Sinkala, A; Lindelani, M and Root, D (2024) Resolving the paradox of unsolicited PPP proposals for infrastructure projects. In: Thomson, C (ed.) Proceedings of 40th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2024, London South Bank University, UK.
Abstract
Faced with declining state capacity, South Africa (SA) is revisiting public private partnerships (PPPs) as a potential solution to deliver more innovative solutions to its infrastructure challenges. Despite a 2009 legal framework that accommodates unsolicited proposals (USPs), SA has never executed a PPP project conceptualised as USP. This raises the question as to whether the policy framework creates sufficient incentives to ignite private interest in USPs. More critically, if the public sector is capable of recognising and managing innovative USPs at institutional level. The paper uses an integrative literature review to unpack the source of USP problems. The aim is to come up with governance mechanisms at the pre-tendering phase that is critical due to the implied nature of USPs. The objective of the paper is to explore whether the failure to utilise USPs can be because of the principal's shirking or perfunctory. The research findings are that USP failures are because of actors' actions, public sector capacity and lack of selection criteria. It recommends an extension to agency problems to include the principal’s power asymmetry.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | unsolicited proposals; public private partnerships; agency; governance |
| Index terms: | agency, proposal, public private partnership, public sector, paradox, selection criteria, infrastructure project, South Africa, governance, literature review |
| Subjects: | business, sociology, Geography, infrastructure and transport systems, social theory and frameworks, tendering, administrative law, project planning, contractual arrangements, data analysis and analytics |
| Topics: | Project Management, Governance, Procurement, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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