This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Public-Private Partnerships: when and how

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Eduardo Engel
Ronald Fischer
Alexander Galetovic ()

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

When are public-private partnerships (PPPs) better than conventional provision and regulated privatization? And should PPP contracts be structured and governed when this is the case?. We show that the defining features of a PPP are (i) bundling of construction and operation, (ii) private but temporary ownership of assets and (iii) intertemporal risk sharingwith the public sector. Thus some characteristics of PPPs are akin to privatization while others are similar to conventional provision. Since incentives for efficient building and management are related to bundling, PPPs are closer to privatization in this regard. As the discounted government budget under a PPP is similar to that under conventional provision, PPPs are closer to conventional provision when it comes to budgetary accounting. We also show that avoiding distortionary taxation and relieving strained government budgets are weak arguments for PPPs. We examine the institutional requirements for a successful PPP program and emphasize the need for an independent supervisor of PPPs (and in general of all public works) and a Committee of Experts to award when conflicts or the need for renegotiation arises. Lack of rule of law alters the choice between conventional provision and PPPs in favor of the former, as there is less risk of regulatory takings in a short termconstruction contract than in a long lived PPP. In the case where quality service is contractible, the the PPP contract that optimally balances demand risk, user-fee distortions and the opportunity cost of public funds, features a minimum revenue guarantee and a revenue cap that differ from those observed in practice. This contract can be implemented via a competitive auction with realistic informational requirements.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.webmanager.cl/prontus_cea/cea_2009/site/asocfile/ASOCFILE120090128154604.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Centro de Economía Aplicada, Universidad de Chile in its series Documentos de Trabajo with number 257.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 2009
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:edj:ceauch:257

Contact details of provider:

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: () The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask to update the entry or send us the correct address..

Related research
Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports: References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. Schwartz, Warren F & Sykes, Alan O, 2002. "The Economic Structure of Renegotiation and Dispute Resolution in the World Trade Organization," Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(1), pages S179-204, January.
  2. Oliver Hart, 2003. "Incomplete Contracts and Public Ownership: Remarks, and an Application to Public-Private Partnerships," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 113(486), pages C69-C76, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  3. Eduardo M. R. A. Engel & Ronald D. Fischer & Alexander Galetovic, 2001. "Least-Present-Value-of-Revenue Auctions and Highway Franchising," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 109(5), pages 993-1020, October. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  4. Lisa J. Cameron, 2000. "Limiting Buyer Discretion: Effects on Performance and Price in Long-Term Contracts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 265-281, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? IDEAS was sponsored from 1997 to 2002 by the Université du Québec à Montréal.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-10.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.