Issa, D; Emsley, M and Krikham, R (2012) Reviewing risk allocation for infrastructure pfi: Between theory and practice. In: Smith, S D (ed.) Proceedings of 28th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2012, Edinburgh, UK.
Abstract
Risk allocation (RA) in PFI infrastructures resides in a complex milieu. Tackling this issue from both theoretical and practical perspectives is important in order to understand its complexities. It is claimed that PFI deals can result in better value for money through proper RA. However, the common notion of the public sector transferring ALL risks to the private sector does not describe the reality nor define the optimum way of dealing with risks in infrastructure PFIs. In order to analyse the process of RA, an extensive literature review is undertaken to compare the theory and the practice of the process. It is concluded that a considerable gap exists and the main reason for that is the absence of consensus around the logic/theory of the PFI itself.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | infrastructure; private finance initiative; risk allocation; risk identification; uncertainty |
| Index terms: | literature review, private sector, risk identification, public sector, private finance initiative, risk allocation, complexity, value-for-money |
| Subjects: | administrative law, industry analysis, systems engineering, financial risk, evaluation, data analysis and analytics, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Value Management, Procurement, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Engineering Principles, Research Practice |
| 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