Adighibe, Charles Nnason (2015) Public private partnership infrastructure delivery: Benefits and costs for society. PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Australia.
Abstract
This research provides additional knowledge on the benefits and costs to society, in particular of road transport procured through Public-Private Partnership (PPP) arrangements. Currently, the public sector comparator (PSC) and cost-benefit analysis (CBA) used to evaluate and measure the benefits and costs of PPP are limited in their capacity to predict and forecast long-term events. PPP is attractive to governments due to the non-upfront payment, perceived value for money, and risk allocation and transfer to the private investor. However, public sector remains the guarantor, and under-writer of the private investor's loan from financial institutions and other voluntary risks which are unlimited to future compensatory claims. The new knowledge from this research is the introduction of a framework capable of evaluating, and measuring the associated PPP benefits, as well as the costs, effects, and impacts to society which are protracted and sporadic by nature.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Coffey, Vaughan; Skitmore, Martin and Bridge, Adrian |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | costs; cost-benefits analysis; economic benefits; effects and impacts; public investments; private investor; public-private partnerships; society; value for money |
| Index terms: | investor, public sector, risk allocation, value-for-money, public private partnership, infrastructure delivery, partnership, society |
| Subjects: | sociology, partnership management, evaluation, communities and social development, administrative law, strategic project management, contractual arrangements, financial risk |
| Topics: | Value Management, Project Management, Legal Issues, Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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