Search results

The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) is a recent development in the UK in which private sector organisations, design, build, finance and operate assets to deliver a service to public sector clients. The initiative is expected to bring the private sector's finance, management skills and expertise into projects which would normally be undertaken by the public sector. Equivalents of this initiative, also found outside the UK, include DBFO (Design Build Finance Operate), BOO (Build Own Operate) and turnkey projects. Two important considerations for a project to receive an approval for the initiative are that it must represent value for money and there must be sufficient transfer of risk to the private sector. This paper, based on a questionnaire survey, provided the perceptions of clients, contractors and financial institutions on risk associated with PFI and how these determine their approach to PFI schemes. The analysis shows that design changes and the level of information on functional, performance and output requirements for PFI schemes are of major concern to the parties involved in this procurement route.

This paper outlines the concept of the Private Finance Initiative. It covers some of the basic PFI mechanisms and provides the reader with a general understanding of PFI and the purpose it serves. The paper will look at how the policy has been received specifically within the construction industry and the problems highlighted to date.

There is a growing support for the view that the private sector is at least as efficient as the public sector in managing investment risks of large projects. Governments forget that it is the taxpayer who bears all the risks in a public finance scenario of investments. So, it seems unfounded that governments should neglect the cost of investment risk in obtaining finance as the taxpayer might be seen as a shareholder in (public) investments, which by definition are risky. It is this taxpayer-is-shareholder perspective that will be criticized in this paper. This taxpayer approach neglects the variety of funding and financing positions that might be taken by the various actors in investment projects. The paper concludes that some prudence is recommended in supporting private finance initiatives

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.

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.

This research evaluates the value-for-money (VFM) obtained from public-private partnership (PPP) schools in Scotland, based on headteachers questionnaires, local authority interviews and Scottish School Estate Statistics. The period covered is 2000-2012, when 395 new schools were commissioned. The PPPs were better in building condition and maintenance standards and conventionally-financed schools were better in terms of teacher access and improvement in staff morale. There was transfer of knowledge whereby the high standards of the PPPs then became the new standards for the conventionally-financed schools. Concerns about PPP VFM relates to the high cost of unitary charges and contract inflexibilities. A higher percentage of headteachers of conventionally-financed schools (63.64%) considered their new schools resulted in good VFM compared to PPP schools (42.86%).

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.

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.