aggregate data. In relation to the projected investment needs for the 10<sup>th</sup> Five Year Plan from 2001-2005, PPI in WSS from 2001-2003 in China thus far amounts to about 4% of estimated needs (pro-rated because the PPI data covers only 60% of the plan period). Put otherwise, Bellier and Zhou underscore that the planned investments in water alone amounts to over 100 Chengdu BOT water projects, the Chengdu project being the largest PPI on record at the time of writing their paper.

Transportation PPI appears to have fared somewhat better in total investment in China, at least for a period. Bellier and Zhou (2003:47) cite estimates that about 10% of total transport investment (not exclusively urban) has been financed by PPI. However, they also note that a significant share of those investments, around 80%, has been for expansion or rehabilitation of existing expressways. In those projects, the government has already taken most of the construction and traffic risks. It appears that the role of PPI in urban transportation overall has not been so significant. Based on Asian Development Bank et alia (2005) local governments are estimated to have spent over $37 billion on urban transport in 2003. This is about 12 times the amount raised in all urban transport transactions captured in the PPI database covering several years. The trend in urban transport PPI in China is also disturbing. The PPI database indicates no projects concluded since 1999. This coincides with the change in central government policy regarding guaranteed returns in expressway projects. (Bellier and Zhou: 48) Thus, although the sector appears somewhat less problematic than water, the share of PPI in urban transport investment in total remains quite limited. While China has shown itself a world leader in attracting FDI and has concluded a number of PPI transactions, the evidence indicates that PPI remains a minor source of urban infrastructure investment funding.

PPI in India has been limited and disappointing in comparison to the great hopes in the mid-1990s that accompanied economy-wide reforms and worldwide interest in PPI. India accounts for only 5% of total PPI transactions in the World Bank database, and only 1% of total urban infrastructure transactions. PPI has not succeeded in making any significant impact on the low level of infrastructure investment in cities. There is very little data available measuring actual infrastructure investment spending in Indian cities. Nonetheless, it is estimated that total spending in cities has not increased from about 0.5% of GDP over the 15 year period since the 74<sup>th</sup> Constitutional Amendment Act that started the decentralization process in India. While States and the Centre may spend on urban infrastructure in India, there is little evidence of service improvements to indicate that there has been a significant upsurge in infrastructure investment as the Indian economy has taken off more broadly. In a very influential volume, the Expert Group on the Commercialization of Infrastructure Projects (1996) estimated urban infrastructure investment requirements in India, both to meet the existing service gap and to satisfy incremental needs as the urban population grows. They estimated annual urban infrastructure investment requirements phased over ten years at around Rs. 280 billion (in 1994-95 prices). By contrast, total urban PPI from the World Bank database amounts to about $420 million in total, or about Rs. 19 billion, representing an average of a little over Rs. 2 billion per annum, less than 1% of the total urban infrastructure investment 8