The Next Infrastructure Boom Is Hiding on Public Balance Sheets

By Dag Detter, July 8, 2026

Dag Detter Is A Consultant & Advisor To Governments Around The World. From 1998 - 2001, He Led A Restructuring of The $70 Billion Portfolio of Swedish Government-Owned Companies, The First Attempt By A European Government to Address Systematically The Ownership & Management Of Government Enterprises & Real Estate. Enquire About Booking Dag Detter For A Speaking, Consulting, or Advisory Engagement

Without growth, governments cannot keep their promises. Growth comes from private-sector innovation, but innovation needs land, energy, infrastructure, transport, and housing. Much of that enabling asset base is controlled by the public sector, the largest wealth manager in any society. Yet it is often fragmented, invisible, and underused.

The answer is not fire sales or financial engineering, but a new bridge between public wealth and private-sector know-how.

Artificial intelligence has made this obvious. The most advanced technologies still depend on old-fashioned assets: power, land, water, fibre, data centres, grids, permits, and transport access. The future may be digital, but it will be built on physical foundations.

Energy security, housing, logistics, defence capacity, resilient cities, and industrial renewal all require the same basic ingredients: land, energy, infrastructure, capital and execution. The private sector is usually better at innovation, speed, commercial discipline and delivery. The public sector often controls the assets without which that innovation cannot scale.

That bridge now has to be rebuilt.

- - - - - - -

Growth Needs Physical Foundations

For years, the new economy was described as asset-light. Software, platforms, and cloud computing appeared to reduce the importance of physical infrastructure. AI has reversed that illusion.

The AI boom requires vast investment in power, data centres, cooling, land, water, fibre, semiconductors, and grid equipment. Infrastructure is no longer merely a defensive asset class. It is becoming the operating system of future growth.

Recent work by the McKinsey Global Institute makes the same point from a different angle. Productive investment flows to places where projects can be built quickly, cheaply, and profitably. The cost of land, energy, construction, labour, permits, and time-to-market determines where investment happens.

That is why the current wave of infrastructure M&A is only the beginning. Investors are already chasing power, data centres, utilities, fibre, and renewable platforms. But behind those visible markets is a larger, less visible stock of public and quasi-public assets that will help determine whether AI, housing, energy, and industrial investment actually become capacity.

If parts of the AI boom become overextended, speculative capital may retreat. The hard-asset bottlenecks will not. Economies will still need power, grids, land, water, digital infrastructure, logistics, and housing.

The question is therefore not only who finances the next data centre. It is who controls the assets that make the next economy possible.

- - - - - - -

Public Wealth Is the Missing Supply

Governments are the largest wealth managers in any society. They own or control land, buildings, utilities, transport systems, rights-of-way, ports, airports, energy networks, housing assets, public companies, and development rights.

Yet these assets are rarely managed as portfolios. A transport authority may own land around stations and depots. A municipality may control housing land, civic buildings, and planning rights. A utility may own land, networks, and operating rights. A national government may own rail assets, ports, airports, energy companies, public banks, or real estate portfolios.

In isolation, these holdings often look administrative, political, or too fragmented. Seen together, they can become infrastructure platforms. This requires portfolio visibility.

This is the missing supply of investable infrastructure. Pension funds and insurers need long-duration assets. Strategic investors need land, power, water, fibre, transport, and operating platforms. Cities and countries need housing, energy capacity, water resilience, digital infrastructure, and transport systems. Investment banks need origination.

The shortage is not just capital. It is structured supply.

But public assets do not become investable simply because they exist. Investors need defined perimeters, credible governance, valuation, cash-flow models, risk allocation, and professional counterparties. Governments need safeguards, accountability, and assurance that essential services and long-term public value are protected.

For portfolio visibility we need an asset map.

An asset map is not an asset register, a privatisation list, or a transaction pipeline. It asks: what does the public sector own, where does it sit, who controls it, how is it used, what might it be worth, what constraints apply, and which assets could be better governed or structured?

The first task is not to sell assets. It is to see them.

- - - - - - -

Rebuilding the Bridge

The hardest obstacle is not technical. It is institutional.

The public sector often lacks the incentive to start this process. Greater portfolio visibility can threaten existing control, expose poor management, disturb local rents, and reveal opportunity costs that incumbents would rather leave hidden. A ministry may prefer discretion. A municipality may treat land as administrative property. A transport operator is rewarded for running trains, not for identifying station-district development potential.

The public sector should be the principal beneficiary of reform. Better portfolio visibility can generate non-tax revenue, improve service delivery, reduce fiscal pressure, support housing and infrastructure, and strengthen the public balance sheet. Citizens benefit. Investors benefit. Productive companies benefit. The main losers are those who profit from opacity, fragmentation, or privileged access.

The private sector has its own problem. For years, many investment banks, investors, and advisers have avoided public assets. Too often, public-private transactions have ended in political controversy, poor risk allocation, corruption, fire sales, or reputational damage. Governments distrust private capital. Serious private capital avoids government complexity.

That separation is no longer affordable.

In the short term, the private sector can begin by making discreet, independent asset maps: identifying public asset pools, fragmented ownership, infrastructure bottlenecks, development constraints, and possible structures that could benefit both sides. These maps should not be raids on public wealth. They should show governments what they own, what options exist, and what safeguards are needed before capital is invited in.

The sequence must be clear: first visibility, then governance, then structure, then capital.

In the medium term, public assets should be separated from purely operational mandates where appropriate. The Swedish railway real estate company Jernhusen shows why. When railway real estate was separated from the national railway operator, opportunities became visible that the operator itself would never have prioritised. The railway’s job was to run trains. Jernhusen’s job was to manage railway-adjacent real estate as a professional portfolio.

That separation helped reveal the potential of station districts, housing, and urban development around transport nodes. Hagastaden in Stockholm is one result: one of Europe’s most successful innovation districts, developed around former railway and infrastructure land, is helping pay for critical infrastructure, including the expansion of rail capacity through Stockholm, while creating housing, offices, life-science facilities, and urban value.

London has a similar issue at greater scale. Transport for London (TfL) sits on one of Europe’s largest real-estate portfolios, but much of that value is not visible in a way that capital markets, citizens, or government can fully understand. The lesson is not “sell TfL assets”. It is to separate the commercial real-estate logic from the operational transport mandate, map the portfolio properly, and manage it professionally.

In the long term, governments should create professional public holding vehicles at national, regional, municipal, and sectoral levels. These vehicles should have clear mandates, professional boards, commercial discipline, and public accountability. Their purpose would not be to sell the family silver, nor to dress up old-fashioned PPPs in new language. It would be to give the public sector a competent counterpart able to work with private-sector knowledge, speed, and execution without losing control of public value.

That is the alternative to fire sales, wholesale privatisation, and financial engineering that transfers public wealth cheaply to private balance sheets. Public assets can remain in public control and still be professionally structured. They can serve public purposes, generate long-term income, and support housing, energy, transport, resilience, and digital infrastructure without being treated as surplus property.

The next infrastructure cycle will not be won only by those who raise the most capital. It will be won by those who can create trustworthy structures from assets that are currently invisible, fragmented, or administratively managed.

For investors, this may be the next source of infrastructure supply. For governments, it may be a way to build capacity without relying only on taxes or debt. For society, it may be a way to rebuild the bridge between public wealth and private-sector capability — not to hand public value away, but to create growth, raise productivity and leave future generations with a stronger public balance sheet.

——————