You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items

  • Author or Editor: Kent Eriksson x
Clear All Modify Search
You do not have access to this content

Raymond E. Levitt and Kent Eriksson

Australia has been a pioneer in using public_private partnership (PPP) delivery of infrastructure for the past three decades and has accumulated a great deal of experience – both good and bad – that has helped to refine its governance regimes on both the public and the private sides of PPP delivery. This chapter reports findings from a set of interviews with all the key participants in PPP delivery about how government legislators and executive agencies currently prioritize projects professionally to avoid typical legislative parochialism in authorizing locally favored infrastructure projects, and how they organize the regulatory framework and agencies for PPP delivery. It then describes the governance regimes that have evolved for minimizing and addressing conflicts of interest and opportunistic behavior by and within the private sector concessionaires’ project companies that finance, deliver and operate PPP infrastructure services in mature Australian federal and state PPP markets. Countries considering or beginning to use infrastructure delivery can learn valuable lessons about governing this mode of infrastructure service delivery in the public interest from how Australia has adapted its governance mechanisms and safeguards for PPP delivery.

You do not have access to this content

Anders Blomstermo, Kent Eriksson and D. Deo Sharma

You do not have access to this content

Carter B. Casady, Kent Eriksson, Raymond E. Levitt and W. Richard Scott

Globally, public_private partnerships (PPPs) have risen in popularity as an alternative procurement model for infrastructure development projects. The development of infrastructure PPPs depends to a large extent on institutional maturity, where mature institutions are characterized by well-established norms and coordination procedures for infrastructure PPP developments. While PPPs have been widely researched and remain subject to extensive debate, the role of institutional maturity in PPP governance has been largely overlooked in the field of engineering project organization (EPO). To address this knowledge gap, this chapter evaluates how institutional settings affect the public sector’s governance capacity to effectively develop infrastructure PPPs. It concludes with normative recommendations for institutional reform of PPP governance in the United States.