PRIVATE SECTOR INVESTMENT IN KENYA POWER SECTOR私营部门的投资在肯尼亚电力部门

Chapter 25Problems and Applications1. The facts that countries import many goods and services yet must produce a large quantity ofgoods and services themselves to enjoy a high standard of living are reconciled by noting that there are substantial gains from trade. In order to be able to afford to purchase goods from othercountries, an economy must generate income. By producing many goods and services, then trading them for goods and services produced in other countries, a nation maximizes its standard of living.2. a. More investment would lead to faster economic growth in the short run.b. The change would benefit many people in society who would have higher incomes as theresult of faster economic growth. However, there might be a transition period in whichworkers and owners in consumption-good industries would get lower incomes, andworkers and owners in investment-good industries would get higher incomes. In addition,some group would have to reduce their spending for some time so that investment couldrise.3. a. Private consumption spending includes buying food and buying clothes; private investmentspending includes people buying houses and firms buying computers. Many otherexamples are possible. Education can be considered as both consumption and investment.b. Government consumption spending includes paying workers to administer governmentprograms; government investment spending includes buying military equipment andbuilding roads. Many other examples are possible. Government spending on healthprograms is an investment in human capital. This is truer for spending on health programsfor the young rather than those for the elderly.4. The opportunity cost of investing in capital is the loss of consumption that results from redirectingresources toward investment. Over-investment in capital is possible because of diminishingmarginal returns. A country can "over-invest" in capital if people would prefer to have higherconsumption spending and less future growth. The opportunity cost of investing in human capital is also the loss of consumption that is needed to provide the resources for investment. A countrycould "over-invest" in human capital if people were too highly educated for the jobs they couldget for example, if the best job a Ph.D. in philosophy could find is managing a restaurant.5. a. When a German firm opens a factory in South Carolina, it represents foreign directinvestment.b. The investment increases U.S. GDP because it increases production in the United States.The effect on U.S. GNP would be smaller because the owners would get paid a return ontheir investment that would be part of German GNP rather than U.S. GNP.6. a. The United States benefited from the Japanese investment because it made our capitalstock larger, increasing our economic growth.b. It would have been better for the United States to make the investments itself becausethen it would have received the returns on the investment itself, instead of the returnsgoing to Japan.7. Greater educational opportunities for women could lead to faster economic growth in the countriesof South Asia because increased human capital would increase productivity and there would beexternal effects from greater knowledge in the country. Second, increased educational1Chapter 25/Production and Growth 2opportunities for young women may lower the population growth rate because such opportunities raise the opportunity cost of having a child.8. a. Individuals with higher incomes have better access to clean water, medical care, and goodnutrition.b. Healthier individuals are likely to be more productive.c. Understanding the direction of causation will help policymakers place proper emphasis onthe programs that will achieve both greater health and higher incomes.9. a. Political stability could lead to strong economic growth by making the country attractive toinvestors. The increased investment would raise economic growth.b. Strong economic growth could lead to political stability because when people have highincomes they tend to be satisfied with the political system and are less likely to overthrowor change the government.10. a. If output is rising and the number of workers is declining, then output per worker must berising.b. Policymakers should not be concerned as long as output in the manufacturing sector is notdeclining. The reduction in manufacturing jobs will allow labor resources to move to otherindustries, increasing total output in the economy. An increase in productivity of workers(as measured by output per worker) is beneficial to the economy.。

银行的未来：赤道原则和项目融资市场【外文翻译】外文翻译原文Banking on the future:THE EQUATOR PRINCIPLES and the project financemarketMaterial Source:IFC Author: Suellen Lazarus When 10 banks adopted the Equator Principles in June 2003,little did they suspect that they would soon change the face of project finance with their decision.From humble beginnings, the Equator Principles have indeed altered the project finance market. There are now 27 financial institutions that have committed to using the Equator Principles to manage environmental and social risk in their project finance businesses. The Equator banks represented about 75% of the project finance market in 2003.What are the Equator Principles? They are a set of policies and procedures for assessing, managing and monitoring environmental and social risk in project finance lending.Rather than aspirational statements about protecting the environment, they provide a clear and measurable standard of sustainable good practice. Importantly, they also provide procedures for environmental and social assessments. The Equator Principles are based on the environmental and social policies and guidelines of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private sector development arm of the World Bank Group.Today, successful and broad syndication of a project finance deal means Equator compliance is expected. The fact that this has happened is testimony to the change that is underway in the financial markets. Environmental and social Steward ship is notjust seen as something that is nice to do.it is an essential component of risk management and good business.The transformation in bank thinking on environmental and social issues stands in sharp contrast to attitudes of just a few years ago. While not disregarding environmental and social issues, most banks saw these as the responsibility of project sponsors who were to determine appropriate standards and to access, manage and monitor compliance. Consistent standards or procedures were not applied. The Change in the banking industry reflects a growing awareness and concern about sustainability issues globally.George Blankenship, a consultant based in Denver who often advises companies in the extractive industries, notes, Those of us providing consulting services to the extractive industries have seen increased interest in compliance with the Equator Principles from companies looking to obtain financing from the bank market. But we are also seeing increased interest in Equator compliance from companies who are self financing projects, because they believe that compliance.Preserves future financing and merger, acquisition or divestiture options, which increasingly depend on the environmental and social quality of a company's entire Portfolio of projects. PricewaterhouseCoopers 2003 survey of CEOs from 43 countries found that 79% of CEOs agreed that sustainability is vital to the profitability of any company, up from 69% in 2002. Not surprisingly given these results, environmental impact of business operations is now being actively managed by a substantial majority (71%) of companies surveyed. The message from business Leaders is that sustainability is an integral part of creating value, not just an add-on.As the Equator banks move from adoption to implementation, a change process is occurring within each of the financial institutions. For banks that adopt, the first step is to evaluate what activities and staff are affected and how the new procedures will be incorporated into their operations. An Equator manager within a bank is often identified or recruited, and, in some cases, a full sustainability department has been created. Credit procedures are rewritten and decisions are made as to what credit committee will be responsible for overseeing environmental and social issues. Staffs are trained and guidance must be provided to staff in offices throughout the world. Internal audit procedures are adapted to monitor compliance with these new policies.The question that is often asked of banks is whether they are turning down deals as a result of adopting Equator. Yes, they are, but they surely will not disclose the names of the deals they turned down. The new procedures place emphasis on project categorization, which classifies the environmental and social impact of each project, and sponsor assessment, which considers the sponsor’s commitment and capacity to effectively manage environmental and social issues. High impact projects with high risk sponsors are on the exclusion list of most, if not all, Equator banks. While banks do not like to turn down deals, prudent risk management drives this decision.Most strikingly, the Equator Principles have fostered cooperation amongstbanks that are otherwise competitors and are not accustomed to sharing unless in the context of a deal. Having agreed to provide a level playing field on environmental and social standards, the banks are actively working together topromote best practice in implementation of the principles. Regular coordination meetings are held to facilitate implementation. Most recently, the banks met with project sponsors in London to hear their views on the underlying policies and procedures of Equator. Attending the meetings were representatives from the oil and gas, mining, and power industries as well as several industry associatio ns. In light of civil society’s interest in successful implementation and monitoring results of the Equator Principles, the banks are also meeting with representatives of these organizations.With its policies at their foundation, IFC has a real stake in E quator’s success. IFC has now provided training in its environmental and social policies and procedures to almost 700 staff at 15 Equator banks, with more scheduled in the coming months. Training is tailored to the needs of the individual bank and relies on case studies drawn from the bank’s own experiences. Understanding that successful implementation depends on the successful interaction of a number of parties within an institution, the banks are not only training project finance professionals, but credit officers, public affairs managers, lawyers, and even Board members.IFC’s Safeguard Policies for managing the social and environmental risk of private sector operations in emerging markets are currently being updated, and IFC is consulting with the Equator financial institutions, as well as other stakeholders such as governments, clients, and NGOs, as part of the update process. The update process is designed to clearly state minimum requirements applicable to all projects, streamline the policies for easier application, fill policy gaps and more fully incorporate the concept of sustainability. As the banks rely on these policies, it isvital that they and their clients understand and are comfortable with the proposed changes.As environmental and social responsibility has grown, so has the expectation that firms will report on their sustainability performance. For the Equator banks too, transparency will be key to promoting accountability, and reporting on results will become an important responsibility for each bank. While client confidentiality will prevent disclosure of information on individual deals, each bank will need to consider how it reports its Equator performance. Many banks already issue regular sustainability reports. In September2004, ABN AMRO released its first such report, and quickly established itself as a leader in the Netherlands in sustainabilityreporting as determined by a government commissioned study of 175 Dutch companies. This is a good beginning for the Equator banks.Now that Equator has reached a critical mass in the banking industry, where does it go from here? Once a bank begins systematically considering environmental and social issues in its project finance business, inevitably it will begin looking at these issues in other aspects of its business. Adapting Equator or incorporating other mechanisms to manage environmental and social issues in corporate finance, retail banking and their own internal operations will be up to each bank, and for many banks this process is underway. The next frontier will also be broadening the scope of the Equator Principles to other types of financial institutions active in project financing including export credit agencies (there is now one that has adopted Equator), bilateral agencies and banks in developing countries (there are already four that have adopted Equator).The movement towards globally recognized environmental and social standards that the Equator Principles have set in motion will result in better project outcomes and reduced costs, while above all promoting sustainability. From a simple but bold initiative, it is an impressive outcome.译文银行的未来：赤道原则和项目融资市场资料来源:IFC 作者：by Suellen Lazarus 当2003年6月10家银行采用了赤道原则时，他们一点也不怀疑，他们很快将面对融资项目，他们决定从谦卑的态度开始。

2.1 our purpose and ambition the pricewaterhousecoopers purpose is: “our primary purpose is to build trust and enhance value for our clients andtheir stakeholders while setting high standards for the conduct of business andleading our profession.”- samuel a dipiazza jr, chief executive officer, pricewaterhousecoopersinternational limited, 2003 global annual review the pricewaterhousecoopers ambition is: 2.2 our values our core values of excellence, teamwork and leadership are the foundation of the pricewaterhousecoopers organisation. guiding the actions of all pricewaterhousecooperspeople, these values are what we stand for as an organisation. together with agroup of ninesupporting values, they will serve as a consistent global beacon for decision making in pwc. but to create the culture that will deliver our strategy, we must do more thansimply talk about values:we must live and breathe them. the first step in giving life to our values is to understand them. the followingdiagram gives thedefinitions of our 12 values - the three core values, and the nine supportingvalues.2.3 our positioning – connected thinking *what we do – industry focused service pricewaterhousecoopers provides industry-focused assurance, tax and advisoryservices for public and private clients primarily in four areas: ???? corporate accountability risk management structuring and mergers andacquisitions performance and process improvement our use of our networks, experience, industry knowledge and business understanding in each of those areas distinguishes the way we work. *why we do it – providing trust and quality the objectives of our service offerings are to build trust and enhance value.we apply our industry knowledge and professional expertise to identify, report,protect, realise and create value for our clients and their stakeholders. the strength of this value proposition is based on the breadth anddepth of our client relationships. we build networks around clients to provide themwith pwcs collective knowledge and resources. *how we work together – collaboratively within our own teams and with our clients, we are collaborative, open and direct.we push ourselves and our clients to think harder and beyond, to understand all ofthe consequences and to consider new perspectives. *what we value – people of skill and integrity we identify and recruit talents of exceptional promise, as well as 2.4 pwc - globally pwc firms help organisations and individuals create the value they’re looking for. we’re a network of firms in 158 countries with close to pwc is the brand under which member firms of pricewaterhousecoopers international limited (pwcil) operate and provide services. together, these firms form the pwc network. each firm in thenetwork is a separate legal entity and does not act as agent of pwcil or any other member firm. pwcil does not provide any services to clients.pwcil is not responsible or liable for the acts or omissions of any of its memberfirms nor can it control the exercise of their professional judgment or bind themin any way.2.5 pricewaterhousecoopers china, hong kong and singapore pwc china, hong kong, singapore and taiwan work together on a collaborative basis, subject to local applicable laws. collectively, we havearound 620 partners and a strength of 14,000 people. providing organisations with the advice they need, wherever they may be located,our highly qualified, experienced professionals listen to different points of viewto help organisations solve their business issues and identify and maximise theopportunities they seek. our industry specialisation allows us to help co-create solutions with our clients for theirsector of interest.we are located in these cities: beijing, hong kong, shanghai, singapore, taipei,chongqing, chungli, dalian, guangzhou, hangzhou, hsinchu, kaohsiung, macau, nanjing,ningbo, qingdao, shenzhen, suzhou,篇二：pwc面试组中的自我介绍要简洁让大家记住名字即可。

新加坡10年的金融投资者计划内容下载温馨提示：该文档是我店铺精心编制而成，希望大家下载以后，能够帮助大家解决实际的问题。

本文下载后可定制随意修改，请根据实际需要进行相应的调整和使用，谢谢!并且，本店铺为大家提供各种各样类型的实用资料，如教育随笔、日记赏析、句子摘抄、古诗大全、经典美文、话题作文、工作总结、词语解析、文案摘录、其他资料等等，如想了解不同资料格式和写法，敬请关注!Downloaded tips: This document is carefully compiled by the editor. I hope that after you download them, they can help you solve practical problems. The documentscan be customized and modified after downloading, please adjust and use it accordingto actual needs, thank you!In addition, our shop provides you with various types of practical materials, suchas educational essays, diary appreciation, sentence excerpts, ancient poems, classic articles, topic composition, work summary, word parsing, copy excerpts, other materials and so on, want to know different data formats and writing methods, please pay attention!随着时代的变迁和经济的不断发展，金融投资已经成为了越来越多人关注和参与的话题。

Public–private partnershipA public–private partnership (PPP) is a government service or private business venture which is funded and operated through a partnership of government and one or more private sector companies. These schemes are sometimes referred to as PPP, P3 or P3.PPP involves a contract between a public sector authority and a private party, in which the private party provides a public service or project and assumes substantial financial, technical and operational risk in the project. In some types of PPP, the cost of using the service is borne exclusively by the users of the service and not by the taxpayer.[1] In other types (notably the private finance initiative), capital investment is made by the private sector on the basis of a contract with government to provide agreed services and the cost of providing the service is borne wholly or in part by the government. Government contributions to a PPP may also be in kind (notably the transfer of existing assets). In projects that are aimed at creating public goods like in theinfrastructure sector, the government may provide a capital subsidy in the form of a one-time grant, so as to make it more attractive to the private investors. In some other cases, the government may support the project by providing revenue subsidies, including tax breaks or by removing guaranteed annual revenues for a fixed time period.There are usually two fundamental drivers for PPPs. Firstly, PPPs are claimed to enable the public sector to harness the expertise and efficiencies that the private sector can bring to the delivery of certain facilities and services traditionally procured and delivered by the public sector. Secondly, a PPP is structured so that the public sector body seeking to make a capital investment does not incur any borrowing. Rather, the PPP borrowing is incurred by the private sector vehicle implementing the project. On PPP projects where the cost of using the service is intended to be borne exclusively by the end user, the PPP is, from the public sector's perspective, an "off-balance sheet" method of financing the delivery of new or refurbished public sector assets. On PPP projects where the public sector intends to compensate the private sector through availability payments once the facility is established or renewed, the financing is, from the public sector's perspective, "on-balance sheet", however the public sector will regularly benefit from significantly deferred cash flows.Typically, a private sector consortium forms a special company called a "special purpose vehicle" (SPV) to develop, build, maintain and operate the asset for the contracted period.[1][2] In cases where the government has invested in the project, it is typically (but not always) allotted an equity share in the SPV.[3]The consortium is usually made up of a building contractor, a maintenance company and bank lender(s). It is the SPV that signs the contract with the government and with subcontractors to build the facility and then maintain it. In the infrastructure sector, complex arrangements and contracts that guarantee and secure the cash flows make PPP projects prime candidates for project financing. A typical PPP example would be a hospital building financed and constructedby a private developer and then leased to the hospital authority. The private developer then acts as landlord, providing housekeeping and other non-medical services while the hospital itself provides medical services.[1]Origins[edit]Pressure to change the standard model of public procurement arose initially from concerns about the level of public debt, which grew rapidly during themacroeconomic dislocation of the 1970s and 1980s. Governments sought to encourage private investment in infrastructure, initially on the basis of accountingfallacies arising from the fact that public accounts did not distinguish between recurrent and capital expenditures.The idea that private provision of infrastructure represented a way of providing infrastructure at no cost to the public has now been generally abandoned; however, interest in alternatives to the standard model of public procurement persisted. In particular, it has been argued that models involving an enhanced role for the private sector, with a single private-sector organization taking responsibility for most aspects of service provisions for a given project, could yield an improved allocation of risk, while maintaining public accountability for essential aspects of service provision.Initially, most public–private partnerships were negotiated individually, as one-off deals, and much of this activity began in the early 1990s.PPPs are organized along a continuum between public and private nodes and needs as they integrate normative, albeit separate and distinct, functions of society—the market and the commons. A common challenge for PPPs is allowing for these fluctuations and reinforcing the intended partnership without diminishing either sector. Multisectoral, or collaborative, partnering is experienced on a continuum of private to public in varying degrees of implementation according to the need, time restraints, and the issue at hand. Even though these partnerships are now common, it is normal for both private and public sectors to be critical of the other’s approach and methods. It is at the merger of these sectors that we see how a unified partnership has immediate impact in the development of communities and the provision of public services..In specific countriesBritainIn 1992, the Conservative government of John Major in the UK introduced the private finance initiative (PFI),[4] the first systematic programme aimed at encouraging public–private partnerships. The 1992 programme focused on reducing the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement, although, as already noted, the effect on public accounts waslargely illusory. The Labour government of Tony Blair, elected in 1997, expanded the PFI initiative but sought to shift the emphasis to the achievement of "value for money," mainly through an appropriate allocation of risk. However it has since been found that many programs ran dramatically over budget and have not presented as value for money for the taxpayer with some projects costing more to cancel than to complete.AustraliaA number of Australian state governments have adopted systematic programmes based on the PFI. The first, and the model for most others, is Partnerships Victoria.CanadaThe federal conservative government under Stephen Harper in Canada solidified its commitment to P3s with the creation of a crown corporation, P3 Canada Inc, in 2009. The Canadian vanguards for P3s have been provincial organizations, supported by the Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships established in 1993 (a member-sponsored organization with representatives from both the public and the private sectors). As a proponent of the concept of P3s, the Council conducts research, publishes findings, facilitates forums for discussion and sponsors an Annual Conference on relevant topics, both domestic and international. Each year the Council celebrates successful public-private partnerships through the National Awards Program held concurrently with the annual conference in November.At lower levels of government P3s have been used to build major infrastructure projects like transit systems, such as Viva (bus rapid transit) and Ontario Highway 407.ChinaThe municipal government of Shantou, China signed a 50-billion RMB PPP agreement with the CITIC group to develop a massive residential project spanning an area of 168 square kilometers, locating on the southern district of the city's central business district.[5] The project includes real estate development, infrastructure construction including a cross-harbor tunnel, and industry developments. The project, named Shantou Coastal New Town, aims itself to be a high-end cultural, leisure, business hub of the East Guangdong area.IndiaThe Government of India defines a P3 as "a partnership between a public sector entity (sponsoring authority) and a private sector entity (a legal entity in which 51% or more ofequity is with the private partner/s) for the creation and/or management of infrastructure for public purpose for a specified period of time (concession period) on commercial terms and in which the private partner has been procured through a transparent and open procurement system."[6]The union government has estimated an investment of $320 billion in the infrastructure in the 10th plan.[7] The major infrastructure development projects in the Indian state of Maharashtra (more than 50%) are based on the P3 model. In the 2000s, other states such Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu also adopted this model. Sector-wise, the road projects account for about 53.4% of the total projects in numbers, and 46% in terms of value. Ports come in the second place and account for 8% of the total projects (21% of the total value).[8] Other sectors including power, irrigation, telecommunication, water supply, and airports have gained momentum through the P3 model. As of 2011, these sectors are expected get an investment of Rs. 20,27,169 crore (according to 2006–2007WPI).[9]JapanIn Japan since the 1980s, the third sector (第三セクターdaisan sekutā?) refers to joint corporations invested both by the public sector and private sector.In rail transport terms, a third sector railway line is a short line or network of lines operated by a small operator jointly owned by a prefectural/municipal government and smaller interests. Third sector lines are generally former JR Group (or Japanese National Railways (JNR) before 1987) lines that were divested from the national company.PhilippinesThe Philippine Government maintains an online list of PPP projects.[10] Wikipedia articles on specific PPP projects in the Philippines are categorized intoCategory:Proposed infrastructure in the Philippines.Puerto RicoWikipedia articles on specific PPP projects in Puerto Rico are categorized into Category:Public-private partnerships in Puerto Rico.RussiaThe first attempt to introduce PPP in Russia was made in St. Petersburg (Law #627-100 (25.12.2006), "On St. Petersburg participation in public-private partnership").[11]Nowadays there are special laws about PPP in 69 subjects of Russian Federation.[12] But the biggest part of them are just declarations. Besides PPP in Russia is also regulated by Federal Law #115-FZ (21.07.2005) "On concessional agreements"[13] and Federal Law #94-FZ (21.07.2005) "On Procurement of Goods, Works and Services for State and Municipal Needs".[14]In some ways PPP is also regulated by Federal Law №116-FZ (22.07.2005) "On special economic zones"[15] (in terms of providing business benefits on special territories - in the broadest sense it is a variation of PPP).Still all those laws and documents do not cover all possible PPP forms.In February 2013 experts rated Subjects of Russian Federation according to their preparedness for implementing projects via public-private partnership. The most developed region is Saint Petersburg (with rating 7.8), the least – Chukotka (rating 0.0).By 2013 there are near 300 public-private partnership projects in Russia.[16]United StatesThe West Coast Infrastructure Exchange (WCX), a State/Provincial Government-level partnership between California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia that was launched in 2012, conducts business case evaluations for selected infrastructure projects and connects private investment with public infrastructure opportunities. The platform aims to replace traditional approaches to infrastructure financing and development with "performance-based infrastructure" marked by projects that are funded where possible by internal rates of return, as opposed to tax dollars, and evaluated according to life-cycle social, ecological and economic impacts, as opposed to capacity addition and capital cost.[17]Growth and declineFrom 1990 to 2009 nearly 1,400 PPP deals were signed in the European Union, representing a capital value of approximately €260 billion.[18] Since the onset of the financial crisis in 2008, estimates suggest that the number of PPP deals closed has fallen more than 40 percent.[19][20]Investments in public sector infrastructure are seen as an important means of maintaining economic activity, as was highlighted in a European Commission communication on PPPs.[21] As a result of the significant role that PPPs have adopted in the development of public sector infrastructure, in addition to the complexity of such transactions, the European PPP Expertise Centre (EPEC) was established to support public-sector capacity to implement PPPs and share timely solutions to problems common across Europe in PPPs.[22]PPPs provide a unique perspective on the collaborative and network aspects of public management. The advancement of PPPs, as a concept and a practice, is a product of the new public management of the late 20th century and globalization pressures. The term "public-private partnership" is prey to thinking in parts rather than the whole of the partnership, which makes it difficult to pin down a universally accepted definition of PPPs.U.S. city managers' motivations for exploring public-private service delivery vary. According to a 2007 survey, two primary reasons were expressed: cost reduction (86.7%) and external fiscal pressures, including tax restrictions (50.3%). No other motivations expressed exceeded 16%. In the 2012 survey, however, interest had shifted to the need for better processes (69%), relationship building (77%), better outcomes (81%), leveraging resources (84%), and belief that collaborative service delivery is "the right thing to do" (86%). Among those surveyed, the provision of public services through contracts with private firms peaked in 1977 at 18% and has declined since. The most common form of shared service delivery now involves contracts between governments, growing from 17% in 2002 to 20% in 2007. "At the same time, approximately 22% of the local governments in the survey indicated that they had brought back in-house at least one service that they had previously provided through some alternative private arrangement."[23]Controversy[edit]A common problem with PPP projects is that private investors obtained a rate of return that was higher than the government’s bond rate, even though most or all of the income risk associated with the project was borne by the public sector.[20]It is certainly the case that government debt is cheaper than the debt provided to finance PFI projects, and cheaper still than the overall cost of finance for PFI projects, i.e. the weighted average cost of capital (WACC). This is of course to attempt to compare incompatible and incomplete economic circumstances. It ignores the position of taxpayers who play the role of equity in this financing structure. Making a simple comparison, however, between the government’s cost of debt and the private-sector WACC implies that the government can sustainably fund projects at a cost of finance equal to its risk-free borrowing rate. This would be true only if existing borrowing levels were below prudent limits. The constraints on public borrowing suggest, nevertheless, that borrowing levels are not currently too low in most countries. These constraints exist because government borrowing must ultimately be funded by the taxpayer.A number of Australian studies of early initiatives to promote private investment in infrastructure concluded that, in most cases, the schemes being proposed were inferior to the standard model of public procurement based on competitively tendered construction of publicly owned assets (Economic Planning Advisory Commission (EPAC) 1995a,b; House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications Transport and Microeconomic Reform 1997; Harris 1996; Industry Commission 1996; Quiggin 1996). In 2009, the New Zealand Treasury, in response to inquiries by the new NationalParty government, released a report on PPP schemes that concluded that "there is little reliable empirical evidence about the costs and benefits of PPPs" and that there "are other ways of obtaining private sector finance", as well as that "the advantages of PPPs must be weighed against the contractual complexities and rigidities they entail".[24]One response to these negative findings was the development of formal procedures for the assessment of PPPs in which the focus was on "value for money" rather than reductions in debt. The underlying framework was one in which value for money was achieved by an appropriate allocation of risk. These assessment procedures were incorporated in the private finance initiative and its Australian counterparts from the late 1990s onwards.[citation needed] Another model being discussed is the public–private community partnership (PPCP), in which both the government and private players work together for social welfare, eliminating the prime focus of private players on profit.[citation needed] This model is being applied more in developing nations such as India.[citation needed]Privatisation of waterAfter a wave of privatisation of many water services in the 1990s, mostly in developing countries, experiences show that global water corporations have not brought the promised improvements in public water utilities. Instead of lower prices, large volumes of investment and improvements in the connection of the poor to water and sanitation, water tariffs have increased out of reach of poor households. Water multinationals are withdrawing from developing countries and theWorld Bank is reluctant to provide support.[25]The privatisation of the water services of the city of Paris was proven to be unwanted and at the end of 2009 the city did not renew its contract with two of the French water corporations.[26][27] After one year of being controlled by the public, it is projected that the water tariff will be cut by between 5% and 10%.[28]Contract management is a crucial factor in shared service delivery, and services that are more challenging to monitor or fully capture in contractual language often remain in municipal control. In the 2007 survey of U.S. city managers, the most difficult was judged to be the operation and management of hospitals, and the least difficult the cleaning of streets and parking lots. The study revealed that communities often fail to sufficiently monitor collaborative agreements or other forms of service delivery: "For instance, in 2002, only 47.3% of managers involved with private firms as delivery partners reported that they evaluate that service delivery. By 2007, that was down to 45.4%. Performance monitoring is a general concern from these surveys and in the scholarly criticisms of these arrangements."[29][23]Health servicesA health services PPP can be described as a long-term contract (typically 15–30 years) between a public-sector authority and one or more private sector companies operating as a legal entity. The government provides the strength of its purchasing power, outlines goals for an optimal health system, and empowers private enterprise to innovate, build, maintain and/or manage delivery of agreed-upon services over the term of the contract. The private sector receives payment for its services and assumes substantial financial, technical and operational risk while benefitting from the upside potential of shared cost savings.The private entity is made up of any combination of participants who have a vested interested in working together to provide core competencies in operations, technology, funding and technical expertise. The opportunity for multi-sector market participants includes hospital providers and physician groups, technology companies, pharmaceutical and medical device companies, private health insurers, facilities managers and construction firms. Funding sources could include banks, private equity firms, philanthropists and pension fund managers.For more than two decades public-private partnerships have been used to finance health infrastructure. Now governments are increasingly looking to the PPP-model to solve larger problems in healthcare delivery. There is not a country in the world where healthcare is financed entirely by the government[citation needed]. While the provision of health is widely recognized as the responsibility of government, private capital and expertise are increasingly viewed as welcome sources to induce efficiency and innovation. As PPPs move from financing infrastructure to managing care delivery, there is an opportunity to reduce overall cost of healthcare.The larger scope of Health PPPs to manage and finance care delivery and infrastructure means a much larger potential market for private organizations. Spending on healthcare among the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and BRIC nations of Brazil, Russia, India and China will grow by 51 percent between 2010 and 2020, amounting to a cumulative total of more than $71 trillion.[30] Of this, $3.6 trillion is projected to be spent on health infrastructure and $68.1 trillion will be spent on non-infrastructure health spending cumulatively over the next decade. Annually, spending on health infrastructure among the OECD and BRIC nations will increase to $397 billion by 2020, up from $263 billion in 2010. The larger market for health PPPs will be in non-infrastructure spending, estimated to be more than $7.5 trillion annually, up from $5 trillion in 2010.[30]Health spending in the United States accounts for approximately half of all health spending among OECD nations, but the biggest growth will be outside of the U.S. According to PwC projections, the countries that are expected to have the highest health spending growth between 2010 and 2020 are China, where health spending is expected to increase by 166 percent, and India, which will see a 140 percent increase. As health spending increases itis putting pressure on governments and spurring them to look for private capital and expertise.[30]Product development partnershipsProduct development partnerships (PDPs) are a class of public–private partnerships that focus on pharmaceutical product development for diseases of the developing world. These include preventive medicines such as vaccines and microbicides, as well as treatments for otherwise neglected diseases. PDPs were first created in the 1990s to unite the public sector's commitment to international public goods for health with industry's intellectual property, expertise in product development, and marketing.International PDPs work to accelerate research and development of pharmaceutical products for underserved populations that are not profitable for private companies. They may also be involved in helping plan for access and availability of the products they develop to those in need in their target populations. Publicly financed, with intellectual property rights granted by pharmaceutical industry partners for specific markets, PDPs are able to focus on their missions rather than concerns about recouping development costs through the profitability of the products being developed. These not-for-profit organizations bridge public- and private-sector interests, with a view toward resolving the specific incentive and financial barriers to increased industry involvement in the development of safe and effective pharmaceutical products.International product development partnerships and public–private partnerships include:Sandy Springs, Georgia, USA, City services are performed in a public-private partnership. Sandy Springs, at first glance, appears to be run just like other similarly sized cities, with a council-manager form of government. However, it is the first city in the nation to outsource services to such a great extent to a private sector company. The city's police department took over services from the county on July 1, 2006 with 86 Police Officers from all over the State of Georgia, and is now staffed by 128 officers. The city's fire department began operations in December 2006. The department consists of 97 full-time firefighters. It is staffed by 91 full-time firefighters and 52 part-time firefighters. The police department answered 98,250 calls in FY 2010 while the fire department handled 17,000 responses to 8,205 calls for service.The PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative (MVI) is a global program of the international nonprofit organization Program for Appropriate Technology in Health(PATH). MVI was established in 1999 to accelerate the development of malaria vaccines and ensure their availability and accessibility in the developing world.The Roll Back Malaria (RBM) Partnership was founded in 1998. RBM is the global framework for coordinated action against malaria. It forges consensus among key actors in malaria control, harmonises action and mobilises resources to fight malaria in endemic countries.The Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative (DNDi) was founded in 2003 as a not-for-profitdrug development organization focused on developing novel treatments for patients suffering from neglected diseases.Aeras Global TB Vaccine Foundation is a PDP dedicated to the development of effective tuberculosis (TB) vaccine regimens that will prevent TB in all age groups and will be affordable, available and adopted worldwide.FIND [1] is a Swiss-based non-profit organization established in 2003 to develop and roll out new and affordable diagnostic tests and other tools for poverty-related diseases.The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization is financed per 75% (750 $) by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has a permanent seat on its supervisory board.The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis & Malaria, a Geneva-based UN-connected organisation, was established in 2002 to dramatically scale up global financing of interventions against the three pandemics.The International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI), a biomedical public–private product development partnership (PDP), was established in 1996 to accelerate the development of a vaccine to prevent HIV infection and AIDS. IAVI is financially supported by governments, multilateral organizations, and major private-sector institutions and individuals.The International Partnership for Microbicides is a non-profit product development partnership (PDP), founded in 2002, dedicated to the development and availability of safe, effective microbicides for use by women in developing countries to prevent the sexual transmission of HIV. See also Microbicides for sexually transmitted diseases.Medicines for Malaria Venture (MMV) is a not-for-profit drug discovery, development and delivery organization, established as a Swiss foundation in 1999, based in Geneva. MMV is supported by a number of foundations, governments and other donors.The TB Alliance is financed by public agencies and private foundations, and partners with research institutes and private pharmaceutical companies to develop faster-acting, novel treatments for tuberculosis that are affordable and accessible to the developing world.A UN agency, the World Health Organization (WHO), is financed through the UN system by contributions from member states. In recent years, WHO's work has involved more collaboration with NGOs and the pharmaceutical industry, as well as with foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. Some of these collaborations may be considered global public–private partnerships (GPPPs); 15% of WHO's total revenue in 2012 was financed by private foundations.[31]The United Nations Foundation & Vodafone Foundation Technology Partnership, a five-year, $30 million commitment, leverages the power of mobile technology to support and strengthen humanitarian work worldwide. Partners include the World Health Organization (WHO), DataDyne, the mHealth Alliance, the World Food Program (WFP), Telecoms Sans Frontieres, and the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).A good resource on the origins, challenges, and benefits of PDPs is in this NBR interview: /research/activity.aspx?id=477Similar public-private partnerships outside the realm of specific public-health goods include:。

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. I want to thank Jim Wolfensohn for participating in this conference. This is hot off the presses. The Social Entrepreneurship in the Middle East: Towards Sustainable Development for the Next Generation, produced by the Wolfensohn –as in Jim Wolfensohn –Center for Development at the Brookings Institute –apparently, this is an issue whose time has come. And that’s because of all of you.So it is such a pleasure to be with you at one of the most exciting gatherings of entrepreneurs anywhere in the world today. And I join those who have already welcomed you to Washington and thank you for helping to make President Obama’s Summit on Entrepreneurship such a success. With this summit, we carry forward a conversation about the role that entrepreneurs can and must play in a healthy, thriving, prosperous, stable society, and how each of us, no matter where we live or who we are, can help to spread the principles and the benefits of entrepreneurship to people everywhere.I would imagine that some of you came wondering, well, what is this really all about and why is the United States and the Obama Administration sponsoring this conversation? And it is because we believe that by bringing together men and women from dozens of countries and all walks of life, this summit has made one thing clear: Being entrepreneurial does not depend on your job title or what you studied in school or even that you went to formal schooling at all. Entrepreneurship is a way of looking at the world and seeing not just obstacles, but opportunities; not just the world as it is, but the world as it could be, and then having the confidence, the determination, and the resources to move those worlds closer together.An entrepreneur is anyone with the imagination to conceive of a new product, process, or service, and the ability and persistence to turn that idea into something real. My father was a small businessperson. By that, I mean very small. He employed maybe one, two, or three laborers depending upon what he was doing. He ran a small printing plant for fabrics. He enlisted my mother, my brothers and me. We were often down there at the factory doing the work of pouring the paint into the silk screens and taking what was called a (inaudible) and pushing the paint through the design and then lifting the screen up and moving it down these very long tables. And it was really remarkable that my father made a success of that small business just by stint of hard work, persistence, commitment, and a belief that he could.Well, here with us today are people who would recognize that story. Masooma Habibi, who was born in an Afghan refugee camp, worked as a carpet weaver as a young girl, and now, at the age of 23, runs her own electrical engineering company in Kabul and has more than 20 employees. Ibrahim Qureshi, who –yes, let’s give her a round of applause. (Applause.)Ibrahim Qureshi, who founded Pakistan’s first domestic computer brand; and Rehema Jaldesa, who runs a construction and telecommunications company in Kenya, literally helping to build her country’s future; Daler Jumaev, who directs the only private power company inTajikistan. It used to provide just 12 hours of electricity a day, but thanks to his leadership, homes there now have power nearly around the clock.As these and so many other stories represented by all of you show, entrepreneurs create jobs, deliver services, help new industries get off the ground, raise the standard of living of direct employees, and then all who are touched by them. But the realm of the entrepreneur exists beyond business. Entrepreneurs are tackling problems of poverty and inequity, like Shaheen Mistri, whose nonprofit provides after-school tutoring to children in slums in India. They’re closing gaps in healthcare delivery and access to capital, like Amjid Ali, a banker who leads health and finance outreach programs for South Asian immigrants in England. They’re expanding access to communication technologies, helping people connect to each other and the larger world, like Papa Yusupha Njie, who trains young people in Web design and computer repair at his cyber cafe in The Gambia.Now, these accomplishments should be possible anywhere and everywhere. Human imagination is, after all, universal. Yet too often, people cannot follow where their imagination leads them because innovation is simply too difficult or too risky. As a result, good ideas have nowhere to go.So in light of these challenges, President Obama proposed this summit not only to celebrate your work, but to find ways to sustain, strengthen, and expand it. We knew that more dreams could come true if you could be put in touch with each other, and I’ve been delighted to hear about your discussions during the summit –the challenges you’ve addressed, the stories you’ve shared, the opportunities you’ve begun to explore together. And I hope these conversations will continue throughout the week at the events that our partners have planned for you in Washington.Because engaging through entrepreneurship can benefit every country represented here, including, I might add, the United States, by forging closer ties through increased trade, new educational exchanges, new partnerships in science and technology, greater cooperation on global challenges like hunger, poverty, or climate change. Relations between nations are sustained by the connections between their peoples. And so we are all stronger for your time together here.And I hope each of you will return home full of new ideas and a renewed sense of both purpose and possibility. But as you know, an entrepreneur’s life is not always easy, especially in the early days of a new enterprise when success is far from certain and partners may be hard to find. But every one of you is now part of this global community, with access to a network of information, advice, and support. And I hope you will help expand this community and turn the conversations you’ve had here into collaborations that endure.And as you do that, I hope you’ll remember that the fullest measure of your i mpact will not only be in dollars or dinars or rupees or rupiahs, but in the lives you change and the progress you inspire and the better futures you help to create. Because you have the power not only to drive economic growth, but to promote shared prosperity, call for open and accountable governance, help expand access to services like healthcare and education. These are the pillars of stable, thriving societies. And you are the people with the talent and opportunity to help build them.And you can count on the United States to be your partner, because this summit reflects the new approach to foreign policy that President Obama described last year at Cairo University, one that we have been putting into practice through partnerships based on shared values, mutual respect, and mutual responsibility. These partnerships are not only with governments, but they are with citizens like all of you who can help us generate local, regional, and global progress. So far, we have developed initiatives that will build on the work of this summit and support entrepreneurs worldwide in the months and years ahead.And here are some of the outcomes of this summit, as to what the United States intends to do. First, we are launching the Global Entrepreneurship Program. That’s a n initiative that will provide concrete support to new entrepreneurs, starting in Muslim-majority communities and eventually expanding to others worldwide. Through this program, we will work with the United States private sector partners and local businesses, along with civil society groups, to help create successful entrepreneurial environments. We will help sponsor business plan competitions to identify and support promising ideas. We will work to expand access to capital so entrepreneurs with a sound business concept will have access to credit to enable them to put their ideas to work. We will facilitate partnerships between business schools in the United States and educational institutions worldwide to share knowledge and help strengthen business education. We will support mentoring programs so someone starting out can benefit from the experience of someone who’s been down that road before.I’m program, in Egypt, coordinated by a team of Entrepreneurs in Residence from USAID. We will soon launch our second program in Indonesia, and we plan to expand to a dozen countries within the next two years. pleased to announce the launch of the Global Entrepreneurship Program’s first pilotSecond, we have established partnerships with two Silicon Valley-based organizations: the Global Technology and Innovation Partners, and the Innovators Fund. Both were started by U.S. venture capitalists and business leaders inspired by President Obama’s call at Cairo to support innovation and entrepreneurship in Muslim majority communities worldwide. Both partnerships will launch in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, and Malaysia, and will then expand from there.These new efforts will help increase access to seed funding, venture capital, and Silicon Valley’s technology and busines s expertise. The State Department will help facilitate this effort by connecting these funds with local partners and institutions. Now, our partnerships are inclusive. We seek to work with a wide range of private sector groups that are looking to support entrepreneurs worldwide.We will also be working to implement an exciting partnership that I launched this morning. Together with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, I announced a collaboration between the State Department and a new group called Partners for a New Beginning. This is a team of eminent Americans from across sectors and industries who will lead an effort to engage the U.S. private sector in carrying out our vision for a new beginning with Muslims in communities globally.For example, they might reach out to companies to provide equipment and technology for the Scientific Centers of Excellence overseas, or help launch internships and mentoring programs for emerging business leaders, or encourage angel investors in this country to partner with angel investors abroad. Through collaborations like these, Partners for a New Beginning will deepen ties between our people and institutions, and give more Americans the chance to contribute to this common endeavor.Partners for a New Beginning will be chaired by Secretary Albright. Its vice chairs will be Walter Isaacson, the president of the Aspen Institute, and Muhtar Kent, the chairman and CEO of Coca-Cola Company. And I want to thank them for their commitment and I really hope that this effort will inspire similar efforts from private sector leaders around the world.Fourth, I’m pleased to announce the launch of a new effort to expand access to mentors for aspiring and emerging entrepreneurs. We’re calling it the e-Mentor Corps. Mentors provide invaluable support and advice, but for too many entrepreneurs, good mentors are hard to find. You may be doing something that nobody else you know has ever attempted before. Through the e-Mentor Corps, an entrepreneur seeking a mentor can go online and find a person with the expertise they need on everything from securing financing to writing a business plan.Several private sector groups have pledged to supply mentors from their global networks, including Intel, Ernst & Young, the Kauffman Foundation, Endeavor, TechWadi, the Young Presidents’ Organization, and Babson College. The State Department has worked with several existing groups to create and develop online portals for the e-Mentor Corps. And in the days ahead, we will post links to those sites on the State Department homepage. We will also email you and other partners with the details of how to sign up. And we hope that in the future, each of you can become a mentor as well. The success of this program depends on its participants, and I urge you to join and to encourage others to do the same.Now, these initiatives comprise a first wave of programs to promote global entrepreneurship. But they reflect the Obama Administration’s commitment to a new approach to development, one based on investment, not aid; on supporting local leadership and ideas rather than imposing our own. We believe that this approach is more likely to yield lasting results in the form of greater security, dignity, prosperity, and opportunity for more people worldwide. And we call on other governments to help facilitate this progress.Now, in particular, we know that there are many obstacles to your doing business in many of the countries represented here. We need to encourage your governments to make the legal and commercial reforms needed to encourage trade, allow for the free flow of ideas, lower the barriers to launching new businesses.These reforms are critical to creating an environment in which entrepreneurs can flourish. I have emphasized all of these issues in my conversations with leaders around the world and will continue to do so. And for those countries willing to take the necessary steps, the United States will be a partner in creating environments that foster new businesses and foster an investment climate that will attract capital from everywhere.So we know there’s a lot of work to do, and we’re counting on you to help us. For if one thing unites all entrepreneurs, it is a belief in the possible, a belief that your world and the larger world can be made better, that new ideas can solve old problems, problems that are centuries old, and that one person’s hard work can lift many lives. Now, you know these things are true because you prove them every single day.I think one of the clear lessons that we have learned from working with so many people around the world over the course of so many years is that the old story about whether you give a person a fish or you help a person to learn to fish is so universally true. And what we want to do is unleash the talent and creativity that exists across the world, in every community. I’m often amazed at how resourceful people are in the poorest of the poor families and neighborhoods and communities. People solve problems that nobody’s helping them solve. And I often think abo ut the young people that I’ve worked with over the years who were denied opportunities for education, who didn’t come from stable families, who were told time and time again that they couldn’t do something or they weren’t worth anything, but somehow found the strength inside to discard what the outside world told them and to believe in themselves. It really takes that level of belief to overcome the obstacles that we see preventing progress, stifling creativity.So I urge you to continue to innovate, experiment, and lead; to use your resources and the power of your example to bring more people into this exciting activity that will improve lives, raise incomes, expand the horizons of so many who otherwise would not have a chance. I am absolutely convinced that building a strong economic foundation, creating a middle class, is essential to building good governance, rule of law, sustainable development, and so much more.So we may come from different places. We may have different histories, different cultures. But we believe in the power of the individual, or you would not be here. We believe that a person with a good idea, willing to work hard, can really make a difference.So I thank you for what you’ve already accomplished, and I look forward to hearing abou t all of your achievements in the years ahead. The United States is very proud to support you as you make your way, as you decide your future.And I finally would just ask that you think about other opportunities that could be provided through this partnership that we are creating for a new beginning. You are the experts in where you live, where you work, where you are building your futures. So please don’t be hesitant about letting us know what is working and what’s not working, because we believe in takin g hard looks at the facts and evidence. And if something’s not working, we want to change direction and get on a path that is more likely to succeed. We need your feedback, we need your honest and constructive criticism, we invite it. We more than invite it; we welcome it.So thank you for being part of this exciting adventure that we have launched today with this summit. I’m so pleased that you all were willing to travel here and maybe take a little bit of a chance on what you were going to find at the other end, to try to figure out what was this really all about and where was it leading, if anywhere. But now it’s up to both of us. We can put on the conference and provide the space, but it’s really up to each of you to determine whether thisventure can really be a success. But having read a lot of the bios and a lot of the information about the participants, I think it’s a pretty safe bet. So we’re going to work with you. And thank you for believing in a better future for everyone.。

投资受压资产正当时作者：尤里·本德尔来源：《新财富》 2013年第2期尽管存在流动性较差等潜在风险，但瑞士和美国的私人银行都认为，现在是出手受压资产的大好时机。

作为私人股本、房地产和对冲基金投资策略中的特殊品种，受压资产正快速进入富裕家庭的投资组合。

瑞士和美国的私人银行正在努力让客户相信，是时候购买处于破产或困境中企业的证券和资产了。

百达银行( Pictet)建议在投资组合中配置2.5%的受压资产。

但对于这家总部设在日内瓦的银行而言，与客户之间的沟通并不容易，因为紧张不安的客户通常不愿意持有这种听上去不太安全的资产。

“人们都想要眼下只能带来零回报的流动性资产，而我们建议将低流动性资产纳入投资组合中。

”百达咨询业务主管亚历山大·塔法兹（AlexanderTavazzi）表示。

这家极度保守的瑞士合伙制银行称，投资受压资产每年有望获得5%-6%的回报。

而在美国，据花旗集团私人银行介绍，作为对资金锁定代价的补偿，客户希望3-5年的投资回报率能达到15%-25%。

自2008年金融危机以来，相关的委托量不断增加。

随着经济周期的演变，投资者所交易的资产品种正在迅速发生变化。

美国最近一轮的周期始于5年前，当时投资者开始从金融机构购买低流动性的证券。

紧接着，商业与房地产权益成为热门标的，它们通常是企业或银行迫于财务压力而剥离的资产。

最新的趋势则变成了，投资无法进入传统资本市场的公司以及收购已破产的实体。

“精明的受压资产投资者能够在不同的周期、投资管理机构、行业和地区获得资产敞口，逐渐建立投资组合。

”花旗集团私人银行全球行政总裁简·弗雷泽（Jane Fraser）介绍道。

她认为当前的投资热点在欧洲，而不是美国。

“现在，投资者寻找的是被大幅低估的公司资产中严重不良的房地产，因为几乎没有人期待欧洲经济会立即复苏”。

受压资产投资通常由专业的投资经理负责，他们是由私人银行或养老金管理机构挑选出来为投资者服务的。