Journal for Policy & Market Research

The contemporary infrastructure investment landscape is defined by a fundamental paradox: a staggering global requirement for capital to bridge a $4 trillion annual investment gap through 2030, set against a fundraising environment where capital is increasingly concentrated among mega-funds and timelines for new firm closure have nearly doubled since 2021.[1, 2] For practitioners seeking to establish and build a successful infrastructure investment firm, success is no longer merely a function of capital deployment but of sophisticated organizational design, rigorous regulatory compliance, and a deep understanding of the secular megatrends—digitalization and decarbonization—that are redefining the asset class.[3, 4] The transition from traditional public-sector procurement to a private-equity-oriented model has necessitated a multidisciplinary approach that blends project finance, engineering due diligence, and institutional-grade fund management.[5, 6, 7]

Foundational Architecture and Organizational Establishment

The inception of an infrastructure investment firm requires a methodical orchestration of legal, administrative, and strategic steps. The initial phase is characterized by the selection of a corporate identity and the development of a comprehensive business plan that documents industry analysis, target customer demographics, and a five-year financial projection.[8] This plan must detail the firm’s projected sales and expenses, startup costs, and the specific mechanisms through which the firm intends to generate revenue, whether through management fees, carried interest, or direct co-investment yields.[8, 9]

Legal Structuring and Jurisdictional Selection

The selection of a legal structure is a pivotal decision that impacts liability protection, tax efficiency, and the firm’s attractiveness to institutional investors. Most infrastructure firms utilize a dual-entity structure: an investment management (IM) entity and one or more investment fund vehicles.[5] The Limited Partnership (LP) is the prevailing model for private equity-style infrastructure funds, where a General Partner (GP) manages the operations and assumes liability, while Limited Partners (LPs) provide the capital with limited liability.[10] In specific international contexts, such as those governed by European or civil law, structures like the Société Anonyme (SA) or the Société à responsabilité limitée (Sàrl) may be required to facilitate cross-border capital flows and meet local regulatory standards.[10]

Entity Type	Primary Function	Key Regulatory/Legal Attribute
Sole Proprietorship	Simplest form for individual advisors	No legal distinction between owner and business [8]
Limited Partnership (LP)	Standard for PE-style funds	GP manages; LPs provide capital with limited liability [10]
Limited Liability Company (LLC)	Often used for fund managers or mutual funds	Combines corporate liability with partnership taxation [10]
C/S Corporation	High-level corporate structures	Subject to specific IRS tax treatments (e.g., S-Corp pass-through) [8]
Société Anonyme (SA)	Public limited company	Common in European and offshore jurisdictions [10]

Once the legal entity is formed, the firm must register with the IRS and open dedicated business banking accounts to maintain the separation of personal and business expenses, which is critical for future audits and regulatory reviews.[8] This process typically involves providing Articles of Incorporation, proof of address, and personal identification to the banking institution, followed by the acquisition of business credit cards to establish a corporate credit profile.[8]

Operational Scaling and Service Provider Ecosystem

Launching an institutional-grade firm requires the integration of a complex service provider ecosystem. A modern firm must decide between building internal capacity and outsourcing non-core functions to specialized consultants.[5] The “Launch Workflow” for an investment manager involves securing legal counsel for drafting Private Placement Memorandums (PPMs) and Limited Partnership Agreements (LPAs), as well as hiring audit and tax professionals to manage the fund’s financial oversight.[5]

Critical service providers include:

• Fund Administrators: Responsible for the daily maintenance of books and records, trade reconciliation, and the calculation of Net Asset Value (NAV).[5]
• Compliance Specialists: Firms must register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or relevant local bodies like the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). Compliance specialists assist in drafting manuals and conducting mandatory employee training.[5, 11]
• Custodians and Counterparties: These entities facilitate the clearing and execution of trades and provide secure custody of fund assets.[5]
• Specialized Systems Providers: The firm requires sophisticated technology for Treasury management, Risk Management, and Portfolio Management Systems (PMS) to track complex infrastructure assets across their multi-decade lifecycles.[5]

Strategic Portfolio Construction: Core to Opportunistic

The strategy of an infrastructure firm is defined by its position on the risk-return spectrum. Unlike traditional real estate, infrastructure assets are valued for their utility and the essential nature of the services they provide, which leads to relatively inelastic demand and non-cyclical cash flows.[12, 13] The firm must decide whether to pursue a yield-focused “Core” strategy or a capital-appreciation-focused “Opportunistic” strategy.[7, 14]

Risk-Return Profiles in Infrastructure

Infrastructure strategies are typically segmented into four categories based on the stage of asset development and the level of operational risk involved.

Strategy	Target Asset Characteristics	Expected Risk/Return Profile
Core	Operational, monopolistic, high margins, long-term contracts	Low risk; high-single to low-double-digit returns [7, 14]
Core Plus	High-quality assets with growth potential through operational improvements	Moderate risk; low-to-mid-double-digit returns [7, 14]
Value-Add	Assets requiring significant enhancements, enhancements in demand, or technology updates	Moderate-to-high risk; mid-double-digit returns [7, 14]
Opportunistic	Greenfield developments, unproven technologies, or high-leverage projects	High risk; seeking 15-20% or more in capital growth [7, 14]

A balanced portfolio often allocates approximately two-thirds of its capital to Core and Core Plus assets to ensure stable yield and inflation protection, while dedicating the remaining one-third to Value-Add or Opportunistic projects to capture the higher returns associated with the development phase.[9] This allocation mirrors the broader market opportunity and the desire of institutional investors for diversified income streams that exhibit low correlation to traditional asset classes like stocks and bonds.[4, 9, 12]

Greenfield vs. Brownfield Development

A fundamental strategic choice involves the stage of project entry. Greenfield investments involve developing new assets from scratch and are the riskiest due to construction, regulatory, and demand uncertainties.[15, 16] However, they offer complete control over facility design, allowing firms to incorporate the latest technology and sustainability standards from the outset.[16] Conversely, Brownfield investments involve the acquisition or lease of existing operational facilities.[15, 16] These assets offer established cash flows and lower initial development costs but may require significant modernization or the mitigation of legacy environmental liabilities.[15, 16]

In emerging markets, where the infrastructure gap is most acute, Greenfield projects play a crucial role in economic development.[15] However, these projects are subject to higher macro risks, including political instability and fluctuating demand forecasts.[15, 16] Firms must therefore balance the higher returns of Greenfield projects with the “ballast” provided by de-risked Brownfield or secondary-stage assets that offer proven cash flow consistency.[15, 17]

Financial Modeling and Valuation Methodologies

The valuation of infrastructure assets requires a departure from standard equity valuation due to the high leverage and long-term contracted nature of the projects.[13] The Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method is the industry standard, typically utilizing Unlevered Free Cash Flow (UFCF) to assess the underlying asset value regardless of the capital structure.[13]

Discount Rates and the 30-Year Horizon

In infrastructure valuation, the discount rate must reflect the asset’s lifespan, which often spans decades. The 30-year Treasury bond is commonly used as a proxy for the risk-free rate, with additional premiums added for illiquidity and specific project risks.[13] The Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) must be meticulously calculated to account for the high levels of leverage typical in the sector.[13] Because infrastructure provides stable and predictable cash flows, these assets can support significantly higher debt-to-equity ratios than typical industrial firms, though this leverage itself represents a risk if revenue generation fails to match interest payment obligations.[13]

The valuation formula for an infrastructure asset can be represented as:

PV=t=1∑n​(1+WACC)tUFCFt​​+(1+WACC)nTerminalValue​

Where UFCF represents the cash flow generated by the asset available to all providers of capital, and n represents the long-dated concession or operational period.[13] Terminal value is often calculated based on the assumption that the asset will be handed back to the government (in a concession model) or sold in a secondary transaction.[18]

Fundraising Dynamics and the Lifecycle of a Private Fund

Building an infrastructure firm is as much an exercise in marketing as it is in engineering. Raising capital involves a multi-stage process that has become increasingly complex in the “Infrastructure 3.0” era.[2] In 2024, the average time to reach a final close for an infrastructure fund increased to 31 months, nearly double the duration required in 2021.[2] This extension is driven by lower distribution ratios—where capital is “trapped” in maturing assets—and the dominance of mega-funds that consolidate the majority of institutional allocations.[2]

The Fundraising Timeline

The fundraising process progresses through several critical milestones:

1. Preparation and Marketing: Development of the PPM and marketing materials, which can take six months to over a year.[19, 20]
2. First Closing: The initial round of commitments that allows the fund to begin its operations and investment period.[19, 21]
3. Subsequent Closings: Additional rounds to raise the remaining target capital, often assisted by placement agents who facilitate introductions to institutional investors.[19, 20, 21]
4. Final Closing: The formal conclusion of the fundraising period, locking in the total capital available to the manager.[19, 21]

Fundraising Metric	2021 Performance	2024 Performance
Average Time to Final Close	~18 months	31 months [2]
Concentration (Top 5 Managers)	High	32% (Lower than 2023’s 66%) [2]
Primary Capital Source	Institutional LPs	LPs + Growing Individual Retail [4]
Emerging Manager Access	Limited	Expanding under “Infrastructure 3.0” [2]

To navigate these extended timelines, GPs are increasingly looking toward co-investments as an additional source of capital to close deals, and retail/individual investors are being offered access through “evergreen” or perpetual funds that offer periodic liquidity and immediate capital deployment.[2, 4]

Regulatory Compliance and the Global Regulatory Environment

The infrastructure sector is subject to a dual layer of regulation: financial market oversight and national security protocols.[22, 23] For firms operating in the United States, the SEC oversees capital markets with a mission to protect investors and maintain efficient markets.[11]

The U.S. Regulatory Quadruple

Firms must adhere to four primary pillars of securities law:

• Securities Act of 1933: Mandates that investors receive material information concerning securities offered for public sale.[11]
• Securities Exchange Act of 1934: Governs secondary market transactions and mandates the registration of broker-dealers and stock exchanges.[11]
• Investment Company Act of 1940: Regulates the organization of investment companies (e.g., mutual funds), requiring registration for those with more than 100 investors.[11, 22]
• Investment Advisers Act of 1940: Requires firms that are compensated for advising others on securities to register and adhere to strict fiduciary and recordkeeping standards.[11]

Beyond financial regulation, infrastructure assets are often classified as “critical infrastructure,” triggering scrutiny from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). CFIUS has the authority to review “covered investments” by foreign persons in “TID U.S. businesses” (Technology, Infrastructure, Data).[23] These reviews assess whether an investment grants a foreign entity access to material non-public technical information, board representation, or substantive decision-making power over critical systems such as power grids, data centers, or transportation hubs.[23] Failure to navigate these reviews can lead to presidential intervention and the forced divestment of an asset.[23]

ESG Benchmarking and the GRESB Framework

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) considerations have transitioned from peripheral reporting to core investment drivers in infrastructure.[24] Institutional investors increasingly rely on the Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark (GRESB) to assess the ESG performance of their infrastructure portfolios.[25] GRESB provides a standardized framework that allows for benchmarking across regions and asset types, aligning with international standards such as the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).[25, 26]

GRESB Assessment Components

GRESB divides its assessment into three complementary categories:

1. Fund Assessment: Measures the fund’s overall strategy, leadership, and portfolio-wide performance.[27]
2. Asset Assessment: Focuses on the ESG performance of individual operational assets (portfolio companies).[27, 28]
3. Development Asset Assessment: Specifically designed for assets in the pre-operational or construction phase, addressing the unique risks associated with new builds.[25, 26]

The scoring system evaluates indicators such as air pollution, biodiversity, greenhouse gas emissions, and labor standards in the supply chain.[24] For an infrastructure firm, high GRESB scores are a competitive advantage during fundraising, as they signal to LPs that the manager is effectively mitigating the social and environmental risks that could lead to regulatory fines or community opposition.[1, 27]

GRESB Indicator Category	Key Metrics Evaluated	Relevance to Infrastructure
Environmental (E)	Emissions, water use, waste, biodiversity	Mitigates climate and regulatory risk [24]
Social (S)	Health and safety (employees/users), local employment	Prevents community opposition and labor issues [24]
Governance (G)	Board composition, audit committee, ethics, cybersecurity	Ensures long-term operational stability [24]

Technical Due Diligence and Asset-Specific Risk Mitigation

The complexity of infrastructure necessitates a “boots-on-the-ground” approach to technical due diligence. Unlike public equities, where diligence is primarily financial, infrastructure diligence requires engineering expertise to validate the feasibility and long-term viability of the asset.[29, 30]

Energy Infrastructure: Wind and Solar

Technical diligence for renewable energy projects focuses on energy yield calculations and hardware reliability.[30] For a wind farm, this involves “wind shear analysis” and extreme wind speed evaluations to determine the expected gross and net energy production under P50, P90, and P99 scenarios.[31] Independent engineers (IEs) review the track record of the turbine manufacturer, assess the adequacy of foundation designs for local seismic conditions, and verify the quality of grid connection agreements.[31, 32]

Digital Infrastructure: Data Centers

Data center due diligence is increasingly focused on the availability of power and water.[33] Sites must have overhead transmission lines visible within five miles, or the cost and time required to build new transmission infrastructure can render the project unfeasible.[33] “Power Feasibility Studies” are conducted to confirm off-site generation capacity, while “Utility Routing Analysis” identifies potential easement risks where transmission lines must cross private property owned by multiple third parties.[33] Furthermore, the availability of water for evaporative cooling systems is a critical “red flag” factor; without a reliable water supply, the site cannot support high-density mission-critical operations.[33]

Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) and Asset Recycling Models

Firms must also be proficient in navigating collaborative models with the public sector. Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) are essential for large-scale projects that governments cannot fund alone.[34] In these arrangements, the private sector brings operational efficiency and process innovation, while the public sector provides regulatory oversight and resource access.[35, 36]

The Evolution of Asset Recycling

Asset Recycling is a specific PPP model that has gained global traction, particularly in Australia and India.[17, 37] In this model, a government leases an existing revenue-generating asset (e.g., a toll road or bridge) to a private investor.[37, 38] The upfront lease payment received by the government is then reinvested into new infrastructure projects.[37, 39] This “monetization of existing assets” allows for the expansion of public services without increasing public debt or taxes.[39]

For the investment firm, Asset Recycling offers access to stable “brownfield” assets that have already passed the risky construction phase.[18, 37] However, these transactions require careful negotiation of “hand-back” clauses, where the asset must be returned to the government in a specified condition at the end of the lease term, typically after 30 to 50 years.[17, 18]

Model	Private Sector Role	Public Sector Role	Key Mechanism
PPP (General)	Design, build, finance, operate	Oversight, land access, service regulation	Contractual risk sharing [34]
Asset Recycling	Upfront payment for lease of existing asset	Reinvests proceeds into new greenfield projects	Monetizes brownfield for greenfield [38]
Joint Venture	Shared investment and management	Regulatory and resource partner	Equity sharing in project vehicle [18, 35]
Service Contract	Provides technical expertise for a fee	Retains ownership and oversight	Specialized service delivery [35, 36]

Political Risk and Global Risk Mitigation Frameworks

Given the long-dated nature of infrastructure, firms are exposed to political and regulatory risks that transcend standard business cycles.[1] These include expropriation, changes in taxation laws, or the non-renewal of licenses.[1, 40]

Political Risk Insurance (PRI)

Political Risk Insurance is a specialized tool designed to protect international investments in uncertain geopolitical settings.[41] Currently offered by 61 carriers, PRI covers events such as foreign asset seizure, political violence, and war.[41] It is particularly valuable for infrastructure funds and lenders financing projects in developing markets where political institutions may be fragile.[40, 41] PRI allows firms to quantify “tail risks” into a known cost, providing a competitive advantage in volatile regions.[41]

The WEF Risk-Mitigation Framework

The World Economic Forum (WEF) proposes a holistic framework for mitigating political and regulatory risk through 20 specific measures.[1] These are categorized into three areas:

1. Public-Sector Measures: Establishing robust, adaptive regulations (e.g., automatic energy tariff adjustments) and maintaining a non-partisan alignment on infrastructure vision.[1]
2. Private-Sector Measures: Proactive community engagement and the strategic use of financial instruments like PRI and local joint ventures.[1]
3. Joint Measures: Creating a culture of open dialogue and managing return expectations between stakeholders to build public credibility for private investment.[1]

Foreign Exchange (FX) Risk in Emerging Markets

In emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs), FX risk is a primary barrier to infrastructure finance.[42] Because infrastructure projects often earn revenue in local currency while their debt is denominated in hard currency (e.g., USD or EUR), a currency devaluation can lead to default.[42] Mitigation strategies include aligning the currency of revenue with financing outflows through local currency bond markets (LCBM) or using blended finance structures where government-backed funds provide a “first-loss” tranche to protect private investors.[42]

Conclusion: The “Infrastructure 3.0” Frontier

Building a successful infrastructure investment firm in the current era requires a mastery of both the “hard” technical realities of assets and the “soft” complexities of global regulation and community sentiment. The rise of “Infrastructure 3.0” signifies a move toward a more balanced ecosystem where emerging managers can compete with established giants by focusing on specialized sectors like digital-power convergence and net-zero energy transitions.[2, 4] As the asset class matures, the firms that thrive will be those that integrate rigorous GRESB-aligned ESG practices, deploy sophisticated political risk mitigation strategies, and successfully leverage innovative funding models like Asset Recycling and Public-Private Partnerships to meet the world’s critical need for sustainable, resilient infrastructure.[27, 37, 39, 43] The path to building such a firm is long and administratively intensive, but the potential for stable, inflation-protected returns in an increasingly volatile world remains a compelling driver for institutional and individual capital alike.[2, 4, 41]

——————————————————————————–

1. Mitigation of Political & Regulatory Risk in Infrastructure Projects …, https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Risk_Mitigation_Report14.pdf
2. 2025 Infrastructure Fundraising: The Rise of “Infrastructure 3.0” – Hamilton Lane, https://www.hamiltonlane.com/en-us/insight/infrastructure-2025/fundraising
3. Private Infrastructure Investments: What You Need to Know – KKR, https://www.kkr.com/alternatives-unlocked/private-infrastructure
4. Essentials of Private Infrastructure Investing – Blackstone, https://www.blackstone.com/pws/essentials-of-private-infrastructure/
5. Essential Steps to Launching an Investment Management Firm …, https://quadrangleconsulting.com/2024/08/steps-to-launching-an-investment-management-firm/
6. Infrastructure investment – an introductory guide – IFoA, https://actuaries.org.uk/media/sethm52e/infrastructure-investment-an-introductory-guide.pdf
7. Lesson 4.4: Infrastructure | Preqin Academy, https://www.preqin.com/academy/lesson-4-asset-class-101s/infrastructure
8. How to Start an Investment Company – Growthink, https://www.growthink.com/businessplan/help-center/how-to-start-an-investment-company
9. A Guide to Constructing an Infrastructure Portfolio – HarbourVest, https://www.harbourvest.com/insights-news/insights/constructing-infrastructure-portfolio-guide/
10. How To Start Your Own Investment Fund: A Comprehensive Guide – Global Law Experts, https://globallawexperts.com/how-to-start-your-own-investment-fund-a-comprehensive-guide/
11. Capital Markets and Securities Regulation: Overview and Policy Issues – Congress.gov, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48521
12. Infrastructure Investing: An Introduction | Hamilton Lane, https://www.hamiltonlane.com/en-us/knowledge-center/infrastructure
13. Infrastructure Investments – Overview, Characteristics, Risks – Corporate Finance Institute, https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/career-map/sell-side/capital-markets/infrastructure-investments/
14. Different Asset Classes | BlackRock, https://www.blackrock.com/americas-offshore/en/education/alternative-asset-classes-part-2
15. Infrastructure Investment Characteristics | CFA Level 1 – AnalystPrep, https://analystprep.com/cfa-level-1-exam/alternative-investments/investment-characteristics-of-infrastructure-investments/
16. Greenfield vs. Brownfield Investments: What’s the Difference? – Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/043015/what-difference-between-green-field-and-brown-field-investment.asp
17. How Governments Can Harness Private Equity’s Billions for Infrastructure Renewal, https://eqtgroup.com/thinq/infrastructure/how-governments-can-harness-private-equitys-billions-for-infrastructure-renewal
18. Asset Recycling Models | Public Private Partnership, https://ppp.worldbank.org/asset-recycling-models
19. Private Equity Fund Timeline – Duane Morris, https://www.duanemorris.com/site/static/private_equity_fund_timeline.pdf
20. New and Emerging Manager Guide 2025 The Fund Raising Process in Eight Stages, https://www.proskauer.com/report/new-and-emerging-manager-fundraising-guide-2025
21. Understanding the Private Equity Fund Lifecycle | Keene Advisors Investment Advisory Firm, https://www.keeneadvisors.com/news-and-insights/private-equity-fund-life-cycle
22. How US-Registered Investment Companies Operate and the Core Principles Underlying Their Regulation, https://www.ici.org/system/files/2023-06/us-reg-funds-principles.pdf
23. 31 CFR Part 800 — Regulations Pertaining to Certain Investments in the United States by Foreign Persons – eCFR, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-31/subtitle-B/chapter-VIII/part-800
24. 2025 Infrastructure Development Asset Scoring Document, https://documents.gresb.com/generated_files/infrastructure/2025/development_asset/scoring_document/complete.html
25. 2025 – GRESB Documents, https://documents.gresb.com/generated_files/infrastructure/2025/development_asset/reference_guide/complete.html
26. GRESB Infrastructure Fund Assessment Reference Guide, https://documents.gresb.com/generated_files/infrastructure/2025/fund/reference_guide/complete.html
27. 2024 GRESB Infrastructure Fund Assessment Reference Guide, https://documents.gresb.com/generated_files/infrastructure/2024/fund/reference_guide/complete.html
28. Infrastructure Asset Assessment Reference Guide – GRESB Documents, https://documents.gresb.com/generated_files/infrastructure/2025/asset/reference_guide/complete.html
29. Investment Due Diligence Checklist – Neotas, https://www.neotas.com/investment-due-diligence-checklist/
30. Technical Due Diligence for Renewable Energy Projects | SGS USA, https://www.sgs.com/en-us/services/technical-due-diligence-for-renewable-energy-projects
31. Terms of Reference: Technical Due Diligence Wind Power Project – PPP Resource Center, https://ppp.worldbank.org/ppp-overview/practical-tools/sample-ppp-terms-reference/tor-technical-due-diligence-wind-power
32. Solar and Wind Project Due Diligence Services | UL Solutions, https://www.ul.com/services/solar-and-wind-project-due-diligence-services
33. Data Center Due Diligence: Avoiding Costly Red Flags – DFM Development Services, https://www.dfmdevelopment.com/news/dry-utility-coordination/data-center-due-diligence-avoiding-costly-red-flags/
34. Public-Private Partnerships: Unlocking Infrastructure Finance in …, https://delphos.co/news/blog/public-private-partnerships-in-emerging-markets-roadmap/
35. Public-Private Partnerships In Mining: 5 Top 2025 Models – Farmonaut, https://farmonaut.com/mining/public-private-partnerships-in-mining-5-top-2025-models
36. Public Private Partnership – Digital Cooperation Organization, https://dco.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Public-Private-Partnership.pdf
37. Infrastructure Asset Recycling – Marsh, https://www.marsh.com/content/dam/marsh/Documents/PDF/asia/en_asia/Infrastructure_Asset_Recycling_APRC.pdf
38. Asset Recycling – Federal Highway Administration, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/value_capture/defined/asset_recycling.aspx
39. The PPPRC Asset Recycling Section | Public Private Partnership, https://ppp.worldbank.org/ppprc-asset-recycling-section
40. Political Risk in Infrastructure Projects – Marsh, https://www.marsh.com/content/dam/marsh/Documents/PDF/UK-en/Political%20Risk%20in%20Infrastructure%20Projects.pdf
41. A new era for political risk insurance | Lowy Institute, https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/new-era-political-risk-insurance
42. Addressing Exchange Rate Risk in Infrastructure Projects in EMDEs – The World Bank, https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/0f9533593fd01402ff6f68c0cd74ed28-0360012024/original/Addressing-Exchange-Rate-Risk-in-Infrastructure-Projects-in-EMDEs.pdf
43. Industry trends: Increasing scope for public private partnerships to build back better through infrastructure | IFM Investors, https://www.ifminvestors.com/news-and-insights/thought-leadership/industry-trends-increasing-scope-for-public-private-partnerships-to-build-back-better-through-infrastructure/