Dhanshyam, M and Srivastava, S K (2021) Governance structures for public infrastructure projects: Public-private management regimes, contractual forms and innovation. Construction Management and Economics, 39(8), pp. 652-668. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The choice of appropriate governance structures for public infrastructure projects is a major challenge for governments. The extant literature provides ample theoretical support to analyse various public–private management regimes for public infrastructure service delivery, but there is little discussion on the innovation incentives of specific contractual forms and their welfare implications under different management regimes. Our research aims at providing answers to the following research questions: who should manage different tasks in public infrastructure delivery–public, private or public–private partnership (PPP)?; how should these tasks be managed to foster innovation and enhance welfare?. We explore these using a multi-period analytical model that analyses innovation incentives induced by six contractual forms under five management regimes. We derive conditions under which specific governance structures maximise welfare. Our analysis reveals that PPPs induce optimal innovation and maximise welfare if governed through revenue-sharing concessions for user-payment type services and fixed-price annuity type contracts for no-user-payment type services. The risk share of the private partner and the shadow cost of public funds strengthen the case for PPPs while transaction costs weaken it. These results generate novel insights for policymakers to design effective governance structures and set new research directions in public infrastructure governance.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contract; infrastructure governance; management regimes; public-private partnerships |
| Index terms: | service delivery, analytical model, partnership, revenue, payment type, annuity, public infrastructure, transaction cost, governance |
| Subjects: | partnership management, theoretical framing, business, infrastructure and transport systems, financial analysis, economics, economic analysis, service delivery |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Governance, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Project Management |
| 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