global experiences of public private partnership: … 13th volume/nazam hoque.pdf · public private...
Post on 18-Mar-2020
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
16
GLOBAL EXPERIENCES OF PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP: LESSONS FOR
BANGLADESH
1) Abdullah Mohammad Ahshanul Mamun
Lecturer
Department of Business Administration
International Islamic University Chittagong
Bangladesh.
e-mail: ama_mamun@yahoo.com
2) Nazamul Hoque
Assistant Professor
Department of Business Administration
International Islamic University Chittagong
Bangladesh.
e-mail: nazam_iiuc@yahoo.com
3) Abdullahil Mamun
Assistant Professor
Department of Business Administration
International Islamic University Chittagong
Bangladesh.
e-mail: ahm_economics@yahoo.com
4) Manjur Rashad Masum
Lecturer
Department of Business Administration
University of Information Technology and Sciences
Bangladesh.
e-mail: masum.cma@gmail.com
Abstract
Public private partnership (PPP) is no more considered as a trial and error concept rather it is
applied widely around the world as a tested and successful means in facilitating the delivery of
high quality goods and services. But the efficient utilization of PPP is a challenging job. In this
paper a thorough review and evaluation has been done on the experiences of PPP of different
developed and developing countries of the world in order to identify the critical factors of PPP to
17
provide necessary guidelines to the key stakeholders of Bangladesh considering its context with a
view to accelerate the wheel of economy through proper utilization of different successful models
of PPP.
Key Words: Public Private Partnership, Bangladesh.
Introduction:
Public private partnership (PPP/P3) is getting
attention as an attractive field of research during the
last few decades (Jiménez and Pasquero, 2005)
because PPP is being considered as an alternative
institutional arrangements and modes of delivery of
public goods and services (Jamali, 2007, Wettenhall,
2003, Hodge & Greve,2005).The primary objective
of PPPs is to facilitate the delivery of high-quality
public facilities and services by the private sector
over an extended period of time at a cost that
represents value for money, whilst at the same time
transferring an appropriate level of risk to the private
sector (Lane and Gardiner, 2003). PPPs imply a sort
of collaboration to pursue common goals, while
leveraging joint resources and capitalizing on the
respective competences and strengths of the public
and private partners (Widdus,2001; Pongsiri, 2002;
Nijkamp et al., 2002). PPPs can also work for a range
of infrastructures including transportation, water and
sewer services, solid waste disposal, municipal
parking, and “social” infrastructure such as schools,
hospitals, and other public buildings. These include
education, housing, health care, transportation, social
care and many other areas commonly associated with
the public sector (Grimsey and Lewis, 2002).
European Commission (2004), in its green paper on
PPPs, recognized some common elements of a PPP:
long duration cooperative relationship, complex
arrangement of shared funding and participant’s role
at different stages in the project and shared risk. Most
supposed PPPs in third world development do not
seem to meet this criterion. Donor agencies often
promote privatization and government subsidies to
private entrepreneurs in the name of building PPPs.
However, privatization and subsidies should not be
confused with PPPs (Mitchell-Weaver and Manning,
1991).
Indeed, though PPP was originally treated as a
derivative of the privatization movement, there is a
growing consensus today that PPP does not simply
mean the introduction of market mechanisms or the
privatization of public services. PPP is an
institutionalized form of cooperation of public and
private actors, who work together towards a joint
target on the basis of their own indigenous objectives
(Nijkamp et al., 2002). According to Jamali (2004),
Pongsiri (2002), Nijkamp et al., (2002) and Widdus
(2001), PPP is a sort of collaboration to pursue
common goals by leveraging joint resources and
capitalizing on the respective competences and
strengths of the public and private partners. Indeed,
the nature of relationship between the public and
private sectors is seen on the dimension of five types
of activities namely- parallel activities, competitive
activities, complementary & collaborative activities
(Ravindran, 2002), and Contractual activities (Clifton
& Duffield, 2006). PPP is the collaboration in which
the public and private sectors both bring their
complementary skills to a project, with different
levels of involvement and responsibility, for the sake
of providing public services more efficiently
(Efficiency Unit, 2003b). It is a relationship that
consists of shared and/or compatible objectives and
an acknowledged distribution of specific roles and
responsibilities among the participants which can be
formal or informal, contractual or voluntary, between
18
two or more parties. The implication is that there is
cooperative investment of resources and therefore
joint risk taking; sharing of authority, and benefits for
all partners (Lewis, 2002).According to Jefferies and
McGeorge (2008), a PPP consortium is defined as a
temporary organization with a complex network of
stakeholders each with competing goals and
objectives. Public private partnerships (PPPs) are a
policy adopted by government to buy infrastructure
(and related ancillary) services over the long term
(Torres and Pina, 2001). A PPP is an approach to
delivering public services that involve the private
sector, but one that provides for a more direct control
relationship between the public and private sector
than would be achieved by a simple (legally-
protected) market based and arms-length purchase.(
Jane Broadbent, Richard Laughlin, 2003). As civil
infrastructure projects have grown in scale and scope,
their cost has increased accordingly. As a result, we
have entered what has been termed the era of the
infrastructure megaproject (Altshuler & Luberoff,
2003).
Around the world, governments of different countries
have tried to avoid using the term ‘privatization’ or
‘contracting out’ in favor of speaking about
‘partnerships’. That may be a part of a general trend
within public management of needing to renew the
reform buzzwords from time to time, or the practice
of advancing the same policy, but under a different
and catchier name (Hodge & Greve, 2009). The
alternative views of Public Private Partnerships
(PPPs/P3), New Public Management (NPM), Public
Finance Initiative (PFI) and Privately Financed
Projects (PFP) are a set of language games (Linder,
1999). In the UK, New Zealand and Australia
particularly, as well as in the other nations around the
world, large part of the public sector were subject to
aggressive privatization in the 1970s and 1980s
(Broadbent, Laughlin 2003).New public management
(NPM), a term first referred to by Hood (1991),
denotes broadly the government policies, since the
1980s that aimed to modernize and render more
effective the public sector. Proponents of these forms
of ‘‘New Public Management’’ promised improved
efficiency by the joint commitment of the private and
public sectors to delivery and through sharing of risk
(Hood, 1995). Privatization of major part of public
sector ceased and facing questions in all the three
countries-UK, New Zealand and Australia- due to
legitimate, political and economic problems created
by privatization program during early 1990s
(Broadbent, Laughlin 2003; Newberry and Pallot,
2003).The UK’s PFI was launched in Autumn1992
by the Conservative chancellor of the Exchequer,
Norman Lamont, is a design build finance and
operate (DBFO) system (Broadbent, Laughlin 2003).
Australia also following such an approach “privately
financed projects” (English and Guthrie,
2003).Barlow, Roehrich, and Wright (2010), on the
other hand indicates that PFI is a way of creating
public–private partnerships (PPPs) as part of the
wider neoliberal program of privatization and
financialisation driven by an increased need for
accountability and efficiency for public spending
developed initially by Australian and United
Kingdom governments.
According to Hodge and Greve (2007) there are five
different families of PPPs: 1. Institutional co-
operation for joint production and risk sharing 2.
Long-term infrastructure contracts (LTICs) 3. Public
policy networks (in which loose stakeholder
relationships are emphasised) 4. Civil society and
community development 5. Urban renewal and
downtown economic development. Indeed, on the
basis of dimensions of control, funding and
ownership there are eight combinations (given in
table 1) of public–private mix are possible for PPPs
(Zarco-Jasso, 2005).
19
Table 1: Probable Public-Private Relationship
Dimension 100% Public (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 100% Private (8)
Control Public Public Public Public Private Private Private Private
Finance Public Public Private Private Public Public Private Private
Ownership Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private
Source: Constructed by authors
The above table shows a probable set of relationship
between Public and Private on three dimensions
ranging from (100% Public) State-owned enterprise
to (100% Private) Privatization. So there exist six
options where public and private can share the
ownership, control and finance between them as a
form of Public private partnership (PPP/P3). It shows
a greater involvement of private may be possible for
option 4, 6& 7 (Dimensions taken from: Zarco-Jasso,
2005). Depending on the mode of entry, ultimate
ownership, risk sharing, and duration of the
partnership PPP’s may take a wide range of
contractual forms that can be combined into four
main types: Greenfield, divestiture, concessions, and
management contracts (Glambotskaya et al., 2007).
Characteristics of Main types of PPP are (given in
table 2) as follows:
Table 2 : Characteristics of Main types of PPP
Types of PPP Acronym Modes of
Entry
Operation and
Maintenance
Investment Ultimate
Ownership
Market
Risk
Duration
(Years)
Build, Own and
Transfer
BOT Greenfield Private Private Semi-
private
Private 20-30
Build, Own,
Operate and
Transfer
BOOT Greenfield Private Private Semi-
private
Private 30+
Build, Own and
Operate
BOO Greenfield Private Private Private Private 30+
Build, Lease and
Own
BLO Greenfield Private Private Private Private 30+
Partial
Privatization
Divesture Private Private Private Private 30+
Full Privatization Divesture Private Private Private Private Indefinite
Rehabilitate,
Operate and
Transfer
ROT Concession Private Private Public Semi-
private
20-30
20
Rehabilitate,
Lease/ Rent and
Transfer
RLRT Concession Private Private Public More-
private
20-30
Build,
Rehabilitate,
Operate and
Transfer
BROT Concession Private Private Public Private 20-30
Management
Contract
Contract Private Public Public Public 3-5
Leasing Contract Private Public Public Semi-
private
8-15
Source: Glambotskaya et al. (2007)
PPP can be a good tool for developing sustainable
infrastructure and thereby ensuring and accelerating
the wheel of economy of Bangladesh. Access to
electricity, improved sanitation facilities, telephone
subscribers are 20%, 36% and 14% respectively –all
the indicators are below the South Asia Average
according to comparative infrastructure indicators
(World Bank Database, 2011). The current rate of
investment is much lower (24.5%) than the required
rate (around 35%-40%) the government seeks and
what is necessary for Bangladesh to meet its goals
(Bangladesh Gadget, 2010; Mamun, Islam 2010).
Situation has worsened in recent years, with the
decline in availability of private sector investment for
infrastructure (World Bank, 2013). Therefore, this
paper is an effort to point out the interesting lessons
for Bangladesh from the experiences of different
countries around the globe considering the context of
Bangladesh. Different critical success factors of PPP
are identified so that Bangladesh can successfully
implement with a view to maximize the benefits from
PPP. While writing the paper, the researchers have
reviewed available published articles, case studies,
reports, conference papers, archival records and
books regarding Public Private Partnerships
experiences of different developed and developing
countries of the world.
Public Private Partnership: World Experiences
Various forms of PPP have been implemented in
countries of the European Union, Australia Central
America, North America, South East Asia and Africa
for over 30 years. Between 1990 and 2009 more than
1300 PPP contracts were signed in the EU,
representing a capital value of more than EUR 250
billion. This includes roughly 350 new projects with
a value of almost EUR 70 billion having reached
financial close since the beginning of 2007 (European
Investment Bank,2010).
Table-3 provides a picture of infrastructure projects
in different region by primary sector. Projects include
management or lease contracts, concessions,
greenfield projects, and divestitures. The database
contains almost 5,000 projects dating from 1984 to
2011.
Table-4 provides a description of infrastructure
projects in low- and middle-income countries by
primary sector. Projects include management or lease
contracts, concessions, greenfield projects, and
divestitures. The database contains almost 5,000
projects dating from 1984 to 2011.
21
Source: World Bank PPI database, 2013
Table 3 : Infrastructure projects in different region by primary sector
Featured
Indicator
(1990-2011)
East Asia
and Pacific
Europe and
Central
Asia
Latin
America
and the
Caribbean
Middle East
and North
Africa
South Asia
Sub
Saharan
Africa
Infrastructure
Sectors
Reported
Energy,
Telecom,
Transport,
Water and
sewerage
Energy,
Telecom,
Transport,
Water and
sewerage
Energy,
Telecom,
Transport,
Water and
sewerage
Energy,
Telecom,
Transport,
Water and
sewerage
Energy,
Telecom,
Transport,
Water and
sewerage
Energy,
Telecom,
Transport,
Water and
sewerage
Number of
countries with
private
participation
20 22 30 12 8 47
Projects
reaching
financial closure
1564 742 1586 139 771 436
Sector with
largest
investment
share
Energy
(39%)
Telecom
(55%)
Telecom
(45%)
Telecom
(66%)
Energy
(44%)
Telecom
(78%)
Type of PPI
with largest
share in
investment
Greenfield
project
(65%)
Greenfield
project
(54%)
Greenfield
project (39%)
Greenfield
project
(66%)
Greenfield
project
(81%)
Greenfield
project
(72%)
Type of PPI
with largest
share in
projects
Greenfield
project
(66%)
Divestiture
(42%)
Greenfield
project (51%)
Greenfield
project
(63%)
Greenfield
project
(65%)
Greenfield
project
(58%)
Projects
cancelled or
under distress
82
representing
10% of total
investment
34
representing
2% of total
investment
133
representing
8% of total
investment
6
representing
1% of total
investment
13
representing
1% of total
investment
48
representing
5% of total
investment
22
Source: World Bank PPI database, 2013
China, India, Brazil and Russian federation are
holding the 1st, 2
nd, 3
rd and 4
th position respectively
considering the number of PPP projects during 1984-
2011. On the other hand Brazil India, Russian
federation and China are holding the 1st , 2
nd , 3
rd and
4th
position with respect to total investment (US$
million) in PPP projects during the same period
(World Bank PPI data base, 2013).
The government defines success for PPP projects as
being built on time and within budget (Nick Sciulli,
2008). A successful PPP is one that provides the
services the government needs, offers value for
money as measured against public service provision
(where value for money is measured by the net
present value of lifetime costs, including the cost of
risk bearing)and complies with general standards of
good governance and specific government policy
such as– Is procured with transparent and competitive
procurement – being fiscally prudent– complying
with the legal and regulatory regimes that apply to
the industry in which the PPP will exist. (World
Bank, 2007). PPPs therefore should not be expected
to substitute for action or responsibilities that
properly rest elsewhere. In particular, the public
sector should continue to set standards and monitor
product safety, efficacy, and quality and establish
systems whereby citizens have adequate access to the
products and services they need. (Jamali, 2004) In
Table 4 : infrastructure projects in low- and middle-income countries by primary sector
Featured Indicator,
(1990-2011)
Energy
Telecom
Transport
Water and
sewerage
Number of countries
with private
participation
107 135 86 62
Projects reaching
financial closure 2283 822 1371 762
Region with largest
investment share
Latin America and
the Caribbean (35%)
Latin America
and the Caribbean
(37%)
Latin America
and the Caribbean
(40%)
East Asia and
Pacific (46%)
Type of PPI with
largest share in
investment
Greenfield project
(65%)
Greenfield project
(60%) Concession (55%) Concession (60%)
Type of PPI with
largest share in
projects
Greenfield project
(72%)
Greenfield project
(74%) Concession (57%)
Greenfield project
(42%)
Projects cancelled or
under distress
117
representing 5% of
total investment
59
representing 3%
of total
investment
77
representing 6%
of total
investment
63
representing 32%
of total
investment
23
other words, PPPs do not imply less government but
a different governmental role. The stronger position
that the private partner often commands implies that
more skilled government participation is often
needed.
Although PPP has become a valuable asset for
communities to revitalize their economic
marketability and aid with needed social, housing,
infrastructure and employment programs (Nijkamp et
al., 2002; Shatkin, 2007), PPP experience are mixed
and varied. PPP projects should be evaluated on their
merits, on a case-by-case basis, and contemplated
when the ingredients of effective collaboration (e.g.
commitment, interdependence, individual excellence,
communication and integrity) are found or can be
safely nurtured along the way (Jamali, 2004).Most
PPP are not same in nature and cannot be
reproduction that means each PPP project comprises
a different set of variables, stakeholders and
objectives. Hodge and Greve (2009) summarize a
range of evaluation examples from the international
literature. It is drawn from the past decade and
reflects only some of the pieces going to make up the
overall (Long-term infrastructure contract) LTIC-
type PPP evaluation picture, and they trust that it is
more or less representative. Out of 25 projects that
evaluated 52% of the projects have delivered a better
value for money (vfm), 36 % provided negative
results.
The Book entitled “Sharing innovative experiences:
Examples of Successful Private Public Partnerships”
published by UNDP in 2008, presented 23 varied
success experience of different developed and
developing countries in six sectors that includes:
Healthcare, Power, Public Buildings, Transportation,
Water/Wastewater Infrastructure and Environment.
Prabir and Seung-kuk (2001) reviewed the case of
‘Pusan port, South Korea’ and proposed PPP for
successful port restructuring and operations for other
developing countries. Stella and Elisavet (2006)
suggests that for urban regenerating in combination
with respecting the principle of sustainability, public-
private financing schemes have great potential. Local
government has to maintain its leading role in terms
of establishing and controlling the fulfillment of strict
specifications in the realization of urban regeneration
projects through PPPs.
Although “Urban Water Expansion, Cochabamba,
Bolivia and Water/Wastewater Improvements,
Manila, Philippines” these two project claimed as a
successful PPP by UNDP report, a wide spread
criticism we can observed regarding the projects at
different literature mostly pointing Bechtel
Incorporation. Bechtel was accounted for violating
contractual prohibition of price raise in Bolivia water
project in 1999 (Palast, Oppenheim, and MacGregor,
2003) and Bulgaria water concession project, and
Maynilad Water Manila, Philippines in 1997 (A.
Buffa et al, 2003).Many people lose their job during
the contract.(Public Citizen,2002). In November
2007, a report of ‘Food and Water Watch’ claimed
that Bechtel is accounted for hepatitis ‘A’ outbreak,
dirty and extremely poor service and the lack of
maintenance, investment, and expansion of the
service at Guayaquil, Ecuador Project. During 1999-
2002, The Bechtel Group Inc. gave US$1.3 million in
campaign contributions mostly to The Republican
Administration USA, and they awarded Bechtel, in
secret, contracts totaling US$1.03 billion for
reconstruction in Iraq. There was no request for
proposals to determine the most appropriate and cost
effective contractor; no public notice or opportunity
for public involvement in the decision; no
transparency. (S.Glain, 2003; A. Buffa et al, 2003).
Bechtel with Enron in the villainous Dabhol plant in
India, which many imagine was oiled by inducement,
failed after attempting to extort a price for electricity
24
of almost double the average available in the market
and more than triple the cheapest alternative at a rate
of return of 30 per cent. This rate can be compared to
the 3 per cent return state-owned power agencies aim
for in India. (Palast, Oppenheim, and MacGregor,
2003).
Enron was in the water business for only three years,
through an entity called ‘Azurix’ that it created in
1998, operated in Buenos Aires, Ghana and Canada-
was fined for frequent interruptions, releasing
untreated effluent, and exceeding allowed effluent
levels, suspicions of corruption , severe violations of
environmental law etc.(Public Citizen,2002).
Metronet represents a recent, and very big,
infrastructure PPP failure. It was divided into two
PPPs (BCV and SSL), the London underground P3s
are collectively known as ‘Metronet’ was a £15.7
billion P3, signed in 2003 and personally championed
by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon
Brown, collapsed in 2007. Various problems like
goal conflict, risk sharing and higher debt to equity
ratio prevail there. Most importantly, there existed
five giant equity participants as well as supplier of
the project who transfer their risk to another stand-
alone corporation owned by the other four equity
partners- make it harder to assign responsibility
(Vining and Boardman, 2008).
There exist many other examples of PPP failure
including Rio Light Company in Rio De Janeiro,
Brazil. Reports of corruption, fail to meet the public
interest, Job cut, price hike, cancellation of contract,
bribery, hearing, punishment etc. are common
phenomenon in not only private power sector but also
in water projects surfaced in Indonesia, India,
Pakistan, Uganda, Lesotho, Guinea, Argentina, South
Africa, Germany, Turkey, England, Czech Republic,
Hungary and Poland and Peru by renowned
companies working in PPP project around the World.
(Palast, Oppenheim, and MacGregor, 2003). Backer
(2003), sees Enron as a PPP, demonstrates the danger
of loosing control of public regulators over private
sector. Many transnational private utilities are larger
than most national economies (Beaulieu, 2003).
India’s unhappy experience with Enron and Bechtel
illustrates, the odds are much longer in the
developing world that public-private partnerships will
result in benefits to the public. (Oppenheim and
MacGregor, 2004). This stream of literature generally
indicates that partnerships are high-risk strategies,
particularly at the level of implementation; however,
the advantages and/or mutual benefits, when
successful, by far outweigh the risks involved
(Hagen, 2002; Horton, 1998).
Critical Factors of Public Private Partnership
Development
Ibrahim, Price and Dainty (2006) identified sixty-one
PPP risk factors from literature and classified into
exogenous and endogenous risks. They focused on
three most important PPP risk factors in Nigeria,
that’s are “unstable government”, “inadequate
experience in PPP” and “availability of finance” that
are most relevant to Bangladesh perspective. Those
critical factors are related to development and
implementation of PPP. Those factors are given
bellow along with the researchers.
25
Table 5 : Critical PPP Development factors
Factors Researcher(s)
Institutionalization, Integrity Kanter, 1994
Regulatory Framework Di Lodovico, 1998;Pongsiri, 2002; Zouggari, 2002;
Baker 2003
Establishing a jurisdictional PPP/P3 constitution,
Separate the analysis, evaluation, contracting/
administrating and oversight agencies, Arbitration
procedure, careful selection of project, avoid stand alone
private sector with limited equity
Vining and Boardman, 2008
Competitive bidding / competitive tender Vining and Boardman, 2008; Esther Cheung, Albert P.C.
Chan, Stephen Kajewski, 2009
Resource dependency (hostage taking), common goal,
Alignment of cooperation and learning capability
Samii et al.,2002
Compatibility , capability of partners Hagen, 2002
Commitment symmetry Samii et al.,2002 ; Hagen, 2002 ; Carol Jacobson & Sang
Ok Choi ,2008
Purpose of the partnership, Compromise and Trust ,
Clear boundaries, measureable output performance and
transparency, Reporting and record keeping, Central
administration with private expertise, Environment ,
safety and health responsibility, Monopolistic situation
Wallin, 1997; Savas, 2000; Roseneau,2000; Widdus,
2001; Nijkamp et al., 2002; Spackman, 2002; Scharle,
2002; Sussex, 2003;Zouggari, 2003; Jamali,2004
Intense communication between parties and stakeholders Kanter, 1994;Samii et al.,2002; Carol Jacobson & Sang
Ok Choi ,2008
Respect , Political and community support, expert advice
and review, Risk awareness, Clear roles and
responsibilities
Carol Jacobson & Sang Ok Choi ,2008
Efficient risk allocation, several risk analysis techniques Esther Cheung, Albert P.C. Chan, Stephen Kajewski,
2009 ; Jamali,2004
Management skill of Private , output-based
specification; competitive tender; and private sector
technical innovation
Esther Cheung, Albert P.C. Chan, Stephen Kajewski,
2009
Specific plan /vision of all costs , revenues and
profitability
Carol Jacobson & Sang Ok Choi ,2008; Jamali,2004
Maintain involvement of new government role as partner
as well as regulator to ensure accountability , effective
cost shifting etc.
Spackman, 2002
Source: Constructed by authors
26
Public Private Partnership in Bangladesh:
Though not so rich, Bangladesh has experiences of
PPP, especially in respect of the scope and diversity
of Non-Government Organization (NGO) activities in
social services. (Bhattacharya, Rahman, 2010). But
the scenario of PPP in primary project is not up to
required level. The Government through its national
budget FY 2009-10 introduced the concept of PPP
budget and the new industrial policy 2010 also
reflects the government’s intention for rapid
industrialization through Public Private Partnerships
(Bhattacharya, Iqbal & Khan, 2009). Implementation
and funding of infrastructure development projects is
a long drawn process and investment risk is much
higher, the investment is not, in many cases,
commercially viable (Hodge and Greve, 2009). As a
heavily populated country with a population of
around 150 million living on a land area of 147570
square kilometer, Bangladesh’s economy is
dependent mainly on agriculture, which accounts for
around 18.43% of GDP, but provides employment to
as much as 47.3% of the country’s labor force
(Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, 2010). Due to
unfavorable land-man ratio and the under-developed
state of the country’s agriculture sector, the key to the
generation of productive employment lies in strong
economic growth through the structural
transformation of the economy away from agriculture
and toward industry (Bhuyan, 2005). There are three
major options for infrastructure delivery (although
each has many variations): direct public provision,
contracting-out (i.e., design, build, transfer), or
public–private partnerships (P3s) (Vining and
Boardman, 2008). A new way for Bangladesh need to
improve for its infrastructure development keeping in
mind the government’s low capability to finance its
immediate infrastructure like power, health, energy
etc. And public-private partnerships (PPP) may be a
solution basing on the experience of foreign
countries.
Indeed, Bangladesh has a very few PPP projects in all
the primary sectors. Projects include 38 Greenfield
projects, 5 management or lease contracts and 3
divestitures containing almost 46 projects dating
from 1990 to 2011. The snapshot of are given
(table:6) bellow-
Table 6 : Infrastructure projects in Bangladesh under Public –Private
initiative (PFI) during 1990-2011
Sector Sub-Sector Number of Projects Total
Investment
(US$ million)
Energy Electricity 28 1,688
Natural Gas 1 31
Total Energy 29 (Green field 26,
Divestiture 3 )
1,719
Telecom Telecom 12 6,593
Total Telecom 12 (Greenfield 12) 6,593
Transport Airports 1 0
27
Roads 2 0
Seaports 2 0
Total Transport 5 (Management
Contracts 5 )
0
Water
and
Sewerage
- - -
Total 46 8,312
Source: World Bank PPI database, 2013
It is difficult to attract private investment in all
projects. Through the Public-Private Partnership
(PPP) initiatives, a recently introduced innovative
scheme, government involves the private sector to
meet the probable investment gap in infrastructure
development, especially power and energy;
telecommunication and port development have been
given the highest priority, which will provide a boost
to every sector of the economy Using some proven
schemes such as Public Private Partnership
(PPP/P3’s) to provide the basic infrastructure is
essential for countries like Bangladesh to generate
required investment to meet the millennium
development goals (Mamun & Islam, 2010). As small
taxing powers against GDP (10%, 2008-2012),
(World Bank, 2013) and inefficient scale in both
technical expertise and risk assessment, Government
of Bangladesh requires minimizing the infrastructure
deficit where P3 can be a significant alternative.
On the other hand, Tillmann, Robert and Wang
(2007) compared the levels of perceived risks versus
the PPP opportunities and show that while Cambodia,
Bangladesh, and Pakistan are perceived most risky
and promising least PPP opportunities, Indonesia,
China, India, and Thailand are also perceived
relatively risky put promise comparatively high-PPP
opportunities. The least exposed to political risks are
the matured economies of Korea, Japan and
Singapore and they rank middle regarding PPP
opportunities.
PPP activities/Infrastructure in Bangladesh:
The Infrastructure Investment Facilitation Center
(IIFC) was established in 1999 to promote and
facilitate private sector participation in infrastructure
in Bangladesh. IIFC was established to have a policy
role and a transaction advisory role, and to advise
both the public and private sectors. Another
institution, the Infrastructure Development Company
Ltd (IDCOL) was established concurrently with IIFC
to provide government debt financing for
infrastructure projects. IIFC and IDCOL are
government-owned, limited liability companies. They
were established with financial support from The
World Bank, and other donors. IIFC, in particular,
received support in the form of consulting services
sponsored by the Canadian International
Development Agency (CIDA), and Department for
International Development (DfID), UK support
(World Bank ,2009).
28
Table 7: PPP activities/Infrastructure in Bangladesh
Year PPP activities/Infrastructure
1996 Private sector power generation Policy (PSPG)
1997 Infrastructure Development Company Ltd (IDCOL)
1999 Infrastructure Investment Facilitation Center (IIFC)
2004 Private Sector Infrastructure Guidelines (PSIG)
2007 Investment Promotion and Financing Facility (IPFF)
2008 Policy to promote private sector participation in power sector
2009 Invigorating Investment Initiative Through Public-Private
Partnership
2009-
10
Public Private Partnership Budget
2010 Public Private Partnership Office (PPPO)
2010 Policy and Strategy for Public-Private Partnership (PPP)
2011 Bangladesh Infrastructure Finance Fund Limited (BIFFL)
2012 PPP Technical assistance financing (PPPTAF)
2012 Guidelines for Viability Gap Financing (VGF) of PPP
2013 Ministry of Finance PPP unit
Source: Bangladesh Ministry of Finance, 2009; Bangladesh PPP Office, 2013
Although these initiatives have been successful in
financing and implementing a few small scale
infrastructure development projects, they are not
sufficient to cater to the requirements and potential of
the country. There exist several contradictions in the
Bangladesh industrial policy 2010 with government
intention to involve private sector. It recognizes the
role of a vibrant private sector in industrial growth,
but on the other hand it plans to go ahead with state
owned enterprises (SOEs) and calls for raising their
profitability. Government should not therefore get
involved in running businesses. Its role should be that
of a facilitator instead. It is common knowledge that
a market economy cannot thrive if there is a large
presence of SOEs. The large amounts of accumulated
defaulted loans now in the state-owned banks are
because of the presence of the public sector in the
operation and management of industries. A lot of bad
debt was created in the decade of the 1980s in the
name of rescuing the ailing jute industry. At the
moment, too, there is an official move to forgive the
defaulted loans in the name of reviving the jute
industry. It is learnt that in the Agrani Bank alone,
government has submitted a proposal to forgive
defaulted loan worth Taka 1 crore. Given the
continuing operating losses of SOEs, discarding the
principle of divesting the loss-making SOEs just for
purpose of protecting jobs is fraught with the danger
of increasing the number of sick industries. A proper
solution of the problem of the ailing SOEs is their
outright privatization. (Bhuyan, 2011).
Presently Bangladesh use PPP models include Build-
Own-Operate (BOO), Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT),
and Build-Own-Operate-Transfer (BOOT) under
large, medium and small PPP categories as shown in
table-8 with special reference to their policies and
strategies.
29
Table 8 : Comparison among the Large ,medium and small PPP’s related policies and strategies of Bangladesh
Phase Required weeks
Large Project
( Above BDT 2.5 Billion )
Medium Project (Between
BDT 2.5 billion-BDT 500
million)
Small Project (Below BDT
500 million )
Project
Identification
On-going On-going On-going
In-principle
Approval
2⎯4 weeks 2⎯4 weeks 2⎯4 weeks
Feasibility Study 8⎯20 weeks 6⎯12 weeks 4⎯8 weeks
Request for
Qualification
4⎯8 weeks 4⎯8 weeks -
Request for
Proposal (RFQ),
8⎯12 weeks 6⎯10 weeks 4⎯8 weeks
Negotiation and
Contract award
4⎯8 weeks 4⎯8 weeks 4⎯8 weeks
Other Comparisons
Project
Identification by
Line Ministry, Implementing
Agency, Office of PPP (PPPO)
Private Investor
Line Ministry, Implementing
Agency, Office of PPP
(PPPO) Private Investor
Line Ministry, statutory
authorities and other entities
under its administrative
control; Implementing
Agency, Office of PPP
(PPPO) ,Private Investor
Pre-Feasibility
Study
Pre-Feasibility Study by PPPO
for each project
Pre-Feasibility Study by
PPPO for each project
Private investor may submit
unsolicited proposal with
Pre-Feasibility Study by
Unsolicited
proposal
If the RFQ is based on an
unsolicited proposal the
initiator of the said proposal
will be treated as automatically
pre-qualified.
If the RFQ is based on an
unsolicited proposal the
initiator of the said proposal
will be treated as
automatically pre-qualified.
No need to call for RFQ.
Line ministry and
implementing agency
directly issues RFP.
In-principle
approval by
Cabinet Committee on
Economic Affairs (CCEA)
Cabinet Committee on
Economic Affairs (CCEA)
Line minister
Request for
qualification
requirement
Line Ministry/implementing
agency calls for RFQ.
Line Ministry/ implementing
agency calls for RFQ.
The line Ministry/
implementing agency issues
RFP, with appropriate
modifications by the Office
for PPP, if required, to the
30
shortlisted private investors.
No need to call for RFQ.
Technical
effectiveness
The relevant Qualification and
Tender Evaluation Committee
(QTEC) evaluates the
investors’ proposals based on
the technical responsiveness
criteria and screens out the
non-responsive proposals.
The relevant Qualification
and Tender Evaluation
Committee (QTEC)
evaluates the investors’
proposals based on the
technical responsiveness
criteria and screens out the
non-responsive proposals
.The private investor, whose
proposal went for RFP,
qualifies automatically for
technical responsiveness.
The relevant Qualification
and Tender Evaluation
Committee (QTEC)
evaluates the investors’
proposals based on the
technical responsiveness
criteria and screens out the
non-responsive proposals
.The private investor, whose
proposal went for RFP,
qualifies automatically for
technical responsiveness.
After vetting by
Legislative and
Parliamentary
Affairs Division
line ministry/
implementing
agency seeks
approval of
Cabinet Committee on
Economic Affairs (CCEA)
Finance minister Line Minister
Final approval by Cabinet Committee on
Economic Affairs (CCEA)
Finance Minister Line minister
Source: PPP documents, 2010, Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh
The relationship among Office of PPP (PPPO),
Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA),
Parliamentary Affairs Division (PADs), line ministry/
implementing agency are complex, bureaucratic and
sometimes vague. Most critical part of a PPP
documents (Detailed feasibility study, Request for
qualification, request for proposal etc.) is to be
written by consultant, but their selection requirements
is not clearly mentioned at the policy and strategy
paper 2010.
Few Infrastructure related projects Bangladesh has
taken under PPP are: Grameen Phone Network
Expansion Project, Pacific Telecom Network
Expansion Project, Ranks Tel PSTN Project, DNS
Satcomm Satellite Earth Station Project, BanglaTrac
International Communication Gateway Project, M &
H Telecom Interconnection Exchange Project, and
Shoanchalok ICT Programme (Hasan, 2012). Their
service and performance are yet to evaluate. Some
other PPP projects in Bangladesh include-
Automation of Railway reservation and Ticketing
System, Land records, Higher educational institution
admission, Results of public examination , Foreign
and local investment related information,
Government forms, and Payment of utility bills.
31
Among the identified services, results of public
exams, government forms and payment of utility bills
were implemented successfully and scaled up.
A latest PPP project, Build-Own-Operate and
Transfer (BOOT) model, without GOB Finance
‘Chittagong Custom House Automation Project’
partnering with ‘Data-soft’ to double the revenue, to
reduce cost of doing Business by at least 70% , to
save customs processing time by 80% has taken by
Bangladesh (Hossain, Deb, & Al Amin,2009).
Because of successful automation solutions provided
by DataSoft, the 42 steps lengthy process has been
curtail to only 6 steps, bill of entry cost reduced BDT
180 to BDT 50, Cargo Handling, Auction, Banking
everything came under the automatic solutions.
Stakeholders including BGMEA, Importer &
Exporter, Off Dock, EPZ, Shipping Agents, NBR,
Custom Intelligence, Custom Bond, Freight
Forwarders, Navy, C & F Agents, PSI and all other
related stakeholders have came under the system of
Chittagong Custom House Automation Project
(Datasoft,2013).
Problems of Public private partnership development
in Bangladesh are varied. Government has taken
huge initiatives and budgets. But there exist lack of
harmony, strong political will, political stability,
private sectors awareness, transparency, law and
order situation, social awareness regarding their
demand ,right & democracy and private sectors
intentions of taking risk etc. that impede the way
forward to reduce the infrastructure gap. From the
beginning the Padma bridge negotiation has been
involved to corruption and conspiracy. The World
Bank stated that they found, "credible evidence
corroborated by a variety of sources which points to a
high-level corruption conspiracy among Bangladeshi
government officials, SNC-Lavalin executives, and
private individuals in connection with the Padma
Multipurpose Bridge Project (World Bank, 2012).
For the corruption, the World Bank turned down to
sanction the proposed loan for constructing the
bridge. In these circumstances World Bank imposed
some conditions to continue the loan talk with the
government. Bhuyan, (2011) proposes transparent
mechanism and well-defined rules for participating in
and mobilizing funds for the PPP projects by
commercial banks, specialized financial institutions,
and international financial institutions to extend
credit on easier credit terms and a healthy capital
market. Figure-1 depicts a flow chart of PPP project
development in Bangladesh from the data of Policy
and Strategy for Public-Private Partnership, 2010.
32
Figure 1: PPP process in Bangladesh
Source: Constructed by Authors
Phase # 01: Project Identification (On going) by
line ministry, office of PPP, private investor
Output of Request for Qualification (Evaluation report of short listed investors)
Phase # 02: In-principle Approval of PPP
project by CCEA
Output of Project Identification phase, (Both
Solicited and Unsolicited) pre-feasibility report
Stage: 02 Requests for Proposal
Stage: 01 Project Identification,
Formulation, Appraisal and Approval
Output of In-principle Approval of PPP project
(total in-principle approval list)
Phase # 03: Feasibility Study and Preparation of
documents by consultant panel, finance division
or Independent bidding process
Phase # 04: Request for Qualification (RFQ) by
line ministry, implementing agency, QTEC
Output of Feasibility Study and Preparation of
documents
Phase # 05: Line ministry/ implementing agency
call for Request for Proposal (RFQ), shortlisted by
QTEC
Output of Monitoring and Evaluation
Periodic progress report by OPPP
Monitoring and Evaluation report by line
ministry/implementing agency
Stage: 04 Monitoring and Evaluation
By line ministry/implementing agency and reports to office
of PPP taking key performance indicators as standard
Office of the PPP monitor compliance and reports to CCEA
Principal Secretary, office of PPP and relevant ministry
resolve complexities etc.
Output of Request for Proposal (Evaluation report
containing shortlisted investors)
Phase # 06: Stage: 03 Negotiation and Contract award
Line ministry/ implementing agency negotiates with selected
bidder and send it for parliamentary affairs division (PAD)
for vetting
after vetting, seek approval from CCEA
after approval Signs the contract by line
ministry/implementing agency
Output of Negotiation and Contract award
Vetting by parliamentary affairs division (PAD)
Final Approval by CCEA
Contract signed for implementation
33
Conclusion and Policy implications
In conclusion it can be said that there are many PPP
development and success factors identified by many
researchers (Ibrahim, Price and Dainty , 2006 ;Vining
and Boardman, 2008; Esther Cheung, Albert P.C.
Chan, Stephen Kajewski, 2009; Di Lodovico,
1998;Pongsiri, 2002; Zouggari, 2002; Baker 2003
Wallin, 1997; Savas, 2000; Roseneau,2000; Widdus,
2001; Nijkamp et al., 2002; Spackman, 2002;
Scharle, 2002; Sussex, 2003;Zouggari, 2003; Jamali,
2004; Tillmann, Robert and Wang, 2007; Asia
Foundation , 2010) around the world out of which
many factors are also applicable to Bangladesh. That
includes but not limited to : (i) Hearty consultations
between the Public and private sector to start direct
dialogue on PPP, and to work out the specific issues
and recommendations, and operational implications
(ii) The operational mechanisms and procedural
guidelines should be worked out properly (iii) Legal
and regulatory issues in relation to PPP should be
sorted out (iv) Ensure effective representation of the
private sector in the PPP committees including the
Advisory Committee (v) Conduct policy research and
analysis on PPP issues and make recommendations
for reform, and craft a PPP roadmap to be adopted by
the public and the private sector (vi) Ensure policies
and laws to enable PPP projects to continue
irrespective of changes in the political regime in the
country (vii) Avoid stand-alone private company and
make sure the proper allocation of risks among
parties (viii) Include different strategic partner like
The World Bank that may attract other development
partner of Bangladesh and give a favorable
environment for local private partners (ix) Activate a
proper stand against all sorts of Corruption &
nepotism and ensure transparent competitive bidding
process (x) Integrate Corporate social responsibility
(CSR) fund of private and Annual Development
Program (ADP) Budget of Government to create a
non-profit ( social) PPP project –that may
development the PPP environment. (xi) Convene a
forum on PPP with participants from the private
sector, donors and civil society The scope of work of
the forum should include: (a) Promoting PPP in the
identified priority areas; (b) Assisting the government
in promoting good governance in PPP through open,
transparent, and participatory processes; (c) Assisting
the government in jumpstarting effective
implementation of five to six priority PPP projects
within the next six months in line with the PPP
guidelines; (d) Assisting the government in taking
forward necessary policy reform to promote effective
PPP; and (e) Assisting the government's PPP Unit in
developing a pipeline of bankable projects.
In fact, there is no single PPP model rather various
types of arrangements varying with regard to legal
status, governance, management, policy-setting
prerogatives, contributions and operational roles. For
the success, PPPs must begin with careful
groundwork and preparation, including a
comprehensive feasibility study and economic
evaluation for each potential partnership project. In
this respect, Bangladesh Government needs to build
its legal and regulatory capacity to effectively foster
and participate in PPPs (Jamali, 2004). Bangladesh as
a new entrant in PPP model of infrastructure and
service delivery has to consider the consequences of
previous PPP efforts in many developed and
developing countries. Many large corporate has as
much strength and evil background as to be cautious
regarding negotiation and contract awarding.
Arbitration procedure also has to be predetermined
and included in the contract document in
comprehensive manner. A vast PPP campaign and
assurance of political risk is the first task for
Bangladesh to ensure the effective participation of
Private sector. Proper training and skill development
of the public officials is necessary in this regard. A
centralized, corruption free, transparent and
competent PPP authority is compulsory for the
34
ultimate infrastructure and service delivery through
PPP in Bangladesh. During the last 14 years
Bangladesh has developed many PPP policy paper,
but now this is time to develop a concrete single PPP
handbook that will facilitate all the PPP stakeholders.
Application of PPP model for developing
infrastructure of Bangladesh is in beginner level. So,
Bangladesh has an opportunity to grab late-mover
advantage here. Research works in this area in
Bangladesh context is relatively few and not well
addressed. Particular country issues need to be
focused more explicitly for Bangladesh. So, this is
an appropriate time to integrate the world experience
and apply such learning for the PPP development of
Bangladesh.
References:
Altshuler, A., & Luberoff, D. (2003). “Mega-
projects: The changing politics of urban
public Investment”. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
Bagchi, P. K., Paik, S., (2001), “The role of public-
private partnership in port information
systems development”, The International
Journal of Public sector Management,
Volume-14, No.- 6, pp-482-499
Baker, C. R. (2003), “Investigating Enron as a public
private partnership”, Accounting Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Volume-16 No.3,
pp.446-66.
Bangladesh Gadget, 2010, “Policy and Strategy for
Public-Private Partnership (PPP), 2010,
Retrieved from
http://www.mof.gov.bd/en/budget/09_10/pp
p/PPP%20Policy%20and%20Guidelines.pdf
, on 11 June, 2013.
Barlow, J. Roehrich, Roehrich, J.K., and Wright, S.
(2010). De facto privatization or a renewed
role for the EU? Paying for Europe’s
healthcare infrastructure in a recession.
Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine.
103:51-55.
Bhattacharya, D., & Rahman, M. (2010, October).
Delivering Social Infrastructure Through
PPP: The Role of Non-Profit Organisation.
In Presentation of the Centre for Policy
Dialogue at the OECD Global Forum on
Development, Paris (pp. 10-12).
Bhattacharya, D., Iqbal, M. A., & Khan, T. I. (2009).
Delivering on budget FY2009-10: a set of
implementation issues. Centre for Policy
Dialogue.
Bhuyan, A.R. (2005), “Industrial Policy in
Bangladesh: A Survey”. Thoughts on
Economics, Volume- 15, Issue- 3.
Bhuyan, A.R. (2011), “Bangladesh Industrial Policy
2010: A Critical Appraisal”. Thoughts on
Economics, Volume- 20, No. 03
Broadbent, J and Laughlin, R (2003), “Public Private
Partnerships: an introduction”, Accounting
Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Volume--16 Issue- 3, pp.332-41.
Budget FY 2010-11: 1st Quarter (July –September)
Report on Progress of Implementation,
Trends of Income and Expenditure and
Macroeconomic Analysis. Finance Division,
Ministry of Finance. Government of the
Peoples' Republic of Bangladesh, Retrieved
from
http://www.mof.gov.bd/en/budget/me/mes_e
n_july_sep_10_1.pdf on 20 June, 2013
Challenges and opportunities facing public utilities.
International Labor Organization, (2003).
Retrieved from
http://www.ilo.org/public/libdoc/ilo/2003/10
3B09_48_engl.pdf on June 21, 2013
Cheung, E., Chan, A. P.C., Kajewski, S., (2009)
"Enhancing value for money in public
private partnership projects: Findings from a
survey conducted in Hong Kong and
35
Australia compared to findings from
previous research in the UK", Journal of
Financial Management of Property and
Construction, Volume- 14 Iss: 1, pp.7 – 20.
Clifton, C., & Duffield, C. F. (2006). “Improved
PFI/PPP service outcomes through the
integration of Alliance principles”.
International Journal of Project
Management, Volume- 24 Issue- 7, 573-586.
English, L. M., & Guthrie, J. (2003). Driving
privately financed projects in Australia:
what makes them tick?. Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, 16(3),
493-511.
Enron: History of Human Rights Abuse in India.
Human Rights Watch (2002), Retrieved
from
http://www.hrw.org/news/2002/01/22/enron-
history-human-rights-abuse-india on June
21, 2013
Esq, J. O., & MacGregor, T. (2004). Democracy and
public-private partnerships. Retrieved from
http://democracyandregulation.com/attachm
ents/88/PPP_ILO_wp213%5B1%5D.pdf on
June 20 , 2013
Exchange, G., & Citizen, P. (2003). Bechtel:
Profiting from Destruction. Retrieved from
http://www.congresswatchdog.org/document
s/profilebechtel.pdf on June 20, 2013
Food and Water Watch, (2007). “Bechtel Profits from
Dirty Water in Guayaquil, Ecuador”,
http://ciel.org/Publications/MurkyWaters_B
ackground_15Apr08.pdf
Glambotskaya, A., Rakova, E., Shymanovich, G., &
Tochitskaya, I. (2010). Belarus
Infrastructure Monitoring (BIM).
Grimsey, D. and Lewis, M. (2002), “Evaluating the
risks of public private partnerships for
infrastructure projects”, International
Journal of Project Management, Volume-
20, pp.107-18.
Hassan, M. R. (2012), “PPP in Bangladesh: Reality
and Prospect”, ASA University Review,
Volume- 6, Issue- 1.
Hodge, G. A. and Greve, C. (2009) , “PPPs : The
passage of time permits a sober reflection”,
Institute of Economic Affairs. Blackwell
Publishing, Oxford.
Hodge, G. A., & Greve, C. (2007). Public–private
partnerships: an international performance
review. Public Administration Review,
67(3), 545-558.
Hodge, G. A., & Greve, C. (2005). The challenge of
public-private partnerships: Learning from
international experience. Edward Elgar Pub.
Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all
seasons? . Public administration, 69(1), 3-
19.
Hood, C (1995), “The new Public Management in the
1980s: Variations on a theme”, Accounting
Organizations and society, Volume- 20,
Issue- 2/3, pp.93-119
Hossain, S. S., Deb, U., & Al Amin, M. (2009).
Impact of information technology in trade
facilitation on small and medium-sized
enterprises in Bangladesh.
http://www.datasoft-bd.com/section-table Retrieved
as on June 20, 2013
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.TAX.TOTL.
GD.ZS , Retrieved on June 21, 2013
Ibrahim A. D., Price A. D. F., Dainty A. R. J., (2006)
"The analysis and allocation of risks in
public private partnerships in infrastructure
projects in Nigeria", Journal of Financial
Management of Property and Construction,
Volume- 11, Issue- 3, pp: 149 – 164
Invigorating Investment Initiative through Public
Private Partnership: A Position Paper,
(2009). Finance Division, Ministry of
36
Finance. Government of the Peoples'
Republic of Bangladesh .Retrieved from
www.mof.gov.bd on 20 June, 2013.
Jacobson, C., Choi, S. O., (2008) "Success factors:
public works and public-privat
partnerships", International Journal of Public
Sector Management, Volume- 21 Issue- 6,
pp. 637– 657.
Jamali, D., (2007). "A study of customer satisfaction
in the context of a public private
partnership", International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management,
Volume- 24 Issue- 4, pp.370 – 385
Jamali, D. (2004), “Success and failure mechanisms
of public private partnerships in developing
countries: insights from the Lebanese
context”, The International Journal of Public
Sector Management, Volume- 17 Issue- 5,
pp. 414-30.
Jefferies, M. and McGeorge, D. (2008), “Public-
private partnerships: a critical review of risk
management in Australian social
infrastructure projects”, Journal of
Construction Procurement, Volume- 14,
Issue- 1, pp. 66-80.
Jiménez, A., and Pasquero, J., (2005) "Explaining the
Endurance of a Permanently Challenged
Public-Private Partnership: A Stakeholder
Approach", Management Research: The
Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of
Management, Volume- 3 Iss: 1, pp.49 – 61.
Kyvelou S. and Karaiskou E., (2006) "Urban
development through PPPs in the Euro-
Mediterranean region", Management of
Environmental Quality: An International
Journal, Volume- 17 Iss: 5, pp.599 – 610.
Labour Force Survey, (2010). Bangladesh Bureau of
Statistics. Retrived from
http://www.bbs.gov.bd/webtestapplication/u
serfiles/image/keyfinding/Labour%20Force
%20Survey%202010.pdf on 01 June 2013.
Lane, M. and Gardiner, J., (2003). Risk management
and Insurance issues. In: Public Private
Partnerships – a review of key issues,
European Construction Institute, pp. 61-70.
(2005)
Lewis, M. (2002), “Risk management in Public
private partnership”, Working paper. School
of International Business, University of
South Australia.
Linder, S. (1999) ‘Coming to Terms with the Public–
Private Partnership: A Grammar of Multiple
Meanings’, American Behavioral Scientist,
Volumn- 43, Issue- 1, pp: 35–51.
Little, R. G., (2011). “The Emerging Role of Public–
Private Partnerships in Megaproject
Delivery”, Public Works Management &
Policy, Volume- 16, Issue- 3, pp.- 240–249
Mamun, A. & Islam, S., (2010), “Investment Pattern
for Required Economic Growth to Achieve
Poverty Reduction Targets”, The Cost and
Management, Volume 38, Issue- 5, pp 29-
31.
Mitchell-Weaver, C. and Manning, B. (1991),
“Public private partnerships in third world
development: a conceptual overview”,
Studies in Comparative International
Development, Volume- 26 No. 4, pp. 45-67.
Newberry, S. and Pallot, J. (2003), “Fiscal
(ir)responsibility :privileging PPPs in New
Zealand”, Accounting Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Volume-16 No.3,
pp.467-92.
Nijkamp, P., van der Burch, M. and Vindigni, G.
(2002), “Comparative institutional
evaluation of public-private partnerships in
Dutch urban land-use and revitalization
projects”, Urban Studies, Volume- 39 No.
10, pp. 1865-80.
37
Palast, G., Oppenheim, J., and MacGregor, T.,
(2003). “Democracy and regulation: How
the Public Can Govern Essential Services”,
Pluto Press, London and Virginia.
Policy and strategy for Public-private partnership
(PPP), 2010, Bangladesh Gadget. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.pppo.gov.bd/download/ppp
_office/Policy-Strategy-for-PPP,
Aug2010.pdf on May 5, 2013
Pongsiri, N. (2002), “Regulation and public private
partnerships”, The International Journal of
Public Sector Management, Volume- 15 No.
6, pp. 487-95.
Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects
Database, Mailstop MC4 419, 1818 H St.
NW, Washington, DC20433 © 2012 The
World Bank Group, Retrieved from
http://ppi.worldbank.org/
explore/ppi_explore On May13, 2013
Promoting Public-Private Partnership in Bangladesh:
A Brief Guide to Partners, (2010). Asia
Foundation, Dhaka , Bangladesh.
Public Citizen, 2002, “Liquid Assets: Enron’s Dip
into Water Business Highlights Pitfalls of
Privatization”, Retrieved from
http://www.citizen.org/documents/
LiquidAssets.pdf. on May 5 , 2013
Public Citizen, 2003, “Fiascos: Manila, Philippines”,
Retrieved from
http://www.citizenarchive.org/print_article.c
fm?ID=9209 on May 5, 2013
Public Private Partnership Office Bangladesh, (2013),
retrieved from
http://www.pppo.gov.bd/index.php on May
11, 2013
Public-Private Partnership Units: Lessons for their
Design and Use in Infrastructure. World
Bank, (2007). Retrieved from
“http://www.iritm.indianrailways.gov.in/
uploads/files/1365143498807-
1%20PPP%20An%20Overview%20World
%20Bank.pdf on May 20, 2013
Ravindran, T. S. (2002). Health sector reform and
public-private partnerships for health in
Asia: Implications for sexual and
reproductive health services. Johannesburg:
Women’s Health Project, School of Public
Health, University of the Witwatersrand.
Sachs, T., Tiong R. and Wang S. Q. (2007),
“Analysis of political risks and opportunities
in public private partnerships (PPP) in China
and selected Asian countries”, Chinese
Management Studies, Volume- 1, No. 2,
2007 pp. 126-148.
Sciulli, N. (2008), “Public private partnerships: an
exploratory study in health care”, Asian
Review of Accounting, Volume- 16, No. 1,
pp. 21-38.
Sharing Innovative Experience: Examples of
Successful Public-Private Partnership.
United Nations Development Program,
(2008), Volume-15, Retrieved from
http://ssc.undp.org/content/ssc/library/public
ations/books/sharinginnovativeexperiences/
SharingInnovativeExperiences15.html on
May 11, 2013
Spackman, Michael, (2002), “Public-private
partnerships: lessons from the British
approach”, Economic Systems, Volume- 26,
pp. 283-301.
Stephen J. Glain, Globe Staff. "BECHTEL WINS
PACT TO HELP REBUILD IRAQ
CLOSED-BID DEAL COULD TOTAL
$680M." The Boston Globe (Boston, MA).
The New York Times Company. 2003.
Retrieved June 22, 2013 from HighBeam
Research:
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-
7779537.html
38
Sussex, J. (2003), “Public-private partnerships in
hospital development: lessons from the
UK’s private finance initiative”, Research in
Health-care Financial Management,
Volume- 8 No. 1, pp. 59-76.
The Enron Corp. /Corporate Complicity in Human
Rights Violations. Human Rights Watch,
(1999), Retrieved from
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/enron/ as
on June 21, 2013
Thomson, C. C. (2005),“ Private-public partnerships:
Prerequisites for prim performance”, EIB
Papers, Volume- 10, Issue- 2, pp. 113-129.
Torres, L. and Pina, V., (2001). “Public-private
partnership and private finance initiatives in
the EU and Spanish local governments”,
The European Accounting Review, Volume-
10, No. 3, pp. 601-19.
Unit, E. (2003). Case Summary: University College
London Hospital (UCLH) Redevelopment–
Improving the Standard of Healthcare by
Public Private Partnership.
Vining, A. R., & Boardman, A. E., (2008). “Public–
private partnerships: Eight rules for
governments”. Public Works Management
& Policy, 13, 149-161.
Wallin, B.A., (1997). “The need for a privatization
process: lessons from development and
implementation”, Public Administration
Review, Volume- 57 No. 1, pp. 11-20.
Wettenhall, R., (2003). ‘The Rhetoric and Reality of
Public–Private Partnerships’, Public
Organisation Review: A Global Journal,
Volume- 3, Issue- 1, pp. 77–107.
Widdus, R. (2001). “Public private partnerships for
health: their main targets, their diversity and
their future directions”, Bulletin of the
World Health Organization, Volume- 79 No.
4, pp. 713-20.
World Bank Statement on Padma Bridge. World
Bank, (2012) , Retrieved from
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-
release/2012/06/29/world-bank-statement-
padma-bridge on June 21, 2013
Zarco-Jasso, H. (2005) ‘Public–Private Partnerships:
A Multidimensional Model for Contracting’,
International Journal of Public Policy,
Volune- 1, Issue- 1/2, pp. 22–40.
top related