Cruz, C O and Marques, R C (2013) Exogenous determinants for renegotiating public infrastructure concessions: Evidence from Portugal. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(9), pp. 1082-1090. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Renegotiations are frequently perceived as the Achilles' heel of concessions. After two decades of concessions development, empirical evidence suggests a recurrent need to renegotiate contracts. What drives renegotiation? Why does it occur? What are the results? The literature still lacks data on renegotiation patterns and on its main causes and results, thus not answering these questions. This paper intends to fulfill this gap by identifying some of the key determinants of renegotiations and presenting the main results. Using an econometric analysis on a real database of 87 Portuguese concessions, the research identified some variables that help explaining the high probability of renegotiation, such as the concession duration and investment, or the existence of a regulator when the contract was signed. The research also found empirical evidence of the high costs involved in renegotiations, as well as of poor control and poor management of concessions by the government.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | concessions; contracting; infrastructure; public-private partnerships; renegotiations |
| Index terms: | public infrastructure, regulator, evidence, database, Portugal, duration, econometric, partnership, determinant |
| Subjects: | economic analysis, data management, evaluation and assessment methods, partnership management, sociology, infrastructure and transport systems, risk assessment, project controls, Geography |
| Topics: | Time Control, Business Strategy, Geographical Context, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Digital Applications, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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