Marques, R C and Berg, S (2011) Risks, contracts, and private-sector participation in infrastructure. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(11), pp. 925-932. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This article examines how risk is reflected in infrastructure regulatory contracts, using examples from water utilities to illustrate key points. Partnerships between public and private sectors in intensive capital network services require risks to be assigned to the contractual party that is better able to mitigate them or to bear them. After identifying risks that must be addressed in infrastructure contracts, their classification, allocation, and impact are presented along with the measures to minimize risks. Two contracts in the water sector in Portugal are analyzed. One arrangement corresponds to a public-private partnership (PPP) of the purely contractual type (concession arrangement) and the other to an institutionalized PPP (mixed company). We conclude that risk is a key issue in contracts with the private sector; an appropriate allocation of risks is a necessary condition for successful contracts.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contracts; infrastructure; private-sector participation; public-private partnerships; risks; water utilities |
| Index terms: | private sector, partnership, Portugal, water utility |
| Subjects: | Geography, partnership management, infrastructure and transport systems, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Stakeholder Management, Geographical Context, Business Strategy |
| 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