Zhang, X (2005) Paving the way for public-private partnerships in infrastructure development. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(1), pp. 71-80. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Infrastructure privatization has multidimensional impacts with long-term uncertainties and wide risk portfolios. A wide range of barriers to public-private partnerships (PPPs) in infrastructure development have been identified through a questionnaire survey, which are broadly classified into six aspects: (1) social, political, and legal risk; (2) unfavorable economic and commercial conditions; (3) inefficient public procurement framework; (4) lack of mature financial engineering techniques; (5) problems related to the public sector; and (6) problems related to the private sector. To explore measures for removing these barriers, a systematic research approach (literature review, case studies and interviews/correspondences with experts and experienced practitioners) has been taken to draw experience, learn lessons, and benchmark the best practices in international PPPs. An improved PPP protocol for infrastructure projects in general has been developed, addressing key issues in nine areas: (1) appropriate roles of governmental authorities; (2) best value for money approach; (3) effective management of adviser services; (4) formulation of appropriate PPP schemes; (5) use of relational contracts; (6) improvement of the procurement framework; (7) payment structure; (8) contract monitoring, termination, and step-in rights; and (9) transfer management. Effective measures for successful PPPs are identified in each of the nine areas.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contracts; financial management; infrastructure; partnerships; private sector; privatization |
| Index terms: | monitoring, best value, best practice, infrastructure project, privatization, case study, financial management, public sector, partnership, private sector, questionnaire, practitioner, paving, interview, infrastructure development, survey, literature review |
| Subjects: | transportation engineering, administrative law, industry analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, partnership management, infrastructure engineering, economic analysis, bidding, data analysis and analytics, control systems, practitioner, business, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Site Management, Legal Issues, Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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