2.2 Rationale and Principles for an Approach to Infrastructure Prioritization The IPF framework is differentiated in four ways from other approaches to infrastructure decision‐making. First, it incorporates national policy goals, social and environmental sustainability criteria, and long‐term development aims alongside financial and economic considerations. Second, it is predicated on parsimony and pragmatism. Third, it makes space for policy debate via criteria identification and the selection of projects from mid‐priority categories. Fourth, it provides decision‐makers with an intuitive, graphical interface upon which to compare alternative investment scenarios.

The IPF was created in response to observed government demand, including needs for (a) improving infrastructure planning at the national and sector levels; (b) considering large projects sets with scarce planning resources; (c) meaningfully addressing environmental and social primacies; and (d) balancing analytical efficiency, derived from standardization, with policy and political responsiveness. Adopting a systematic approach to prioritization is further justified by public demand for evidence, value, and legitimacy in infrastructure decision‐making. These logics are detailed in Marcelo, et al, 2016. To be deemed legitimate and comprehensive, prioritization must be based on sound evidence that affords meaningful comparison. In line with these considerations, the IPF is designed to employ quantitative measures to the greatest extent possible to limit subjectivity.

Furthermore, comprehensiveness requires that project comparisons make space for multiple policy goals and facets of project selection. This lends support to employing multi‐criteria approaches, with criteria selected to reflect considerations of effectiveness and value, as well as sector and national policy goals. The IPF captures the strengths of multi‐criteria decision approaches, but also allows use of inputs from cost‐benefit analysis (CBA).<sup>5</sup> Finally, the process to prioritize investments must be administratively and politically feasible. This suggests that governments adopt the principle of parsimony –using the least amount of relevant information needed to inform a decision. Administrative feasibility means that it can be implemented within limits of institutional capacity, cost, time, and data availability. Political feasibility, on the other hand, accepts that prioritization cannot be so devoid of deliberation that it is rendered completely inflexible or unresponsive to political factors. In summary, most infrastructure policy‐making contexts demand a reconciliation of highly technical and objective policy analysis, on the one hand, and more political and practice‐ based inputs, on the other, all within the resource means of governments.

> 5 We recognize multiple approaches to investment decision‐making, including social cost‐benefit analysis (SCBA). For an extensive discussion of alternative approaches, see Marcelo, et al, 2016. Whereas SCBA requires fully monetized information on costs and benefits, IPF makes use of available inputs (e.g., financial CBA). IPF's value‐adds to CBA are in (a) directly treating non‐marketed impacts in 'natural' units; (b) relieving the burden of making and justifying assumptions required to monetize benefits and costs; and (c) dealing directly with issues like equity and social justice.

7