Chang, C Y (2013) When might a project company break up? The perspective of risk-bearing capacity. Construction Management and Economics, 31(12), pp. 1186-1198. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
Public-private partnerships (PPPs) have developed into a mainstream alternative procurement solution for the provision of public services. The aim is to explore a crucial but hitherto ignored issue in the study of PPPs: at what point a project company might break up. The project company's two-stage break-up in the National Physical Laboratory PFI project inspired this research in which a formal model is developed to demonstrate that contract break-up decisions can be plausibly explained through quasi-rent changes. This finding brings to the foreground the importance of taking into account risk-bearing capability in the design of project governance. How to achieve a level of risk-bearing capacity through the optimal use of financial, organizational and contractual means is a research area worthy of future exploration.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contract termination; project governance; public-private partnerships; quasi-rent; transaction cost economics |
| Index terms: | partnership, exploration, transaction cost, public services, governance, contract termination, laboratory |
| Subjects: | research management, environmental resource management, business, partnership management, administrative law, contract management, financial analysis |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Cost Management, Legal Issues, Governance, Sustainability, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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