Equity-based resource allocation for infrastructure development

Abstract

With regard to regional development, two possible approaches to promote the role of infrastructure and economic interaction are available, placebased policies and people-centred policies. These policy options have been detailed in the publication of the World Development Report (WDR) 2009 (Garretsen, Roberts et al. 2011) and separated into three policy instruments for reshaping economic geography: 1) spatially blind institution, 2) spatially connective infrastructure and 3) spatially targeted 1.4 Research Framework To produce the framework, four groups of works and its deliverable in a series of papers, these and the associated research questions are outlined as one Context Paper, one Background Paper, three Working Papers and, finally, one Policy Paper (Figure 1.1 Research Framework). Chapter 7 establishes a decision support framework to recommend where and when a "place-based" or "people-centred" policy for equitable infrastructure development should be applied. This chapter synthesizes all finding into a decision support framework, Equity Based Resources Location-Allocation Simulation (EQLAS), for integrated infrastructure development.

Impacts of infrastructure (in)equity and social (in)justice on democratic nation-building processes in Ethiopia

“…versus "place-based" (e.g., infrastructure, housing, etc.) development (Duranton and Venables, 2019;Wismadi, 2015). Understanding these linkages is critical for devising an effective framework for deep interventions in infrastructure in Ethiopia, be it at the national/federal/regional states/zonal/ local government level or at the community level.…”

“…Therefore, different researchers believe that equity theory can be adapted into several basic propositions of under-or over-benefited equity theory in regard to infrastructure equity. For example, the more stressed individuals or regional states are as a result of seen infrastructure inequity/disparity, the more they will seek to alleviate their stress and increase perceived levels of infrastructure inequity (Huseman et al, 1987;Merkel and Giebler, 2009;Wismadi, 2015). On the other hand, the distributional patterns of infrastructure equity might be thought of in terms of social equity (achieving equity across socioeconomic categories) or spatial equity (achieving equity across geographic areas) (Chotia and Rao, 2015;Rubin, 2006;Treuhaft et al, 2013).…”

“…The absence of fairness in infrastructure is one of the current factors, which has a detrimental effect on the nation-building efforts being made in the nation. This is mostly caused by a lack of social equity, which is the achievement of equity over socioeconomic groups in society, or spatial equity, which is the achievement of equity over geographical locations or regions, as well as a lack of gender and environmental equity in Ethiopia (NPC, 2018, Unpublished;Duranton and Venables, 2019;Litman, 2021;Rammelt, 2018;Thomopoulos and Grant-Muller, 2013;Thomopoulos et al, 2009;Wismadi, 2015). Additionally, there is a strong association between asset inequality and the infrastructure index, indicating that increasing infrastructure equity also promotes inclusive growth across regional states in Ethiopia (NPC, 2018, Unpublished).…”

“…This is also a serious difficulty in Ethiopia. In other ways, the Ethiopian federal government uses infrastructure investments in the construction sector as a tool for job creation, increased work for local firms, and ultimately poverty alleviation and economic growth, all of which have a significant impact on social justice, particularly for women (Patra and Acharya, 2011;Rubin, 2006;Wismadi, 2015). However, empirical evidence suggests that these development goals may not be accomplished as planned due to large regional disparities in infrastructure distribution and the quality of public-goods administration (Kanth and Geiger, 2017;Mohanty et al, 2018).…”