IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/conmgt/v39y2021i11p894-911.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative analysis of outcomes under PPP and traditional modes of delivery: a study of schools in Melbourne

Author

Listed:
  • Raghu Dharmapuri Tirumala
  • Neeraj Dangol
  • Piyush Tiwari
  • Paulo Vaz-Serra

Abstract

Public Private Partnership (PPP) arrangements are perceived as compelling alternatives to traditional infrastructure development to raise finances and improve efficiency. However, with the substantial improvement in the provision of services through traditionally developed infrastructure, the benefits of PPP implementation need to be continually evaluated. This research investigates three categories of outcomes (educational, stakeholder satisfaction, and general outcomes) for schools in Melbourne implemented under PPP arrangement to those implemented under a traditional procurement method. Data Envelopment Analysis is used to assess the efficiency of these outcomes, based on the consumption of teaching, financial and physical resources. The results indicate that there is no substantial difference between the performance of both arrangements. While the schools implemented under the PPP arrangement have provided better education outcomes, the traditional schools perform better in stakeholder satisfaction and general outcomes. The results indicate that the policymakers need to evaluate infrastructure based PPP arrangements more closely and align with the desired outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Raghu Dharmapuri Tirumala & Neeraj Dangol & Piyush Tiwari & Paulo Vaz-Serra, 2021. "Comparative analysis of outcomes under PPP and traditional modes of delivery: a study of schools in Melbourne," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(11), pages 894-911, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:39:y:2021:i:11:p:894-911
    DOI: 10.1080/01446193.2021.1994147
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01446193.2021.1994147
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01446193.2021.1994147?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:39:y:2021:i:11:p:894-911. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RCME20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.