Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and Best Value policies were introduced by the UK government as part of a drive to improve public service provision. Both Best Value and PFI focus on harmonising the interaction between the public and private sectors in the context of public private partnerships. Based on 68 interviews with representatives of the main stakeholder groups involved in PFI procurement and development in Great Britain, this paper analyses practitioner views on the problems encountered in implementing these schemes. In this context, it is noted that there is considerable disagreement with regard to the sources of, and solutions for, current difficulties. Amongst public sector respondents, there is a view that PFI procurement has to be standardised further in order to become more cost effective, and to allow for easier manageability. Private sector respondents, meanwhile, emphasise the need for clients to adopt a commercial ethos and to acquire a greater degree of expertise with regard to managing market-based solutions. Both views are indicative of an ongoing uncertainty amongst PFI stakeholders with regard to the levels of risk identification and management that are required for the successful implementation of PFI projects.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arthur, R. (1999), ‘The Local Government Act 1999 - Best Value and Long Term Contracts’, Public Finance, May 1999.

Bates, M. (1997), First Review of the Private Finance Initiative by Sir Malcolm Bates, ( London: HMSO ).

Bates, M. (1999), Second Review of the Private Finance Initiative by Sir Malcolm Bates, ( London: HMSO ).

Boyne, G. A. (1999), Managing Local Services: From CCT to Best Value, ( London: Frank Cass ).

DETR (1998), Modernising Local Government - Improving Local Services Through Best Value, ( London: HMSO ).

DETR (1999), Implementing Best Value: A Consultation Paper on Draft Guidance, ( London: HMSO ).

Filkin, G. (1997), ‘Best Value for the public, Briefing and Discussion Papers’ , Municipal Journal, Vol 10.

GCU Draft Final Report (2001), Standardised Framework for Risk Analysis and Management in PFI Projects, ( Glasgow: GCU ).

Geddes, M. and Martin, S. (2000), ‘The policy and politics of Best Value: Currents, crosscurrents and undercurrents in the new regime’ , Policy and Politics, Vol 28, No 3, pp. 379-395 .

10.

Gershon, P. (2002), Review of Civil Procurement in Central Government, Intemnet publication (www.ogc.gov.uklogc/publications), Accessed on 10 Jan 2002.

11.

HMSO (1998), Better Quality Services, A Handbook on Creating Public/Private Partnerships through Market Testing and Contracting Out, ( London: HMSO ).

12.

HMSO (1999), Local Government Act, ( London: HMSO ).

13.

HM Treasury (1999), Modern Government Modern Procurement, ( London: HM Treasury ).

14.

LGA (1998), Modernising Local Government. Improving Local Services through Best Value, ( London: LGA Publications ).

15.

National Audit Office (1999), Examining Value for Money of Deals Under the Private Finance Initiative, Report by the Controller and Auditor General, ( London: National Audit Office ).

16.

National Audit Office (2000), The Cancellation of the Benefits Payment Card Project, Report by the Controller and Auditor General, ( London: National Audit Office ).

17.

Nettleton, B. (2000), Best Value and Direct Services, Proceedings Institution of Civil Engineers 2000 , Paper 12272, pp. 83-90.

18.

Treasury Taskforce (1997), Partnerships for Prosperity, The Private Finance Initiative, ( London: HMSO ).

19.

Treasury Taskforce (1998), Treasury Taskforce Policy Statement No.2, Public Sector Comparators and Value for Money, ( London: HMSO ).

20.

Treasury Taskforce (1999), Technical Note No. 6, How to Manage the Delivery of Long Term PFI Contracts, ( London: HMSO ).

Partnership,Value for Money and Best Value in PFI Projects: Obstacles and Opportunities

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References