Wu, J; Liu, H J; Sing, M C P; Humphrey, R and Zhao, J (2020) Public-private partnerships: Implications from policy changes for practice in managing risks. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 27(9), pp. 2253-2269. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: This paper investigates the policy changes made towards infrastructure public–private partnerships (PPPs). The purpose of this study is to empirically identify the policy risks associated with the development of PPPs and to assess their impacts on the projects. Design/methodology/approach: A case study of the policy changes that have been implemented for PPPs in China over the past seven years has been undertaken and is presented in this study. The causal loop diagrams are applied to assess and illustrate the potential impacts of the risks as a result of such changes on PPPs. Findings: A sequence of the policy risks, which relate to PPP risk allocation, contract management and implementation, payment and abatement mechanisms and financing, has been identified. It is also found that the identified risks will generate significant but negative impacts on PPPs, leading to an ineffective project delivery, low revenue, poor service quality and even contract breach. Practical implications: This research provides the private-sector entities that will embark on PPPs with an insight into managing and controlling policy risks over the project's lifecycle. Originality/value: PPPs have been critical for infrastructure development worldwide. Nevertheless, they have been a controversy, as many of them were subjected to poor outputs. Consequently, a variety of political mechanisms has been implemented to enhance the governance for PPPs. Policy can bring not only benefits but also risks and, however, policy risks of PPPs with a particular assessment for their potential impacts have received limited attention. Therefore, the study presented in this paper will contribute to the identification and assessment of policy risks within the context of PPPs.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | infrastructure projects; institutional arrangements; policy risk; ppps |
| Index terms: | partnership, governance, case study, infrastructure project, implementation, project delivery, lifecycle, risk allocation, infrastructure development, revenue, contract management, China, financing, methodology, service quality |
| Subjects: | research methods, performance measurement, infrastructure engineering, contract management, financial risk, Geography, partnership management, infrastructure and transport systems, business, data collection methods, project delivery, economic analysis, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Quality Management, Governance, Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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