GLOBAL EXPERIENCES OF PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP: LESSONS FOR BANGLADESH

1) Abdullah Mohammad Ahshanul Mamun Lecturer Department of Business Administration International Islamic University Chittagong Bangladesh. e-mail: ama_mamun@yahoo.com 2) Nazamul Hoque Assistant Professor Department of Business Administration International Islamic University Chittagong Bangladesh. e-mail: nazam_iiuc@yahoo.com 3) Abdullahil Mamun Assistant Professor Department of Business Administration International Islamic University Chittagong Bangladesh. e-mail: ahm_economics@yahoo.com 4) Manjur Rashad Masum Lecturer Department of Business Administration University of Information Technology and Sciences Bangladesh. e-mail: masum.cma@gmail.com Abstract Public private partnership (PPP) is no more considered as a trial and error concept rather it is applied widely around the world as a tested and successful means in facilitating the delivery of high quality goods and services. But the efficient utilization of PPP is a challenging job. In this paper a thorough review and evaluation has been done on the experiences of PPP of different developed and developing countries of the world in order to identify the critical factors of PPP to

16

provide necessary guidelines to the key stakeholders of Bangladesh considering its context with a view to accelerate the wheel of economy through proper utilization of different successful models of PPP. Key Words: Public Private Partnership, Bangladesh. Introduction: Public private partnership (PPP/P3) is getting attention as an attractive field of research during the last few decades (Jimnez and Pasquero, 2005) because PPP is being considered as an alternative institutional arrangements and modes of delivery of public goods and services (Jamali, 2007, Wettenhall, 2003, Hodge & Greve,2005).The primary objective of PPPs is to facilitate the delivery of high-quality public facilities and services by the private sector over an extended period of time at a cost that represents value for money, whilst at the same time transferring an appropriate level of risk to the private sector (Lane and Gardiner, 2003). PPPs imply a sort of collaboration to pursue common goals, while leveraging joint resources and capitalizing on the respective competences and strengths of the public and private partners (Widdus,2001; Pongsiri, 2002; Nijkamp et al., 2002). PPPs can also work for a range of infrastructures including transportation, water and sewer services, solid waste disposal, municipal parking, and social infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, and other public buildings. These include education, housing, health care, transportation, social care and many other areas commonly associated with the public sector (Grimsey and Lewis, 2002). European Commission (2004), in its green paper on PPPs, recognized some common elements of a PPP: long duration cooperative relationship, complex arrangement of shared funding and participants ro le at different stages in the project and shared risk. Most supposed PPPs in third world development do not seem to meet this criterion. Donor agencies often promote privatization and government subsidies to private entrepreneurs in the name of building PPPs. However, privatization and subsidies should not be confused with PPPs (Mitchell-Weaver and Manning, 1991). Indeed, though PPP was originally treated as a derivative of the privatization movement, there is a growing consensus today that PPP does not simply mean the introduction of market mechanisms or the privatization of public services. PPP is an institutionalized form of cooperation of public and private actors, who work together towards a joint target on the basis of their own indigenous objectives (Nijkamp et al., 2002). According to Jamali (2004), Pongsiri (2002), Nijkamp et al., (2002) and Widdus (2001), PPP is a sort of collaboration to pursue common goals by leveraging joint resources and capitalizing on the respective competences and strengths of the public and private partners. Indeed, the nature of relationship between the public and private sectors is seen on the dimension of five types of activities namely- parallel activities, competitive activities, complementary & collaborative activities (Ravindran, 2002), and Contractual activities (Clifton & Duffield, 2006). PPP is the collaboration in which the public and private sectors both bring their complementary skills to a project, with different levels of involvement and responsibility, for the sake of providing public services more efficiently (Efficiency Unit, 2003b). It is a relationship that consists of shared and/or compatible objectives and an acknowledged distribution of specific roles and responsibilities among the participants which can be formal or informal, contractual or voluntary, between

17

two or more parties. The implication is that there is cooperative investment of resources and therefore joint risk taking; sharing of authority, and benefits for all partners (Lewis, 2002).According to Jefferies and McGeorge (2008), a PPP consortium is defined as a temporary organization with a complex network of stakeholders each with competing goals and objectives. Public private partnerships (PPPs) are a policy adopted by government to buy infrastructure (and related ancillary) services over the long term (Torres and Pina, 2001). A PPP is an approach to delivering public services that involve the private sector, but one that provides for a more direct control relationship between the public and private sector than would be achieved by a simple (legallyprotected) market based and arms-length purchase.( Jane Broadbent, Richard Laughlin, 2003). As civil infrastructure projects have grown in scale and scope, their cost has increased accordingly. As a result, we have entered what has been termed the era of the infrastructure megaproject (Altshuler & Luberoff, 2003). Around the world, governments of different countries have tried to avoid using the term privatization or contracting out in favor of speaking about partnerships. That may be a part of a general trend within public management of needing to renew the reform buzzwords from time to time, or the practice of advancing the same policy, but under a different and catchier name (Hodge & Greve, 2009). The alternative views of Public Private Partnerships (PPPs/P3), New Public Management (NPM), Public Finance Initiative (PFI) and Privately Financed Projects (PFP) are a set of language games (Linder, 1999). In the UK, New Zealand and Australia particularly, as well as in the other nations around the world, large part of the public sector were subject to aggressive privatization in the 1970s and 1980s (Broadbent, Laughlin 2003).New public management

(NPM), a term first referred to by Hood (1991), denotes broadly the government policies, since the 1980s that aimed to modernize and render more effective the public sector. Proponents of these forms of New Public Management promised improved efficiency by the joint commitment of the private and public sectors to delivery and through sharing of risk (Hood, 1995). Privatization of major part of public sector ceased and facing questions in all the three countries-UK, New Zealand and Australia- due to legitimate, political and economic problems created by privatization program during early 1990s (Broadbent, Laughlin 2003; Newberry and Pallot, 2003).The UKs PFI was launched in Autumn1992 by the Conservative chancellor of the Exchequer, Norman Lamont, is a design build finance and operate (DBFO) system (Broadbent, Laughlin 2003). Australia also following such an approach privately financed projects (English and Guthrie, 2003).Barlow, Roehrich, and Wright (2010), on the other hand indicates that PFI is a way of creating publicprivate partnerships (PPPs) as part of the wider neoliberal program of privatization and financialisation driven by an increased need for accountability and efficiency for public spending developed initially by Australian and United Kingdom governments. According to Hodge and Greve (2007) there are five different families of PPPs: 1. Institutional cooperation for joint production and risk sharing 2. Long-term infrastructure contracts (LTICs) 3. Public policy networks (in which loose stakeholder relationships are emphasised) 4. Civil society and community development 5. Urban renewal and downtown economic development. Indeed, on the basis of dimensions of control, funding and ownership there are eight combinations (given in table 1) of publicprivate mix are possible for PPPs (Zarco-Jasso, 2005).

18

Table 1: Probable Public-Private Relationship Dimension 100% Public (1) (2) (3) Control Finance Ownership Public Public Public Public Public Private Public Private Public

(4) Public Private Private

(5) Private Public Public

(6) Private Public Private

(7) Private Private Public

100% Private (8) Private Private Private

Source: Constructed by authors The above table shows a probable set of relationship 2005). Depending on the mode of entry, ultimate between Public and Private on three dimensions ownership, risk sharing, and duration of the ranging from (100% Public) State-owned enterprise partnership PPPs may take a wide range of to (100% Private) Privatization. So there exist six contractual forms that can be combined into four options where public and private can share the main types: Greenfield, divestiture, concessions, and ownership, control and finance between them as a management contracts (Glambotskaya et al., 2007). form of Public private partnership (PPP/P3). It shows Characteristics of Main types of PPP are (given in a greater involvement of private may be possible for table 2) as follows: option 4, 6& 7 (Dimensions taken from: Zarco-Jasso, Table 2 : Characteristics of Main types of PPP Types of PPP Acronym Modes of Operation and Investment Ultimate Market Duration Entry Maintenance Ownership Risk (Years) Build, Own and BOT Greenfield Private Private SemiPrivate 20-30 Transfer private Build, Own, BOOT Greenfield Private Private SemiPrivate 30+ Operate and private Transfer Build, Own and BOO Greenfield Private Private Private Private 30+ Operate Build, Lease and BLO Greenfield Private Private Private Private 30+ Own Partial Divesture Private Private Private Private 30+ Privatization Full Privatization Divesture Private Private Private Private Indefinite Rehabilitate, ROT Concession Private Private Public Semi20-30 Operate and private Transfer

19

Rehabilitate, Lease/ Rent and Transfer Build, Rehabilitate, Operate and Transfer Management Contract Leasing

RLRT

Concession

Private

Private

Public

Moreprivate Private

20-30

BROT

Concession

Private

Private

Public

20-30

Contract Contract

Private Private

Public Public

Public Public

Public Semiprivate

3-5 8-15

Source: Glambotskaya et al. (2007) PPP can be a good tool for developing sustainable infrastructure and thereby ensuring and accelerating the wheel of economy of Bangladesh. Access to electricity, improved sanitation facilities, telephone subscribers are 20%, 36% and 14% respectively all the indicators are below the South Asia Average according to comparative infrastructure indicators (World Bank Database, 2011). The current rate of investment is much lower (24.5%) than the required rate (around 35%-40%) the government seeks and what is necessary for Bangladesh to meet its goals (Bangladesh Gadget, 2010; Mamun, Islam 2010). Situation has worsened in recent years, with the decline in availability of private sector investment for infrastructure (World Bank, 2013). Therefore, this paper is an effort to point out the interesting lessons for Bangladesh from the experiences of different countries around the globe considering the context of Bangladesh. Different critical success factors of PPP are identified so that Bangladesh can successfully implement with a view to maximize the benefits from PPP. While writing the paper, the researchers have reviewed available published articles, case studies, reports, conference papers, archival records and books regarding Public Private Partnerships experiences of different developed and developing countries of the world.

Public Private Partnership: World Experiences Various forms of PPP have been implemented in countries of the European Union, Australia Central America, North America, South East Asia and Africa for over 30 years. Between 1990 and 2009 more than 1300 PPP contracts were signed in the EU, representing a capital value of more than EUR 250 billion. This includes roughly 350 new projects with a value of almost EUR 70 billion having reached financial close since the beginning of 2007 (European Investment Bank,2010). Table-3 provides a picture of infrastructure projects in different region by primary sector. Projects include management or lease contracts, concessions, greenfield projects, and divestitures. The database contains almost 5,000 projects dating from 1984 to 2011.

Table-4 provides a description of infrastructure projects in low- and middle-income countries by primary sector. Projects include management or lease contracts, concessions, greenfield projects, and divestitures. The database contains almost 5,000 projects dating from 1984 to 2011.

20

Table 3 : Infrastructure projects in different region by primary sector Featured Indicator (1990-2011) Infrastructure Sectors Reported Number of countries with private participation Projects reaching financial closure Sector with largest investment share Type of PPI with largest share in investment Type of PPI with largest share in projects Projects cancelled or under distress Europe and Central Asia Energy, Telecom, Transport, Water and sewerage 22 Latin America and the Caribbean Energy, Telecom, Transport, Water and sewerage 30 Middle East and North Africa Energy, Telecom, Transport, Water and sewerage 12 Sub Saharan Africa Energy, Telecom, Transport, Water and sewerage 47

East Asia and Pacific Energy, Telecom, Transport, Water and sewerage 20

South Asia Energy, Telecom, Transport, Water and sewerage 8

1564

742

1586

139

771

436

Energy (39%) Greenfield project (65%) Greenfield project (66%)

Telecom (55%) Greenfield project (54%) Divestiture (42%)

Telecom (45%)

Telecom (66%) Greenfield project (66%) Greenfield project (63%) 6 representing 1% of total investment

Energy (44%) Greenfield project (81%) Greenfield project (65%) 13 representing 1% of total investment

Telecom (78%) Greenfield project (72%) Greenfield project (58%) 48 representing 5% of total investment

Greenfield project (39%)

Greenfield project (51%) 133 representing 8% of total investment

82 34 representing representing 10% of total 2% of total investment investment Source: World Bank PPI database, 2013

21

Table 4 : infrastructure projects in low- and middle-income countries by primary sector Featured Indicator, (1990-2011) Energy Telecom Transport Number of countries with private participation Projects reaching financial closure Region with largest investment share Type of PPI with largest share in investment Type of PPI with largest share in projects Projects cancelled or under distress

Water and sewerage 62 762 East Asia and Pacific (46%) Concession (60%) Greenfield project (42%) 63 representing 32% of total investment

107 2283 Latin America and the Caribbean (35%) Greenfield project (65%) Greenfield project (72%) 117 representing 5% of total investment

135 822 Latin America and the Caribbean (37%) Greenfield project (60%) Greenfield project (74%) 59 representing 3% of total investment

86 1371 Latin America and the Caribbean (40%) Concession (55%)

Concession (57%) 77 representing 6% of total investment

Source: World Bank PPI database, 2013 China, India, Brazil and Russian federation are holding the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th position respectively considering the number of PPP projects during 19842011. On the other hand Brazil India, Russian federation and China are holding the 1st , 2nd , 3rd and 4th position with respect to total investment (US$ million) in PPP projects during the same period (World Bank PPI data base, 2013). The government defines success for PPP projects as being built on time and within budget (Nick Sciulli, 2008). A successful PPP is one that provides the services the government needs, offers value for money as measured against public service provision (where value for money is measured by the net present value of lifetime costs, including the cost of risk bearing)and complies with general standards of good governance and specific government policy such as Is procured with transparent and competitive procurement being fiscally prudent complying with the legal and regulatory regimes that apply to the industry in which the PPP will exist. (World Bank, 2007). PPPs therefore should not be expected to substitute for action or responsibilities that properly rest elsewhere. In particular, the public sector should continue to set standards and monitor product safety, efficacy, and quality and establish systems whereby citizens have adequate access to the products and services they need. (Jamali, 2004) In

22

other words, PPPs do not imply less government but a different governmental role. The stronger position that the private partner often commands implies that more skilled government participation is often needed. Although PPP has become a valuable asset for communities to revitalize their economic marketability and aid with needed social, housing, infrastructure and employment programs (Nijkamp et al., 2002; Shatkin, 2007), PPP experience are mixed and varied. PPP projects should be evaluated on their merits, on a case-by-case basis, and contemplated when the ingredients of effective collaboration (e.g. commitment, interdependence, individual excellence, communication and integrity) are found or can be safely nurtured along the way (Jamali, 2004).Most PPP are not same in nature and cannot be reproduction that means each PPP project comprises a different set of variables, stakeholders and objectives. Hodge and Greve (2009) summarize a range of evaluation examples from the international literature. It is drawn from the past decade and reflects only some of the pieces going to make up the overall (Long-term infrastructure contract) LTICtype PPP evaluation picture, and they trust that it is more or less representative. Out of 25 projects that evaluated 52% of the projects have delivered a better value for money (vfm), 36 % provided negative results. The Book entitled Sharing innovative experiences: Examples of Successful Private Public Partnerships published by UNDP in 2008, presented 23 varied success experience of different developed and developing countries in six sectors that includes: Healthcare, Power, Public Buildings, Transportation, Water/Wastewater Infrastructure and Environment. Prabir and Seung-kuk (2001) reviewed the case of Pusan port, South Korea and proposed PPP for

successful port restructuring and operations for other developing countries. Stella and Elisavet (2006) suggests that for urban regenerating in combination with respecting the principle of sustainability, publicprivate financing schemes have great potential. Local government has to maintain its leading role in terms of establishing and controlling the fulfillment of strict specifications in the realization of urban regeneration projects through PPPs. Although Urban Water Expansion, Cochabamba, Bolivia and Water/Wastewater Improvements, Manila, Philippines these two project claimed as a successful PPP by UNDP report, a wide spread criticism we can observed regarding the projects at different literature mostly pointing Bechtel Incorporation. Bechtel was accounted for violating contractual prohibition of price raise in Bolivia water project in 1999 (Palast, Oppenheim, and MacGregor, 2003) and Bulgaria water concession project, and Maynilad Water Manila, Philippines in 1997 (A. Buffa et al, 2003).Many people lose their job during the contract.(Public Citizen,2002). In November 2007, a report of Food and Water Watch claimed that Bechtel is accounted for hepatitis A outbreak, dirty and extremely poor service and the lack of maintenance, investment, and expansion of the service at Guayaquil, Ecuador Project. During 19992002, The Bechtel Group Inc. gave US$1.3 million in campaign contributions mostly to The Republican Administration USA, and they awarded Bechtel, in secret, contracts totaling US$1.03 billion for reconstruction in Iraq. There was no request for proposals to determine the most appropriate and cost effective contractor; no public notice or opportunity for public involvement in the decision; no transparency. (S.Glain, 2003; A. Buffa et al, 2003). Bechtel with Enron in the villainous Dabhol plant in India, which many imagine was oiled by inducement, failed after attempting to extort a price for electricity

23

of almost double the average available in the market and more than triple the cheapest alternative at a rate of return of 30 per cent. This rate can be compared to the 3 per cent return state-owned power agencies aim for in India. (Palast, Oppenheim, and MacGregor, 2003). Enron was in the water business for only three years, through an entity called Azurix that it created in 1998, operated in Buenos Aires, Ghana and Canadawas fined for frequent interruptions, releasing untreated effluent, and exceeding allowed effluent levels, suspicions of corruption , severe violations of environmental law etc.(Public Citizen,2002). Metronet represents a recent, and very big, infrastructure PPP failure. It was divided into two PPPs (BCV and SSL), the London underground P3s are collectively known as Metronet was a 15.7 billion P3, signed in 2003 and personally championed by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, collapsed in 2007. Various problems like goal conflict, risk sharing and higher debt to equity ratio prevail there. Most importantly, there existed five giant equity participants as well as supplier of the project who transfer their risk to another standalone corporation owned by the other four equity partners- make it harder to assign responsibility (Vining and Boardman, 2008). There exist many other examples of PPP failure including Rio Light Company in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. Reports of corruption, fail to meet the public interest, Job cut, price hike, cancellation of contract, bribery, hearing, punishment etc. are common phenomenon in not only private power sector but also in water projects surfaced in Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Uganda, Lesotho, Guinea, Argentina, South Africa, Germany, Turkey, England, Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland and Peru by renowned companies working in PPP project around the World.

(Palast, Oppenheim, and MacGregor, 2003). Backer (2003), sees Enron as a PPP, demonstrates the danger of loosing control of public regulators over private sector. Many transnational private utilities are larger than most national economies (Beaulieu, 2003). Indias unhappy experience with Enron and Bechtel illustrates, the odds are much longer in the developing world that public-private partnerships will result in benefits to the public. (Oppenheim and MacGregor, 2004). This stream of literature generally indicates that partnerships are high-risk strategies, particularly at the level of implementation; however, the advantages and/or mutual benefits, when successful, by far outweigh the risks involved (Hagen, 2002; Horton, 1998). Critical Factors of Public Private Partnership Development Ibrahim, Price and Dainty (2006) identified sixty-one PPP risk factors from literature and classified into exogenous and endogenous risks. They focused on three most important PPP risk factors in Nigeria, thats are unstable government, inadequate experience in PPP and availability of finance that are most relevant to Bangladesh perspective. Those critical factors are related to development and implementation of PPP. Those factors are given bellow along with the researchers.

24

Table 5 : Critical PPP Development factors Factors Institutionalization, Integrity Regulatory Framework Establishing a jurisdictional PPP/P3 constitution, Separate the analysis, evaluation, contracting/ administrating and oversight agencies, Arbitration procedure, careful selection of project, avoid stand alone private sector with limited equity Competitive bidding / competitive tender Resource dependency (hostage taking), common goal, Alignment of cooperation and learning capability Compatibility , capability of partners Commitment symmetry Purpose of the partnership, Compromise and Trust , Clear boundaries, measureable output performance and transparency, Reporting and record keeping, Central administration with private expertise, Environment , safety and health responsibility, Monopolistic situation Intense communication between parties and stakeholders Respect , Political and community support, expert advice and review, Risk awareness, Clear roles and responsibilities Efficient risk allocation, several risk analysis techniques Management skill of Private , output-based specification; competitive tender; and private sector technical innovation Specific plan /vision of all costs , revenues and profitability Maintain involvement of new government role as partner as well as regulator to ensure accountability , effective cost shifting etc. Source: Constructed by authors

Researcher(s) Kanter, 1994 Di Lodovico, 1998;Pongsiri, 2002; Zouggari, 2002; Baker 2003 Vining and Boardman, 2008

Vining and Boardman, 2008; Esther Cheung, Albert P.C. Chan, Stephen Kajewski, 2009 Samii et al.,2002 Hagen, 2002 Samii et al.,2002 ; Hagen, 2002 ; Carol Jacobson & Sang Ok Choi ,2008 Wallin, 1997; Savas, 2000; Roseneau,2000; Widdus, 2001; Nijkamp et al., 2002; Spackman, 2002; Scharle, 2002; Sussex, 2003;Zouggari, 2003; Jamali,2004

Kanter, 1994;Samii et al.,2002; Carol Jacobson & Sang Ok Choi ,2008 Carol Jacobson & Sang Ok Choi ,2008

Esther Cheung, Albert P.C. Chan, Stephen Kajewski, 2009 ; Jamali,2004 Esther Cheung, Albert P.C. Chan, Stephen Kajewski, 2009 Carol Jacobson & Sang Ok Choi ,2008; Jamali,2004 Spackman, 2002

25

Public Private Partnership in Bangladesh: Though not so rich, Bangladesh has experiences of PPP, especially in respect of the scope and diversity of Non-Government Organization (NGO) activities in social services. (Bhattacharya, Rahman, 2010). But the scenario of PPP in primary project is not up to required level. The Government through its national budget FY 2009-10 introduced the concept of PPP budget and the new industrial policy 2010 also reflects the governments intention for rapid industrialization through Public Private Partnerships (Bhattacharya, Iqbal & Khan, 2009). Implementation and funding of infrastructure development projects is a long drawn process and investment risk is much higher, the investment is not, in many cases, commercially viable (Hodge and Greve, 2009). As a heavily populated country with a population of around 150 million living on a land area of 147570 square kilometer, Bangladeshs economy is dependent mainly on agriculture, which accounts for around 18.43% of GDP, but provides employment to as much as 47.3% of the countrys labor force (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, 2010). Due to unfavorable land-man ratio and the under-developed

state of the countrys agriculture sector, the key to the generation of productive employment lies in strong economic growth through the structural transformation of the economy away from agriculture and toward industry (Bhuyan, 2005). There are three major options for infrastructure delivery (although each has many variations): direct public provision, contracting-out (i.e., design, build, transfer), or publicprivate partnerships (P3s) (Vining and Boardman, 2008). A new way for Bangladesh need to improve for its infrastructure development keeping in mind the governments low capability to finance its immediate infrastructure like power, health, energy etc. And public-private partnerships (PPP) may be a solution basing on the experience of foreign countries. Indeed, Bangladesh has a very few PPP projects in all the primary sectors. Projects include 38 Greenfield projects, 5 management or lease contracts and 3 divestitures containing almost 46 projects dating from 1990 to 2011. The snapshot of are given (table:6) bellow-

Table 6 : Infrastructure projects in Bangladesh under Public Private initiative (PFI) during 1990-2011 Sector Sub-Sector Number of Projects Total Investment (US$ million) 1,688 31 1,719 6,593 6,593 0

Energy

Electricity Natural Gas Total Energy Telecom Total Telecom Airports

Telecom

28 1 29 (Green field 26, Divestiture 3 ) 12 12 (Greenfield 12) 1

Transport

26

Roads Seaports Total Transport

2 2 5 (Management Contracts 5 )

0 0 0 -

Water and Sewerage Total 46 Source: World Bank PPI database, 2013

8,312

It is difficult to attract private investment in all projects. Through the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives, a recently introduced innovative scheme, government involves the private sector to meet the probable investment gap in infrastructure development, especially power and energy; telecommunication and port development have been given the highest priority, which will provide a boost to every sector of the economy Using some proven schemes such as Public Private Partnership (PPP/P3s) to provide the basic infrastructure is essential for countries like Bangladesh to generate required investment to meet the millennium development goals (Mamun & Islam, 2010). As small taxing powers against GDP (10%, 2008-2012), (World Bank, 2013) and inefficient scale in both technical expertise and risk assessment, Government of Bangladesh requires minimizing the infrastructure deficit where P3 can be a significant alternative. On the other hand, Tillmann, Robert and Wang (2007) compared the levels of perceived risks versus the PPP opportunities and show that while Cambodia, Bangladesh, and Pakistan are perceived most risky and promising least PPP opportunities, Indonesia, China, India, and Thailand are also perceived

relatively risky put promise comparatively high-PPP opportunities. The least exposed to political risks are the matured economies of Korea, Japan and Singapore and they rank middle regarding PPP opportunities.

PPP activities/Infrastructure in Bangladesh: The Infrastructure Investment Facilitation Center (IIFC) was established in 1999 to promote and facilitate private sector participation in infrastructure in Bangladesh. IIFC was established to have a policy role and a transaction advisory role, and to advise both the public and private sectors. Another institution, the Infrastructure Development Company Ltd (IDCOL) was established concurrently with IIFC to provide government debt financing for infrastructure projects. IIFC and IDCOL are government-owned, limited liability companies. They were established with financial support from The World Bank, and other donors. IIFC, in particular, received support in the form of consulting services sponsored by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), and Department for International Development (DfID), UK support (World Bank ,2009).

27

Table 7: PPP activities/Infrastructure in Bangladesh Year PPP activities/Infrastructure 1996 Private sector power generation Policy (PSPG) 1997 Infrastructure Development Company Ltd (IDCOL) 1999 Infrastructure Investment Facilitation Center (IIFC) 2004 Private Sector Infrastructure Guidelines (PSIG) 2007 Investment Promotion and Financing Facility (IPFF) 2008 Policy to promote private sector participation in power sector 2009 Invigorating Investment Initiative Through Public-Private Partnership 2009Public Private Partnership Budget 10 2010 Public Private Partnership Office (PPPO) 2010 Policy and Strategy for Public-Private Partnership (PPP) 2011 Bangladesh Infrastructure Finance Fund Limited (BIFFL) 2012 PPP Technical assistance financing (PPPTAF) 2012 Guidelines for Viability Gap Financing (VGF) of PPP 2013 Ministry of Finance PPP unit Source: Bangladesh Ministry of Finance, 2009; Bangladesh PPP Office, 2013 Although these initiatives have been successful in financing and implementing a few small scale infrastructure development projects, they are not sufficient to cater to the requirements and potential of the country. There exist several contradictions in the Bangladesh industrial policy 2010 with government intention to involve private sector. It recognizes the role of a vibrant private sector in industrial growth, but on the other hand it plans to go ahead with state owned enterprises (SOEs) and calls for raising their profitability. Government should not therefore get involved in running businesses. Its role should be that of a facilitator instead. It is common knowledge that a market economy cannot thrive if there is a large presence of SOEs. The large amounts of accumulated defaulted loans now in the state-owned banks are because of the presence of the public sector in the operation and management of industries. A lot of bad debt was created in the decade of the 1980s in the name of rescuing the ailing jute industry. At the moment, too, there is an official move to forgive the defaulted loans in the name of reviving the jute industry. It is learnt that in the Agrani Bank alone, government has submitted a proposal to forgive defaulted loan worth Taka 1 crore. Given the continuing operating losses of SOEs, discarding the principle of divesting the loss-making SOEs just for purpose of protecting jobs is fraught with the danger of increasing the number of sick industries. A proper solution of the problem of the ailing SOEs is their outright privatization. (Bhuyan, 2011). Presently Bangladesh use PPP models include BuildOwn-Operate (BOO), Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT), and Build-Own-Operate-Transfer (BOOT) under large, medium and small PPP categories as shown in table-8 with special reference to their policies and strategies.

28

Table 8 : Comparison among the Large ,medium and small PPPs related policies and strategies of Bangladesh Phase Large Project ( Above BDT 2.5 Billion ) Project Identification In-principle Approval Feasibility Study Request for Qualification Request for Proposal (RFQ), Negotiation and Contract award Project Identification by On-going 24 weeks 820 weeks 48 weeks 812 weeks 48 weeks Required weeks Medium Project (Between BDT 2.5 billion-BDT 500 million) On-going 24 weeks 612 weeks 48 weeks 610 weeks 48 weeks Small Project (Below BDT 500 million ) On-going 24 weeks 48 weeks 48 weeks 48 weeks

Other Comparisons Line Ministry, Implementing Line Ministry, Implementing Agency, Office of PPP (PPPO) Agency, Office of PPP Private Investor (PPPO) Private Investor

Pre-Feasibility Study Unsolicited proposal

Pre-Feasibility Study by PPPO for each project If the RFQ is based on an unsolicited proposal the initiator of the said proposal will be treated as automatically pre-qualified. Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) Line Ministry/implementing agency calls for RFQ.

Pre-Feasibility Study by PPPO for each project If the RFQ is based on an unsolicited proposal the initiator of the said proposal will be treated as automatically pre-qualified. Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) Line Ministry/ implementing agency calls for RFQ.

Line Ministry, statutory authorities and other entities under its administrative control; Implementing Agency, Office of PPP (PPPO) ,Private Investor Private investor may submit unsolicited proposal with Pre-Feasibility Study by No need to call for RFQ. Line ministry and implementing agency directly issues RFP. Line minister The line Ministry/ implementing agency issues RFP, with appropriate modifications by the Office for PPP, if required, to the

In-principle approval by Request for qualification requirement

29

Technical effectiveness

The relevant Qualification and Tender Evaluation Committee (QTEC) evaluates the investors proposals based on the technical responsiveness criteria and screens out the non-responsive proposals.

After vetting by Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs Division line ministry/ implementing agency seeks approval of Final approval by

Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA)

The relevant Qualification and Tender Evaluation Committee (QTEC) evaluates the investors proposals based on the technical responsiveness criteria and screens out the non-responsive proposals .The private investor, whose proposal went for RFP, qualifies automatically for technical responsiveness. Finance minister

shortlisted private investors. No need to call for RFQ. The relevant Qualification and Tender Evaluation Committee (QTEC) evaluates the investors proposals based on the technical responsiveness criteria and screens out the non-responsive proposals .The private investor, whose proposal went for RFP, qualifies automatically for technical responsiveness. Line Minister

Cabinet Committee on Finance Minister Economic Affairs (CCEA) Source: PPP documents, 2010, Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh

Line minister

The relationship among Office of PPP (PPPO), Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA), Parliamentary Affairs Division (PADs), line ministry/ implementing agency are complex, bureaucratic and sometimes vague. Most critical part of a PPP documents (Detailed feasibility study, Request for qualification, request for proposal etc.) is to be written by consultant, but their selection requirements is not clearly mentioned at the policy and strategy paper 2010. Few Infrastructure related projects Bangladesh has taken under PPP are: Grameen Phone Network

Expansion Project, Pacific Telecom Network Expansion Project, Ranks Tel PSTN Project, DNS Satcomm Satellite Earth Station Project, BanglaTrac International Communication Gateway Project, M & H Telecom Interconnection Exchange Project, and Shoanchalok ICT Programme (Hasan, 2012). Their service and performance are yet to evaluate. Some other PPP projects in Bangladesh includeAutomation of Railway reservation and Ticketing System, Land records, Higher educational institution admission, Results of public examination , Foreign and local investment related information, Government forms, and Payment of utility bills.

30

Among the identified services, results of public exams, government forms and payment of utility bills were implemented successfully and scaled up. A latest PPP project, Build-Own-Operate and Transfer (BOOT) model, without GOB Finance Chittagong Custom House Automation Project partnering with Data-soft to double the revenue, to reduce cost of doing Business by at least 70% , to save customs processing time by 80% has taken by Bangladesh (Hossain, Deb, & Al Amin,2009). Because of successful automation solutions provided by DataSoft, the 42 steps lengthy process has been curtail to only 6 steps, bill of entry cost reduced BDT 180 to BDT 50, Cargo Handling, Auction, Banking everything came under the automatic solutions. Stakeholders including BGMEA, Importer & Exporter, Off Dock, EPZ, Shipping Agents, NBR, Custom Intelligence, Custom Bond, Freight Forwarders, Navy, C & F Agents, PSI and all other related stakeholders have came under the system of Chittagong Custom House Automation Project (Datasoft,2013). Problems of Public private partnership development in Bangladesh are varied. Government has taken huge initiatives and budgets. But there exist lack of harmony, strong political will, political stability,

private sectors awareness, transparency, law and order situation, social awareness regarding their demand ,right & democracy and private sectors intentions of taking risk etc. that impede the way forward to reduce the infrastructure gap. From the beginning the Padma bridge negotiation has been involved to corruption and conspiracy. The World Bank stated that they found, "credible evidence corroborated by a variety of sources which points to a high-level corruption conspiracy among Bangladeshi government officials, SNC-Lavalin executives, and private individuals in connection with the Padma Multipurpose Bridge Project (World Bank, 2012). For the corruption, the World Bank turned down to sanction the proposed loan for constructing the bridge. In these circumstances World Bank imposed some conditions to continue the loan talk with the government. Bhuyan, (2011) proposes transparent mechanism and well-defined rules for participating in and mobilizing funds for the PPP projects by commercial banks, specialized financial institutions, and international financial institutions to extend credit on easier credit terms and a healthy capital market. Figure-1 depicts a flow chart of PPP project development in Bangladesh from the data of Policy and Strategy for Public-Private Partnership, 2010.

31

Figure 1: PPP process in Bangladesh

Output of Request for Qualification
(Evaluation report of short listed investors)

Stage: 02 Requests for Proposal

Phase # 04: Request for Qualification (RFQ) by line ministry, implementing agency, QTEC

Phase # 05: Line ministry/ implementing agency call for Request for Proposal (RFQ), shortlisted by QTEC
Output of Request for Proposal (Evaluation report containing shortlisted investors)

Output of Feasibility Study and Preparation of documents

Phase # 03: Feasibility Study and Preparation of documents by consultant panel, finance division or Independent bidding process

Output of In-principle Approval of PPP project (total in-principle approval list)

Phase # 06: Stage: 03 Negotiation and Contract award Line ministry/ implementing agency negotiates with selected bidder and send it for parliamentary affairs division (PAD) for vetting after vetting, seek approval from CCEA after approval Signs the contract by line ministry/implementing agency

Phase # 02: In-principle Approval of PPP project by CCEA

Output of Negotiation and Contract award Vetting by parliamentary affairs division (PAD) Final Approval by CCEA Contract signed for implementation

Output of Project Identification phase, (Both Solicited and Unsolicited) pre-feasibility report

Phase # 01: Project Identification (On going) by line ministry, office of PPP, private investor

Stage: 04 Monitoring and Evaluation By line ministry/implementing agency and reports to office of PPP taking key performance indicators as standard Office of the PPP monitor compliance and reports to CCEA Principal Secretary, office of PPP and relevant ministry resolve complexities etc.

Stage: 01 Project Identification, Formulation, Appraisal and Approval

Output of Monitoring and Evaluation Periodic progress report by OPPP Monitoring and Evaluation report by line ministry/implementing agency

Source: Constructed by Authors

32

Conclusion and Policy implications In conclusion it can be said that there are many PPP development and success factors identified by many researchers (Ibrahim, Price and Dainty , 2006 ;Vining and Boardman, 2008; Esther Cheung, Albert P.C. Chan, Stephen Kajewski, 2009; Di Lodovico, 1998;Pongsiri, 2002; Zouggari, 2002; Baker 2003 Wallin, 1997; Savas, 2000; Roseneau,2000; Widdus, 2001; Nijkamp et al., 2002; Spackman, 2002; Scharle, 2002; Sussex, 2003;Zouggari, 2003; Jamali, 2004; Tillmann, Robert and Wang, 2007; Asia Foundation , 2010) around the world out of which many factors are also applicable to Bangladesh. That includes but not limited to : (i) Hearty consultations between the Public and private sector to start direct dialogue on PPP, and to work out the specific issues and recommendations, and operational implications (ii) The operational mechanisms and procedural guidelines should be worked out properly (iii) Legal and regulatory issues in relation to PPP should be sorted out (iv) Ensure effective representation of the private sector in the PPP committees including the Advisory Committee (v) Conduct policy research and analysis on PPP issues and make recommendations for reform, and craft a PPP roadmap to be adopted by the public and the private sector (vi) Ensure policies and laws to enable PPP projects to continue irrespective of changes in the political regime in the country (vii) Avoid stand-alone private company and make sure the proper allocation of risks among parties (viii) Include different strategic partner like The World Bank that may attract other development partner of Bangladesh and give a favorable environment for local private partners (ix) Activate a proper stand against all sorts of Corruption & nepotism and ensure transparent competitive bidding process (x) Integrate Corporate social responsibility (CSR) fund of private and Annual Development Program (ADP) Budget of Government to create a non-profit ( social) PPP project that may

development the PPP environment. (xi) Convene a forum on PPP with participants from the private sector, donors and civil society The scope of work of the forum should include: (a) Promoting PPP in the identified priority areas; (b) Assisting the government in promoting good governance in PPP through open, transparent, and participatory processes; (c) Assisting the government in jumpstarting effective implementation of five to six priority PPP projects within the next six months in line with the PPP guidelines; (d) Assisting the government in taking forward necessary policy reform to promote effective PPP; and (e) Assisting the government's PPP Unit in developing a pipeline of bankable projects. In fact, there is no single PPP model rather various types of arrangements varying with regard to legal status, governance, management, policy-setting prerogatives, contributions and operational roles. For the success, PPPs must begin with careful groundwork and preparation, including a comprehensive feasibility study and economic evaluation for each potential partnership project. In this respect, Bangladesh Government needs to build its legal and regulatory capacity to effectively foster and participate in PPPs (Jamali, 2004). Bangladesh as a new entrant in PPP model of infrastructure and service delivery has to consider the consequences of previous PPP efforts in many developed and developing countries. Many large corporate has as much strength and evil background as to be cautious regarding negotiation and contract awarding. Arbitration procedure also has to be predetermined and included in the contract document in comprehensive manner. A vast PPP campaign and assurance of political risk is the first task for Bangladesh to ensure the effective participation of Private sector. Proper training and skill development of the public officials is necessary in this regard. A centralized, corruption free, transparent and competent PPP authority is compulsory for the

33

ultimate infrastructure and service delivery through PPP in Bangladesh. During the last 14 years Bangladesh has developed many PPP policy paper, but now this is time to develop a concrete single PPP handbook that will facilitate all the PPP stakeholders. Application of PPP model for developing infrastructure of Bangladesh is in beginner level. So, Bangladesh has an opportunity to grab late-mover advantage here. Research works in this area in Bangladesh context is relatively few and not well addressed. Particular country issues need to be focused more explicitly for Bangladesh. So, this is an appropriate time to integrate the world experience and apply such learning for the PPP development of Bangladesh. References: Altshuler, A., & Luberoff, D. (2003). Megaprojects: The changing politics of urban public Investment. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Bagchi, P. K., Paik, S., (2001), The role of public private partnership in port information systems development, The International Journal of Public sector Management, Volume-14, No.- 6, pp-482-499 Baker, C. R. (2003), Investigating Enron as a public private partnership, Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, Volume-16 No.3, pp.446-66. Bangladesh Gadget, 2010, Policy and Strategy for Public-Private Partnership (PPP), 2010, Retrieved from http://www.mof.gov.bd/en/budget/09_10/pp p/PPP%20Policy%20and%20Guidelines.pdf , on 11 June, 2013. Barlow, J. Roehrich, Roehrich, J.K., and Wright, S. (2010). De facto privatization or a renewed role for the EU? Paying for Europes healthcare infrastructure in a recession.

Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine. 103:51-55. Bhattacharya, D., & Rahman, M. (2010, October). Delivering Social Infrastructure Through PPP: The Role of Non-Profit Organisation. In Presentation of the Centre for Policy Dialogue at the OECD Global Forum on Development, Paris (pp. 10-12). Bhattacharya, D., Iqbal, M. A., & Khan, T. I. (2009). Delivering on budget FY2009-10: a set of implementation issues. Centre for Policy Dialogue. Bhuyan, A.R. (2005), Industrial Policy in Bangladesh: A Survey. Thoughts on Economics, Volume- 15, Issue- 3. Bhuyan, A.R. (2011), Bangladesh Industrial Policy 2010: A Critical Appraisal. Thoughts on Economics, Volume- 20, No. 03 Broadbent, J and Laughlin, R (2003), Public Private Partnerships: an introduction, Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, Volume--16 Issue- 3, pp.332-41. Budget FY 2010-11: 1st Quarter (July September) Report on Progress of Implementation, Trends of Income and Expenditure and Macroeconomic Analysis. Finance Division, Ministry of Finance. Government of the Peoples' Republic of Bangladesh, Retrieved from http://www.mof.gov.bd/en/budget/me/mes_e n_july_sep_10_1.pdf on 20 June, 2013 Challenges and opportunities facing public utilities. International Labor Organization, (2003). Retrieved from http://www.ilo.org/public/libdoc/ilo/2003/10 3B09_48_engl.pdf on June 21, 2013 Cheung, E., Chan, A. P.C., Kajewski, S., (2009) "Enhancing value for money in public private partnership projects: Findings from a survey conducted in Hong Kong and

34

Australia compared to findings from previous research in the UK", Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, Volume- 14 Iss: 1, pp.7 20. Clifton, C., & Duffield, C. F. (2006). Improved PFI/PPP service outcomes through the integration of Alliance principles. International Journal of Project Management, Volume- 24 Issue- 7, 573-586. English, L. M., & Guthrie, J. (2003). Driving privately financed projects in Australia: what makes them tick?. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 16(3), 493-511. Enron: History of Human Rights Abuse in India. Human Rights Watch (2002), Retrieved from http://www.hrw.org/news/2002/01/22/enronhistory-human-rights-abuse-india on June 21, 2013 Esq, J. O., & MacGregor, T. (2004). Democracy and public-private partnerships. Retrieved from http://democracyandregulation.com/attachm ents/88/PPP_ILO_wp213%5B1%5D.pdf on June 20 , 2013 Exchange, G., & Citizen, P. (2003). Bechtel: Profiting from Destruction. Retrieved from http://www.congresswatchdog.org/document s/profilebechtel.pdf on June 20, 2013 Food and Water Watch, (2007). Bechtel Profits from Dirty Water in Guayaquil, Ecuador, http://ciel.org/Publications/MurkyWaters_B ackground_15Apr08.pdf Glambotskaya, A., Rakova, E., Shymanovich, G., & Tochitskaya, I. (2010). Belarus Infrastructure Monitoring (BIM). Grimsey, D. and Lewis, M. (2002), Evaluating the risks of public private partnerships for infrastructure projects, International

Journal of Project Management, Volume20, pp.107-18. Hassan, M. R. (2012), PPP in Bangladesh: Reality and Prospect, ASA University Review, Volume- 6, Issue- 1. Hodge, G. A. and Greve, C. (2009) , PPPs : The passage of time permits a sober reflection, Institute of Economic Affairs. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. Hodge, G. A., & Greve, C. (2007). Publicprivate partnerships: an international performance review. Public Administration Review, 67(3), 545-558. Hodge, G. A., & Greve, C. (2005). The challenge of public-private partnerships: Learning from international experience. Edward Elgar Pub. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? . Public administration, 69(1), 319. Hood, C (1995), The new Public Management in the 1980s: Variations on a theme, Accounting Organizations and society, Volume- 20, Issue- 2/3, pp.93-119 Hossain, S. S., Deb, U., & Al Amin, M. (2009). Impact of information technology in trade facilitation on small and medium-sized enterprises in Bangladesh. http://www.datasoft-bd.com/section-table Retrieved as on June 20, 2013 http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.TAX.TOTL. GD.ZS , Retrieved on June 21, 2013 Ibrahim A. D., Price A. D. F., Dainty A. R. J., (2006) "The analysis and allocation of risks in public private partnerships in infrastructure projects in Nigeria", Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, Volume- 11, Issue- 3, pp: 149 164 Invigorating Investment Initiative through Public Private Partnership: A Position Paper, (2009). Finance Division, Ministry of

35

Finance. Government of the Peoples' Republic of Bangladesh .Retrieved from www.mof.gov.bd on 20 June, 2013. Jacobson, C., Choi, S. O., (2008) "Success factors: public works and public-privat partnerships", International Journal of Public Sector Management, Volume- 21 Issue- 6, pp. 637 657. Jamali, D., (2007). "A study of customer satisfaction in the context of a public private partnership", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Volume- 24 Issue- 4, pp.370 385 Jamali, D. (2004), Success and failure mechanisms of public private partnerships in developing countries: insights from the Lebanese context, The International Journal of Public Sector Management, Volume- 17 Issue- 5, pp. 414-30. Jefferies, M. and McGeorge, D. (2008), Publicprivate partnerships: a critical review of risk management in Australian social infrastructure projects, Journal of Construction Procurement, Volume- 14, Issue- 1, pp. 66-80. Jimnez, A., and Pasquero, J., (2005) "Explaining the Endurance of a Permanently Challenged Public-Private Partnership: A Stakeholder Approach", Management Research: The Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, Volume- 3 Iss: 1, pp.49 61. Kyvelou S. and Karaiskou E., (2006) "Urban development through PPPs in the EuroMediterranean region", Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Volume- 17 Iss: 5, pp.599 610. Labour Force Survey, (2010). Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. Retrived from http://www.bbs.gov.bd/webtestapplication/u

serfiles/image/keyfinding/Labour%20Force %20Survey%202010.pdf on 01 June 2013. Lane, M. and Gardiner, J., (2003). Risk management and Insurance issues. In: Public Private Partnerships a review of key issues, European Construction Institute, pp. 61-70. (2005) Lewis, M. (2002), Risk management in Public private partnership, Working paper. School of International Business, University of South Australia. Linder, S. (1999) Coming to Terms with the Public Private Partnership: A Grammar of Multiple Meanings, American Behavioral Scientist, Volumn- 43, Issue- 1, pp: 3551. Little, R. G., (2011). The Emerging Role of Public Private Partnerships in Megaproject Delivery, Public Works Management & Policy, Volume- 16, Issue- 3, pp.- 240249 Mamun, A. & Islam, S., (2010), Investment Pattern for Required Economic Growth to Achieve Poverty Reduction Targets, The Cost and Management, Volume 38, Issue- 5, pp 2931. Mitchell-Weaver, C. and Manning, B. (1991), Public private partnerships in third world development: a conceptual overview, Studies in Comparative International Development, Volume- 26 No. 4, pp. 45-67. Newberry, S. and Pallot, J. (2003), Fiscal (ir)responsibility :privileging PPPs in New Zealand, Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, Volume-16 No.3, pp.467-92. Nijkamp, P., van der Burch, M. and Vindigni, G. (2002), Comparative institutional evaluation of public-private partnerships in Dutch urban land-use and revitalization projects, Urban Studies, Volume- 39 No. 10, pp. 1865-80.

36

Palast, G., Oppenheim, J., and MacGregor, T., (2003). Democracy and regulation: How the Public Can Govern Essential Services, Pluto Press, London and Virginia. Policy and strategy for Public-private partnership (PPP), 2010, Bangladesh Gadget. Retrieved fromhttp://www.pppo.gov.bd/download/ppp _office/Policy-Strategy-for-PPP, Aug2010.pdf on May 5, 2013 Pongsiri, N. (2002), Regulation and public private partnerships, The International Journal of Public Sector Management, Volume- 15 No. 6, pp. 487-95. Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects Database, Mailstop MC4 419, 1818 H St. NW, Washington, DC20433 2012 The World Bank Group, Retrieved from http://ppi.worldbank.org/ explore/ppi_explore On May13, 2013 Promoting Public-Private Partnership in Bangladesh: A Brief Guide to Partners, (2010). Asia Foundation, Dhaka , Bangladesh. Public Citizen, 2002, Liquid Assets: Enrons Dip into Water Business Highlights Pitfalls of Privatization, Retrieved from http://www.citizen.org/documents/ LiquidAssets.pdf. on May 5 , 2013 Public Citizen, 2003, Fiascos: Manila, Philippines, Retrieved from http://www.citizenarchive.org/print_article.c fm?ID=9209 on May 5, 2013 Public Private Partnership Office Bangladesh, (2013), retrieved from http://www.pppo.gov.bd/index.php on May 11, 2013 Public-Private Partnership Units: Lessons for their Design and Use in Infrastructure. World Bank, (2007). Retrieved from http://www.iritm.indianrailways.gov.in/ uploads/files/1365143498807-

1%20PPP%20An%20Overview%20World %20Bank.pdf on May 20, 2013 Ravindran, T. S. (2002). Health sector reform and public-private partnerships for health in Asia: Implications for sexual and reproductive health services. Johannesburg: Womens Health Project, School of Public Health, University of the Witwatersrand. Sachs, T., Tiong R. and Wang S. Q. (2007), Analysis of political risks and opportunities in public private partnerships (PPP) in China and selected Asian countries, Chinese Management Studies, Volume- 1, No. 2, 2007 pp. 126-148. Sciulli, N. (2008), Public private partnerships: an exploratory study in health care, Asian Review of Accounting, Volume- 16, No. 1, pp. 21-38. Sharing Innovative Experience: Examples of Successful Public-Private Partnership. United Nations Development Program, (2008), Volume-15, Retrieved from http://ssc.undp.org/content/ssc/library/public ations/books/sharinginnovativeexperiences/ SharingInnovativeExperiences15.html on May 11, 2013 Spackman, Michael, (2002), Public-private partnerships: lessons from the British approach, Economic Systems, Volume- 26, pp. 283-301. Stephen J. Glain, Globe Staff. "BECHTEL WINS PACT TO HELP REBUILD IRAQ CLOSED-BID DEAL COULD TOTAL $680M." The Boston Globe (Boston, MA). The New York Times Company. 2003. Retrieved June 22, 2013 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P27779537.html

37

Sussex, J. (2003), Public-private partnerships in hospital development: lessons from the UKs private finance initiative, Research in Health-care Financial Management, Volume- 8 No. 1, pp. 59-76. The Enron Corp. /Corporate Complicity in Human Rights Violations. Human Rights Watch, (1999), Retrieved from http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/enron/ as on June 21, 2013 Thomson, C. C. (2005), Private-public partnerships: Prerequisites for prim performance, EIB Papers, Volume- 10, Issue- 2, pp. 113-129. Torres, L. and Pina, V., (2001). Public-private partnership and private finance initiatives in the EU and Spanish local governments, The European Accounting Review, Volume10, No. 3, pp. 601-19. Unit, E. (2003). Case Summary: University College London Hospital (UCLH) Redevelopment Improving the Standard of Healthcare by Public Private Partnership. Vining, A. R., & Boardma n, A. E., (2008). Public private partnerships: Eight rules for governments. Public Works Management & Policy, 13, 149-161. Wallin, B.A., (1997). The need for a privatization process: lessons from development and implementation, Public Administration Review, Volume- 57 No. 1, pp. 11-20. Wettenhall, R., (2003). The Rhetoric and Reality of PublicPrivate Partnerships, Public Organisation Review: A Global Journal, Volume- 3, Issue- 1, pp. 77107. Widdus, R. (2001). Public private partnerships for health: their main targets, their diversity and their future directions, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, Volume- 79 No. 4, pp. 713-20.

World Bank Statement on Padma Bridge. World Bank, (2012) , Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/pressrelease/2012/06/29/world-bank-statementpadma-bridge on June 21, 2013 Zarco-Jasso, H. (2005) PublicPrivate Partnerships: A Multidimensional Model fo r Contracting, International Journal of Public Policy, Volune- 1, Issue- 1/2, pp. 2240.

38