Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 PB PDF
1 PB PDF
www.iiste.org
21
www.iiste.org
and this framework must be such that is clear, transparent and predictable for efficient, effective and fair bidding
procedures (Asian Development Bank, 1996, 1997; Aziz & Asce, 2008; Harris, 2003). The legal environment
where projects operate often influences to a large extent the willingness of the private sector to collaborate in
infrastructure project development (Adetola et al., 2011; Aziz & Asce, 2008). Therefore, in order to attract private
sector participation, the government has to develop adequate legal and regulatory framework, as well as a financial
environment, congenial to investment and attractive to foreign investors (Adetola et al., 2011; Kumaraswamy and
Zhang, 2001).
A classical definition of this form of collaboration between the private and public sector is therefore
provided by the Canadian Council as: A co-operative venture between the public and private sectors, built on the
expertise of each partner, that best meets clearly defined public needs through the appropriate allocation of
resources, risks and rewards (CCPPP, 2001). The current research, therefore, aims at:
Exploring the collaborative framework of the public-private partnership (PPP) as a change process with
a view to highlighting its essential characteristics, benefits, key principles, and its success path;
Exploring the basic or characteristics attributes of joint venture (JV) PPP and the concession PPP towards
offering a better understanding of its structure, culture, process and delivery system;
Identifying categories of projects that can benefit from the use of the public-private partnership
arrangement.
2.0
Public-Private Partnership (PPP) As A Change Process
Public-private sector collaboration is an evolving concept which takes many forms around the world; and it is
essentially an arrangement by which private entrepreneurs participate in, or provide support for the provision of
public infrastructure (Adetola et al., 2011). The private sector can be described as that part of an economy which
is owned and run by individual persons, groups or business organisations usually as a means of enterprise for profit
while the public sector, on the other hand, is the portion of the economy which is owned, controlled and run by
the various levels of government (federal, state, region, local etc.) or its agencies (Adetola et al., 2011).
In recent years, the private sector has been playing a significant and lively role through involvement in
delivering public services to facilitate innovative projects and development, especially in the developing countries
and less developed countries (LDC). The rapid increase in human population in recent times coupled with
globalization, technological advancements, changes in social and political environments and the challenges of
economic growth and poverty might have led to unprecedented demand on government institutions to provide
better and efficient services (Akintoye and Beck, 2009).
It is noteworthy, that national governments have also made several efforts and overtures to the private
sector in order to increase private sector participation; which ranges from performing an outright privatisation of
previously state-owned industries (Ng, 2000), up to contracting out of services or cleaning to private firms and the
use of private finance in the provision of social infrastructure (Sindane, 2000; Tanninen-Ahonen, 2000). The idea
of allowing private firms to finance projects or public sector infrastructure resulted in the emergence of PublicPrivate Partnership (PPP) (Li and Akintoye, 2003) which was collaborated by Olawore (2004) who claimed that
stakeholders expectations and needs throughout the world are rising at a rate with which government revenue
alone can no longer cope, hence government revenue needs to be augmented in order to deliver public
infrastructure.
Developing countries in Africa, Asia however seems to favour concessions (concession PPP) above the
JV PPP for majority of their developmental projects, which as noted by Abednego and Ogunlana (2006) has made
public-private partnership (PPP) to becoming inevitable and sustainable approach to improving social
infrastructure, thereby helps in providing needed capital investment, operational efficiency and risk absorption
which according to Li and Akintoye (2003), Adetola, Goulding, and Liyanage (2011) enhance the value of public
assets and making a better use of taxpayers money. It is widely acknowledged that infrastructure deficit is one of
the key factors that prevent the Sub-Saharan Africa region from realising its full potential for economic growth,
international trade and poverty reduction (Adetola et al., 2011; Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development, 2006; World Bank, 2008; 2010). Therefore, many countries are now contemplating Public-Private
collaboration as an arrangement between public and private sectors to finance, design, build, operate and maintain
public infrastructure, community facilities and related services (Adetola et al., 2011; Akintoye and Beck, 2009;
Tang et al, 2010).
In this respect, many countries are now attempting to finance new infrastructure projects through private
sector participation. For example, the Government of Nigeria established the Infrastructure Concession Regulatory
Commission (ICRC) in 2005 and then ICRC Act which provides for the participation of private sector in financing
the construction, development, operation, or maintenance of infrastructure or development projects of the Federal
Government of Nigeria through concession or contractual arrangements; and the establishment of the infrastructure
Concession Regulatory Commission to regulate, monitor and supervise the contracts on infrastructure or
development projects.
22
www.iiste.org
Adetola et al. (2011) enumerated similar initiative in Sri Lanka in 1995, which provides for future
investment in new infrastructure projects in collaboration with private sector participation taking the form of build,
operate and transfer (BOT), or build, own and operate (BOO) arrangements, which Liddle (1997) noted was due
to insufficient resources to undertake large investments required for infrastructure projects; and also in China in
the 1980s through private participation in infrastructure development (Shajiao B power plant in Shenzhen) which
was the first BOT project in China(Adetola et al., 2011); same in India where policies had been formulated to
finance road development, metro rail, tourism, ports, civil aviation, power, urban development and agriculture
projects through private sector participation (Kumar, 2010); Junee Correctional Centre, a prison in New South
Wales, Australia, was procured through the BOO method in 1993 (Adetola et al., 2011; Department of Corrective
services, 2006); the Eastern Harbour Crossing Tunnel in Hong Kong was procured through a BOT concession of
30 years, the success of the project was attributed to an established and equitable legal and regulatory
system(Adetola et al., 2011; Tam, 1999).
In Africa, we have seen PPP investment in infrastructure, water and sewage systems, transport facilities
and educational sector etc., special mention is the first major private sector participation infrastructure in Nigeria
is the Murtala Muhammed International (MMI) Airport Terminal project (Babalakin, 2008) for the building of a
burnt terminal at a cost of US$250 million on a BOT contract agreement between the Federal Airports Authority
of Nigeria (FAAN) and Bi-Courtney Limited (BCL) for an initial concession period of 12 years but was extended
to 36 years in February 2007.
Savas (2000) described PPP as an elastic or easily controlled form of privatisation i.e. any act aimed at
reducing the role of government or increasing the role of the private sector in satisfying peoples needs connotes
privatisation. Savas explained further that privatisation can involve delegation (i.e. government may retain
responsibility and oversight functions but uses the private sector for service delivery), divestment (i.e. government
relinquishes responsibility) and displacement (i.e. private sector grows and displaces government activity).
Concession projects embody infrastructural developments, however, extant literature revealed that the definition
of infrastructure has been shifting from one focusing on physical fixed assets such as roads, airports, seaports,
telecommunications systems, energy, water distribution systems and sanitation (public utilities);and softer types
of facilities such as information systems and knowledge bases (Adetola et al., 2011; Button, 2002).
PPP projects (whether JV PPP or concession PPP) are generally challenged with both project management
problems which require day-to-day supervision (short-term) as well as partnership problems which require more
of a strategic approach (long-term); consequently, PPP projects can be considered to have governance concerns
because they deal with monitoring and overseeing strategic direction as well as strategic decision-making
(Abednego & Ogunlana, 2006).
2.1
Public Private Partnerships (PPPs): Its Benefits, Key Principles, and Success Path
Ohiani (2014) highlighted the following as benefits of utilizing the public-private partnerships (PPPs) approach in
delivering a service or facility for the use of the general public:
1. Value for money: Enhanced Value for Money through efficiency, cost-effectiveness, reliable and
innovative service.
2. Reduced cost: Help government avoids up-front capital cost & reduced public administration cost.
3. Reduction in project lifecycle costs & project delivery time.
4. Reduce public sector budget deficiencies.
5. Facilitates innovation in infrastructure development.
6. Promote local economic growth & employment opportunities.
23
www.iiste.org
www.iiste.org
set forth by the government. The public sector retains ownership of the original asset while the private operator
retains ownership over any improvements made during the concession period (Awodele, 2012; Deloitte, 2006).
Figure 2: Relationship between the concession period and NPV (Source: Ng et al., 2007)
The two fields in which PPPs appear to be most dominant throughout the world are urban development (JV PPPs)
and infrastructural development (concession PPPs) (Bult-Spiering & Dewulf, 2006). They further noted that public
infrastructure is vital to a nations production and distribution of private economic output as well as to its citizens
overall quality of life.
3.1
Partnership Derivatives
JV PPPs: The public and private parties to the partnership arrangement both bring in knowledge and resources to
the table, thereby ensuring the best practice and management know-how from both sides are combined effectively
for the success of the objectives of the public-private partnership. There is a transfer of resources from both parties
(resources such as material, authority and other symbolic values (Tiong, 1992, and Bennett and Krebs, 1991).
Meaning that no matter how small, each participant brings something to the partnership (Awodele, 2012)
Concession PPPs: This can be best described as a form of outsourcing, whereby the public party to the
PPP arrangement rewards the most qualified concessionaire with the best proposal for a concession contract to
undertake a given infrastructural development project under stated conditions. Here, due to the little synergy
between public and private parties, the public client contributes little or nothing to the design and construction of
such PPP projects. It involves the public sector purchasing quality services while the private sector maintains or
constructs the necessary infrastructure; the private sector supplies designs, builds, finances and covers the costs
through charges on the users of the asset (Tang et al., 2010).
3.2
Partnership Culture
JV PPPs: In JV PPP, emphasis is placed on togetherness, alliance, cohesion, and relationship within and among
the group or partners; also, pre-eminence is placed on sharing, cooperation, collaboration; which means all parties
are equal and have the same opportunities to improve or maintain their well-being (Abednego & Ogunlana, 2006).
In this regard, Grantt (1996) asserted that shared authority and responsibility, joint investment, shared risk/liability,
shared resources, and rewards, and mutual benefit are the thrust of collaboration.
Concession PPPs: This is basically the transfer of responsibility, obligation, and risks; and even, most importantly
the avoidance of responsibilities by the public party to the concession PPP arrangement; or a divided responsibility
(Adetola et al., 2011). This is could one of the reasons why the Hong Kong government adopted three sets of
criteria to evaluate tenders for its BOT tunnel projects, and assigned weights to these criteria in their order of
importance. The sets of criteria and their assigned weights are finance, 65%; engineering, 20%; and planning of
operation and transport, 15% (Adetola et al., 2011). The higher weight assigned to the financial criteria in this
evaluation reflects the importance of a sound financial plan to the success of an infrastructure project (Zhang and
Kumaraswamy, 2001).
3.3
Partnership Basis
Jacobson and Choi (2008) identified open communication and trust, willingness to compromise and collaborate,
and respect as important factors for successful delivery of public-private partnership projects. This is supported by
Innes and Booher (2004) who emphasised the need for building trust between project stakeholders and resolving
conflicts before they become intractable. Two major area of dispute that occurs during the Muritala Muhammed
Airport (MMA2) airport concession is the exclusivity clause in the agreement and political involvement at the
25
www.iiste.org
implementation level.
Tam (1999) also enumerated the failure of the Bangkok Second Expressway System and Bangkok Don
Muang Tollway BOT projects in Thailand to be due to immature legal and regulatory system, and the changing
foreign investment policy resulting from several changes of government. Bult-Spiering and Dewulf (2006) argues
that the public and private sector goals do not necessarily have to be identical for a joint venture to succeed; but
the aim has to be compatible and lead to a shared outcome (Bennett et al., 2000).
JV PPPs: It is practically a policy-based partnership with laid down rules for operation but no definite or
definable end-point unlike the concession PPP arrangement; it is a type of a relational contracting framework
which relies on cooperation, trust and team working. Trust can be described as a firm belief, confidence and hope
in the reliability, truth, ability or strength of someone or something. In other words, it is often a firm reliance on
the integrity or character of a person or thing (Bies, Sheppard, & Lewicki, 1995); Rousseau, Sitkin, S., Burt, R.,
and Camerer (1998) also defined trust as a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability
based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of another. It has been widely acknowledged that
trust is an important hallmark of effective organisations, and has a number of important benefits for organisations
and their members (Adetola et al., 2011; Bies et al, 1995; Hosmer, 1995; Kramer and Tyler, 1996; Rousseau et al,
1998).
Concession PPPs: It is basically a project-based partnership, more formal than JV PPP and has a clear
and definable end-point or termination date; however subject to several disputes or sell off or even premature
closure (Kwak, 2002; Tam, 1999; Tam & Leung, 1997). Aziz and Asce (2008) argued that the success of PPP
implementation is contingent on the initiation and management of PPPs at the program level. They further listed
principles that must characterise PPPs implementation at the program level as availability of PPP institutional/legal
framework; availability of PPP policy and implementation units; perception of private finance objectives;
perception of risk allocation and contractors compensation; perception of value-for-money; PPP process
transparency and disclosure; standardization of PPP procedures and contracts; and performance specifications and
method specifications
The World Bank highlights further the reasons why many partnership projects were not delivered and
these include: wide gaps between public and private sector expectations, lack of clear government objectives and
commitment, complex decision making, poorly defined sector policies, inadequate legal/regulatory frameworks,
poor risk management, low credibility of government policies, inadequate domestic capital markets, lack of
mechanisms to attract long-term finance from private sources at affordable rates, poor transparency, and lack of
competition (Adetola et al., 2011; Asian Business, 1996)
3.4
Partnership Incorporation
The issue of the relationship between public and private investment has been a focus of attention in the literature
since the early 1980s, and it is still the subject of considerable controversy (Adetola et al., 2011; Khan and Reinhart,
1990). Thus, the interaction between project participants is often a key factor in project management. Interactive
processes include planning, communication, monitoring and control, and project organisation in order to facilitate
effective coordination throughout the project life (Adetola et al., 2011).
JV PPPs: The JV partnership results in the setting up of a registered company/development firm (i.e. a
separate corporate legal entity) to manage and carry out mutually developed projects. This implies that JV PPPs
are separate legal entities with autonomous tasks and responsibilities (Bult-Spiering & Dewulf, 2006). Four
fundamental principles that facilitate its implementation are accountability, transparency, continuous improvement
and ownership (DETR, 1999). In this context, accountability and transparency require personal responsibility,
answerability and an open approach to decision-making; continuous improvement means that the firm need to
embrace the ideas of experiment and change, planning and budgeting in the long run (Akintoye et al., 2003). They
have to establish a dynamic framework of planning for sustainable future improvements, cost reductions, and
competition. The principle of ownership entails wide community consultations, surveys of service users, open
forums, focus groups, etc. (Spencer, 1997). Under JV PPPs, the public actor is both the regulator and a shareholder
in the joint operating company; and from this position shares in the operating companys profit and help ensure
the wider political acceptability of its efforts to safeguard to safeguard public needs and interests (Bult-Spiering &
Dewulf, 2006).
Concession PPP: In concession PPP arrangement, though the private party/firm/company is registered
legal entity on its own, however, unlike the JV PPP, no company or development firm needs to be set up as the
private entity upon its award of concession carries out the project literally on its own. In this system, a private
sponsor finances the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of a public project for a specified concession
period, at the end of which it transfers ownership to the government agency, hopefully after recouping its costs
and achieving profits (Algarni, Arditi, & Polat, 2007)
26
www.iiste.org
3.5
Partnership Direction
JV PPPs: The JV PPP arrangement from the activation of the framework setting it up is controlled and managed
by both the Public and Private parties to the partnerships. That is, the direction is public-private (Bult-Spiering &
Dewulf, 2006). It implies that there is some shared responsibility between the public sector and private sector for
tangible deliverables (Collin, 1998) and leads to the establishment of an enduring and stable relationship among
actors; and this implies that the parties are entering into a long-term relationship (Awodele, 2012).
Concession PPPs: In this case, upon the award of the concession, the private parties set its machinery in
motion to carry out all assigned work under the contract and solely managed and controlled all facets of the project
during the concession period, however, the public sectors remains the clients throughout the lifecycle of such
project. Therefore, it is directed towards the public sector (Bult-Spiering & Dewulf, 2006). Caerteling, Benedetto,
Doree, and Halman (2008) collaborated this by concluding that the majority of roads (a typical single-use
development) are owned by the public sector (federal/national, regional/state and local governments); hence, the
entrepreneurial environment of the industry is shaped by the public sector procurement policy and practice. Savas
(2000) explained this further in another way by stressing that the public client may retain responsibility and
oversight functions but uses the private sector for service delivery.
3.6
Partnership Procurement/Acquisition
JV PPPs: In this PPP arrangement, the public-private parties are both jointly involved throughout the procurement
process- request for information, request for (pre) qualification request for proposal, tender evaluation and
shortlisting, negotiation and award of concession etc. Bult-Spiering and Dewulf (2006) summarises JV PPPs
delivery system as that in which there is joint procurement and shared procurement.
Concession PPPs: However, in this case, the public party puts a service question out to tender which is
rewarded with a concession. This service is the availability of a certain product for a certain time, capacity and
quality; and the service is obtained by granting a concession, where the concessionaire is also responsible for
financing the project (Bult-Spiering & Dewulf, 2006). The entire PPP procurement process may be broken into
four main stages; i.e. the planning and feasibility phase, the bidding and negotiation phase, the construction phase,
the operation phase and possibly the transfer and/or renegotiation phase (Ahadzi & Bowles, 2004). In practice,
this is accomplished by combining a competitive tendering process with an appropriate risk transfer; the client, in
this context, is expected to select the most cost-efficient bid, which may include innovative solutions, additional
benefits or an element of income generation (Akintoye et al., 2003).
3.7
Partnership Risk Strain
JV PPPs: Risks are shared by both parties according to a pre-determined arrangement. However, there is the need
for project participants to identify and understand all potential risks associated with a project in order to ensure
that risks are properly allocated to the party with the best financial and technical capabilities to manage them has
been widely acknowledged (Adetola et al., 2011; Edwards, 1995; Flanagan and Norman, 1993; Ward & Chapman,
1991)
Concession PPPs: Design, build, finance, maintenance, and operation risks is transferred by the public
client to the private party. Abednego and Ogunlana (2006) noted that parties that are involved in an infrastructure
project under publicprivate partnership (PPP) procurement system typically have different perceptions of proper
risk allocation, thus, disputes may arise between those parties thus reducing the chances for the projects success.
A common objective in PPPs according to Aziz and Asce (2008) is the transfer of project risks to the party that is
best able to control and manage the risk. They, however, noted that such risk allocation should be assessed in terms
of its effect on the project and the ultimate users. The risks that the private sector is in a better position to control
than the government include design risks, construction risks including cost overruns and completion time, and the
future O&M cost overruns. On the other hand, governments should be able to retain, for example, a change-oflaw risk. Demand risk is another significant risk, the allocation of which is subject to several considerations (Aziz
& Asce, 2008).
Li et al. (2005) and Bing et al. (2005) proposed an approach to classifying partnership project risks into
three levels: macro, meso, and micro. The macro-level risks are those risks external to the project itself; the mesolevel risks are project-related risks; while the micro risks are partly related risks.
3.8
Partnership Cost-Revenue-Benefits (CRB)
JV PPPs: The cost, revenues and other attendant benefits accruing to the mutually developed projects are shared
on a pre-determined quota by both parties (public-private). Furthermore, this framework helps to align the interests,
rewards and risks of both public and private partners through a long-term contractual relationship (Grimsey and
Lewis, 2005). There is some shared responsibility for outcomes or activities (Awodele, 2012; Bult-Spiering &
Dewulf, 2006). This view according to Li and Akintoye (2003) is closely related to the analysis by Grantt (1996)
who suggested that ideas of shared authority and responsibility, joint investment, sharing liability/risk taking and
27
www.iiste.org
28
www.iiste.org
internal and external conditions in the host country. By knowing the key factors, joint ventures can be enacted and
sustained properly. Among others, internal factors include partner fit, partner relations, and structural
characteristics, while external factors include host country conditions and project risks (Tang et al., 2010).
4.0
Suitable Candidates for PPPs
Aminu and Samuel (2015) enumerated suitable projects that PPPs procurement system can be used for, and this
includes:
1. Transport (road, rail, ports, airports)
2. Fixed links (bridges, tunnels)
3. Water resources (filtration plants, irrigation, sewage treatment, pipelines)
4. Tourism (facility development)
5. Health (hospitals and specialized health services)
6. Specialized accommodation facilities (courts, police stations)
7. Educational facilities (schools, museums, libraries)
8. Correctional services (prisons, remand and detention centres)
9. Arts, sport and recreational facilities
10. Convention centres
11. Government office accommodation
12. Social housing
Table 1: Major PPP Projects in Nigeria
S/N
Project/PPP Model
Contracting
Authority
Private Partner
Daystar Akamkpa
Investment
Company Ltd
45km
Lekki Concession
Company
N50 billion
Financial
achieved
Bi-Courtney
Consortium
Project
renegotiations
Deanshanger
Project Ltd
N81 billion
Financial
achieved
Lagos-Ibadan
Toll
Road / DBOT
Katampe
District
Infrastructure
/
Design,
Finance,
Construct & Transfer
Teragro
Benfruit
Plant / Lease
Benue
Government
10
MMII
Airport
Project/ DBOT
State
Federal
Airways
Authority of Nigeria
Transnational
Corporation
of
Nigeria
Tinapa Business
Resort Limited
Size/Value
26,500 metric
capacity plant
Status
ton
265 hectares
close
close
Project Agreements
executed;
operations
Operations stage
Southern
Investment Ltd
Estimated
$38million
at
Feasibility
completed
study
DSC International
Estimated
at
N25billion plus N9.5
billion
for
International
Township Services
Construction stage
$550 million
Contract
negotiation stage
Bi-Courtney
Aviation Services
Limited
N34 billion
Construction
completed;
Operations stage
29
www.iiste.org
structured these forms of service delivery systems into divisions such as: partnership derivatives, partnership
culture, partnership basis, partnership incorporation, partnership direction, partnership procurement/acquisition,
partnership risk strain, partnership cost-revenue-benefits (CRB), partnership product relevance, partnership
product function, partnership organizational structure for better understanding of their structures and processes.
Findings of this research reveals greater disposition of many nations and institutions towards concession PPPs (as
against joint-venture PPPs) which is fast becoming an indispensable and sustainable approach towards improving
and providing social infrastructure, thereby helps in providing needed capital investment, operational efficiency
and risk absorption in delivering of service and facility for the general use of the society. We also identified the
transport sector (road, rail etc.), water and sewage system provision, the tourism sector, health sector, educational
facilities, correctional facilities, recreational facilities among others as possible candidates of the PPP contractual
framework.
References
Abednego, M. P., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2006). Good project governance for proper risk allocation in public private
partnerships in Indonesia. International Journal of Project Management, 24, 622634.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.07.010
Adetola, A., Goulding, J., & Liyanage, C. (2011). Collaborative engagement approaches for delivering sustainable
infrastructure projects in the AEC sector: a review. international journal of construction supply chain
management, 1(1), 124.
Ahadzi, M., and Bowles, G. (2001) Public-private partner- ships in UKs infrastructure development: the
macroeconomic perspective, in Akintoye, A.S. (ed.) Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of
ARCOM, Salford, pp. 9919.
Ahadzi, M., & Bowles, G. (2004). Public private partnerships and contract negotiations: an empirical study.
Construction
Management
and
Economics,
22(November),
967978.
http://doi.org/10.1080/0144619042000241471
Akintoye, A., and Beck, M. (2009). Policy, finance, and management for public-private partnerships. WileyBlackwell, West Sussex, United Kingdom.
Akintoye, A., Fitzgerald, E., & Hardcastle, C. (1999). RISK MANAGEMENT FOR LOCAL AUTHORITIES
PRIVATE FINANCE INITIATIVE PROJECTS. RICS Research Foundation, Cobra 1999.
Akintoye, A., Hardcastle, C., Beck, M., Chinyio, E., & Asenova, D. (2003). Achieving best value in private finance
initiative project procurement. Construction Management and Economics, 21(July), 461470.
http://doi.org/10.1080/0144619032000087285
Algarni, A. M., Arditi, D., & Polat, G. (2007). Build-Operate-Transfer in Infrastructure Projects in the United
States. JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT ASCE,
(October), 728736.
Aminu, D. & Samuel, S.B. (2015). The Implementation of PPP in Nigeria. Bureau of Public Service Reforms
(BPSR); Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission (ICRC). www.icrc.gov.ng
Asian Business, (1996). Special report on Asias infrastructure boom, March 1996, Pp. 60-69
Asian Development Bank. (1996). Technical assistance to the Peoples Republic of China for BOT Changsha
power projects. Technical Assistance Report: Peoples Republic of China 30063, Asian Development
Bank
Asian Development Bank. (1997). Technical assistance for legal training in BOT/ BOOT infrastructure
development. Technical Assistance Report: Peoples Republic of China 30150, Asian Development
Bank
Awodele, O. A. (2012). Framework for Managing Risk in Privately Financed Market Projects in Nigeria. HeriotWatt University, School of the Built Environment.
Aziz, A. M. A., & Asce, M. (2008). Successful Delivery of Public-Private Partnerships for Infrastructure
Development. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management ASCE, 133(12), 918932.
Babalakin, B. (2008). Developing and improving air traffic into Africa. Proceedings of the 2008 US-Africa
Infrastructure Conference. Washington DC: Bi-Courtney Limited
Bennett, E., James, S., & Grohmann, P. (2000). Joint Venture Public-Private Partnerships for Urban Environmental
Services. New York: Public-Private Partnerships for the Urban Environment.
Bennett, R. & Krebs, G. (1991) Local Economic Development Public-private Partnership Initiatives in Britain and
Germany. Belhaven Press, London
Bies, R., Sheppard, B., & Lewicki, R (1995) Research on negotiations in organisations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 5. 15-22
Bing, L., Akintoye, A., Edwards, P. J., & Hardcastle, C. (2005). The allocation of risk in PPP / PFI construction
projects in the UK. International Journal of Project Management, 23, 2535.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.04.006
30
www.iiste.org
Brook, P.J. (2001) Output-Based Aid: Harnessing incentives for better development result, unpublished paper
presented at the 2001 Public Private Finance Congress, London, 1213 June
Bult-Spiering, M. & Dewulf, G. (2006). Strategic Issues in Public -Private Partnerships: An international
perspective. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, US. ISBN: 978-1-4051-3475-0
Button, K. (2002) Effective infrastructure policies to foster integrated economic development. Paper presented at
the Third African Development Forum, Addis Ababa, March.
Caerteling, J.S., Benedetto, C.A.D., Doree, A.G., & Halman, J.I.M. (2011). Technology development projects in
road infrastructure: The relevance of government championing behaviour. Technovation, 31, 270-283
CCPPP (2001) 100 Projects: Selected Public-Private Partnerships across Canada, CCPPP
Chan, A. P. C., Lam, P. T. I., Chan, D. W. M., Asce, M., Cheung, E., & Ke, Y. (2009). Drivers for Adopting Public
Private Partnerships Empirical Comparison between China and Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management Asce, 135(11).
http://doi.org/10.1061/?ASCE?CO.1943-7862.0000088
Collin, S. (1998). In the twilight zone: A survey of public-private partnerships in Sweden. Public Productivity and
Management Review,21(3), 272-283
D&P Report (2001). European PPP Survey
Daube, D., Vollrath, S., & Alfen, H. W. (2008). A comparison of Project Finance and the Forfeiting Model as
financing forms for PPP projects in Germany. International Journal of Project Management, 26, 376
387. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.07.001
Deloitte, R. (2006). Closing the infrastructure gap: The role of public-private partnerships. London. Deloitte
Development LLP.
Department of Corrective Services, Western Australia. (2006). Acacia Prison Services Agreement Western
Australia State Government
DETR (1999) Implementing Best Value: A Consultation Paper on Draft Guidance, HMSO, London.
Edwards, L (1995) Practical risk management in the construction industry, Engineering Management Series.
London: Thomas Telford.
El-gohary, N. M., Osman, H., & El-diraby, T. E. (2006). Project Stakeholder management for public-private
partnerships.
International
Journal
of
Project
Management,
24,
595604.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.07.009
European Union Road Federation. (2007). European Road Statistics, European Union Road Federation, Brussels.
Financial Times (2002) Most local councils lack budgets for big road schemes, Financial Times, 15 February
Flanagan, R., & Norman, G. (1993). Risk management and construction. Oxford. Blackwell Scientific Publications
Grantt, T. (1996). Keys to successful public-private partnerships. Canadian Business Review, 23(3), 27-28.
Grimsey, D., & Lewis, M. K (2005) Are public-private partnerships value for money? Evaluating alternative
approaches and comparing academic and practitioner views. Accounting Forum, 29(4), 345-378.
Hamilton, G. (2001) Public-private partnerships: the global dimension, unpublished paper presented at the 2001
Public Private Finance Congress, London, 1213 June
Harris, C. (2003). Private participation in infrastructure in developing countries. Trends, impacts and policy
lessons, Working paper No. 5.The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World
Bank. Washington DC.
HM Treasury (1998) The United Kingdom Divergence Programme, December
Hosmer, L.T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organisational theory and philosophical ethics.
Academic Management Review, 20, 379-403.
Innes, J., & Booher, D.E. (2004). Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory
and Practice, 5(4), 419-436
Jacobson, C., and Choi, S.O. (2008) Success factors: Public works and public-private partnerships, City of
Manhattan Beach, California, USA, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(6), 637-657
Ke, Y., Wang, S., Chan, A.P.C., & Cheung, E. (2009). Research trend of public-private partnership in construction
journals. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(10), 1076-1086.
Khan, M.S., & Reinhart, C.M. (1990). Private investment and economic growth in developing countries. World
Development, 18(1), 19-27
Kinnock, N. (1998) Transport policy needs at the turn of the century. European Business Journal, 10(3), 1228
Kouvarakis, T. (2001) Spearheading investment through the PPP process, paper presented at the June Private
Finance Congress, London
Kramer, R.M., & Tyler, T.R. (1996). Trust in organisations: Frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Sage Publications.
Kumar, S. K .(2010). Public Private Partnership in India. http://jurisonline.in/2010/11/public-private-partnershipin-India
Kumaraswamy, M.M., & Morris, D.A. (2002). Build -Operate-Transfer type procurement in Asian megaprojects.
31
www.iiste.org
32
www.iiste.org
Tam, C.M., & Leung, A.W.T. (1997). Risk management of BOT projects in Southeast Asian Countries.
Proceedings of the Construction Industry Board W92 (Procurement Systems) and Construction Industry
Board TG23 (Culture in Construction) Joint Symposium: Profitable Partnering in Construction
Procurement.
Tang, L., Shen, Q., & Cheng, E. W. L. (2010). A review of studies on Public Private Partnership projects in the
construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 28(7), 683694.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.11.009
Tang, L., Shen, Q., & Cheng, E.W.L. (2010). A review of studies on public-private partnership projects in the
construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 683-694.
Tanninen-Ahonen T, (2000) PPP in Finland: developments and attitude. In: Serpell A. editor. CIB W92
procurement system symposium. Santi- ago, Chile; p. 6319
The PFI Report (2001). A long tradition of PPP, The PFI Report, 53
Tiong, R. I. K. (1992). Strategies in Risk Management of On-Demand Guarantees. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 118(2), 229-243.
Ward S.C., & Chapman, C.B. (1991). On the allocation of risk in construction projects. International Journal of
Project Management, 9(3), 140-147.
World Bank. (2008). Private participation in infrastructure database. Washington DC: World Bank.
World Bank. (2010). World Bank, public-private infrastructure project database. April. Washington DC: World
Bank.
Zhang, X.Q. (2005). Paving the way for public-private partnerships in infrastructure development. Journal of
Construction Engineering Management, 131(1), 71-80.
Zhang, X.Q., & Kumaraswamy M.M. (2001). Procurement protocols for public-private partnered projects. Journal
of Construction Engineering Management, 127(5), 351-358
33