Public–private partnership
A public–private partnership (PPP) is 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.[1] In other types (notably the private finance initiative), capital investment is made by the private sector on the basis 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 theinfrastructure 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 removing guaranteed annual revenues for a fixed time period.
There are usually two fundamental drivers for PPPs. Firstly, PPPs are claimed to enable the public sector to harness the expertise and efficiencies that the private sector can bring to the delivery of certain facilities and services traditionally procured and delivered by the public sector. Secondly, a PPP is structured so that the public sector body seeking to make a capital investment does not incur any borrowing. Rather, the PPP borrowing is incurred by the private sector vehicle implementing the project. On PPP projects where the cost of using the service is intended to be borne exclusively by the end user, the PPP is, from the public sector's perspective, an "off-balance sheet" method of financing the delivery of new or refurbished public sector assets. On PPP projects where the public sector intends to compensate the private sector through availability payments once the facility is established or renewed, the financing is, from the public sector's perspective, "on-balance sheet", however the public sector will regularly benefit from significantly deferred cash flows.
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][2] In cases where the government has invested in the project, it is typically (but not always) allotted an equity share in the SPV.[3]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.[1]
Origins[edit]
Pressure to change the standard model of public procurement arose initially from concerns about the level of public debt, which grew rapidly during themacroeconomic dislocation of the 1970s and 1980s. Governments sought to encourage private investment in infrastructure, initially on the basis of accountingfallacies 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 accountability for 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 early 1990s.
PPPs are organized along a continuum between public and private nodes and needs as they integrate normative, albeit separate and distinct, functions of society—the market and the commons. A common challenge for PPPs is allowing for these fluctuations and reinforcing the intended partnership without diminishing either sector. Multisectoral, or collaborative, partnering is experienced on a continuum of private to public in varying degrees of implementation according to the need, time restraints, and the issue at hand. Even though these partnerships are now common, it is normal for both private and public sectors to be critical of the other’s approach and methods. It is at the merger of these sectors that we see how a unified partnership has immediate impact in the development of communities and the provision of public services..
In specific countries
Britain
In 1992, the Conservative government of John Major in the UK introduced the private finance initiative (PFI),[4] the first systematic programme aimed at encouraging public–private partnerships. The 1992 programme focused 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.
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.
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, 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 a proponent of the concept of P3s, the Council conducts research, publishes findings, facilitates forums for discussion and sponsors an Annual Conference on relevant topics, 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 P3s have been used to build major infrastructure projects like transit systems, such as Viva (bus rapid transit) and Ontario Highway 407.
China
The municipal government of Shantou, China signed a 50-billion RMB PPP agreement with the CITIC group to develop a massive residential project spanning an area of 168 square kilometers, locating on the southern district of the city's central business district.[5] The project includes real estate development, infrastructure construction including a cross-harbor tunnel, and industry developments. The project, named Shantou Coastal New Town, aims itself to be a high-end cultural, leisure, business hub of the East Guangdong area.
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."[6]
The union government has estimated an investment of $320 billion in the infrastructure in the 10th plan.[7] 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, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu also adopted this model. Sector-wise, the road projects account for about 53.4% of the total projects in numbers, and 46% in terms of value. Ports come in the second place and account for 8% of the total projects (21% of the total value).[8] 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 to 2006–2007WPI).[9]
Japan
In Japan since the 1980s, the third sector (第三セクターdaisan sekutā?) refers to joint corporations invested both by the public sector and private sector.
In rail transport terms, a third sector railway line is a short line or network of lines operated by a small operator jointly owned by a prefectural/municipal government and smaller interests. Third sector lines are generally former JR Group (or Japanese National Railways (JNR) before 1987) lines that were divested from the national company.
Philippines
The Philippine Government maintains an online list of PPP projects.[10] Wikipedia articles on specific PPP projects in the Philippines are categorized intoCategory:Proposed infrastructure in the Philippines.
Puerto Rico
Wikipedia articles on specific PPP projects in Puerto Rico are categorized into Category:Public-private partnerships in Puerto Rico.
Russia
The first attempt to introduce PPP in Russia was made in St. Petersburg (Law #627-100 (25.12.2006), "On St. Petersburg participation in public-private partnership").[11]
Nowadays there are special laws about PPP in 69 subjects of Russian Federation.[12] But the biggest part of them are just declarations. Besides PPP in Russia is also regulated by Federal Law #115-FZ (21.07.2005) "On concessional agreements"[13] and Federal Law #94-FZ (21.07.2005) "On Procurement of Goods, Works and Services for State and Municipal Needs".[14]In some ways PPP is also regulated by Federal Law №116-FZ (22.07.2005) "On special economic zones"[15] (in terms of providing business benefits on special territories - in the broadest sense it is a variation of PPP).
Still all those laws and documents do not cover all possible PPP forms.
In February 2013 experts rated Subjects of Russian Federation according to their preparedness for implementing projects via public-private partnership. The most developed region is Saint Petersburg (with rating 7.8), the least – Chukotka (rating 0.0).
By 2013 there are near 300 public-private partnership projects in Russia.[16]
United States
The West Coast Infrastructure Exchange (WCX), a State/Provincial Government-level partnership between California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia that was launched in 2012, conducts business case evaluations for selected infrastructure projects and connects private investment with public infrastructure opportunities. The platform aims to replace traditional approaches to infrastructure financing and development with "performance-based infrastructure" marked by projects that are funded where possible by internal rates of return, as opposed to tax dollars, and evaluated according to life-cycle social, ecological and economic impacts, as opposed to capacity addition and capital cost.[17]
Growth and decline
From 1990 to 2009 nearly 1,400 PPP deals were signed in the European Union, representing a capital value of approximately €260 billion.[18] Since the onset of the financial crisis in 2008, estimates suggest that the number of PPP deals closed has fallen more than 40 percent.[19][20]
Investments in public sector infrastructure are seen as an important means of maintaining economic activity, as was highlighted in a European Commission communication on PPPs.[21] As a result of the significant role that PPPs have adopted in the development of public sector infrastructure, 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.[22]
PPPs provide a unique perspective on the collaborative and network aspects of public management. The advancement of PPPs, as a concept and a practice, is a product of the new public management of the late 20th century and globalization pressures. The term "public-private partnership" is prey to thinking in parts rather than the whole of the partnership, which makes it difficult to pin down a universally accepted definition of PPPs.
U.S. city managers' motivations for exploring public-private service delivery vary. According to a 2007 survey, two primary reasons were expressed: cost reduction (86.7%) and external fiscal pressures, including tax restrictions (50.3%). No other motivations expressed exceeded 16%. In the 2012 survey, however, interest had shifted to the need for better processes (69%), relationship building (77%), better outcomes (81%), leveraging resources (84%), and belief that collaborative service delivery is "the right thing to do" (86%). Among those surveyed, the provision of public services through contracts with private firms peaked in 1977 at 18% and has declined since. The most common form of shared service delivery now involves contracts between governments, growing from 17% in 2002 to 20% in 2007. "At the same time, approximately 22% of the local governments in the survey indicated that they had brought back in-house at least one service that they had previously provided through some alternative private arrangement."[23]
Controversy[edit]
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 borne by the public sector.[20]
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). 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".[24]
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] Another model being discussed is the public–private community partnership (PPCP), in which both the government and private players work together for social welfare, eliminating the prime focus of private players on profit.[citation needed] This model is being applied more in developing nations such as India.[citation needed]
Privatisation of water
After a wave of privatisation of many water services in the 1990s, mostly in developing countries, experiences show that global water corporations 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 theWorld Bank is reluctant to provide support.[25]
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.[26][27] After one year of being controlled by the public, it is projected that the water tariff will be cut by between 5% and 10%.[28]
Contract management is a crucial factor in shared service delivery, and services that are more challenging to monitor or fully capture in contractual language often remain in municipal control. In the 2007 survey of U.S. city managers, the most difficult was judged to be the operation and management of hospitals, and the least difficult the cleaning of streets and parking lots. The study revealed that communities often fail to sufficiently monitor collaborative agreements or other forms of service delivery: "For instance, in 2002, only 47.3% of managers involved with private firms as delivery partners reported that they evaluate that service delivery. By 2007, that was down to 45.4%. Performance monitoring is a general concern from these surveys and in the scholarly criticisms of these arrangements."[29][23]
Health services
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[citation needed]. 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 delivery, there is an opportunity to reduce overall cost of healthcare.
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.[30] 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.[30]
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.[30]
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.
International product development partnerships and public–private partnerships include:
Sandy Springs, Georgia, USA, City services are performed in a public-private partnership. Sandy Springs, at first glance, appears to be run just like other similarly sized cities, with a council-manager form of government. However, it is the first city in the nation to outsource services to such a great extent to a private sector company. The city's police department took over services from the county on July 1, 2006 with 86 Police Officers from all over the State of Georgia, and is now staffed by 128 officers. The city's fire department began operations in December 2006. The department consists of 97 full-time firefighters. It is staffed by 91 full-time firefighters and 52 part-time firefighters. The police department answered 98,250 calls in FY 2010 while the fire department handled 17,000 responses to 8,205 calls for service.
The PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative (MVI) is a global program of the international nonprofit organization Program for Appropriate Technology in Health(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 https://www.doczj.com/doc/9a12659637.html,$) 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); 15% of WHO's total revenue in 2012 was financed by private foundations.[31]
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).
A good resource on the origins, challenges, and benefits of PDPs is in this NBR interview: https://www.doczj.com/doc/9a12659637.html,/research/activity.aspx?id=477
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.[32]
The public-private partnership for improving teaching and learning in schools in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
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.[20] 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.[33] Some governments utilize a public sector comparator for calculating the financial benefit of a public private partnership.
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.[34]
Centralised units
The World Bank (2007) [35] states that governments tend to create Centralised PPP Units as a response to weaknesses in the central government’s ability to effectively manage PPP programmes. Different governments suffer from different institutional failures in the PPP procurement process, hence these Centralised PPP units need to address these different issues by shaping their functions to suit the individual government needs. The function, location (within government) and jurisdiction (i.e. who controls it) of dedicated PPP Units may differ amongst countries, but generally these include:
Policy guidance and advice on the content of national legislation. Guidance also includes defining which sectors are eligible for PPPs as well as which PPP methods and schemes can be carried out.
Approving or Rejecting proposed PPP projects i.e. playing a gatekeeper role that can occur at any stage of the process i.e. at the initial planning stage or at the final approval stage. Providing technical support to government organisations at the project identification, evaluation, procurement or contract management phase.
Capacity building i.e. training of public sector officials that are involved in PPP programmes or are interested in the PPP process.
Promote PPPs within the private sector i.e. PPP market development.
A 2013 review [36] which targeted research based on the value of centralised PPP Units (and does not look at the value of PPPs in general or any other type of PPP arrangement as the review was aimed at providing evidence needed to decide whether or not to set up a Centralised PPP Unit) found-
No quantitative evidence: There is very little quantitative evidence of the value of centralised PPP coordination units against ministries or government agencies individually procuring PPP projects. Most of the studies available on PPP Units tend to focus on their role and only carry out brief descriptive analyses of their value.
Limited Authority: The majority of the PPP Units reviewed in the literature do not play a particularly important role in approving or rejecting PPP programmes or projects. Whilst their advice is used in the decision making process by other government bodies, the majority do not actually have any executive power to make such decisions themselves. Hence, when they have more authority their value is seen to be higher.
PPP Units differ by country and sector: Government failures, in regards to PPP units, vary by government. The requirements for PPPs also vary by country and sector and so do the risks involved (i.e. financial, social etc.) for the country government. Hence PPP Units need to be tailored to solve these failures, properly assess risks and be located in the correct government departments where it can command the most power. PPP Units can play a number of important roles in the PPP process, however not all PPP Units will play the same role as their functions have been tailored to individual country needs. In some cases, limits to their authority have curtailed their effectiveness.
Implicit value: The lack of rigorous evidence does not prove that PPP Units are not an important contributor to the success of a country’s PPP programme. The literature review does show that whilst there is no quantitative data, there are widespread perceptions on the importance of a well-functioning PPP unit for the success of a country’s PPP programme.
The author of the 2013 review [36] found no literature that rigorously evaluates the usefulness of PPP Units. The literature does show that PPP Units should be individually tailored to different government functions, address different government failures and be appropriately positioned to s upport the country’s PPP Programme. Where these conditions seem to have been met, there is consensus that PPP Units have played a positive role in national PPP Programmes.
Specific cases
While some PPP projects have proceeded smoothly, others have been highly controversial. Australian examples include the Airport Link, the Cross City Tunnel,[37]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 the National 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 transitline, the Abbotsford Hospital and Cancer Centre and the Sea-to-Sky Highway project.[38] 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.[39] The Government had paid advisers ￡180m for structuring, negotiating and implementing the PPP and had reimbursed ￡275m of bid costs to the winning bidders.[40] The 30-year PPP contract for the refurbishment of the MOD Main Building in London was estimated to give a saving of only ￡100,000 as compared to the ￡746.2m cost of public procurement.[41] The refinancing of the Fazakerley Prison PFI contract following the completion of construction delivered an 81% gain to the private sector operator.[42] 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.[43]
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.
Studies
A 2013 study published in State and Local Government Review found that definitions of public-private partnerships vary widely between municipalities: "Many public and private
officials tout public-private partnerships for any number of activities, when in truth the relationship is contractual, a franchise, or the load shedding of some previously public service to a private or nonprofit entity." A more general term for such agreements is "shared service delivery" — municipalities joining together, with private firms, or with nonprofits to provide services to citizens.[29][23]
Challenges and Barriers
Public private partnerships have seen a large increase over the years in part because local and state governments rely heavily on the growing number of non-profits to provide many public services that they cannot. [44] Entering into a public private partnership can be rewarding as well as destructive if not done with caution and education. Partnerships need balance from both parties as well as continuous maintenance. If not entered into lightly one can find their organization falling in various areas proving to be one of many partnership failures. [45]
Flexibility between the two partners as well as the contract and staff involved throughout the process. If one party feels they are losing some of the control they may work on adopting more rules and regulations throughout the process instead of working together to be flexible and mediate an issue. [46]
Timeline Non-profits are working on a long term timeline. Many of their goals can only be achieved with long term commitment, this is where their focus will lie. For-profit organizations are more short term oriented because of short term goals focusing primarily on profitability. Finally, government agencies' timeline depends a lot on election timelines and therefor can change regularly. [47]
Focus of the project Partners may not have the same focus when entering into a partnership even though they think they might.
Funding priorities When parties can’t agree on where funding should go this can sometimes lead to losses in time, resources, and the overall funding for the project. [48] Fundin g priorities for government bodies looks typically at where the public’s funds were spent in relation to the contract made. This then typically is looked at as in how many hours of participations, forms filled out, meals served. Etc. [49] Neighborhood organizations or small and local non-profits saw a broad source of funding during the early years but there has been a shift in funding more recently reducing the overall funding and seeing more of it go to larger agencies focusing on large grants.
Accountability With the rise in public private partnerships there is also a rise in the responsibility that the non-profits tend to hold. With the government relying on many more of these organizations to provide the public services they cannot it is also proving difficult for the government to hold these non-profits responsible. [50] When responsibilities are not set to the letter this can cause some in managerial positions to take the back seat, seeing their counterparts taking the initiative to get tasks done. This leaves an unbalance of work and sometimes those with the most stills are not doing the job. This can also be brought on by undermanagement causing more problems such as a lack of focus for the projects, mismanaged funding, and miscommunication. [51] Too many projects and partnerships can
also lead to a lack of accountability. When there are too many tasks they seem to all fall short of the hoped perfection. [52] Some partners may be taking over roles of others because accountability has not been well defined. This can also lead to some taking advantage of others when they note the any weakness. This can cause a distrustful partnership. [53]
Communication or understanding One of the largest issues that can be discussed, communication can be a huge downfall and can contribute to many of the other risks within partnerships. It can be said that when entering into a cross-sector partnership it is difficult to understand and collaborate due to the diversity and differing languages spoken amongst the sectors. Items like performance measures, goal measurements, government regulations, and the nature of funding can all be interpreted differently thus causing blurred lines of communication. [54]
Autonomy within the partnership. While working together is important it is still a strength to be able to work on parts of the project alone, take initiative when needed, and keep some individualism throughout the process. This is beginning to happen more with the privatization of public private partnerships where the private organization may own the partnership itself and the government then keeps full responsibility for it. This keeps parts of the partnership separate for focus. [55]
Conflicts can arise from any of the above topics but even outside issues or forces may bring a partnership to a halt. Even though these partnerships are entered into with the best of intentions even the most trivial issues can snowball into greater conflict halting a partnership dead in its tracks. [56]Having no understanding and communication between parties can cause conflicts with use of language, stereotyping, negative assumptions, and prejudice about the other organization. These conflicts can be related to territorialism or protectionism, and a lack of commitment to working within the partnership. [57]
Possible solution s Some research leads us to believe that partnerships are not natural for business and managers do not want to depend on others but it is possible with careful solutions. [58]
Creating an ongoing narrative about partnerships and how will these be developed, maintained, terminated. This is especially prevalent to the local and state governments who rely heavily on the non-profits for the public services. [59] A business partnership model would not be accurate or appropriate for a P3. [60] Many partnerships can be terminated early due to issues with trust and cooperation during the contract implementation process. These issues can be avoided when the organization has initial guidelines for dos and don’ts.[61]
Creating a formal control mechanism for the partnership. [62]
Insure that there is a continuous commitment with negotiations in any time of trouble and even an outline for termination procedures if necessary. [63]
In addition items like conflict resolution, outreach and organizational development are items that managers can work on and even assign specialists to each task. Creating a timeline to be followed throughout the partnership assists in mutual understanding and communication as well. [64] Assigning specialists to work with skills in communication, conflict resolution, negotiation and policy analysis cross-sector partnerships have also been able to flourish. [65]
See also
Chattahoochee River 911 Authority
European PPP Expertise Centre
Global Development Alliance
Global Partnership Initiative
Global public–private partnership
Public/social/private partnership (PSPP)
Private participation in railway share
USAID
References
^ Jump up to:a b c Barlow, J., Roehrich, J.K. and Wright, S. (2013). Europe Sees Mixed Results From Public-Private Partnerships For Building And Managing Health Care Facilities And Services. Health Affairs. 32(1):146-154https://www.doczj.com/doc/9a12659637.html,/pubmed/23297282
Jump up^ 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): 43-54https://www.doczj.com/doc/9a12659637.html,/record/display.url?eid=2-s2.0-
41049112855&origin=inward&txGid=yXIvJQ7AsPq0YyDQfJmJLCa%3a2
Jump up^ Moszoro M., Gasiorowski P. (2008), 'Optimal Capital Structure of Public-Private Partnerships', IMF Working Paper 1/2008. https://www.doczj.com/doc/9a12659637.html, (2008-01-25). Retrieved on 2011-11-20. Jump up^ The private finance initiative (PFI). (PDF) . Retrieved on 2011-11-20.
Jump up^线, 丽阳. "中信地产：PPP模式啖头汤". https://www.doczj.com/doc/9a12659637.html,/. Retrieved 4 November 2014.
Jump up^ "PPP". Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. 2007. Jump up^ S.S. Raju (2011). "A successful Indian model". The Hindu Survey of Indian Industry 2011. Jump up^ "Status of PPP Projects as on July 31, 2011" (PDF). Retrieved 8 March 2014.
Jump up^ "PPP".
Jump up^ "List of PPP Projects". Philippine government.
Jump up^Об участии Санкт-Петербурга в государственно-частных партнерствах (in Russian). Archived from the original on 2012-02-18. Retrieved 4 August 2008.
Jump up^Геворкян, Арфи; Литвинова, Анастасия.Правительство одобрило закон о государственно-частном партнерстве (in Russian). Retrieved 27 March 2013.
Jump up^Федеральный закон "О Концессионных Соглашениях" (in Russian). Retrieved27 March 2013.
Jump up^Федеральный закон "О Размещении заказов на поставки товаров, выполнение работ, оказание услуг для государственных и муниципальных нужд" (in Russian). Retrieved 27 March 2013.
Jump up^Федеральный закон "Об особых экономических зонах в Российской Федерации"(in Russian). Retrieved 27 March 2013.
Jump up^Гагарин П.А., Двинянин Е.А.Государственно-частное партнерство как инструмент
реализации масштабных проектов (in Russian). Retrieved 27 March 2013.
Jump up^ "West Coast Infrastructure Exchange CH2M HILL Report Summary". Retrieved12 December 2014.
Jump up^ Public Private Partnerships in Europe.. (PDF) . Retrieved on 2011-11-20.
Jump up^ PFI projects hit fresh low as few deals closed. https://www.doczj.com/doc/9a12659637.html, (2010-01-13). Retrieved on 2011-11-20.
^ Jump up to:a b c 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.
Jump up^ European Commission Communication on PPP November 2009[dead link]
Jump up^ European PPP Expertise Centre. https://www.doczj.com/doc/9a12659637.html,. Retrieved on 2011-11-20.
^ Jump up to:a b c Hilvert, Cheryl; Swindell, David (2014). "Collaborative Service Delivery: What Every Local Government Manager Should Know". State and Local Government Review volume = 45.
Jump up^ "Brian Rudman: Promised electric trains derailed by misguided enthusiasm".The New Zealand Herald. 1 June 2009. Retrieved 21 February 2010.
Jump up^ the Water Justice Project on Transnational Institute
Jump up^ Reversal of privatisation of Paris' water. Cupe.ca (2010-02-25). Retrieved on 2011-11-20.
Jump up^ Deputy Mayor of Paris Anne Le Strat tells how Paris put water services back into public hands. https://www.doczj.com/doc/9a12659637.html, (2011-02-18). Retrieved on 2011-11-20.
Jump up^ Water tariff cut. https://www.doczj.com/doc/9a12659637.html, (2011-01-13). Retrieved on 2011-11-20.
^ Jump up to:a b "Local government services and contracts: Best practices and key issues to watch". https://www.doczj.com/doc/9a12659637.html,, retrieved February 14, 2014
^ Jump up to:a b c PricewaterhouseCoopers' Health Research Institute, (2010). [Build and Beyond: The (r)evolution of healthcare PPPs] https://www.doczj.com/doc/9a12659637.html,/us/ppphealth, p9.
Jump up^ Sixty - sixth world assembly, WHO
Jump up^ "PPP in disaster risk reduction". United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. Retrieved 7 May 2012.
Jump up^ "PPP in Infrastructure Resource Center". World Bank. Retrieved February 2012.
Jump up^ "Risk Mitigation Mechanisms & Products - PPP in Infrastructure Resource Center". World Bank. Retrieved February 2012.
Jump up^World Bank (2007) “Public Private Partnership Units: Lessons for their designs and use in infrastructure”
^ Jump up to:a b Alberto Lemma. "Literature Review: Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Centralised PPP Units". EPS PEAKS.
Jump up^ Moore, Matthew, "Open Secrets", Sydney Morning Herald, 31 October 2005. Accessed 7 January 2007.
Jump up^ An Introduction to Public Private Partnerships. (PDF) . Retrieved on 2011-11-20.
Jump up^ "Tube maintenance back 'in house' as new deal is signed". BBC News. 8 May 2010. Retrieved 10 May 2010.
Jump up^ "London Underground PPP: Were they good deals?". National Audit Office. 17 June 2004. Jump up^ "Ministry of Defence: Redevelopment of MOD Main Building". National Audit Office. 18 April 2002.
Jump up^ "The Refinancing of the Fazakerley PFI Prison Contract". National Audit Office. 29 June 2000.
Jump up^ "Refinancing the Public Private Partnership for National Air Traffic Services". National Audit Office. 7 January 2004.
Jump up^ Smith, S. (2008). The Challenge of Strengthening Nonprofits and Civil Society. Public Administration Review, (Special Issue), 132-145.
Jump up^ Babiak, K., & Thibault, L. (2008). Challenges In Multiple Cross-Sector Partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 117-143.
Jump up^ Babiak, K., & Thibault, L. (2008). Challenges In Multiple Cross-Sector Partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 117-143.
Jump up^ Ferris, J., & Williams, N. (2013). Offices of Strategic Partnerships: Helping Philanthropy and Government Work Better Together. Foundation Review, 5(4), 24-36
Jump up^ Babiak, K., & Thibault, L. (2008). Challenges In Multiple Cross-Sector Partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 117-143.
Jump up^ Smith, S. (2008). The Challenge of Strengthening Nonprofits and Civil Society. Public Administration Review, (Special Issue), 132-145.
Jump up^ Smith, S. (2008). The Challenge of Strengthening Nonprofits and Civil Society. Public Administration Review, (Special Issue), 132-145.
Jump up^ Babiak, K., & Thibault, L. (2008). Challenges In Multiple Cross-Sector Partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 117-143.
Jump up^ Babiak, K., & Thibault, L. (2008). Challenges In Multiple Cross-Sector Partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 117-143.
Jump up^ Eschenfelder, B. (2011). Funder-Initiated Integration Partnership Challenges and Strategies. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 21(3), 273-288.
Jump up^ Babiak, K., & Thibault, L. (2008). Challenges In Multiple Cross-Sector Partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 117-143.
Jump up^ Muralidhar, D., & Koteswara Rao, M. (2013). Development of Public Libraries through Public-private Partnership in India: Issues and Challenges. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 33(1), 21-24.
Jump up^ Eschenfelder, B. (2011). Funder-Initiated Integration Partnership Challenges and Strategies. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 21(3), 273-288.
Jump up^ Cairns, B., & Harris, M. (2011). Local cross-sector partnerships. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 311-324.
Jump up^ Babiak, K., & Thibault, L. (2008). Challenges In Multiple Cross-Sector Partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 117-143.
Jump up^ Smith, S. (2008). The Challenge of Strengthening Nonprofits and Civil Society. Public Administration Review, (Special Issue), 132-145.
Jump up^ Bloomfield, P. (2006). The Challenging Business Of Long-Term Public-Private Partnerships: Reflections On Local Experience. Public Administration Review, 400-411.
Jump up^ Bloomfield, P. (2006). The Challenging Business Of Long-Term Public-Private Partnerships: Reflections On Local Experience. Public Administration Review, 400-411.
Jump up^ Babiak, K., & Thibault, L. (2008). Challenges In Multiple Cross-Sector Partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 117-143.
Jump up^ Babiak, K., & Thibault, L. (2008). Challenges In Multiple Cross-Sector Partnerships.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 117-143.
Jump up^ Smith, S. (2008). The Challenge of Strengthening Nonprofits and Civil Society. Public Administration Review, (Special Issue), 132-145.
Jump up^ Cairns, B., & Harris, M. (2011). Local cross-sector partnerships. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 311-324.
Further reading
Public-Private Partnerships Reference Guide, Version 2.0, World Bank Group Public-Private Partnerships 2014.
Handshake, a journal on public-private partnerships, World Bank Group Public-Private Partnerships, 2014
Abou-bakr, A (2013), Managing Disasters Through Public-Private Partnerships,Georgetown University Press.
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 Espa?ola 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 sécurisépour 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 Advis ory 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’, Austr alian 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, Austra lian 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.
M?ric, 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 Projec t 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' https://www.doczj.com/doc/9a12659637.html,/us/ppphealth
National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (2012), 'Facing the elements: building business resilience in a changing climate'https://www.doczj.com/doc/9a12659637.html,/go/26487
关于完善政府和社会资本合作模式的调研报告 为大力推动政府和社会资本合作（PPP）项目规范实施、加快落地，确保PPP改革取得更大成效，2016年底我们对河北、江苏、山东、安徽、河南、湖南、贵州、云南、内蒙古、甘肃10个省（区）PPP工作情况进行了调研。 一、相关省（区）推进PPP工作的主要做法 从调研情况看，各地区积极谋划、主动作为、大胆创新、多措并举，形成了一些好经验、好做法。 （一）注重观念转变。很多地区高度重视PPP工作，不再将PPP模式作为单一的融资工具，而是从全面深化改革的高度，充分认识PPP模式对于推动国家治理能力现代化、深化供给侧结构性改革、激发经济发展动能的重要意义，并将其作为本地区稳增长、调结构、惠民生的重要抓手。许多地区都是一把手亲自抓、亲自管，自上而下、高位推动PPP工作。比如，河南开封市表示，做好PPP 工作要分“想明白、弄明白、干明白”三步走，结合本地区发展实际提前谋划、统筹推进；云南大理州将推广PPP模式作为实现跨越式发展的重要机遇，围绕洱海环境治理，打造PPP示范项目群，发挥区域整合和规模效应，仅2016年完成的投资就与整个“十二五”时期持平，把过去“有想法、没办法”的事变成了现实。 （二）注重组织保障。针对PPP项目覆盖领域广、涉及部门多、协调难度大的客观情况，很多地区都建立了层次清晰、分工明确的组织保障体系。一是建立专门机构。河北、河南、云南、内蒙古、甘肃等地，建立PPP中心或PPP 办公室等专门管理机构，明确主体责任，加强上下联动，促进工作落实。二是建立协调机制。江苏、河南、湖南、贵州、云南、内蒙古等地，在省、市、县三级政府成立PPP工作领导小组，或者建立联席会议制度，由政府领导挂帅，明确牵头部门和部门分工，确保形成合力。三是建立督查机制。河北、江苏、安徽等地，将推广PPP模式列为深化改革重点工作，并定期督查任务进展情况。 （三）注重建章立制。各地区在及时转发国家相关政策文件的基础上，结合实际情况，制定了本地区的实施意见和具体措施，为PPP项目规范实施提供
关于政府和社会资本合作的操作流程的报告 致萧梁电商物流产业园各位领导： 感谢您对于南京如神高科投资咨询有限公司的信任，为了本PPP项目下一步招投标工作的顺利进行，现将项目各阶段工作流程整理如下，本项目已可进入第三阶段，请各位领导阅示。 第一阶段：项目识别阶段 项目发起——项目筛选——物有所值评价——财政承受能力论证 1.项目发起：政府和社会资本合作项目由政府或社会资本发起，以政府发起为主 2.项目遴选：财政部门会同行业主管部门，对潜在政府和社会资本合作项目进行评估筛选，确定备选项目。 3.物有所值评价：财政部门会同行业主管部门，从定性和定量两方面开展物有所值评价工作。 4.财政承受能力论证：为确保财政中长期可持续性，财政部门应根据项目全生命周期内的财政支出、政府债务等因素，对部分政府付费或政府补贴的项目，开展财政承受能力论证。 第二阶段：项目准备阶段 管理架构组建——实施方案编制——实施方案审核 1.管理架构组建：政府或其指定的有关职能部门或事业单位可作为项目实施机构，负责项目准备、采购、监管和移交等工作。 2.实施方案编制：项目实施机构应组织编制项目实施方案，内容包括项目概况、风险分配基本框架、项目运作方式、交易结构、合同体系、监管架构、采购方式选择等 3.实施方案审核：财政部门对项目实施方案进行物有所值和财政承受能力验证，通过验证的，由项目实施机构报政府审核。 第三阶段：项目采购阶段 资格预审——采购文件编制——响应文件评审——谈判与合同签署
1.资格预审：项目实施机构应根据项目需要准备资格预审文件，发布资格预审公告，邀请社会资本和与其合作的金融机构参与资格预审。 2.采购文件编制：制作政府采购文件，明确购邀请、竞争者须知、竞争者应提供的资格、资信及业绩证明文件、采购方式、政府对项目实施机构的授权、实施方案的批复和项目相关审批文件、采购程序、响应文件编制要求、提交响应文件截止时间、开启时间及地点、强制担保的保证金交纳数额和形式、评审方法、评审标准、政府采购政策要求、项目合同草案及其他法律文本等 3.响应文件评审：项目采用公开招标、邀请招标、竞争性谈判、单一来源采购方式开展采购的，按照政府采购法律法规及有关规定执行。采用竞争性磋商采购的，评审小组对响应文件进行两阶段评审：最终采购需求方案和综合评分。 4.谈判并签署合同：项目实施机构应成立专门的采购结果确认谈判工作组。按照候选社会资本的排名，依次与候选社会资本及与其合作的金融机构就合同中可变的细节问题进行合同签署前的确认谈判，谈判成功后，经过公示和政府审核，正式签署合同。 第四阶段：项目执行阶段 项目公司设立——融资管理——绩效检测与支付——中期评估 1.项目公司设立：社会资本可依法设立项目公司。 2.项目融资：由社会资本或项目公司负责，社会资本或项目公司应及时开展融资方案设计、机构接洽、合同签订和融资交割等工作。财政部门（政府和社会资本合作中心）和项目实施机构应做好监督管理工作，防止企业债务向政府转移。 3.绩效检测与支付：项目实施机构应根据项目合同约定，监督社会资本或项目公司履行合同义务，定期监测项目产出绩效指标，编制季报和年报，并报财政部门（政府和社会资本合作中心）备案。政府有支付义务的，项目实施机构应根据项目合同约定的产出说明，按照实际绩效直接或通知财政部门向社会资本或项目公司及时足额支付。 4.中期评估：项目实施机构应每3-5年对项目进行中期评估，重点分析项目运行状况和项目合同的合规性、适应性和合理性；及时评估已发现问题的风险，制订应对措施，并报财政部门（政府和社会资本合作中心）备案。 第五阶段：项目移交阶段 移交准备——性能测试——资产交割——绩效评价 1.移交准备：项目实施机构或政府指定的其他机构应组建项目移交工作组，根据项目合同约定与社
PPP(政府和社会资本合作项目) 通用合同范本
目录 第一章总则 (9) 第1条术语定义和解释 (9) 第2条合同背景和目的 (10) 第3条声明和保证 (10) 第4条合同生效条件 (10) 第5条合同构成及优先次序 (10) 第二章合同主体 (11) 第6条政府主体 (11) 第7条社会资本主体 (11) 第三章合作关系 (13) 第8条合作内容 (13) 第9条合作期限 (14) 第10条排他性约定 (14) 第11条合作履约担保 (14) 第四章投资计划及融资方案 (14) 第12条项目总投资 第13条投资控制责任 (15) 第14条融资方案 (15) 第15条政府提供的其他投融资支持 (16) 第16条投融资监管 (16) 第17条投融资违约及其处理 (16) 第五章项目前期工作 (16) 第18条前期工作内容及要求 (16) 第19条前期工作任务分担 (17) 第20条前期工作经费 (17)
第21条政府提供的前期工作支持 (17) 第22条前期工作监管 (17) 第23条前期工作违约及处理 (17) 第六章工程建设 (17) 第24条政府提供的建设条件 (18) 第25条进度、质量、安全及管理要求 (18) 第26条建设期的审查和审批事项 (18) 第27条工程变更管理 (18) 第28条实际投资认定 (19) 第29条征地、拆迁和安置 (19) 第30条项目验收.................. (19) 第31条工程建设保险 (19) 第32条工程保修 (19) 第33条建设期监管 (20) 第七章政府移交资产 (20) 第35条移交前准备 (20) 第36条资产移交 (21) 第37条移交违约及处理 (21) 第八章运营和服务 (21) 第38条政府提供的外部条件 (21) 第39条试运营和正式运营 (22) 第40条运营服务标准 (22) 第41条运营服务要求变更 (23) 第42条运营维护与修理 (23) 第43条更新改造和追加投资 (23) 第44条主副产品的权属 (23)
公私合营模式（PPP），以其政府参与全过程经营的特点受到国内外广泛关注。PPP模式将部分政府责任以特许经营权方式转移给社会主体（企业），政府与社会主体建立起“利益共享、风险共担、全程合作”的共同体关系，政府的财政负担减轻，社会主体的投资风险减小。PPP模式比较适用于公益性较强的废弃物处理或其中的某一环节，如有害废弃物处理和生活垃圾的焚烧处理与填埋处置环节。这种模式需要合理选择合作项目和考虑政府参与的形式、程序、渠道、范围与程度，这是值得探讨且令人困扰的问题。 PPP模式，也称PPP融资，或者PPP。 随着项目融资的发展，有一个词PPP(Public-Private Partnership，公私合伙或合营，又称公私协力)开始出现并越来越流行，特别是在欧洲。该词最早由英国政府于1982年提出，是指政府与私营商签订长期协议，授权私营商代替政府建设、运营或管理公共基础设施并向公众提供公共服务。本文拟对PPP的各种定义作一个综述，并论述它的理论基础。 狭义定义:从各国和国际组织对PPP的理解来看，PPP有广义和狭义之分。广义的PPP泛指公共部门与私人部门为提供公共产品或服务而建立的各种合作关系，而狭义的PPP可以理解为一系列项目融资模式的总称，包含BOT、TOT、DBFO 等多种模式。狭义的PPP更加强调合作过程中的风险分担机制和项目的衡工量值(ValueForMoney)原则。 广义定义:PPP是英文"Public-Private Partnership"
的简写，中文直译为“公私合伙制”，简言之指公共部门通过与私人部门建立伙伴关系提供公共产品或服务的一种方式。虽然私人部门参与提供公共产品或服务已有很长历史，但PPP术语的出现不过是近十年的事情，在此之前人们广为使用的术语是Concession、BOT、PFI等。PPP本身是一个意义非常宽泛的概念，加之意识形态的不同，要想使世界各国对PPP的确切内涵达成共识是非常困难的。德国学者NorbertPortz甚至认为"试图去总结PPP是什么或者应该是什么几乎没有任何意义，它没有固定的定义，并且也很难去考证这个含义模糊的英文单词的起源，PPP的确切含义要根据不同的案例来确定。 一、PPP的各种模式及其含义 广义PPP可以分为外包、特许经营和私有化三大类，其中： 外包类:PPP项目一般是由政府投资，私人部门承包整个项目中的一项或几项职能，例如只负责工程建设，或者受政府之托代为管理维护设施或提供部分公共服务，并通过政府付费实现收益。在外包类PPP项目中，私人部门承担的风险相对较小。 特许经营类:项目需要私人参与部分或全部投资，并通过一定的合作机制与公共部门分担项目风险、共享项目收益。根据项目的实际收益情况，公共部门可能会向特许经营公司收取一定的特许经营费或给予一定的补偿，这就需要公共部门协调好私人部门的利润和项目的公益性两者之间的
政府和社会资本合作模式（简称PPP） 一、定义 政府和社会资本合作模式是在基础设施及公共服务领域建立的一种长期合作关系。通常模式是由社会资本承担设计、建设、运营、维护基础设施的大部分工作，并通过“使用者付费”及必要的“政府付费”获得合理投资回报；政府部门负责基础设施及公共服务价格和质量 监管，以保证公共利益最大化。 二、意义 当前，我国正在实施新型城镇化发展战略。城镇化是现代化的要求，也是稳增长、促改革、调结构、惠民生的重要抓手。立足国内实践，借鉴国际成功经验，推广运用政府和社会资本合作模式，是国家确定的重大经济改革任务，对于加快新型城镇化建设、提升国家治理能力、构建现代财政制度具有重要意义。 （一）PPP是促进经济转型升级、支持新型城镇化建设的必然要求。政府通过政府和社会资本合作模式向社会资本开放基础设施和公共服务项目，可以拓宽城镇化建设融资渠道，形成多元化、可持续的资金投入机制，有利于整合社会资源，盘活社会存量资本，激发民间投资活力，拓展企业发展空间，提升经济增长动力，促进经济结构调整和转型升级。 （二）PPP是加快转变政府职能、提升国家治理能力的一次体制机制变革。规范的政府和社会资本合作模式能够将政府的发展规划、市场监管、公共服务职能，与社会资本的管理效率、技术创新动力有机结合，减少政府对微观事务的过度参与，提高公共服务的效率与质量。政府和社会资本合作模式要求平等参与、公开透明，政府和社会资本按照合同办事，有利于简政放权，更好地实现政府职能转变，弘扬契约文化，体现现代国家治理理念。 （三）PPP是深化财税体制改革、构建现代财政制度的重要内容。根据财税体制改革要求，现代财政制度的重要内容之一是建立跨年度预算平衡机制、实行中期财政规划管理、编制完整体现政府资产负债状况的综合财务报告等。政府和社会资本合作模式的实质是政府购买服务，要求从以往单一年度的预算收支管理，逐步转向强化中长期财政规划，这与深化财税体制改革的方向和目标高度一致。 三、项目范围 PPP模式主要适用于政府负有提供责任又适宜市场化运作的公共服务、基础设施类项目。燃气、供电、供水、供热、污水及垃圾处理等市政设施，公路、铁路、机场、城市轨道交通等交通设施，医疗、旅游、教育培训、健康养老等公共服务项目，以及水利、资源环境和生态保护等项目均可推行PPP模式。各地的新建市政工程以及新型城镇化试点项目，应优先考虑采用PPP模式建设。 四、模式选择 （1）经营性项目。对于具有明确的收费基础，并且经营收费能够完全覆盖投资成本的项目，可通过政府授予特许经营权，采用建设—运营—移交（BOT）、建设—拥有—运营—移交（BOOT）等模式推进。要依法放开相关项目的建设、运营市场，积极推动自然垄断行业逐步实行特许经营。 （２）准经营性项目。对于经营收费不足以覆盖投资成本、需政府补贴部分资金或资 源的项目，可通过政府授予特许经营权附加部分补贴或直接投资参股等措施，采用建设—运营—移交（BOT）、建设—拥有—运营（BOO）等模式推进。要建立投资、补贴与价格的协同机制，为投资者获得合理回报积极创造条件。 （3）非经营性项目。对于缺乏“使用者付费”基础、主要依靠“政府付费”回收投资成本的项目，可通过政府购买服务，采用建设—拥有—运营（BOO）、委托运营等市场化模式推进。要合理确定购买内容，把有限的资金用在刀刃上，切实提高资金使用效益。
政府和社会资本合作（PPP）协议
目录 第一章总则.................................................................................................. - 4 -第二章协议主体........................................................................................... - 8 -第三章合作关系......................................................................................... - 11 -第四章投资计划及融资方案................................................................... - 14 -第五章项目前期工作................................................................................ - 15 -第六章项目建设......................................................................................... - 16 -第七章项目运营和服务............................................................................ - 23 -第八章项目移交......................................................................................... - 26 -第九章收入和回报..................................................................................... - 29 -第十章不可抗力和法律变更................................................................... - 34 -第十一章协议解除..................................................................................... - 36 -第十二章违约处理..................................................................................... - 37 -第十三章适用法律及争议解决.............................................................. - 40 -第十四章其他约定..................................................................................... - 41 -附件一：省财政厅（或省发改委）出具的证明本项目已经被列入省PPP项目库的文件 ................................................................................. - 46 -附件二：政府授权甲方作为本项目实施机构并代表政府与乙方签署本协议的文件 .................................................................................. - 47 -附件三：证明（政府专营补贴/政府购买服务费）纳入政府财政预算的人大决议或其他合法有效的审批文件 ..................................... - 48 -附件四：专营期内政府方在各年应支付的财政补贴金额测算表.. - 49 -
PPP 模式简介和案例 PPP 模式定义 PPP 模式，也称 PPP 融资，或者 PPP 。 PPP 模式即Public — Private — Partnership 的字母 缩写，是指政府与私人组织之间， 为 了合作建设 城市基础设施项目。或是为了提供某种公共物品和服务，以特许权协议为基础， 彼此之间形成一种伙伴式的合作关系， 并通过签署合同来明确双方的权利和义务， 以确保合 作的顺利完成，最终使合作各方达到比预期单独行动更为有利的结果。 公私合营模式（PPP ），以其政府参与全过程经营的特点受到国内外广泛关注。 PPP 模式将部分政府责任以特许经营权方式转移给社会主体 （企业），政府与社会主体建立起利 益共享、风险共担、全程合作”的共同体关系，政府的 财政负担减轻，社会主体的投资风险 减小。 广义PPP 可以分为外包、特许经营和私有化三大类，其中： 外包类 PPP 项目一般是由政府投资，私人部门承包整个项目中的一项或几项职能，例如只负 责工程建设，或者受政府之托代为管理维护设施或提供部分公共服务， 并通过政府付费实现 收益。在外包类 PPP 项目中，私人部门承担的风险相对较小。 项目发起人 -]g I 11" 银行及金融机构 项目公司 保险公司 项目使用人 运莒公司
特许经营类 项目需要私人参与部分或全部投资，并通过一定的合作机制与公共部门分担项目风险、 共享项目收益。根据项目的实际收益情况，公共部门可能会向特许经营公司收取一定的特许 经营费或给予一定的补偿，这就需要公共部门协调好私人部门的利润和项目的公益性两者之间的平衡关系，因而特许经营类项目能否成功在很大程度上取决于政府相关部门的管理水平。通过建立有效的监管机制，特许经营类项目能充分发挥双方各自的优势，节约整个项目的建设和经营成本，同时还能提高公共服务的质量。项目的资产最终归公共部门保留，因此一般存在使用权和所有权的移交过程，即合同结束后要求私人部门将项目的使用权或所有权 移交给公共部门。 私有化类 PPP项目则需要私人部门负责项目的全部投资，在政府的监管下，通过向用户收费收回投资实现利润。由于私有化类PPP项目的所有权永久归私人拥有，并且不具备有限追索 的特性，因此私人部门在这类PPP项目中承担的风险最大。 主要优点 在于将市场机制引进了基础设施的投融资。不是所有城市基础设施项目都是可以商业化的，应该说大多数基础设施是不能商业化的。政府不能认为，通过市场机制运作基础设施 项目等于政府全部退出投资领域。在基础设施市场化过程中，政府将不得不继续向基础设施 投入一定的资金。对政府来说，在PPP项目中的投入要小于传统方式的投入，两者之间的 差值是政府采用PPP方式的收益。 （1）消除费用的超支。公共部门和私人企业在初始阶段私人企业与政府共同参与项目 的识别、可行性研究、设施和融资等项目建设过程，保证了项目在技术和经济上的可行性， 缩短前期工作周期，使项目费用降低。PPP模式只有当项目已经完成并得到政府批准使用后，私营部门才能开始获得收益，因此PPP模式有利于提高效率和降低工程造价，能够消除项目完工风险和资金风险。研究表明，与传统的融资模式相比，PPP项目平均为政府部门节约 17%的费用，并且建设工期都能按时完成。 （2）有利于转换政府职能，减轻财政负担。政府可以从繁重的事务中脱身出来，从过 去的基础设施公共服务的提供者变成一个监管的角色，从而保证质量，也可以在财政预算方 面减轻政府压力。 （3）促进了投资主体的多元化。利用私营部门来提供资产和服务能为政府部门提供更多的资金和技能，促进了投融资体制改革。同时，私营部门参与项目还能推动在项目设计、施工、设施管理过程等方面的革新，提高办事效率，传播最佳管理理念和经验。 （4）政府部门和民间部门可以取长补短，发挥政府公共机构和民营机构各自的优势， 弥补对方身上的不足。双方可以形成互利的长期目标，可以以最有效的成本为公众提供高质量的服
关于印发政府和社会资本合作模式操作指南（试行） 财金〔2014〕113号 各省、自治区、直辖市、计划单列市财政厅（局），新疆生产建设兵团财务局： 根据《财政部关于推广运用政府和社会资本合作模式有关问题的通知》（财金〔2014〕76号），为保证政府和社会资本合作项目实施质量，规范项目识别、准备、采购、执行、移交各环节操作流程，现印发《政府和社会资本合作模式操作指南（试行）》，请遵照执行。
附件：政府和社会资本合作模式操作指南（试行）财政部 2014年11月29日 附件：
政府和社会资本合作模式操作指南 （试行） 第一章总则 第一条为科学规范地推广运用政府和社会资本合作模式（Public-Private Partnership，PPP），根据《中华人民共和国预算法》、《中华人民共和国政府采购法》、《中华人民共和国合同法》、《国务院关于加强地方政府性债务管理的意见》（国发〔2014〕43号）、《国务院关于深化预算管理制度改革的决定》（国发〔2014〕45号）和《财政部关于推广运用政府和社会资本合作模式有关问题的通知》（财金〔2014〕76号）等法律、法规、规章和规范性文件，制定本指南。 第二条本指南所称社会资本是指已建立现代企业制度的境内外企业法人，但不包括本级政府所属融资平台公司及其他控股国有企业。 第三条本指南适用于规范政府、社会资本和其他参与方开展政府和社会资本合作项目的识别、准备、采购、执行和移交等活动。 第四条财政部门应本着社会主义市场经济基本原则，以制度创新、合作契约精神，加强与政府相关部门的协调，积极发挥第三方专业机构作用，全面统筹政府和社会资本合作管理工作。 各省、自治区、直辖市、计划单列市和新疆生产建设兵团财政部门应积极设立政府和社会资本合作中心或指定专门机构，履行规划指导、融资支持、识别评估、咨询服务、宣传培训、绩效评价、信息统计、专家库和项目库建设等职责。 第五条各参与方应按照公平、公正、公开和诚实信用的原则，依法、规范、高效实施政府和社会资本合作项目。 第二章项目识别
PPP模式及相关政策解读 第一部分PPP模式讲解 一、项目融资 项目融资分为狭义项目融资（Project Financing）和广义项目融资。从各国和国际组织对PPP的理解来看，相对应PPP的定义也有广义和狭义之分。 （一）广义项目融资 1．广义项目融资的含义 “为项目融资——为特定项目的建设、收购以及债务重组进行的融资活动”。广义项目融资，是指债权人（银行）对借款人（项目公司）抵押资产以外资产有100%追索权的融资活动，即债权人对借款人抵押资产以外的资产也有追索权。 2．广义项目融资的形式 广义项目融资可以分为外包、特许经营和私有化三大类。 （1）外包类 即运营与维护合同（O&M），私营部门的合作伙伴根据合同，在特定的时间内，运营公有资产，公共合作伙伴保留资产的所有权。政府或政府性公司通过签定外包合同方式，将某些作业性、辅助性工作委托给外部企业或个人承担和完成，如：设计建造（DB），从而来达到集中资源和注意力于自己的核心事务的目的。
项目一般是由政府投资，私人部门承包整个项目中的一项或几项职能，例如只负责工程建设，或者受政府之托代为管理维护设施或提供部分公共服务，政府为其提供的产品或服务付费，项目投资和经营的风险完全由公共部门承担，私人部门承担的风险相对较小。作业外包一般由政府方给作业承担方付费，并通过委托运营和管理合同方式来执行。 （2）特许经营类 项目需要私人参与部分或全部投资，并通过一定的合作机制与公共部门分担项目风险、共享项目收益。根据项目的实际收益情况，公共部门可能会向特许经营公司收取一定的特许经营费或给予一定的补偿，项目的资产在特许经营期限之后需要移交公共部门，即合同结束后要求私人部门将项目的使用权或所有权移交给公共部门。因此一般存在使用权和所有权的移交过程，参与项目的公共部门需要协调私人部门的收益性和项目整体的公益性之间的关系。 （3）私有化类 在私营部门的合作伙伴设计和制造基础设施，以满足公共部门合作伙伴的规范，往往是固定价格，私营部门合作伙伴承担所有风险。项目需要私人部门负责项目的全部投资，也承担全部的风险，私人部门在定价和服务质量等方面需要接受政府的监管。在政府的监管下，通过向用户收费收回投资实现利润。由于私有化类PPP项目的所有权永久归私人拥有，并且不具备有限追索的特性，因此私人部门在这类PPP项目中承担的风险最大。私人部门负责项目的全部投资，项目所有权永久归私人所有。 （二）狭义项目融资
政府和社会资本合作项目财政管理暂行办法 第一章总则 第一条为加强政府和社会资本合作（简称PPP）项目财政管理，明确财政部门在PPP项目全生命周期内的工作要求，规范财政部门履职行为，保障合作各方合法权益，根据《预算法》、《政府采购法》、《企业国有资产法》等法律法规，制定本办法。 第二条本办法适用于中华人民共和国境内能源、交通运输、市政公用、农业、林业、水利、环境保护、保障性安居工程、教育、科技、文化、体育、医疗卫生、养老、旅游等公共服务领域开展的各类PPP项目。 第三条各级财政部门应当会同相关部门，统筹安排财政资金、国有资产等各类公共资产和资源与社会资本开展平等互惠的PPP项目合作，切实履行项目识别论证、政府采购、预算收支与绩效管理、资产负债管理、信息披露与监督检查等职责，保证项目全生命周期规范实施、高效运营。 第二章项目识别论证 第四条各级财政部门应当加强与行业主管部门的协同配合，共同做好项目前期的识别论证工作。 政府发起PPP项目的，应当由行业主管部门提出项目建议，由县级以上人民政府授权的项目实施机构编制项目实施方案，提请同级财政部门开展物有所值评价和财政承受能力论证。 社会资本发起PPP项目的，应当由社会资本向行业主管部门提交项目建议书，经行业主管部门审核同意后，由社会资本编制项目实施方案，由县级以上人
民政府授权的项目实施机构提请同级财政部门开展物有所值评价和财政承受能力论证。 第五条新建、改扩建项目的项目实施方案应当依据项目建议书、项目可行性研究报告等前期论证文件编制；存量项目实施方案的编制依据还应包括存量公共资产建设、运营维护的历史资料以及第三方出具的资产评估报告等。 项目实施方案应当包括项目基本情况、风险分配框架、运作方式、交易结构、合同体系、监管架构等内容。 第六条项目实施机构可依法通过政府采购方式委托专家或第三方专业机构，编制项目物有所值评价报告。受托专家或第三方专业机构应独立、客观、科学地进行项目评价、论证，并对报告内容负责。 第七条各级财政部门应当会同同级行业主管部门根据项目实施方案共同对物有所值评价报告进行审核。物有所值评价审核未通过的，项目实施机构可对实施方案进行调整后重新提请本级财政部门和行业主管部门审核。 第八条经审核通过物有所值评价的项目，由同级财政部门依据项目实施方案和物有所值评价报告组织编制财政承受能力论证报告，统筹本级全部已实施和拟实施PPP项目的各年度支出责任，并综合考虑行业均衡性和PPP项目开发计划后，出具财政承受能力论证报告审核意见。 第九条各级财政部门应当建立本地区PPP项目开发目录，将经审核通过物有所值评价和财政承受能力论证的项目纳入PPP项目开发目录管理。 第三章项目政府采购管理
政府和社会资本合作模式（简称PPP） 定义与常用名词解释 PPP模式定义： 政府和社会资本合作模式是在基础设施及公共服务领域建立的一种长期合 作关系。通常模式是由社会资本承担设计、建设、运营、维护基础设施的大部分工作，并通过“使用者付费”及必要的“政府付费”获得合理投资回报；政府部门负责基础设施及公共服务价格和质量监管，以保证公共利益最大化。（定义来源财政部财金[2014]76号） 是指政府为增强公共产品和服务供给能力、提高供给效率，通过特许经营、购买服务、股权合作等方式，与社会资本建立的利益共享、风险分担及长期合作 关系。（定义来源发改委发改投资[2014]2724号文件） 名词解释(来源于财金[2014]113号) 1.全生命周期（Whole Life Cycle），是指项目从设计、融资、建造、运营、维护至终止移交的完整周期。 2.产出说明（Output Specification），是指项目建成后项目资产所应达到的经济、技术标准，以及公共产品和服务的交付范围、标准和绩效水平等。 3.物有所值（Value for Money, VFM），是指一个组织运用其可利用资源所能获得的长期最大利益。VFM评价是国际上普遍采用的一种评价传统上由政 府提供的公共产品和服务是否可运用政府和社会资本合作模式的评估体系，旨在实现公共资源配置利用效率最优化。 4.公共部门比较值（Public Sector Comparator, PSC），是指在全生命周期内，政府采用传统采购模式提供公共产品和服务的全部成本的现值，主要包括建设运营净成本、可转移风险承担成本、自留风险承担成本和竞争性中立调整成本等。 5.使用者付费（User Charge），是指由最终消费用户直接付费购买公共产品和服务。
PPP模式简介和案例 PPP模式定义 PPP模式，也称PPP融资，或者PPP。 PPP模式即Public—Private—Partnership的字母缩写，是指政府与私人组织之间，为了合作建设城市基础设施项目。或是为了提供某种公共物品和服务，以特许权协议为基础，彼此之间形成一种伙伴式的合作关系，并通过签署合同来明确双方的权利和义务，以确保合作的顺利完成，最终使合作各方达到比预期单独行动更为有利的结果。 公私合营模式（PPP），以其政府参与全过程经营的特点受到国内外广泛关注。PPP 模式将部分政府责任以特许经营权方式转移给社会主体（企业），政府与社会主体建立起“利益共享、风险共担、全程合作”的共同体关系，政府的财政负担减轻，社会主体的投资风险减小。 分类 广义PPP可以分为外包、特许经营和私有化三大类，其中： 外包类 PPP项目一般是由政府投资，私人部门承包整个项目中的一项或几项职能，例如只负责工程建设，或者受政府之托代为管理维护设施或提供部分公共服务，并通过政府付费实现收益。在外包类PPP项目中，私人部门承担的风险相对较小。 特许经营类
项目需要私人参与部分或全部投资，并通过一定的合作机制与公共部门分担项目风险、共享项目收益。根据项目的实际收益情况，公共部门可能会向特许经营公司收取一定的特许经营费或给予一定的补偿，这就需要公共部门协调好私人部门的利润和项目的公益性两者之间的平衡关系，因而特许经营类项目能否成功在很大程度上取决于政府相关部门的管理水平。通过建立有效的监管机制，特许经营类项目能充分发挥双方各自的优势，节约整个项目的建设和经营成本，同时还能提高公共服务的质量。项目的资产最终归公共部门保留，因此一般存在使用权和所有权的移交过程，即合同结束后要求私人部门将项目的使用权或所有权移交给公共部门。 私有化类 PPP项目则需要私人部门负责项目的全部投资，在政府的监管下，通过向用户收费收回投资实现利润。由于私有化类PPP项目的所有权永久归私人拥有，并且不具备有限追索的特性，因此私人部门在这类PPP项目中承担的风险最大。 主要优点 在于将市场机制引进了基础设施的投融资。不是所有城市基础设施项目都是可以商业化的，应该说大多数基础设施是不能商业化的。政府不能认为，通过市场机制运作基础设施项目等于政府全部退出投资领域。在基础设施市场化过程中，政府将不得不继续向基础设施投入一定的资金。对政府来说，在PPP项目中的投入要小于传统方式的投入，两者之间的差值是政府采用PPP方式的收益。 （1）消除费用的超支。公共部门和私人企业在初始阶段私人企业与政府共同参与项目的识别、可行性研究、设施和融资等项目建设过程,保证了项目在技术和经济上的可行性，缩短前期工作周期,使项目费用降低。PPP模式只有当项目已经完成并得到政府批准使用后，私营部门才能开始获得收益,因此PPP模式有利于提高效率和降低工程造价,能够消除项目完工风险和资金风险。研究表明，与传统的融资模式相比，PPP项目平均为政府部门节约17%的费用，并且建设工期都能按时完成。 （2）有利于转换政府职能，减轻财政负担。政府可以从繁重的事务中脱身出来，从过去的基础设施公共服务的提供者变成一个监管的角色，从而保证质量，也可以在财政预算方面减轻政府压力。 （3）促进了投资主体的多元化。利用私营部门来提供资产和服务能为政府部门提供更多的资金和技能,促进了投融资体制改革。同时,私营部门参与项目还能推动在项目设计、施工、设施管理过程等方面的革新,提高办事效率,传播最佳管理理念和经验。 （4）政府部门和民间部门可以取长补短，发挥政府公共机构和民营机构各自的优势，弥补对方身上的不足。双方可以形成互利的长期目标，可以以最有效的成本为公众提供高质量的服务。 （5）使项目参与各方整合组成战略联盟,对协调各方不同的利益目标起关键作用。
政府和社会资本合作模式（PPP） 中的几个法律问题 今年以来财政部和国家发改委相继下发了《财政部关于推广运用政府和社会资本合作模式有关问题的通知》财金[2014]76号（下称“76号文”）、《财政部关于政府和社会资本合作示范项目有关问题的通知》（财金[2014]112号）（下称“112号文”）、《财政部关于印发政府和社会资本合作模式操作指南(试行)的通知》（财金[2014]113号）（下称“113号文”）、《国家发展改革委关于开展政府和社会资本合作的指导意见》（发改投资[2014]2724号）（下称“2724号文”）及其附件《政府和社会资本合作项目通用合同指南》（下称“《合同指南》”），社会各方面对政府和社会资本合作（PPP）高度关注，各方面都在研究PPP的操作，江苏、湖南、河北、河南省也相继出台了地方性的PPP规定，但这些规定中对PPP涉及的相关法律问题并没有解决，因此，本文就PPP实施涉及的法律问题进行探讨，以期抛砖引玉。 一、政府与社会资本合作的法律性质 PPP模式通常是指公共部门与私人部门为提供公共服务（主要是公用性基础设施建设）而通过正式的协议建立起来的一种长期合作伙伴关系，其中公共部门与私人部门互相取长补短，共担风险、共享收益。在PPP项目中一方是政府，一方是代表社会资本的私营机构。作为国家机关的政府由民众选出，然后代表社会民众对社会实施管理职能，政府对社会管理的行为属于行政行为，行政主体在实施行政行为时具有单方意志性，不必与行政相对方协商或征得其同意，即可依法自主作出；同时，行政行为具有强制性，以国家强制力保障实施，行政相对方必须服从并配合行政行为，否则，行政主体有权给予制裁或强制执行。作为政府，为了实现行政管理目标，或维护社会公共利益，也可以与行政相对人经过协商而签订行政合同，行政主体对于行政合同的履行、变更、或解除享有优益、监督权、指挥权、单方解除权。总之行政合同签约的主体之间是不平等的，这与民事合同于平等主体之间经过协商意思表示一致而签订有本质的区别。 PPP模式有多种，在不同的国家模式也有差别，首先PPP合同，无论是BOT、BOOT，还是其他类型，都是为了提供公共服务（当然，投资方在其中也有其私人的利益），而这些公共服务原来由政府提供，当政府把这些服务交给私营机构或公私合营机构提供时，所签订的合同一方必然是政府，而政府也有权力对合同履行进行监督，而不仅仅是合同的平等一方，所以PPP合同法律关系，具有行政性质。
1.?政府与社会资本合作模式中，社会资本是指已建立现代企业制度的境内外企业法人，但不包括本级政府所属融资平台公司及其他控股国有企业。 A、对 B、错 题号：Qhx013278 所属课程：政府与社会资本合作模式（PPP）? 2.?当使用者付费不足以满足项目公司成本回收和合理回报时，可以由政府给予项目公司一定的经济补贴，以弥补使用者付费之外的缺口部分。 A、对 B、错 题号：Qhx013280 所属课程：政府与社会资本合作模式（PPP）? 3.?一般来说，根据财政承受能力评估结果即可确定能否实施PPP。
A、对 B、错 题号：Qhx013277 所属课程：政府与社会资本合作模式（PPP）? 4.?BOO(建设-经营-持有)模式不属于PPP模式。 A、对 B、错 题号：Qhx013283 所属课程：政府与社会资本合作模式（PPP）? 5.?2014年我国首批试点PPP项目以新建项目为主。 A、对 B、错
题号：Qhx013281 所属课程：政府与社会资本合作模式（PPP）? 6.?上世纪八十年代后期我国开始引入PPP，最初以项目融资（BOT等）方式应用。 A、对 B、错 题号：Qhx013279 所属课程：政府与社会资本合作模式（PPP）? 7.?PPP模式可以通过社会资本参与，缓解政府部门在提供公共服务和基础设施后面的资金不足问题。 A、对 B、错
题号：Qhx013285 所属课程：政府与社会资本合作模式（PPP）? 8.?PPP项目的各类履约合同，是指由政府部门与相关方（工程承包商、运营服务商、原材料供应商、产品或服务购买方等）签订的合同。 A、对 B、错 题号：Qhx013284 所属课程：政府与社会资本合作模式（PPP）? 9.?PPP监管结构中，最终用户监管是指用户对项目公司提供的服务进行监督，并根据服务满意度向政府主管部门投诉或提出建议。 A、对 B、错
中华人民共和国政府和社会资本合作法 （征求意见稿） 第一章总则 第一条【立法目的】为了规范政府和社会资本合作，创新公共产品和服务供给模式，鼓励和引导社会资本参与公共产品和服务的供给，提高公共产品和服务的质量和效率，制定本法。 第二条【适用范围】中华人民共和国境内的政府和社会资本合作，适用本法。 第三条【定义】本法所称政府和社会资本合作，是指政府和社会资本以合作协议的方式提供公共产品和服务的行为。 第四条【合作原则】政府和社会资本合作应当遵循诚实守信、平等协商、风险分担、互利共赢、公平竞争的原则，合作各方的合法权益受平等保护。 第五条【权益风险配置】政府和社会资本合作应当由市场在资源配置中起决定性作用，更好发挥政府作用，优化权益风险配置。 第六条【管理体制】国务院财政部门负责指导协调、监督管理全国政府和社会资本合作工作，并会同有关部门制定政府和社会资本合作综合型政策支持。国务院发展改革、国土资源、住房城乡建设、交通运输等有关主管部门按照各自职责有关政府和社会资本合作政策的制定和监督管理工作。 县级以上人民政府财政部门负责指导协调、监督管理本级行政区
域内的政府和社会资本合作工作。县级以上人民政府发展改革、国土资源、住房城乡建设、交通运输等有关主管部门在各自职责范围内负责政府和社会资本合作项目实施和监督管理工作。 第七条【监管原则】政府和社会资本合作的监督管理部门应当依据负面清单管理原则依法履行职责，优化和减少行政审批环节和流程，依法确定各自监管范围、监管方式、监管标准和监管流程。 第八条【财政资金管理】政府和社会资本合作所需财政资金应当结合中长期财政规划统筹考虑，纳入同级政府预算管理，确保支出透明、规范、有效。 第二章政府和社会资本合作项目的产生 第九条【项目特征】政府和社会资本合作项目（以下简称合作项目）应当具有如下基本特征： （一）具有公共性、公益性； （二）风险可分担； （三）满足物有所值评价； （四）法律法规规定的其他要求。 前款所称物有所值评价，是指与政府提供公共产品和服务的传统模式相比，社会资本参与能有效降低项目全生命周期成本、提高公共产品和服务质量效率。 第十条【项目类型】合作项目包括基础设施类项目和公共服务类项目。 基础设施类项目包括：公路、铁路、港口、机场、城市轨道交通、
关于印发《政府和社会资本合作项目财政承受能力论证指 引》的通知 财金[2015]21号 消息来源：中税网 各省、自治区、直辖市、计划单列市财政厅（局），新疆生产建设兵团财务局： 根据《国务院关于创新重点领域投融资机制鼓励社会投资的指导意见》（国发〔2014〕60号）、《财政部关于推广运用政府和社会资本合作模式有关问题的通知》（财金〔2014〕76号）和《财政部关于印发政府和社会资本合作模式操作指南（试行）的通知》（财金〔2014〕113号），为有序推进政府和社会资本合作（Public-Private Partnership，以下简称PPP）项目实施，保障政府切实履行合同义务，有效防范和控制财政风险，现印发《政府和社会资本合作项目财政承受能力论证指引》。请遵照执行。 附件：政府和社会资本合作项目财政承受能力论证指引 财政部 2015年4月7日附件： 政府和社会资本合作项目财政承受能力论证指引第一章总则
第一条根据《中华人民共和国预算法》、《国务院关于加强地方政府性债务管理的意见》（国发〔2014〕43号）、《国务院关于深化预算管理制度改革的决定》（国发〔2014〕45号）、《国务院关于创新重点领域投融资机制鼓励社会投资的指导意见》（国发〔2014〕60号）、《财政部关于推广运用政府和社会资本合作模式有关问题的通知》（财金〔2014〕76号）和《财政部关于印发政府和社会资本合作模式操作指南（试行）的通知》（财金〔2014〕113号）等有关规定，制定本指引。 第二条本指引所称财政承受能力论证是指识别、测算政府和社会资本合作（Public-Private Partnership，以下简称PPP）项目的各项财政支出责任，科学评估项目实施对当前及今后年度财政支出的影响，为PPP项目财政管理提供依据。 第三条开展PPP项目财政承受能力论证，是政府履行合同义务的重要保障，有利于规范PPP项目财政支出管理，有序推进项目实施，有效防范和控制财政风险，实现PPP可持续发展。 第四条财政承受能力论证采用定量和定性分析方法，坚持合理预测、公开透明、从严把关，统筹处理好当期与长远关系，严格控制PPP项目财政支出规模。 第五条财政承受能力论证的结论分为“通过论证”和“未通过论证”。“通过论证”的项目，各级财政部门应当在编制年度预算和中期财政规划时，将项目财政支出责任纳入预算统筹安排。“未通过论证”的项目，则不宜采用PPP模式。 第六条各级财政部门（或PPP中心）负责组织开展行政区域内PPP项目财政承受能力论证工作。省级财政部门负责汇总统计行政区域内的全部PPP项目财政支出责任，对财政预算编制、执行情况实施监督管理。