The Diffusion of Risks in Public Private Partnership Contracts

Purpose The UK government argues that the benefits of public private partnership (PPP) in delivering public infrastructure stem from: transferring risks to the private sector within a structure in which financiers put their own capital at risk; and, the performance based payment mechanism, reinforced by the due diligence requirements imposed by the lenders financing the projects (HM Treasury, 2010). Prior studies of risk in PPPs have investigated ‘what’ risks are allocated and to ‘whom’, that is to the public or the private sector. The purpose of this study is to examine ‘how’ and ‘why’ PPP risks are diffused by their financiers. Design/methodology/approach This study focuses on the financial structure of PPPs and on their financiers. Empirical evidence comes from interviews conducted with equity and debt financiers. Findings The findings show that the financial structure of the deals generates risk aversion in both debt and equity financiers and that the need to attract affordable finance leads to risk diffusion through a network of companies using various means that include contractual mitigation through insurance, performance support guarantees, interest rate swaps and inflation hedges. Because of the complexity this process generates, both procurers and suppliers need expensive expert advice. The risk aversion and diffusion and the consequent need for advice add cost to the projects impacting on the government’s economic argument for risk transfer. Limitations and implications The empirical work covers the private finance initiative (PFI) type of PPP arrangements and therefore the risk diffusion mechanisms may not be generalisable to other forms of PPP, especially those that do not involve the use of high leverage or private finance. Moreover, the scope of this research is limited to exploring the diffusion of risk in the private sector. Further research is needed on how risk is diffused in other settings and on the value for money implication of risk diffusion in PPP contracts. Originality/value The expectation inherent in PPP is that the private sector will better manage those risks allocated to it and because private capital is at risk, financiers will perform due diligence with the ultimate outcome that only viable projects will proceed. This paper presents empirical evidence that raises questions about these expectations. Key words: public private partnership, risk management, diffusion, private finance initiative, financiers

Public Private Partnerships: A Global Review

This book provides an international perspective on Public Private Partnerships. Through 21 case studies, it investigates the existing and fast developing body of principles and practices from a wide range of countries and is the first book to bring together leading international academics and practitioners under a common framework that enables convenient cross-country comparisons. The authors focus on the impact of the financial crisis has had on how governments have reviewed and overhauled their PPP policies as they have examined or tested new ways of partnering more effectively, efficiently and sustainably with the private sector.
Readers will be able to gauge the level of maturity of PPP development in the book’s case studies, understand similarities and differences in their practices, and gain useful insights into the regulatory framework and institutional infrastructure in place to support implementation of PPP. Finally, the book offers insights into the future challenges and opportunities that PPP offers stakeholders.

Conflict Management in Public-Private Partnerships: The Case of the London Underground

Public–private partnerships (PPPs) have become common inter-organizational arrangements associated with “new public management.” Discussion about their effective operation has often focused on successful management methods, with less discussion about how these arrangements specifically overcome obstacles and problems. In this article, we seek to address this deficiency in the literature by analyzing the conflict management system employed within the London Underground PPP (when it was still in operation). We conclude by identifying several lessons from this case that we believe should inform the design of such systems, one of which is the role of knowledge management.

Does the UK Local Finance Improvement Trust (Lift) Initiative Improve Risk Management in Public-Private Procurement?

The UK government introduced the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and, latterly, the Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT) in an attempt to improve public service provision. As a variant of PFI, LIFT seeks to create a framework for the effective provision of primary care facilities. Like conventional PFI procurement, LIFT projects involve long-term contracts, complex multi-party interactions and thus create various risks to public sector clients. This paper investigates the advantages and disadvantages of LIFT with a focus on how this approach facilitates or impedes risk management from the public sector client perspective. Our paper concludes that LIFT has a potential for creating additional problems, including the further reduction of public sector control, conflicts of interest, the inappropriate use of enabling funds, and higher than market rental costs affecting the uptake of space in the buildings by local health care providers. However, there is also evidence that LIFT has facilitated new investment and that Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) have themselves started addressing some of the weaknesses of this procurement format through the bundling of projects and other forms of regional co-operation.

UK Public Private Partnerships and the Credit Crunch: A Case of Risk Contagion?

During the past twenty years, the UK has relied heavily on Public Private Partnerships (PPP) and especially the Private Finance Initiative in the procurement of infrastructure and services. Discussing the causes of the credit crunch and its effects on PPP, this paper notes that the provision of new public sector infrastructure and related services has been adversely affected by the impact of the credit crunch on Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs). These problems have arisen primarily from the unwillingness of commercial banks to replace collapsed PFI bond financing unless new PFI contracts reduce financial risks; which, in turn, is likely to increase the cost of these projects to the public sector. Additional financial strains have arisen for the UK government from the need to bail out collapsed PFI projects. Overall we find evidence that the UK commitment to PFI has not only increased immediate fiscal pressures on the UK when these have become least palatable, but has also created fiscal vulnerabilities at local and national levels which are likely to hamper the country’s ability to launch counter-cyclical responses to the ongoing crisis.

Perspectives on the Future of Public Private Partnership in the UK

During the past two decades the UK has played a leading position in the development and application of Public Private Partnership (PPP) based infrastructure procurement through its Private Finance Initiative model. This model had been developed during the last years of the Major Government and expanded during the early years of the Blair Government. The banking and economic crisis of 2007-09 has created major challenges to the use of PPP in the UK, making the sustainability of past levels of PPP investment and the future direction of PPP based infrastructure procurement in that country uncertain. This chapter summarises key developments in UK PPP up to the crisis; reviews the economic issues that have led up to the crisis; discusses the immediate impact of the crisis on the UK PFI and PPP market together with the transition arrangements that were put into to place by the Brown government; and, lastly, looks at recent initiatives taken by Cameron’s Conservative-Liberal Coalition Government under the designation of Private Finance 2 (PF2).

An Overview of Public Private Partnership

In many developed and developing countries there has been a move toward an increased reliance on Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) for infrastructure development. This involves an engagement with, or participation of, private companies and the public sector in the financing and provision of infrastructure. In most countries these PPP arrangements have been aimed at overcoming broad public sector constraints in relation to either a lack of public capital; and/or a lack of public sector capacity, resources and specialized expertise to develop, manage, and operate infrastructure assets.
In a number of countries Public Private Partnerships are now commonly used to accelerate economic growth, development and infrastructure delivery and to achieve quality service delivery and good governance. The spectrum of nature and types of public private partnerships (PPPs) are vast, making a precise and complete definition of a PPP difficult. However, significant developments in the use of PPP in many countries have made it increasingly important to understand these practices, as well as to unveil any underlying common principles and problems and to capture and develop a body of good practices, where such can be achieved.

The Role and Effectiveness of Public – Private Partnerships (NHS LIFT) in the Development of Enhanced Primary Care Premises and Services:Report for the National Institute for Health Research Service Delivery and Organisation programme

The research project analysed the role and effectiveness of LIFT via a multi-method study which included semi-structured interviews with policy elites and users, as well as case studies and an exploratory analysis of the financial characteristics of three LIFT Companies. While the team felt that it was able to identify key aspects relating to the advantages and drawbacks surrounding LIFT, some aspects relating to the representativeness of the study was adversely affected by a reluctance of PCTs to participate in the case study analysis and commercial confidentiality restrictions. The study was nonetheless able to identify important issues in relation to the funding and procurement of primary care premises and services.