Search

Although bonds have been commonly used for financing construction works in developed countries such as the United States, Asian governments would like to see their construction growth increasingly funded by alternative sources such as the capital market, instead of overrelying on bank loans. Yet even in relatively active markets such as Hong Kong and Singapore, the use of bond financing for infrastructure development is limited. In a recent study based on two questionnaire surveys with subsequent interviews about retail and institutional investors, results demonstrated that credit risk was a major concern and that deterrents include lack of bond market information, illiquidity of domestic bonds, and the reliability of external credit ratings. Institutional investors, however, welcome infrastructure bonds because of the stable income stream matching their long-term commitments. To address these practical concerns, we have proposed credit and liquidity enhancement measures in this paper as the critical success factors for international construction promoters to tap into the bond market for financing construction works in Asia. Hence, this paper will be of interest to academics and practitioners who are working on project financing, because empirical findings reveal investors' concerns, which are then addressed with recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As an economy approaches maturity, the relative importance of the construction sector would gradually decline. Without effective policies and strategies, the construction industry will suffer irreversably and this may trigger a knock-on effect to the overall economy. The experiences of selected advanced economies are examined, including Australia, Japan, Singapore, South Korea and the UK in coping with structural changes in construction. Strategies employed by the government and the construction industry of these advanced economies to reinvent the construction industry were captured through an extensive literature review and a series of interviews with indigenous industry practitioners. In order to revitalize the construction industry, governments would accelerate publicly funded projects; provide financial support to ease the burden of industry stakeholders; and stimulate the market demand. In contrast, the industry would explore various market alternatives while companies would sharpen their competitive advantage locally and internationally through merger and acquisition. The identified strategies are corresponded to a construction industry development framework, which could therefore serve as a valuable reference for policy makers and practitioners to rejuvenate construction demand when a country approaches an urban service economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]