The Provision Of Infrastructure Via Private Finance Initiative
The infrastructure delivery worldwide has recently shifted to a new paradigm where the government as the public procurer begins to rely on the private sectors’ sources in providing assets and services at no cost to the government. This revolution ensues due to the government’s dilemma in handling various globalisation issues of the belt-tightening government’s budget, the escalated world oil prices, pressure in confronting abandoned public projects, intention in reducing government’s financial burdens as well as increased taxpayers’ demand on the quality of infrastructure assets and services. Thus, in facing those problems whilst maintaining the control over the infrastructure, an alternative procurement approach known as Private Finance Initiative (PFI) has been introduced. Nevertheless, history has proven that not all infrastructure assets or services are amenable to PFI, indeed experience in other jurisdictions has suggested that in some circumstances infrastructure provided via PFI can lead to poor public accountability, a reduction in competition as well as the development of monopolies. With the facts that different countries practise distinguished concepts and philosophies of PFI for their infrastructure provision based on the nature of their construction industry as well as different countries necessitate diverse types of infrastructure for their nation’s development of their, the urgency of determining the principles of infrastructure to be provided via PFI is significant. Therefore, this study investigates the features and characteristics of infrastructure that is suitable to be provided via PFI with the particular references to Malaysia’s construction industry as Malaysia’s version of PFI emerges in unique forms e.g. DBFO (Design, Build, Finance, Operate), BOO (Build, Own, Operate), BOOST (Build, Own, Operate, Subsidise, Transfer) and BOL (Build, Operate, Lease). Although the Malaysia’s version of PFI is theoretically claimed as merely prompt in providing selected economic infrastructure for both physical assets and services, this study demonstrates that Malaysia’s PFI is also duly implemented for social infrastructures.
Volume (Year): 4 (2009)
Issue (Month): 1S (April)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 6 ROMANA PLACE, 70167 - BUCHAREST|
Web page: http://ccasp.ase.ro/
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rom:terumm:v:4:y:2009:i:1s:p:76-86. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Colesca Sofia)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.