Chang, C Y and Chou, H Y (2014) Transaction-cost approach to the comparative analysis of user-pay and government-pay public-private partnership systems. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140(9): 04014039, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Government-pay and user-pay public-private partnership (P3) systems have been employed as the main conduits for channelling private capital to finance the provision of public services throughout the world. In efficiency terms, they are suited to different types of projects. This paper develops a model to illuminate the condition under which one route would perform better than the other. If both of them are instituted into law, governance alignment should emerge in the long run. However, in Taiwan government-pay P3 systems are not a lawful route, forcing the government to employ user-pay P3 systems regardless of project types. This gives researchers an unusual opportunity to examine what would happen as a result of an inappropriate choice of P3 models. This paper makes a theoretical innovation in the identification of a conflict of interest indicator as an attribute for differentiating the relative efficacy of two types of P3 systems. This result sheds light on the way value for money assessment should be conducted for user-pay P3 projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | build-operate-transfer; contracting; governance structure; public-private partnerships; transaction cost economics |
| Index terms: | Taiwan, transaction cost, comparative analysis, value-for-money, efficiency, governance, partnership, public services, build-operate-transfer |
| Subjects: | partnership management, financial analysis, administrative law, performance management, evaluation, Geography, contractual arrangements, data analysis and analytics, business |
| Topics: | Procurement, Governance, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Cost Management, Quality Management, Value Management, Legal Issues |
| 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