Kwok-Chun, W and Walker, A (2000) Property rights implications of public-private joint ventures. Construction Management and Economics, 18(2), pp. 131-138. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
When a public institution contracts with a developer for a codevelopment project, there are two main options for arrangements: the equity or the cooperative joint venture. Equity is basically a shareholding arrangement, whereby inputs are valued at market worth in exchange for respective shares of ownership of the joint development. Under cooperative joint ventures, however, shares of ownership are not necessarily based on the values of the inputs. The partners simply draw up a contract that defines the inputs and apportions the outputs of the joint development. This paper argues that a cooperative joint venture between a public institution and a private developer is basically an arrangement to reduce dissipation of rent under public ownership. Unlike the equity arrangement, cooperative joint ventures necessarily lead to an apparent transfer of shares from the public institution to the private developer. Evidence found thus far in Hong Kong and China is consistent with this hypothesis. Variations of the cooperative joint venture are discussed together with examples.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | China; developers; Hong Kong; joint ventures; property rights; public ownership; rent |
| Index terms: | variation, ownership, China, property rights, evidence, joint venture, option, Hong Kong |
| Subjects: | decision analysis, economics, Geography, contractual condition, real estate economics, business, evaluation and assessment methods |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Organizational Design, Business Strategy, Contract Administration, Research Practice, Risk Management, Urban Studies |
| 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