
l
e
)

O
u
t
p
u
t
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
H
a
r
t
w
i
c
h

a
n
d

T
o
l
a

(
2
0
0
7
)
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
L
a
t
i
n

A
m
e
r
i
c
a

P
u
b
l
i
c

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s

f
o
r

a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
:

c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s

a
n
d

e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
s

f
r
o
m

1
2
4

c
a
s
e
s

i
n

L
a
t
i
n

A
m
e
r
i
c
a

N
A
+T
h
e

p
e
r
c
e
p
t
i
o
n

o
f

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s

w
i
t
h

r
e
g
a
r
d

t
o

t
h
e

b
e
n
e
f
t
s

o
f

t
h
e

P
P
P
s

w
a
s

e
x
t
r
e
m
e
l
y

p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
.

T
h
i
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s

t
h
a
t

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s

f
o
r

a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

L
a
t
i
n

A
m
e
r
i
c
a

s
e
r
v
e

t
h
e

p
u
r
p
o
s
e
.

A
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
,

t
h
e
r
e

i
s

e
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l

e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e

t
h
a
t

p
u
b
l
i
c

r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

a
n
d

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

f
r
m
s

i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d

i
n

a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
,

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g

a
n
d

m
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

h
a
v
e

n
o
t

b
e
e
n

a
b
l
e

t
o

f
o
r
m

v
i
a
b
l
e

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s

t
h
a
t

p
r
o
f
t

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

b
e
n
e
f
t
s

o
f

s
y
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

j
o
i
n
t

l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g

t
h
a
t

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s

c
a
n

g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
.
N
A
P
o
u
l
t
o
n

a
n
d

M
a
c
a
r
t
n
e
y

(
2
0
1
2
)
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
A
f
r
i
c
a
P
u
b
l
i
c

P
r
i
v
a
t
e

P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s

i
n

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

v
a
l
u
e

c
h
a
i
n
s

i
n

A
f
r
i
c
a
N
A
N
A
N
A
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 95 |
S
t
u
d
y

(
a
u
t
h
o
r

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
)
S
u
b
s
e
c
t
o
r
R
e
g
i
o
n
T
o
p
i
c

(
t
i
t
l
e
)

O
u
t
p
u
t
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
P
f
s
t
e
r
e
r

e
t

a
l
.

(
2
0
0
9
)

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e

(
h
o
r
t
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
)
E
a
s
t

A
f
r
i
c
a
R
e
v
i
e
w

o
f

t
h
e

W
S
S
D

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
:

t
h
e

s
e
t
-
u
p

o
f

a

d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n

m
a
k
i
n
g

p
l
a
t
f
o
r
m

(
p
r
o
j
e
c
t

c
o
m
m
i
t
e
e

(
P
C
)

w
h
i
c
h

e
n
t
a
i
l
s

p
u
b
l
i
c
,

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

a
n
d

c
i
v
i
c

o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n

t
h
e

c
o
u
n
t
r
y

o
f

c
o
n
c
e
r
n

a
n
d

t
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s

a
n
d

b
)

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

i
n

c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

s
e
v
e
r
a
l

a
c
t
o
r
s

+
/
-

T
h
e

f
n
a
l
i
z
e
d

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

u
n
d
e
r

r
e
v
i
e
w

l
a
r
g
e
l
y

m
e
t

t
h
e
i
r

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
.

.
.
.

F
o
r

o
n
g
o
i
n
g

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

s
o
m
e

f
r
s
t

o
u
t
p
u
t
s

w
e
r
e

i
d
e
n
t
i
f
e
d

W
h
e
n

e
x
a
m
i
n
i
n
g

t
h
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

i
t

d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
d

t
h
a
t

m
o
s
t

o
u
t
p
u
t
s

a
r
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

o
f

e
x
p
l
o
r
a
t
i
v
e

s
t
u
d
i
e
s

s
u
c
h

a
s

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

p
l
a
n
s
,

r
e
p
o
r
t
s

o
r

f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
s
.

A
l
m
o
s
t

a
l
l

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

p
l
a
n

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

t
h
e
s
e

o
u
t
p
u
t
s

i
n

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

e
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n

p
h
a
s
e
s
.

N
A
T
o
o

e
a
r
l
y

i
n

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

t
o

d
r
a
w

c
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
s
.
N
A
E
n
e
r
g
y
U
n
i
t
e
d

N
a
t
i
o
n
s

(
2
0
1
1
)
P
o
w
e
r

s
e
c
t
o
r
S
u
b
-
S
a
h
a
r
a
n

A
f
r
i
c
a

C
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
,

t
r
e
n
d
s

a
n
d

b
e
s
t

p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s

i
n

P
P
P
s

i
n

A
f
r
i
c
a

s

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
e
c
t
o
r
+T
h
e

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

s
e
c
t
o
r

h
e
l
p
s

m
e
e
t

i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t

n
e
e
d
s

i
n

t
h
e

e
n
e
r
g
y

s
e
c
t
o
r
.

W
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s

t
h
e

p
o
w
e
r

i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

n
e
e
d
e
d

c
a
n
n
o
t

b
e

r
e
a
l
i
z
e
d
.

N
A
N
A
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
L
u
n
d
-
T
h
o
m
s
e
n

(
2
0
0
7
)
L
e
a
t
h
e
r

T
a
n
n
e
r
y
,

p
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n

c
o
n
t
r
o
l
P
a
k
i
s
t
a
n
I
m
p
a
c
t

o
f

P
u
b
l
i
c
-
P
r
i
v
a
t
e

P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s

i
n

t
h
e

G
l
o
b
a
l

S
o
u
t
h
+I
m
p
r
o
v
e
d

s
a
n
i
t
a
r
y

c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s

i
n

t
h
e

c
i
t
y
.
+I
m
p
r
o
v
e
d

w
o
r
k
i
n
g

c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
Annexes
| 96 |
S
t
u
d
y

(
a
u
t
h
o
r

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
)
S
u
b
s
e
c
t
o
r
R
e
g
i
o
n
T
o
p
i
c

(
t
i
t
l
e
)

O
u
t
p
u
t
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
H
e
a
l
t
h
c
a
r
e
D
e
w
a
n

e
t

a
l
.

(
2
0
0
6
)
H
e
a
l
t
h

s
e
c
t
o
r
I
n
d
i
a
L
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

r
e
v
i
e
w

o
n

i
m
p
r
o
v
i
n
g

t
u
b
e
r
c
u
l
o
s
i
s

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

p
u
b
l
i
c
-
p
r
i
v
a
t
e

c
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

I
n
d
i
a
.
+
I
n

n
i
n
e

(
7
5
%
)

o
f

1
2

p
u
b
l
i
c
-
p
r
i
v
a
t
e

m
i
x

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

w
i
t
h

a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

d
a
t
a

o
n

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

o
u
t
c
o
m
e
,

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r

a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

m
e
t

o
r

e
x
c
e
e
d
e
d

t
h
e

I
n
d
i
a
n

t
u
b
e
r
c
u
l
o
s
i
s

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e

t
a
r
g
e
t

o
f

8
5
%

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

s
u
c
c
e
s
s

.
+
H
i
g
h
e
r

c
a
s
e

n
o
t
i
f
c
a
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
e
s

B
u
s
e

a
n
d

H
a
r
m
e
r

(
2
0
0
6
)
H
e
a
l
t
h
S
e
v
e
r
a
l

o
.
a
.

M
o
z
a
m
b
i
q
u
e
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e

a
n
d

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

o
f

h
i
g
h
l
y

e
f
e
c
t
i
v
e


h
e
a
l
t
h

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
.

N
A
N
A
N
A
D
e

P
i
n
h
o

C
a
m
p
o
s

e
t
.

a
l

(
2
0
1
1
)
H
e
a
l
t
h

(
d
r
u
g

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
)
V
a
r
i
o
u
s
,

r
e
v
i
e
w

w
a
s

n
o
t

r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d

t
o

a

s
p
e
c
i
f
c

r
e
g
i
o
n

o
r

c
o
u
n
t
r
y
S
y
s
t
e
m
a
t
i
c

r
e
v
i
e
w

o
f

p
u
b
l
i
c

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s

f
o
r

p
u
b
l
i
c

h
e
a
l
t
h
+
P
P
P
s

i
n
v
o
l
v
e

r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

&

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

l
e
a
d
i
n
g

t
o

t
h
e

c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

d
r
u
g
s

o
r

v
a
c
c
i
n
e
s

i
n

l
o
w

a
n
d

m
i
d
d
l
e
-
i
n
c
o
m
e

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
.

N
A
N
A
I
t
i
k
a

e
t

a
l
.

(
2
0
1
1
)
H
e
a
l
t
h

s
e
c
t
o
r
T
a
n
z
a
n
i
a

S
u
c
c
e
s
s
e
s

a
n
d

c
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s

f
o
r

i
m
p
r
o
v
i
n
g

p
u
b
l
i
c

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s

i
n

T
a
n
z
a
n
i
a

N
A
,

s
t
u
d
y

i
s

a
b
o
u
t

s
u
c
c
e
s
s

f
a
c
t
o
r
s
N
A
N
A
S
i
n
g
h

a
n
d

P
r
a
k
a
s
h

(
2
0
1
0
)
H
e
a
l
t
h

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
I
n
d
i
a

P
P
P
s

i
n

h
e
a
l
t
h

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

N
A
N
A
N
A
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 97 |
S
t
u
d
y

(
a
u
t
h
o
r

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
)
S
u
b
s
e
c
t
o
r
R
e
g
i
o
n
T
o
p
i
c

(
t
i
t
l
e
)

O
u
t
p
u
t
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
H
o
u
s
i
n
g

(
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
)
S
e
n
g
u
p
t
a

(
2
0
0
5
)
H
o
u
s
i
n
g

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
I
n
d
i
a

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

i
n
t
e
r
v
e
n
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

p
u
b
l
i
c

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s

i
n

h
o
u
s
i
n
g

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

i
n

K
o
l
k
a
t
a

:
+
P
r
i
v
a
t
e

s
e
c
t
o
r

c
o
m
p
a
n
i
e
s

i
n
v
e
s
t

i
n

h
o
u
s
i
n
g

d
u
e

t
o

t
h
e

P
P
P

.

A
t

l
e
a
s
t

1
0
-
1
5
%

o
f

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

i
n

e
a
c
h

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

i
s

L
I
G
/
M
I
G

(
l
o
w
-
m
i
d
d
l
e

i
n
c
o
m
e

g
r
o
u
p
)

h
o
u
s
e
s
.

p
1
0
.

+
I
t

i
s

o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d

t
h
a
t

p
u
r
c
h
a
s
i
n
g

a

h
o
u
s
e

u
n
d
e
r

a

P
P
P

h
a
s

g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
y

b
e
c
o
m
e

m
o
r
e

a
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e

o
w
i
n
g

t
o

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

s
t
i
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g

m
i
n
u
m
i
n
g

s
i
z
e

a
n
d

s
a
l
e

p
r
i
c
e

f
o
r

L
I
G

u
n
i
t
s

.

N
A
A
b
d
u
l

A
z
i
z

a
n
d

K
a
s
s
i
m

(
2
0
1
0
)
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
M
a
l
a
y
s
i
a
S
u
c
c
e
s

a
n
d

f
a
i
l
u
r
e

f
a
c
t
o
r
s

o
f

h
o
u
s
i
n
g

P
P
P
s

i
n

M
a
l
a
y
s
i
a

N
A
N
A
N
A
I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
G
i
a

a
n
d

F
u
g
e
l
n
e
s
s

(
2
0
1
0
)
I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

(
s
m
a
l
l

p
i
p
e
d

w
a
t
e
r

s
c
h
e
m
e
s
)
A
f
r
i
c
a
n

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
:

B
e
n
i
n
,

B
u
r
k
i
n
a

F
a
s
o
,

M
a
l
i
,

M
a
u
r
i
t
a
n
i
a
,

N
i
g
e
r
,

R
w
a
n
d
a
,

S
e
n
e
g
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w

o
f

P
P
P
s

f
o
r

s
m
a
l
l

p
i
p
e
d

w
a
t
e
r

s
c
h
e
m
e
s

s
e
v
e
n

A
f
r
i
c
a
n

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
.

N
A
,

t
h
e

s
t
u
d
y

f
o
c
u
s
e
s

o
n

c
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s

o
f

P
P
P
.
N
A
N
A
Annexes
| 98 |
S
t
u
d
y

(
a
u
t
h
o
r

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
)
S
u
b
s
e
c
t
o
r
R
e
g
i
o
n
T
o
p
i
c

(
t
i
t
l
e
)

O
u
t
p
u
t
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
r
a
n
c
e
y
s

a
n
d

W
e
i
t
z

(
2
0
0
3
)
I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
A
s
i
a

(
1
0

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
)
P
u
b
l
i
c

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p

i
n

i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
o
o
r
+T
h
e

r
e
v
i
e
w

s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
s

t
h
e

f
n
d
i
n
g
s

o
f

2
0

P
P
P
s

i
n

w
a
t
e
r

s
u
p
p
l
y

a
n
d

s
o
l
i
d

w
a
s
t
e

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
.

B
a
n
g
l
a
d
e
s
h
:

t
h
e

d
e
s
i
g
n

a
n
d

i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

m
o
d
i
f
e
d

r
i
c
k
s
h
a
w
-
v
a
n
s

f
o
r

h
o
u
s
e
-
t
o
-
h
o
u
s
e

w
a
s
t
e

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

.
2
n
d

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

i
n

B
a
n
g
l
a
d
e
s
h
:

a

w
a
t
e
r

t
a
n
k

w
i
t
h

h
a
n
d
p
u
m
p

w
a
s

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
.

I
n
d
i
a
:

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
o
i
l
e
t

b
l
o
c
k
s

t
o

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

s
a
n
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

l
o
w
-
i
n
c
o
m
e

a
r
e
a
s

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e

w
i
t
h

s
o
a
p
,

s
h
o
w
e
r
s

a
n
d

s
t
o
r
a
g
e
.
P
a
k
i
s
t
a
n
:

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

t
r
u
n
k

s
e
w
e
r
s

t
o

c
o
l
l
e
c
t

t
h
e

w
a
s
t
e

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
-
b
u
i
l
t

s
t
r
e
e
t

s
e
w
e
r
s

.

M
a
l
a
y
s
i
a
:

N
A
V
a
n
u
a
t
u
:

2
4
-
h
o
u
r

w
a
t
e
r

s
u
p
p
l
y

a
n
d

a

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
d

f
x
e
d

t
a
r
i
f

s
y
s
t
e
m

.

+B
a
n
g
l
a
d
e
s
h
:

h
i
g
h
e
r

r
e
v
e
n
u
e

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

c
o
m
p
o
s
t

w
h
i
c
h

i
s

s
o
l
d

t
o

a

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

c
o
m
p
a
n
y
.
B
a
n
g
l
a
d
e
s
h

2
n
d

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
:

l
o
c
a
l

p
e
o
p
l
e

n
e
e
d

l
e
s
s

t
i
m
e

t
o

g
e
t

w
a
t
e
r

l
e
s
s

p
e
o
p
l
e

t
a
k
i
n
g

w
a
t
e
r

f
r
o
m

i
l
l
e
g
a
l

w
a
t
e
r

p
o
i
n
t
s

.
I
n
d
i
a
:

p
e
o
p
l
e

m
a
k
e

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

t
o
i
l
e
t
s
;

t
h
e
y

s
a
y

t
h
a
t

t
h
e
y

p
r
e
f
e
r

p
a
y
i
n
g

1

d
o
l
l
a
r

f
o
r

a

t
o
i
l
e
t

i
n
s
t
e
a
d

o
f

1
5
0

d
o
l
l
a
r

f
o
r

a

d
o
c
t
o
r

.

l
e
s
s

i
l
l
n
e
s
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

u
s
e
r
s

o
f

t
h
e

t
o
i
l
e
t
s
,

t
h
e
y

s
a
y

t
h
a
t

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

a
t

w
o
r
k

h
a
s

g
o
n
e

u
p
.
P
a
k
i
s
t
a
n
:

n
o

c
h
a
n
g
e
s

i
n

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
.

M
a
l
a
y
s
i
a
:

m
o
r
e

p
e
o
p
l
e

w
e
r
e

s
e
r
v
e
d

w
a
t
e
r

b
y

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

p
i
p
e
l
i
n
e
s

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

t
o

t
h
e
i
r

h
o
u
s
e
s

.

V
a
n
u
a
t
u
:

N
/
A
.

Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 99 |
S
t
u
d
y

(
a
u
t
h
o
r

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
)
S
u
b
s
e
c
t
o
r
R
e
g
i
o
n
T
o
p
i
c

(
t
i
t
l
e
)

O
u
t
p
u
t
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
P
h
i
l
i
p
p
i
n
e
s
:

E
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
v
e
r
a
g
e

o
f

w
a
t
e
r

s
u
p
p
l
y

t
o

9
5

p
e
r

c
e
n
t

f
o
r

t
h
e

E
a
s
t

z
o
n
e

a
n
d

9
8

p
e
r

c
e
n
t

f
o
r

t
h
e

W
e
s
t

z
o
n
e

b
y

2
0
2
1
,

w
i
t
h

p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

2
4
-
h
o
u
r

w
a
t
e
r

s
u
p
p
l
y

t
o

a
l
l

c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

b
y

m
i
d
2
0
0
0

a
n
d

a

g
u
a
r
a
n
t
e
e
d

m
i
n
i
m
u
m

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

f
o
r

a
l
l

c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

b
y

2
0
0
7
P
h
i
l
i
p
p
i
n
e
s
:

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

w
a
t
e
r

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

p
e
r

h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

.
K
a
t
e
j
a

(
2
0
1
2
)
I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
B
R
I
C

(
B
r
a
z
i
l
,

R
u
s
s
i
a
,

I
n
d
i
a

a
n
d

C
h
i
n
a
)
P
P
P
s

i
n

t
h
e

i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

s
e
c
t
o
r

i
n

B
R
I
C

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s

N
A
S
t
u
d
y

a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
s

p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

e
f
e
c
t

o
f

i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

o
n

e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

g
r
o
w
t
h

b
u
t

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r

e
f
e
c
t

o
f

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p

o
n

o
u
t
p
u
t
,

o
u
t
c
o
m
e

a
n
d

i
m
p
a
c
t
.
N
A
N
A
O
t
h
e
r
D
r
u
c
e

(
2
0
0
9
)
P
r
o
d
u
c
t

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
:

t
h
e

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

s
e
c
t
o
r

t
o

s
h
a
r
e

f
u
n
d
s
,

e
x
p
e
r
t
i
s
e

a
n
d

t
i
m
e

f
o
r

R
&
D

f
o
r

d
r
u
g

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

f
o
r

n
e
g
l
e
c
t
e
d

d
i
s
e
a
s
e
s

i
n

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s

+
D
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

t
i
m
e
f
r
a
m
e

o
f

t
h
e

D
u
t
c
h

g
r
a
n
t

t
o

t
h
e

e
i
g
h
t

P
D
P
s
,

t
h
e

M
O
F
A
-
f
u
n
d
e
d

P
D
P
s

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d

f
o
u
r

n
e
w

n
e
g
l
e
c
t
e
d

d
i
s
e
a
s
e

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

f
o
u
r

d
i
a
g
n
o
s
t
i
c

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
.

C
l
i
n
i
c
a
l

t
r
i
a
l
s

w
e
r
e

s
t
a
r
t
e
d

a
n
d

c
o
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
,

s
o
m
e

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

w
e
r
e

d
r
o
p
p
e
d

f
r
o
m

p
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
s
,

a
n
d

a

s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l

a
m
o
u
n
t

o
f

d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
y

w
o
r
k
,

f
o
c
u
s
e
d

o
n

b
r
e
a
k
t
h
r
o
u
g
h

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
,

w
a
s

u
n
d
e
r
t
a
k
e
n
.

N
A
N
A

t
h
e
r
e

i
s

n
o
t

y
e
t

s
u
f
c
i
e
n
t

e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e

t
h
a
t

P
D
P
s

c
a
n

d
e
l
i
v
e
r

b
r
e
a
k
t
h
r
o
u
g
h

i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
.

A
l
s
o
,

w
h
i
l
e

r
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g

r
e
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y

a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l

s
h
o
w
s

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

f
o
r

i
m
p
a
c
t
,

p
r
o
d
u
c
t

u
p
t
a
k
e

i
s

a

b
e
t
e
r

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r

o
f

a
c
t
u
a
l

h
e
a
l
t
h

i
m
p
a
c
t
.

Annexes
| 100 |
S
t
u
d
y

(
a
u
t
h
o
r

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
)
S
u
b
s
e
c
t
o
r
R
e
g
i
o
n
T
o
p
i
c

(
t
i
t
l
e
)

O
u
t
p
u
t
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
o
p
l
o
p

e
t

a
l
.

(
2
0
0
9
)
C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e

S
o
c
i
a
l

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

(
C
S
R
)
N
i
c
a
r
a
g
u
a
,

G
u
a
t
e
m
a
l
a

a
n
d

I
n
d
o
n
e
s
i
a
P
P
P
s

i
n

s
o
c
i
a
l

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

(
C
S
R
)
0

N
i
c
a
r
a
g
u
a
:

W
o
r
k
e
r
s
,

i
n

t
h
e

b
a
n
a
n
a

i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y

r
e
p
o
r
t

f
e
w

p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
s

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
m
p
a
n
y

s

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

G
u
a
t
a
m
a
l
a
:

U
n
d
e
r

t
h
e

l
e
a
d
e
r
-
s
h
i
p

o
f

t
h
e

W
o
r
l
d

B
a
n
k
,

s
e
v
e
r
a
l

m
a
j
o
r

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

a
s
s
o
c
i
-
a
t
i
o
n
s

h
a
v
e

e
x
p
a
n
d
e
d

o
n

t
h
e

t
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

c
o
n
c
e
p
t

o
f

C
S
R

i
n

G
u
a
t
e
m
a
l
a
.

I
n
d
o
n
e
s
i
a
:

C
S
R

i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
s

i
n

I
n
d
o
n
e
s
i
a

h
a
v
e

a
l
s
o

e
v
o
l
v
e
d

o
v
e
r

t
h
e

l
a
s
t

s
e
v
e
r
a
l

y
e
a
r
s
,

a
n
d

t
h
e

c
o
u
n
t
r
y

h
a
s

t
h
e

m
o
s
t

f
o
r
m
a
l

s
t
a
t
e

e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

w
i
t
h

C
S
R

o
f

t
h
e

c
a
s
e

s
t
u
d
y

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
.

I
n

2
0
0
7
,

t
h
e

I
n
d
o
n
e
s
i
a

H
o
u
s
e

o
f

R
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
s

p
a
s
s
e
d

a

l
a
w

m
a
k
i
n
g

C
S
R

m
a
n
d
a
t
o
r
y

f
o
r

c
o
m
p
a
n
i
e
s

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

i
n

a
n
y

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

f
e
l
d

r
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

a
n
d

i
m
p
o
s
i
n
g

s
a
n
c
t
i
o
n
s

o
n

n
o
n
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
t

f
r
m
s
.

N
A
N
A
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 101 |
S
t
u
d
y

(
a
u
t
h
o
r

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
)
S
u
b
s
e
c
t
o
r
R
e
g
i
o
n
T
o
p
i
c

(
t
i
t
l
e
)

O
u
t
p
u
t
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
K
i
r
k
e
m
a
n
n

a
n
d

A
p
p
e
l
q
u
i
s
t

(
2
0
0
8
)
P
o
v
e
r
t
y

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
,

e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

g
r
o
w
t
h
,

s
o
c
i
a
l

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
B
a
n
g
l
a
d
e
s
h
,

C
h
i
n
a
,

E
g
y
p
t
,

G
h
a
n
a
,

I
n
d
i
a
,

I
n
d
o
n
e
s
i
a
,

K
e
n
y
a
,

P
a
k
i
s
t
a
n
,

R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l

A
f
r
i
c
a
,

S
o
u
t
h

A
f
r
i
c
a
,

V
i
e
t
n
a
m
P
P
P

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

t
o

e
n
g
a
g
e

c
o
m
p
a
n
i
e
s

a
n
d

o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
-
o
n
s

i
n

p
r
o
m
o
t
i
n
g

C
S
R
.
N
A
N
A
N
A
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
G
a
l
i
l
e
a

a
n
d

M
e
d
d
a

(
2
0
1
0
)
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
W
o
r
l
d
w
i
d
e
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

o
n

p
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

a
n
d

e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

c
o
n
t
e
x
t

o
n

s
u
c
c
e
s
s

o
f

P
P
P

i
n

t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
N
A

(
s
t
u
d
y

i
s

a
b
o
u
t

s
u
c
c
e
s
s

f
a
c
t
o
r
s
)
N
A
N
A
M
a
r
i
n

(
2
0
0
9
)
W
a
t
e
r

s
e
c
t
o
r
V
a
r
i
o
u
s

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
V
a
r
i
o
u
s
N
A
N
A
N
A
W
a
t
e
r
P
u
b
l
i
c

P
r
i
v
a
t
e

P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p

R
e
v
i
e
w

M
i
s
s
i
o
n
(
2
0
0
9
)
U
r
b
a
n

w
a
t
e
r

s
u
p
p
l
y
Y
e
m
e
n
P
P
P

o
n

u
r
b
a
n

w
a
t
e
r

s
u
p
p
l
y

i
n

Y
e
m
e
n
.

-

4

o
u
t

o
f

1
0

P
P
P

g
o
a
l
s

a
r
e

p
a
r
t
l
y

a
c
h
i
e
v
e
d
.
N
A
N
A
Annexes
| 102 |
S
t
u
d
y

(
a
u
t
h
o
r

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
)
S
u
b
s
e
c
t
o
r
R
e
g
i
o
n
T
o
p
i
c

(
t
i
t
l
e
)

O
u
t
p
u
t
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
V
i
v
e
s

e
t

a
l
.

(
2
0
0
6
)
W
a
t
e
r

a
n
d

s
a
n
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
1
)

G
u
i
n
e
a

(
2
)

B
o
l
i
v
i
a

(
3
)

S
a
n
t
a

C
r
u
z
,

B
o
l
i
v
i
a

(
4
)

A
r
g
e
n
t
i
n
a

(
5
)

A
r
g
e
n
t
i
n
a

(
6
)

P
e
r
u

(
7
)

C
h
e
n
g
d
u
,

C
h
i
n
a

8
)

C
a
r
t
a
g
e
n
a
,

C
o
l
o
m
b
i
a

(
9
)

T
a
m
i
l

N
a
d
u
,

I
n
d
i
a

(
1
0
)

P
a
r
a
g
u
a
y

F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
i
n
g

o
f

I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

i
n

P
u
b
l
i
c
-
P
r
i
v
a
t
e

P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
:

A
n

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

t
o

W
a
t
e
r

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

+
/
-
(
1
)

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
,

c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
e
s

r
o
s
e

f
r
o
m

3
8

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

i
n

1
9
8
9

t
o

4
7

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

i
n

1
9
9
6
,

a
n
d

l
a
b
o
r

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

a
l
s
o

r
o
s
e
.

W
a
t
e
r

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
,

c
o
n
s
u
m
e
r

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d

a
n
d

m
e
t
e
r
i
n
g

l
e
v
e
l
s

r
o
s
e

d
r
a
m
a
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
.

(
2
)

V
a
r
i
o
u
s

f
a
c
t
o
r
s

l
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

f
a
i
l
u
r
e

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
n
c
e
s
s
i
o
n

s
o
o
n

a
f
e
r

w
a
t
e
r

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

w
a
s

p
r
i
v
a
t
i
z
e
d
.
.

(
3
)

T
h
e

t
a
r
i
f

p
r
i
c
i
n
g

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
s

t
h
r
e
e

f
o
r
m
s

o
f

p
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

c
r
o
s
s
-
s
u
b
s
i
d
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

t
o

d
e
a
l

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

d
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s

o
f

t
h
e

a
r
e
a

c
o
v
e
r
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

u
t
i
l
i
t
y
.

T
h
e

f
r
s
t

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

a

l
o
w
-
c
o
s
t

t
a
r
i
f

f
o
r

r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

c
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
s

w
i
t
h

a

c
a
p

o
n

w
a
t
e
r

o
u
t
p
u
t
.

T
h
e

s
e
c
o
n
d

f
o
r
m

d
i
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
t
e
s

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
/
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

u
s
e
r
s

a
n
d

r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

u
s
e
r
s
.

T
h
e

d
i
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

i
n

u
s
e
r

f
e
e
s

i
s

4
5

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

l
e
s
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

u
s
e
r
.

F
i
n
a
l
l
y
,

t
h
e

t
h
i
r
d

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

a
n

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g

b
l
o
c
k

t
a
r
i
f

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

t
h
a
t

i
s

a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e

r
e
g
i
o
n
.

T
h
e

r
e
v
e
n
u
e

s
t
r
e
a
m

o
f

t
h
e

S
a
n
t
a

C
r
u
z

c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
v
e
,

S
A
G
U
A
P
A
C
,

h
a
s

e
m
b
r
a
c
e
d

t
h
e

c
o
n
s
u
m
e
r

a
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

l
i
m
i
t

o
f

5

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

i
n
c
o
m
e
.

A
t

4
.
5

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

i
n
c
o
m
e
,

w
i
l
l
i
n
g
n
e
s
s

t
o

p
a
y

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

h
i
g
h
.

N
A
N
A
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 103 |
S
t
u
d
y

(
a
u
t
h
o
r

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
)
S
u
b
s
e
c
t
o
r
R
e
g
i
o
n
T
o
p
i
c

(
t
i
t
l
e
)

O
u
t
p
u
t
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
(
4
)

t
h
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
s

c
u
t

t
h
e

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

w
a
t
e
r

b
i
l
l

b
y

t
h
r
e
e
-
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
s

p
e
r

h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

i
n

p
o
o
r

n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s

(
5
)

T
h
e

l
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

t
h
e

u
n
w
i
l
l
i
n
g
n
e
s
s

o
f

t
h
e

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

t
o

a
l
l
o
w

f
o
r

t
a
r
i
f

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s

l
e
f

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

a
n
y

e
f
e
c
t

t
h
e

p
r
e
s
u
m
e
d

f
o
r
e
i
g
n

e
x
c
h
a
n
g
e

r
i
s
k

a
n
d

i
n
f
a
t
i
o
n

r
i
s
k

m
i
t
i
g
a
n
t

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

t
h
o
u
g
h
t

i
t

h
a
d

w
h
e
n

i
t

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

t
a
r
i
f
s

d
e
n
o
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

i
n

U
S

d
o
l
l
a
r
s
(
6
)

N
A

(
7
)

N
A

(
8
)

b
y

2
0
0
4

c
o
v
e
r
a
g
e

h
a
d

r
e
a
c
h
e
d

9
5

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

i
n

w
a
t
e
r

a
n
d

7
4

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

i
n

s
a
n
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
;

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

r
o
s
e

f
r
o
m

1
.
6

c
u
b
i
c

m
e
t
e
r
s

p
e
r

s
e
c
o
n
d

t
o

3
.
1

m
i
l
l
i
o
n

c
u
b
i
c

m
e
t
e
r
s

p
e
r

s
e
c
o
n
d
;

t
h
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s

d
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

f
r
o
m

1
3
0
0

t
o

2
7
2
;

t
h
e

s
h
a
r
e

o
f

m
e
t
e
r
e
d

c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

w
e
n
t

f
o
r
m

3
0

t
o

9
9

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
;

a
n
d

w
a
t
e
r

i
s

n
o
w

a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

2
4

h
o
u
r
s

a

d
a
y

c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d

t
o

o
n
l
y

7

h
o
u
r
s

a

d
a
y

i
n

1
9
9
4
.

H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,

u
n
p
a
i
d

b
i
l
l
s

r
e
m
a
i
n

a

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
.

T
h
e

t
a
r
i
f

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

i
s

s
t
i
l
l

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

a

c
r
o
s
s
-
s
u
b
s
i
d
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

s
c
h
e
m
e

t
h
a
t

c
a
n

b
e

e
a
s
i
l
y

m
a
n
i
p
u
l
a
t
e
d

b
y

h
i
g
h
-

a
n
d

t
h
e

m
i
d
d
l
e
-
i
n
c
o
m
e

r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
.

Annexes
| 104 |
S
t
u
d
y

(
a
u
t
h
o
r

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
)
S
u
b
s
e
c
t
o
r
R
e
g
i
o
n
T
o
p
i
c

(
t
i
t
l
e
)

O
u
t
p
u
t
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
(
9
)

N
A

(
1
0
)

T
h
e

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s

t
h
a
t

h
a
v
e

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

o
v
e
r
w
h
e
l
m
i
n
g
l
y

p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

t
h
a
n
k
s

t
o

t
h
e

r
a
p
i
d

p
r
o
g
r
e
s
s

f
r
o
m

c
o
n
c
e
p
t

t
o

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,

a
l
l

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

u
p
-
f
r
o
n
t

c
a
s
h

c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
T
a
n
n

(
2
0
1
2
)
W
a
t
e
r

i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
-
t
u
r
e
M
a
l
a
y
s
i
a

i
n

g
e
n
e
r
a
l
,

S
e
l
a
n
g
o
r

s
p
e
c
i
f
c
W
a
t
e
r

p
r
i
v
a
t
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

M
a
l
a
y
s
i
a

+

(
S
e
n
g
a
l
o
r
)
-
1
7
,
3
%

e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

w
a
t
e
r

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

i
n

S
e
l
a
n
g
o
r

(
2
0
0
1
-
2
0
0
6
)

(
a
t

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

t
i
m
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

w
i
t
h

7
,
5
6
0
%
)
-

I
n

2
0
0
1

0
5

t
h
e

f
e
d
e
r
a
l

g
o
v
e
r
-
n
m
e
n
t

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

R
M
5
0
0

m
i
l
l
i
o
n

t
o

r
e
p
l
a
c
e

o
l
d

p
i
p
e
s

a
n
d

i
n
s
t
a
l
l

n
e
w

m
e
t
e
r
s

i
n

S
e
l
a
n
g
o
r
;

P
i
p
e

l
e
n
g
t
h

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

b
y

a
n

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

o
f

2
0
%

n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

2
0
0
5

a
n
d

2
0
0
8
,

d
r
i
v
e
n

b
y

a
b
o
v
e
-
a
v
e
r
a
g
e

a
n
d

l
a
r
g
e

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s

i
n

M
e
l
a
k
a

(
p
u
b
l
i
c
,

5
7
%
)
,

T
e
r
e
n
g
g
a
n
u

(
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
z
e
d
,

5
6
%
)
,

J
o
h
o
r

(
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
,

3
9
%
)
,

a
n
d

e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y

S
e
l
a
n
g
o
r

(
p
u
b
l
i
c

p
r
i
v
a
t
e
,

7
6
%
)

N
A
N
A
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 105 |
S
t
u
d
y

(
a
u
t
h
o
r

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
)
S
u
b
s
e
c
t
o
r
R
e
g
i
o
n
T
o
p
i
c

(
t
i
t
l
e
)

O
u
t
p
u
t
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,

d
a
t
a

f
r
o
m

S
e
l
a
n
g
o
r

s

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

c
o
n
c
e
s
s
i
o
-
n
a
i
r
e

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

a

m
o
r
e

m
o
d
e
s
t

6
%

(
2
0
0
5

0
8
)

a
n
d

1
3
.
8
%

(
2
0
0
5

1
0
)

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

i
n

p
i
p
e

l
e
n
g
t
h

(
S
u
b
r
a
m
a
n
i
a
m
,

2
0
1
0
)
.

B
a
s
e
d

o
n

t
h
e

e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
,

i
t

i
s

n
o
t

c
l
e
a
r

i
f

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s

i
n

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

a
n
d

p
i
p
e

l
e
n
g
t
h

w
e
r
e

d
u
e
t
o

P
P
I

g
i
v
e
n

t
h
a
t

t
h
e
s
e

c
o
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
d

w
i
t
h

s
i
g
n
i
f
c
a
n
t

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s

i
n

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

f
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
.

M
o
r
e
o
v
e
r
,

l
a
r
g
e

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s

w
e
r
e

m
a
d
e

b
y

p
u
b
l
i
c

a
n
d

c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
z
e
d

s
t
a
t
e
s

i
n

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

w
h
i
l
e

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s

i
n

p
i
p
e

l
e
n
g
t
h

w
e
r
e

r
e
l
a
t
e
d

t
o

w
a
t
e
r

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

w
h
i
c
h

r
e
m
a
i
n
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

s
e
c
t
o
r

f
o
r

a
l
l

s
t
a
t
e
s

e
x
c
e
p
t

S
e
l
a
n
g
o
r

(
p
u
b
l
i
c

p
r
i
v
a
t
e
)

a
f
e
r

2
0
0
5

a
n
d

J
o
h
o
r

(
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
)
.
F
u
e
s
t
a

a
n
d

H
a
f
n
e
r
b

(
2
0
0
7
)
W
a
t
e
r

s
e
c
t
o
r
G
h
a
n
a

P
P
P

p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
,

p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s

a
n
d

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s

i
n

G
h
a
n
a

s

u
r
b
a
n

w
a
t
e
r

s
u
p
p
l
y

N
A
0T
h
e

P
P
P

o
p
t
i
o
n
s

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d

(
l
e
a
s
e

c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t

/

a
f
e
r
m
a
g
e

c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
)

d
i
d

n
o
t

s
e
r
v
e

t
h
e

p
o
o
r

i
n

s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
l
y

b
e
t
e
r

w
a
y
s
.

W
i
t
h
i
n

G
h
a
n
a
a
n
d

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
,

m
o
r
e

(
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
v
e
)

r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

i
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

t
o

h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t

t
h
e

c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

s
u
c
c
e
s
s

s
t
o
r
i
e
s


i
n

P
P
P

f
r
o
m

w
h
i
c
h

l
e
s
s
o
n
s

c
a
n

b
e

l
e
a
r
n
t

f
o
r

t
h
e

d
e
s
i
g
n

a
n
d

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s

a
t

c
o
u
n
t
r
y
,

d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

a
n
d

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

l
e
v
e
l
s

.
N
A
Annexes
| 106 |
S
t
u
d
y

(
a
u
t
h
o
r

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
)
S
u
b
s
e
c
t
o
r
R
e
g
i
o
n
T
o
p
i
c

(
t
i
t
l
e
)

O
u
t
p
u
t
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
L
o
b
i
n
a

a
n
d

H
a
l
l

(
2
0
0
3
)
W
a
t
e
r

s
u
p
p
l
y

s
y
s
t
e
m
s
L
a
t
i
n

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
P
r
o
b
l
e
m
s

w
i
t
h

p
r
i
v
a
t
e

w
a
t
e
r

c
o
n
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
s
:

a

r
e
v
i
e
w

o
f

e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
N
A
N
A
N
A
V
a
r
i
o
u
s

s
e
c
t
o
r
s
R
a
o

(
2
0
0
9
)
p
o
w
e
r
,

t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t

a
n
d

w
a
t
e
r
B
h
u
t
a
n
,

I
n
d
i
a
,

I
n
d
o
n
e
s
i
a
,

P
a
k
i
s
t
a
n
,

P
h
i
l
i
p
p
i
n
e
s
,

P
e
o
p
l
e

s

r
e
b
u
p
l
i
c

o
f

C
h
i
n
a

(
P
R
C
)
,

V
i
e
t
n
a
m
,

S
r
i

L
a
n
k
a
,

T
h
a
i
l
a
n
d
P
u
b
l
i
c

P
r
i
v
a
t
e

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s

i
n

i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
N
A

(
s
t
u
d
y

f
o
c
u
s
s
e
s

o
n

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

o
f

P
P
P

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

s
u
c
c
e
s
s

f
a
c
t
o
r
s
)
N
A
N
A
F
a
r
l
a
m

(
2
0
0
5
)
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
,

p
r
i
s
o
n
,

t
e
l
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
-
t
i
o
n
,

w
a
t
e
r

a
n
d

s
a
n
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
,

p
o
w
e
r
,

e
c
o
-
t
o
u
r
i
s
m
A
f
r
i
c
a
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

P
P
P

i
n

A
f
r
i
c
a
:
B
u
i
l
d

a
n
d

o
p
e
r
a
t
e

t
h
e

N
4

t
o
l
l

r
o
a
d

f
r
o
m

W
i
t
b
a
n
k
,

S
o
u
t
h

A
f
r
i
c
a
,

t
o

M
a
p
u
t
o
,

M
o
z
a
m
b
i
q
u
e
.
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
,

r
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
,

o
p
e
r
a
t
e

a
n
d

u
p
g
r
a
d
e

t
h
e

P
o
r
t

o
f

M
a
p
u
t
o
.
T
h
e

d
e
s
i
g
n

a
n
d

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
-
t
i
o
n

o
f

1
1

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y

p
r
i
s
o
n
s
.
P
r
o
m
o
t
i
o
n

o
f

r
u
r
a
l

a
c
c
e
s
s

t
o

t
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
s
,

i
n
t
e
r
n
e
t

a
n
d

p
o
s
t
a
l

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
.
O
v
e
r
s
e
e
,

m
a
n
a
g
e

a
n
d

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

t
h
e

p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

w
a
t
e
r

a
n
d

s
a
n
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s

w
i
t
h
i
n

t
h
e

B
O
D
C

m
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e

w
a
t
e
r

a
n
d

e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y

i
n

G
a
b
o
n
.
P
o
w
e
r

p
u
r
c
h
a
s
i
n
g

a
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
.
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

1
1

r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s

,

t
w
o

s
h
o
p
s

a
n
d

t
h
r
e
e

p
i
c
n
i
c

s
i
t
e
s

i
n

t
h
e

K
r
u
g
e
r

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

P
a
r
k
.
+
/
-
5
0
4

K
M

o
f

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d

r
o
a
d
,

r
e
d
u
c
i
n
g

o
v
e
r
l
o
a
d
i
n
g

o
f

h
e
a
v
y

v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
.

T
h
e
y

p
l
a
n

t
o

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l

t
h
r
o
u
g
h
p
u
t

t
o

2
0

m
i
l
l
i
o
n

t
o
n
n
e
s

b
y

y
e
a
r

1
8

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
n
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
.
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

p
r
i
s
o
n

s
p
a
c
e

s
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
.
T
h
e

U
g
a
n
d
a
n

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

e
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y

a
l
l
o
w
e
d

c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n

t
o

d
r
i
v
e

t
h
e

t
e
l
e
c
o
m

m
a
r
k
e
t

w
i
t
h
i
n

a

c
l
e
a
r
l
y
-
d
e
f
n
e
d

r
e
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y

f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k

a
n
d

t
h
e

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

s
u
b
s
i
d
y

t
o

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

t
h
e

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

o
f

c
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
.
S
i
z
a

o
v
e
r
s
a
w
,

m
a
n
a
g
e
d

a
n
d

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d

t
h
e

p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

w
a
t
e
r

a
n
d

s
a
n
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s

w
i
t
h
i
n

t
h
e

w
e
a
l
t
h
i
e
r

B
O
D
C

m
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
.

T
h
e

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

o
f

t
h
e

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

h
a
s

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d

w
i
t
h

r
e
g
a
r
d
s

t
o

w
a
t
e
r

l
o
s
s
,

w
a
t
e
r

p
u
r
i
t
y
,

t
o
t
a
l

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

l
e
a
k
s
,

t
h
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

f
a
u
l
t
y

m
e
t
e
r
s

a
n
d

t
h
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
+
/
-
L
o
c
a
l

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s

h
a
v
e

g
a
i
n
e
d

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

d
i
s
c
o
u
n
t
s
,

t
r
i
a
n
i
n
g

a
n
d

j
o
b

c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
e

c
o
n
c
e
s
s
i
o
n

h
a
s

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

e
f
c
i
e
n
c
y

a
n
d

h
a
n
d
l
i
n
g

v
o
l
u
m
e

a
t

t
h
e

M
a
p
u
t
o

h
a
r
b
o
u
r
.

T
h
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

s
u
b
s
c
r
i
b
e
r
s

h
a
s

g
r
o
w
n

a
t

a
n

e
x
p
o
n
e
n
t
i
a
l

r
a
t
e

f
r
o
m

a

v
e
r
y

l
o
w

b
a
s
e

-

i
n

1
9
9
8

t
h
e
r
e

w
e
r
e

o
n
l
y

t
w
o

s
u
b
s
c
i
b
e
r
s

p
e
r

1
,
0
0
0

p
e
o
p
l
e

i
n

U
g
a
n
d
a
;

b
y

2
0
0
3
,

t
h
i
s

h
a
d

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

t
o

3
2

p
e
r

1
,
0
0
0

i
n
h
a
b
i
t
a
n
t
s
.
T
h
e
r
e

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

a

p
u
b
l
i
c

o
u
t
c
r
y

a
n
d

h
o
t

p
a
r
l
i
a
m
e
n
-
t
a
r
y

d
e
b
a
t
e
s

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
,

w
i
t
h

e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e

o
f

c
o
r
r
u
p
t

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s

t
o

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

o
f
c
i
a
l
s
.
T
h
e

s
t
a
f

w
a
s

u
n
h
a
p
p
y

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

n
e
w

c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

w
h
i
c
h
N
A
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 107 |
S
t
u
d
y

(
a
u
t
h
o
r

a
n
d

y
e
a
r
)
S
u
b
s
e
c
t
o
r
R
e
g
i
o
n
T
o
p
i
c

(
t
i
t
l
e
)

O
u
t
p
u
t
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
a
c
t
i
o
n
s

c
a
r
r
i
e
d

o
u
t
.
T
h
e

m
u
l
t
i
-
u
t
i
l
i
t
y

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n

h
a
s

a
l
l
o
w
e
d

c
o
s
t

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

s
h
a
r
i
n
g

o
f

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
7
.

A
n

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

i
n

t
h
e

c
o
s
t
s

o
f

e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y
.
8
.

A

s
i
g
n
i
f
c
a
n
t

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

i
n

S
A
N
p
a
r
k

s

p
r
o
f
t
,

t
h
e

u
p
g
r
a
d
i
n
g

o
f

r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s

a
n
d

s
h
o
p
s
,

a
n
d

a
n

e
v
e
n
t
u
a
l

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

i
n

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

a
n
d

q
u
a
l
i
t
y
.
e
m
p
h
a
s
i
s
e
d

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

a
n
d

s
t
r
i
c
t

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

o
f

s
t
o
c
k
.
S
t
u
a
r
t

e
t

a
l

(
2
0
1
1
)
V
a
r
i
o
u
s
:

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

y
o
u
t
h

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
-
m
e
n
t
,

h
o
u
s
i
n
g

a
n
d

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
a
l
,

m
e
n
t
a
l

a
n
d

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

h
e
a
l
t
h
,

a
r
t
s

a
n
d

c
u
l
t
u
r
e
.
V
a
r
i
o
u
s
R
e
v
i
e
w

o
f

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

a
n
d

e
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

N
A

(
s
t
u
d
y

f
o
c
u
s
s
e
s

o
n

s
u
c
c
e
s
s

f
a
c
t
o
r
s

o
f

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
)
.

N
A
N
A
Annexes
| 108 |
Evaluation reports of the Policy and Operations
Evaluation Department (IOB) published 2008-2013
Evaluation reports published before 2008 can be found on the IOB website:
www.government.nl/foreign-policy-evaluations
No. Year Title evaluation report ISBN
378 2013 Public private partnerships in developing countries.
Systematic literature review
978-90-5328-439-1
377 2013 Corporate Social Responsibility: the role of public policy. A
systematic literature review of the efects of government
supported interventions on the corporate social responsibility
(CSR) behaviour of enterprises in development countries
978-90-5328-438-4
376 2013 Renewable Energy: Access and Impact. A systematic literature
review of the impact on livelihoods of interventions providing
access to renewable energy in developing countries
978-90-5328-437-7
375 2013 The Netherlands and the European Development Fund -
Principles and practices. Evaluation of Dutch involvement in
EU development cooperation (1998-2012)
978-90-5328-436-0
374 2013 Working with the World Bank. Evaluation of Dutch World Bank
policies and funding 2000-2011
978-90-5328-435-3
373 2013 Evaluation of Dutch support to human rights projects.
(2008-2011)
978-90-5328-433-9
372 2013 Relations, rsultats et rendement. valuation de la coopration
au sein de lUnion Benelux du point de vue des Pays-Bas
978-90-5328-434-6
372 2012 Relaties, resultaten en rendement. Evaluatie van de Benelux
Unie-samenwerking vanuit Nederlands perspectief
978-90-5328-431-5
371 2012 Convirtiendo un derecho en practica. Evaluacion de impacto
del programa del cancer cervico-uterino del centro de mujeres
lxchen en Nicaragua (2005-2009)
978-90-5328-432-2
371 2012 Turning a right into practice. Impact evaluation of the Ixchen
Centre for Women cervical cancer programme in Nicaragua
(2005-2009)
978-90-5328-429-2
370 2012 Equity, accountability and efectiveness in decentralisation
policies in Bolivia
978-90-5328-428-5
369 2012 Budgetsupport: Conditional results Policy review (2000-2011) 978-90-5328-427-8
369 2012 Begrotingssteun: Resultaten onder voorwaarden
Doorlichting van een instrument (2000-2011)
978-90-5328-426-1
368 2012 Civil Society, Aid, and Development: A Cross-Country Analysis 979-90-5328-425-4
367 2012 Energievoorzieningszekerheid en Buitenlandbeleid
Beleidsdoorlichting 2006-2010
979-90-5328-424-7
366 2012 Drinking water and Sanitation Policy review of the Dutch
Development Cooperation 1990-2011
978-90-5328-423-0
366 2012 Drinkwater en sanitaire voorzieningen Beleidsdoorlichting van
het OS-beleid 1990-2011
978-90-5328-422-3
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 109 |
365 2012 Tactische diplomatie voor een Strategisch Concept De
Nederlandse inzet voor het NAVO Strategisch Concept 2010
978-90-5328-421-6
364 2012 Efectiviteit van Economische Diplomatie: Methoden en
Resultaten van onderzoek.
978-90-5328-420-9
363 2011 Improving food security: A systematic review of the impact of
interventions in agricultural production, value chains, market
regulation, and land security
978-90-5328-419-3
362 2011 De Methodische kwaliteit van Programma-evaluaties in het
Medefnancieringsstelsel-I 2007-2010
978-90-5328-418-6
361 2011 Evaluatie van de Twinningfaciliteit Suriname-Nederland 978-90-5328-417-9
360 2011 More than Water: Impact evaluation of drinking water supply
and sanitation interventions in rural Mozambique
978-90-5328-414-8
359 2011 Regionaal en gentegreerd beleid? Evaluatie van het Nederlandse
beleid met betrekking tot de Westelijke Balkan 2004-2008
978-90-5328-416-2
358 2011 Assisting Earthquake victims: Evaluation of Dutch Cooperating
aid agencies (SHO) Support to Haiti in 2010
978-90-5328-413-1
357 2011 Le risque defets phmres: Evaluation dimpact des
programmes dapprovisionnement en eau potable et
dassainissement au Bnin
978-90-5328-415-5
357 2011 The risk of vanishing efects: Impact Evaluation of drinking
water supply and sanitation programmes in rural Benin
978-90-5328-412-4
356 2011 Between High Expectations and Reality: An evaluation of
budget support in Zambia
978-90-5328-411-7
355 2011 Lessons Learnt: Synthesis of literature on the impact and
efectiveness of investments in education
978-90-5328-410-0
354 2011 Leren van NGOs: Studie van de basic education interventies
van geselecteerde Nederlandse NGOs
978-90-5328-409-4
353 2011 Education maters: Policy review of the Dutch contribution to
basic education 19992009
978-90-5328-408-7
352 2011 Unfnished business: making a diference in basic education.
An evaluation of the impact of education policies in Zambia
and the role of budget support.
978-90-5328-407-0
351 2011 Confanza sin confnes: Contribucin holandesa a la educacin
bsica en Bolivia (2000-2009)
978-90-5328-406-3
350 2011 Unconditional Trust: Dutch support to basic education in
Bolivia (2000-2009)
978-90-5328-405-6
349 2011 The two-pronged approach Evaluation of Netherlands
Support to Formal and Non-formal Primary Education in
Bangladesh, 1999-2009
978-90-5328-404-9
348 2011 Schoon schip. En dan? Evaluatie van de schuldverlichting aan
de Democratische Republiek Congo 2003-2010 (Verkorte
samenvating)
978-90-5328-403-2
347 2011 Table rase et aprs? Evaluation de lAllgement de la Dete
en Rpublique Dmocratique du Congo 2003-2010
978-90-5328-402-5
346 2011 Vijf Jaar Top van Warschau De Nederlandse inzet voor
versterking van de Raad van Europa
978-90-5328-401-8
Annexes
| 110 |
345 2011 Wederzijdse belangen wederzijdse voordelen Evaluatie van
de Schuldverlichtingsovereenkomst van 2005 tussen de Club
van Parijs en Nigeria. (Verkorte Versie)
978-90-5328-398-1
344 2011 Intrts communs avantages communs Evaluation de l
accord de 2005 relatif l allgement de la dete entre le Club
de Paris et le Nigria. (Version Abrge)
978-90-5328-399-8
343 2011 Wederzijdse belangen wederzijdse voordelen Evaluatie van
de schuldverlichtingsovereenkomst van 2005 tussen de Club
van Parijs en Nigeria. (Samenvating)
978-90-5328-397-4
342 2011 Intrts communs avantages communs Evaluation de
laccord de 2005 relatif lallgement de la dete entre le Club
de Paris et le Nigria. (Sommaire)
978-90-5328-395-0
341 2011 Mutual Interests mutual benefts Evaluation of the 2005
debt relief agreement between the Paris Club and Nigeria.
(Summary report)
978-90-5328-394-3
340 2011 Mutual Interests mutual benefts Evaluation of the 2005
debt relief agreement between the Paris Club and Nigeria.
(Main report)
978-90-5328-393-6
338 2011 Consulaire Dienstverlening Doorgelicht 2007-2010 978-90-5328-400-1
337 2011 Evaluacin de las actividades de las organizaciones holandesas
de cofnanciamiento activas en Nicaragua
336 2011 Facilitating Resourcefulness. Synthesis report of the
Evaluation of Dutch support to Capacity Development.
978-90-5328-392-9
335 2011 Evaluation of Dutch support to Capacity Development. The
case of the Netherlands Commission for Environmental
Assessment (NCEA)
978-90-5328-391-2
- 2011 Aiding the Peace. A Multi-Donor Evaluation of Support to
Confict Prevention and Peacebuilding Activities in Southern
Sudan 2005 - 2010
978-90-5328-389-9
333 2011 Evaluacin de la cooperacin holandesa con Nicaragua
2005-2008
978-90-5328-390-5
332 2011 Evaluation of Dutch support to Capacity Development. The
case of PSO
978-90-5328-388-2
331 2011 Evaluation of Dutch support to Capacity Development. The
case of the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy
(NIMD)
978-90-5328-387-5
330 2010 Evaluatie van de activiteiten van de
medefnancieringsorganisaties in Nicaragua
978-90-5328-386-8
329 2010 Evaluation of General Budget Support to Nicaragua 2005-2008 978-90-5328-385-1
328 2010 Evaluatie van de Nederlandse hulp aan Nicaragua 2005-2008 978-90-5328-384-4
327 2010 Impact Evaluation. Drinking water supply and sanitation
programme supported by the Netherlands in Fayoum
Governorate, Arab Republic of Egypt, 1990-2009
978-90-5328-381-3
326 2009 Evaluatie van de Atlantische Commissie (2006-2009) 978-90-5328-380-6
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
| 111 |
325 2009 Beleidsdoorlichting van het Nederlandse exportcontrole- en
wapenexportbeleid
978-90-5328-379-0
- 2009 Evaluation policy and guidelines for evaluations No ISBN
324 2009 Investing in Infrastructure 978-90-5328-378-3
- 2009 Synthesis of impact evaluations in sexual and reproductive
health and rights
978-90-5328-376-9
323 2009 Preparing the ground for a safer World 978-90-5328-377-6
322 2009 Draagvlakonderzoek. Evalueerbaarheid en resultaten 978-90-5328-375-2
321 2009 Maatgesneden Monitoring Het verhaal achter de cijfers 978-90-5328-374-5
320 2008 Het tropisch regenwoud in het OS-beleid 1999-2005 978-90-5328-373-8
319 2008 Meer dan een dak. Evaluatie van het Nederlands beleid voor
stedelijke armoedebestrijding
978-90-5328-365-3
318 2008 Samenwerking met Clingendael 978-90-5328-367-7
317 2008 Sectorsteun in milieu en water 978-90-5328-369-1
316 2008 Be our guests (sommaire) 978-90-5328-372-1
316 2008 Be our guests (summary) 978-90-5328-371-4
316 2008 Be our guests (Main report English) 978-90-5328-371-4
316 2008 Be our guests (samenvating) 978-90-5328-370-7
316 2008 Be our guests (hoofdrapport) 978-90-5328-370-7
315 2008 Support to Rural Water Supply and Sanitation in Dhamar and
Hodeidah Governorates, Republic of Yemen
978-90-5328-368-4
314 2008 Primus Inter Pares; een evaluatie van het Nederlandse
EU-voorziterschap 2004
978-90-5328-364-6
313 2008 Explore-programma 978-90-5328-362-2
312 2008 Impact Evaluation: Primary Education Zambia 978-90-5328-360-8
311 2008 Impact Evaluation: Primary Education Uganda 978-90-5328-361-5
310 2008 Clean and Sustainable? 978-90-5328-356-1
309 2008 Het vakbondsmedefnancieringsprogramma Summary English 978-90-5328-357-8
309 2008 Het vakbondsmedefnancieringsprogramma Resumen Espaol 978-90-5328-357-8
309 2008 Het vakbondsmedefnancieringsprogramma 978-90-5328-357-8
308 2008 Het Nederlandse Afrikabeleid 1998-2006. Evaluatie van de
bilaterale samenwerking
978-90-5328-359-2
308 2008 Het Nederlandse Afrikabeleid 1998-2006. Evaluatie van de
bilaterale samenwerking (Samenvating)
978-90-5328-359-2
307 2008 Beleidsdoorlichting seksuele en reproductieve gezondheid en
rechten en hiv/aids 2004-2006
978-90-5328-358-5
If you would like to receive a publication in printed form, please send an e-mail to
IOB@minbuza.nl, mentioning the title and ISBN number.
| 112 |
Published by:
Ministry of Foreign Afairs of the Netherlands
Policy and Operations Evaluation Department (IOB)
Layout: VijfKeerBlauw, Rijswijk
Print: Zalsman BV
ISBN: 978-90-5328-439-1
Ministry of Foreign Afairs of the Netherlands | April 2013
Titel van het rapport | IOB Evaluatie | nr. 000 | Titel van het rapport | IOB Evaluatie | nr. 000 | Titel van het rapport | IOB Evaluatie | nr. 000 | Titel van het rapport | IOB Evaluatie | nr. 000 | Titel van het
I
O
B

S
t
u
d
y

|

n
o
.

3
7
8
Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries | IOB Study | no. 378 | Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries | IOB Study | no. 378 Public-Private Partnerships in developing countries
Published by:
Ministry of Foreign Afairs of the Netherlands
Policy and Operations Evaluation Department (IOB)
P.O.Box 20061 | 2500 eb The Hague | The Netherlands
www.government.nl/foreign-policy-evaluations
Ministry of Foreign Afairs of the Netherlands | April 2013
13Buz616814 | E
Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are a
relatively recent phenomenon in international
development cooperation. Current policy
documents frequently refer to expectations
regarding their potential contributions to global
development goals. The growing international
atention was frmly backed by the Netherlands
government. However, there are still few
diagnostic tools available to determine when and
how PPPs represent a preferred institutional
arrangement. Moreover, the empirical evidence
on the efectiveness and efciency of PPPs is
notably scarce.
This IOB study provides insights in the variety of
PPP arrangements. A major conclusion derived
from this review is that PPP evaluations focus on
resource sharing but pay litle atention to the
risk-sharing and revenue distribution dimension
of partnerships.