Towards More Efficient Public Investment Management Sungmin Han Associate Fellow Public and Private Infrastructure Investment Management Center(PIMAC) KDI Nov 2015
History of Project Appraisal in South Korea 1960s 1970s 1991 1994 1999 Most infrastructure investment projects had been evaluated by foreign organizations or experts. Investment Project Deliberative Committee (IPDC) (Economic Planning Board (EPB)) The Regulations on the Major Investment Project Review amended (EPB dir.) The Budget Office in MFE Introduction of preliminary feasibility study Implementation of new infrastructure investment as suggested by the Five-year Economic Development Plans Review of the feasibility of investment projects costing over 10 billion Korean Won (KRW) As the nation began to expand steadily at an unprecedented rate financially and economically, the number of projects and their value increased, rendering effective analysis increasingly difficult. Review of projects with total investment of KRW 50 billion or more; Internal review of projects with KRW 10 billion to just under KRW 50 billion by an operating division Difficult to review the results of feasibility assessments of major projects submitted by each operating division Total Projects Cost Management (TPCM) The Private Capital Inducement Promotion Act The Public Investment Management Center (PIMA) at the Korea Development Institute (KDI) to undertake prefeasibility studies was established (2000) The Act on Private Participation in Infrastructure (MPB); the amendment of PPP Act 1
A Need for Effective PIM System ( I ) Considerable increase in government expenditure for social welfare and physical Infrastructure Consolidated Fiscal Expenditures and Net lending by Central Government 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 (unit: trillion won, % of expenditure) Welfare Physical Infrastructure 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Source: Ministry of Strategy and Finance, Korea. Consolidated Fiscal Balance, Respective Year. 2
A Need for Effective PIM System ( II ) Criticism against Feasibility Studies by Line Ministries : Lack of Objectivity and Reliability in FS The baseline cost of the Seoul-Busan High Speed Rail (KTX) project has more than tripled from 5.5 trillion KRW ($5.5 billion USD) to 18.5 trillion KRW ($18.5 billion USD). A feasibility review committee investigated the FS. Thirty-two out of thirty-three projects (1994-98) were evaluated as feasible in FS. Serious flaws in terms of transparency, credibility and objectivity 3
A Need for Effective PIM System ( III ) What went wrong and why? Polluted by interested groups No independent review process Economic value isolated from social value Lack of standardized guidelines and databases Capital project budgeting inconsistent with the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) budget Ex ante appraisal, and nobody cares thereafter 4
Evolution of PIM System 1994 1999 2003 2005 2006 TPCM introduced PFS introduced RSF introduced RSF guidelines developed IEBP introduced RSF strengthened PE introduced RDF introduced TPCM (Total Project Cost Management) PFS (Pre-Feasibility Study) RSF (Re-assessment Study of Feasibility) IEBP (In-Depth Evaluation of Budgetary program) RDF (Re-assessment of Demand Forecast) PE (Performance Evaluation) VE introduced in 2000 and reinforced in 2005 National Finance Act legislated 5
Introduction of PFS New paradigm of PIM As a government reform initiatives in response to the financial crisis of 1997-98, a new PIM started in 1999. Introduction of Preliminary Feasibility Study (PFS) Short and brief evaluation of a project to produce information for budgetary decision Owned by the Ministry of Strategy and Finance (MOSF) and evaluated by independent evaluation unit, PIMAC Clear and explicated binary judgment (feasible/non-feasible) on the overall feasibility 6
Implementation Procedure of PFS Line Ministry Ministry of Strategy & Finance KDI (PIMAC) 1 st Stage Select and Submit PFS candidate projects (pre PFS Committee) Select PFS Projects in consultation with PFS committee Consultation based on : Eligibility for central government grants Urgency of the Projects Concreteness of the project plan Determination of the Priorities by considering The long-term National Comprehensive Plan, National Policy Direction 2 st Stage 3 st Stage Request PFS Make Investment Decision Organize Teams/ Conduct PFS Submit PFS Report Conduct Feasibility Study or Stop the Project Announcement & Report to the National Assembly Open to the Public 7
1 st Stage: Selection of Target Projects Subject to PFS Line Ministry: Selection of PFS Candidate Projects and Submission of Project Proposals to MOSF All new large-scale projects with total costs amounting to 50 billion KRW (about 50 Million USD) or more are subject to PFS. In principle, line ministries submit a project proposal to MOSF two years before the project. PIMAC: Setting Forth its Views based on Project Proposals Consultation based on eligibility for central government grants, urgency of the projects and concreteness of the project plan MOSF: Selection of target projects subject to PFS in consultation with PFS committee Eligible projects are selected from the PFS request submissions through a PFS committee. 8
1 st Stage: Coverage of PFS Initially focused on economic infrastructure, PFS has expanded to social infrastructure, non-infrastructure (e.g. R&D, welfare) programs, SOE projects and tax expenditure program. Tax Expenditure Program PFS on SOE Projects Social Infrastructure Non-infrastructure (R&D, Welfare program) PFS on Transport 9
2 nd Stage: Setting Out PFS Receiving project proposals of line ministries from MOSF, PIMAC sets out PFS and objectively evaluates project feasibility for 6 months. In the early stages: organizing PFS team(external + Internal Experts), inquiring related data, addressing issues, studying PFS guidelines, etc Well developed evaluation guidelines Detailed description of methodology and procedures of PFS implementation to avoid ambiguity PFS guidelines by sector : Roads, rail, seaports, airports, dams, and cultural facilities Using the same dataset for different projects in the same sector Continuous revision of guidelines through academic research 10
2 nd Stage: Evaluation Various values are incorporated and evaluated. Various values (economic efficiency, policy consistency, relevant plans and policy directions, environmental impact, regional equity, projectspecific factors) are incorporated in the frame of PFS. Multi-criteria decision making technique(ahp) is finally adopted to combine quantitative and qualitative elements of evaluation. Giving a weight on each element through pair-wise comparison A project is evaluated as feasible if AHP score is 0.5 point or more out of 1.0 point. PFS results are rarely overruled by budget ministry and the National Assembly. Range of weight: Economic analysis 40~50%, Policy analysis 25~35%, Balanced regional development analysis -20~30% 11
2 nd Stage: Flowchart of PFS Analysis Project proposal Background study Review of statement of purpose Collect socio-economic, geographic, and technical data Brainstorming (Other Alternatives) PFS issues raised Economic analysis Demand analysis Cost estimation Benefit estimation Cost-benefit analysis Sensitivity analysis Financial analysis Policy analysis Consistency with higher-level plan and policy directions Project risk (financing and environmental impacts) Project-specific evaluation item Balanced regional development analysis Regional backwardness index analysis Regional economic impacts Analytic Hierarchy Process Overall feasibility Prioritization Financing and policy suggestion 12
3 rd Stage: Investment Decision Receiving the PFS result from PIMAC, MOSF makes an investment decision based on it. Submission of the PIMAC s PFS full report to MOSF when PIMAC completes PFS MOSF announces the result to the National Assembly. Go or Stop decision In case of a project found feasible(go decision), line ministries conduct feasibility study in more detail. PIMAC announces the report to the public through the web. The public can be readily accessible to the web and download PFS reports from it. 13
3 rd Stage: PIMAC, KDI Website 14
Number of PFS Executed and Total Project Cost (1999~2014) (Number) (Trillion) 70 63 40 60 50 40 30 20 20 30 41 30 32 55 30 52 46 38 48 43 35 13 36 35 30 25 20 15 10 10 5 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 # of PFS executed total project cost 0 Note: 1) PFS completed as of 31 Dec 2014. 2) About 60 PFS conducted by other organizations are not included. 15
Proportion of Feasible Projects and Total Project Cost Saving (1999~2014) (Percent) 90% (Trillion) 25 80% 74.5% 75.0% 74.4% 76.9% 75.0% 70% 60% 50% 65.0% 53.3% 43.3% 59.4% 63.3% 53.8% 56.5% 68.4% 68.3% 69.4% 63.2% 20 15 40% 30% 34.1% 10 20% 10% 5 0% 0 Proportion of feasible projects Saving Project Cost Total Saving Project Cost Note: 1) PFS completed as of 31 Dec 2014. 2) About 60 PFS conducted by other organizations are not included. 16
Japan Greece Italy Portugal Spain Belgium Ireland France OECD - Average United States Euro area Austria Hungary United Kingdom Canada Iceland Slovenia Germany Netherlands Israel Finland Slovak Republic Denmark Poland Czech Republic Sweden Switzerland New Zealand Korea Australia Norway Luxembourg Estonia Challenges and the Way forward International comparison of general gov t debt levels shows Korea has a sound fiscal condition compared to other countries. 250 (%) (2014) 200 150 100 112.0 50 36.7 0 17
Challenges and the Way forward Public sector debt is a sustainable level, but the size and portion of the debt held by public corporations are relatively greater than other countries. 300 General Government Public Nonfinancial Corporations 250 31 200 150 100 50 0 11 235 15 2 124 110 9 91 28 56 6 37 31 Japan Portugal Canada United Kingdom Australia Korea Mexico 18
Challenges and the Way forward The new paradigm of public investment management system in early 2000 was a successful device to shift the trend of infrastructure development, strengthening fiscal efficiency. The PIM process in Korea need to be developed following good tradition of infrastructure development. Strong linkage of infrastructure development to national policy direction such as economic growth Guide of infrastructure development by a strategic vision of national development Capability to adjust investment priority by national economic development stage 19
THANK YOU!