Roumboutsos, A and Saussier, S (2014) Public-private partnerships and investments in innovation: The influence of the contractual arrangement. Construction Management and Economics, 32(4), pp. 349-361. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Public-private partnership (PPP) policy strategies emphasize the ability of PPPs to foster innovation. Evidence reported in literature supports less the inherent quality of PPPs for innovation and more the importance of contributing factors. The contractual agreement is the setting of these factors. In this context, an analytical model based on behavioural economics is presented, with boundary conditions reflecting various contractual configurations. The analysis indicates why, from a purely economic point of view, the private party in a PPP arrangement has an incentive to invest in low risk incremental innovations, which impact on, and positively effect, cost savings during construction and operation. It is also identified that further innovations are hampered by the ability to produce verifiable improvements correlated to performance. Findings contribute to the subject of public procurement for innovation in PPPs and support public authorities regarding the rationale, potential and necessary framework conditions for the use of public procurement as an innovation policy tool.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | behavioural economics; innovation; public-private partnerships |
| Index terms: | strategy, boundary condition, public authority, cost saving, analytical model, behavioural economics, evidence, partnership, configuration |
| Subjects: | structural engineering, systems engineering, economics, theoretical framing, administrative law, evaluation and assessment methods, management, economic models, partnership management |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Stakeholder Management, Legal Issues, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 CTA |
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