Birnie, J (1999) Private Finance Initiative (PFI): UK construction industry response. Journal of Construction Procurement, 5(1), pp. 5-14. ISSN 1358-9180
Abstract
Few initiatives within United Kingdom (UK) construction have received as much publicity as the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) since it was launched in 1992. The Government, while keen to highlight the amount of project work that has resulted from PFI, has also had to admit that there have been many administrative problems in the implementation. The Construction Industry, while initially interested because of the potential workload, has continued to express doubts about the likely success. This paper examines the history of PFI, and the reasons for the problems. Risk bearing is identified as a major factor and proposals are put forward which may alleviate some of the concerns of the industry.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | partnership, private finance initiative, procurement, risk, tendering |
| Index terms: | history, private finance initiative, United Kingdom, workload, proposal, implementation, construction industry, partnership |
| Subjects: | management, industry analysis, partnership management, architectural and construction history, Geography, project planning, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Procurement, Project Management, Geographical Context, Human Resources, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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