Jefferies M, G T B G (2013) Public private partnerships: The provision of healthcare infrastructure in Australia. In: Smith, S D and Ahiaga-Dagbui, D D (eds.) Proceedings of 29th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2013, Reading, UK.
Abstract
The emergence of Public-Private Sector Partnerships (PPPs) provides a means for developing infrastructure without directly impacting upon the budgetary constraints of Government. Social infrastructure projects (schools, hospitals, prisons et al) are characterised as generally being smaller in scale than economic infrastructure projects (motorways, bridges, tunnels et al). However, by their very nature, social infrastructure projects also tend to be complex, particularly in terms of on-going involvement with the community. Thus, private sector bidders for social infrastructure PPPs are often presented with a situation where operational complexity, including government policy toward the sharing of revenue, is one of the key differences in whether PPPs are as attractive for social infrastructure compared with economic infrastructure. This research centres on how consortiums manage the many risk factors involved and the results are presented from a case study of a hospital PPP project. This paper presents the preliminary findings of the case study research and in particular focuses on the process for selecting the PPP consortium and the research methodology.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Australia; healthcare; procurement; public-private partnership; social infrastructure |
| Index terms: | consortium, research centre, tunnel, prison, case study, partnership, private sector, revenue, Australia, government policy, bidder, research methodology, risk factor, infrastructure project, public private partnership, emergence, complexity |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, bidding, economic analysis, public policy, construction type, data collection methods, research design and methodology, industry analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, administrative law, systems engineering, environmental hazards, partnership management, Geography |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Stakeholder Management, Construction Technology, Procurement, Sustainability, Governance, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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