{"help": "https://data.iadb.org/api/3/action/help_show?name=package_show", "success": true, "result": {"alternate_identifier": "https://data.iadb.org/dataset/2010-infrascope-index-for-latin-america-and-the-caribbean", "citation": {"en": "Inter-American Development Bank (2010). 2010 InfraScope Index for Latin America and the Caribbean. IDB Open Data. https://doi.org/10.60966/2hnsmpns", "es": "Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (2010). \u00cdndice InfraScope 2010 para Am\u00e9rica Latina y el Caribe. Datos Abiertos del BID. https://doi.org/10.60966/2hnsmpns", "fr": "Banque Interam\u00e9ricaine de D\u00e9veloppement (2010). Indice InfraScope 2010 pour l\u2019Am\u00e9rique Latine et les Cara\u00efbes. Donn\u00e9es Ouvertes de la BID. https://doi.org/10.60966/2hnsmpns", "pt_BR": "Banco Interamericano de Desenvolvimento (2010). \u00cdndice InfraScope 2010 para a Am\u00e9rica Latina e o Caribe. Dados Abertos do BID. https://doi.org/10.60966/2hnsmpns"}, "ckan_dataset_type": "dataset", "conforms_to": "https://data.iadb.org/DataCatalog/v1.0/schema", "creator_user_id": "8748d869-6ba2-4035-8f37-a0e627eb4c16", "data_structure": [{"uri": "https://taxonomy.iadb.org/knowledgeProductsTaxonomy/b7ab3478-9137-4a01-8118-b6589fa86e48", "labels": {"en": "Semistructured Data", "es": "Datos Semiestructurados", "fr": "Donn\u00e9es Semi-structur\u00e9es", "pt_BR": "Dados Semiestruturados"}}], "dataset_id": "", "frequency": {"en": "", "es": "", "fr": "", "pt_BR": ""}, "id": "187a21f3-3a57-4da8-a576-1047b63c1ca4", "idb_origin": "", "identifier": "https://doi.org/10.60966/2hnsmpns", "in_series": {}, "language": ["en"], "license_id": "cc-by-nc-nd", "license_title": "Creative Commons Attribution\u2013NonCommercial\u2013NoDerivs 3.0 IGO", "license_url": "http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/igo/", "metadata_created": "2010-11-08T00:00:00", "metadata_modified": "2026-08-26T04:19:39.904808", "name": "2010-infrascope-index-for-latin-america-and-the-caribbean", "num_resources": 1, "num_tags": 0, "organization": {"id": "aa9ea49a-64f0-4dcc-9c01-06245f1392a1", "name": "idb-datasets", "title": "IDB Datasets", "type": "organization", "description": "Official list of IDB Datasets", "image_url": "", "created": "2025-03-08T06:03:00.229362", "is_organization": true, "approval_status": "approved", "state": "active"}, "owner_org": "aa9ea49a-64f0-4dcc-9c01-06245f1392a1", "private": false, "regional": [{"uri": "https://taxonomy.iadb.org/knowledgeProductsTaxonomy/43917453886588535763041", "labels": {"en": "Latin America and the Caribbean", "es": "Am\u00e9rica Latina y el Caribe", "fr": "Am\u00e9rique Latine et Cara\u00efbes", "pt_BR": "Am\u00e9rica Latina e Caribe"}}], "related_identifier_type": "", "relation": "", "relation_type": "", "source": [], "statistical_type": {}, "temporal_end": "2010-01-01", "temporal_start": "2010-01-01", "theme": [{"uri": "https://taxonomy.iadb.org/knowledgeProductsTaxonomy/53786709020451812", "labels": {"en": "Public Sector", "es": "Sector P\u00fablico", "fr": "Secteur Publique", "pt_BR": "Setor P\u00fablico"}}, {"uri": "https://taxonomy.iadb.org/knowledgeProductsTaxonomy/49597111072074074", "labels": {"en": "Private Sector", "es": "Sector Privado", "fr": "Secteur Priv\u00e9", "pt_BR": "Setor Privado"}}, {"uri": "https://taxonomy.iadb.org/knowledgeProductsTaxonomy/78959408373906004", "labels": {"en": "Integration and Trade", "es": "Integraci\u00f3n y Comercio", "fr": "Int\u00e9gration et Commerce", "pt_BR": "Integra\u00e7\u00e3o e Com\u00e9rcio"}}, {"uri": "https://taxonomy.iadb.org/knowledgeProductsTaxonomy/50642306203223867982215", "labels": {"en": "Energy", "es": "Energ\u00eda", "fr": "\u00c9nergie", "pt_BR": "Energia"}}], "title": {"en": "2010 InfraScope Index for Latin America and the Caribbean", "es": "\u00cdndice InfraScope 2010 para Am\u00e9rica Latina y el Caribe", "fr": "Indice InfraScope 2010 pour l\u2019Am\u00e9rique Latine et les Cara\u00efbes", "pt_BR": "\u00cdndice InfraScope 2010 para a Am\u00e9rica Latina e o Caribe"}, "type": "dataset", "unit_observation": {"en": "", "es": "", "fr": "", "pt_BR": ""}, "unit_responsible": {"en": "IDB Lab (IDB Lab)", "es": "IDB Lab (IDB Lab)", "fr": "IDB Lab (IDB Lab)", "pt_BR": "IDB Lab (IDB Lab)"}, "version": null, "creator": [{"authority_id": "88074447370088012634805", "creator_name": {"en": "Inter-American Development Bank", "es": "Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo", "fr": "Banque Interam\u00e9ricaine de D\u00e9veloppement", "pt_BR": "Banco Interamericano de Desenvolvimento"}, "creator_type": "organizational", "url": "https://ror.org/02gjn4306"}], "publisher": [{"email": "opendata@iadb.org", "publisher_name": {"en": "Inter-American Development Bank", "es": "Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo", "fr": "Banque Interam\u00e9ricaine de D\u00e9veloppement", "pt_BR": "Banco Interamericano de Desenvolvimento"}, "type": "organizational", "uri": "https://ror.org/02gjn4306", "url": "https://www.iadb.org"}], "resources": [{"access_rights": "", "access_url": "https://data.iadb.org/dataset/187a21f3-3a57-4da8-a576-1047b63c1ca4/resource/edecda31-eaed-470e-a5ae-6bb3dd2bfc04", "cache_last_updated": null, "cache_url": null, "created": "2025-03-07T23:48:09.158733", "data_notes": {}, "datastore_active": false, "datastore_contains_all_records_of_source_file": false, "description": "", "file_id": "eb42abbc-1b85-432e-aed2-7c61e71f6fb0", "format": "XLSX", "hash": "", "id": "edecda31-eaed-470e-a5ae-6bb3dd2bfc04", "indicator_category": "", "is_indicator": false, "language": [], "last_modified": "2025-03-07T23:48:09.112347", "metadata_modified": "2026-08-26T04:19:11.951812", "mimetype": "application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet", "mimetype_inner": null, "name": "2010-InfraScope-Index-for-Latin-America-and-the-Caribbean", "package_id": "187a21f3-3a57-4da8-a576-1047b63c1ca4", "position": 0, "resource_type": null, "rights": {}, "size": 1629107, "state": "active", "theme": [{"uri": "https://taxonomy.iadb.org/knowledgeProductsTaxonomy/53786709020451812", "labels": {"en": "Public Sector", "es": "Sector P\u00fablico", "fr": "Secteur Publique", "pt_BR": "Setor P\u00fablico"}}, {"uri": "https://taxonomy.iadb.org/knowledgeProductsTaxonomy/49597111072074074", "labels": {"en": "Private Sector", "es": "Sector Privado", "fr": "Secteur Priv\u00e9", "pt_BR": "Setor Privado"}}, {"uri": "https://taxonomy.iadb.org/knowledgeProductsTaxonomy/78959408373906004", "labels": {"en": "Integration and Trade", "es": "Integraci\u00f3n y Comercio", "fr": "Int\u00e9gration et Commerce", "pt_BR": "Integra\u00e7\u00e3o e Com\u00e9rcio"}}, {"uri": "https://taxonomy.iadb.org/knowledgeProductsTaxonomy/50642306203223867982215", "labels": {"en": "Energy", "es": "Energ\u00eda", "fr": "\u00c9nergie", "pt_BR": "Energia"}}], "url": "https://data.iadb.org/file/download/eb42abbc-1b85-432e-aed2-7c61e71f6fb0"}], "spatial_coverage": [{"bbox": "", "centroid": "", "geom": "", "label": {"en": "Argentina", "es": "Argentina", "fr": "Argentine", "pt_BR": "Argentina"}, "uri": "https://sws.geonames.org/3865483"}, {"bbox": "", "centroid": "", "geom": "", "label": {"en": "Brazil", "es": "Brasil", "fr": "Br\u00e9sil", "pt_BR": "Brasil"}, "uri": "https://sws.geonames.org/3469034"}, {"bbox": "", "centroid": "", "geom": "", "label": {"en": "Jamaica", "es": "Jamaica", "fr": "Jama\u00efque", "pt_BR": "Jamaica"}, "uri": "https://sws.geonames.org/3489940"}, {"bbox": "", "centroid": "", "geom": "", "label": {"en": "Mexico", "es": "M\u00e9xico", "fr": "Mexique", "pt_BR": "M\u00e9xico"}, "uri": "https://sws.geonames.org/3996063"}, {"bbox": "", "centroid": "", "geom": "", "label": {"en": "Nicaragua", "es": "Nicaragua", "fr": "Nicaragua", "pt_BR": "Nicar\u00e1gua"}, "uri": "https://sws.geonames.org/3617476"}, {"bbox": "", "centroid": "", "geom": "", "label": {"en": "Panama", "es": "Panam\u00e1", "fr": "Panama", "pt_BR": "Panam\u00e1"}, "uri": "https://sws.geonames.org/3703430"}, {"bbox": "", "centroid": "", "geom": "", "label": {"en": "Paraguay", "es": "Paraguay", "fr": "Paraguay", "pt_BR": "Paraguai"}, "uri": "https://sws.geonames.org/3437598"}, {"bbox": "", "centroid": "", "geom": "", "label": {"en": "Peru", "es": "Per\u00fa", "fr": "P\u00e9rou", "pt_BR": "Peru"}, "uri": "https://sws.geonames.org/3932488"}, {"bbox": "", "centroid": "", "geom": "", "label": {"en": "Trinidad & Tobago", "es": "Trinidad y Tobago", "fr": "Trinit\u00e9-et-Tobago", "pt_BR": "Trinidad e Tobago"}, "uri": "https://sws.geonames.org/3573591"}, {"bbox": "", "centroid": "", "geom": "", "label": {"en": "Uruguay", "es": "Uruguay", "fr": "Uruguay", "pt_BR": "Uruguai"}, "uri": "https://sws.geonames.org/3439705"}, {"bbox": "", "centroid": "", "geom": "", "label": {"en": "Venezuela", "es": "Venezuela", "fr": "Venezuela", "pt_BR": "Venezuela"}, "uri": "https://sws.geonames.org/3625428"}, {"bbox": "", "centroid": "", "geom": "", "label": {"en": "Chile", "es": "Chile", "fr": "Chili", "pt_BR": "Chile"}, "uri": "https://sws.geonames.org/3895114"}, {"bbox": "", "centroid": "", "geom": "", "label": {"en": "Colombia", "es": "Colombia", "fr": "Colombie", "pt_BR": "Col\u00f4mbia"}, "uri": "https://sws.geonames.org/3686110"}, {"bbox": "", "centroid": "", "geom": "", "label": {"en": "Costa Rica", "es": "Costa Rica", "fr": "Costa Rica", "pt_BR": "Costa Rica"}, "uri": "https://sws.geonames.org/3624060"}, {"bbox": "", "centroid": "", "geom": "", "label": {"en": "Dominican Republic", "es": "Rep\u00fablica Dominicana", "fr": "R\u00e9publique dominicaine", "pt_BR": "Rep\u00fablica Dominicana"}, "uri": "https://sws.geonames.org/3508796"}, {"bbox": "", "centroid": "", "geom": "", "label": {"en": "Ecuador", "es": "Ecuador", "fr": "\u00c9quateur", "pt_BR": "Equador"}, "uri": "https://sws.geonames.org/3658394"}, {"bbox": "", "centroid": "", "geom": "", "label": {"en": "El Salvador", "es": "El Salvador", "fr": "Salvador", "pt_BR": "El Salvador"}, "uri": "https://sws.geonames.org/3585968"}, {"bbox": "", "centroid": "", "geom": "", "label": {"en": "Guatemala", "es": "Guatemala", "fr": "Guatemala", "pt_BR": "Guatemala"}, "uri": "https://sws.geonames.org/3595528"}, {"bbox": "", "centroid": "", "geom": "", "label": {"en": "Honduras", "es": "Honduras", "fr": "Honduras", "pt_BR": "Honduras"}, "uri": "https://sws.geonames.org/3608932"}], "groups": [], "relationships_as_subject": [], "relationships_as_object": [], "doi": "10.60966/2hnsmpns", "doi_status": true, "domain": "https://data.iadb.org", "doi_date_published": "2025-03-08", "doi_publisher": "IADB", "data_collection_type": [{"uri": "https://taxonomy.iadb.org/knowledgeProductsTaxonomy/ba70c67d-1a87-46ac-ad2a-479d2c354809", "labels": {"en": "Observational Data", "es": "Datos Observacionales", "fr": "Donn\u00e9es d'observation", "pt_BR": "Dados Observacionais"}}], "keyword": {"en": ["Infrascope Index"], "es": ["\u00cdndice InfraScope"], "fr": ["Indice Infrascope"], "pt_BR": ["\u00cdndice Infrascope"]}, "contact_point": "opendata@iadb.org", "description": {"en": "The Infrascope 2010 marked one of the earliest regional benchmarks assessing Latin America\u2019s infrastructure readiness for Public\u2013Private Partnerships (PPPs).  \nDeveloped by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) in collaboration with the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), this first edition offered a detailed snapshot of the preparedness of Latin American and Caribbean countries to attract and manage private investment in key infrastructure sectors.\n\n### Methodology\n\nThe 2010 Infrascope evaluated countries based on five foundational pillars:\n\n1. Legal and regulatory framework  \n2. Institutional capacity  \n3. Operational maturity  \n4. Investment and business climate  \n5. Financial facilities\n\nThese dimensions reflected the building blocks of PPP readiness at the time\u2014focusing on whether governments had the laws, institutions, and financing mechanisms needed to engage private partners effectively.\n\n### The Post-Crisis Context\n\nEmerging from the 2008\u20132009 Global Financial Crisis, Latin America faced a dual challenge: reviving economic growth while addressing a significant infrastructure gap.  \nThe 2010 Infrascope report positioned PPPs as a critical tool for mobilizing private capital amid tightening public budgets, emphasizing transparency, risk allocation, and institutional credibility as prerequisites for success.\n\n### Data Accessibility\n\nThe original Infrascope 2010 dataset, including country scores, rankings, and methodological notes, remains available for historical and comparative research.  \nResearchers can access archived versions through the IDB Open Data platform and the EIU\u2019s project documentation, which preserves these early insights into Latin America\u2019s PPP evolution.\n\n### Key Findings and Country Rankings (2010)\n\n### The Leaders of 2010\n\nChile, Brazil, and Peru emerged as the regional frontrunners, showcasing strong legal frameworks, established PPP institutions, and consistent private-sector participation in infrastructure projects.\n\n### The Laggards of 2010\n\nCountries with weaker institutional frameworks\u2014such as Bolivia, Ecuador, and several Caribbean nations\u2014struggled to create transparent, predictable environments for investors.  \nFrequent policy changes and limited contract enforcement were among the biggest deterrents to long-term investment.\n\n### Common Deficiencies\n\nAcross the region, the most cited challenges included:\n\n- Absence of independent regulators  \n- Political interference in project selection and oversight  \n- Weak judicial systems for enforcing contracts  \n- Limited technical expertise within government PPP units  \n\n### Sectoral Readiness\n\nInfrastructure maturity varied widely by sector.  \nTransport and energy were seen as relatively advanced, while water and sanitation lagged due to complex tariff structures and limited private participation.\n\n### The Economic and Policy Context of 2010\n\n### The Commodity Boom\n\nRising commodity revenues gave many Latin American countries fiscal breathing room, yet debates persisted over whether to rely on public investment or PPP mechanisms to meet infrastructure needs.  \nResource wealth often masked the need for sustainable, private-sector-led infrastructure solutions.\n\n### Early PPP Institutions\n\nBy 2010, only a handful of countries\u2014such as Chile, Mexico, and Colombia\u2014had established dedicated PPP agencies or finance ministry units.  \nIn most cases, institutional capacity for PPP planning and oversight was still in its early stages.\n\n### Investor Appetite\n\nFollowing the financial crisis, international investors exhibited cautious optimism toward Latin American infrastructure projects.  \nWhile interest remained strong, investors demanded greater regulatory stability and risk-mitigation mechanisms before committing capital.\n\n### Evolution and Comparison (2010 vs. 2025)\n\n### A 15-Year Retrospective\n\nFifteen years later, the Infrascope 2025 shows dramatic shifts in PPP readiness.  \nCountries like Colombia, Uruguay, and Paraguay have significantly improved their rankings, while others have plateaued due to political uncertainty or fiscal constraints.\n\n### Evolution of Priorities\n\nSince 2010, priorities in Latin American infrastructure have evolved beyond traditional project finance.  \nThe modern agenda emphasizes climate resilience, sustainability, and digital transformation, with growing recognition that infrastructure must support both economic growth and environmental adaptation.\n\n### Lessons Learned\n\nThe 2010\u20132025 period demonstrates that successful PPPs depend on more than financial engineering.  \nSustained progress hinges on institutional maturity, transparent procurement, and long-term accountability mechanisms that survive political transitions.", "es": "Entre los primeros term\u00f3metros regionales que midieron la preparaci\u00f3n de la infraestructura de Am\u00e9rica Latina para las Asociaciones P\u00fablico-Privadas (APP) figura el Infrascope 2010.  \nFruto del trabajo conjunto de la Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) y el Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID), esta edici\u00f3n inaugural retrat\u00f3 con detalle hasta qu\u00e9 punto los pa\u00edses de Am\u00e9rica Latina y el Caribe estaban listos para atraer y administrar inversi\u00f3n privada en sectores estrat\u00e9gicos de infraestructura.\n\n### Metodolog\u00eda\n\nPara evaluar a los pa\u00edses, el Infrascope 2010 se apoy\u00f3 en cinco pilares fundamentales:\n\n1. Marco legal y regulatorio  \n2. Capacidad institucional  \n3. Madurez operativa  \n4. Clima de inversi\u00f3n y de negocios  \n5. Facilidades financieras\n\nEstas dimensiones representaban los cimientos de la preparaci\u00f3n para las APP en aquel entonces y giraban en torno a una pregunta central: \u00bfdispon\u00edan los gobiernos de las leyes, las instituciones y los mecanismos de financiamiento que se necesitan para sumar de manera efectiva a los socios privados?\n\n### El contexto poscrisis\n\nApenas superada la Crisis Financiera Global de 2008\u20132009, la regi\u00f3n se top\u00f3 con un reto doble: relanzar el crecimiento econ\u00f3mico sin desatender una marcada brecha de infraestructura.  \nFrente a presupuestos p\u00fablicos cada vez m\u00e1s estrechos, el informe Infrascope 2010 present\u00f3 a las APP como un instrumento clave para atraer capital privado y subray\u00f3 que la transparencia, el reparto de riesgos y la credibilidad institucional eran condiciones indispensables para alcanzar buenos resultados.\n\n### Accesibilidad de los datos\n\nCon sus puntuaciones por pa\u00eds, sus clasificaciones y sus notas metodol\u00f3gicas, el conjunto de datos original del Infrascope 2010 contin\u00faa al alcance de quienes realizan investigaci\u00f3n hist\u00f3rica y comparativa.  \nLas versiones archivadas pueden consultarse en la plataforma IDB Open Data y en la documentaci\u00f3n del proyecto de la EIU, que resguarda estos primeros aprendizajes sobre la trayectoria de las APP en Am\u00e9rica Latina.\n\n### Hallazgos clave y clasificaciones de pa\u00edses (2010)\n\n### Los l\u00edderes de 2010\n\nA la cabeza de la regi\u00f3n se ubicaron Chile, Brasil y Per\u00fa, que exhib\u00edan marcos legales robustos, instituciones de APP ya consolidadas y una participaci\u00f3n sostenida del sector privado en sus proyectos de infraestructura.\n\n### Los rezagados de 2010\n\nDonde los marcos institucionales eran m\u00e1s fr\u00e1giles\u2014como en Bolivia, Ecuador y varias naciones del Caribe\u2014result\u00f3 dif\u00edcil ofrecer a los inversionistas entornos transparentes y previsibles.  \nLos virajes constantes en las pol\u00edticas y la escasa exigibilidad de los contratos se contaron entre los principales frenos a la inversi\u00f3n de largo plazo.\n\n### Deficiencias comunes\n\nLos obst\u00e1culos m\u00e1s mencionados a lo largo de la regi\u00f3n fueron:\n\n- Ausencia de reguladores independientes  \n- Interferencia pol\u00edtica en la selecci\u00f3n y supervisi\u00f3n de proyectos  \n- Sistemas judiciales d\u00e9biles para hacer cumplir los contratos  \n- Conocimientos t\u00e9cnicos limitados dentro de las unidades gubernamentales de APP  \n\n### Preparaci\u00f3n sectorial\n\nEl grado de madurez de la infraestructura difer\u00eda notablemente de un sector a otro.  \nMientras que transporte y energ\u00eda se percib\u00edan como relativamente avanzados, agua y saneamiento se manten\u00edan a la zaga por sus complejas estructuras tarifarias y la escasa participaci\u00f3n privada.\n\n### El contexto econ\u00f3mico y de pol\u00edticas de 2010\n\n### El auge de las materias primas\n\nUnos ingresos crecientes por materias primas concedieron un respiro fiscal a numerosos pa\u00edses latinoamericanos; aun as\u00ed, segu\u00eda abierto el debate sobre si conven\u00eda financiar la infraestructura con inversi\u00f3n p\u00fablica o con esquemas de APP.  \nNo pocas veces, la abundancia de recursos disimulaba la necesidad de soluciones de infraestructura sostenibles y conducidas por el sector privado.\n\n### Instituciones tempranas de APP\n\nHacia 2010, eran apenas un pu\u00f1ado los pa\u00edses\u2014Chile, M\u00e9xico y Colombia, por ejemplo\u2014que ya hab\u00edan creado agencias de APP o unidades especializadas dentro de los ministerios de finanzas.  \nEn la mayor\u00eda de los casos, la capacidad institucional para planificar y supervisar las APP apenas comenzaba a desarrollarse.\n\n### Apetito de los inversionistas\n\nUna vez pasada la crisis financiera, los inversionistas internacionales observaron los proyectos de infraestructura latinoamericanos con un optimismo prudente.  \nEl inter\u00e9s segu\u00eda siendo elevado, pero antes de comprometer capital los inversionistas reclamaban mayor estabilidad regulatoria y herramientas para mitigar los riesgos.\n\n### Evoluci\u00f3n y comparaci\u00f3n (2010 vs. 2025)\n\n### Una retrospectiva de 15 a\u00f1os\n\nTranscurridos quince a\u00f1os, el Infrascope 2025 revela giros notables en la preparaci\u00f3n para las APP.", "fr": "Parmi les tout premiers r\u00e9f\u00e9rentiels r\u00e9gionaux \u00e0 mesurer la maturit\u00e9 des infrastructures d'Am\u00e9rique latine au regard des Partenariats public-priv\u00e9 (PPP), l'Infrascope 2010 occupe une place de pionnier.  \nN\u00e9e de la collaboration entre l'Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) et la Banque interam\u00e9ricaine de d\u00e9veloppement (BID), cette \u00e9dition inaugurale brossait un portrait d\u00e9taill\u00e9 de l'aptitude des pays d'Am\u00e9rique latine et des Cara\u00efbes \u00e0 attirer et \u00e0 piloter les investissements priv\u00e9s dans des secteurs d'infrastructure strat\u00e9giques.\n\n### M\u00e9thodologie\n\nPour noter les pays, l'Infrascope 2010 s'est appuy\u00e9 sur cinq piliers fondamentaux :\n\n1. Cadre juridique et r\u00e9glementaire  \n2. Capacit\u00e9 institutionnelle  \n3. Maturit\u00e9 op\u00e9rationnelle  \n4. Climat d'investissement et des affaires  \n5. Facilit\u00e9s financi\u00e8res\n\nRepr\u00e9sentant les assises de la maturit\u00e9 des PPP \u00e0 l'\u00e9poque, ces dimensions tournaient autour d'une interrogation centrale : les gouvernements disposaient-ils des lois, des institutions et des m\u00e9canismes de financement indispensables pour associer efficacement des partenaires priv\u00e9s ?\n\n### Le contexte post-crise\n\nTout juste sortie de la crise financi\u00e8re mondiale de 2008\u20132009, l'Am\u00e9rique latine devait relever un double d\u00e9fi : raviver la croissance \u00e9conomique sans n\u00e9gliger un d\u00e9ficit d'infrastructure consid\u00e9rable.  \nAlors que les budgets publics se resserraient, le rapport Infrascope 2010 \u00e9rigeait les PPP en levier essentiel pour mobiliser des capitaux priv\u00e9s et insistait sur la transparence, la r\u00e9partition des risques et la cr\u00e9dibilit\u00e9 institutionnelle comme conditions sine qua non de la r\u00e9ussite.\n\n### Accessibilit\u00e9 des donn\u00e9es\n\nAvec ses scores par pays, ses classements et ses notes m\u00e9thodologiques, le jeu de donn\u00e9es original de l'Infrascope 2010 demeure accessible pour la recherche historique et comparative.  \nLes versions archiv\u00e9es se consultent sur la plateforme IDB Open Data ainsi que dans la documentation de projet de l'EIU, qui conserve ces premiers enseignements sur la trajectoire des PPP en Am\u00e9rique latine.\n\n### Principaux r\u00e9sultats et classements des pays (2010)\n\n### Les leaders de 2010\n\nEn t\u00eate de la r\u00e9gion figuraient le Chili, le Br\u00e9sil et le P\u00e9rou, forts de cadres juridiques solides, d'institutions de PPP d\u00e9j\u00e0 \u00e9tablies et d'une participation soutenue du secteur priv\u00e9 \u00e0 leurs projets d'infrastructure.\n\n### Les retardataires de 2010\n\nL\u00e0 o\u00f9 les cadres institutionnels demeuraient plus fragiles\u2014comme en Bolivie, en \u00c9quateur et dans plusieurs nations des Cara\u00efbes\u2014il s'av\u00e9rait difficile d'offrir aux investisseurs des environnements transparents et pr\u00e9visibles.  \nLes revirements fr\u00e9quents de politiques et la faible ex\u00e9cution des contrats comptaient parmi les principaux freins \u00e0 l'investissement de long terme.\n\n### D\u00e9ficiences communes\n\n\u00c0 l'\u00e9chelle de la r\u00e9gion, les difficult\u00e9s les plus souvent \u00e9voqu\u00e9es \u00e9taient :\n\n- L'absence de r\u00e9gulateurs ind\u00e9pendants  \n- L'ing\u00e9rence politique dans la s\u00e9lection et la supervision des projets  \n- Des syst\u00e8mes judiciaires faibles pour faire respecter les contrats  \n- Une expertise technique limit\u00e9e au sein des unit\u00e9s gouvernementales de PPP  \n\n### Pr\u00e9paration sectorielle\n\nLe degr\u00e9 de maturit\u00e9 des infrastructures diff\u00e9rait fortement d'un secteur \u00e0 l'autre.  \nSi les transports et l'\u00e9nergie passaient pour relativement avanc\u00e9s, l'eau et l'assainissement restaient \u00e0 la tra\u00eene, frein\u00e9s par des structures tarifaires complexes et une participation priv\u00e9e r\u00e9duite.\n\n### Le contexte \u00e9conomique et politique de 2010\n\n### Le boom des mati\u00e8res premi\u00e8res\n\nLes recettes croissantes tir\u00e9es des mati\u00e8res premi\u00e8res offraient \u00e0 de nombreux pays d'Am\u00e9rique latine une bouff\u00e9e d'air budg\u00e9taire ; le d\u00e9bat n'en restait pas moins vif sur le choix entre l'investissement public et les m\u00e9canismes de PPP pour combler les besoins en infrastructure.  \nBien souvent, cette abondance de ressources occultait la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 de solutions d'infrastructure durables et port\u00e9es par le secteur priv\u00e9.\n\n### Les premi\u00e8res institutions de PPP\n\nEn 2010, rares \u00e9taient les pays\u2014le Chili, le Mexique et la Colombie notamment\u2014\u00e0 s'\u00eatre dot\u00e9s d'agences de PPP ou d'unit\u00e9s d\u00e9di\u00e9es au sein des minist\u00e8res des finances.  \nDans la plupart des cas, la capacit\u00e9 institutionnelle \u00e0 planifier et \u00e0 superviser les PPP n'en \u00e9tait encore qu'\u00e0 ses balbutiements.\n\n### L'app\u00e9tit des investisseurs\n\nUne fois la crise financi\u00e8re pass\u00e9e, les investisseurs internationaux ont consid\u00e9r\u00e9 les projets d'infrastructure latino-am\u00e9ricains avec un optimisme mesur\u00e9.  \nL'int\u00e9r\u00eat restait vif, mais, avant d'engager leurs capitaux, les investisseurs r\u00e9clamaient une plus grande stabilit\u00e9 r\u00e9glementaire et des dispositifs d'att\u00e9nuation des risques.", "pt_BR": "Entre os primeiros referenciais regionais a medir o quanto a infraestrutura da Am\u00e9rica Latina estava preparada para as Parcerias P\u00fablico-Privadas (PPPs) est\u00e1 o Infrascope 2010.  \nResultado do trabalho conjunto entre a Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) e o Banco Interamericano de Desenvolvimento (BID), esta edi\u00e7\u00e3o de estreia tra\u00e7ou um retrato minucioso de qu\u00e3o prontos estavam os pa\u00edses da Am\u00e9rica Latina e do Caribe para atrair e administrar investimentos privados em setores estrat\u00e9gicos de infraestrutura.\n\n### Metodologia\n\nNa hora de avaliar os pa\u00edses, o Infrascope 2010 apoiou-se em cinco pilares fundamentais:\n\n1. Marco legal e regulat\u00f3rio  \n2. Capacidade institucional  \n3. Maturidade operacional  \n4. Clima de investimento e de neg\u00f3cios  \n5. Mecanismos financeiros\n\nRepresentando os alicerces da prontid\u00e3o para PPPs naquele per\u00edodo, essas dimens\u00f5es giravam em torno de uma pergunta central: os governos contavam com as leis, as institui\u00e7\u00f5es e os mecanismos de financiamento de que precisavam para somar parceiros privados de maneira eficaz?\n\n### O contexto p\u00f3s-crise\n\nMal havia deixado para tr\u00e1s a Crise Financeira Global de 2008\u20132009, a regi\u00e3o j\u00e1 se via diante de um desafio duplo: reaquecer o crescimento econ\u00f4mico sem perder de vista uma expressiva lacuna de infraestrutura.  \nDiante de or\u00e7amentos p\u00fablicos cada vez mais apertados, o relat\u00f3rio Infrascope 2010 apresentou as PPPs como instrumento decisivo para mobilizar capital privado e ressaltou que transpar\u00eancia, distribui\u00e7\u00e3o de riscos e credibilidade institucional eram requisitos indispens\u00e1veis para o \u00eaxito.\n\n### Acessibilidade dos dados\n\nCom suas pontua\u00e7\u00f5es por pa\u00eds, seus rankings e suas notas metodol\u00f3gicas, o conjunto de dados original do Infrascope 2010 segue \u00e0 disposi\u00e7\u00e3o de quem realiza pesquisa hist\u00f3rica e comparativa.  \nAs vers\u00f5es arquivadas podem ser consultadas na plataforma IDB Open Data e na documenta\u00e7\u00e3o de projeto da EIU, que guarda esses primeiros aprendizados sobre a trajet\u00f3ria das PPPs na Am\u00e9rica Latina.\n\n### Principais conclus\u00f5es e rankings dos pa\u00edses (2010)\n\n### Os l\u00edderes de 2010\n\nNo topo da regi\u00e3o apareceram Chile, Brasil e Peru, que ostentavam marcos legais robustos, institui\u00e7\u00f5es de PPP j\u00e1 consolidadas e uma participa\u00e7\u00e3o cont\u00ednua do setor privado em seus projetos de infraestrutura.\n\n### Os retardat\u00e1rios de 2010\n\nOnde os marcos institucionais eram mais fr\u00e1geis\u2014como em Bol\u00edvia, Equador e em v\u00e1rias na\u00e7\u00f5es do Caribe\u2014tornou-se dif\u00edcil oferecer aos investidores ambientes transparentes e previs\u00edveis.  \nAs constantes guinadas nas pol\u00edticas e a baixa exigibilidade dos contratos figuravam entre os principais entraves ao investimento de longo prazo.\n\n### Defici\u00eancias comuns\n\nEm toda a regi\u00e3o, os obst\u00e1culos mais lembrados eram:\n\n- Aus\u00eancia de reguladores independentes  \n- Interfer\u00eancia pol\u00edtica na sele\u00e7\u00e3o e supervis\u00e3o de projetos  \n- Sistemas judiciais fracos para fazer cumprir os contratos  \n- Expertise t\u00e9cnica limitada dentro das unidades governamentais de PPP  \n\n### Prontid\u00e3o setorial\n\nO grau de maturidade da infraestrutura oscilava bastante de um setor para outro.  \nAo passo que transporte e energia eram tidos como relativamente avan\u00e7ados, \u00e1gua e saneamento ficavam para tr\u00e1s por causa de estruturas tarif\u00e1rias complexas e da reduzida participa\u00e7\u00e3o privada.\n\n### O contexto econ\u00f4mico e de pol\u00edticas de 2010\n\n### O boom das commodities\n\nReceitas crescentes com commodities concederam al\u00edvio fiscal a muitos pa\u00edses latino-americanos; ainda assim, permanecia aberto o debate sobre financiar a infraestrutura com investimento p\u00fablico ou com esquemas de PPP.  \nN\u00e3o raro, a abund\u00e2ncia de recursos disfar\u00e7ava a necessidade de solu\u00e7\u00f5es de infraestrutura sustent\u00e1veis e conduzidas pelo setor privado.\n\n### As primeiras institui\u00e7\u00f5es de PPP\n\nPor volta de 2010, eram poucos os pa\u00edses\u2014Chile, M\u00e9xico e Col\u00f4mbia, por exemplo\u2014que j\u00e1 haviam criado ag\u00eancias de PPP ou unidades especializadas nos minist\u00e9rios das finan\u00e7as.  \nNa maior parte dos casos, a capacidade institucional para planejar e supervisionar as PPPs mal come\u00e7ava a se desenvolver.\n\n### Apetite dos investidores\n\nUma vez superada a crise financeira, os investidores internacionais olharam para os projetos de infraestrutura latino-americanos com um otimismo cauteloso.  \nO interesse continuava forte, mas, antes de comprometer capital, os investidores cobravam mais estabilidade regulat\u00f3ria e mecanismos para mitigar os riscos.\n\n### Evolu\u00e7\u00e3o e compara\u00e7\u00e3o (2010 vs. 2025)\n\n### Uma retrospectiva de 15 anos\n\nPassados quinze anos, o Infrascope 2025 evidencia viradas expressivas na prontid\u00e3o para PPPs.  \nEnquanto Col\u00f4mbia, Uruguai e Paraguai subiram de forma consider\u00e1vel nos rankings, outros pa\u00edses estacionaram em raz\u00e3o da incerteza pol\u00edtica ou de restri\u00e7\u00f5es fiscais."}}}