Search results

Build-operate-transfer (BOT) contracts are widely used in the construction and operation of charging piles for new energy vehicles worldwide and stipulate that governments grant charging pile operators franchises for a certain period of time to invest in the construction and operation of the charging piles. The charging piles are then transferred to governments when the concession expires. To encourage charging pile operators to build and operate charging piles, governments usually provide two kinds of subsidies, namely construction and operating subsidies.

The authors establish a typical game model to study the optimal BOT contract between a government and a charging pile operator and their preferences for the two kinds of subsidies.

First, the authors show that there are substitution and complementarity effects between the concession period and the subsidy level. Second, the operator prefers the construction subsidy (operating subsidy) when the additional operating cost is low (high). The government prefers the operating subsidy (construction subsidy) when consumer sensitivity to the number of charging piles is low (high) and the concession period is short or long (moderate). Finally, the adjusted joint subsidy can not only improve social welfare but also that the charging pile operator can obtain the same profit as under the operating subsidy at a lower subsidy amount.

This work develops the first analytical model to study two subsidies in the construction and operation of charging piles and investigate the optimal BOT contract and subsidy preferences. The insights are compelling not only for the charging pile operator but also for policymakers in practice from a circular economy perspective.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

General management/strategy.

Case B: On April 4, 2013, the meeting of GMR’s Group Executive Council (GEC) was scheduled to take place. Srinivas Bommidala, G.M. Rao’s son-in-law and Chairman of GMR’s airports business, was gearing up for the meeting. The meeting was called to discuss a proposal for bidding for an upcoming airport project in the Philippines. It had been more than a decade since GMR entered the airport infrastructure sector. The organization had built substantial airport operating expertise during that period. It adopted a joint venture (JV) model for expanding into the airport infrastructure business. Until now the organization had always formed JVs for all its airport projects. JVs, with existing airport operators, were necessitated by the bid conditions that required a certain minimum airport operating experience for qualifying as a bidder for various projects. In some cases, JV with a local player helped GMR with market knowledge for functioning in a foreign market. GMR also used JVs to access the capabilities it lacked for operating in this sector and gradually learnt from its partners for building capabilities in-house. The group now had the required operating expertise in the sector to qualify as a bidder. One of the key issues the GEC was contemplating was: Whether GMR should continue to form JV for bidding for the upcoming project or should it go solo? Further, if it had to form a JV then, in which areas should it seek a partner?

Case B: To help students understand how companies use alliances as growth strategies; to understand the rationale for formation of various alliances; to explore various factors managers consider when deciding on alliance strategy of an organization; to understand the challenges associated with using alliances as a strategic option; and to understand the pros and cons of internal development (i.e. going solo) vis-à-vis strategic alliances.

Teaching notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email support@emeraldinsight.com to request teaching notes.

CSS 11: Strategy.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.