Universitas Faculty of Economics

Indonesia and Business

Master of economics Planning and Development Policy

SYLLABUS
PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT
First Semester of 2019/2020

Lecturers

No. Name E-mail

1 NuzulAchjar, Ph.D.(NA) achjar@gmail.com

2 Yohanna M. L. Gultom, S.Sos., MIA, M.Phil., Ph.D. (YG) yohanna.magdalena@ui.ac.id

Subject Code ECEM805102

Subject Title PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT
Credit Value 3
Year/Semester -
Day/Hour -
Subject Type Research Support Subject
Pre-requisite -
Course Infrastructure has an important role in supporting the development. Advances in
Description technology, its association with various disciplines, as well as an increase in both
government and private roles in the development of infrastructure making substantial
changes in the development system and management of infrastructure. This lecture will
discuss the economy side and the role of public and private infrastructure systems analysis.

Subject Learning Outcomes

Course Objective:
The purpose of this course is to provide understanding to the participants about the economic of infrastructure
and processes in the management of infrastructure with all its complexity. Some of the materials supplied will
be sufficiently detailed to enable participants to connect and understand the reality of what happened in the
policy and the implementation of modern infrastructure management.standardized monitoring and evaluation
methods
AACSB Learning Goal (LG) and Learning Objective (LO):
LG and LO to be assessed:
(a) Policy Design Thinking (POL) – Students are competent in policy design
LO: Able to design and comprehend policies based on research (LG POL-LO1):
[i] Students demonstrate an understanding in theory and concept of policy design
[ii] Students are able to identify policy goal for solving economic problem
[iii] Students are able to identify relevant policy instruments for a specified policy goal
LG and LO for Teaching and Learning Activities:
[iv] Critical Thinking (CT) - Students are able to demonstrate critical and integrative thinking in
policy design
LO: Students are able to provide policy recommendations to solve economic problem (LG CT-LO1):
[i] Students are able to identify problems
[ii] Students are able to analyze problems
[iii] Students are able to justify an argument with supporting evidence/relevant references
[iv] Students are able to draw a conclusion

1
 [v] Students are able to recommend alternative policies to economic problems

b) Ethics and Social Responsibility (ETH) - Students are able to demonstrate an understanding in ethical
and social responsibility
LO: Students demonstrate an understanding of the social and ethical behaviour and their impact on
policy design process (LG ETH-LO1):
[i] Students are able to identify ethical dilemmas
[ii] Students are able to recommend alternative solutions to ethical dilemmas with social and
ethical considerations

Subject Synopsis/Indicative Syllabus and Reading list

Session/ Readings
Topics and Subtopics
Lecturer
1 Infrastructure: Current Michael D. Underhill, (2010), The Handbook of Infrastructure Investing,
(NA) issues and case – John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Chapter 1.
Indonesia
World Bank. Indonesia Office, World Bank. East Asia, & Pacific
4/9
Regional Office. Infrastructure Department. (2004).Averting an
Infrastructure Crisis: A Framework for Policy and Action. World Bank
(http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/418771468771672348/pdf/2
98870PAPER0IN1nfrastructure0crisis.pdf).
2 Appraisal of Belli, P. (Ed.). (2001). Economic analysis of investment operations:
(NA) infrastructure projects analytical tools and practical applications. World Bank Publications.
I: Basic Concept
Jenkins, G.P., and Harberger, A.C., (1996), Program on Investment
11/9
Appraisal and Management. Harvard Institute for International
Development.
Lukas B. Sihombing, (2017), Project Finance and Risk Modeling Using
A System Dynamics Approach: A Case Study of A Toll Road Project,
Malaysian Journal of Industrial Technology, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 86-93
3 Appraisal of Hudson, Haas, and Uddin, (1997), Infrastructure Management: Design,
(NA) infrastructure projects Construction, Maintenance, Rehabilitation, Renovation., McGraw-Hill.
II: Financial versus
Jenkins, G.P., and Harberger, A.C., (1996), Program on Investment
18/9 economic, nominal
Appraisal and Management. Harvard Institute for International
versus real
Development.
4 Appraisal of Hudson, Haas, and Uddin, (1997), Infrastructure Management: Design,
(NA) infrastructure projects Construction, Maintenance, Rehabilitation, Renovation., McGraw-Hill.
III: Large scale and
Jenkins, G.P., andHarberger, A.C., (1996), Program on Investment
25/9 uncertainty
Appraisal and Management. Harvard Institute for International
Development.
Lukas B. Sihombing, Yusuf Latief, Ayomi D. Rarasati, dan Andreas
Wibowo, (2018), Utilizing Uncertainty Management to Analyze the
Uncertainty of Toll Road Land Acquisition, International JournalofCivil
Engineering and Technology (IJCIET),Volume 9, Issue6, June 2018, pp.
1221 – 1228.
5 Institutional set up for Ostrom, E., Schroeder, L., & Wynne, S. (1993). Analyzing the
(YG) infrastructure performance of alternative institutional arrangements for sustaining rural
management: Indonesia infrastructure in developing countries. Journal of Public Administration
2/10 Research and Theory, 3(1), 11-45.
Tam, CM. (1999). Build-operate-transfer model for infrastructure
developments in Asia: reasons for successes and failures. International
Journal of Project Management Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 377-82.
Hammami M., Ruhashyankiko J. F., Yehoue E. B. (2006). Determinants

2

6 Development of large
(YG) scale projects with
private investors:
9/10 Project finance
of Public Private Partnership in Infrastructure, IMF Working Paper,
WP/06/09, International Monetary Fund.
Gultom, Y.M.L. (2018). When Extractive Political Institutions Affect
Public Private Contracting: Empirical Evidence from Indonesia’s
Independent Power Producers Under Two Political Regimes. Essay in
Dissertation.
Esty, B. C. (2003). The economic motivations for using project
finance. Harvard Business School, 28, 1-42.
World Bank. Indonesia Office, World Bank. East Asia, & Pacific
Regional Office. Infrastructure Department. (2004). Chapter 3 & 5 in
Averting an Infrastructure Crisis: A Framework for Policy and Action.
World Bank
(http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/418771468771672348/pdf/2
98870PAPER0IN1nfrastructure0crisis.pdf).
Pretorius, F., & Pretorius, F. (2008). Chapter 1 & 8 in The Nature
Project finance for construction & infrastructure principles & case
studies. Oxford ; Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.

Cadot, O., Röller, L. H., & Stephan, A. (2006). Contribution to

productivity or pork barrel? The two faces of infrastructure
investment. Journal of public Economics, 90, 1133-1153.

Araya G., Schwartz J., Andres L. (2013). The Effects of Country Risk
and Conflict on Infrastructure PPIs. World Bank Policy Research
Working Paper No. 6569.

7 Case: Financing toll World Bank, (2004), Background Sector Report: Road and Road
(YG) road development Transport in Averting an Infrastructure Crisis: A Framework for Policy
and Action
16/10 (http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/418771468771672348/pdf/2
98870PAPER0IN1nfrastructure0crisis.pdf).

Wibowo, A., &Kochendörfer, B. (2005). Financial risk analysis of project

finance in Indonesian toll roads. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 131(9), 963-972.
Acerete, B., Shaoul, J., & Stafford, A. (2009). Taking its toll: the private
financing of roads in Spain. Public Money & Management, 29(1), 19-26.
Li, Z., &Hensher, D. A. (2010). Toll roads in Australia: an overview of
characteristics and accuracy of demand forecasts. Transport
Reviews, 30(5), 541-569.
Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M. S., & Buhl, S. (2002). Underestimating costs in
public works projects: Error or lie?. Journal of the American planning
association, 68, 279-295.
Flyvbjerg, B., Skamris Holm, M. K., & Buhl, S. L. (2005). How (in)
accurate are demand forecasts in public works projects?: The case of
transportation. Journal of the American planning association, 71, 131-
146.

Mid Term Examination

8 Tariff and Jørgensen, F.; H. Pedersen; G.Solvoll (2004). Ramsey pricing in practice: the
(NA) infrastructure case of the Norwegian ferries. Transport Policy 11: 205–214
30/10 pricing-1
Newbery, D.M., (2001), Privatizations, Restructuring, and Regulation of
Network Utility
9 Tariff and Valle, Anna P. Della (1988) Short-run versus long-run marginal cost pricing,

3
(NA) infrastructure Energy Economics, October.
6/11 pricing-2

10 Network utilities Newbery, D.M., (2001), Privatizations, Restructuring, and Regulation of

(NA) Network Utility.
13/11

11 The role of Correa, Melo, Mueller, & Pereira. (2008). Regulatory governance in Brazilian
(NA) regulation and infrastructure industries. Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 48(2),
21/11 regulatory agencies 202-216.

Hirschhausen, C.; T. Beckers; A. Brenck. Infrastructure regulation and

investment for the long-term— an introduction. Utilities Policy 12 (2004)
203–210.

Stern, John and S. Holder (1999). Regulatory governance: criteria for

assessing the performance of regulatory systems: an application to
infrastructure industries in the developing countries of Asia. Utilities Policy 8:
33–50.

12 Aspects of Savas, E. S., &Savas, E. S. (2000). Chapter 9 in Privatization and public-

(YG) infrastructure private partnerships. New York: Chatham House.
28/11 privatization
Rall, J., Reed, J. B., & Farber, N. J. (2010). Chapter 3 & 4 in Public-private
partnerships for transportation: A toolkit for legislators
(http://www.ncsl.org/documents/transportation/ppptoolkit.pdf).
U.S. Department of Transportation. (2004). Report to Congress on Public-
Private Partnerships.
(http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/documentsites/committees/21stCenturyTransport
ation/Prioritization-Best%20Practices-Efficiency/References/pppdec2004.pdf)
Daito, N., & Gifford, J. L. (2014). US highway public private partnerships:
Are they more expensive or efficient than the traditional model?. Managerial
Finance, 40, 1131-1151.
13 Transaction costs Hart, O. (2003). Incomplete contracts and public ownership: Remarks, and an
(YG) in public-private application to public‐private partnerships. The Economic Journal, 113, C69-
5/12 contracting for C76.
infrastructure
Wang, Y., & Zhao, Z. J. (2018). Performance of Public–Private Partnerships
and the Influence of Contractual Arrangements. Public Performance &
Management Review, 41, 177-200.
Gultom, Y.M.L. (forthcoming 2018). Transaction Costs and Efficiency in
Design-Build Contracting: Empirical Evidence from the Transportation
Infrastructure Sector in Oregon. Public Performance and Management
Review.
Ni, A. Y. (2012). The Risk-Averting Game of Transport Public-Private
Partnership: Lessons from the Adventure of California's State Route 91
Express Lanes. Public Performance & Management Review, 36, 253-274.
Day, J. (2016, March 13). Long Delay Highway 20 Project in Final Stage.
Corvallis Gazette-Times. Retrieved from
http://www.gazettetimes.com/philomathexpress/local/long-delayed-highway-
project-in-final-stages/article_8a218a61-32b2-5d75-af9f-823a7d1b328c.html
14 Infrastructure case -
(NA) study presentation
12/12
Final Examination

4
Methodology, Assessment, and Plagiarism

Teaching/ This course consists of 14 sessions, with each sessions is for 150 minutes. Most session will
Learning use discussion methods and at the end of the semester participants are asked to present a report
Methodology on each project

Class participation is not solely based on attendance but rather an active part in lectures,
discussions and presentations.Individually, each student is required to participate actively in
teaching and learning, in the form:
1. Submitting a critical review of at least one article in the reading list of each session
(max of 1 page). This critical review can include the main idea in the reading and your
own opinion or critique to the idea. Please do not make a summary of the reading.
2. Ask questionsin accordancewith thetopic.
3. Preparingto answerquestions.
4. Discuss issuesrelated to thetopic.
To be eligible, students must read textbooks and other materials provided.

Attendance:
Minimum 80% of Total Lecture:
1. A maximum of 3 (three) times absent, for no reason.
2. Students who came 15 minutes after class begins is considered not present.

Assessment LG LG LG
Percentage
Method in POL – POL – POL –
Description of TLA
Alignment LO1 LO1 LO1
evaluation*
with Intended T1 T2 T3
Learning Individual Assessment
Outcomes Mid term examination 30% 50% 50% 50%
*) Students Final examination 40% 50% 50% 50%
grading Paper 20% 50%
**) AACSB
Assessment Tasks and homework 10% 50%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Student study Class Contacts
effort Lectures 28
expected Discussion 20
Case study 29
Other student study effort outside the class
Preparation for assignment/tests 42
Plagiarism Students should maintain originality and respect intellectual property rights. Therefore,
students should avoid conducting any act of plagiarism when doing written assignments (if
any), which may take a form of short individual / group paper and / or summary.
The followings are acts of plagiarism:
 Copying paragraphs, sentences, a single sentence, or even a significant part of a sentence
directly without enclosing them in quotation marks and appropriately footnoted;
 Using and / or developing other’s ideas found in printed materials or film elsewhere without
explicitly referencing them to the respective author or the source of the idea.
Plagiarism is a serious infringement of intellectual property rights. Any assignment that
contains presumed plagiarism will be marked 0 (zero).