Negative Factors Adopting Public Private Partnership for Highway Projects: A Case Study of Gujarat

IJSTE - International Journal of Science Technology & Engineering | Volume 2 | Issue 08 | February 2016 ISSN (Online): 2349-784X

Negative Factors Adopting Public Private Partnership for Highway Projects: A Case Study of Gujarat Shakil S. Malek PhD Scholar CEPT University, Ahmedabad, India,

Dr. P. V. Akalkotkar Adjunct Professor M. Tech. (CEM), Ganpat University, Ahmedabad, India

Abstract This paper describes the findings from twenty interviews conducted in Gujarat and thirty-five interviews conducted in Hong Kong and Australia with experts involved with Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects. The data of these twenty five interviews of Hong Kong and Australia are collected from Esther Cheung (2009) with her prior permission. The findings from these interviews were analysed according to the perspectives of the public sector, private sector and researchers. Within each of these categories, the findings from Gujarat, Hong Kong and Australian interviewees were further compared. Many studies have been done on PPP but there is very less information on the value for money, positive and negative factors for PPP projects undertaken in road projects in Gujarat. The present chapter makes an attempt to identify and analyse these factors for PPP ro ad projects in Gujarat. The paper specifically considers weather Public Private Partnership (PPP) should be used to procure highway projects in Gujarat by analysing the negative factors for adopting PPP. A questionnaire was conducted with industrial practitioners in Gujarat. The respondents were requested to rank the importance of thirteen negative factors for adopting PPP in highway sector.

Keywords: PPP Projects, Negative Factors for PPP, Questionnaire survey, ANNOVA analysis, Chi -square analysis ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I. INTRODUCTION Pertaining to limitations in public funds needed to finance the required investment and the need to draw on the experience of the private sector in order to improve the quality and efficiency of public services, such PPP agreement has been propelled. PPP provide a chassis to work together for both public and private sectors in order to improve the purveying of public services through the provision of infrastructure and related ancillary services for the development of infrastructure projects. PPP provides transparent and competitive mechanisms that procreate the ideas, experience and skills of both sectors to meet innovative solutions to community needs, expectations and hopes to purs ue development. An empirical questionnaire survey was conducted in Gujarat (India). The survey respondents were asked to rate thirteen negative factors which influence the PPP projects.

There has been tremendous increase in liaison between private and public sectors for the operation and development of infrastructure. Pertaining to limitations in public funds needed to finance the required investment and the need to draw on t he experience of the private sector in order to improve the quality and efficiency of public services, such PPP agreement has been propelled. PPP is a generic term for a variety of procurement methods that are alternatives to traditional procurement method s.

PPP refers to the participation of the private sector in the provision of public services. Public Private Partnerships offer a unique and innovative method of involving the private sector in the nation building activity and in accelerating the delivery of pub lic goods and services of high quality through joint enterprises, without spreading the limited available resources too thin. The Eleventh Five Year Plan has estimated that in order to sustain the envisaged high annual growth rate, the investments in the infrastructure sector will have to be of massive proportions. It would be impo ssible for the public sector to meet such huge commitments in view of its limited capability for additional capital mobilization. The anticipated shortfall of at least 30 p ercent of the estimated total plan requirements, which itself will be of a huge magn itude will have to be met by seeking active private sector involvement in the development of the infrastructure sector. Public Private Partnership (PPP) will be an attractive op tion in meeting this challenge [29].

The need for public-private partnerships in infrastructure has now become widely accepted. Inaugurating a workshop on PPPs in Infrastructure Industries and Regulation held on April 10-11, 2006, Mr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission, argued that this was mainly because of the greater efficiency with which private investors manage risks.

Governments can raise funds in a variety of ways, but public entities tend to under-price risks and consequently levy low, insufficient and unsustainable user charges for public services; private investors on the other hand are better equipped to assess market risks and to anticipate changing needs, and respond with appropriate solutions. Injection of private capital and management with superi or technologies leads to more efficient utilisation of resources thus releasing public finances for alternative uses. Mr Francisco da Camera Gomes, Head of the Delegation of the European Commission to India, Bhutan and Nepal, noted the need for learning

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

30

Negative Factors Adopting Public Private Partnership for Highway Projects: A Case Study of Gujarat (IJSTE/ Volume 2 / Issue 08 / 005)

from international experience for policy making and drew attention to the EU India Economic Cross -Cultural Program that has provided an opportunity for interactions between European and Indian civil society organizations [25].

Due to the growing gap between the financial needs and the available budget, gov ernments around the world try the cooperation of the private sector in the construction of road infrastructure necessary to get through innovative approaches s uch as public - private partnerships. The PPP allows the optimal use of the skills and activities in the implementation of the project, in addition to sharing the risks and rewards of the operation involved, both public and private organizations. While the public sector usually retains ownership in the structure retains the private sector decision rig hts is granted under development and project management, as well as earn a reasonable return for an agreed period . The coalescing of entrepreneurship, management skills and financial astuteness of the private sector with social responsibility, environment al awareness and local knowledge of the public sector PPP should culminate in a better value for the public.

PPP projects are usually long-term concession contracts, which the expenditure is clearly how the quality of service and measurable performance standards that indicate a direct relationship with the users of such projects based on. These agreements authorize the licensee usually public property to be used for the construction of infrastructure projects. The dealer also ha s the power to encroach fees from users for the use of public goods. However, the government remains responsible and accountable for the provision of services to users. These projects therefore require close monitoring by the government to ensure that th e provisions of the respective concession agreements and laws are enforced. In the management of a PPP project, the government should ensure that the services satisfy the users for the agreed time, cost, quality and quantity. It is hence obligatory to have a well-defined institutional structure adopted effectively to chaperon the contract. For this purpose, the requirements of the monitoring and enforcement of the contract terms must be understood and addressed in relation to each concession contract. Th e findings presented in this paper are part of a PhD research thesis, Model for PPP in Highway Projects.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW For achieving successful PPP projects, some suggestions have previously been reported in literature. This section reports only a few examples of how successful PPP projects can be achieved. In PPP contracts the government should be concerned that the assets are procured and services are delivered on-time with good quality and meet the pre-agreed service benchmarks or requirements throughout the life of the contract. Bu t it was observed that, the government should be less concerned with “how� these are achieved and should not impose undue restrictions and constraints on the private sector participants. The governmen t should be relegated to the primary role of industry an d service regulation; should be flexible in adopting innovations and new technology; should provide strong support and make incentive payments to the private sector where appropriate. On the other hand, the government should retain controls in case of default and be prepared to step in and re-provide the service if required [1][6][8][10][19][21][30][32][34].

A transparent and efficient procurement process is required in lowering the transaction costs and reducing the time in negotiation and completing the deal. Clear project brief and client requirements should be helped to achieve these in the bidding process. In most cases, competitive bidding solely on price may not help to secure a strong private consortium and obtain value for money for the public. The government should take a long-term view in searching the right partner [6][8][12][16][17][21][27][34].

Successful PPP implementation requires a stable political and social environment, which in turn relies on the stability and capability of the host government [33]. Political and social issues should be handled by the government as it go beyond private sector’s domain. It is legitimate that the private sector participants should be adequately compensated, if they victimised u nduly.

Many researchers identified that project financing is a key success factor for private sector investment in public infrastructure projects. For taking up PPP projects by private sector, the availability of an efficient and mature financial market with the benefits of low financing costs and diversified range of financial products would be an incentive [3][6][8][16][21][34].

III. R ESEARCH M ETHODOLOGY A. Questionnaire Design: This part of thesis will specifically consider whether Public Private Partnership (PPP) should be used to procure public works projects in Gujarat. To analyze the attractive factors of adopting PPP, an empirical questionnaire survey was undertaken in Gujarat, and compares it with Hong Kong and Australia. Although a large number of differences were observed between the findings of the three jurisdictions. This result is logical as each jurisdiction will differ in practice, culture, geographic al location, experience, tradition, politically, economically, socially etc. Hence it is of interest to compare these differences.

The questionnaire respondents were from three different sectors across the Gujarat, which are Public sector, Private sector a nd Researcher. As shown in Figure 1 maximum respondent, almost half were from private sector that is 48%. And 27 % were from public sector while 25% were from researcher. The reason behind maximum respondent from private sector is, in Gujarat the public sector departments are few and common while numbers of private companies are there who worked with road sector under PPP.

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

31

Negative Factors Adopting Public Private Partnership for Highway Projects: A Case Study of Gujarat (IJSTE/ Volume 2 / Issue 08 / 005)

Fig. 1: Primary role of questionnaire respondent

B. Collection of Research Data: An empirical questionnaire survey was undertaken in Gujarat to analyze th e factors contributing to successful PPP projects, and then compares it with Hong Kong and Australia. The survey was conducted from May 2013 to September 2013 in Gujarat, while for Hong Kong and Australia same was from October 2007 to December 2007. The ta rget survey respondents of the questionnaire included all industrial practitioners from the public sectors, p rivate sectors and researchers.

These respondents were requested to rate their degree of agreement against each of the identified factors contribut ing to successful PPP projects according to a Likert five-point scale in which 1 is Least Important and 5 is Most Important. Target respondents were selected based on their adequate knowledge in the area of PPP and their hands -on experience with PPP projects, experience in conducting PPP research or have followed very closely with the development of PPP. Survey questionnaires were sent to100 target respondents in Gujarat, 95 target respondents in Hong Kong and 80 target respondents in Australia. It was anticipated that some of these target respondents would have colleagues and personal connections knowledgeable in the area of PPP to participate in this research study as well; hence some of the respondents wer e dispatched blank copies of the survey form. A total of 80 completed questionnaires from Gujarat, 34 from Hong Kong and 11 from Australia were returned representing response rates of 80%, 36% and 9%, respectively. In Gujarat out of 80 filled questionnaires 16 questionnaires were rejected due to inadequat e response. The lower response rate in Hong Kong and Australia were expected as the questionnaire was administered from Gujarat, hence geographical complications were perceived. But as this paper mainly focuses on Gujarat, the responses received from Hong Kong and Australia was used for reference only.

The working experience of the respondent of Gujarat, Hong Kong and Australia is mentioned in Figure 2. For better and perfect result tried to focus the respondents with rich working experience in the field of PPP road projects, directly or indirectly.

As shown in Figure 2, 42% respondents have more than 20 years of experience. Same way 41% respondents have experience in between 11 to 20 years. Only 17 % respondents are there having experience less than 10 years. From figure 2 approximately half of the respondents in Hong Kong and Australia possessed twenty -one years or above of industrial experience. It clearly shows that the respondents from all three different regions were having very rich work experience, wh ich assures the value and reliability of the findings.

Fig. 2: Number of years of working experience in Road sector for all respondents

C. Tools for Data Analysis: The techniques that were used in this research paper, in respect of quantitative analysis include the mean score ranking technique, Chi square and ANOVA analysis. The five-point Likert scale (1 = Least Important and 5 = Most Important) as

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

32

Negative Factors Adopting Public Private Partnership for Highway Projects: A Case Study of Gujarat (IJSTE/ Volume 2 / Issue 08 / 005)

described previously was used to calculate the mean score for each factor, which was then used to determine its relative ranking in descending order of importance. These rankings made it possible to triangulate the relative importance of the factors to t he respondents from India/Gujarat, Hong Kong and Australia as presented in Esther Cheung’s survey (2009).

Analysis of Variance (abbreviated as ANOVA) is an extremely useful technique concerning researchers in the field of economics, biology, management and other disciplines . This technique is used when multiple sample cases are involved. In this paper three different cases of Gujarat, Hong Kong and Australia was involved.

Now before using the data for further analysis with the help of one tail ANOVA the validation of data is performed and the output is mentioned in Table I and II Table - 1 ANOVA Analysis Output-1 for Negative Factors of PPP Factors

Count

Sum

Average

Variance

Reduce the project accountability

64

194

3.0312

1.491071

High risk relying on private sector

64

219

3.4218

2.279514

Very few schemes have actually reached the contract stage

64

173

2.7031

1.862847

Lengthy delays because of political debate

64

197

3.0781

2.0096

Higher charge to the direct users

64

226

3.5312

1.5863

Less employment positions

64

162

2.5312

1.4275

High participation cost

64

179

2.7968

1.1485

High project cost

64

194

3.0312

1.7450

A great deal of management time spent in contract transaction

64

176

2.7500

1.4920

Lack of experience and appropriate skills

64

169

2.6406

1.8211

Confusion over government objectives and evolution criteria

64

161

2.5156

1.4918

Excessive restrictions on participation

64

150

2.3437

1.6259

Lengthy delays in negotiation

64

152

2.3750

1.5396

Table - 2 ANOVA Analysis Output-2 for Negative Factors of PPP Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value Between Groups

107.233

12

8.936098

Within Groups

1355.844

819

1.655487

Total

1463.077

831

5.397867

7.18E-09

F critical 1.763988

As mentioned in Table II for 12 degree of freedom (df) the F value is greater than F critical value, which shows that the assessment by the respondents within each group on their rankings of negative factors is consistent. This finding ensures tha t t h e completed questionnaires were valid for further analysis .

As shown in Table III Chi square analysis for 64 respondents of Gujarat, with 34 respondent of Hong Kong and 11 respondents of Australia was conducted. According to 12 degree of freedom and 0.05 level of significance, the critical value of Chi-square were 21.026 for both groups the computed Chi-square values were all above the critical value of Chi-square (115.95 and 144.83 respectively). Therefore the assessment by the respondents within each group on their rankings of negative factors is proved to be consistent, so data is accepted.

Table - 3 Chi square analysis for negative factors of PPP Gujarat Gujarat Chi – square Analysis Hong Kong Australia No. of survey respondents 64 & 34 64 & 11 Chi square value

115.95

144.83

Critical Chi square value (From Table)

21.026

21.026

Degree of freedom (dF)

12

12

Level of Significance

0.05

0.05

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

33

Negative Factors Adopting Public Private Partnership for Highway Projects: A Case Study of Gujarat (IJSTE/ Volume 2 / Issue 08 / 005)

IV. R ESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS A. Discussion of Survey Results: In Gujarat/ India, whenever road project completed with BOT/PPP the amount of high toll charged to users directly. If project get delayed then the toll collection period will also extended. In fact it had been observed in so many place of India that a fter completion of the toll collection period also users get charged. Such problem faced by Indian/Gujarat government only and that is why Hong Kong and Australian respondent gave very less importance to this factor.

The second negative factor as ranked by Gujarat respondents was “High risk relying on private sector”. Again it’s the drawback of our policy framework. In India/Gujarat during PPP project the risk sharing mechanism is not proper. The result clearly shows that the risk rely on private sector is quite high compare to public sector. And it is obvious also as they are investing huge amount of money. This criterion was also not highlighted by Hong Kong and Australian respondents.

In Gujarat and Hong Kong as well, public works projects are often delayed and complicated by the need for public consultation; hence it is not surprising that “Lengthy delays because of political debate” was the third negative factor rank ed by the Gujarat respondents and first by the Hong Kong respondents. This problem is well known for causing projects to be held back. The Australian respondents also give it importance and ranked it on fifth position.

Rank fourth by Gujarat respondents were “Reduce the project accountability” and “High project cost”, as both are getting same response. In Hong Kong and Australia this factor was ranked of mediocre importance only at twelfth & eleventh and eleventh & ninths position respectively, showing that they do not face the similar problem that Gujara t does.

Another observation manifested that “Less employment positions” was ranked within the bottom three of the rankings for all three jurisdictions. The respondents shared the same views on the negative factor they believed to be of less threat. The low ranking of “Less employment positions” has shown that employment has not been affected irrespective of how projects are procured.

For the negative factors rated by respondents in Gujarat the mean values ranged from 2.34 to 3.53. The variation in responses was 1.19. On the other hand, in Hong Kong and Australia it was found that the mean values obtained ranged from 2.79 to 3.82 and 1.36 to 3.45 respectively. The variations in responses were 1.03 for Hong Kong and 2.09 for Australia. Both variations we re differing than that for Gujarat. It was also found that in general these negative factors were rated higher by Gujarat responden ts.

It can thus be interpreted that the Hong Kong and the Australian respondents found that these negative factors were less of a challenge. This finding is logical as discussed previously Australia is much more experienced in delivering PPP projects compared to Gujarat.

The respondents were asked to rate the thirteen negative factors according to a Likert scale from 1 - 5 (1 = Least Important and 5 = Most Important), therefore a value above “3” would represent that the negative factor is of importance. The results show that in Gujarat there were eight negative factors below a score of “3”. On the other hand in Hong Kong and Australia there were two and ten respectively below “3”. Again this consolidates the fact that the Australians are much more confident at conducting P PP projects, hence they are less conservative.In addition, on top of those factors the respondents were asked to rat e, they were also given the opportunity to add others which would be of importance, but they did not do.

V. CONCLUSION A Thirteen negative factors for adopting PPP were rated by the survey respondents. The top five negative factors ranked by Gujarat respondents included: 1) Higher charge to the direct users; 2) High risk relying on private sector; 3) Lengthy delays because of political debate; 4) Reduce the project accountability; and 5) High project cost.

It was also found that in general these negative factors were rated higher by Gujarat respondents. It can thus be interpreted that the Hong Kong and the Australian respondents found that these negative factors were less of a challenge. This finding is logical as discussed previously Australia is much more experienced in delivering PPP projects compared to Gujarat.

REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Abdul-Rashid, A. A., Puteri, S. J. K., Ahmed, U. A. and Mastura, J. (2006). “Public private partnerships (PPP) in housing development: the experien c e o f IJM Malaysia in Hyderabad, India.” Accelerating Excellence in the Built Environment, October 2 – 4, 2006, Birmingham, United Kingdom.

Akintoye A. (2007). “Developments in the UK Public Private Partnerships: Lessons for the New PPP Ventures.” Proceedings of th e 2 0 07 I n te rn atio na l Conference on Concession Public / Infrastructural Projects (ICCPIP), Dalian University of Technology, China, August 24 -26, 2007, Keynote Paper.

Akintoye, A., Beck, M., Hardcastle, C., Chinyio, E. and Asenova, D. (2001). “The financial structure of Private Finance Initiative projects.” Proceedings of the 17th ARCOM Annual Conference, Salford University, Manchester, United Kingdom, 1361-9.

Birnie, J. (1999). “Private Finance Initiative (PFI) – UK construction industry response.” Journal of Construction Procurement, 5(1), 5 -14.

Chan, D. W. M., and Kumaraswamy, M. M. (1996). “An evaluation of construction time performance in the building industry.” Building and Environment, 31(6), 569-578.

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

34

Negative Factors Adopting Public Private Partnership for Highway Projects: A Case Study of Gujarat (IJSTE/ Volume 2 / Issue 08 / 005) [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]

Cheung, E. (2009). Developing a Best Practice Framework for Implementing Public Private Partnerships (PPP) in Hong Kong. (PhD thesis) . Sc h o ol o f Urban Development, Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering. Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

Cobb, J.M. (2005). Financing Bangkok’s Mass T ransit, IDC TransGate <http://www.idcwo rld.com/bangkok.htm> (May 23, 2007).

Corbett, P. and Smith, R. (2006). “An analysis of the success of the Private Finance Initiative as t h e Go v er nm en t's p ref er red p r ocur e me nt r o ute .”

Proceedings of the Accelerating Excellence in the Built Environment Conference, Birmingham, United Kingdom, October 2-4, 2006.

Efficiency Unit (2003). Serving the community by using the private sector – An introductory guide to public private partn er sh ip s ( PPPs) , Ho ng Ko n g Special Administrative Region Government.

El-Gohary, N. M., Osman, H. and El-Diraby, T. E. (2006). “Stakeholder management for public private partnerships.” International Jo ur n al o f Pr oje c t Management, 24, 595-604.

Ernst., & Young. (2005). Australian PPP Survey – Issues Facing the Australian PPP Market.

Gentry, B. S. and Fernandez, L. O. (1997). “Evolving public-private partnerships: general themes and urban water examples.” Proceedings o f th e OE CD Workshop on Globalization and the Environment: Perspectives from OECD and Dynamic Non -Member Economies, Paris, November 13 – 14, 1997, 19-25.

Grant, T (1996) “ Keys to successful public-private partnerships.” Canadian Business Review, 23(3), 27-8.

Grimsey, D., & Lewis, M. (2004). Public private partnerships: The worldwide revolution in infrastructure provision and project finance. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Jamali, D. (2004). “Success and failure mechanisms of public private partnerships (PPPs) in developing countries: insights fr om the Lebane se c o nte xt. ” International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(5), 414-30.

Jefferies, M. (2006) “Critical success factors of public private sector partnerships a case study of the Sydney SuperDome.” E ngineering, Construction a n d Architectural Management, 13(5), 451-462.

Jefferies, M., Gameson, R. and Rowlinson, S. (2002). “Critical success factors of the BOOT procurement system: reflections from the Stadium Aust ra lia case study.” Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, 9(4), 352.

Kanter, R. M. (1999). “From spare change to real change.” Harvard Busin ess Review, 77(2), 122-32.

Khang, D.G. (1998). Hopewell’s Bangkok Elevated T ransport System (BETS), School of Management, AIT, Bangkok, Thailand.

Li, B. (2003). Risk management of construction public private partnership projects, Ph.D Thesis, Glasgow Caledonian University, United Kingdom.

Li, B., Akintoye, A., Edwards, P. J., & Hardcastle, C. (2005). Perceptions of positive and negative factors influencing t h e a t tractiveness o f PPP/PFI procurement for construction projects in the UK : Findings from a questionnaire survey. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 1 2 (2 ), 125-148. doi:10.1108/09699980510584485 Maltby, P. (2003, August). Has the PFI grown up? Public Finance. Hong Kong.

National Audit Office (2001). Managing the Relationship to Secure a Successful Partnership in PFI Projects, HC375 , Natio nal A udit Of fic e , Un ite d Kingdom, November 29, 2001.

National Audit Office (2008). “Background to Private Finance.” http://www.nao.org.uk/practice_areas/private_finance/background.htm (June 13, 2008).

National Council of Applied Economic Research (2006, May). Public Private Partnership for Infrastructure Development: Lessons for India. Connex ions, 2(3), 2-4.

National Treasury PPP Unit of South Africa (2007). Public Private Partnership Manual, <http://www.treasury.gov.za/organisation/ppp/default.htm> ( Jun e 15, 2007).

Nijkamp, P, Van der Burch, M. and Vindigni G. (2002). “A Comparative Institutional Evaluation of Public Private Partnerships in Dutch Urban La nd- use and Revitalization Projects.” Urban Studies, 39(10), 1865–80.

Qiao, L., Wang, S. Q., T iong, R. L., & Chan, T . (2001). Framework for Critical Success Factors of BOT Projects in China. T he Jo ur nal o f St r uc tur ed Finance, 7(1), 53-61. doi:10.3905/jsf.2001.320244 Rai, V. (2009). Public Private Partnerships (PPP) in Infrastructure Projects Public Auditing Guidelines. New Delhi: Comptroller & Audit or Ge n e r al o f India.

Siegel, S. and Castellan, N. J. (1988). Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill, Inc. T am, C. M., Li, W. Y. and Chan, A. P. C. (1994). “BOT applications in the power industry of South East Asia: a case study in China. In: East Meets West” Procurement Systems Symposium CIB W92 Proceedings Publication 175, 315 - 322.

T ieman, R. (2003, November 24). A revolution in public procurement: UK’s private finance initiative. Finance Times [London], p. 4.

T iong, R. L., & Yeo, K., & McCarthy, S. C. (1992). Critical Success Factors in Winning BOT Contracts. Jo ur n al o f Co n structio n E ngin e e ring a n d Management, 118(2), 217-228. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(1992)118:2(217) Wong, A. (2007). “Lessons Learned from Implementing Infrastructure PPPs – A View from Singapore.” Seminar jointly organized by the Depa rtm e nt o f Civil Engineering of The University of Hong Kong and Civil Division of The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, June 13, 2007.

Zhang, X. Q. (2005). “Critical Success factors for Public–Private Partnerships in Infrastructure Development.” Journal of Construction E n g ine e rin g a n d management.”

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

35