Evaluating the Decision-making on a Public-Private Partnership to Finance a Road Project in Vietnam

• Autorzy: Dinh Thi Thuy Hang
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Public-private partnership (PPP) has become a significant alternative to traditional procurement in improving public projects in many countries since the 1990s. Along with the development of PPP projects, value for money (VFM) assessment is considered as an effective tool to support PPP decision-making process, which is widely used by many governments. Like several countries, Vietnam has applied PPP to develop road transport infrastructure. However, the government of Vietnam has never conducted VFM assessment to determine whether using PPP instead of a conventional delivery is better choice to finance a proposed project. This paper proposes application of the value for money assessment to evaluate the suitability of PPP model for a given project. A case study of My Loi project in Vietnam is used to examine the viability of the method. The results of the research using Monte Carlo simulation methodology demonstrate that there is a 23.4 percent chance that PPP could be a good candidate to implement the My Loi project. Sensitivity analysis reveals that the outcome of VFM is the most sensitive to the toll of Public sector comparator (PSC) and the least sensitive to inflation. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Public-Private Partnerships (PPP); Monte Carlo simulation; Public sector

PL

Partnerstwo publiczno-prywatne (PPP); Symulacja Monte Carlo; Sektor publiczny

• Czasopismo: Journal of International Studies
• Rocznik: 2016
• Tom: 9
• Numer: nr 3
• Strony: 124--137

Twórcy

autor

Dinh Thi Thuy Hang

• Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University, Japan

Bibliografia

• Australian Government. (2013, August). National Public Private Partnersip Guideline, Volume 5: Discount rate methodology guidance. Retrieved June 15, 2016, from Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development: https://infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure/ngpd/files/Volume-5-Discount-Rate-Guidance-Aug-2013-FA.pdf
• C.O. Cruz & R.C. Marques. (2012). Using probabilistic methods to estimate the public sector comparator. Computer- Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 27(10), 782-800.
• C.O. Cruz & R.C. Marques. (2013). Infrastructure Public-Private Partnerships: Decision, Management and Development. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
• C. O. Cruz & R.C. Marques. (2014). Theoretical considerations on quantitative PPP viability analysis. Journal of Management in Engineering, 30(1), 122-126.
• Checherita, C. D. (2009). A Macroeconomic Analysis of Investment under Public-Private Partnerships. Diss., George Mason University.
• D. Morallos & Amekudzi. (2008). A state of the practice of value for money analysis in comparing Public Private Partnership to traditional procurement. Public Works management Policy, 13(2), 114-125.
• D. Tsamboulas, A. Verma, P. Moraiti. (2013). Transport infrastructure provision and operations: Why should governments choose private-public partnership. Research in Transportation Economics, 38(2013), 122-127.
• Deloitte. (2015). Trending P3- The involving role of value for money analysis in supporting project delivery selection. United Kingdom: Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
• F. Belaid & D. De Wolf. (2009). Stochastic evaluation of petroleum investment projects using MTCs. Ecole de Gestion de I'University de Liege.
• Fitzgerald, P. (2004). Review of Partnerships Victoria Provided Infrastructure: Final Report to the Treasure. Mebourne, Australia: Growth Solutions Group.
• Grimsey, D.& Lewis, M.K. (2005). Are Public Private Partnership Value for money? Evaluating alternative approaches and comparing academic and practitioner view. Accounting Forum, 29(4), 345-378.
• Hemming, R. (2006). Public-Private Partnerships, Government Guarantees, and Fiscal Risk. Washington: International Monetary Fund .
• HM Treasury. (2006). Value for money guidance. London: The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery office.
• IMF. (2009, July). The Effects of the Financial Crisis on Public-Private Partnerships. International Monetary Fund. Retrieved June 20, 2016, from International Moneytary Fund - : https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2009/ wp09144.pdf
• Infrastructure Ontario. (2007). Assessing value for money - A guide to infrastructure Ontario's methodology. Ontario: © Queen's Printer for Ontario.
• KDI. (2010). Detailed guideline for value for money test for build-transfer-operate (BOT) Public-private partnership (PPP) projects. . Korea Development Institute. Public and Private Infrastructure Investment Management Center.
• Kile, J. (2014). Public-Private Partnerships for Highway projects. United State: Congressional Budget Office. Retrieved December 12, 2014, from https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/113th-congress-2013-2014/reports/45157-Pub- licPrivatePartnerships.pdf
• Malini, E. (1997). Evaluation of financial viability of BOT transport infrastructure projects. Journal of Indian Road Congress, 58(1), 87-123.
• National Council for Public-Private Partnerships. (2012). Testing Tradition - Assessing the added value of public private partnerships. Arlington, VA: National Council for Public-Private Partnerships.
• Park, K. A. (2007). A comparative analysis of PSC and PFI for Cost-effective Solution for SewageTreatment Facilities. Seoul: diss., Seoul National University.
• Partnership Victoria. (2003). Use of Discount Rates in the Partnerships Victoria Process. Victoria: Technical Note.
• Sarmanto, J. M. (2010). Do public-private partnerships create value for money for the public sector? The Portuguese experience. OECD Journal on Budgetting, 2010(1), 93-119.
• Shaoul, J. (2005). A critical financial analysis of the private initiative: Selecting a financing method allocating economic wealth. Critical perspective on Accounting, 16(4), 441-471.
• Takim, R., Ismal, K., Nawawi, A.H. and Jaafar, A. (2009, March). The Malaysian private finance initiative and value for money. Asian social science, 5(3), 103-111.
• Tsukada, S. (2015). Adoption of shadow bid pricing for enhanced application of "value for money" methodology to PPP programs. Public Works Management and Policy, 20(3), 248-263.
• World Bank. (2013). Value-for-Money Analysis Practices and Challenges: How Governments Choose When to Use PPP to Deliver Public Infrastructure and Services. Report from World Bank Global Round-Table. Retrieved March 15, 2016, from World Bank: http://www.ppiaf.org/sites/ppiaf.org/files/publication/VFM.pdf
• World Bank. (Sep, 2013). Assessment of financing framework for municipal infrastructure . Washington, DC: The World Bank.
• Zhen Hu & Shu Chen. (2014). Value for money and its influential factors: an empirical study of PPP projects in Japan. Built Environment Project andAsset Management, 4(2), 166-179. doi:10.1108/BEPAM-12-2012-0055

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.14254/2071-8330.2016/9-3/10