Carbonara, N and Pellegrino, R (2018) Revenue guarantee in public-private partnerships: A win–win model. Construction Management and Economics, 36(10), pp. 584-598. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Government guarantees are often granted to increase the viability of the Public–Private Partnership projects, although the use of these guarantees can cause problems if they are not properly set. This paper provides a useful tool to define a proper value of public subsidies. In particular, we develop a methodology to calculate the optimal values of the revenue floor (the minimum amount of revenue secured by the government in the minimum revenue guarantee) and revenue ceiling (the upper threshold of revenue that defines the excess revenue to be shared in the revenue sharing) in a way that creates a “win–win” condition for the concessionaire and the government and fairly shares risk between them. The proposed methodology operationalizes minimum revenue guarantee and revenue sharing as real options. The resulting real option-based model is applied to a real case, namely the Strait of Messina Bridge in Italy. The application shows the usefulness of the model in supporting: (a) the government’s decision-making process on assessing values of public subsidies needed to make the project attractive to private investors; and (b) both public and private parties during the negotiation in finding the fair values of the revenue floor and ceiling.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | public–private partnerships; revenue guarantee; revenue sharing; risk management; win–win principle |
| Index terms: | negotiation, real option, risk management, partnership, decision-making process, fair value, subsidy, investor, Italy, methodology, revenue, guarantee, concessionaire |
| Subjects: | contract type, risk assessment, economic analysis, research methods, contract structure, Geography, sociology, decision analysis, partnership management, conflict resolution |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Procurement |
| 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