Ye, S and Tiong, R K L (2000) Government support and risk-return trade-off in China's BOT power projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 7(4), pp. 412-422. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Government support plays an important part in risk-return trade-off of participants in privately financed infrastructure projects. Depending on the level of government support, risk-return trade-off of the private sponsor varies from project to project. Case studies on two of China's build-operate-transfer (BOT) power projects that were developed at different time periods illustrate that government support has a significant effect on both risk and return of the private sponsor. It is hoped that such understanding would help the private sponsor strike a desirable risk-return trade-off in structuring a BOT deal.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | BOT; government support; infrastructure project; risk allocation; risk-return trade-off |
| Index terms: | government support, risk allocation, risk-return, infrastructure project, case study, China, build-operate-transfer |
| Subjects: | infrastructure and transport systems, environmental hazards, data collection methods, financial risk, government bodies, contractual arrangements, Geography |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Cost Management, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Procurement, Governance, Geographical Context |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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