Talk:Public–private partnership/Archives/2014

Comments on the India section

In the India section, I see these comments:

"In PPP, the project is implemented between the PSUs and the private sector and adminitered by the private sectors with a view to profiteering only without public accountability.This has made great damage to the enforcement of social,economic and political justice to the people and are ultra virus of the guiding principles of state policy." (and some more rant follows this ... upto ... "rushing on the road of capitalism."

There is no reference for these conclusions, and as such I propose they be removed. PPP projects have been hugely helpful in advancing the state of Indian infrastructure and have provided immense benefit to Indians. Most of the roads infrastructure, for example, in the 11th and 12th five-year plans have been accomplished through the use of PPP. To say that these have been done only with a view to profiteering, and without any references to justify that conclusion, is one-sided and politically motivated, and I suggest this be struck off. At a later date I will give details of how PPPs have benefited India, but for now the lack of any reference to this highly debatable statement should disqualify it from wikipedia on the grounds that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

Nayakan88 (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Public-Private Partnership

Wikipedia has a massive problem of defining words that have different meanings in different countries. This definition seems to be based on Australia, which is not the same as the United States. It seems that certain countries have a stronger representation in editing these things. The reason I was checking this is because I noticed that a strange definition of public private was creeping into the higher education system and now I see where it comes from.

This section should better explain the debt implications. As it currently reads, it suggests there are no debt implications because the debt will be "off balance sheet". That is often not the case. The article needs to describe "off balance sheet, but on-credit". Even if a third-party issues the debt, in today's fiscal environment the rating agencies will often adjust the public agencies credit (debt capacity) to account for a portion or all of the debt issued by the private partner as if the public agency issued the debt. To use the example of the hospital where a private entity builds a facility and then leases it to the hospital, if the hospital leases the facility for a really long term that is close to the debt term, then the rating agencies will likely see that as a flow through and count it in the hospitals debt calculations. As its' currently written, the narrative gives readers the idea this is a free ride form a debt perspective and it's simply not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.43.126 (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

New Content Proposal

I would like to propose the following as a new section to this page:

Public-private economic development partnerships. Specifically, citing and describing a case study through the EPA's Brownfields and Land Revitalization Program and the TCEQ's Brownfields Site Assessment Program. Avprice02 (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

References

P3 Barriers

Hi. I'm looking to add points on the barriers that arise when entering into a P3. My goal is to list various barriers and challenges while focusing one one in particular. I believe that this addition will not help to not just highlight the positives when entering into this type of partnership but also showcase what might not work. I'm working on this for a class. Please let me know if you have any questions or advice when focusing on this. I'll be looking to add this finished by mid December. Thanks - vnicholls