Re: Developing a risk assessment model for PPP projects in China — A fuzzy synthetic evaluation approach
Authors: Yelin Xu, John F.Y. Yeung, Albert P.C. Chan, Daniel W.M. Chan, ShouQing Wang and Yongjian Ke
Automation in Construction, 2010, 19(7): 929-943. (SCI/EI)

Abstract

Earlier research works on PPP showed that an objective, reliable, and practical risk assessment model for PPP projects is essential to the successful implementation of PPP projects. However, actual empirical research studies in this research area are rather limited. This paper reports the second stage of a funded research study, which aims to develop a fuzzy synthetic evaluation model for assessing the risk level of a particular critical risk group (CRG) and the overall risk level associated with PPP projects in China. At the first research stage, thirty-four risk factors were identified through a comprehensive literature review and 3 new risk factors were proposed during a two-round Delphi questionnaire survey. The most critical 17 risk factors were selected through the calculation of normalized values. The correlation of these 17 critical risk factors (CRFs) was further analyzed via factor analysis and 6 CRGs were formulated, namely: (1) Macroeconomic Risk; (2) Construction and Operation Risk; (3) Government Maturity Risk; (4) Market Environment Risk; (5) Economic Viability Risk; and (6) Government Intervention. On the basis of the research works conducted at the first research stage, the weightings for each of the 17 critical risk factors (CRFs) and 6 CRGs were determined through the two-round Delphi questionnaire survey. A set of knowledge-based fuzzy inference rules was then established to set up the membership function for the 17 CRFs and 6 CRGs. The empirical research findings showed that the overall risk level of PPP highway projects is between “moderate risk” and “high risk”. Hence it could be construed that investment in PPP highway projects in China may be considered as risky. In fact, the Delphi survey respondents perceived that “Government Intervention” is the most CRG; with “Government Maturity Risk” being the second; “Economic Viability Risk” the third; “Market Environment Risk” the fourth; “Construction and Operation Risk” the fifth; and “Macroeconomic Risk” the last. These findings revealed that government intervention and corruption may be the major hurdles to the success of PPP highway projects in China. These may be caused by inadequate law and supervision system and poor public decision-making process. Although the fuzzy synthetic evaluation model was primarily developed for PPP projects in general, the research method could be replicated in a specific type of PPP project, such as water treatment projects and hospital projects, to produce similar models for inter-type comparisons. By doing so, it provides an opportunity for practitioners to assess the risk level of different types of PPP projects based on objective evidence rather than subjective judgment. The most CRG for different types of PPP projects could be identified and both precautionary and remedial actions could be taken as soon as possible. Such an extension would provide a deeper understanding of managing different types of PPP projects.

Keywords: Public–private partnerships (PPP); Risk assessment; Risk management; Fuzzy synthetic evaluation; Infrastructure; China

Full-text link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2010.06.006

工程管理专业是20世纪80年代初改革开放之后，是新兴的工程技术与管理交叉复合性学科。该专业要求学生具有管理学、经济学、土木工程、计算机、法律和外语的综合知识，能在国内外工程建设领域，从事项目决策和全过程管理的复合型、外向型、开拓型的高级管理人才^[1]。此外因为工程管理责任重大，除具有相应的专业知识外，还要求学生有良好的身体素质和心理素质^[2]。

工程管理专业的学科教育是在管理工程专业、国际工程专业、房地产经营管理专业以及其他相关专业教育的基础之上逐渐发展形成的。在90年代初期，根据国家教委关于院系专业科目合并调整的指示精神，在新的全国普通高等学校专业目录中设置了工程管理专业^[3]。清华大学建设管理系的源头可追溯到1953年在清华大学土木工程系成立的建筑施工技术与机械教研组，2000年4月清华大学整合土木水利学院原土木工程系和水利水电工程系从事工程管理和房地产研究的机构与师资，成立建设管理系^[4]。国内的大部分工科院校都设有工程管理专业，但是由于各学校的传统和优势的不同，专业的侧重方向不一样。例如，交通类大学的工程管理专业侧重于交通项目，建工类大学则侧重于工民建项目^[2]。

国家自然科学基金委对于管理科学的资助工作所提出的指导思想是应该承认并正视我国管理科学的客观现状，突出中国实践特色，推动实现自主创新^[5]。工程管理领域研究重点集中在质量管理/性能化设计（质量管理是工程项目管理中一个永恒的主题，而建筑产品的性能化设计对质量控制提出了新的挑战）、成本管理/价值工程（特别是其中的全面成本管理和全寿命期成本管理概念）、风险管理/应急管理（项目中唯一可以确定的就是“不确定”，而最大的风险也是“不确定”）、信息技术应用（建设工程领域信息技术应用研究重点包括标准化、集成化、网络化和虚拟化）、安全/健康/环境管理与可持续发展（工程项目管理中的安全、健康与环境管理和可持续发展越发受到重视和关注）等方面。

2. 工程管理研究的常用分析方法

图1表示的是工程管理专业研究的一般研究过程，总共可以分为7个环节，分别是：(1) 初步观察，可能包括对于研究热点、行业实际问题或者文献综述的观察，或者来自课题组的研究方向后续；(2) 问题定义，识别出所要研究的对象和问题，并对题目有一定程度的剖析；(3) 假设提出，通过文献综述、专家访谈和案例分析等方法对研究问题进行深入解析，提出进一步的研究假设或者初步理论框架；(4) 研究设计，设计今后具体研究方案；(5) 数据搜集，通过问卷调研、实证分析、专家访谈、数据库搜索等多种途径搜集所需数据；(6) 数据分析，对所搜集数据进行定量或者定性分析处理，建立/验证所提出的框架/假设/命题；(7) 结论归纳，归纳总结研究成果，并完成相应的论文起草和发表工作。根据清华大学建设管理系工学博士培养方案，博士生需要在距答辩申请日期不少于12个月之前（一般在直博的第4/5/6学期，或者普博的3/4学期），确定具体课题并进行选题报告。对应于图1的研究过程，建议在选题报告前完成阶段(1)-(4)，但如果开题时间较早的话，可以在选题报告前全部完成(1)和(2)，部分完成(3)和(4)，然后结合选题报告上评审老师所给建议完成(3)和(4)。

研究方法是指在研究中发现新现象、新事物，或提出新理论、新观点，揭示事物内在规律的工具和手段。由于人们认识问题的角度、研究对象的复杂性等因素，而且研究方法本身处于一个在不断地相互影响、相互结合、相互转化的动态发展过程中，所以对于研究方法的分类目前很难有一个完全统一的认识^[6]。采用通常的二分法，可将其分为定性分析和定量分析两大类。

定性分析指重点分析评价研究对象的质的方面，是根据主观认识和经验确定研究对象是否具有某种性质的研究方法。定性研究可以有两个不同层次：一是没有或缺乏数量分析的纯定性研究，其结论往往具有概括性和较浓的思辨色彩；二是在定量分析基础上的更高层次的定性研究^[7]。在工程管理研究中常见的定性分析方法具体包括情景描述法、德尔菲调研、对比论证、专家访谈、头脑风暴、逻辑推理、问卷调研、案例分析、行为研究法、人种志、专题小组、观察法等方法。

定量分析是指从量的关系上认识事物的发展变化规律，对事物属性进行数量上的分析，从而判断事物的性质和变化。在工程管理研究中常见的定量分析方法具体包括运筹学理论（规划求解、图论、排队论等）、各种算法（神经网络算法、遗传算法等）、模糊数学、博弈论、模拟法（蒙特卡洛模拟、离散事件模拟等）、模型构造法、实验法等。定量分析一般是经过抽象，将复杂的实际问题转化为标准的、可处理的问题加以解决，但往往所要求的边界条件较为严苛。

3. 工程管理研究的方法论迷思

在读博阶段参与的课题组/系内讨论交流、其他博硕同学的开题/答辩、文献阅读、论文评审等过程中，发现行业研究对于研究方法论有一些误解和迷思，严重的两个问题是对于文献综述的不重视和过分偏重定量分析。

在图1中的工程管理专业研究过程中的阶段(1)-(4)中，文献综述的作用尤其重要。充分的文献阅读可以让我们了解阶段(1)中观察得到的问题是否有人已经认识到并给予足够的分析解决思路，若无，则可以进一步了解是否有相似问题的分析解决思路，从而为阶段(2)和(3)中对所识别问题的进一步解析和定义提供充分的依据，这里的文献综述可以保证所提出的研究具有一定的创新和意义。此外，充分的文献阅读可以启发我们思路，为阶段(4)中的研究设计提供最为合理的研究方案的选择。但是，很多同学在研究过程中很不重视文献综述（特别是在导师给定题目，或者有依托课题，或者延续所在教研组的研究方向），经常会出现以下一些情况：(1) 在草拟选题报告/期刊论文/学位论文时才临时随机添加一些参考文献；(2) 在草拟文献综述部分时，只是简单罗列每篇文献的概要，并没有对研究现状有正确的认识；(3) 不重视文献综述，在选定题目甚至基本完成研究之后，才发现已经有人更好地解决该问题；(4) 研究进展一半才发现研究假设是错误的，等等。

在最近的硕博士学位论文中，发现大家越来越偏重于定量分析，很多研究人员认为定量分析要比定性分析更为高深，往往出现本末倒置、为了定量而定量分析的情况，最后得出的定量模型/公式/结论在实际中应用效率不高和指导价值不佳。很多期刊（特别是国内期刊）往往也偏好接收定量分析论文，这不仅让投稿人不得已在论文中加入不必要的数学或者模型，同时也将给低年级博士生不良的示范，进而导致更多人在学位论文更加偏重于定量分析，陷入恶性循环。因此，本论文将以工程管理研究中的定性分析与定量分析的辩证比较作为重点阐述对象，以期为低年级博士生选择合适分析方法提供思路建议。

4. 定性分析与定量分析的比较

以笔者博士论文的核心内容“城市基础设施PPP（Public-Private Partnership，公私合营）项目的风险分担”为例，搜索中国知网上所有相关的期刊论文，进而探讨国内同行在所选题目的方法论选择和使用问题。搜索数据库选择了中国知网的“中国学术期刊网络出版总库”，搜索日期是2010年5月6日，搜索条件是“TI=(风险分担+风险分配)*(PPP+BOT+PFI+BT+项目融资+基础设施+特许经营)”，即可以搜索到篇名同时包括“风险分担/分配”和“PPP、BOT、PFI、BT、项目融资、基础设施、特许经营”其中一个关键词的所有文章。最后搜索到的文章共有51篇，详细搜索结果如表1所示。从表中可以看出，定量分析方法在所选取的题目中越来越得到应用。若从引用次数来比较采用不同分析方法的论文的质量，可以看出采用定性分析方法的论文得到更多的引用，某种程度上可以说明采用定性分析方法的论文结论受到等多的关注和认可。

具体分析每篇论文的内容，可以发现在PPP项目风险分担研究这一题目中，常用的定性分析方法包括专家访谈、案例分析、德尔菲调研、问卷调查、笔者主观经验总结、逻辑推理等，讨论的内容则涵盖PPP项目风险分担原则、分担结果、分担框架/模型综述、分担的合同实现、分担策略、相关法律问题等。采用定性分析方法的论文基本上都对所要讨论的问题进行了充分的分析并给出一定的解决方案，应用价值和应用效率较高，也具有一定的创新性。但是对于可定量风险（特别是政府和私营投资者公担的风险）在合同设计中的实现、在新项目中风险的分担思路（即可操作的风险分担框架/模型）等小问题上的解决程度并不理想。

在搜索结果里采用定量分析方法的论文大多讨论的是风险分担模型/框架及其应用实例，所采用的定量分析主要是博弈模型（如修正最终要约仲裁、合作博弈Shapley解等）和规划优化求解（如基于风险溢价、信息费用、投资方收益、交易成本等），很多论文其实并没有独创性，只是简单地重复着前面的工作。采用定量分析方法的论文最终成果基本上都是形成一套风险分担模型，但是在模型形成过程中需要进行很多假设，往往只重点考虑一个或几个单独风险，不能同时考虑所有风险，特别往往需要忽略风险之间的相互影响关系。更重要的是，定量分析方法所得的研究成果在实际应用中要求从业者具有很高的分析能力，而根据笔者的一次调研结果，参与PPP项目的企业大多缺失风险管理文化，中高层管理人员的风险知识和经验不足，风险分析所需历史数据不足，在实际项目操作中，风险管理启动太晚，缺乏规划，导致许多有用信息的丢失，降低风险分析和应对工具的有效性，使得风险管理成为一种“事后应急/补救”的管理方式，而且企业对风险识别和分析工具很不熟悉，甚至有时主要依赖于管理者的直觉/经验/判断^[9]。因此，定量分析方法所得结论的在目前的可应用性值得商榷。

以笔者所在教研组的两篇论文为例，第一篇是《建筑经济》2006年第2期的“试论PPP项目的风险分配原则和框架”，第二篇是《建筑经济》2008年第4期的“基础设施PPP项目的风险分担”。第一篇论文的研究目的在于讨论PPP项目的风险分担原则和框架，主要采用的是逻辑推理的定性分析方法，论文首先根据PPP项目的特点分析影响PPP项目风险分担的因素，再提出更为合理的风险分担原则，并结合PPP项目在实际操作中的运作流程，设计了相应的风险分担框架，对于政府和私营部门谈判PPP项目具有实际指导作用^[10]。该论文采取的分析方法正确，逻辑严谨，依据充足，因此得到了广泛的关注和认可，是表1搜索结果中引用率最高的论文，同时也获得了中国建筑学会、中国建筑学会建筑经济分会2006-2007年度“全国建筑经济优秀论文”。第二篇论文旨在为PPP项目风险分担的研究和实际操作提供可参考依据，通过详尽的文献综述，归纳风险分担在项目过程中的时点和要点，总结风险分担对项目资金价值的影响，并比较分析已有的风险分担准则和不同的风险分担结果^[11]。该论文的分析方法合理，结论的可靠性和可应用性较强，同样也得到了广泛的关注和认可，是表1搜索结果中2007年后所有发表论文引用率最高的一篇，同时也获得了中国建筑学会、中国建筑学会建筑经济分会2008-2009年度“全国建筑经济优秀论文”。

5. 小结

本文首先介绍了工程管理专业的特点、研究热点、工程管理研究的一般过程、常见的定性和定量分析方法，其次分析了行业研究对于研究方法论的误解和迷思，包括对于文献综述的不重视和过分偏重定量分析。

本文重点以笔者博士论文的核心内容“城市基础设施PPP项目的风险分担”为例，搜索中国知网上所有相关的期刊论文，进而探讨国内同行在所选题目的方法论选择和使用问题。从分析结果可以看出，就所选取的题目而言，定量分析方法一般用于讨论风险分担模型/框架及其应用实例，很多论文并没有独创性，只是简单地重复着前面的工作，而且实际应用效率和价值不理想。而定性分析方法能用于讨论所选题目的多方面内容，实际应用效率和价值较高，也具有一定的创新性。分析也表明了定性分析方法和定量分析方法各有优缺点，只是两者的着眼点不同，需要首先判断所研究内容本身是否可定量，就本文所选取的城市基础设施PPP项目的风险很多是无法定量化的；两者的分析依据不同，定量研究依据的主要是调查得到的现实资料数据，而目前国内参与PPP项目的企业在实际项目操作中经常丢失许多有用信息；两者的结论表述形式也不同，定量研究主要以公式、数据、模型等来表达，定性研究结论多以文字描述为主。总的来说，定性分析与定量分析并没有固定更优的一方，定性研究是定量研究的基础，但定量研究是为了更准确地定性分析，这是两者的辩证关系，在研究设计时需综合考虑研究内容的特点、依据和预期结论等来选择合理的分析方法。

综上，就所选取的题目来说，定性分析方法是个更为合适的选择，笔者的博士学位论文因此首先通过文献综述和案例分析等方式，识别出分担不明确但值得探讨的符合中国特定环境的重要风险作为研究对象；其次通过两轮的德尔菲调研，调查中国PPP项目风险的重要性和合理分担；最后通过面对面访谈，搜集了以往38个PPP项目的实际风险分担，并将其与德尔菲调研所得风险分担偏好进行对比分析；通过对比分析所有行业和单一行业的实际风险分担和风险分担偏好，得出了一般情况和具体行业的合理风险公平分担建议；通过对比分析单一项目的实际风险分担和风险分担偏好，识别了实际操作中影响风险分担的具体准则/因素，在此基础上构造了一个风险分担调整机制。

参考文献

[1] “什么是”网. 什么是工程管理专业 [EB/OL]. (2008-10-17) [2010-5-5]. http://www.shenmeshi.com/Education/Education_20081017214753.html
[2] 天利考试信息网.工程管理(专业代码: 110104) [EB/OL]. (2008-04-01) [2010-5-5]. http://www.tl100.com/gaoxiao/2008/2008-04-01/28223.html
[3] 百度百科. 工程管理专业 [EB/OL]. (2010-03-16) [2010-05-05]. http://baike.baidu.com/view/146403.htm
[4] 清华大学建设管理系. 建管简介 [EB/OL]. (2010-04-22) [2010-5-5]. http://cm.civil.tsinghua.edu.cn/news_detail.aspx?id=562&tid=101
[5] 陈晓田. 国家自然科学基金与我国管理科学(1986-2008). 北京: 科学出版社, 2009
[6] 百度百科. 研究方法 [EB/OL]. (2010-03-17) [2010-05-05]. http://baike.baidu.com/view/1702413.htm
[7] 互动百科. 百科词条-定性研究方法 [EB/OL]. [2010-05-05]. http://www.hudong.com/wiki/
%E5%AE%9A%E6%80%A7%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6%E6%96%B9%E6%B3%95#9
[8] 互动百科. 百科词条-定量研究方法 [EB/OL]. [2010-05-05]. http://www.hudong.com/wiki/
%E5%AE%9A%E9%87%8F%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6%E6%96%B9%E6%B3%95
[9] 柯永建, 王守清. 中国PPP项目的风险管理现状. 济邦通讯, 2009, (4): 19-22.
[10] 刘新平, 王守清. 试论PPP项目的风险分配原则和框架. 建筑经济, 2006, (2): 59-63.
[11] 柯永建, 王守清, 陈炳泉. 基础设施PPP项目的风险分担. 建筑经济, 2008, (4): 31-35.

Purpose – Based on the Chinese government’s increased Public-Private Partnership (PPP) experience in the last decade, they have made a lot of efforts to improve the investment environment.  This paper hence aims to conduct a more up to date evaluation of the potential risks in China’s PPP projects.

Design/methodology/approach – As part of a comprehensive research looking at implementing PPP, a two-round Delphi survey was conducted with experienced practitioners to identify the key risks that could be encountered in China’s PPP projects.  The probability of occurrence and severity of the consequence for the selected risks were derived from the surveys and used to calculate their relative risk significance index score.

Findings – The results showed that the top ten risks identified according to their risk significance index score are: (1) Government’s intervention, (2) Poor political decision-making, (3) Financial risk, (4) Government’s reliability, (5) Market demand change, (6) Corruption, (7) Subjective evaluation, (8) Interest rate change, (9) Immature juristic system, and (10) Inflation.  Further analysis was conducted on these risks so that the possible consequence, the most impacted parties, and the preferred allocation are discussed.  Recommendations on commercial principles or contract terms between the Chinese government and private consortium are also provided.

Originality/value – These up to date findings concerning the probability and consequence of key risks would provide a valuable reference for private investors who are planning to invest in infrastructure projects in China.

Keywords: risk identification, risk management, public private partnership (PPP), China

Article Type: Research paper

Abstract

It is important for the public and private sectors to establish effective risk allocation strategies for PPP projects in order to achieve a more efficient process of contract negotiation and reduce the occurrence of dispute during the concession period.  This paper aims firstly to identify the preferred risk allocation in PPP projects of mainland China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (referred to as China and Hong Kong from here onwards) and then to compare these preferences to those in the UK and Greece by a questionnaire survey based on the same risk register.  The results in China and Hong Kong show that the public sector preferred to retain most political, legal and social risks, and share most micro level risks and force majeure risk; while the majority of meso level risks were preferred to be allocated to the private sector.  The comparative analyses of risk allocation preference among these four countries/jurisdictions indicate that the public sector in the UK was most able to transfer the PPP risks to the private sector, followed by Greece, Hong Kong and China.  Respondents from Greece exhibited the greatest degree of support for the public sector to retain the macro level risks.  All respondents agreed that private investors should take a more active role in managing the meso level risks.  Respondents from China and Hong Kong considered that majority of the micro level risks should be shared equally between the public and private sectors, while respondents from Greece indicated that the private sector should take a more active role in managing the micro level risks.  The comparative study provides international investors a better understanding of risk preferences in different countries/jurisdictions so that they could adjust their strategies according to the specific situation and achieve better value for money in running their PPP projects.

Keywords: risk allocation, risk management, public private partnership (PPP), comparative study.

Abstract
This paper aims to explore the Critical Success Factors (CSFs) necessary for adopting Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) in both China and the Hong Kong Special Administration Region (referred to as Hong Kong from here onwards).  Although Hong Kong is part of China,  differences abound in terms of business culture and practice due to the previous British ruling.  Hong Kong is a metropolitan influenced by both western and eastern cultures, making it a unique city in China now.  Both the mainland and Hong Kong have been keen to deliver more infrastructure service projects through PPP mode, with the former aiming to meet its rapidly growing infrastructure demand and the latter uplifting its efficiency further.  Whilst the demand for more PPP projects is foreseeable in near future, it is necessary to investigate the CSFs of PPPs in these two similar and yet sufficiently different administrative systems.  An empirical questionnaire survey was conducted with relevant experienced practitioners in Hong Kong and China between October and December of 2007.  The respondents from both administrative systems were asked to rate the importance of eighteen CSFs identified from the literature.  The top CSF rated by both respondents from the mainland and Hong Kong was “Favorable legal framework”, highlighting the importance of legal framework to the success of PPP ventures.  The Kendall’s concordance test ensured that the questionnaires were suitable for analysis in terms of the internal consistency of those survey respondents within a certain group.  The Spearman rank correlation analysis showed that the responses between the two administrative systems were in general similar.  Three CSFs were highlighted by the independent 2-sample t-test to be statistically different between the two administrative systems; these included “Multi-benefit objectives”, “Appropriate risk allocation and risk sharing”, and “Available financial market”.  The results indicate a lack of objectives in adopting PPP projects in Hong Kong as seen in the case of West Kowloon Cultural District project.  Previous researchers have also emphasized the importance of an equitable risk sharing mechanism for PPP projects to perform successfully.  And also the restrictions of the financial market in China, due to the immature corporate bond market, the inadequate syndicated loan for debt financing; and the uncertainty of legal enforcement for floating charge on project assets when used as guarantees.   

CE Database subject headings: Public Private Partnership (PPP); Critical Success Factor (CSF); Procurement; China; Hong Kong.

Full-text link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000152

Abstract

As part of a comprehensive research into PPP implementation, a two-round Delphi survey was conducted with experienced practitioners to identify the preference of risk allocation in China’s PPP projects. The results show that the public sector would take sole responsibility for the risk “Expropriation and nationalization”, and take the majority of responsibility for 12 other risks related to government or government officials and their actions. Fourteen risks which neither the public nor private sector may be able to deal with them alone are preferred to be shared equally. The private sector would take the majority of responsibility for 10 risks that are at the project level. Interestingly, no risk fell into the category that should be solely allocated to the private sector. Further analysis of the reasons behind these allocation preferences was then conducted. Recommendations on commercial principles and contract terms between the public authorities and private consortia are also made.

Keywords: Risk management, Risk allocation; Public–private partnership (PPP); China

Full text: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.08.007

Abstract
The private sector has long been involved in delivering public sector projects, whether its role has been as a partner or just as a contractor for the government. Over recent years the interest in adopting public private partnerships (PPP) has increased internationally. Many research studies have presented positive reasons for the governments and the private sector to welcome this form of procurement, rather than continue adopting the traditional options. This paper aims to explore and compare the key drivers for adopting PPP in China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (referred to as Hong Kong from here onwards). An empirical questionnaire survey was conducted in both of these administrative systems and survey respondents were invited to rate their perceptions on the importance of fifteen different drivers identified. Eighty-seven completed survey questionnaires were returned for analysis. The findings indicated that respondents from China rated economy-related drivers higher, whereas Hong Kong respondents tended to rate efficiency-related drivers higher. China’s demand for more public infrastructure and services has imposed great pressure on the government’s budget, and therefore economic drivers were rated higher. On the other hand, with adequate financial reserve in hand and budget surplus over recent years, Hong Kong has tended to prefer paying for projects upfront, and hence efficiency was regarded more significantly. Amongst the fifteen drivers, both of the respondents from China and Hong Kong selected, ‘Provide an integrated solution (for public infrastructure/services)’ and ‘Solve the problem of public sector budget restraint’ to be within the top three drivers. Despite the general agreement on the ranking pattern, the results of independent 2-sample t-test showed that China and Hong Kong shared very different views on the driver ‘Reduce the total project cost’. This driver was ranked rather high by the mainland Chinese respondents, but much lower by the Hong Kong respondents. This finding can be construed that economic drivers are in general rated higher in China as compared to that in Hong Kong.

CE Database subject headings: China, Hong Kong, Infrastructure, Partnerships, Private Sector, Procurement.

Full text: http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000088

Abstract
Public Private Partnership (PPP) has been practiced for quite some time around the world and there are numerous infrastructure, construction and building projects which are employing the concepts. Unfortunately, not all of these PPP projects are equally successful and some of these projects have been exposed to formidable obstacles. The need to identify potential obstacles for PPP projects is therefore becoming an important issue for both research and practice. Despite the amount of interest vested in PPP, it is normally the advantages of PPP that are touched on rather than the potential obstacles. Both China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (referred to as Hong Kong from here onwards) have been keen to introduce more PPP projects. This paper presents part of the findings of an empirical questionnaire survey in relation to the prevailing barriers to PPP success conducted in these two administrative systems. Respondents were asked to rate the level of severity of thirteen potential obstacles towards PPP projects identified from a literature review. The top three obstacles rated by the mainland Chinese respondents were found to be ‘Lengthy delays in negotiation’; ‘Lack of experience and appropriate skills’; and ‘Lengthy delays because of political debate’. Similarly the first and third obstacles ranked by the mainland Chinese respondents were also ranked within top three by the Hong Kong respondents, together with ‘Very few schemes have actually reached the contract stage (aborted before contract)’. It was also discerned that ‘Less employment positions’; ‘Reduce the project accountability’, and ‘High project costs’ were all ranked bottom by both of the mainland Chinese and Hong Kong respondents. Moreover, the results obtained in the United Kingdom by Li (2003) also showed consistency with those of China and Hong Kong. Although the importance of the obstacles was similar it was realized that the scores from Li’s (2003) survey were much lower. This observation showed that the British respondents were less threatened by the obstacles, probably due to the fact that they are much more experienced and confident in undertaking PPP projects compared to China and Hong Kong. Further analysis of the data reflected that the responses within each administrative system were consistent as revealed from the Kendall’s concordance analysis. Although the Spearman rank correlation test indicated that there was no significant disagreement on the rankings of obstacles between respondents of the two administrative systems, considerable difference was detected by the independent 2-sample t-test in the mean value of their responses between the two administrative systems for the two obstacles ‘Lack of experience and appropriate skills’ and ‘Lengthy delays in negotiation’. In China, respondents felt that ‘Lack of experience and appropriate skills’ were highly important ranking it second place, but in Hong Kong this obstacle was ranked eighth, showing their confidence in experience and skills. For ‘Lengthy delays in negotiation’, although the ranking between China and Hong Kong was similar the difference in score showed a large variation. This represents a difference in tendering procedures between the two administrative regions.

CE Database subject headings: China, Hong Kong, Infrastructure, Partnerships, Private Sector, Procurement

Full-text link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2010)26:1(30)

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to help domestic private enterprises (DPEs) identify their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) in developing infrastructure projects in China.

Design/methodology/approach: This paper drew on extensive literature reviews coupled with brainstorming and interviews methodologies to compile a list of SWOT factors for DPEs in developing infrastructures. To validate the significance of the identified SWOT list, a questionnaire survey was thus carried out.

Findings: This paper identified 16 strengths, 15 weaknesses, 16 opportunities and 21 threats for DPEs in developing infrastructure projects in China. The opinions of respondents from different sectors were sought and evaluated to obtain the relative significance of these factors. A set of major SWOT hypothesized was then derived using factor analysis.

Research limitations/implications: The paper was limited to identifying SWOT factors in common therefore the next step should be proposing an adjustment framework to support decision marking.

Practical implications: These findings should provide a valuable reference not only for DPEs but also for foreign investors who are planning to invest in infrastructure projects in China.

Originality/value: The investors in both rounds of infrastructure investments in China in the last two decades have limitations. Foreign investors acting as the major player in the first round usually charged higher and preferred operating projects in more developed regions, while state-owned enterprises as the principle player in the second round were inefficient in the operation and management, which largely restrained the advantages of public-private partnership model. Therefore, there is an urgent need to explore the potential of DPEs, another potential major player in developing infrastructure projects. To this end, this paper provides valuable information through a comprehensive SWOT analysis to the DPEs.

Keywords: SWOT analysis, Infrastructure, Private companies

Full-text Link: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/13664380910977600

摘要
政府往往需要提供激励措施才能吸引私营资本在基础设施公私合营(PPP)项目的投资。该文选取北京国家体育场等案例，归纳实际项目中的各种政府激励措施；并通过实证问卷调查私营部门的综合评价。结果表明：政府激励措施包括政府投资赞助、政府对融资的协助、政府担保、税收减免优惠和开发新市场；私营部门充分肯定各种激励措施的有效性，其中税收减免措施得分最高，政府投资赞助得分最低；但是私营部门需客观评估政府激励措施，切勿索要不合理激励，以避免项目实施过程中出现因政府无法履行承诺而导致的项目中止或者失败。

关键词：公私合营(PPP)；激励措施；私营资本；基础设施

全文链接：http://epub.cnki.net/grid2008/detail.aspx?filename=QHXW200909011&dbname=CJFDTEMP