Institutionalization of Public-Private Partnership: Global Experiences and the Basic Outlines of a Proposal for Slovenia

Abstract

Experiences show that countries use one of the following three forms for “institutionalisation” of their private-public partnership (PPP) activities: (i) centralised, (ii) decentralised, and (iii) mixed. The article argues that the form of mixed PPP “institutionalisation” would be the most appropriate for Slovenia. The institutional structure would be composed of three institutions: (i) central PPP unit responsible, first, for horizontal coordination of all PPP policies in the country, and second, for implementation of PPP projects in all those areas where sectoral PPP units would not be created, (ii) very limited number of sectoral PPP units (probably 1 to 2) that would be responsible for implementation of PPP projects in their respective sectors, and (iii) advisory board that would advise the central PPP unit in designing the most complex segments of the PPP policies in the country and would provide a platform for professional discussion and for communication with the public at large on a wide variety of PPP issues. In substance terms, the central PPP unit would be responsible directly to the government while in organisational terms, it would be incorporated into the institutional structure of the ministry of finance with the head of the unit being directly responsible to the minister of finance.

Examining the State of Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Institutionalization in the United States

“…Finally, this paper reinforces the critical role institutional settings play in the successful planning, execution, and enforcement of PPPs contracts. By applying Mrak's (2014) and Johnson et al's (2006) institutionalization frameworks to the U.S. PPP market, our review: (1) identifies America's current stage in the PPP institutionalization process; (2) classifies the type of PPP institutionalization unfolding in the U.S., and (3) highlights various institutional deficiencies across the United States that require further development and reform. While some scholars might argue that one cannot generalize from a single case, 12 our examination of the U.S. PPP market shows that analyses of PPP…”

“…Unsurprisingly, the mixed model of PPP institutionalization integrates the previous two models. As the most frequently used form of PPP institutional organization, this mixed approach often has (1) a central/national PPP unit, (2) sectoral PPP agencies, and (3) other supporting institutions working together within a broader PPPenabling field (Jooste et al 2012;Mrak 2014). Taken together, our case analysis utilizes these conceptual models in order to classify the type of PPP institutionalization unfolding in the United States.…”

“…This historical bifurcation of infrastructure investment priorities between federal, state, and municipal governments has created an unbalanced funding model which dis-incentivizes private investment in U.S. infrastructure. Moreover, the underlying fragmentation of infrastructure provision responsibilities across different levels of government undermine any sort of harmonization between the U.S. PPP program, the budget, and its public procurement system (Mrak 2014 Bel, and Geddes 2015; Bennon, Kim, and Levitt 2017). Election cycles and the unique, tax-exempt municipal bond market in the United States accentuate this misalignment in federal, state, and local investment priorities by creating political incentives which favor new infrastructure projects and public borrowing over adequate maintenance of existing infrastructure assets and private financing.…”

Public Private Partnerships as a Systemic Instrument of Governance in Regional Innovation Policy

“…While many studies of PPP emphasize macroeconomic or microeconomic motivations for applying PPPs in public infrastructure development (e.g. Mrak, 2006;McQuaid & Scherrer, 2008;Švigelj & Hrovatin, 2013) in the case of innovation-policy delivery, PPPs are specifically motivated by their capacity to coordinate public and private actors (McQuaid & Scherrer, 2010;Kristensen, McQuaid, & Scherrer, 2016). Consequently, by their very nature PPPs enable policy makers to address systemic goals of innovation policy and to correct for systemic failures.…”

Аналіз Тенденцій Розвитку Системи Державно-Приватного Партнерства На Ринку Послуг Автомобільного Транспорту

“…США та 17 портових проєктів на суму 4,9 млрд дол. США[5,6].-останні 5 років спостерігається тенденція до зниження рівня приватних інвестицій в інфраструктурні проєкти країн Європи і Центральної Азії, що головним чином пов'язано зі скороченням обсягів інвестицій в Туреччині. Незважаючи на невеликий обсяг інвестицій у 2019 році серед країн, які отримували інвестиції від приватного сектору були Білорусь, Європейського центру експертизи ДПП показав, що Великобританія залишає за собою лідируючі позиції за кількісним показником (рис.…”