Zhang, L; Shi, L and Ma, L (2024) Effect of public–private partnership features on contractual complexity: Evidence from China. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 31(10), pp. 3876-3894. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: A public–private partnership (PPP) is an agreement between the government and private investors to deliver long-term public services. The efficiency of PPP projects depends on PPP contracts stipulating contractual parties' corresponding responsibilities and rights to deal with relational and performance risks. Although more complex contracts provide more remedies for mitigating ex-post transaction costs, they also result in the increased ex ante transaction costs associated with contract writing. Thus, contractual complexity is a design choice that can reduce the overall contract transaction costs. Design/methodology/approach: Using 365 transportation PPP projects in China from 2010 to 2019, this study applies the Poisson regression model to examine the effects of payment mechanisms, ownership by investors and equity structure on contractual complexity. Findings: PPP contracts have control and coordination functions with unique determinants. Parties in the government-pay mechanism are more likely to negotiate coordination provisions, which results in greater contractual complexity. PPP projects with state-owned enterprises (SOEs) have less contractual complexity in terms of both two functions of provisions, whereas the equity structure has no impact on contractual complexity. Originality/value: These findings provide a nuanced understanding of how various contractual provisions are combined to perform control or coordination functions and make managerial recommendations to parties involved in PPP projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contractual complexity; control provision; coordination provision; PPP |
| Index terms: | determinant, coordination, payment mechanism, ownership, public services, partnership, regression model, efficiency, investor, China, complexity, methodology, evidence, transaction cost |
| Subjects: | economic analysis, evaluation and assessment methods, risk assessment, administrative law, financial analysis, systems engineering, statistical analysis, partnership management, sociology, Geography, management, research methods, performance management, economics |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Organizational Design, Quality Management, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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