Ke, Y (2014) Is public-private partnership a panacea for infrastructure development? The case of Beijing national stadium. International Journal of Construction Management, 14(2), pp. 90-100. ISSN 1562-3599
Abstract
Public-private partnership (PPP) is such a hot concept that nowadays it is discussed everywhere be it a public sector management journal or a public sector management conference. Governments subject to severe fiscal pressure in developing countries like China, where PPP law is not in place yet, regard it as a panacea or fixed solution for infrastructure development. This paper hence attempts to provide reference to this point by investigating the Beijing National Stadium. There was a significant change in the Project Company on 20 August 2009. Three main reasons for the contract change were (1) wrong identification of the retractable roof as one of the output specifications, (2) adoption of PPP without a careful feasibility study and (3) strong government interference like suspension of selling name-right and prohibition of holding small-scale or small events. It was found that PPP would not be more appropriate than conventional procurement in this project. It was therefore proved that PPP is not a panacea for infrastructure development. It is expected that a review of the Beijing National Stadium can provide valuable information for when and how to implement PPPs. More considerations on receiving value for money in the whole project lifecycle (including the operation) should be taken in a PPP project.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Beijing national stadium; China; public-private partnership; social infrastructure |
| Index terms: | Beijing, roof, public sector, conference, project lifecycle, partnership, value-for-money, China, specification, feasibility study, developing country, infrastructure development, journal |
| Subjects: | design stages, research dissemination and communication, project completion, administrative law, partnership management, Geography, contractual condition, development economics, infrastructure engineering, evaluation, design practice |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Contract Administration, International Construction, Value Management, Legal Issues, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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