Chang, C Y and Chen, S (2016) Transitional public-private partnership model in China: Contracting with little recourse to contracts. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(10): 05016011, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Since 2013, the Chinese government has attempted to make a transition from user-pay public-private partnership (PPP) to government-pay PPP systems with the aim of facilitating infrastructure investment and government transformation. Whereas the application of government-pay PPP systems can considerably expand the areas where PPPs are suitable, the lengthy procurement time experienced in the implementation of similar systems [e.g., private finance initiative (PFI)] presents a tough challenge to Chinese procuring authorities who are under increasing pressure to get the earmarked PPP projects off the ground swiftly in order to stem the downward pressure in the economy. The first PFI-like project in China, the Anqing Urban Road PPP project, has been successfully tendered in May 2015 with an impressive record on procurement time. Through the scrutiny of this project, it is found that speedy procurement is achieved by leaving some of the major risks ill-defined and vaguely allocated in the tender document. However, this apparent high-risk exposure did not deter investors. This research maintains that the greater risk tolerance revealed among state-owned enterprise (SOE) investors should be attributed to the power structure embedded in China's administrative system. While leveraging this mechanism can reduce transaction costs, it could hold back the participation of private investors in future Chinese PPP projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | China; contracting; informal control mechanism; private finance initiative; procurement time; public-private partnerships |
| Index terms: | private finance initiative, transformation, partnership, tender document, China, transaction cost, implementation, investor, exposure, infrastructure investment |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, Geography, business, sociology, tendering, public and environmental health, economic analysis, financial analysis, partnership management |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Procurement, Cost Management, Stakeholder Management, Geographical Context |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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