An exploratory study of the utilisation of the UK's Prudential Borrowing Framework

This article considers the utilisation of the UK’s Prudential Borrowing Framework (PBF) and the associated Prudential Code for local government capital finance. It finds that the increased flexibility and local freedom are at the cost of less financial certainty in terms of the risks borne by local authorities and local tax payers. The PBF seems to encourage a less formal approach to risk, being considered inevitable and handled if and when adverse risk outcomes occur. Consequently capital projects may lack affordability, sustainability and prudence. The Prudential Indicators required by the Code are not easily understood by non-specialists and their calculation cannot be used to replace sound judgement or to identify the best financing option.

The UK's Prudential borrowing framework:a retrograde step in managing risk?

The contemporary understanding of public sector risk management entails a broadening of the traditional bureaucratic approach to risk beyond the boundaries of purely financial risks. However, evidence suggests that in reality public sector risk management does not always match the rhetoric. This paper focuses on the apparent inadequacy of any risk framework in the current Prudential Borrowing Framework (PBF) guidance in relation to that which was developed under Public Private Partnerships and Private Finance Initiative (PFI). Our analysis shows that the PBF and its associated indicators for local authorities adopt a narrow financial approach and fail to account for the full range of potential risks associated with capital projects. The PBF does not provide a framework for local authorities to consider long-term risk and fails to encourage understanding of the generic nature of risk. The introduction of the PBF appears to represent a retrograde step from PPP/PFI as regards risk and risk management.