Chen, C (2007) Institutional barriers to private participation in infrastructure: The case of electronic toll collection in Taiwan. In: Boyd, D (ed.) Proceedings of 23rd Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2007, Belfast, UK.
Abstract
Public Private Partnerships (PPP) was imported into Taiwan in 1994, with Build Operate Transfer (BOT) as the main approach. Adopting the tool of network analysis, which focuses on the explanation of actor behaviours, this paper aims to illustrate how the use of PPP can be hindered by institutional limitations. It examines the case of the Electronic Toll Collection project, which encountered problems in the procurement process, and was finally ordered by the court to return to the tender stage. The preliminary findings are that the difficulties in using BOT in this case result from: i) government treating PPP as a “free lunch”, assuming that all risks could be transferred to the private sector; ii) insufficient government action to prevent PPP becoming the channel of collusion; iii) the strong public opposition; iv) the incomplete judicial framework for resolving PPP disputes. The conclusion summarises the conflicts between the imported PPP and the existing political; legal, judiciary and social institutions. An important question for further research is whether such conflicts are leading to institutional change which will enable PPP to be used more easily in future.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | electronic toll collection; institutional barriers; network; public private partnership; Taiwan |
| Index terms: | institutional change, judiciary, network analysis, tender stage, becoming, Taiwan, public private partnership, private sector, toll, collusion, build-operate-transfer, procurement process, dispute |
| Subjects: | Geography, data analysis and analytics, contractual arrangements, sociology, industry analysis, tendering, transportation engineering, legal systems, dispute resolution, philosophical process |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Legal Issues, Geographical Context, Procurement, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy |
| 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