4.5 Article

Analysis of the risk-sharing ratio in PPP projects based on government minimum revenue guarantees

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Volume 36, Issue 6, Pages 899-909

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.01.007

Keywords

PPP projects; Reciprocal preference; Minimum revenue guarantee; Risk sharing ratio

Categories

Funding

  1. Social Science Planning Project of Fujian Province [FJ2016B114]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71571149]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Public-private partnership (PPP) projects have been widely applied in infrastructure construction. A suitable risk distribution strategy is crucial for promoting negotiations between the government and investors. The government usually provides guarantees to investors to distribute risk. However, an excessive guarantee increases the government's financial burden, whereas an insufficient guarantee reduces the confidence of the investors participating in the project. In a minimum revenue guarantee (MRG), the government subsidizes the investors the difference between the actual revenue and the government guarantee line if there is a loss. In PPP power plant and highway projects, investors' revenues come from two sources: government guarantees and the project company's self-sale. To support project companies and to optimize the projects' benefits, the government should set a reasonable benchmark for purchase amounts. Based on the traditional principal-agent model, this paper introduces the reciprocal preference theory to analyze the risk-sharing ratio most suitable for the government. Then, an optimal incentive mechanism is established to guarantee the project's income. The results indicate that by setting a different guarantee strategy for different participants, the government can utilize reciprocal preference to incentivize investors to exert more effort during a partnership and avoid moral hazard. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd, APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available