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.