Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Now smart Cities for unsmart people as without infrastructure, an economy cannot grow!

Now smart Cities for unsmart people  as without infrastructure, an economy cannot grow!
Troubled Galaxy Destroyed Dreams, Chapter: 805
Palash Biswas

Reforms to boost infrastructure! Reforms to help pumping in private investment in private public partnership. No politician has ever dared to oppose, not even FDI crusaders like Ms Mamata Banerjee!The government has given more time to as many as 18 SEZ developers, including Tata Consultancy and G P Realtors to execute their projects.The Finance Ministry will soon finalise the Cabinet note to put in place the Infrastructure Debt Fund (IDF) with a view to accelerating flow of long-term funds for infrastructure projects. The IDF, which was proposed in the Union Budget for 2011-12 fiscal, is aimed at accelerating and enhancing flow of long term debt for funding the ambitious programme of infrastructure development in the country. The requirement of infrastructure fund in the 12th Plan (2012-17) has been pegged at USD 1 trillion. The IDF will help in meeting the funding requirement of infrastructure sector wherein banks are constrained by their exposure limit to a company or a project. According to sources the IDF would be based on a tripartite agreement between developer, lender (bank) and the IDF. The loans by the banks would be refinanced by the IDF so that banks have free funds for more lending.An IDF may be set up either as a trust or company... A trust based IDF (Mutual Fund) would be regulated by Sebi, while an IDF set up as a company (NBFC) would be regulated by the RBI.

Now smart Cities for unsmart people  as without infrastructure, an economy cannot grow! Industry and services cannot expand without highways, electricity, ports and airports, rail links and pipelines. The 12th Plan (2012-17) projects infrastructure investment of a trillion dollars. That is why,Government is planning to develop two "smart" cities with a host of modern features like intelligent transport and carbon neutral status in each of the states in the second phase of the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal mission. The government claims India is a global leader in public-private partnerships in infrastructure. The private sector financed 36% of infrastructure in the 11th Plan (2007-12), and is expected to finance fully 50% in the 12th Plan. This is now a pie in the sky. Corporations that charged into this sector have suffered heavy losses. They expected a gold mine, but found only quicksand. They have been hit by financially disastrous time and cost overruns.  Master Plan 2021 is proposed to be amended for allowing development of influence zones spread over 500 metres on either side of the Metro corridors and all transport corridors. Easing of coverage and height restrictions that will allow Delhi Metro Rail Corporation to build properties with enhanced floor area ratio (FAR) has also been proposed. The influence zone is aimed at carving out a mix of residential, commercial and public utilities along an MRTS corridor.




What about your anti corruption camapign as  airports-to-power conglomerate GMR Group has warned that bringing public-private partnership (PPP) projects under the ambit of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and the Right to Information law could spell the death knell for private investments into infrastructure projects!Sidharath Kapur, chief financial officer (airports) at the GMR Group, said the current policy environment makes it difficult for the private sector to chip in with half of India's $1-trillion target for infrastructure investments over the next five years.

Unfazed by the strong opposition to allowing FDI in retail even from some allies, the government today made it clear that the decision will not be rolled back as it is in the interest of farmers and consumers.Addressing a group of farmers in New Delhi, Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma said foreign direct investment (FDI) in multi-brand retail trading will help farmers in getting good price for their produce besides creating lakhs of jobs.

"This decision is final. This decision will not be rolled-back. We are not afraid of anything. This decision is taken in the interest of the farmers and consumers," he told the farmers at the Congress headquarters.

A panel headed by tax expert Parthasarathi Shome has suggested interest and penalty should be waived in all cases where tax is collected, citing the controversial retrospective amendment of Section 9 of the Income Tax Act, boosting hopes of a settlement between Vodafone Plc and the tax authorities.The committee, which submitted a draft report to finance minister P Chidambaram on Monday, has also recommended exempting listed companies and internal restructuring of unlisted companies from the law's ambit, people familiar with the report's contents said.Chidambaram told ET in an interview published on Monday that the dispute with Vodafone had to be settled and he was waiting for the Shome committee's recommendations. "Do we resolve it through a settlement or through arbitration or litigation is a matter to be considered," he had said.American and Global Depositary Receipts, securities traded on overseas exchanges with Indian shares as the underlying asset, would be exempt from tax as would be participatory notes (PN), according to people familiar with the draft report. PNs are derivative instruments issued by foreign portfolio investors to overseas clients, again with Indian equities as the underlying. The amendment, part of the union budget, sought to tax so-called indirect transfers, essentially deals executed overseas in which substantial Indian assets change hands. The wide wording of the law - by some interpretations even sales of ADRs/GDRs could have come within its ambit, had alarmed investors.Economic Times reports.
underlying.
*

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/finance/shome-panels-suggestions-pave-way-for-settlement-in-vodafone-tax-issue/articleshow/16633512.cms

The BSE benchmark index Sensex is is likely to touch the crucial 20,000-mark in the near future with return of overseas investors and increased liquidity in global markets, according to a study by Assocham. Having witnessed a 7 per cent rise in September, the benchmark index is likely to rally in October, backed by strong liquidity flows and rupee appreciation. Second quarter earnings, reform push from the UPA government and declining crude oil prices will give a further boost to the markets, say analysts.

The study by the industry body expects banking, IT and FMCG to be frontline stocks. Real estate, automobile and consumer durables, which are sensitive to interest rates, would take some time to make a comeback, the study said.

The big uncertainty would, however, remain around infrastructure stocks since it would still take some time before the policy issues are thrashed out in power, road, ports and airports segments.

The USD 1 trillion infra story is yet to take off and the government needs to give a big push before any tangible results are seen, Assocham said.

Foreign institutional investors (FIIs) have poured in more than Rs 19,000 crore (USD 3.5 billion) in Indian stock markets last month, the highest monthly inflow in seven months.

The the Sensex closed at 18,823.91 level in the last trading session.

The recent initiatives by the government coincided with the quantitative easing of liquidity by the central banks in the US and Europe have aided strong capital inflows.

"On the other hand, the re-infusion of confidence by the domestic and foreign investors in the Indian economy was needed desperately in India which was coming under pressure from sharp depreciation of rupee and increasing current account deficit," Assocham President Rajkumar Dhoot said.

The study said as compared to other classes of assets -- gold and property-- the stock market has been a bad performer in last three years.

"While we often do this mistake of treating the stock market gains or losses notional, the setback in the market in the past three years had made life difficult not only for the retail and institutional investors but also the India Inc, which had to heavily depend on debt rather than equity.

"The situation seems to be improving for this class of assets as well, if the Indian government continues with reforms," the chamber said.

Infrastructure was historically funded almost entirely by the government. Cost overruns were endemic, averaging a phenomenal 61% back in 1991. These were financed by grabbing more taxes from the public or by printing money.However, these options are not available to corporations. Infrastructure requires heavy loans, often twice as much as equity. Such loans have a fixed repayment schedule. If a project is completed on time, revenue from the project will finance the repayments. But if there are delays of months or years, the project is squeezed badly. It's even worse if projects are unable to operate (such as 30,000 MW of power projects stranded without fuel) or suffer from sudden changes in environmental regulations (as in Hindustan Construction's Lavasa township) or from outright cancellations (as in the scam-ridden 2G telecom case).Times of india reports.Five years ago, investors were pouring money into infrastructure companies, and their share prices skyrocketed. Everybody thought these companies were entering a golden period. This included politicians, who demanded huge kickbacks (the 2G scam is only the tip of the iceberg). The companies paid up, confident that their returns would justify kickbacks. Today they are in financial straits, and their stock market prices have crashed. GMR InfrastructureBSE 0.40 % (which runs Delhi and Hyderabad airports, apart from many power plants) is down from a peak price of Rs 131 to just Rs 24. It lost Rs 94 crore in the April-June quarter. The CAG believes that GMR has been gifted enormous sums by a sweetheart deal for the Delhi Airport, but there is no sign of this in its accounts.

The Union Finance Minister, in the Budget speech for the year 2011-12 has announced that It is our endeavor to come up with a comprehensive policy that can be used by the Centre and the State Governments in further developing Public-Private Partnerships.Pursuant to this announcement, Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance has prepared the draft National PPP Policy and solicits views / suggestions from all stakeholders by 15th October, 2011.

"We have an urban renewal mission which means that the central government funds the cities and one of our programmes is that we propose to have two smart cities in every state," Urban Development minister Kamal Nath told reporters here today.

The minister said medium sized cities with half a million to one million population will be developed as smart cities and expertise of Austrian Institute of Technology had been sought for the purpose.

Nath was speaking after meeting a delegation led by Austrian minister of Transport, Innovation and Technology Doris Bures here.

"Now how do we define these smart cities, what will it cover....right from broadband, intelligent transport to carbon neutral (features), these are so many components...that is what we propose to collaborate with the Austrian Institute of Technology," he said.

"We want to seek assistance from the Institute on what kind of model smart cities we should look at," he added.

Nath also said that medium sized cities like Ujjain or Jabalpur would be considered for the proposal to create smart cities.

"We cannot take on very large cities for smart cities at this stage, we must recognise that. We have to take our medium sized ones, so we want to look at cities with half a million population to one million population instead of trying to take on cities with ten million population," he said.

"We have discussed the possibility of collaboration between the Austrian Institute of Technology and the National Institute of Urban Affairs which comes under the ministry of Urban Development," Nath said.

Public Private Partnership (Preparation, Procurement and Management) Rules 2011 - Draft For Consultation

National PPP Policy 2011 - Draft For Consultation


Pursuant to the decision on the recommendations of the Committee on Public Procurement, a Committee has been constituted in Department of Economic Affair to formulate the Rules for PPP projects, including rules for regulating expenditure, appropriation of revenues, contingent liabilities, etc. in PPP projects and proposed delegation of powers in this regard.

Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance has prepared the draft Public Private Partnership (Preparation, Procurement and Management) Rules 2011 and solicits views/suggestions from all stakeholders by 31st December, 2011.

Please click here to view the Draft Public Private Partnership (Preparation, Procurement and Management) Rules 2011 and to give feedback/suggestions.

View Comments & Responses thereon.

View revised Draft PPP Rules, 2012

The Union Finance Minister, in the Budget speech for the year 2011-12 has announced that It is our endeavor to come up with a comprehensive policy that can be used by the Centre and the State Governments in further developing Public-Private Partnerships.

Pursuant to this announcement, Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance has prepared the draft National PPP Policy and solicits views / suggestions from all stakeholders by 15th October, 2011.

Please click here to view the draft National PPP Policy and to give comments and suggestions.

 CENTRE
*
Sectors
Highways | Railways | Ports | Airports |Telecom | Power
For a country of India's size, an efficient road network is necessary...Read more


*

Central Sector PPPs

PPP Developments projects, initiatives in the central Govt.

NHAI Contracts with BOT Funding

Toll Based Projects..Read more

*   STATES




http://www.pppinindia.com/
No land acquisition for PPP townships: Jairam Ramesh
Interview with Union Rural Development Minister
Sreelatha Menon / New Delhi Oct 02, 2012, 00:16 IST
*The new version of the government's land acquisition Bill, rechristened as The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2011, has drawn criticism from several quarters, particularly civil society activists. Critics say the government has watered down the original Bill to make it more business-friendly. In an interview with Sreelatha Menon, Union Rural Development Minister Jairam Ramesh replies to the criticisms. Edited excerpts:
It's felt even by industry that acquisition of land for all PPP (public-private partnership) projects under the present version of the Land Acquisition Bill could create more conflict and distrust...
Township development is not included in the definition of infrastructure. Hence, this Act cannot be invoked for acquiring land for township development under PPP.
The Bill has a sliding scale for compensation for land owners. It gives twice the market rate when the land is 50 km from a town. But in the earlier version of the Bill, all rural areas were promised four times the market rate. Why has the compensation amount been reduced?
There is no change in the multiplier factor. It's actually two times the market value and with 100 per cent solatium, it becomes four times for rural areas (on sliding scale).
By the sliding scale, for land within 10 km, only the market rate is payable. It is 1.2 times the market rate for 10-20 km, 1.4 times for 20-30 km and two times for land 50 km from a city...
The multiplier of two (which, of course, becomes four with solatium) is now on a sliding scale of zero to two. Which means lands closer to urban areas (within 10 km) will not have multiplier, whereas the farway land will get two multiplier. The rationale is that circle rates for lands closer to urban centres are likely to be close to market value, when compared to lands situated in interior, where the circle rates are notoriously lower than the market value. However, in the case of land within the radiou of 10 km, with solatium at 100 per cent, the land owner will get two times the market value.
The new version of the Bill does not provide a grievance redressal authority. People would still have to take to the streets to get grievances resolved.
The Right to Grievance Redressal Bill, which is under the consideration of Parliament, is expected to provide institutional mechanisms for redressing grievances. Therefore, there is no necessity for every legislation to create its own grievance redressal machinery.
What kind of redressal mechanism is available in the Bill?
The Bill provides many forums for redressing grievances. They are rehabilitation and resettlement committee at project level under Section 41, state monitoring committee for rehabilitation and resettlement under Section 44 and land acquisition, and resettlement authority under Section 45.
http://business-standard.com/india/news/no-land-acquisition-for-ppp-townships-jairam-ramesh/488261/

  2. Infrastructure investment funds stay buoyant: study

  3. Reuters-3 hours ago
  4. LONDON (Reuters) - Infrastructure funds continued to attract new money in the last three months, with institutional investors making fresh ...

  7. Deepak Parekh panel to submit report on infrastructure funding to ...

  8. Indian Express-1 hour ago
  9. A high-level committee, headed by HDFC Chairman Deepak Parekh, will tomorrow submit its report to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on ...
    		10. *

  10. Moneycontrol.com

  12. Investment in infrastructure key to economic growth

  13. Newstrack India-37 minutes ago
  14. Chennai, Oct 2 (IANS) Development of infrastructure in India is a key factor for economic growth and for attracting investments while the country ...

  17. Improve infrastructure in Salt Lake, Rajarhat to get investors: Raja ...

  18. Economic Times-10 hours ago
  19. But the basic amenities and infrastructure available in Salt Lake needs ...Infrastructure requires an immediate uplift in and around Rajarhat and ...
    		20. *

  20. Economic Times

  22. Sam Pitroda on public information infrastructure & innovations

  23. Rediff-4 hours ago
  24. Sam Pitroda is used to wearing many hats. At present, he is advisor to the prime minister on public information infrastructure and innovations.
  25. Indian Govt Holds First Twitter Session FutureGov Magazine
    		26. *

  26. Rediff

  28. Infrastructure investment funds stay buoyant-study

  29. Reuters-4 hours ago
  30. Funds raise $14bn through interim closes. * Some $2.7bn in Q3 via final closes. By Raji Menon. LONDON, Oct 2 (Reuters) - Infrastructure funds ...

  33. All eyes on NSW infrastructure report

  34. The Australian-2 hours ago
  35. BUSINESS is keenly awaiting Infrastructure NSW's strategy report, ... "It's crucial for all governments to have a master plan for infrastructure.
  36. Greiner likely to back development near Sydney Airport The Australian Financial Review
  37. Speculation Badgery's Creek favourite for airport ABC Online
  38. The Daily Telegraph - Crikey (blog) - Business Spectator
  39. all 21 news articles »
    		40. *

  40. The Australian Financial Review

  42. Most cities lack basic infrastructure facilities, says SPA director

  43. The Hindu-9 hours ago
  44. The number of cities increased from 5,000 in 2001 to 8,000 in 2012, but the cities lack basic infrastructure, he said. He said new concepts such ...
    		45. *

  45. The Hindu

  47. BSE Sensex gains, hopes high for infrastructure

  48. Business Standard-22 hours ago
  49. The BSE Sensex and Nifty rose on Monday to their highest close since July 2011 as construction and other infrastructure-related stocks such as ...
  50. Sensex gains; infrastructure stocks, Infosys advance Reuters India
  51. all 79 news articles »
    		52. *

  52. Livemint

  54. Infrastructure development in Surat going skyward

  55. Times of India-22 hours ago
  56. Till now we have made huge provisions and work is underway in building infrastructurefor vehicular traffic. The next stage is for making space ...


Headlines
*

Govt to speed up projects worth `3.3 lakh cr to revive growth - 11 Sep 2012 - Financial Chronicle

Published On :2012-09-12 14:43:00



***

Includes pending PSU proposals in roads and petroleum sectors

***


Government would fast track infrastructure projects of Rs 3.3 lakh crore to revive the slowing economy. These would include projects pending with public sector undertakings along with those stuck in roads and petroleum sectors.


Besides, it will shortly come up with a framework on public-private-partnership for setting up warehouses in the country along with government tempering with buffer food stock to ensure that food prices do not go beyond comfort level.


This is part of the five priority areas that the government has identified to boost investor confidence in the economy in a time bound manner. "Government has identified problems that are delaying several big projects in roads and petroleum sector where the estimated investments locked up is to the tune of Rs 1,50,000 crore. Finance minister wants to take this up at the cabinet level for decision that would be taken in a time bound manner," economic affairs secretary Arvind Mayaramsaid while addressing the national executive committee meeting of Ficci.


As per Mayaram, finance minister will also meet heads of nine identified public sector under takings that are sitting on large cash reserves of Rs 1,80,000 crore, on Wednesday to put in place a timeline for beginning the projects that have been put on hold.


The economic growth rate in the country has fallen consistently every quarter since last year and stood at 5.5 per cent in the April-June quarter of this financial year on the back of poor performance of manufacturing, mining and farm sectors against growth of 8 per cent in the first quarter of 2011-12. This is far less than the GDO growth projections of 6.7 per cent by the prime minister's economic advisory council.




More..

News Courtesy

Odisha approves 37 projects on PPP mode in three years - 10 Sep 2012 - Business Standard

Published On :2012-09-12 14:42:00




Odisha has approved 37 projects on the public private partnership (PPP) modebetween April 2009 and March 2012.


The approved projects are in sectors like ports, real estate, food processing and tourism.


The state government has approved the establishment of a minor port at Astaranga in Puri district by Hyderabad-based Navyug Engineering Ltd. The initial port capacity is 25 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) with the project cost pegged at Rs 7417 crore.


The port capacity will be eventually scaled up to 70 mtpa.


It may be noted that the state government had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the company on December 22, 2008. A concession agreement was signed on November 22, 2010 according to which the port developer will share five per cent of its gross income during the first five years, eight per cent from fifth to the 10th year, 10 per cent from 11th to 15th year and 12 per cent from the 16th year to the end of the lease period.



More..

News Courtesy

KPT invites global bids for new oil jetty - 24 Aug 2012 - Business Standard

Published On :2012-08-27 14:18:00




India's largest port, Kandla Port Trust (KPT) has invited global tenders for development of oil jetty to handle liquid cargo and ship bunkering terminal at old Kandla. The entire project is estimated to cost Rs 233 crore and will be developed on build, operate, transfer (BOT) basis under public private partnership (PPP) mode.


The proposed oil jetty will have the handling capacity of 3.4 million tonnes (MT) of liquid cargo per annum (PA).


"With this project, our liquid cargo handling capacity will get a sharp increase from the current 1.5 MTPA. Also, this will be the first instance in India, where a ship bunkering terminal is also being developed along with an oil jetty through a PPP mode," said a senior official of KPT.


KPT operates four oil jetties, while two oil jetties located at KPT are operated by IFFCO and Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) respectively.



More..

News Courtesy

'Public-private partnership key to growth' - 24 Aug 2012 - The Hindu

Published On :2012-08-27 14:16:00




Public-private partnership is the key to growth in sectors including railways, power and ports, said Union Minister of State for Urban Development Saugata Roy on Thursday.


The Minister said building a reservoir of skilled manpower through PPP model is the need of the hour and its important that all stakeholders come forward to attain the desired pace of infrastructure development.


The Minister was speaking at the inauguration of the Conference on Infrastructure Management, organised by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CIINR) here. Mr Roy invited industry to join hands with the Government in this area and also shared the success stories of various PPP projects like DIAL and Kolkata airports. "The infrastructure development in India continues to be the focus for the Government," he said.



More..

News Courtesy

PPP a success in channelising pvt investment in infra: Govt - 23 Aug 2012 - Hindustan Times

Published On :2012-08-27 14:15:00




The Public-Private Partnership (PPP) has been a success in channelising private investment in infrastructure, though public sector will continue to play a dominant role in building infrastructure, government said on Thursday.


"The PPP has been quite successful in India in channelising  private investment in infrastructure sector," the minister of state for planning Ashwani Kumar said in a written reply to Rajya Sabha.


"During the 11th Plan the private investment in infrastructure is anticipated at 37% of the total investment against 22% achieved in the 10th Plan," he added.


He, however, said: "The public sector will continue to play a dominant role in building infrastructure."


He said the government is increasingly using PPP mainly in infrastructure projects.


Kumar said the total resources to meet the infrastructure deficit exceed capacity of the public sector. So it is necessary to attract private investment through appropriate forms of PPP to meet the overall investment requirement, he added.


"In sectors such as highways, airports, ports, railways and urban transit systems, PPPs are increasingly becoming the preferred mode of project implementation," Kumar said.



Overview
*

The most significant criteria for a continued growth rate of an economy is rests on the provision of a quality infrastructure. According to the Planning Commission, an approximation of 8 percent of the Gross Domestic Product or GDP needs to be invested. This would help in acquiring a prospective economy as stated in the 11th Five Year Plan. Fund investment of over US $ 494 billion has been conceived of according to the 11th Five Year Plan with effective from 2007 to 2012. The investment sectors under consideration are inclusive of telecommunications, electric power, water transport, road, rail, air, water supply as well as irrigation amounts to about Rs. 20,27,169 crore according to 2006-07 prices.


In order to meet such demands, various Public Private Partnerships or PPPs are being promoted for implementation of infrastructure projects. PPP is often described as a private business investment where 2 parties comprising government as well as a private sector undertaking form a partnership. The deficit can be overcome by ensuring much more private capital investment. Expert guidance is the only way out for enabling efficiency through subsequent reduction in cost.


Promotion of PPP is therefore necessary since its the most preferred mode. Despite of its benefits, there are some constraints too which can be summarized as:


  • Sufficient instruments as well as the ability to undertake long-term equity cannot be provided by the market in the present financial scenario. Also financial liability required by infrastructure projects would not be sufficed.
  • Most sectors face a lot of hindrance in enabling a regulatory framework as well as a consolidated policy. So its important to convert such policies into PPP friendly. To achieve the desires results, active participation of various state projects are essential.
  • Lack of ability of private sectors to fit into the risk of investing in diversified projects also needs to be overcome. Modernization of new airports, transmission systems and building power generating plants are some of the avenues which required skilled manpower.
  • Ability of public institutions to manage the PPP process should also be subdued. Maximizing the return of the stakeholders needs to be managed due to the involvement of long term deals including the life cycle of the asset infrastructure.
  • Lack of credibility of bankable infrastructure projects used for financing the private sector should also be overcome. Inconsistency is still visible in the limitations of PPP projects, despite of continued initiatives by States and Central ministries.
  • Inadequate support to enable greater acceptance of PPPs by the stakeholders forms another source of constraint.

Several initiatives have been undertaken by Government of India to enable a greater PPP framework in order to eradicate the above mentioned constraints. Various foreign as well as private investments by waving off charges are encouraged. Framing of standardized contractual documents for laying down the terminologies related to risks, liabilities and performance standards have been devised. Approval schemes for PPPs in the central sector has been streamlined through Public Private Partnership Appraisal Committee or PPPAC. A website has been launched for the purpose of virtual PPP market serves as an online database for PPP projects.



PPPs can only be mainstreamed by continuous response to the varying goal of people and economy in general. The boundary domains of PPPs should be increased in order to prosper the infrastructure development of India.


http://www.pppinindia.com/overview.php

Public–private partnership

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Public–private partnership (PPP) describes a government service or private business venture which is funded and operated through a partnership of government and one or more private sector companies. These schemes are sometimes referred to as PPP, P3 or P3.
PPP involves a contract between a public sector authority and a private party, in which the private party provides a public service or project and assumes substantial financial, technical and operational risk in the project. In some types of PPP, the cost of using the service is borne exclusively by the users of the service and not by the taxpayer. In other types (notably the private finance initiative), capital investment is made by the private sector on the strength of a contract with government to provide agreed services and the cost of providing the service is borne wholly or in part by the government. Government contributions to a PPP may also be in kind (notably the transfer of existing assets). In projects that are aimed at creating public goods like in the infrastructure sector, the government may provide a capital subsidy in the form of a one-time grant, so as to make it more attractive to the private investors. In some other cases, the government may support the project by providing revenue subsidies, including tax breaks or by providing guaranteed annual revenues for a fixed period.
Typically, a private sector consortium forms a special company called a "special purpose vehicle" (SPV) to develop, build, maintain and operate the asset for the contracted period[1]. In cases where the government has invested in the project, it is typically (but not always) allotted an equity share in the SPV.[2] The consortium is usually made up of a building contractor, a maintenance company and bank lender(s). It is the SPV that signs the contract with the government and with subcontractors to build the facility and then maintain it. In the infrastructure sector, complex arrangements and contracts that guarantee and secure the cash flows make PPP projects prime candidates for project financing. A typical PPP example would be a hospital building financed and constructed by a private developer and then leased to the hospital authority. The private developer then acts as landlord, providing housekeeping and other non-medical services while the hospital itself provides medical services.

[edit]Origins

Pressure to change the standard model of public procurement arose initially from concerns about the level of public debt, which grew rapidly during the macroeconomic dislocation of the 1970s and 1980s. Governments sought to encourage private investment ininfrastructure, initially on the basis of accounting fallacies arising from the fact that public accounts did not distinguish between recurrent and capital expenditures.
The idea that private provision of infrastructure represented a way of providing infrastructure at no cost to the public has now been generally abandoned; however, interest in alternatives to the standard model of public procurement persisted. In particular, it has been argued that models involving an enhanced role for the private sector, with a single private-sector organization taking responsibility for most aspects of service provisions for a given project, could yield an improved allocation of risk, while maintaining public accountabilityfor essential aspects of service provision.
Initially, most public–private partnerships were negotiated individually, as one-off deals, and much of this activity began in the 1990s.

[edit]Britain

In 1992, the Conservative government of John Major in the UK introduced the private finance initiative (PFI),[3] the first systematic programme aimed at encouraging public–private partnerships. The 1992 programme focussed on reducing the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement, although, as already noted, the effect on public accounts was largely illusory. The Labour government of Tony Blair, elected in 1997, expanded the PFI initiative but sought to shift the emphasis to the achievement of "value for money," mainly through an appropriate allocation of risk. However it has since been found that many programs ran dramatically over budget and have not presented as value for money for the taxpayer with some projects costing more to cancel than to complete.

[edit]Australia

A number of Australian state governments have adopted systematic programmes based on the PFI. The first, and the model for most others, is Partnerships Victoria.

[edit]Canada

The federal conservative government under Stephen Harper in Canada solidified its commitment to P3s with the creation of a crown corporation, P3 Canada Inc, this in 2009. The Canadian vanguards for P3s have been provincial organizations, supported by the Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships established in 1993 (a member-sponsored organization with representatives from both the public and the private sectors). As proponents of the concept of public-private partnerships (PPP's), The Council conducts research, publishes findings, facilitates forums for discussion and sponsors an Annual Conference on topics related to PPP's, both domestic and international. Each year the Council celebrates successful public-private partnerships through the National Awards Program held concurrently with the annual conference in November.
At lower levels of government P3 has been used to build major infrastructure projects like transit systems (see Viva (bus rapid transit)and Ontario Highway 407).

[edit]India

The Government of India defines a P3 as "a partnership between a public sector entity (sponsoring authority) and a private sector entity (a legal entity in which 51% or more of equity is with the private partner/s) for the creation and/or management of infrastructure for public purpose for a specified period of time (concession period) on commercial terms and in which the private partner has been procured through a transparent and open procurement system."[4]
The union government has estimated an investment of $320 billion in the infrastructure in the 10th plan.[5] The major infrastructure development projects in the Indian state of Maharashtra (more than 50%) are based on the P3 model. In the 2000s, other states such Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Gujrat, Tamil Nadu also adopted this model. Sector-wise, the road projects account for about 60% of the total projects in numbers, and 45% in terms of value. Ports come in the second place and account for 10% of the total projects (30% of the total value).[5] Other sectors including power, irrigation, telecommunication, water supply, and airports have gained momentum through the P3 model. As of 2011, these sectors are expected get an investment of Rs. 20,27,169 crore (according 2006-2007 WPI).[6]

[edit]The importance of public-private partnerships

Over the past two decades more than 1400 PPP deals were signed in the European Union, representing an estimated capital value of approximately €260 billion.[7] Since the onset of the financial crisis in 2008, estimates suggest that the number of PPP deals closed has fallen more than 40 percent.[8][9] These difficulties have placed significant strains on governments that have come to rely on PPPs as an important means for the delivery of long-term infrastructure assets and related services.[10] Moreover, this has occurred precisely at a time when investments in public-sector infrastructure are seen as an important means of maintaining economic activity during the crisis, as was highlighted in a European Commission communication on PPPs.[11] As a result of the importance of PPPs to economic activity, in addition to the complexity of such transactions, the European PPP Expertise Centre (EPEC) was established to support public-sector capacity to implement PPPs and share timely solutions to problems common across Europe in PPPs.[12]

[edit]Controversy

A common problem with PPP projects is that private investors obtained a rate of return that was higher than the government's bond rate, even though most or all of the income risk associated with the project was born by the public sector.[13]
It is certainly the case that government debt is cheaper than the debt provided to finance PFI projects, and cheaper still than the overall cost of finance for PFI projects, i.e. the weighted average cost of capital (WACC). This is of course to attempt to compare incompatible and incomplete economic circumstances. It ignores the position of taxpayers who play the role of equity in this financing structure. Making a simple comparison, however, between the government's cost of debt and the private-sector WACC implies that the government can sustainably fund projects at a cost of finance equal to its risk-free borrowing rate. This would be true only if existing borrowing levels were below prudent limits. The constraints on public borrowing suggest, nevertheless, that borrowing levels are not currently too low in most countries. These constraints exist because government borrowing must ultimately be funded by the taxpayer.
A number of Australian studies of early initiatives to promote private investment in infrastructure concluded that, in most cases, the schemes being proposed were inferior to the standard model of public procurement based on competitively tendered construction of publicly owned assets (Economic Planning Advisory Commission (EPAC) 1995a,b; House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications Transport and Microeconomic Reform 1997; Harris 1996; Industry Commission 1996; Quiggin 1996).
One response to these negative findings was the development of formal procedures for the assessment of PPPs in which the focus was on "value for money," rather than reductions in debt. The underlying framework was one in which value for money was achieved by an appropriate allocation of risk. These assessment procedures were incorporated in the private finance initiative and its Australian counterparts from the late 1990s onwards.[citation needed]
In 2009, the New Zealand Treasury, in response to inquiries by the new National Party government, released a report on PPP schemes that concluded that "there is little reliable empirical evidence about the costs and benefits of PPPs" and that there "are other ways of obtaining private sector finance", as well as that "the advantages of PPPs must be weighed against the contractual complexities and rigidities they entail".[14]
Nowadays, a new model is also being discussed, called the Public–Private Community Partnership (PPCP) model, wherein both the government and private players work together for social welfare, eliminating the prime focus of private players on profit. This model is being applied more in developing nations such as India. Success is being achieved through this model too. it mainly helps to ramp up the development process as the focus is shifted towards target achievement rather than profit achievement.

[edit]Privatisation of water

After a wave of privatisation of many water services in the 1990s, mostly in developing countries, experiences show that global water corporation have not brought the promised improvements in public water utilities. Instead of lower prices, large volumes of investment and improvements in the connection of the poor to water and sanitation, water tariffs have increased out of reach of poor households. Water multinationals are withdrawing from developing countries and the World Bank is reluctant to provide support.[15]
The privatisation of the water services of the city of Paris was proven to be unwanted and at the end of 2009 the city did not renew its contract with two of the French water corporations.[16][17] After one year of being controlled by the public, it is projected that the water tariff will be cut to between 5% and 10%.[18]

[edit]Health public-private partnerships

A health services PPP can be described as a long-term contract (typically 15–30 years) between a public-sector authority and one or more private sector companies operating as a legal entity. The government provides the strength of its purchasing power, outlines goals for an optimal health system, and empowers private enterprise to innovate, build, maintain and/or manage delivery of agreed-upon services over the term of the contract. The private sector receives payment for its services and assumes substantial financial, technical and operational risk while benefitting from the upside potential of shared cost savings.
The private entity is made up of any combination of participants who have a vested interested in working together to provide core competencies in operations, technology, funding and technical expertise. The opportunity for multi-sector market participants includes hospital providers and physician groups, technology companies, pharmaceutical and medical device companies, private health insurers, facilities managers and construction firms. Funding sources could include banks, private equity firms, philanthropists and pension fund managers.
For more than two decades public-private partnerships have been used to finance health infrastructure. Now governments are increasingly looking to the PPP-model to solve larger problems in healthcare delivery. There is not a country in the world where healthcare is financed entirely by the government. While the provision of health is widely recognized as the responsibility of government, private capital and expertise are increasingly viewed as welcome sources to induce efficiency and innovation. As PPPs move from financing infrastructure to managing care deliery, there is an opportunity to reduce overall cost of healthcare.

[edit]Market potential for health PPPs

The larger scope of Health PPPs to manage and finance care delivery and infrastructure means a much larger potential market for private organizations. Spending on healthcare among the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and BRIC nations of Brazil, Russia, India and China will grow by 51 percent between 2010 and 2020, amounting to a cumulative total of more than $71 trillion.[19] Of this, $3.6 trillion is projected to be spent on health infrastructure and $68.1 trillion will be spent on non-infrastructure health spending cumulatively over the next decade. Annually, spending on health infrastructure among the OECD and BRIC nations will increase to $397 billion by 2020, up from $263 billion in 2010. The larger market for health PPPs will be in non-infrastructure spending, estimated to be more than $7.5 trillion annually, up from $5 trillion in 2010.[19]
Health spending in the United States accounts for approximately half of all health spending among OECD nations, but the biggest growth will be outside of the U.S. According to PwC projections, the countries that are expected to have the highest health spending growth between 2010 and 2020 are China, where health spending is expected to increase by 166 percent, and India, which will see a 140 percent increase. As health spending increases it is putting pressure on governments and spurring them to look for private capital and expertise.[19]

[edit]Product development partnerships

Product development partnerships (PDPs) are a class of public–private partnerships that focus on pharmaceutical product development for diseases of the developing world. These include preventive medicines such as vaccines and microbicides, as well as treatments for otherwise neglected diseases. PDPs were first created in the 1990s to unite the public sector's commitment to international public goods for health with industry's intellectual property, expertise in product development, and marketing.
International PDPs work to accelerate research and development of pharmaceutical products for underserved populations that are not profitable for private companies. They may also be involved in helping plan for access and availability of the products they develop to those in need in their target populations. Publicly financed, with intellectual property rights granted by pharmaceutical industry partners for specific markets, PDPs are able to focus on their missions rather than concerns about recouping development costs through the profitability of the products being developed.
These not-for-profit organizations bridge public- and private-sector interests, with a view toward resolving the specific incentive and financial barriers to increased industry involvement in the development of safe and effective pharmaceutical products.

[edit]International examples

International product development partnerships and public–private partnerships include:
  • The PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative (MVI) is a global program of the international nonprofit organization PATH. MVI was established in 1999 to accelerate the development of malaria vaccines and ensure their availability and accessibility in the developing world.
  • The Roll Back Malaria (RBM) Partnership was founded in 1998. RBM is the global framework for coordinated action against malaria. It forges consensus among key actors in malaria control, harmonises action and mobilises resources to fight malaria in endemic countries.
  • The Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative (DNDi) was founded in 2003 as a not-for-profit drug development organization focused on developing novel treatments for patients suffering from neglected diseases.
  • Aeras Global TB Vaccine Foundation is a PDP dedicated to the development of effective tuberculosis (TB) vaccine regimens that will prevent TB in all age groups and will be affordable, available and adopted worldwide.
  • FIND [1] is a Swiss-based non-profit organization established in 2003 to develop and roll out new and affordable diagnostic tests and other tools for poverty-related diseases.
  • The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization is financed per 75% (750 Mio.US$) by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has a permanent seat on its supervisory board.
  • The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis & Malaria, a Geneva-based UN-connected organisation, was established in 2002 to dramatically scale up global financing of interventions against the three pandemics.
  • The International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI), a biomedical public–private product development partnership (PDP), was established in 1996 to accelerate the development of a vaccine to prevent HIV infection and AIDS. IAVI is financially supported by governments, multilateral organizations, and major private-sector institutions and individuals.
  • The International Partnership for Microbicides is a non-profit product development partnership (PDP), founded in 2002, dedicated to the development and availability of safe, effective microbicides for use by women in developing countries to prevent the sexual transmission of HIV. See also Microbicides for sexually transmitted diseases.
  • Medicines for Malaria Venture (MMV) is a not-for-profit drug discovery, development and delivery organization, established as a Swiss foundation in 1999, based in Geneva. MMV is supported by a number of foundations, governments and other donors.
  • The TB Alliance is financed by public agencies and private foundations, and partners with research institutes and private pharmaceutical companies to develop faster-acting, novel treatments for tuberculosis that are affordable and accessible to the developing world.
  • A UN agency, the World Health Organization (WHO), is financed through the UN system by contributions from member states. In recent years, WHO's work has involved more collaboration with NGOs and the pharmaceutical industry, as well as with foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. Some of these collaborations may be considered global public–private partnerships (GPPPs); half of the WHO budget is financed by private foundations.
  • The United Nations Foundation & Vodafone Foundation Technology Partnership, a five-year, $30 million commitment, leverages the power of mobile technology to support and strengthen humanitarian work worldwide. Partners include the World Health Organization(WHO), DataDyne, the mHealth Alliance, the World Food Program (WFP), Telecoms Sans Frontieres, and the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).
Similar public-private partnerships outside the realm of specific public-health goods include:
  • The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) is part of the United Nations Secretariat and its functions span the development and humanitarian fields. Public–private partnerships for disaster management bring together the private sector for PPP models with a tool box of partnership opportunities towards resilience, capacity building, and sustainability goals.[20]
  • The public-private partnership for improving teaching and learning in schools in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.

[edit]Financing

A key motivation for governments considering public private partnerships is the possibility of bringing in new sources of financing for funding public infrastructure and service needs.[21] It is important to understand the main mechanisms for infrastructure projects, the principal investors in developing countries, sources of finance (limited recourse, debt, equity, etc.), the typical project finance structure, and key issues arising from developing project financed transactions.[22]
A number of key risks need to be taken into consideration as well. These risks will need to be allocated and managed to ensure the successful financing of the project. The party that is best placed to manage these risks in a cost effective way may not necessarily always be the private sector. However, there are a number of mechanisms products available in the market for project sponsors, lenders and governments to mitigate some of the project risks, such as: Hedging and futures contracts; insurance; and risk mitigation products provided by international finance institutions.[23]

[edit]Specific cases

While some PPP projects have proceeded smoothly, others have been highly controversial. Australian examples include the Airport Link, the Cross City Tunnel,[24] and the Sydney Harbour Tunnel, all in Sydney; the Southern Cross Station redevelopment in Melbourne; and the Robina hospital in Queensland.
In India, public-private partnerships have been extremely successful in developing infrastructure, particularly road assets under theNational Highways Authority of India and Midday Meal Scheme with Akshaya Patra Foundation
In Canada, public–private partnerships have become significant in both social and infrastructure development. PPP Canada Inc. was created as a Crown corporation with an independent Board of Directors reporting through the Minister of Finance to Parliament. Its mandate is to improve the delivery of public infrastructure by achieving better value, timeliness and accountability to taxpayers, through P3s. The Corporation became operational in February 2009 with the appointments of a chair of the board of directors and a chief executive officer.
PPPs exist in a variety of forms in British Columbia through the focused efforts of Partnerships BC, a company registered under the Business Corporations Act, that is wholly owned by the Province of British Columbia and reports to its shareholder the Minister of Finance. Projects include the Canada Line rapid transit line, the Abbotsford Hospital and Cancer Centre and the Sea-to-Sky Highway project.[25] In Quebec, a number of notable PPPs include the McGill University Health Centre, the new western extension of Autoroute 30 and Université de Montréal's Hospital Research Center.
In the UK, two-thirds of the London Underground PPP was taken back into public control in July 2007 after only four and a half years at an estimated cost of £2 billion and the remaining one-third was taken back into public control in May 2010 after seven and a half years for a purchase price of £310m.[26] The Government had paid advisers £180m for structuring, negotiating and implementing the PPP and had reimbursed £275m of bid costs to the winning bidders.[27] The 30 year PPP contract for the refurbishment of the MOD Main Buildingin London was estimated to give a saving of only £100,000 as compared to the £746.2m cost of public procurement.[28] The refinancing of the Fazakerley Prison PFI contract following the completion of construction delivered an 81% gain to the private sector operator.[29]The NATS PPP saw 51% of the UK's air traffic control service transferred to the private sector, however following the decline in air traffic after the September 11 attacks, the Government and BAA Limited each invested £65m in the private sector operator in 2003.[30]
In Newfoundland Robert Gillespie Reid contracted to operate the railways for fifty years from 1898, though originally they were to become his property at the end of the period.

[edit]See also


[edit]References


  1. ^ Zheng, J. Roehrich, J.K. and Lewis, M.A. (2008). The dynamics of contractual and relational governance: Evidence from long-term public-private procurement arrangements. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management. 14(1): 43-54http://www.scopus.com/record/display.url?eid=2-s2.0-41049112855&origin=inward&txGid=yXIvJQ7AsPq0YyDQfJmJLCa%3a2
  2. ^ Moszoro M., Gasiorowski P. (2008), 'Optimal Capital Structure of Public-Private Partnerships', IMF Working Paper 1/2008. Papers.ssrn.com (2008-01-25). Retrieved on 2011-11-20.
  3. ^ The private finance initiative (PFI). (PDF) . Retrieved on 2011-11-20.
  4. ^ "PPP". Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. 2007).
  5. ^ a b S.S. Raju (2011). "A successful Indian model". The Hindu Survey of Indian Industry 2011.
  6. ^ "PPP".
  7. ^ Public Private Partnerships in Europe.. (PDF) . Retrieved on 2011-11-20.
  8. ^ PFI projects hit fresh low as few deals closed. Ft.com (2010-01-13). Retrieved on 2011-11-20.
  9. ^ Barlow, J. Roehrich, J.K. and Wright, S. (2010).De facto privatisation 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.
  10. ^ Allen and Overy. Allenovery.com (2010-03-23). Retrieved on 2011-11-20.
  11. ^ European Commission Communication on PPP November 2009[dead link]
  12. ^ European PPP Expertise Centre. Eib.org. Retrieved on 2011-11-20.
  13. ^ Barlow, J. Roehrich, J.K. and Wright, S. (2010).De facto privatisation 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.
  14. ^ "Brian Rudman: Promised electric trains derailed by misguided enthusiasm". The New Zealand Herald. 1 June 2009. Retrieved 21 February 2010.
  15. ^ the Water Justice Project on Transnational Institute
  16. ^ Reversal of privatisation of Paris' water. Cupe.ca (2010-02-25). Retrieved on 2011-11-20.
  17. ^ Deputy Mayor of Paris Anne Le Strat tells how Paris put water services back into public hands. Canadians.org (2011-02-18). Retrieved on 2011-11-20.
  18. ^ Water tariff cut. Globalwaterintel.com (2011-01-13). Retrieved on 2011-11-20.
  19. ^ a b c PricewaterhouseCoopers' Health Research Institute, (2010). [Build and Beyond: The (r)evolution of healthcare PPPs]http://www.pwc.com/us/ppphealth, p9.
  20. ^ "PPP in disaster risk reduction". United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. Retrieved 7 May 2012.
  21. ^ Barlow, J. Roehrich, J.K. and Wright, S. (2010).De facto privatisation 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.
  22. ^ "Financing - Public-Private Partnership in Infrastructure Resource Center". PPPIRC. Retrieved 28 February 2012.
  23. ^ "Risk Mitigation Mechanisms & Products - Public-Private Partnership in Infrastructure Resource Center". PPPIRC. Retrieved 28 February 2012.
  24. ^ Moore, Matthew, "Open Secrets", Sydney Morning Herald, 31 October 2005. Accessed 7 January 2007.
  25. ^ An Introduction to Public Private Partnerships. (PDF) . Retrieved on 2011-11-20.
  26. ^ "Tube maintenance back 'in house' as new deal is signed". BBC News. 8 May 2010. Retrieved 10 May 2010.
  27. ^ "London Underground PPP: Were they good deals?". National Audit Office. 17 June 2004.
  28. ^ "Ministry of Defence: Redevelopment of MOD Main Building". National Audit Office. 18 April 2002.
  29. ^ "The Refinancing of the Fazakerley PFI Prison Contract". National Audit Office. 29 June 2000.
  30. ^ "Refinancing the Public Private Partnership for National Air Traffic Services". National Audit Office. 7 January 2004.

[edit]Further reading


  • Burnett, M. "PPP – A decision maker's guide", European Institute of Public Administration, 2007
  • Chinchilla, C. "El nuevo contrato de colaboración entre el setor público y el sector privado", Revista Española de Derecho Administrativo nº 132 (2006)
  • Gonzalez Garcia, J. "El contrato de colaboración público privada", Revista de Administración Pública, nº 170 (2006).
  • Linotte Didier, Un cadre juridique désormais sécurisé pour les contrats de partenariat, AJDA, n° 1/2005 du 10 janvier 2005.
  • Monera Frédéric, Les financements innovants de services et de projets publics, Revue de la Recherche Juridique – Droit prospectif, PUAM, 2005-1, p. 337 & s.
  • Moszoro M., Gasiorowski P. (2008), 'Optimal Capital Structure of Public-Private Partnerships', IMF Working Paper 1/2008. [2]
  • Colman, J. (2002), 'Mumbo jumbo…and other pitfalls:Evaluating PFI/PPP projects', National Audit Office PFI / PPP Conference "Bringing about beneficial change, London, May.
  • Economic Planning Advisory Commission (EPAC) (1995), 'Final Report of the Private Infrastructure Task Force', Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
  • Economic Planning Advisory Commission (EPAC) (1995), 'Interim Report of the Private Infrastructure Task Force', Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
  • Harris, A.C. (1996), 'Financing infrastructure: private profits from public losses', Audit Office of NSW, Public Accounts Committee, Parliament of NSW, Conference, Public/Private infrastructure financing: Still feasible?, Sydney, September.
  • House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications Transport and Microeconomic Reform, (1997), 'Planning not Patching: An Inquiry Into Federal Road Funding', The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
  • Industry Commission (1996), 'Competitive Tendering and Contracting by Public Sector Agencies', Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
  • Minnow, Martha and Jody Freeman (2009), Government By Contract: Outsourcing and American Democracy, Harvard U.P.
  • Möric, K. (2009), 'Les partenariats public-privé – le choix du partenaire privé au regard du droit communautaire, Editions Larcier, 264 p.
  • Onses, Richard (2003). The Public Private Partnership of Cartagena de Indias – Colombia: Agbar´s Experience. Barcelona.ISBN 84-607-8089-9.
  • Quiggin, J. (1996), 'Private sector involvement in infrastructure projects', Australian Economic Review, 1st quarter, 51–64.
  • Spackman, M. (2002), 'Public-private partnerships: lessons from the British approach', Economic Systems, 26(3), 283–301.
  • Strauch, L. (2009), 'Public Private Partnership in European Road Infrastructure: PPP as Investment Asset Following the M6 Road Project in Hungary',VDM.
  • Nazar Talibdjanov and Sardorbek Koshnazarov, UNDP & Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Uzbekistan, Public-Private Partnership in Uzbekistan: Problems, Opportunities and Ways of Introduction (2008–2009)
  • Monbiot, G. (2000), 'Captive State, The Corporate Takeover of Britain', Macmillan.
  • Venkat Raman, A. and JW Bjorkman (2009), 'Public Private Partnerships in Health Care in India: Lessons for Developing Countries'. London. Routledge.
  • PwC Health Research Institute (2010), 'Build and beyond: The (r)evolution of healthcare PPPs' http://www.pwc.com/us/ppphealth
  • National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (2012), 'Facing the elements: building business resilience in a changing climate' http://preventionweb.net/go/26487

[edit]External links


View page ratings
Rate this page
What's this?
Trustworthy
Objective
Complete
Well-written
I am highly knowledgeable about this topic (optional)
Submit ratings
Categories:

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)