Ngoma, S; Mundia, M and Kaliba, C (2014) Benefits, constraints and risks in infrastructure development via public-private partnerships in Zambia. Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 19(1), pp. 15-33. ISSN 1823-6499
Abstract
Zambia, like many other countries, has embraced public-private partnerships (PPPs) as a project delivery method. The country faces budgetary constraints, which has caused the maintenance and provision of new infrastructures to be a challenge. PPPs appear to create opportunities that stimulate investment in infrastructure development and economic growth. The goal of this study was to highlight the benefits, constraints and risks inherent in implementing PPP construction projects in Zambia. Using a questionnaire survey to collect data, the study identified the benefits and confirmed the prevalence of constraints and risks in the implementation of PPP construction projects in Zambia. The major benefits, constraints and risks were identified and ranked. There was agreement among survey respondents regarding the ranking of benefits, constraints and risks regarding construction projects in Zambia. Appropriate improvements to the regulatory framework were recommended for the PPP procurement approach to be successfully utilised and implemented in Zambia.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | benefits; constraints; public-private partnerships; risks; Zambia |
| Index terms: | implementation, economic growth, project delivery, partnership, Zambia, construction project, questionnaire, face, infrastructure development, survey |
| Subjects: | infrastructure engineering, production management, Geography, economic development, partnership management, data collection methods, project delivery, contractual arrangements, psychology |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Project Management, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Procurement, Sustainability, Stakeholder Management, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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