Abstract
A public–private partnership (PPP) is a formal contractual arrangement entered into between the public sector and the market in order to deliver a well-defined output or service. It is distinct from privatization inasmuch as there is the continuation of government engagement through some form of regulation by contract. PPPs have deep roots in the USA, where the scope of state-owned enterprises has been limited. In the 1980s, privatization of state-owned enterprises and assets started in the UK under the Thatcher government and subsequently became a worldwide phenomenon. Recognizing that complete privatization was not possible or desirable in some sectors, PPPs were first popularized in the early 1990s in the UK as private finance initiatives (PFIs) for asset-based infrastructure. During the past two decades, the PPP has been widely embraced by many governments as a method for the delivery of a wide range of services in sectors such as roads, rails, electricity, water and health.1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Darrin Grimsey and Mervyn Lewis, Public Private Partnerships: The Worldwide Revolution in Infrastructure Provision and Project Finance (UK: Edward Elgar, 2004).
Sock-Yong Phang, “Collaboration between the Public and Private Sectors for Urban Development”, chapter 9, in Giok Ling Ooi and Belina Yuen (eds.), World Cities — Achieving Liveability and Vibrancy (Singapore: World Scientific, 2010), pp. 173–192.
Sasi Kumar and C. Jayasankar Prasad, “Public-Private Partnership in Urban Infrastructure”, Kerala Calling, February 2004, pp. 36–37.
Jean-Etienne de Bettignies and Thomas W. Ross, “The Economics of Public-Private Partnership”, Canadian Public Policy, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2004, pp. 135–154.
Oliver D. Hart, “Incomplete Contracts and Public Ownership: Remarks, and an Application to Public-Private Partnerships”, The Economic Journal, Vol. 113, No. 486, 2003, pp. C69–C76.
UN-HABITAT, “Public-Private Partnerships in Housing and Urban Development”, The Global Urban Economic Dialogue Series, 2011.
Bawa Chafe Abdullahi and Wan Nor Azriyati Wan Abdul Aziz, “Nigeria’s Housing Policy and Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Strategy: Reflections in Achieving Home Ownership for Low-Income Group in Abuja, Nigeria” (paper presented at the 22nd International Housing Research Conference, 2010).
Uche Ikejiofor, “The Private Sector and Urban Housing Production Process in Nigeria: A Study of Small-Scale Landlords in Abuja”, Habitat International, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1997, pp. 409–425.
For an overview of Singapore’s housing policies, see Sock-Yong Phang, “The Singapore Model of Housing and the Welfare State”, in chapter 2 of Richard Groves, Alan Murie and Christopher Watson (eds.), Housing and the New Welfare State (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2007).
Gao Guo Fu, “Urban Infrastructure Investment and Financing in Shanghai”, and George E. Peterson, “Land Leasing and Land Sale as an Infrastructure Financing Option”, in George E. Peterson and Patricia Clarke Annez (eds.), Financing Cities (Washington, DC: World Bank; New Delhi: Sage, 2007).
The Hong Kong government effectively owns all the land in the Special Administrative Region; more than 90 per cent of the land in Singapore belongs to the state. See Sock-Yong Phang, “Public Land Leasing for Urban Housing: Singapore’s Experience”, in Jongkwon Lee (ed.), A Review on Public Land Leasing System and Its Feasibility in Korea (Seoul: Housing and Urban Research Institute, 2005).
For a comprehensive history and analysis of Shanghai Pudong’s develop ment, see Yawei Chen, Shanghai Pudong: Urban Development in an Era of Global-Local Interaction (Amsterdam: Delft University Press, 2007).
See generally George E. Peterson, “Land Leasing and Land Sale as an Infrastructure Financing Option”, in chapter 10 of Peterson and Annez (eds.), op. cit., note 12, p. 287; and Yawei Chen, “Establishing a Credible Land Institution in Transitional Chinese Cities: Shanghai’s Practice, Problems and Strategies” (paper presented at the international conference “China’s Urban Land and Housing in the Twenty-first Century”, Hong Kong Baptist University, 13–15 December 2007).
Annissa Alusi, Robert G. Eccles, Amy C. Edmondson and Tiona Zuzul, “Sustainable Cities: Oxymoron or the Shape of the Future?” (Harvard Business School Working Paper 11–062, 2011); and also John Macomber, “The Role of Finance and Private Investment in Developing Sustainable Cities”, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2011, pp. 64–74.
Ben Dolven, “Wounded Pride: Troubled Suzhou Project Proves a Lesson for Singapore”, Far Eastern Economic Review, 8 July 1999, p. 73.
John T. Hodges and Georgina Dellacha, “Unsolicited Infrastructure Proposals: How Some Countries Introduce Competition and Transparency”, Gridlines, note 19, March 2007. (Gridlines is a publication of the Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility at the World Bank).
Dani Rodrik argues that the appropriate institutions for developing countries are “second best” institutions which will often diverge greatly from best practice. He illustrates his argument using examples from four areas: contract enforcement, entrepreneurship, trade openness, and macroeconomic stability. Dani Rodrik, “Second-Best Institutions”, American Economic Review, Vol. 98, No. 2, 2008, pp. 100–104.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2013 Sock-Yong Phang
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Phang, SY. (2013). Public-Private Partnerships. In: Housing Finance Systems. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137014030_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137014030_8
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-43677-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-01403-0
eBook Packages: Palgrave Economics & Finance CollectionEconomics and Finance (R0)