Delhi, V S K; Mahalingam, A and Palukuri, S (2012) Governance issues in BOT based PPP infrastructure projects in India. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 2(2), pp. 234-249. ISSN 2044-124X
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this paper is to identify the combinations of economic, normative, reputational and cognitive mechanisms that can prevent post-award governance challenges on build-operate-transfer (BOT) projects in India. Design/methodology/approach: The paper uses an empirical, case-study based methodology to collect data and analyzes the cases through the use of the qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) technique. The paper first identifies and classifies the various kinds of governance challenges and preventive mechanisms in BOT projects based on the extant literature. Empirical evidence on 11 BOT projects in India is gathered and QCA is employed to unearth the linkages between specific governance mechanisms and post-award challenges on these projects. Findings: Project governance issues were identified across two dominant interfaces - one between the public and private sector and the other between the project and the societal stakeholders. Governance mechanisms based on providing shared incentives combined with the capacity to administer projects are effective in combating governance challenges across the public-private sector interface. Cognitive mechanisms which make the project more accountable to the societal stakeholders are most effective across the project-stakeholder interface. Research limitations/implications: These findings can be validated on larger data sets, across geographies, sectors and variety of PPP projects - currently the authors have only studied the BOT variant of PPPs. Practical implications: The authors' "contingency" approach to governance can help decision makers select specific governance mechanisms based on a project's structure and risk profile to better ensure successful delivery of a BOT project's objectives. Originality/value: Post-award governance of PPP projects is a theme that has received comparatively little attention in the extant literature. Further, while post-award issues as well as governance mechanisms have been separately identified, very little work exists that links these two sets of constructs. This paper seeks to contribute to knowledge in this area by proposing some preliminary findings on the link between post-award issues and governance mechanisms. In addition, the paper employs an innovative technique called QCA to analyze the case-study data.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bot; India; infrastructure projects; project governance; project management; public-private partnerships; qualitative comparative analysis |
| Index terms: | build-operate-transfer, evidence, methodology, project management, India, infrastructure project, governance, private sector, qualitative comparative analysis, partnership, linkage |
| Subjects: | Geography, project management theory and practice, research methods, industry analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, partnership management, evaluation and assessment methods, business, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Geographical Context, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Procurement, Governance, Stakeholder Management |
| 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