Jin, X-H (2009) Allocating risks in public-private partnerships using a transaction cost economic approach: A case study. Construction Economics and Building, 9(1), pp. 19-26. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
Public-private partnership (PPP) projects are often characterisedby increased complexity and uncertainty due to their idiosyncrasyin the management and delivery processes such as long-termlifecycle, incomplete contracting, and the multitude of stakeholders.An appropriate risk allocation is particularly crucial to achievingproject success. This paper focuses on the risk allocation in PPPprojects and argues that the transaction cost economics (TCE)theory can integrate the economics part, which is currently missing,into the risk management research. A TCE-based approach isproposed as a logical framework for allocating risks between publicand private sectors in PPP projects. A case study of the SouthernCross Station redevelopment project in Australia is presented toillustrate the approach. The allocation of important risks is putunder scrutiny. Lessons learnt are discussed and alternativemanagement approaches drawing on TCE theory are proposed.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | melbourne; procurement; public-private partnership; risk allocation; transaction cost |
| Index terms: | complexity, Australia, partnership, private sector, redevelopment, drawing, risk management, transaction cost, case study, risk allocation |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, risk assessment, Geography, financial risk, partnership management, technical documentation, infrastructure and transport systems, industry analysis, systems engineering, financial analysis |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Urban Studies, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here