Measuring value for money in public private partnerships: a review of the public sector comparator in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and United Kingdom
................................................................................................................. iii Resumo (em Português) ............................. ................................................................ iv Acronyms ............................................................................................................... v Table of
Do Public-Private Partnerships Create Value for Money for the Public Sector? The Portuguese Experience
Over the last few decades, public-private partnerships have been increasingly used by governments around the world to finance and manage complex operations. Doubts about their efficiency have been raised, however. Criticism of public-private partnerships reflects the fact that governments tend to use them as “off-budget” operations, to avoid fiscal constraints. Do they generate “value for money” to the public sector? The literature is less than unanimous. How one assesses value for money in these types of arrangements has become extremely important for public managers.
Analysis: The Agenda 2007 Proposals: Evolution or Revolution?
On 10 February 2004 the Commission published its proposal for the financial perspective 2007-2013. A week later it adopted the third report on economic and social cohesion. These two documents form the basis of the so-called ‘Agenda 2007 reforms’. They will be the greatest challenge for the enlarged EU after the intergovernmental conference, since they will determine the financial basis for EU policy-making until the middle of the next decade. The Agenda 2007 proposals certainly hint at courageous reforms, because they place a previously unheard-of emphasis on performance and quality. Under the proposals, structural operations should generate value for money, and the funds should focus on projects which generate added value at a European level. Overall the Commission’s proposals point in the right direction, because they balance, on the one hand, solidarity for the new Member States and weak regions in the old Member States with, on the other hand, investments in future tasks. Moreover, they constitute a paradigm shift. For the first time, the Common Agricultural Policy will not be the dominant expenditure category. Now it is up to the Member States to examine the proposals politically and find a compromise between sometimes very divergent interests. It is to be hoped that, during the debate over expenditure limits and division of funds, national interests do not outweigh European interests.