|
|
Public-private partnership (PPP) describes a government service or private business venture which is funded and operated through a partnership of government and one or more private sector companies. These schemes are sometimes referred to as PPP or P3. In some types of PPP, the government uses tax revenue to provide capital for investment, with operations run jointly with the private sector or under contract (see contracting out). In other types (notably the Private Finance Initiative), capital investment is made by the private sector on the strength of a contract with government to provide agreed services. Government contributions to a PPP may also be in kind (notably the transfer of existing assets). In projects that are aimed at creating public goods like in the infrastructure sector, the government may provide a capital subsidy in the form of a one-time grant, so as to make it more attractive to the private investors. In some other cases, the government may support the project by providing revenue subsidies, including tax breaks or by providing guaranteed annual revenues for a fixed period. Typically, a private sector consortium forms a special company called a "special purpose vehicle" (SPV) to develop, build, maintain and operate the asset for the contracted period. In cases where the government has invested in the project, it is typically (but not always) allotted an equity share in the SPV. The consortium is usually made up of a building contractor, a maintenance company and bank lender(s). It is the SPV that signs the contract with the government and with subcontractors to build the facility and then maintain it. In the infrastructure sector, complex arrangements and contracts that guarantee and secure the cash flows, make PPP projects prime candidates for Project financing. A typical PPP example would be a hospital building financed and constructed by a private developer and then leased to the hospital authority. The private developer then acts as landlord, providing housekeeping and other non medical services while the hospital itself provides medical services.
OriginsPressure to change the standard model of Public Procurement arose initially from concerns about the level of public debt, which grew rapidly during the macroeconomic dislocation of the 1970s and 1980s. Governments sought to encourage private investment in infrastructure, initially on the basis of accounting fallacies arising from the fact that public accounts did not distinguish between recurrent and capital expenditure. The idea that private provision of infrastructure represented a way of providing infrastructure at no cost to the public has now been generally abandoned, interest in alternatives to the standard model of public procurement persisted. In particular, it has been argued that models involving an enhanced role for the private sector, with a single private sector organisation taking responsibility for most aspects of service provisions for a given project, could yield an improved allocation of risk, while maintaining public accountability for essential aspects of service provision. Initially, most public-private partnerships were negotiated individually, as one-off deals. In 1992, however, the Conservative government of John Major in the United Kingdom introduced the Private Finance Initiative (PFI)[1], the first systematic program aimed at encouraging public-private partnerships. In the 1992 program, the main focus was on reducing the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement, although, as already noted, the effect on the public accounts was largely illusory. The Labour government of Tony Blair elected in 1997, persisted with the PFI sought to shift the emphasis to the achievement of "value for money" mainly through an appropriate allocation of risk. A number of Australian state governments have adopted systematic programs based on the PFI. The first, and the model for most others, is Partnerships Victoria. Early problemsBecause of the focus on avoiding increases in public debt, many private infrastructure projects in the early 1990s involved provision of services at substantially higher cost than could have been achieved under the standard model of public procurement. The central problem was that private investors demanded and received a rate of return that was higher than the government’s bond rate, even though most or all of the income risk associated with the project was borne by the public sector. A number of Australian studies of early initiatives to promote private investment in infrastructure reached the conclusion that, in most cases, the schemes being proposed were inferior to the standard model of public procurement based on competitively tendered construction of publicly owned assets (Economic Planning Advisory Commission (EPAC) 1995a,b; House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications Transport and Microeconomic Reform 1997; Harris 1996; Industry Commission 1996; Quiggin 1996). One response to these negative findings was the development of formal procedures for the assessment of PPPs in which the central focus was on "value for money" rather than reductions in debt. The underlying framework was one in which value for money was achieved by an appropriate allocation of risk. These assessment procedures were incorporated in the Private Finance Initiative and its Australian counterparts from the late 1990s onwards. Subsequent debateAlthough the general view that governments should seek "value for money" has been widely accepted, there have been continuing disputes over whether the guidelines designed to achieve these goals are appropriate, and whether they have been correctly applied in particular cases. Much of the discussion has been based on debates over the UK Private Finance Initiative. PSPP VariantSome social enterprises have proposed, or are operating, partnerships with the state and commercial partners which they call Public Social Private Partnerships (PSPP) . Public-Private Product Development Partnership (PDP)PDPs are a class of PPPs that focus on health product development for diseases of the developing world. PDPs have formed over the past decade to unite the public sector's commitment to international public goods for health with private industry's expertise in product development and marketing. These not-for-profit organizations bridge public- and private-sector interests, with a view toward resolving the specific incentive and financial barriers to increased industry involvement in the development of safe and effective products. Specific casesWhile some PPP projects have proceeded smoothly, others have been highly controversial. Australian examples include: Airport Link, the Cross City Tunnel, and the Sydney Harbour Tunnel, all in Sydney; the Southern Cross Station redevelopment in Melbourne; and the Robina hospital in Queensland. Some examplesInternationalSome international health care programs may be considered public-private partnerships:
Australia
Canada
East AfricaIn the realm of international development, public private partnerships are common as the host government is supported by international private sector investment. The Gates Foundation and the Global Fund for Aids, TB and Malaria donate medical commodities and technical support to strengthen health service delivery at government institutions. Many non-governmental organisations also support public private partnerships in health service delivery. In Kampala, the International Hospital provides the facilities for complex surgery with finance support from the Ugandan government. At the smaller scale, Hope Clinic Lukuli is providing philanthropic primary health care using government and donor funded health commodities. Germany
India
IrelandPPPs are being increasingly used in Ireland to deliver both major and minor infrastructural projects.
New Zealand
United Kingdom
United States
See alsoBibliography(French documentation about PPP in Europe & France - history and Law)
(UK and Australian sources)
ReferencesExternal links
Governments' PPP Websites
CommentsNo comments have been added. |
Popular PagesEmail this Page |