Failure Path Analysis with Respect to Private Sector Partners in Transportation Public-Private Partnerships

Governing public–private partnerships: A systematic review of case study literature

“…The first reason might be that successful cases need to perform well on many governance issues, while failed cases would be caused by one or a few factors. This outcome is consistent with survey studies that indicated many factors are critical to the success of PPP projects (e.g., 45 factors in Zhang, ), but much fewer to failure (e.g., 19 factors in Zhang & Ali Soomro, ). The second reason could be that successful cases usually performed well on common governance issues, whereas failed cases were caused by various factors (Zhang & Ali Soomro, ).…”

“…Contractual issues contribute to PPP success, greatly influenced by organizational issues. In contrast, contractual issues are less likely to cause failures, consistent with the findings in a survey study (Zhang & Ali Soomro, ). As a formal way of governance, contractual issues are transparent to outsiders—regulators, judges, and arbitrators—so governance issues in this group are less likely to be undermined and ultimately lead to failures.…”

“…A large number of studies established the theory of PPP governance across disciplines, including public administration and construction management. In general, this literature rests on either questionnaire surveys (Yang et al, 2013;Zhang, 2005a;Zhang & Ali Soomro, 2015) or case studies (Bloomfield, 2006;Hayllar, 2010;Klijn & Teisman, 2003;Silvestre & De Araujo, 2012). Moreover, studies usually have a specific perspective that typically falls into institutional (Beisheim & Campe, 2012;Cappellaro & Longo, 2011;Chou, Tserng, Lin, & Huang, 2015;Klijn & Teisman, 2003;Nijkamp, Van Der Burch, & Vindigni, 2002;Panayides, Parola, & Lam, 2015b;Tserng, Russell, Hsu, & Lin, 2012), organizational (Ahmadjian & Collura, 2012;Hayllar, 2010;Kort, Verweij, & Klijn, 2016;Marschollek & Beck, 2012), contractual (Albalate, Bel, & Geddes, 2015;Hodge & Greve, 2005;Reeves, 2008), and managerial issues (Forrer, Kee, Newcomer, & Boyer, 2010;Jefferies et al, 2002;Reeves, 2011;Vecchi & Hellowell, 2013).…”

“…The literature rests on the notion that a successful PPP is defined as one that runs the full course of the concession period and achieves the intended aims, such as providing sufficient quality and quantity public goods (Abdel-Aziz, 2007), improving efficiency and value-for-money (VfM) (Ball, Heafey, & King, 2003a;Grimsey & Lewis, 2005), and fulfilling societal and environmental objectives, such as equity for underdeveloped areas, affordability for people with low incomes, stakeholder satisfaction, environmental protection, resource conservation, and so on (Koppenjan & Enserink, 2009;Pattberg, 2012;Pinz, Roudyani, & Thaler, 2017). In contrast, PPP failures refer to contract suspensions due to conflict, legal proceedings, or technical faults; early termination caused by performance failure in delivering quality and quantity public goods; project nationalization for societal and environmental considerations; and postevaluation, revealing that efficiency and VfM were not achieved (Panayides et al, 2015a;Zhang & Ali Soomro, 2015). Governance issues play critical roles in determining success and failure outcomes, but their relative importance differs in different networks.…”

“…Many researchers have investigated a wide range of PPP governance issues, usually referenced as success or failure factors, drivers, lessons, experiences, best practices, challenges, obstacles, and barriers (Abdel-Aziz, 2007;Abdul-Aziz & Kassim, 2011;Akintoye, Hardcastle, Beck, Chinyio, & Asenova, 2003;Chou & Pramudawardhani, 2015;Jamali, 2004;Jefferies, Gameson, & Rowlinson, 2002;Li, Akintoye, Edwards, & Hardcastle, 2005b;Ng, Wong, & Wong, 2012;Qiao, Wang, Tiong, & Chan, 2009;Zhang, 2005a;Zhang & Ali Soomro, 2015). However, all of the literature focused on the relative importance of governance issues in different contexts, such as sectors and countries, but ignores the interrelationships of governance issues that might influence the governance efficiency of most systems (Emerson et al, 2012).…”