Publicação
Measuring value for money in public private partnerships: a review of the public sector comparator in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and United Kingdom
| Resumo: | Public-Private Partnerships are defined by the OCDE (2008) as "an agreement between the government and one or more private partners (which may include the operators and the financers) according to which the private partners deliver the service in such a manner that the service delivery objectives of the government are aligned with the profit objectives of the private partners and where the effectiveness of the alignment depends on a sufficient transfer of risk to the private partners". Due to their characteristics and due to governments' limited ability of funding public infrastructures projects, they are becoming part of the government's portfolio as a good solution to fill the "infrastructure gap". We undertake OECD (2008) assembly of the top ten countries with the largest public-private partnerships deals in 2003 and 2004 and, we select those countries that have more formalised policy regarding the use of the public sector comparator and those that are more quoted in the literature (Australia, Canada and United Kingdom). We also select New Zealand because they already adopt the public sector comparator methodology even thought there percentage of public-private partnerships projects is not so expressive in the public investment as the other countries that we analysed. The purpose of this work is to find which methodologies are implemented, while establishing a comparison between all four countries. Several conclusions arise from our investigation. We found that all four countries adopt the public sector comparator in order to assess bids, and it is always created in the early phases of the project plan. We also observe that they all use different methodologies with the same purpose: achieving value for the taxpayers. However, there are substantial differences on the methodologies developed in each country. |
|---|---|
| Autores principais: | Paixão, Rúben José Freitas |
| Assunto: | public-private partnerships value for money public sector comparator discount rate risk allocation parcerias público-privadas comparador do sector público taxa de desconto alocação do risco |
| Ano: | 2012 |
| País: | Portugal |
| Tipo de documento: | dissertação de mestrado |
| Tipo de acesso: | acesso aberto |
| Instituição associada: | Universidade de Lisboa |
| Idioma: | inglês |
| Origem: | Repositório da Universidade de Lisboa |
| Resumo: | Public-Private Partnerships are defined by the OCDE (2008) as "an agreement between the government and one or more private partners (which may include the operators and the financers) according to which the private partners deliver the service in such a manner that the service delivery objectives of the government are aligned with the profit objectives of the private partners and where the effectiveness of the alignment depends on a sufficient transfer of risk to the private partners". Due to their characteristics and due to governments' limited ability of funding public infrastructures projects, they are becoming part of the government's portfolio as a good solution to fill the "infrastructure gap". We undertake OECD (2008) assembly of the top ten countries with the largest public-private partnerships deals in 2003 and 2004 and, we select those countries that have more formalised policy regarding the use of the public sector comparator and those that are more quoted in the literature (Australia, Canada and United Kingdom). We also select New Zealand because they already adopt the public sector comparator methodology even thought there percentage of public-private partnerships projects is not so expressive in the public investment as the other countries that we analysed. The purpose of this work is to find which methodologies are implemented, while establishing a comparison between all four countries. Several conclusions arise from our investigation. We found that all four countries adopt the public sector comparator in order to assess bids, and it is always created in the early phases of the project plan. We also observe that they all use different methodologies with the same purpose: achieving value for the taxpayers. However, there are substantial differences on the methodologies developed in each country. |
|---|