Chen, C (2008) Risks in PPP: Process and institutional analyses. In: Dainty, A (ed.) Proceedings of 24th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2008, Cardiff, UK.
Abstract
PPP has been pursued as the new governance form in worldwide experience, although it still encounters the difficulties in the existing institutional environment. From the perspective of analysing risks which derive from institutional weaknesses, this paper aims to reveal the process and institutional features of PPP project. Through examining the Electronic Toll Collection project in Taiwan, the analysis argues that the institutional features of the project have the impact on the process of actor interaction which leads to the eventuation of certain risks and the actual risk allocation in post contract stage that differ from the expected. The institutional weaknesses, particularly in the aspect of over zealous political attitude to PPP, the lack of public participation and the inadequate legal framework require further attention in PPP development.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | actor interaction; institutions; public private partnerships; risk; Taiwan |
| Index terms: | risk allocation, governance, interaction, public participation, Taiwan, toll, public private partnership |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, transportation engineering, financial risk, behavioral psychology, business, Geography, participation process |
| Topics: | Procurement, Engineering Principles, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Governance, Cost Management, Geographical Context |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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