Having access to essential infrastructure services is pivotal in creating economic opportunities and bringing social services to the poor. Their deficiency leads to a number of negative consequences and lost opportunities (the World Bank indicates that currently 1 billion people live without electricity, 663 million people lack access to safe drinking water, 840 million people are located more than 2 kilometers from all-weather roads, and 4 billion people cannot access the Internet). The systematization of the results of World Bank research proved that lower-and middle-income countries need to spend on average 4.5 percent of GDP to deliver infrastructure services and achieve the infrastructure-related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The urgency of solving this problem lies in the fact that in many countries, the high levels of investment required for infrastructure cannot be financed by the public purse alone. Therefore, the governments of these countries should pay attention to private investments as a tool for additional fundraising. The article presents the results of the analysis, which proved that the Private-Public Partnership has increasingly become a common structure for the delivery of public infrastructure. It offers the opportunity for governments and nongovernmental bodies to achieve more efficient projects by sharing risks and giving the private sector a chance to bring innovation to the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of public infrastructure. The study theoretically proves that public-private partnership offers monetary and non-monetary advantages for the public sector, in particular: allowing the allocation of public funds for other local priorities, distributing project risks to both public and private sectors, improved efficiency and project implementation processes in delivering services to the public, emphasizes Value for Money (VfM) – focusing on reduced costs, better risk allocation, faster implementation, improved services and possible generation of additional revenue. In the paper, based on a comparative analysis of conventional bonds and Sukuk (Islamic bonds), it was concluded that conventional bonds represent the issuer’s pure debt, while the latter offers multiple benefits: lower costs of funds due to higher rating via credit enhancement, access to the capital markets, diversification of funding sources, off-balance sheet financing (via securitization), improvement of financial ratios, and potential risk reduction.