Christina, D; Loosemore, M and Newton, S (2016) The dimensionality of public trust in public private partnership projects. In: Chan, P W and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2016, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) are becoming increasingly popular around the world as a mechanism to deliver economic and social infrastructure at a time of constrained government resources. Recurrent global concerns around the politicisation, transparency and failure of numerous PPP have fuelled community mistrust in official messages about the economic, social and environmental risks and opportunities of these projects. While the subject of community trust in government initiatives has been explored by social psychologists in numerous controversial policy areas such as nuclear power, PPPs have been ignored in these analyses. While the subject of risk in PPPs has been explored extensively from an 'insider’s' perspective, the challenge of managing 'outside' community concerns about these projects, has been largely neglected. This is somewhat surprising given the increasing popularity of PPPs around the world and the many controversies which surround them. To address this gap in knowledge, a new conceptual framework based on Portinga and Pidgeon’s (2003) Dimensionality of Trust theory is presented. Using this theoretical lens, a number of important new propositions are derived which add to the growing research agenda in construction management around PPPs and community perceptions of risk associated with controversial construction projects.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | trust; community; public private partnerships; dimensionality; risk |
| Index terms: | transparency, public private partnership, environmental risk, conceptual framework, construction project, government initiatives, becoming, nuclear power, research agenda |
| Subjects: | theoretical framing, production management, professional development, financial risk, research management, philosophical process, political science, contractual arrangements, energy systems |
| Topics: | Governance, Procurement, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Research Practice, Cost Management |
| 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