Tan, W (2009) Restructuring public-private partnership in student housing. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 162(2), pp. 83-88. ISSN 17514312
Abstract
This paper presents the historical development of public-private partnership models in student housing in higher education institutes. It focuses on the rationale for the changes largely in terms of the circuits of capital, where each round of investment in student housing is accompanied by changing financing structures to respond to the new investment environment. Traditionally, student housing was often considered as part of social housing but increasingly, universities are looking to the private sector to finance, build, operate and transfer these facilities to release limited university funds for priority areas such as research and teaching. The risks for lenders and private sector developers as well as the varied ways in which such housing is financed are considered.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contracting; economics and finance; management |
| Index terms: | financing, housing, higher education, private sector, partnership, historical development, student housing, social housing |
| Subjects: | economic analysis, construction type, housing and residential development, architectural and construction history, industry analysis, partnership management, educational institutions |
| Topics: | Education, Urban Studies, Construction Technology, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy |
| 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