Key points include:
- Ultimately, whether services are in public or private ownership, a long-term approach to asset management and investment is needed, supported by sensible regulation, good governance and accountability in order to ensure best value for consumers.
- Public support for nationalisation as a binary concept is high, but more needs to be done to close the information deficit about the tangible benefits private investment delivers.
- Nationalisation of rail would have marginal short-term impacts, but in the longer-term an integrated network could improve decision-making and efficiency.
- At present, the water and energy sectors are funded almost wholly by private investment. There is a real risk that outright nationalisation would see investors move their capital elsewhere, with the public sector then needing to meet the investment requirements for much-needed infrastructure improvements.
ICE Discussion Paper: Potential implications of the nationalisation of infrastructure
Content type: Policy
Last updated: 2018
You may also be interested in@headerSize>
Guest blogger

- Type
- Infrastructure blog
Can AI help keep major infrastructure projects alive?
The UK’s infrastructure challenge is also a continuity challenge, writes ICE Policy Fellow Dr Samer Ali.

- Type
- Awards and competitions
‘Show others what can be achieved’: ICE’s Fellowship campaign shortlisted for national award
The ICE Connects: Women in Fellowship network is up for a prize at the 2026 Inspiring Women in Construction and Engineering Awards.

- Type
- Infrastructure blog
Rewiring the State: what does England’s devolution mean for infrastructure?
These reforms would change where decisions are made, who holds influence, and how infrastructure and other investment priorities are determined.