Chang, C Y (2013) A critical review of the application of tce in the interpretation of risk allocation in PPP contracts. Construction Management and Economics, 31(2), pp. 99-103. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
Along with the rise of public-private partnerships (PPPs) as a mainstream procurement system, we have seen a growing interest in studies of risk allocation in these projects. One of the serious academic endeavours is to apply both transaction cost economics (TCE) and the resource-based view (RBV) to explain risk allocation patterns found in PPP projects. The existing literature along these lines is deficient in three aspects: inappropriate choice of unit of analysis; poor specification of governance structure; and misinterpretation of asset specificity. A way for improvement is to analyse risk allocation in the context of PPP procurement in its entirety.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | competence; procurement; public-private partnerships; risk analysis; transaction cost |
| Index terms: | risk analysis, competence, specification, resource-based view, transaction cost, procurement system, risk allocation, asset specificity, partnership, governance |
| Subjects: | economic concepts, contractual condition, financial risk, personnel development, management, environmental hazards, financial analysis, partnership management, business, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Human Resources, Stakeholder Management, Procurement, Sustainability, Governance, Business Strategy, Cost 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