Critical failure factors of public-private partnership low-cost housing program in Thailand

Abstract

Purpose – Numerous studies to date have demonstrated the public-private partnership (PPP) project procurement method's failure to deliver low-cost housing (LCH) to low-income groups (LIGs) in developing countries. The purpose of this paper is to investigate critical failure factors (CFFs), and how they cause the failure of PPP-LCH program. Design/methodology/approach – Grounded Theory methodology was used to gather and analyze the data in order to identify, categorize, and develop the logically causal relationships among CFFs that cause PPP-LCH program failure. Findings – Ten CFFs in various phases of PPP-LCH project life cycle caused PPP-LCH program failure. Some CFFs resulted from ineffective PPP policy and strategy, while some were beyond the control of the project/program management team. These CFFs were inter-/intra-related to one another in a particular way. Originality/value – Despite the increase in PPP-LCH projects/programs for LIGs in practice and the prevalence of failure, the studies of PPP-LCH project/program failure still suffer from insufficient conceptual clarity about the causes of these failures. The lessons learned, to some extent, help decision makers in both public and private sectors to reduce the probability of the PPP-LCH project/program failure by clearly explaining the nature of each CFF.

An analysis of the delivery challenges influencing public-private partnership in housing projects

“…The synergies between 'procurement', and 'interpretation of contractual issues' as nested within the second challenge with the overall legal issues inherently included within the fourth challenge. These findings are also consistent with other studies (Sengupta, 2006;Trangkanont, 2014a These agreements have no exit clause. Generally, these agreements comprised of determination clauses, of which it provides for the circumstances upon which the Agreements can be determined.…”

“…-In the second phase, namely 'planning', the client/public sector needs to carry out a detailed feasibility study in order to determine the real needs of the public not considering the political needs as the public needs because the two may utterly differ. However, as observed by Trangkanont and Charoenngam, (2014a), leaving such tasks in the remit of the private sector may result in dishonesty and artificial demands. According to Trangkanont and Charoenngam , there were cases were the private sector had convinced the public sector that a project was viable and demand for it was high as was the case in Thailand.…”

“…The sub-section (v) of within this section 3 included 19 challenges drawn from the summarised studies Table I. The majority of the items were mostly from the following countries and studies: In Malaysia, Abdullahi and Aziz (2011); China, Liu, et al (2014); Hong Kong; Chan et al, (2014); and Thailand, Trangkanont and Charoenngam (2014a). The rationale for following prior research in the identification of the measures (i.e.…”

System Dynamics Model to Determine Concession Period of PPP Infrastructure Projects: Overarching Effects of Critical Success Factors

“…Similarly, Lagos-Shagamu-Ibadan concession road project is a PPP failure case in which many people had to be relocated and payment of royalties emanated. Several obligations, not captured in the contract package at the pre-contract stage, escalated into serious cases of protracted litigations (Akintoye and Main, 2007;Opawole and Jagboro, 2016;Trangkanont and Charoenngam, 2014).…”

“…CP reconciles risk-reward balance for the private party and end user: the prior in form of speedy financial recovery, and the latter in form of economic tolls and greater public welfare (Akintoye and Chinyio, 2005;Carmona, 2010;Hu and Zhu, 2014;Shi et al, 2016). Thus, if not estimated properly, CP may trigger project failure (Cheung et al, 2010;Tieva and Junnonen, 2009;Trangkanont and Charoenngam, 2014).…”