Public-Private Partnerships: Strengths and Weaknesses Essay

Introduction

The subject of public-private partnerships (PPPs) has been frequently discussed both in the scholarly literature and the practitioners’ reports within recent decades. This is most likely the case because public-private partnerships serve as a progressive way to handle financing and project management of large scale infrastructural projects globally. As noted by Hodge and Greve (2017), the concept of public-private partnerships has been increasingly popular among the national governments around the world, including the public organizations of the countries of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, China and the United States.

The PPP concession format of handling a large infrastructural project has some tangible benefits. First of all, it enables more optimal allocation of risks between the private and the public party of the agreement, which empowers organizations to take more complex projects with a higher overall degree of complexity. Also, PPP projects facilitate the sharing of the expertise and resources possessed by the private and public sector which enables more synergy.

However, with all the tangible benefits of public-private partnerships for the development of infrastructure, numerous PPP projects of the recent years have suffered serious risk scenarios that resulted into failures (Xiong, Zhao, Yuan, and Luo 2017). This tendency is further confirmed by the discontinuation of the PFI schemes in the UK October budget. As noted by Davies (2018), the public-private partnerships in the UK were first introduced in the 1990s and then expended further in the times of Tony Blaire.

The author further claims that decision-makers of the country such as the chancellor Philip Hammond and the Treasury officials claimed on several occasions that the public-private partnerships in the way in which they are currently executed in the United Kingdom are often “inflexible and overly complex” and deliver unsatisfactory levels of value for money.

Some other indications of the practical inefficiencies of public-private partnerships are quoted by Shrestha, Chan, Aibinu, Chen, and Martek (2018) on the example of Chinese water PPP projects. The paper claims that within the agreements in this sphere in China excessive risks are being frequently transferred to the private side to the point that it ends up defaulting on its obligations thus causing the project failure. The problem is further deteriorated by the dynamic legal and economic environments of the country, which are negatively affecting the overall risk profile of the project.

Taking into account the above facts one can see that even with numerous tangible benefits of PPPs that are often quoted in theory, the practical implementation of such projects is frequently delivering less than optimal results. One of the possible ways of improving the outcomes of PPPs in practice can be achieved through having a better understanding of the possible benefits and drawbacks of public-private partnership projects, as well as the factors that facilitate success and the possible actions that can be taken to mitigate failure.

For that end, the possible stakeholders of PPP projects should also be understood, in order to avoid the problems of information asymmetry and potential conflicts of interest. Discussing each of the latter factors will be specifically the focus of this paper.

Key Types and Characteristics of Public-Private Partnerships (Ppps)

In most general terms the contract of a public-private partnership (PPP) takes place when a certain private company or a private organization (the side which is frequently represented by large corporations) signs an agreement on joint actions and responsibilities over a project with a government entity. This type of contract usually describes the duties, obligations, and terms on which the two specified parties, public and private, agreed to pursue concerted actions with the aim of providing certain benefits for the public. These types of benefits can come as a specific asset such as an exhibition venue aimed to generate a steady stream of revenue in the future, or in the form of a non-profit service such as a school or a healthcare organization.

One of the important distinguishing characteristics of the public-private partnership projects is the fact that the private participating side of the contract is frequently compensated based on the project performance. Due to this fact, a large fraction of risk associated with the project is being transferred to the private entity side of the contract, and relevant key performance indicators (KPIs) are designed to make sure that the amount of compensation attributable to the private side is relevant to the quantity and quality of the produced impact. The fact that the return obtained by the private company is directly related to the contract performance makes this type of project management framework efficient and sustainable.

According to the class materials, the specific case of transportation projects is usually related to three major forms of public-private partnerships. The first of them is the case of services sold to the public sector by the private sector firms (usually, these firms are corporations). In this type of setup, the project expenses are being covered by service charges from the private contractors to the public agencies or the government in the number of delivered services.

One example of the services sold to the public sector agreement is the Northern Line Trains Project of the London Underground Limited. The second form of popular PPP agreements in transportation is a joint venture. For this type of framework, the public sector is usually in charge of the overall scheme of the project completion, while the private sector is entitled to the general control over the commenced project. An example of this type of setup of a public-private partnership is the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.

The third group of popular PPPs in transportation are financially free-standing projects. In this type of project setup, the expenses of construction and operation of the project are repaid to the private contractor through charges of the end users. Some examples of the financially free-standing projects are the Dartford Crossing and the Skye Bridge.

According to Wang, Xiong, Wu, and Zhu (2018), some of the spheres in which public-private partnerships are most frequently used in infrastructure and public services are the public healthcare provision, environment protection, water and sewage and transportation. The authors further note that numerous countries and communities of the world were making use of PPs in order to mitigate or eliminate the existing traditional disadvantages of public service procurement.

Some of the mentioned developed countries are Spain, Portugal, Australia, and the United Kingdom. However, developing countries are also becoming increasingly frequent beneficiaries of the PPP infrastructure schemes. As mentioned by Wang et al. (2018), before September of 2016 China has seen the development of at least 10,471 public-private partnership projects. The accumulated financial investment directed for the development of these projects summed up to over 12 trillion yuan.

A recent literature review on the trends in public-private partnership globally developed by Cui, Liu, Hope, and Wang (2018) further gives a general idea on the main spheres in which PPP concessions are being conducted in the world. Of the total of 379 articles identified from the most impactful peer-reviewed journals, 111 (29%) were focused on the projects related to transportation (with the key subtopics of highways, roads and transportation in general). The second most popular topics were the health and hospital care provision (39 articles, 10% of the total) and water supply (37 articles, 10% of the total).

Some other popular encountered topics were the networks and telecommunications (24 articles), power plants and bioenergy (21 articles), low-cost housing and real estate (20 articles), urban rail transit (20 articles), urban development (16 articles), education (16 articles) and waste management (11 articles). However, with the rise of modern technologies and increasingly popular tendencies of digitalization, it is possible to expect the emergence of more public-private partnerships in various digital industries.

Key Stakeholders of Public-Private Partnerships

Properly identifying the set of relevant stakeholders of a public-private partnership project is one of the factors of achieving the most efficient outcome upon the project completion. While the PPP concessions may have different characteristics and setups depending on the industry or the geographic location of the project, it is still possible to define the most common sets of relevant stakeholders that will be encountered most frequently by decision-makers.

Within the framework of the public-private partnership concept, there are four main stakeholder groups that particularly stand out in the majority of large-scale projects. These four groups are the government authority, the private company, the end users of the project and the local businesses and community that are directly or indirectly affected by its execution. Taking a broader perspective, it is also possible to set out several related subgroups of stakeholders. For instance, for the case of the private company stakeholders, it is also relevant to take into account their possible existing partners, such as for instance the contractors, lenders of financial funds or market equity investors.

In addition, some varying types of external stakeholders can also be relevant to different projects, such as for example the local utility providers, project management or other advisors, insurers and independent regulatory organizations. For instance, in case of constructing an airport within a PPP agreement (as it was with Vienna airport), the relevant stakeholders would be the local and state governments, the airlines, retailers taking advantage of the transport aviation, the local community and the interested passengers.

At the same time, with the public-private partnerships in an aerospace project the scope of stakeholders can go as far as to include all people on the planet. As noted by Jones (2018), one of the case studies of the PPP with global stakeholders in the aerospace sector is the case of the Enhanced View (EV) program of the National Geospatial Agency, which was a 10-year PPP concession developed in partnership of the American Government on one side and the Digital Globe and GeoEye on the other side. The financial compensation to each of the companies was equal to $3.55 billion, and there was a possibility for the National Geospatial Agency to quit the contract at any time according to its provisions.

Overall, it is also important to note that the composition of stakeholders of a given project is not necessarily stable and may change over time. This can happen for reasons such as migration of the population, mergers, and acquisitions relevant to the private companies serving as one of the contract parties, and also due to the unexpected enhancement of the project on some of the stages prior to its completion.

Strengths of the PPP Concessions

Given that public-private partnerships are getting increasing attention among the decision makers in both developed and developing countries (Osei-Kyei, Chan, Javed & Ameyaw 2017) it is reasonable to claim that they provide a wide set of stakeholders with a lot of tangible benefits. As noted by Osei-Kyei et al. (2017), one of the major benefits of the public private partnership frameworks is that they allow the local governments to take advantage of the accumulated practical expertise of the private sector.

This, in turn, helps to promote the development of public infrastructure characterized by being more sustainable and adherent to the modern technical and user experience standards. In this type of setup, such stakeholders as the end users, local communities and businesses and the local governments can enjoy higher levels of cost-efficiency derived from the benefits of the PPP concession contracts.

Yet another important advantage of the public-private partnerships is the faster project completion time and lower amount of delays in large scale infrastructure projects associated with the utilization of this project management framework (Reeves, Palcic & Flannery 2015; Onyemaechi & Samy 2016; Muhammad & Johar 2018). According to the latter authors, faster completion and reduced delays can be associated with improved risk analysis and risk allocation and well-defined property rights within PPP projects.

This specific advantage of the PPP framework is beneficial to each of the stakeholder groups – the government, end users, the private company and the local communities, as the returns from the project are starting to arrive faster and the revenue stream is relatively less affected by the time discounting factor.

The third advantage of public-private partnerships is the fact that the return on investment (ROI) of such projects is frequently reported to be higher than in the cases of all-private or all-public project execution. This effect comes from the higher risk assessment and joint expertise of the public and private sides of the contract. In addition, in joining the efforts of the private and public contractors more innovative design and financing solutions can be implemented. Higher return on investment is once again beneficial for each of the stakeholder groups, as it means that higher cost-efficiency levels are achieved and that more financial funds are freed up for other projects aimed to benefit the local communities and citizens.

The fourth advantage of the public-private partnership is the fact that this project management framework promoted the completion of more projects. Some of the projects that are traditionally handled with public-private partnerships are either too large, too complex or are associated with too much risk to be handled by public or private institutions alone. The PPP model encourages sharing of both risks and expertise, and therefore some of the seemingly impossible projects become feasible in such cooperation.

The fifth benefit of public-private partnerships is the fact that the risks associated with the projects are being fully assessed at early stages with the aim of verifying if the project is indeed feasible. In this case, the rational component and experience in assessing cost-efficiency of the private sector can serve as a reality check against the populism of some governments and their unrealistic promises to the public and local communities.

One more benefit of the PPP concession frameworks is the fact that the beneficiaries of the projects such as the local communities and the end users are protected from excessive risks. Assuming that a certain PPP project is either delayed or goes over budgets, the associated costs of such negative events are now transferred to the private partner side, and should not be compensated from the public budget creating the risks of deficits and undermining the investment into alternative socially important spheres.

The seventh benefit of public-private partnerships is their faster completion. This is specifically important to the end user group of stakeholders given the fact that better infrastructure has positive spill-overs on other sides of economic and social activity. For instance, a newer airport or a better highway means that the local exporting companies get a competitive advantage in terms of transportation and therefore have the potential to earn higher revenues.

Getting these benefits faster implies higher income due to the lower time discounting factor. One of the reasons why PPP projects can be completed more quickly is the existence of early completion bonuses that serve as a stimulus to the participating private companies (Regan, Love and Jim 2015). In this type of contractual setup, the incentives established in the agreement of the two sides facilitate faster execution of the project stages.

Olatunji, Olawumi, and Ogunsemi (2016) further note the promotion of local economic growth and employment opportunities as one more benefit of public-private partnerships. In part, this advantage arises from the fourth previously mentioned benefit, which is the completion of more projects. Given that more high-risk and large-scale infrastructural projects become possible via the utilization of PPP frameworks, this means the higher resulting quality of the local economic environment, as well as higher employment within the stages of execution of the project on the asset or a service and its further use.

Lastly, Ameyaw and Chan (2015) claim that private-public partnership projects also tend to contribute to reduced levels of associated life-cycle costs. This effect is obtained because each of the sides is interested in a more efficient and less costly project, and the due supervision is exercised from both the public and the private side of the agreement. In addition, the already mentioned innovative approaches to project planning and financing facilitated by the joint expertise have a positive influence on the expenses associated with the project life cycle.

Weaknesses of the PPP Concessions

One of the important public-private partnership disadvantages is the fact that the private side of the agreement needs to be compensated for the high risks it undertakes, and in some cases, this compensation can be rather high. This represents a weakness of the PPP concessions for such stakeholder groups as the government agencies, local communities and end users of the assets or services. Essentially, high compensation for the risk assigned to the private side of the contract implies that less free financial funds will be available for spending on other projects or to address the essential socioeconomic problems of the communities.

The second weakness of PPP projects is that for many types of projects there is only a limited number of companies on the private side that have enough resources and expertise to participate in tenders and qualification assessments. This weakness is most relevant to developing countries with a relatively smaller amount of strong companies and the industry-specific projects such as for instance the project activities in the aerospace sector or the development of a particularly large unit of infrastructure. In such a setup, the disadvantaged stakeholders are the end users, the governments and the local communities due to the drawbacks of lower competition.

The third weakness of public-private partnerships is relevant to the projects where the private side of the contracts possesses the majority of the expertise. This creates a problem of information asymmetry that can increase the costs of conducting the project and put such stakeholders as the governments, end users and the local communities at a disadvantage. In situations of expertise-related information asymmetry in PPP concessions the governments may be unable to properly assess the costs of project development and implementation, and as a result, incur relatively higher expenses.

The problem of information asymmetry in public-private partnerships was also explored in the articles by Xiong, Zhao, and Wang (2018) and Russo, Dias, da Silva Rocha and Oliveira (2018). The authors focused specifically on the information asymmetry existing in PPP concessions at the stages of re-negotiations of contract conditions. Yet another related paper by Devkar, Sankaran, and Ke (2017) focused on exploring the impact of information asymmetry in PPP concessions basing on the example of 6 cases of transportation projects in India and Australia. According to the authors, information asymmetry is a factor which is responsible for the divergence of the PPP outcomes from the benefits predicted by theoretical models.

The findings of the study show that the existence of information asymmetry on the procurement phases of public-private partnership projects causes the problems of moral hazard, adverse selection and hold up at their subsequent stages. In the cases from Australia and India studied within the paper the problem of information asymmetry was neglected by the key project stakeholders such as the governments, investors and responsible decision makers.

The fourth possible weakness of public-private partnerships is the fact that while the private part of the contract is profit-seeking, the public side can be oriented towards other goals such as the benefit of the local community or social well-being, which are not necessarily measurable in a monetary way. Therefore, the governments should take additional care in entering into contract agreements in the projects where humanitarian well-being domains may be affected.

The fifth weakness of private-public partnerships essentially arises from the disadvantage number three described in this section. More specifically, the fact that only a limited number of private firms may have the necessary qualifications and resources to participate in a tender, a withdrawal of a private firm from a project at a later stage can imply high additional expenses of searching for new contractors and subsequently decreasing level of the value for money of such project.

Lastly, while the public-private partnership agreements are generally considered to be a beneficial arrangement for all the stakeholders, it is not, in fact, a universally beneficial solution. In fact, the feasibility and efficiency of a PPP concession should be preliminarily analysed and estimated in each specific case on the ad hoc basis. Depending on the specific characteristics of the present competition, the levels of inherent risk and complexity the profits of different projects their levels of profits under PPPs may differ, as well as the optimal decision on whether to adopt or not adopt this type of framework.

Key Issues to Be Considered for a Successful PPP

The key success factors for a successful public-private partnership can be best summarized from the empirical evidence on the past executed projects. A literature review conducted by Osei-Kyei and Chan (2015) focused on exploring the critical success factors of PPPs described in the studies published between 1990 and 2013. The authors concluded that five specific groups of factors were of highest importance for project completion.

The first of these factors was the appropriate allocation and sharing of risks between the private and the public parties. In general, risks are being allocated between the two sides in the preliminary process of negotiation, and this allocation is made based on the set of skills of the two parties to mitigate such risks. The authors note that allocating the whole amount of risk on to the side of the private contractor can be a failing strategy for the governments, as this can undermine the motivation of the private investors of the country to participate in the future PPP projects with these public authorities.

In addition, the public side of the agreement should also preferably take care of the risks that are not within the control of the private sector and thus cannot be efficiently mitigated. One of the examples of poor risk distribution is quoted in the article by Jones (2018) describing the Galileo case study. The project execution was undermined on a number of occasions by the decisions of political nature that subsequently changed the initial terms of the contract.

As a result, the initially planned patterns of work distribution were also altered, and this caused considerable delays. Even though the private part of the agreement could expect certain disturbances in dealing with a democratic government, it could have done better by establishing strong upfront agreements and fixed terms of cooperation, thus reducing the burden of risks which it was facing. Due to the changing contract terms and delays, the partnership between the private and public sides in the Galileo Satellite Navigation Systems contract was eventually terminated.

The second of the major identified factors was the existence of a strong private side of the public-private partnership. Given that PPP projects in infrastructure are frequently complex in execution, it can be rather difficult to execute them with the resources of only one company. Therefore, several companies are needed to unite their efforts towards the project’s success. In case if the consortium of private companies is not well-structured and compatible or if it is poorly managed, this can serve as a factor of the PPP project failure.

In addition, the consortium should ensure that it possesses sufficient managerial, technical and operational resources to successfully finalize the targeted PPP project. In addition, for the case of developing countries where the resource capacity and structure efficiencies of the local companies can be relatively weak, the governments should provide both technical and financial assistance to increase their competitiveness for the tenders including the participation of foreign investors.

The third factor mentioned by Osei-Kyei and Chan (2015) was the existence of sufficient political support for the project, which was highlighted in 9 publications on public-private partnerships observed by the author. Political support ensures that the relevant share of public expenditures is allocated to the project and that every stage of the working progress is approved. In addition, political support by the government of a certain PPP concession project serves as a positive signalling instrument towards the investors from both within and outside of the economy.

In the cases when the political support is relatively weak higher levels of associated political risks are assigned to the project by external analysts. As a result, the related tenders are likely to run in the conditions of less intense competition and less beneficial proposals from the side of the private companies.

The fourth factor quoted by Osei-Kyei and Chan (2015) was the support of the public or the local community. One of the forms in which the acceptance of the project by the local community can be manifested is through the approval by the local trade unions, mass media, citizen groups, and the community non-governmental organizations. These types of approvals help to facilitate the project execution through minimizing delays related to acquisitions of permits and land for the project and opening up the local labour market in case additional workers are needed for the project.

One of the methods of ensuring that the project obtains enough support of the public and the local community is enhancing the levels of public awareness and relevant public education. Lastly, in order to obtain more support from the local community, the government should provide assurance to the citizens that the service or asset resulting from the PPP project will be of high quality and that the associated future utilization fees will be reasonable.

The fifth factor mentioned by the author for the success of public-private partnerships is the existence of the transparent procurement process. This is relevant for the tendering stage, as well as each of the following steps of the project delivery. Sufficient level of transparency can be ensured through constant communication between the engaged stakeholders of the project, providing all the necessary clarification on the project’s details and progress and clearing any doubts or negative rumours emerging in the mass media or among the local citizens.

One more success factor of PPP projects is the fact that there are no conflicts of interest within and that each of the sides agrees on the vision of the projected business model of the asset or service in question. As an illustration of this PPP success factor, the Galileo Satellite Navigation Systems contract case described by Jones (2018) is again relevant. At the initial stages of the project, the European Union and the European Space Agency represented the public side of the agreement, while the private side was comprised of a consortium of eight separate companies which were eventually formally united into the European Satellite Navigation Industries.

One of the problems of the project was the fact that the private consortium and the EU had distinct opinions on the revenue model underlying the utilization of the satellite constellation. In this way, the absence of the clarity of the business model of the project contributed to the withdrawal of the European Satellite Navigation Industries consortium from the project in 2007.

One of the other comprehensive lists of success factors necessary for a highly efficient public-private partnership is given in a recent article by Babatunde, Perera, Zhou, and Udeaja (2016). The authors highlight the importance of the favourable legal framework, the use of technology innovation, long term demand for the project, trust and financial accountability. Osei-Kyei et al. (2017) further note such factors as reduced litigations and disputes, adherence to time and budget and reliable and quality service operations as the additional determinants of success of the public-private partnership projects.

Yet another article by Chou and Pramudawardhani (2015) highlights the essential role of the stable macroeconomic environment and the presence of the judicious government control. The same authors also note that the key drivers of the success of PPP projects can vary substantially across different countries and regions of the world, which should be taken into account in both the analysis and planning of public-private partnerships.

How the Public Sector Can Be Protected in the Event of Failure

The domain of protecting the private sector in the event of failure is largely focused on the sphere of project risk management. One of the problems encountered by the governments in case of the failure of the private company to deliver its obligations is the high costs of searching for an alternative contractor, which are reflected in both time and financial resources. In order to be protected in such situations, the government should do preliminary research and have alternative contractors available for the case of the project failure due to the performance of the private side of the contract. In addition, the public sector should be protected financially through specifying the penalties imposed on the private side in case of project failure explicitly in the contract.

Yet another way in which the public sector can protect itself in the event of failure is by establishing a contingency fund for such a situation. This way, the government will have sufficient funds to mitigate the negative consequences of the PPP going wrong and possibly have some reserves dedicated to pursuing alternative paths of the same unfulfilled goal. Some of these alternative paths could require finding other contractors or reshaping the infrastructural solutions.

In addition, the decision makers of the private sector could also choose to pursue several projects with non-correlated risk profiles, which would mean that upon the failure of one of them the other ones are most likely not affected. This type of technique can be referred to as project risk hedging and would be specifically appropriate for the projects that are closely linked to the phases of macroeconomic cycles or the prices of some specific resources like gasoline.

According to the evidence presented by Xiong, Zhao, Yuan, and Luo (2017), a large number of the PPP projects commenced in the recent decades have done through scenarios of high risks or resulted into failures. The authors suggest that the relatively longer terms of typical PPP projects make the traditional ex-ante risk management an insufficient measure. Instead, they advocate for the implementation of ex-post risk management instruments as the proper response to the frequent occurrence of renegotiations, early terminations and project failures. Some of the suggested steps of the ex-post risk management model are the evaluation of the negative impact incurred, the selection and assessment of the risk response instruments and their subsequent implementation.

Conclusion

Summing up the information discussed in the above chapters, one can see that indeed the framework of public-private partnership is not a one-size-fit-all solution and its feasibility should be considered for every specific project on an ad hoc basis. One the positive sides of adoption of PPP concessions is the fact that the endowment of expertise and resources available for the project execution is enhanced and in this way, organizations can achieve higher levels of synergy. In addition, public-private partnerships also promote completion of the projects that would not be feasible otherwise due to their complexity, large scope or enhanced risk profile.

Furthermore, many scholars also note higher return on investment, faster completion times and better initial risk assessment of public-private partnerships as compared to other types of projects. However, all these benefits do not ensure the excellent risk profiles and success rates of PPP projects, to the point that this type of project management setup is extensively criticized by scholars and public sector spokesmen. One specific example of this tendency is the discontinuation of the PFI schemes in the UK October budget, supported by the Treasury officials and other related decision-makers.

Judging by the theoretical and empirical evidence collected in the current paper, it seems that successful implementation of public-private partnership concessions requires careful consideration of the specific project conditions, taking into account the local competitive environment, the strength of the private companies applying for the tenders, the risk management plan feasibility and the availability of the necessary resources.

Looking at the uncovered critical success factors, it is also evident that public organizations looking for a partnership with the private sector should make sure that a number of necessary conditions are met. One of such conditions is the appropriate allocation of risks between the private and public sides of the contract: in case if the private side is entitled to handling of too many risks that are out of its control, project delays and failures can result, as it happened for instance in numerous water-related infrastructure PPP projects in China (Shrestha et al. 2018).

The second condition is the existence of a strong private counterpart to the project that will indeed have the necessary expertise and resources to handle the projects, as well as its possible delays and renegotiations. Furthermore, prior to initiating a large scale public-private partnership projects, it is necessary to ensure large scale support of the local politicians, local communities and the end users. In this case, any emerging project delays can be resolved faster, and it is easier to address the barriers emerging on the way of project completion, such as for instance the necessity for land permits or project stage approvals.

Lastly, it is also important to ensure that no conflicts of interest exist between the contract sides and that the information asymmetry does not negatively affect the level of cost-efficiency of the project for the public officials and the end users. Taking into account each of the abovementioned factors, it is possible to initiate and successfully complete a PPP project that will serve to the benefit of each of its major stakeholders.

Reference List

1. Ameyaw, E.E. and Chan, A.P. 2015, ‘Risk ranking and analysis in PPP water supply infrastructure projects: an international survey of industry experts’, Facilities, 33(7/8), pp.428-453.
2. Babatunde, S.O., Perera, S., Zhou, L. and Udeaja, C. 2016, ‘Stakeholder perceptions on critical success factors for public-private partnership projects in Nigeria’, Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 6(1), pp.74-91.
3. Chou, J.S. and Pramudawardhani, D. 2015, ‘Cross-country comparisons of key drivers, critical success factors and risk allocation for public-private partnership projects’, International Journal of Project Management, 33(5), pp. 1136-1150.
4. Cui, C., Liu, Y., Hope, A. and Wang, J. 2018, ‘Review of studies on the public-private partnerships (PPP) for infrastructure projects’, International Journal of Project Management, 36(5), pp.773-794.
5. Davies, R. 2018, Hammond abolishes PFI contracts for new infrastructure projects. Web.
6. Devkar, G., Sankaran, S. and Ke, Y. 2017, ‘Evaluation of PPP projects in Australia and India: An Information Asymmetry Perspective’, In PMI India Research & Academic Conference.
7. Jones, K.L., 2018, Public-Private Partnerships: Stimulating Innovation in the Space Sector, in The Aerospace Corporation. Web.
8. Hodge, G.A. and Greve, C. 2017, ‘On public-private partnership performance: A contemporary review’, Public Works Management & Policy, 22(1), pp.55-78.
9. Muhammad, Z. and Johar, F. 2018, ‘Critical success factors of public-private partnership projects: a comparative analysis of the housing sector between Malaysia and Nigeria’, International Journal of Construction Management, pp.1-13.
10. Olatunji, S.O., Olawumi, T.O. and Ogunsemi, D.R. 2016, ‘Demystifying issues regarding public-private partnerships (PPP)’, Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 7(11), pp.1-22.
11. Onyemaechi, P. and Samy, M. 2016, ‘Motives and motivation for the implementation of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) in housing provision in Nigeria’, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 7(2), p.149.
12. Osei-Kyei, R. and Chan, A.P. 2015, ‘Review of studies on the Critical Success Factors for Public-Private Partnership (PPP) projects from 1990 to 2013’, International Journal of Project Management, 33(6), pp.1335-1346.
13. Osei-Kyei, R., Chan, A.P., Javed, A.A. and Ameyaw, E.E. 2017, ‘Critical success criteria for public-private partnership projects: international experts’ opinion’, International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 21(1), pp.87-100.
14. Reeves, E., Palcic, D. and Flannery, D. 2015, ‘PPP procurement in Ireland: An analysis of tendering periods’, Local Government Studies, 41(3), pp.379-400.
15. Regan, M., Love, P.E. and Jim, J. 2015, ‘Public infrastructure procurement: a review of adversarial and non-adversarial contracting methods’, Journal of Public Procurement, 15(4), pp.405-438.
16. Russo, J.C., Dias, M.A.G., da Silva Rocha, A.B. and Oliveira, F.L.C. 2018, ‘Renegotiation in Public–Private Partnerships: An Incentive Mechanism Approach’, Group Decision and Negotiation, 27(6), pp.949-979.
17. Shrestha, A., Chan, T.K., Aibinu, A.A., Chen, C. and Martek, I. 2018, ‘Risk allocation inefficiencies in Chinese PPP water projects’, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 144(4), p.04018013.
18. Xiong, W., Zhao, X., Yuan, J.F. and Luo, S. 2017, ‘Ex post risk management in public-private partnership infrastructure projects’, Project Management Journal, 48(3), pp.76-89.
19. Xiong, W., Zhao, X. and Wang, H. 2018, ‘Information asymmetry in the renegotiation of public-private partnership projects’, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 32(4), p.04018028.
20. Wang, H., Xiong, W., Wu, G. and Zhu, D. 2018, ‘Public–private partnership in Public Administration discipline: a literature review’, Public Management Review, 20(2), pp.293-316.