Zhang, X (2006) Toward innovative and efficient infrastructure delivery. PhD thesis, University of Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
Mixed results have been experienced in international public-private partnerships (PPPs) in infrastructure development and there are worldwide controversy, criticism and conflicts over PPPs. A number of PPP projects have suffered disastrous consequences due to lack of knowledge and expertise in project financial evaluation, risk identification, assessment and allocation, and effective financial engineering techniques and efficient contracting methods to address incomplete information, asset specificity and opportunism. This causes significant political, social, and economic consequences to the public sector and economic losses to the private sector, with an overall impairment to the interests of the general public. This research has developed (1) an integrated general framework for the delivery of public infrastructure and services through PPPs; (2) an innovative financial evaluation methodology that reflects the characteristics of project finance, incorporates simulation and financial analysis techniques, and aims at a win-win solution for all parties involved; (3) a mathematical model to determine the appropriate length of the concession period that demarcates the rights and responsibilities between the public and private sectors in a project's life cycle; (4) a mathematical model that optimizes the concessionaire's capital structure when it is subject to various risks and financial viability requirements; and (5) a relational concession framework to build a cooperative/collaborative working environment to minimize opportunism and transaction costs. These research outputs make significant contributions to the knowledge body of public works and services provision, to overcoming various problems currently encountered, and to improving future practices in international PPPs toward innovative and efficient infrastructure and service delivery.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | asset specificity; contracting methods; opportunism; concession; capital structure; conflicts; infrastructure delivery; life cycle; project finance; public infrastructure; public private partnerships; risk identification; simulation; transaction cost |
| Index terms: | methodology, impairment, contracting method, project finance, opportunism, concessionaire, transaction cost, mathematical model, infrastructure delivery, infrastructure development, research output, financial analysis, risk identification, public work, capital structure, public private partnership, public infrastructure, concession period, service delivery, life cycle, financial viability, partnership, private sector, asset specificity, public sector |
| Subjects: | research products and data, strategic project management, economic analysis, design economy, business management, contractual arrangements, contract type, mathematical modelling, business, value management, health conditions and diseases, partnership management, financial analysis, administrative law, industry analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, research methods, financial management, contract structure, infrastructure engineering, financial risk, economic concepts, service delivery |
| Topics: | Information Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Stakeholder Management, Design Practice, Organizational Design, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Health and Safety, Procurement, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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