Concessions have long been used as mechanisms for private sector participation (PSP). In the 1980s and 1990s, concessions were viewed as a specialized mechanism for privatization. Today they are more likely to be described as Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). This Research Paper examines whether and when concessions qualify as PPP or privatization, by comparing the key features of PPP, privatization and concessions, both as theoretical constructs and through examination of specific examples. It concludes that concessions are clearly PPP structures. It also examines other concession-type structures and finds that sale plus licensing, and sale plus buy-back approaches do qualify as privatization, while franchising, as often used for railway “privatization”, is more accurately described as a PPP structure.

Public and private sector responses to the COVID-19 pandemic are having a severe and damaging economic impact. As the world comes out of lockdown infrastructure investment will be a major lever for economic stimulus, while fiscal pressures mean governments have fewer resources to invest directly using traditional approaches. Government “demand” for PPPs as a way to bridge this financing gap will therefore increase. At the same time the “supply” of investors and lenders willing to provide the necessary technology, expertise and capital is constrained by increased market uncertainty and volatility. This Research Paper uses a Theory of Change framework to highlight the likely implications and risks for government PPP projects, and develops short- and medium-term strategies to address them efficiently and effectively.

Abstract

This paper presents the current state of public discourse on the post-COVID-19 impact on PPPs. The primary aim is to preview the possible challenges to public sector PPP programs and highlight potential recovery efforts to mitigate or overcome the associated consequences.

Disclaimer

The views, opinions, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are strictly those of the author. They do not reflect the views of the NCP or the Saudi Government. The NCP and the Saudi Government take no responsibility for any errors or omissions in, or for the correctness of, the information contained in this paper.

Abstract

There is an argument that small-scale projects cannot generate sufficient benefits to justify the relatively high cost of PPP procurement. Alternatively, small-scale PPPs are more likely to be sponsored by subnational authorities and their impacts are concentrated on smaller populations. This Paper reviews international trends in small-scale PPPs and attempt to develop a toolkit of policies and measures to support their development and implementation. It also aims to address the obstacles facing project sponsors, private investors and lenders.

Disclaimer

The views, opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are strictly those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the NCP or the Saudi Government. The NCP and the Saudi Government take no responsibility for any errors or omissions in, or for the correctness of, the information contained in this paper

Abstract

Small-scale PPPs (SSPPPs) can have significant impacts on their users, since they are often focused on specific locations. However, the cost of PPP procurement and the limited resources of the regional and municipal procuring authorities (PAs) make it difficult to justify using PPP for smaller projects that might otherwise be attractive. Recognizing this, some countries and institutions have adopted/proposed various measures to support SSPPPs. This Research Paper reviews the literature and, based on an analysis of the key constraints facing SSPPPs, proposes a package of initiatives (“SSPPP Toolkit”) that might be adopted to enhance the viability of smaller PPP projects. This Paper forms part of a wider research initiative on small-scale PPPs. Its findings were originally published as part of the NCP Research Paper entitled “Improving Value for Money in Small-Scale PPPs”.

Disclaimer

The views, opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are strictly those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the NCP or the Saudi Government. The NCP and the Saudi Government take no responsibility for any errors or omissions in, or for the correctness of, the information contained in this paper.

Abstract

There is an argument that small-scale PPPs (SSPPPs) cannot generate sufficient benefits to justify the relatively high cost of PPP procurement. At the same time there are many examples of SSPPPs that generated significant benefits for end-users. This Paper reviews international trends in SSPPPs to test various pre-conceptions about them. It forms part of a wider research initiative on SSPPPs. Its findings were originally published as part of the NCP Research Paper entitled “Improving Value for Money in Small-Scale PPPs”.

Disclaimer

The views, opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are strictly those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the NCP or the Saudi Government. The NCP and the Saudi Government take no responsibility for any errors or omissions in, or for the correctness of, the information contained in this paper.

Abstract

Traditional measures of the size of PPPs focus on capital investment, which could lead to a hidden bias towards greenfield infrastructure projects and away from brownfield and services-only PPPs. This Paper reviews the options for measuring the size of PPPs against both theoretical and practical criteria, and finds that life-cycle costs (LCC) would be a better indicator for screening projects. This Paper forms part of a wider research initiative on small-scale PPPs. Its findings were originally published as part of the NCP Research Paper entitled “Improving Value for Money in Small-Scale PPPs”.

Disclaimer

The views, opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are strictly those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the NCP or the Saudi Government. The NCP and the Saudi Government take no responsibility for any errors or omissions in, or for the correctness of, the information contained in this paper.