Search

Good infrastructure is crucial to a country's development and continued success. Russia's developmental goals require new and upgraded infrastructure throughout its territory. Private investment in capital projects will be vital for Russia to meet these goals. To facilitate private investment, the Russian government has embarked on a series of reforms aimed at improving the investment climate and creating a robust institutional framework for private sector participation in concessions and Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). The OECD's 2012 Council Recommendation on Principles for Public Governance of Public-Private Partnerships (the PPP Recommendation) aims to support governments facing trade-offs between three demands inherent in a PPP project process. This article provides an overview of the alignment of the policies of the Russian Federation in the area of public governance of PPPs with these recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Capital investment is a key function of government. However, for a number of reasons it has proven difficult for governments to ensure that capital investment represents value for money, is affordable, and is budgeted and accounted for in a prudent and transparent manner. This article discusses these challenges facing governments. Using the findings of a survey conducted among OECD countries and enhanced engagement countries in 2012, this article provides an overview of what governments are doing with respect to planning and prioritisation, procurement, construction, operation and management, monitoring and evaluation, and budgeting and accounting for capital projects. The article concludes with a number of recommendations for capital budgeting and procurement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, the cost of delivering health care in developed and developing countries has been rising exponentially. Governments around the world are searching for alternative mechanisms to reduce costs while increasing the capacity of social programmes with significant investments in infrastructure. A number of jurisdictions haue begun to utilise public-priuate partnerships (PPPs) as a means of achieving these objectives. The use of PPPs in the Canadian health system is a relatively new phenomenon. Generally, the success of PPP projects is evaluated on the basis of the qualitative outcomes of the project, most commonly in a value-for-money analysis. In this article, we explore whether quantitative elements are sufficient to measure PPPs in politically sensitive areas of public policy, such as health care. We propose that the best way to evaluate the outcomes of PPPs in public health system projects requires both quantitative and qualitative criteria. We use a framework developed from neo-institutional economics that contextualises outcomes through a balance of quantitative and qualitative assessment criteria. We apply this evaluation framework to a specific Canadian case study in order to determine key success factors for future PPP health infrastructure projects. The analysis concludes that, given the complex and politically sensitive nature of health care, particular attention must be paid to communications and public relations and to design and post-construction planning in order to deliver a successful PPP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Governments increasingly use public-private partnerships (PPPs) to pursue value for money. However, value for money is (or at least, should be) the driving force behind traditional infrastructure procurement. Therefore, any project, whether it is a PPP or a traditionally procured project, should be undertaken only if it creates value for money. It seems that the choice between using a PPP or traditional procurement should be simple: governments should prefer the method that creates the most value for money. However, in practice the value-for-money objective is very often blurred, and the choice between using a PPP and traditional infrastructure procurement may be skewed by factors other than value for money. Some factors skew choice towards traditional procurement, while others skew it towards PPPs. Drawing on the results of a questionnaire sent to all OECD and some non-OECD countries, this article considers the various factors that may skew this choice and thereby undermine the pursuit of value for money. The results of the questionnaire point especially to differences in the range and complexity of the ex ante and ex post value-for-money tests that some governments apply to PPPs and traditionally procured infrastructure projects. However, accounting standards, political preferences for or against PPPs, and the strength of public sector unions also play, among others, a role in skewing incentives and affecting choice in some countries. The findings of the questionnaire are augmented by four case studies setting out the procurement processes for PPP5 and traditional infrastructure procurement in France, Germany, Korea and the United Kingdom. With the focus on the attainment of value for money and by exploring the issues raised in the responses to the questionnaire, this article sets out some good practices that will align the requirements for these two types of procurement and remove possible perverse incentives that favour one over the other. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last few decades, public-private partnerships have been increasingly used by governments around the world to finance and manage complex operations. Doubts about their efficiency have been raised, however. Criticism of public-private partnerships reflects the fact that governments tend to use them as "off-budget" operations, to avoid fiscal constraints. Do they generate "value for money" to the public sector? The literature is less than unanimous. How one assesses value for money in these types of arrangements has become extremely important for public managers. In this article, we propose that the best way to evaluate value for money is to conduct a public sector comparator prior to the bid. To do this, it is necessary to estimate the costs in the case of a public procurement versus public-private partnerships payments, and to define what discount rates will be used (in order to find the net present value of the two options), to best compare and make the right decision for taxpayers. One of the most important costs to include in a public sector comparator is the risk transfer to the private sector, which is the ultimate motive for a greater level of efficiency. Having a not-optimal risk allocation will reduce the probability of a good decision from public managers. The scope of this work does not include, however, whether or not public investment should be carried out. The cost- benefit analysis of the investment versus other options should be made prior to the analysis described here. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article, originally presented as a keynote speech at the June 2009 meeting of the OECD Working Party of Senior Budget Officials, explores the state of new public management from the perspective of current political theory and presents relevant findings from a 2009 OECD comparative study, "Value for Money". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]