Public–private partnership unit

A Public–private partnership unit (PPP unit) is an organisation responsible for promoting, facilitating and/or assessing Public-private partnerships (PPP, P3, 3P) in their territory. PPP units can be government agencies, or semi-independent organizations created with full or partial government support. Governments tend to create a PPP unit as a response to prior criticisms of the implementation of P3 projects in their country.[1] In 2009, 50% of OECD countries had created a centralized PPP unit, and many more of these institutions exist in other countries.[2]

## Definition[edit]

There is no widely accepted definition of what a PPP unit is. The World Bank defines a PPP Unit as an organization that “promotes or improves PPPs. It may manage the number and quality of PPPs by trying to attract more PPPs or trying to ensure that the PPPs meet specific quality criteria such as affordability, value for money, and appropriate risk transfer.”[2] Heather Whiteside describes them as "quasi-independent" institutions operating at "arm's length" from the government, and "created to promote, evaluate and develop P3 projects and policies."[3]

## Overview[edit]

Different governments have encountered different institutional challenges in the PPP procurement process which justified the creation of a PPP Unit. Hence, these centralized PPP units need to address these issues by shaping their functions to suit their government's needs. The function, location (within government), and jurisdiction (i.e., who controls it) of dedicated PPP units may differ among countries, but generally, they include:

* Policy guidance and advice on the content of national legislation. The guidance also includes defining which sectors are eligible for PPPs, as well as which PPP methods and schemes can be carried out.
* Approving or rejecting proposed PPP projects (e.g., playing a gatekeeper role at any stage of the process, such as the initial planning or final approval stage).
* Providing technical support to government organizations at the project identification, evaluation, procurement, or contract-management phase.
* Capacity building (e.g., training of public-sector officials that are involved in PPP programs or interested in the PPP process).
* Promoting PPPs within the private sector (e.g., PPP market development).[4]

The United Kingdom's PPP units, the Treasury Task Force on PPP (1997) and later Partnerships UK (1998) were staffed with people linked with the City of London, and accountancy and consultancy firms who had a vested interest in the success of the country's PPP policy: Private Finance Initiative. This helped the government override the public sector's opposition to expanding P3s. These institutions played a central role in establishing P3s as the "new normal" for public infrastructure procurements in the country.[5] In contrast, the Infrastructure Investment Facilitation Center (1999) suffered from a lack of formal or informal power, and so was involved in less than half of the 3P projects developed in the country.[2]

## Effectiveness[edit]

A 2013 review[2] of research into the value of centralized PPP units (and not looking at the value of PPPs in general or any other type of PPP arrangement, as it was aimed at providing evidence needed to decide whether or not to set up a centralized PPP unit) found:

* No quantitative evidence: There is very little quantitative evidence of the value of centralized PPP coordination units vis-à-vis ministries or government agencies individually procuring PPP projects. Most of the studies conducted on PPP units focus on their role and carry out only brief descriptive analyses of their value.
* Limited authority: The majority of the PPP units reviewed in the literature do not play a particularly important role in approving or rejecting PPP programs or projects. While their advice is used in the decision-making process by other government bodies, the majority do not actually have any executive power to make such decisions themselves. Hence, when they have more authority, their value is seen to be higher.
* PPP units differ by country and sector: Government failures, in regards to PPP units, vary by government. The requirements for PPPs also vary by country and sector, as do the risks involved (financial, social, etc.) for the country government. Hence, PPP units need to be tailored to solve these failures and properly assess risks and need to be located in the correct government departments, where they can command the most power. PPP units can play a number of important roles in the PPP process, but not all such units will play the same role, as their functions have been tailored to the individual country's needs. In some cases, limits on their authority have curtailed their effectiveness.
* Implicit value: The lack of rigorous evidence does not prove that PPP units are not an important contributor to the success of a country's PPP program. The literature review does show that while there is no quantitative data to this effect, there are widespread perceptions about the importance of a well-functioning PPP unit for the success of a country's PPP program.

The author of the 2013 review[2] found no literature that rigorously evaluates the usefulness of PPP units. The literature does show that PPP units should be individually tailored to different government functions, address different government failures, and be appropriately positioned to support the country's PPP program. Where these conditions seem to have been met, there is a consensus that PPP units have played a positive role in national PPP programs.

## Criticism[edit]

Centralized PPP units have been criticized for structuring their project assessments with a bias in favor of PPPs over traditional procurement methods, especially if Promoting PPPs as part of their mandate.[1] As P3 units are usually staffed with people linked with private financial, consultancy and accountancy firms who have a vested interest in the success of P3 policies, this creates an apparent conflict of interest.[5][3]

Some PPP units have been criticized for paying their executive staff well above the public sector's standard pay rate, which was deemed necessary for enticing people with financial experience to work for them.[3]

Some have questioned the usefulness of creating P3 units, as everything in their mandate could theoretically be accomplished by the government ministry responsible for public infrastructure.[2]

## List of PPP Units[edit]

Country | Territory | PPP unit | Duration

|
|
|

Australia |  New South Wales | NSW Public–private partnerships  |
Queensland | Projects Queensland  |
Victoria | Partnerships Victoria | 1999–present
Bangladesh | National | Infrastructure Investment Facilitation Center | 1999–present
Public–Private Partnership Authority | 2010–present
Belgium |  Flanders | Flemish PPP Knowledge Center  |
Wallonia | Financial Information Cell  |
Brazil | Federal  | PPP Unit  |
Bahia | PPP Unit  |
Espírito Santo | PPP Unit  |
Minas Gerais | PPP Unit  |
Pernambuco | PPP Unit  |
São Paulo | PPP Unit  |
Rio Grande do Sul | PPP Unit  |
Canada | Federal  | PPP Canada | 2009–2018
British Columbia | Partnerships BC | 2002–present
New Brunswick | Partnerships New Brunswick[3] |
Ontario | Infrastructure Ontario | 2005–present
Quebec | Quebec Agency for Public–Private Partnerships[6] | 2004–2009
Saskatchewan | Saskbuilds  | 2012–present
China | National  | Public–private partnerships Center  |
Hong Kong | Hong Kong Efficiency Unit  |
Croatia | National  | Agency for Public–Private Partnerships  |
Czech Republic | National  | PPP Association  |
Denmark | National  | Danish Business Authority  |
Egypt | National  | PPP Central Unit  |
Estonia | National  | Public Procurement Center  |
France | National  | Mission d'Appui aux Partenariats Public–Privés  | 2004–2017
Germany |  Lower Saxony | PPP Task Force  |
North Rhine-Westphalia | PPP Task Force  |
Ghana | National  | PPP Advisory Units  |
Greece | National  | Secret Secretariat for PPPs  |
Honduras | National  | Commission for the Promotion of Public–Private Partnerships  |
Hungary | National | Hungary Central PPP Unit | 2003–present
Ireland | National  | Central PPP Policy Unit  |
Israel | National  | PPP Unit (Ministry of Finance)  |
India | Federal | Department of Economic Affairs PPP Cell | 2006–present
Andhra Pradesh | Urban Finance and Infrastructure  |
Assam | Assam PPP  |
Bihar | Infrastructure Development Authority  |
Karnataka | Infrastructure Development Department  |
Maharashtra | Region Development Authority  |
Odisha | PPP Unit  |
Punjab | Infrastructure Development Board  |
Uttarakhand | PPP cell  |
Indonesia | Federal  | Indonesia Infrastructure Guarantee Fund  |
PPP Directorate of Bappenas |
Italy | National  | Project Finance technical unit  |
Jamaica | National | National Investment Bank of Jamaica | 1980–present
Japan | National  | PFI Promotion Office  |
Kazakhstan | National  | Kazakhstan PPP Center  |
Kenya | National  | PPP Unit  |
Kosovo | National  | Partnership Kosovo  |
Kuwait | National  | Partnerships Technical Bureau  |
Latvia | National  | Central Finance and Contracting Agency  |
Lebanon | National  | Higher Council for Privatization and Partnerships  |
Malawi | National  | Public Private Partnership Commission  |
Malaysia | National  | PPP Unit  |
Mauritius | National  | PPP Unit  |
Mexico | Federal + Regional  | Program for the Promotion of Public–Private Partnerships in Mexican States  | 2007–present
Namibia | National  | PPP Unit  |
Nigeria | National  | Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission  |
New Zealand | National  | National Infrastructure Unit  |
Pakistan | Federal  | Private Power Infrastructure Board  |
Infrastructure Project Development Facility  |
Punjab | PPP Cell  |
Sindh | PPP Unit  |
Peru  | National  | ProInversion |
Philippines | National | Built Operate Transfer (BOT) centre | 1999–present
Poland | National  | The department for PPP in the Ministry of Funds and Regional Policy  |
Portugal | National | Project Monitoring Technical Unit | 2012–present
Russia | Federal  | PPP Development Center  |
Senegal | National  | Agence nationale chargée de la promotion des investissements et des grands travaux  |
Unité Nationale d'Appui aux Partenariats Public–Privés  |
Serbia | National  | Commission for Public Private Partnerships  |
South Africa | Federal | South African Treasury PPP Unit | 2000–present
South Korea | National  | Private Infrastructure Investment Management Centre  | 2005–present
Sri Lanka | National  | Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka, Board of Investment  |
Uganda | National  | PPP Unit (MoFPED)  |
United Arab Emirates |  Dubai | PPP Unit  | 2015–present
United Kingdom | National | Treasury Task Force for PPP | 1997–1998
Partnerships UK | 1998–2011
Local Partnerships | 2009–present
Northern Ireland | Strategic Investment Board  |
Scotland | Scottish Futures Trust | 2008–present
United States |  Puerto Rico | PPP Authority |
Uruguay | National  | Public–Private Participation Unit  | 2009–present

Source: World Bank[7]

## See also[edit]

* Public-private partnerships by country
* Public-private partnerships in Canada
* Public-private partnerships in India
* Public-private partnerships in the United States
* Public–private partnership in transition economies
* Privatization

## References[edit]

1. ^ a b Siemiatycki, Matti (September 1, 2015). "Public-Private Partnerships in Canada: Reflections on twenty years of practice". Canadian Public Administration. 58 (3): 343–362. doi:10.1111/capa.12119. ISSN 1754-7121.
2. ^ a b c d e f Alberto Lemma. "Literature Review: Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Centralised PPP Units". EPS PEAKS.
3. ^ a b c d Whiteside, Heather (2016). Public-private partnerships in Canada. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing. ISBN 978-1-55266-896-2. OCLC 952801311.
4. ^ World Bank (2007) "Public-Private Partnership Units: Lessons for their designs and use in infrastructure"
5. ^ a b Shaoul, Jean; Stafford, Anne; Stapleton, Pamela (2007). "Partnerships and the role of financial advisors: private control over public policy?". Policy & Politics. 35 (3): 479–495. doi:10.1332/030557307781571678. Retrieved 2020-06-06.
6. ^ Cosette, Robert. "La nouvelle Agence des partenariats public-privé du Québec" (PDF).
7. ^ "PPP Units Around the World | Public private partnership". ppp.worldbank.org. Retrieved 2020-06-09.

* v
* t
* e

Public-private partnership

Ideas|

* Crowdfunding
* Public-private partnership
* Outsourcing
* Multistakeholder governance
* Private equity
* Privatization
* Social Finance
* Sponsorships
* Venture capital
* Off-balance sheet
* Public debt
* Risk transfer
* Neoliberalism

Models|

* Concession
* Build-operate-transfer
* Social impact bonds
* Global Public-private partnership

By country|

* Canada
* India
* United Kingdom
* United States
* Transition economies

PPP units|

* Infrastructure Investment Facilitation Company (Bangladesh)
* Local Partnerships (England and Wales)
* Partnerships BC
* Partnerships UK
* PPP Canada
* Infrastructure Ontario
* Public-Private Partnership Authority (Bangladesh)
* Scottish Futures Trust

International
institutional support|

* Office of Global Partnerships
* Global Development Alliances
* USAID
* Concordia Summit
* World Bank
* SDG 17
* ESCAP
* ECE
* European Investment Bank
* European PPP Expertise Centre

*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template