Mexico

Mexico has an established PPP framework at federal and state levels, anchored by the Public-Private Partnerships Law (2012). The Ministry of Finance's Investment Unit oversees project appraisal and approval, while the National Infrastructure Fund supports project preparation and financing. A significant reform came in April 2026, when the government enacted the Law for the Promotion of Investment in Strategic Infrastructure for Development with Wellbeing, followed by implementing regulations in May.^1,2 The new framework enables public, private and social-sector participation in strategic infrastructure, permitting varying degrees of public ownership. However, it operates alongside existing PPP and sectoral frameworks, creating overlapping legal and procurement routes for some functionally equivalent PPP-type projects.

Mexico has substantial experience with privately financed infrastructure, particularly in transport and renewable energy, but conventional PPP activity has slowed in recent years. Projects with recent financing transactions include the Las Varas-Puerto Vallarta highway in 2023 and the Los Cabos desalination plant in 2024, with limited subsequent activity recorded in available project data.³ The government has nevertheless announced an ambitious infrastructure investment agenda, including 18 highway projects involving mixed-investment arrangements or construction, maintenance, rehabilitation and operation contracts⁴ in March 2026.⁵ Some of these arrangements exhibit characteristics of PPPs, including long-term private operational responsibilities and risk sharing. The projects form part of a broader Ps5.6trn investment plan through 2030.⁶

The current administration (2024 to present) has reaffirmed its commitment to private infrastructure investment, while prioritizing mixed-investment arrangements, including PPP-compatible models, over traditional PPP contracts. The president has criticized earlier PPP arrangements for their perceived fiscal costs and advocated discontinuing their use in certain contexts.⁷ Nevertheless, the government has published a substantial pipeline of projects involving private participation,⁸ and several political parties have demonstrated support for PPPs or alternative partnership models.⁹ Mexico therefore combines an active agenda for private infrastructure participation and multiparty support with meaningful political opposition to some traditional PPP arrangements.

Mexico's leading advantage is project preparation and sustainability, ranking 4th in the region, supported by systematic project-selection procedures and financing facilities. Its project development and viability-gap financing mechanisms, land acquisition assistance and socioeconomic appraisal requirements distinguish it from regional peers. Financing ranks 5th, reflecting government support, participation by multilateral and institutional investors, and relatively favorable financing conditions. Competitive bidding and well-defined risk allocation provide additional strengths, alongside provisions that prioritize social inclusion in project selection.

Mexico's weakest category is performance evaluation and impact, reflecting gaps in systematic ex-post evaluation and public reporting on operational PPP outcomes. Disaster risk management also lags, with limited requirements for risk assessment, insurance and force majeure guidance. Despite otherwise well-defined procurement procedures, the regulatory and institutional framework has shortcomings unusual for an experienced PPP market: overlapping investment frameworks, incomplete contract disclosure requirements and insufficient higher-level oversight of contract modifications. Guidance on coordination between contracting authorities and sector regulators also remains limited.

Mexico's overall index performance has changed little, but updated federal investment procedures in 2025 strengthened project prioritization, made a standardized cost-benefit analysis tool available, and introduced more consistent monitoring of physical and financial progress on PPPs receiving federal public financing. The revised prioritization criteria also place greater emphasis on reducing social and territorial inequalities. However, the reforms discontinued the previous systematic ex-post evaluation framework without establishing an equivalent process for selecting new projects for evaluation. These developments represent mixed progress rather than broad improvement across the PPP lifecycle.