Social costs (benefits) can be defined as the sum of the private costs (benefits) of individuals or firms carrying out an activity (project, program, production) and the costs(benefits) of third parties outside the activity (project, program, production) ( 4). Then the net social effect is measured by the difference between them ( 3). Social effects can be positive and negative, respectively, associated with social benefits and costs. Here, “above and beyond what would have happened anyway” refers to the difference between the social effects in the situation “with the project” and the social effects in the situation “without the project”. approach: “by impact, we mean the portion of the total outcome that happened as a result of the activity of the venture, above and beyond what would have happened anyway” ( 2). The concept used in this article is closest to Rosenzweig et al. In various literature, social effects are defined in different ways. Health infrastructure development is heavily influenced by the industry-specific features of the relevant projects, representing an important and complex sub-sector of social infrastructure. Assessment of financial (commercial) efficiency is not enough: the chosen method must allow for simultaneous evaluation of the project's economic (public) efficiency. These effects come to the fore in the project analysis and thus require a particular assessment approach. The vital point to consider in the evaluation is that social effects are inherent to social infrastructure projects. Hence, it becomes urgent to develop an adequate method for evaluating projects and substantiating the interaction mechanisms of investment stakeholders in this area. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted more than ever the chronic underinvestment in social infrastructure due to the surge in healthcare demand, the sudden shift to remote learning, and so on.ĭespite changing priorities, the government budgetary and non-budgetary institutions have limited opportunities to solve the underinvestment problem. To meet the need, the required additional annual investment in social infrastructure is estimated at around 0.7–1% of GDP in Europe, 1% in the USA, 1.2–1.8% in Japan, and 2.4% in developing Asia ( 1). Several studies have demonstrated that the existing infrastructure gap in most world countries threatens sustainable economic development. In the twentifirst century, investments in infrastructure, especially social infrastructure, have come under the scrutiny of the public and international organizations. Social infrastructure encompasses such sectors as healthcare, educational institutions, housing, and communal services, as well as art, culture, and recreation facilities, which are of growing importance in the context of escalating global challenges and a corresponding changing of priorities at the global, national, regional, and municipal levels. To justify and implement such projects successfully, it is essential to develop adequate project analysis tools that consider their specifics.

Implementing social infrastructure projects has become crucial in forming the institutional foundations of scientific and technological development. The proposed methodology can be used for decision making on the implementation of similar projects. It is shown that the project implementation leads to significant social effects and provides a noticeable improvement in population health. The distribution of effects among the project participants was compared for various funding methods, including the public-private partnerships mechanism. At the same time, within the financial analysis framework, the mechanisms for implementing the project were determined, ensuring the consistency of interests. As the project's primary beneficiaries, the economic analysis identified polyclinic patients who received the opportunity to acquire new medical services. In the transition to the economic analysis, the results fundamentally change, taking into account social and tax effects and detecting an exceptionally high level of all economic indicators of the project. Simultaneously, the efficiency of participation in the project for private investors using the public-private partnership mechanism is characterized by high rates of return on private investment. The evaluation results revealed a deficient level of financial efficiency of the project characterized by negative net present value and low internal rate of return.

Kaneva 2016