Public Private Partnership and fiscal illusion: A systematic review

IF 1 Q4 MANAGEMENT
A. Cepparulo, G. Eusepi, L. Giuriato
{"title":"Public Private Partnership and fiscal illusion: A systematic review","authors":"A. Cepparulo, G. Eusepi, L. Giuriato","doi":"10.24294/jipd.v3i2.1157","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) are mostly presented as a means to introduce efficient procurement methods and better value for money to taxpayers. However, the complexity of the PPP mechanism, their lack of transparency, accounting rules and implicit liabilities make it often impossible to perceive the amount of public expenditure involved and the long-run impact on taxpayers, providing room for fiscal illusion, i.e., the illusion that PPPs are much less expensive than traditional public investments. This psaper, thanks to a systematic review of the literature on the EU countries experience, tries to unveil the sources of this illusion by looking at the reasons behind the PPPs’ choice, their real costs, and the sources of fiscal risks. The literature suggests that PPPs are more costly than public funding, especially when contingent liabilities are not taken into account, and are employed as mechanisms to circumvent budgetary restrictions and to spend off-balance. The paper concludes that the public sector should share more risks with private sectors by reducing the amount of guarantees, and should prevent governments from operating through a sleight of hand that deflects attention away from off-balance financing, by applying a neutral fiscal recording system.","PeriodicalId":41907,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Infrastructure Policy and Development","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Infrastructure Policy and Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24294/jipd.v3i2.1157","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) are mostly presented as a means to introduce efficient procurement methods and better value for money to taxpayers. However, the complexity of the PPP mechanism, their lack of transparency, accounting rules and implicit liabilities make it often impossible to perceive the amount of public expenditure involved and the long-run impact on taxpayers, providing room for fiscal illusion, i.e., the illusion that PPPs are much less expensive than traditional public investments. This psaper, thanks to a systematic review of the literature on the EU countries experience, tries to unveil the sources of this illusion by looking at the reasons behind the PPPs’ choice, their real costs, and the sources of fiscal risks. The literature suggests that PPPs are more costly than public funding, especially when contingent liabilities are not taken into account, and are employed as mechanisms to circumvent budgetary restrictions and to spend off-balance. The paper concludes that the public sector should share more risks with private sectors by reducing the amount of guarantees, and should prevent governments from operating through a sleight of hand that deflects attention away from off-balance financing, by applying a neutral fiscal recording system.
公私合作与财政错觉:系统回顾
公私伙伴关系(ppp)主要是作为一种引入高效采购方法和提高纳税人资金价值的手段。然而,PPP机制的复杂性、缺乏透明度、会计规则和隐性负债往往使人们无法了解所涉及的公共支出金额及其对纳税人的长期影响,从而为财政错觉提供了空间,即PPP比传统公共投资便宜得多的错觉。本文通过对欧盟国家经验文献的系统回顾,试图通过考察ppp选择背后的原因、实际成本和财政风险来源,揭示这种错觉的根源。文献表明,公私伙伴关系比公共资金成本更高,特别是在不考虑或有负债的情况下,并被用作规避预算限制和超支的机制。该报告的结论是,公共部门应通过减少担保金额,与私营部门分担更多风险,并应通过采用中立的财政记录制度,防止政府耍花招,转移人们对失衡融资的注意力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
14.30%
发文量
13
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信