The socioeconomic impacts of public and private investments in infrastructure development in Burkina Faso

Date
2023-12
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University
Abstract
ENGLISH SUMMARY: Under Burkina Faso’s National Plan for Economic and Social Development (PNDES), a first phase of an ambitious programme for infrastructure development was adopted for 2016-2020. PNDES acknowledges the critical role that energy, transport and telecommunication infrastructure development will play in transforming the productive base of Burkina Faso’s economy. However, in recent years, there have been repeated calls from the public and Parliament for the Government to justify the massive investments in infrastructure envisioned by the PNDES. This research informs policymakers in Burkina Faso about the extent to which an increase in investment in infrastructure would impact Burkina Faso’s economy and proposes potential priority policy changes. The study quantified the impact of public and private investment in infrastructure in Burkina Faso on sovereign macro and microeconomic and socioeconomic indicators. Furthermore, the research assessed the funding sources (debt, tax and Official development assistance (ODA)) with the highest developmental return for transport, energy and telecommunication infrastructure. The research drew on Burkina Faso’s social accounting matrix (SAM) for 2017 to develop a dynamic Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model based on the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) standard model. Three policy simulations were performed to assess the impact of a 5% increased investment in infrastructure on economic growth in Burkina Faso. These simulations considered three financing sources, namely debt, tax and ODA. A benchmark equilibrium, which served as a baseline, was established in the first instance. The impact of the policy simulation on economic variables was then measured and compared against the baseline. Performing a simulation consisted of introducing a policy shock. In this study, the policy shock was about increased investment in infrastructure. To simulate an increase in investment, this study drew on Burkina Faso's fiscal and capital expenditure budgets to assume a 5% increase in investment to reflect the limited resources at play in Burkina Faso as well as the increasing national security budget that has become the major budget expenditure of the country over the last five years. In general, most CGE simulations would consider a 100% increase in investment in infrastructure. However, choosing any figure representing an increase would be relevant in the simulations. However, given the budgetary limitations in Burkina Faso, this study has considered an average increase of 5% in infrastructure spending. Overall, the research findings showed that increased investment in infrastructure would promote growth in Burkina Faso. As economic theory predicted and was evidenced by a wide range of empirical studies, infrastructure is a key determinant of economic growth in developing countries such as Burkina Faso. At the macroeconomic level, real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita for transport infrastructure increased, regardless of the funding source. Real GDP per capita increased by 0.64% for transport infrastructure financed through debt. It rose by 0.41% for transport infrastructure financed via tax and 1.29% for transport infrastructure funded through ODA. Imports increased irrespective of the funding source. Imports increased by 0.90% for debt-financed transport infrastructure, 0.42% for transport infrastructure financed via tax and 1.81% for transport infrastructure funded through ODA. Exports also rose, except for transport infrastructure financed through ODA. Exports rose by 0.40% and 0.78%, respectively, following an increase in investment in transport funded by debt and tax respectively. It fell by 0.28% against the baseline for transport infrastructure funded through ODA. Burkina Faso’s consumer purchasing power fell as Consumer Price Index (CPI) increased, irrespective of the funding source. CPI went up by 0.63% for increased investment in transport through debt, 0.12% for tax financing, and 0.50% for ODA financing. The balance of budget deficit further increased sharply by 13.89%.in the scenario of debt financing. However, it remained at the baseline level in the tax and ODA financing scenario of an increase in investment in transport infrastructure. Burkina Faso’s current account fell, irrespective of the infrastructure sector. The current account declined by 7.50% following increased investment in transport via debt. It also fell by 7.20% in the tax or ODA-financed scenarios. On the microeconomic side, primary, secondary, and tertiary sector production increased regardless of the funding source. The primary sector’s production rose by 0.24%, 0.11% and 1.43% for debt, tax, and ODA financing, respectively, with the latter recording the highest percentage change. Production of the secondary sector also rose. It grew by 0.38% for debt financing of transport infrastructure, 0.18% for tax-financed transport infrastructure and 1.39% for ODA financing. Similarly, the output of the tertiary sector also increased. It rose by 0.92%, 0.98% and 1.79%, respectively, for debt, tax, and ODA financing following an increase in investment in transport infrastructure. However, factor production prices generally rose except for non-agricultural labour. Agriculture labour costs rose by 0.05% for increased investment in transport infrastructure through debt. It also increased by 0.07% in the scenario of tax-financed transport infrastructure. ODA financing increased by 0.44% of the labour cost in the agricultural sector. The cost of labour outside the agricultural sector marginally fell. It went down by 0.01% if an increase in investment in transport was financed through debt. The costs decreased by 0.02% in the scenario of debt financing and by 0.27% if the increase was financed through ODA. Family labour costs also increased marginally by 0.05%, 0.07% and 0.44%, respectively, for debt, tax and ODA-financed increases in transport infrastructure. Capital costs rose by 0.18% in the case of an increase in transport infrastructure financed via debt and tax. It went up by 0.27% if the increase in transport investment was financed via ODA. Income from factor production increased irrespective of the funding source, except for labour outside the agricultural sector. Income from agriculture labour increased by 0.19%, 0.21% and 0.57%, respectively, in the scenario of an increase in investment financed through debt, tax and ODA. Family labour income also increased by 0.19% if the increase in investment was debt-financed. It rose by 0.21% in the case of debt and 0.57% in the ODA financing scenario. Capital income increased regardless of the funding source. It increased by 0.33% for debt- and tax-financed scenarios. It rose by 0.40% if the increase in transport investment was financed through ODA. Concerning socioeconomic variables, household income and consumption levels increased for poor and non-poor households, irrespective of the funding source. Household income for poor households increased by 0.61%, 0.42% and 1.26%, respectively, for debt-financed, tax-financed, and ODA-financed scenarios. Concerning non-poor households, their income would rise by 0.49% in the case of an increase in investment in transport infrastructure financed through debt. Their revenue increased by 0.35% for an increased investment financed via tax, which increased by 1.08% in the ODA-financed scenario. Poor households’ consumption levels would increase by 0.33% if an increase in transport infrastructure were financed by debt. It increased by 0.49% in the scenario of tax financing and by 1.47% for ODA financing. In the debt, tax and ODA financing scenarios, consumption levels for non-poor households rose by 0.34%, 0.39% and 1.23%, respectively. The unemployment rate reduced marginally in the case of an ODA-financed increase in transport infrastructure, while it grew by the same measure in the scenario of debt or tax financing. The unemployment rate was reduced marginally by 0.1 percentage points in the case of an ODA-financed increase in transport investment, while it grew by 0.1 percentage points in the debt or tax financing scenario. The findings of this study showed that ODA financing of the transport sector tends to be more beneficial to the economy of Burkina Faso as it would generate the highest increase in real GDP per capita (1.29%) compared to debt (0.64%) and tax (0.41%). For telecommunication infrastructure at the macroeconomic level, real GDP per capita rose above the baseline regardless of the funding source. Real GDP per capita rose as imports, sectoral output production, capital income, household income, and consumption levels increased. It increased above the baseline by 2.3%, 1.8% and 0.4%, respectively, for the telecommunications infrastructure financed through debt, tax, and ODA. CPI increased marginally by 0.1% following increased investment in telecommunication infrastructure financed through debt. Funding an increase in investment in telecommunication infrastructure via tax or ODA had no impact on CPI. Imports, similar to real GDP per capita, also rose, regardless of the funding source. Imports increased by 3.9%, 2.9%, and 0.2%, respectively, for debt, tax, and ODA financing, following increased investment in the telecommunications infrastructure. Exports, with the exception of tax financing, increased following increased investment in telecommunications. Exports rose by 0.20% and 0.30%, respectively, due to increased investment in telecommunication financed by debt and ODA. It fell by 0.5% against the baseline for telecommunication infrastructure financed through tax. The budget balance deficit increased sharply in the scenario of debt financing. Increased investment in the telecommunications infrastructure via debt also negatively impacted Burkina Faso’s budget balance, which increased by 13.89%. However, it did not have any impact on the budget balance if investment was channelled through tax and ODA. The current account declined by 8.49% in the scenario of a debt-financed increase in the telecommunications infrastructure. It fell by 7.25% for a tax-financed increase and by just 0.07% in the ODA-financed scenario of an increase in the telecommunications infrastructure. On the microeconomic side, the primary sector’s production rose by 2.5% for debt financing and 0.1% for tax and ODA financing. Similar to the primary industry, production of the secondary sector also rose nearly by the same levels. It grew by 2.5% for debt financing and 0.1% for tax and ODA financing. The output of the tertiary sector also increased. It rose by 2.5% for debt financing and 0.40% for tax and ODA financing after increased investment in the telecommunications infrastructure. Factor production prices collectively went up. Cost rose marginally by 0.2% for labour in the agricultural sector following an increase in infrastructure investment through debt and tax. In comparison, ODA financing resulted in a 0.6% increase in the cost of labour in the agricultural sector. Labour costs outside the agricultural sector marginally increased. It rose by 0.3% if an increase in investment in telecommunication was financed through debt and tax. Prices here remained stable in the case of increased investment financed through ODA. Family labour costs also rose marginally by 0.2% for debt and a tax-financed increase in the telecommunications infrastructure. Costs rose by 0.6% for ODA financing. Capital costs rose by 0.2% in the case of an increase in the telecommunications infrastructure financed via debt and tax. Costs rose by 0.3% if the increase in telecommunications investment was financed via ODA. Income from factor production increased regardless of the funding source. In the increased investment financed through debt, tax, and ODA scenario, revenue from agricultural labour increased by 0.19%, 0.21% and 0.57%, respectively. For debt and tax financing, labour income outside the agricultural sector rose by 0.3%. It did not change in the increased investment in telecommunications financed through the ODA scenario. Family labour income also rose by 0.19% if the increase in investment was debt-financed. It rose by 0.21% in the case of debt and 0.57% in the ODA financing scenario. Similarly, capital income increased by 0.33% for debt and tax-financed scenarios. It rose by 0.40% if the increased telecommunications investment was financed through ODA. Concerning socioeconomic variables, household income and consumption levels for the poor and non-poor rose, irrespective of the funding source. Income for poor households rose by 2.2%, 1.7%, and 0.4% for the debt-financed, tax-financed and ODA-financed scenarios, respectively. Non-poor household income also increased by 1.9%, 2.0%, and 0.4%, respectively, for debt, tax and ODA financing. Poor households’ consumption levels rose by 1.9% in the scenario of increased investment in telecommunication financed through debt. It increased by 2% and 0.4% for tax and ODA financing, respectively. Consumption levels for non-poor households rose by 1.8% for debt and tax financing, while it increased by 0.4% for ODA financing. The unemployment rate, following an increase in investment in telecommunication, marginally increased for all funding sources. It increased by 0.28% for ODA and tax financing. It rose by just 0.02% in the scenario of ODA financing. The results of this study also showed that in Burkina Faso, debt financing of increased investment in telecommunication infrastructure tends to be more beneficial to Burkina Faso’s economy as it would generate the highest increase in real GDP per capita (2.28%) compared to tax (1.78%) and ODA (0.39%). Concerning electricity-water-gas infrastructure, on the macroeconomic side, real GDP per capita increased, regardless of the funding source. It rose by 1.94%, 1.42%, and 0.32% for debt, tax and ODA financing for increased investment in the electricity, water, and gas infrastructure. CPI increased marginally by 0.01% for all funding sources following increased investment in the electricity, water, and gas infrastructure. Imports rose following an increase in investment in electricity-water-gas infrastructure regardless of the funding source. Imports increased above the baseline by 3.43%, 2.44%, and 0.21% for debt, tax, and ODA financing, respectively. Exports also increased following an increase in investment in electricity-water-gas, except for tax financing. It fell against the baseline for electricity-water-gas infrastructure financed through tax. Exports rose by 0.16% and 0.26% after an increase in investment in electricity, water, and gas financed by debt and ODA, respectively. However, it fell by 0.51% against the baseline for an electricity, water, and gas infrastructure funded via tax. The balance of the budget deficit increased further for debt financing of increased investment, while it did not change in the scenario of tax and ODA financing. It increased by 18.81%, meaning a significant negative impact on Burkina Faso’s budget balance. However, it does not have any impact on the budget balance if investment is channelled through tax and ODA. The current account fell for debt and tax financing while it slightly decreased for ODA financing. It declined by 7.68%, 6.37%, and 0.12%, respectively, for debt, tax and ODA-financed electricity, water, and gas infrastructure increase. At the microeconomic level, primary sector production increased regardless of the funding source. The production of the primary sector rose by 2.14%, 1.60% and 0.23% for debt, tax and ODA financing, respectively. Production of the secondary sector also rose. It grew by 2.17% for debt-financed electricity, water, and gas infrastructure, 1.70% for tax-financed electricity, water, and gas infrastructure and 0.17% for ODA financing. Similarly, the output of the tertiary sector also increased. It rose by 2.14%, 1.60%, and 0.23% for debt, tax and ODA financing, respectively, for increased investment in the electricity, water, and gas infrastructure. Costs rose for labour in the agricultural sector. Agricultural labour costs rose by 2.14% for increased infrastructure investment through debt. It also increased by 1.75% in the tax-financed scenario. ODA financing resulted in an increase of 0.12% in the agricultural sector’s labour cost. The cost of labour outside the agricultural sector marginally fell. It went down by 0.02% if an increase in electricity, water, and gas investment was financed through debt. The cost fell by 1.04% in the scenario of tax financing and by 0.28% if the increase was financed through ODA. Family labour costs also increased marginally by 2.17%, 1.70%, and 0.17%, respectively, for debt, tax, and ODA-financed increases in the electricity, water, and gas infrastructure. Capital costs rose by 2.14% in the case of an increase in the electricity, water, and gas infrastructure financed via debt. It also increased by 0.60% and 0.23%, respectively, for tax and ODA-financed increased investment in the electricity, water, and gas infrastructure. Income from factor production increased irrespective of the funding source, except for labour outside the agricultural sector, which fell by 0.21 in the scenario of ODA financing. Income from agricultural labour increased by 0.09%, 0.11% and 0.47%, respectively, in increased investment financed through debt, tax and ODA scenarios. Family labour income also increased by 0.09% if the increase in investment was debt-financed. It rose by 0.11% in the case of debt and 0.47% in the ODA financing scenario. Similarly, capital income increased by 0.16% for debt and tax-financed scenarios. It rose by 0.23% if the increase in electricity, water, and gas investment was financed through ODA. Regarding socioeconomic indicators, household income increased for poor and non-poor households, regardless of the funding source. Household income increased for poor households by 1.81%, 1.36%, and 0.32% for the debt-financed, tax-financed and ODA-financed scenarios, respectively. Non-poor household income rose by 1.57% in the scenario of increased investment in the electricity, water, and gas infrastructure financed through debt. Their revenue increased by 1.20% and 0.28% for the tax and ODA-financed scenarios, respectively. Consumption levels for the poor and non-poor households also rose in all funding scenarios. Poor households’ consumption levels would increase by 1.33% if an increase in the electricity, water, and gas infrastructure were financed by debt. It increased by 1.59% in the tax financing scenario and by 0.36% in the ODA financing scenario. Consumption levels for non-poor households rose by 1.45%, 1.36%, and 0.31% in the debt financing, tax, and ODA financing scenarios, respectively. The unemployment rate reduced marginally in the case of an ODA-financed increase in electricity-water-gas investment while it grew by the same amount in the scenario of debt or tax financing. Its rate reduced marginally by 0.17 percentage points in the case of an ODA-financed increase in electricity, water, and gas investment, while it grew by 0.07 percentage points in the debt or tax financing scenarios. Similar to the telecommunication sector, this study’s findings showed that for energy infrastructure, debt financing of an increase in investment in electricity, water and gas infrastructure tends to be more beneficial to Burkina Faso’s economy as it would generate the highest growth in real GDP per capita (1.94%) compared to tax (1.42%) and ODA (0.32%). Investment in infrastructure may have a positive or a negative impact on economic growth. Regardless of the financing source, investment in transport, telecommunications and water, electricity, and gas infrastructures positively affected real GDP per capita, imports, household income, and household consumption levels in Burkina Faso. Furthermore, an additional economic indicator, employment level, was positively affected by increased investment in telecommunications infrastructure through ODA. Tax financing of transport and debt financing positively affected the country’s exports. Similarly, ODA financing of telecommunication, water, electricity, and gas infrastructure also positively impacted Burkina Faso’s exports. Conversely, debt financing for transport had a negative impact on CPI and employment. Further, it also negatively affected exports for telecommunications and the water-electricity-gas infrastructure. Financing the transport infrastructure by ODA resulted in a negative impact on Burkina Faso’s exports. Burkina Faso’s budget balance further increased in the scenario of debt financing while the current account decreased, irrespective of the funding source and the infrastructure sector. This research provides evidence in support of the PNDES in which investment in infrastructure is a key strategic pillar. At the same time, this study calls on policymakers to carefully consider the funding source as it may negatively impact some economic variables. Moreover, this research urges policymakers to consider accounting for the wider value and benefits of infrastructure in Burkina Faso’s infrastructure investment strategic planning.
AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Onder Burkina Faso se Nasionale Plan vir Ekonomiese en Maatskaplike Ontwikkeling (NPEMO) is ’n eerste fase van ’n ambisieuse program vir infrastruktuurontwikkeling vir 2016-2020 aanvaar. NPEMO erken die kritieke rol wat die ontwikkeling van energie-, vervoer- en telekommunikasie-infrastruktuur sal speel om die produktiewe basis van Burkina Faso se ekonomie te transformeer. Meer onlang was daar egter herhaaldelike oproepe van die publiek en die parlement dat die regering die massiewe beleggings in infrastruktuur wat deur die NPEMO in die vooruitsig gestel word, regverdig. Hierdie studie lig beleidmakers van Burkina Faso in oor hoe ’n toename in infrastruktuur-belegging die land se ekonomie kan beinvloed en stel potensiele prioriteitsbeleidsveranderinge voor. Die studie het die impak van publieke en privaatbelegging in infrastruktuur in Burkina Faso op soewereine makro- en mikro-ekonomiese asook sosio-ekonomiese aanwysers gekwantifiseer. Verder het die navorsing die befondsingsbronne (skuld, belasting en amptelike ontwikkelingshulp (OOH)) beoordeel met die hoogste ontwikkelingsopbrengs vir vervoer-, energie- en telekommunikasie-infrastruktuur. Die navorsing het gebruik gemaak van Burkina Faso se sosiale rekeningkundige matriks (SRM) vir 2017 om ’n dinamiese berekenbare algemene ekwilibrium (BAE) model te ontwikkel wat op die Internasionale Voedselbeleid Navorsingsinstituut (IVBNI) se standaardmodel gebaseer is. Drie beleidsimulasies is uitgevoer om die impak van ’n 5% verhoogde belegging in infrastruktuur op ekonomiese groei in Burkina Faso te bepaal. Hierdie simulasies het drie finansieringsbronne oorweeg, naamlik skuld, belasting en OOH. ’n Maatstaf-ewewig, wat as basislyn gedien het, is in die eerste instansie vasgestel. Die impak van die beleidsimulasie op ekonomiese veranderlikes is toe gemeet en met die basislyn vergelyk. ’n Simulasie het bestaan uit die bekendstelling van ’n beleidskok wat in hierdie studie, die verhoogde belegging in infrastruktuur was. Om ’n toename in belegging te simuleer, het die studie Burkina Faso se fiskale en kapitaalbestedingsbegrotings gebruik om ’n 5% toename in belegging te veronderstel en sodoende Burkina Faso se beperkte hulpbronne te weerspieël. Addisioneel het dit ook die toenemende nasionale veiligheidsbegroting wat die afgelope vyf jaar die belangrikste begrotingsuitgawes van die land geword het, weerspieel. Oor die algemeen sal die meeste BAE-simulasies ’n 100% toename in belegging in infrastruktuur oorweeg. Die keuse van enige syfer wat ’n toename verteenwoordig, sal egter relevant wees in die simulasies. Gegewe die begrotingsbeperkings in Burkina Faso, het hierdie studie ’n gemiddelde toename van 5% in infrastruktuurbesteding oorweeg. Oor die algemeen het die navorsingsbevindinge getoon dat verhoogde belegging in infrastruktuur groei in Burkina Faso sal bevorder. Soos die ekonomiese teorie voorspel het en blyk uit 'n wye verskeidenheid empiriese studies, is infrastruktuur ’n belangrike bepaler van ekonomiese groei in ontwikkelende lande soos Burkina Faso. Op makro-ekonomiese vlak het die reele bruto binnelandse produk (BBP) per kapita vir vervoerinfrastruktuur toegeneem, ongeag die finansieringsbron. Die reele BBP per kapita het met 0,64% gestyg vir vervoerinfrastruktuur wat deur skuld gefinansier word. Dit het met 0,41% gestyg vir vervoerinfrastruktuur wat deur belasting gefinansier word en 1,29% vir vervoerinfrastruktuur wat deur OOH befonds word. Invoere het toegeneem ongeag die finansieringsbron. Invoere het met 0,90% toegeneem vir skuldgefinansierde vervoerinfrastruktuur, 0,42% vir vervoerinfrastruktuur wat deur belasting gefinansier word en 1,81% vir vervoerinfrastruktuur wat deur ODA befonds is. Uitvoere het ook gestyg, behalwe vir vervoerinfrastruktuur wat deur OOH gefinansier is. Uitvoere het onderskeidelik met 0,40% en 0,78% gestyg na ’n toename in vervoerbelegging wat onderskeidelik deur skuld en belasting befonds is. Dit het met 0,28% gedaal teenoor die basislyn vir vervoerinfrastruktuur wat deur OOH befonds is. Burkina Faso se verbruikerskoopkrag het gedaal namate die verbruikersprysindeks (VPI) toegeneem het, ongeag die finansieringsbron. VPI het met 0,63% gestyg vir verhoogde belegging in vervoer deur skuld, 0,12% vir belastingfinansiering en 0,50% vir OOH-finansiering. Die balans van die begrotingstekort het verder skerp toegeneem met 13,89%.in die scenario van skuldfinansiering. Dit het egter op die basislynvlak gebly in die belasting- en OOH-finansieringscenario van ’n toename in belegging in vervoerinfrastruktuur. Burkina Faso se lopende rekening het geval, ongeag die infrastruktuursektor. Die lopende rekening het met 7,50% gedaal na verhoogde belegging in vervoer via skuld. Dit het ook met 7,20% gedaal in die belasting- of OOH-gefinansierde scenarios. Aan die mikro-ekonomiese kant het primere, sekondere en tersiere sektorproduksie toegeneem ongeag die finansieringsbron. Die produksie van die primere sektor het met onderskeidelik 0,24%, 0,11% en 1,43% vir skuld, belasting en OOH-finansiering gestyg, met laasgenoemde wat die hoogste persentasieverandering aangeteken het. Produksie van die sekondere sektor het ook gestyg. Dit het met 0,38% gegroei vir skuldfinansiering van die vervoerinfrastruktuur, 0,18% vir belasting-gefinansierde vervoerinfrastruktuur en 1,39% vir OOH-finansiering. Net so het die uitset van die tersiere sektor ook toegeneem. Dit het onderskeidelik met 0,92%, 0,98% en 1,79% gestyg vir skuld, belasting en OOH-finansiering na ’n toename in vervoerinfrastruktuurbelegging. Faktorproduksiepryse het egter oor die algemeen gestyg, behalwe vir arbeid buite die landbousektor. Landbou se arbeidskoste het met 0,05% gestyg vir verhoogde belegging in vervoerinfrastruktuur deur skuld. Dit het ook met 0,07% toegeneem in die scenario van belasting-gefinansierde vervoerinfrastruktuur. OOH-finansiering het met 0,44% van die arbeidskoste in die landbousektor gestyg. Die koste van arbeid buite die landbousektor het marginaal gedaal. Dit het met 0,01% gedaal as ’n toename in belegging in vervoer deur skuld gefinansier is. Die koste het met 0,02% gedaal in die scenario van skuldfinansiering en met 0,27% as die verhoging deur OOH gefinansier is. Gesinsarbeidskoste het ook marginaal met onderskeidelik 0,05%, 0,07% en 0,44% gestyg vir skuld, belasting en OOH-gefinansierde verhogings in vervoerinfrastruktuur. Kapitaalkoste het met 0,18% gestyg in die geval van ’n toename in vervoerinfrastruktuur wat deur skuld en belasting gefinansier is. Dit het met 0,27% gestyg as die toename in vervoerbelegging via ODA gefinansier is. Inkomste uit faktorproduksie het toegeneem ongeag die finansieringsbron, behalwe vir arbeid buite die landbousektor. Inkomste uit landbouarbeid het onderskeidelik met 0,19%, 0,21% en 0,57% gestyg in die scenario van ’n beleggingtoename wat deur skuld, belasting en OOH gefinansier is. Gesinsarbeidsinkomste het ook met 0,19% gestyg as die toename in belegging skuldgefinansier is. Dit het met 0,21% gestyg in die geval van skuld en 0,57% in die OOH-finansieringscenario. Kapitaalinkomste het toegeneem ongeag die finansieringsbron. Dit het met 0,33% toegeneem vir skuld- en belasting-gefinansierde scenario's. Dit het met 0,40% gestyg as die toename in vervoerbelegging deur ODA gefinansier is. Wat sosio-ekonomiese veranderlikes betref, het huishoudelike inkomste- en verbruiksvlakke vir arm en nie-arm huishoudings toegeneem, ongeag die finansieringsbron. Huishoudelike inkomste vir arm huishoudings het onderskeidelik met 0,61%, 0,42% en 1,26% gestyg vir skuldgefinansierde, belasting-gefinansierde en ODA-gefinansierde scenario's. Wat nie-arm huishoudings betref, het hul inkomste met 0,49% gestyg in die geval van ’n toename in belegging in vervoerinfrastruktuur wat deur skuld gefinansier is. Hul inkomste het met 0,35% gestyg vir ’n verhoogde belegging wat deur belasting gefinansier is, wat in die ODA-gefinansierde scenario met 1,08% gestyg het. Arm huishoudings se verbruiksvlakke sal met 0,33% styg indien ’n toename in vervoerinfrastruktuur deur skuld gefinansier word. Dit het met 0,49% toegeneem in die scenario van belastingfinansiering en met 1,47% vir ODA-finansiering. In die skuld-, belasting- en ODA-finansieringscenario's het verbruiksvlakke vir nie-arm huishoudings onderskeidelik met 0,34%, 0,39% en 1,23% gestyg. Die werkloosheidsyfer het marginaal verminder in die geval van 'n OOHA-gefinansierde toename in vervoerinfrastruktuur, terwyl dit met dieselfde syfer gegroei het in die scenario van skuld of belastingfinansiering. Die werkloosheidsyfer is marginaal met 0,1 persentasiepunte verlaag in die geval van ’n OOH-gefinansierde toename in vervoerbelegging, terwyl dit met 0,1 persentasiepunte in die skuld- of belastingfinansieringscenario gegroei het. Die bevindinge van hierdie studie het getoon dat OOH-finansiering van die vervoersektor geneig is om meer voordelig vir die ekonomie van Burkina Faso te wees, aangesien dit die hoogste toename in reele BBP per kapita (1,29%) sal genereer in vergelyking met skuld (0,64%) en belasting (0,41%). Vir die telekommunikasie-infrastruktuur op makro-ekonomiese vlak het die reele BBP per kapita bo die basislyn gestyg, ongeag die finansieringsbron. Reele BBP per kapita het gestyg namate invoere, sektorale uitsetproduksie, kapitaalinkomste, huishoudelike inkomste en verbruiksvlakke toegeneem het. Dit het bo die basislyn met onderskeidelik 2,3%, 1,8% en 0,4% gestyg vir die telekommunikasie-infrastruktuur wat deur skuld, belasting en OOH gefinansier word. Die VPI het marginaal met 0,1% toegeneem na verhoogde belegging in die telekommunikasie-infrastruktuur wat deur skuld gefinansier is. Die befondsing van ’n toename in belegging in telekommunikasie-infrastruktuur via belasting of OOH het geen impak op VPI gehad nie. Invoere, soortgelyk aan reele BBP per kapita, het ook gestyg, ongeag die finansieringsbron. Invoere het onderskeidelik met 3,9%, 2,9% en 0,2% gestyg vir skuld, belasting en OOH-finansiering, na verhoogde belegging in die telekommunikasie-infrastruktuur. Uitvoere, met die uitsondering van belastingfinansiering, het toegeneem na verhoogde belegging in telekommunikasie. Uitvoere het onderskeidelik met 0,20% en 0,30% gestyg as gevolg van verhoogde belegging in telekommunikasie wat deur skuld en OOH gefinansier word. Dit het met 0,5% gedaal teenoor die basislyn vir telekommunikasie-infrastruktuur wat deur belasting gefinansier word. Die begrotingsbalanstekort het skerp toegeneem in die skuldfinansieringscenario. Verhoogde belegging in die telekommunikasie-infrastruktuur deur skuld het ook Burkina Faso se begrotingsbalans negatief beinvloed, wat met 13,89% gestyg het. Dit het egter geen impak op die begrotingsbalans gehad as belegging deur belasting en OOH gekanaliseer is nie. Die lopende rekening het met 8,49% gedaal in die scenario van ’n skuldgefinansierde toename in die telekommunikasie-infrastruktuur. Dit het met 7,25% gedaal vir ’n belasting-gefinansierde verhoging en met net 0,07% in die OOH-gefinansierde scenario van ’n toename in die telekommunikasie-infrastruktuur. Aan die mikro-ekonomiese kant het die primere sektor se produksie met 2,5% gestyg vir skuldfinansiering en 0,1% vir belasting- en OOH-finansiering. Soortgelyk aan die primere bedryf, het die produksie van die sekondere sektor ook byna met dieselfde vlakke gestyg. Dit het met 2,5% gegroei vir skuldfinansiering en 0,1% vir belasting- en ODA-finansiering. Die uitset van die tersiere sektor het ook toegeneem. Dit het met 2,5% gestyg vir skuldfinansiering en 0,40% vir belasting- en OOH-finansiering na verhoogde belegging in die telekommunikasie-infrastruktuur. Faktorproduksiepryse het gesamentlik gestyg. Koste het marginaal met 0,2% vir arbeid in die landbousektor gestyg na ’n toename in infrastruktuurbelegging deur skuld en belasting. Ter vergelyking, het OOH-finansiering gelei tot ’n toename van 0,6% in die koste van arbeid in die landbousektor. Arbeidskoste buite die landbousektor het marginaal toegeneem. Dit het met 0,3% gestyg as ’n toename in belegging in telekommunikasie deur skuld en belasting gefinansier word. Pryse het stabiel gebly in die geval van verhoogde belegging wat deur OOH gefinansier is. Gesinsarbeidskoste het ook marginaal met 0,2% gestyg vir skuld en 'n belastinggefinansierde toename in die telekommunikasie-infrastruktuur. Koste het met 0,6% gestyg vir OOH-finansiering. Kapitaalkoste het met 0,2% gestyg in die geval van ’n toename in die telekommunikasie-infrastruktuur wat deur skuld en belasting gefinansier is. Koste het met 0,3% gestyg as die toename in telekommunikasiebelegging via OOH gefinansier is. Inkomste uit faktorproduksie het toegeneem ongeag die befondsingsbron. In die verhoogde belegging wat deur skuld, belasting en OOH-scenario gefinansier is, het inkomste uit landbou-arbeid onderskeidelik met 0,19%, 0,21% en 0,57% gestyg. Vir skuld- en belastingfinansiering het arbeidsinkomste buite die landbousektor met 0,3% gestyg. Dit het nie verander in die verhoogde belegging in telekommunikasie wat deur die OOH-scenario gefinansier is nie. Gesinsarbeidsinkomste het ook met 0,19% gestyg as die toename in belegging skuldgefinansier is. Dit het met 0,21% gestyg in die geval van skuld en 0,57% in die OOH-finansieringscenario. Net so het kapitaalinkomste met 0,33% gestyg vir skuld- en belasting-gefinansierde scenario’s. Dit het met 0,40% gestyg as die verhoogde telekommunikasiebelegging deur OOH gefinansier is. Wat sosio-ekonomiese veranderlikes betref, het huishoudelike inkomste- en verbruiksvlakke vir armes en nie-armes gestyg, ongeag die finansieringsbron. Inkomste vir arm huishoudings het met onderskeidelik 2,2%, 1,7% en 0,4% gestyg vir die skuldgefinansierde, belasting-gefinansierde en OOH-gefinansierde scenario's. Nie-arm huishoudelike inkomste het ook onderskeidelik met 1,9%, 2,0% en 0,4% gestyg vir skuld, belasting en OOH-finansiering. Arm huishoudings se verbruiksvlakke het met 1,9% gestyg in die scenario van verhoogde belegging in telekommunikasie wat deur skuld gefinansier word. Dit het met onderskeidelik 2% en 0,4% vir belasting- en OOH-finansiering toegeneem. Verbruiksvlakke vir nie-arm huishoudings het met 1,8% gestyg vir skuld- en belastingfinansiering, terwyl dit met 0,4% vir OOH-finansiering toegeneem het. Die werkloosheidsyfer, na ’n toename in belegging in telekommunikasie, het marginaal toegeneem vir alle finansieringsbronne. Dit het met 0,28% toegeneem vir OOH en belastingfinansiering. Dit het met net 0,02% gestyg in die scenario van OOH-finansiering. Die resultate van hierdie studie het ook getoon dat skuldfinansiering van verhoogde belegging in telekommunikasie-infrastruktuur in Burkina Faso geneig is om meer voordelig vir Burkina Faso se ekonomie te wees, aangesien dit die hoogste toename in reele BBP per kapita (2,28%) sal genereer in vergelyking met belasting (1,78%) en OOH (0,39%). Wat die elektrisiteits-, water-, en gasinfrastruktuur betref, het die reele BBP per kapita aan die makro-ekonomiese kant toegeneem, ongeag die finansieringsbron. Dit het met 1,94%, 1,42% en 0,32% gestyg vir skuld, belasting en OOH-finansiering vir verhoogde belegging in die elektrisiteits-, water- en gasinfrastruktuur. VPI het marginaal met 0,01% toegeneem vir alle finansieringsbronne na verhoogde belegging in die elektrisiteits-, water- en gasinfrastruktuur. Invoere het gestyg na ’n toename in belegging in elektrisiteits-, water-, en gasinfrastruktuur, ongeag die finansieringsbron. Invoere het bo die basislyn met onderskeidelik 3,43%, 2,44% en 0,21% vir skuld, belasting en OOH-finansiering toegeneem. Uitvoere het ook toegeneem na ’n toename in belegging in elektrisiteits- water- en gasinfrastruktuur, behalwe vir belastingfinansiering. Dit het geval teenoor die basislyn vir elektrisiteits-, water-, en gasinfrastruktuur wat deur belasting gefinansier is. Uitvoere het met 0,16% en 0,26% gestyg na 'n toename in belegging in onderskeidelik elektrisiteit, water en gas wat deur skuld en OOH gefinansier is. Dit het egter met 0,51% gedaal teenoor die basislyn vir ’n elektrisiteits-, water- en gasinfrastruktuur wat deur belasting befonds is. Die balans van die begrotingstekort het verder toegeneem vir skuldfinansiering van verhoogde belegging, terwyl dit nie in die scenario van belasting- en OOH-finansiering verander het nie. Dit het met 18,81% gestyg, wat 'n beduidende negatiewe impak op Burkina Faso se begrotingsbalans beteken. Dit het egter geen impak op die begrotingsbalans gehad as belegging deur belasting en OOH gekanaliseer word nie. Die lopende rekening het gedaal vir skuld- en belastingfinansiering, terwyl dit effens afgeneem het vir OOH-finansiering. Dit het onderskeidelik met 7,68%, 6,37% en 0,12% gedaal vir skuld, belasting en OOH gefinansierde elektrisiteits-, water- en gasinfrastruktuurverhoging. Op mikro-ekonomiese vlak het die produksie van die primere sektor toegeneem, ongeag die finansieringsbron. Die produksie van die primere sektor het met onderskeidelik 2,14%, 1,60% en 0,23% vir skuld, belasting en OOH-finansiering gestyg. Produksie van die sekondere sektor het ook gestyg. Dit het met 2,17% gegroei vir skuldgefinansierde elektrisiteits-, water- en gasinfrastruktuur, 1,70% vir belasting-gefinansierde elektrisiteits-, water- en gasinfrastruktuur en 0,17% vir OOH-finansiering. Net so het die uitsette van die tersiere sektor ook toegeneem. Dit het met onderskeidelik 2,14%, 1,60% en 0,23% vir skuld-, belasting- en OOH-finansiering gestyg vir verhoogde belegging in die elektrisiteits-, water- en gasinfrastruktuur. Koste het gestyg vir arbeid in die landbousektor. Landbou-arbeidskoste het met 2,14% gestyg vir verhoogde infrastruktuurbelegging deur skuld. Dit het ook met 1,75% toegeneem in die belasting-gefinansierde scenario. OOH-finansiering het gelei tot ’n toename van 0,12% in die landbousektor se arbeidskoste. Die koste van arbeid buite die landbousektor het marginaal met 0,02% gedaal as ’n toename in elektrisiteit-, water- en gasbelegging deur skuld gefinansier word. Die koste het met 1,04% gedaal in die scenario van belastingfinansiering en met 0,28% as die verhoging deur OOH gefinansier is. Gesinsarbeidskoste het ook marginaal met onderskeidelik 2,17%, 1,70% en 0,17% gestyg vir skuld, belasting en OOH-gefinansierde verhogings in die elektrisiteits-, water- en gasinfrastruktuur. Kapitaalkoste het met 2,14% gestyg in die geval van ’n toename in die elektrisiteits-, water- en gasinfrastruktuur wat deur skuld gefinansier word. Dit het ook onderskeidelik met 0,60% en 0,23% toegeneem vir belasting en OOH-gefinansierde verhoogde belegging in die elektrisiteits-, water- en gasinfrastruktuur. Inkomste uit faktorproduksie het toegeneem ongeag die finansieringsbron, behalwe vir arbeid buite die landbousektor, wat met 0,21% gedaal het in die scenario van OOH-finansiering. Inkomste uit landbouarbeid het onderskeidelik met 0,09%, 0,11% en 0,47% gestyg in verhoogde beleggings wat deur skuld, belasting en OOH-scenario's gefinansier is. Gesinsarbeidsinkomste het ook met 0,09% gestyg as die toename in belegging skuldgefinansier is. Dit het met 0,11% gestyg in die geval van skuld en 0,47% in die OOH-finansieringscenario. Net so het kapitaalinkomste met 0,16% gestyg vir skuld- en belasting-gefinansierde scenario's. Dit het met 0,23% gestyg as die toename in elektrisiteit-, water-, en gasbelegging deur OOH gefinansier word. Wat sosio-ekonomiese aanwysers betref, het huishoudelike inkomste vir arm en nie-arm huishoudings toegeneem, ongeag die finansieringsbron. Huishoudelike inkomste het vir arm huishoudings met onderskeidelik 1,81%, 1,36% en 0,32% vir die skuldgefinansierde, belasting-gefinansierde en OOH-gefinansierde scenario's toegeneem. Nie-arm huishoudelike inkomste het met 1,57% gestyg in die scenario van verhoogde belegging in die elektrisiteits-, water- en gasinfrastruktuur wat deur skuld gefinansier word. Hul inkomste het onderskeidelik met 1,20% en 0,28% gestyg vir die belasting- en ODA-gefinansierde scenario's. Verbruiksvlakke vir arm en nie-arm huishoudings het ook in alle befondsingscenario's gestyg. Arm huishoudings se verbruiksvlakke het met 1,33% gestyg as ’n toename in die elektrisiteits-, water- en gasinfrastruktuur deur skuld gefinansier word. Dit het met 1,59% toegeneem in die belastingfinansieringscenario en met 0,36% in die OOH-finansieringscenario. Verbruiksvlakke vir nie-arm huishoudings het onderskeidelik met 1,45%, 1,36% en 0,31% in die skuldfinansiering-, belasting- en OOH-finansieringscenario's gestyg. Die werkloosheidsyfer het marginaal verminder in die geval van ’n OOH-gefinansierde toename in elektrisiteit-, water-, en gasbelegging, terwyl dit met dieselfde bedrag gegroei het in die scenario van skuld of belastingfinansiering. Die koers het marginaal met 0,17 persentasiepunte gedaal in die geval van ’n OOH-gefinansierde toename in elektrisiteit, water en gasbelegging, terwyl dit met 0,07 persentasiepunte in die skuld- of belastingfinansieringscenario's gegroei het. Soortgelyk aan die telekommunikasiesektor, het hierdie studie se bevindinge getoon dat skuldfinansiering van ’n toename in belegging in elektrisiteit-, water- en gasinfrastruktuur vir energie-infrastruktuur geneig is om meer voordelig vir Burkina Faso se ekonomie te wees, aangesien dit die hoogste groei in reele BBP per kapita (1,94%) sal genereer in vergelyking met belasting (1,42%) en OOH (0,32%). Belegging in infrastruktuur kan ’n positiewe of negatiewe impak op ekonomiese groei he. Ongeag die finansieringsbron, het belegging in vervoer, telekommunikasie en elektrisiteit-, water-, en gasinfrastrukture die reele BBP per kapita, invoer, huishoudelike inkomste en huishoudelike verbruiksvlakke in Burkina Faso positief beïnvloed. Verder is ’n bykomende ekonomiese aanwyser, indiensnemingsvlak, positief beinvloed deur verhoogde belegging in telekommunikasie-infrastruktuur deur OOH. Belastingfinansiering van vervoer en skuldfinansiering het die land se uitvoere positief beinvloed. Net so het OOH-finansiering van telekommunikasie-, elektrisiteit-, water-, en gasinfrastruktuur ook Burkina Faso se uitvoer positief beinvloed. Aan die ander kant het skuldfinansiering vir vervoer ’n negatiewe impak op VPI en indiensneming gehad. Verder het dit ook uitvoere vir telekommunikasie en die elektrisiteit-, water-, en gasinfrastruktuur negatief beinvloed. Die finansiering van die vervoerinfrastruktuur deur ODA het ’n negatiewe impak op Burkina Faso se uitvoere tot gevolg gehad. Burkina Faso se begrotingsbalans het verder toegeneem in die skuldfinansieringscenario terwyl die lopende rekening afgeneem het, ongeag die finansieringsbron en die infrastruktuursektor. Hierdie navorsing lewer bewyse ter ondersteuning van die NPEMO waarin belegging in infrastruktuur 'n belangrike strategiese pilaar is. Terselfdertyd doen hierdie studie ’n beroep op beleidmakers om die finansieringsbron noukeurig te oorweeg, aangesien dit sommige ekonomiese veranderlikes negatief kan beinvloed. Boonop doen hierdie navorsing 'n beroep op beleidmakers om dit te oorweeg om rekening te hou met die wyer waarde en voordele van infrastruktuur in Burkina Faso se strategiese beplanning vir infrastruktuurbelegging.
Description
Thesis (PhD)--Stellenbosch University, 2023.
Keywords
Citation