Liu, J; Liu, J and Bu, Z (2022) Effects of different face-saving concerns on the escalation of commitment between state-owned and private investors in PPP projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 148(9): 04022092, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
In public-private partnership (PPP) projects, state-owned investors, with their administrative attributes, tend to be more concerned with their own face-saving (self-face) concerns, whereas private investors that partner with the government pay more attention to the government's face-saving (other-face) concerns than their own. The two kinds of face-saving concerns both aggravate escalation of commitment (EOC). Accordingly, a multigroup model based on questionnaire data was built to analyze the differences in face-saving concerns of the two types of investors and the cross-enterprise differences that influence investors' EOC. The main findings are as follows: state-owned investors prefer self-face concerns; the influence of face-saving concerns on investors' EOC does not differ across enterprises; and self-face concerns and other-face concerns each have significant influence on both kinds of investors' EOC, but the latter plays a larger role. The study enriches the understanding of EOC and emphasizes the advantages of private capital in reducing investors' behavioral risk. The findings are conducive to improving the mechanism and control of multistakeholder EOC in PPP projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | escalation of commitment; face concerns; private investors; public-private partnership; state-owned investors |
| Index terms: | questionnaire, face, commitment, investor, partnership |
| Subjects: | sociology, partnership management, data collection methods, psychology |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management |
| 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