relative to the top decile of the world sample in energy-generating capacity as well as road density and quality (Table 5, panel A). For telecommunications penetration, the gap for most regions exceeds 50 percent—except for UMCs (with a gap lower than 10 percent). In the case of total access to improved water sources, the gap in Sub-Saharan Africa vis-à-vis the benchmark is lower than 50 percent—and it is even lower than 10 percent for UMCs in the region. Qualitatively, these gaps hold for rural access to improved sources of water.

**Table 5. Infrastructure Performance in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Scorecard**

||Telecom|Energy<br>_Quantity_|Transport<br>|Energy<br>_Qu_|Transport<br>_ality_|Energy<br>Total|Energy<br>Rural|Water<br>Total|Water Rural<br>_Access_|Sanitation<br>Total|Sanitation<br>Rural|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|||||**Panel A.**|**SSA and su**|**b‐regions**||||||
|**Sub‐Saharan Africa**|C|D|D|D|D|C|D|B|B|C|D|
|_LIC_|C|D|D|C|D|D|D|B|B|D|D|
|_LMC_|C|D|D|B|D|C|D|B|B|C|D|
|_UMC_|A|C|B|A|A|A|B|A|A|B|B|
|||||**Panel**|**B. SSAperc**|**entiles**||||||
|_Top 10%_|A|D|C|B|C|A|C|A|A|B|B|
|_Top 25%_|C|D|C|C|C|B|C|A|B|C|C|
|_Bottom 25%_|D|D|D|D|D|D|D|B|C|D|D|
|_Bottom 10%_<br>**_Leyend_**_: D or brown represents_<br>_and A or dark green represents a_<br>**_Quantity:_** Telecom_is fixed and_<br>_length of the road network in k_<br>_the share of paver roads (% tota_<br>_and_Sanitation_is improved san_|D<br>_a ratio low_<br>_ratio grea_<br>_mobile lin_<br>_m. per sq. k_<br>_l in logs)._ <br>_itation faci_|D<br>_er than 0._<br>_ter than 0_<br>_es per 1,00_<br>_m (in logs)_<br>**_Access:_**E<br>_lities (% o_|D<br>_25, C or yello_<br>_.75._<br>_0 workers (i_<br>_._**_Quality:_**En<br>nergy_is acce_<br>_f population_|D<br>_w represent_<br>_n logs),_Ene<br>ergy_is elec_<br>_ss to electri_<br>_in logs)._|D<br>_s a ratio betw_<br>rgy_is electri_<br>_tric power tr_<br>_city (% of po_|D<br>_een 0.25 a_<br>_city genera_<br>_ansmission_<br>_pulation in_|D<br>_nd 0.5, B or_<br>_ting capaci_<br>_and distrib_<br>_logs),_Wate|C<br>_light green_<br>_ty per 1,000_<br>_ution losses_<br>r_is improv_|C<br>_represents a rat_<br>_workers (in log_<br>_(% of output in_<br>_ed water source_|D<br>_io between 0._<br>_s), and_Trans<br>_logs), and_Tr<br>_s (% of popula_|D<br>_5 and 0.75,_<br>port_is_<br>ansport_is_<br>_tion in logs),_|

Panel B in table 5 shows the gap for best and worst performers in the region (relative to the top 10 percent of the world distribution), as approximated by the top decile, top quartile, bottom quartile, and bottom decile of the Sub-Saharan Africa distribution. For the bottom percentiles of the distribution (10th and 25th percentiles), the gap in quantity and quality of infrastructure is greater than 75 percent—regardless of the infrastructure sector. The same holds for access to electricity and access to sanitation. The gaps for the bottom percentiles are not as large in access to safe water. For the best performers in the region (75th and 90th percentiles), the performance is still dismal in electric power–generating capacity. For the top decile of the distribution in Sub-Saharan Africa, there is a narrow gap in telecommunications penetration (about 20 percent), overall access to electricity, and access to water. The gaps in energy quality and access to sanitation facilities are moderate.

# **B.2. Conditional comparisons**

Regional differences in infrastructure trends may partly reflect the differences across regions in key infrastructure drivers—for instance, geographic and demographic factors, as well as real income per capita (see Canning 1998). It is far from trivial to assess this hypothesis, since some of these drivers—notably, income levels—are themselves affected by infrastructure trends. The cross-regional comparison presented in the previous section implicitly takes some of these factors into account, to the extent that it focuses on infrastructure stocks normalized by population or labor force (or, in the case of transport networks, by country area) and includes benchmark groups among the relevant comparators for Sub-Saharan Africa.

Benchmarking infrastructure sectors across countries in Sub-Saharan Africa involves a systematic approach to examining the trends in infrastructure after adjusting for the effect of country-specific characteristics. This procedure is conducted in two stages. First, measures of adjusted infrastructure quantity— as well as quality and access—and adjusted income per capita are defined by the residuals from projecting these _Infrastructure in Sub-Saharan Africa - 11_