De-Graft, O-M; Kukah, A S; Boateng, F; Asumadu, G and Edwards, D J (2021) Exploring strategies to reduce moral hazard and adverse selection of Ghanaian public-private partnership (PPP) construction projects. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 19(2), pp. 358-372. ISSN 1726-0531
Abstract
Conditions of inadequate and asymmetric information when an agent is hired by a principal have resulted in the problems of moral hazard and adverse selection (MHAS) in public–private partnership (PPP) construction projects. The purpose of this study is to explore strategies to reduce MHAS in PPP construction projects. Questionnaires were used to elicit responses from respondents. Mean score ranking was used to rank these strategies while reliability analysis was conducted using Cronbach's alpha coefficient and level of agreement tested using Kendall's concordance. Factor analysis grouped the strategies into eight components. From the mean score ranking, monitoring; transfer of risks; screening; managing of construction risks; and increased incentives to control costs were the most significant strategies. The eight components were transparent process and contract, incentives and monitoring, screening and technical assistance, unbundling and benchmarking, funding and small liabilities, information clarification and signaling, risk and contract management and cooperation and finance factors. The findings of this study have identified the most significant strategies to reduce MHAS on PPP construction projects to serve as a guide to PPP practitioners in reducing MHAS. The output of this research contributes to the checklist of strategies that reduce PPP project failures arising from MHAS and contributes to the development of the agency theory.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | benchmarking; construction project; contract management; funding; liability; monitoring; partnership; reliability; failure; moral hazard; factor analysis |
| Index terms: | factor analysis, adverse selection, monitoring, unbundling, funding, screening, partnership, project failure, reliability analysis, benchmarking, agency, agent, cooperation, questionnaire, practitioner, construction project, strategy, moral hazard, liability, contract management |
| Subjects: | management, performance measurement, contract management, financial risk, production management, sociology, partnership management, liability law, statistical analysis, procurement strategy, project completion, data collection methods, reliability engineering, practitioner, control systems, psychology, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Procurement, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Project Management, Contract Administration, Organizational Design, Site Management, Legal Issues, Quality Management, Human Resources |
| 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