A Fiscal Evaluation of the Public-Private Partnership Model

Year 2012, Volume: 67 Issue: 02, 95 - 125, 01.02.2012

Yiğit Karahanoğulları

https://doi.org/10.1501/SBFder_0000002245

Cited By: 12

Abstract

In this article, Public-Private Partnership model which has been applied in the UK since 1990s and which has spread quickly to other countries with the claim that it is more efficient than the classical public investment model, and by which public authorities started the tendering process for entegrated health facilities in Turkey in 2011, is analyzed with a fiscal perspective. The main characteristics of the partnership model and questions such as ‘whether it has been revealed the expected results’ or ‘whether it is still a good alternative for public in the economic crisis conjoncture’ are main strands for the evaluation. UK which was the first country to use the model for massive public projects, and so who already started to get the results of the model will be the main reference point along with the extensive reports prepared by the independent public bodies to analize the model.  

Keywords

Public-Private partnership, public investments, public finance, off-budget

Kamu Özel Ortaklığı Modelinin Mali Değerlendirmesi

Abstract

Bu yazıda, 1990’lardan beri Birleşik Krallık’ta uygulanmakta olan, geleneksel kamu yatırım/hizmet üretim modelinden daha verimli olduğu iddiası ile yeni bir model olarak tüm dünyada hızla yaygınlık kazanmaya başlayan ve ülkemizde entegre sağlık hastaneleri için kamunun ihale süreçlerini 2011 yılında başlattığı Kamu Özel Ortaklığı (KÖO) modelinin mali bir değerlendirilmesi sunulmaya çalışılmaktadır. Ortaklık modelinin temel özelliklerinin neler olduğu, çeşitli uygulamalardan hareketle modelden beklenilen amaçlara ulaşılıp ulaşılamadığı, içinde bulunulan kriz konjonktüründe KÖO modelinin “hâlâ” ne derece cazip bir model olduğu gibi sorular makalenin konusunu oluşturmaktadır. Modelin dünyadaki en geniş çaplı ilk uygulamalarını gerçekleştirmiş ve dolayısıyla uzun erimli ilk sonuçlarını da almış olan, pek çok bağımsız kurumun ilgili projelere ve sonuçlarına ilişkin detaylı incelemeler yaptığı Birleşik Krallık deneyimi makalenin temel referansı olacaktır.

Keywords

Kamu özel ortaklığı, kamu yatırımları, kamu maliyesi, kamu garantileri, bilanço dışılık

References

• Black, Sophie (2003), “Composite Trader Status”, The PPP Journal, http://www.publicservice.co.uk/article.asp?publication=The%20PPP%20Journal&id=16 &content_name=Legal&article=414 (15.09.2011).
• Committee of Public Accounts (2011), PFI in Housing and Hospitals, Fourteenth Report of Session 2010-2011, HC 631, Ocak 2011, http://www.parliament.uk/pagefiles/53537/CRC%20final.pdf (01.09.2011).
• EPEC, European PPP Expertise Centre (2011), State Guarantees in PPPs: A Guide to Better Evaluation, Design, Implementation and Management, http://www.eib.org/epec/resources/epec-state-guarantees-in-ppps-public.pdf (10.06.2011).
• Gosling, Paul (2003), “How the Big Four Accountancy Firms Have PFI Under Their Thumbs”, UNISON Report, www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/b681.pdf (15.10.2011).
• Hall, David (2008), “Critique of PPPs”, Public Services Inetrnational Research Unit (PSIRU), http://www.psiru.org (15.10.2011).
• Hall, David (2009), “A Crisis for Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs)?”, Public Services Inetrnational Research Unit (PSIRU), http://www.psiru.org/reports/2009-01-crisis-2.doc (15.10.2011).
• Hoicka, David (2007) “Public Private Partnerships and Affordable Housing”, http://www.slideshare.net/DavidHoicka/public-private-partnerships-ppp-and-affordablehousing-by-david-hoicka (15.10.2011).
• HM Treasury (2011), PFI Data Summary, http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/d/pfi_data_summary_march2011.pdf, (01.10.2011).
• http://www.jaspers-europa-info.org/index.php/about-us.html, (10.01.2012).
• http://www.kamuozel.gov.tr/?Islem=YaziKategorileri&BolumID=7, (10.01.2012).
• http://www.localpartnerships.org.uk/ (15.10.2011).
• http://www.swap-rates.com (15.12.2011).
• Karahanoğulları, Onur (2011), “Kamu Hizmetleri Piyasa İlişkisinde Dördüncü Tip: Eksik İmtiyaz (Kamu Özel Ortaklığı)”, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, Cilt 66, No. 3, s. 177-215.
• Karasu, Koray (2011), “Sağlık Hizmetlerinin Örgütlenmesinde Kamu-Özel Ortaklığı”, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, Cilt 66, No. 3, s. 217-262.
• McKee, M., Nigel Edwards ve Rıfat Atun (2006), “Public-Private Partnerships for Hospitals”, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, Cilt 84 (11), s.890-896.
• National Audit Office (2009), Private Finance Projects, A Paper for the Lords Economic Affairs Committee.
• National Audit Office (2011), “Lessons from PFI and other Projects”, Report by the Comptroller and Audit General, 28 Nisan 2011.
• Pollock, A., David Price ve Moritz Liebe (2011), “Private Finance Initiatives During NHS Austerity”, BMJ, Cilt 342, s. 417-419.
• PPPForum (2011), Annual Review, http://pppforum.com/sites/default/files/blocks/annualrev/Annual%20Review%202011_low.pdf (15.09.2011).
• Price, David (2009), “Kamu-Özel Ortaklığının Faydası Net Değil”, http://www.euractiv.com.tr/6/interview/kamu-zel-sektre-ortaklnn-faydas-net-deil-007038 (15.09.2011).
• Richter, Judith (2004), “Public-Private Partnerships for Health: A Trend with no Alternatives?”, Development, Cilt 47, Sayı: 2, s.43-48.
• Transport For London (2010), Transport Select Committee Confirms Tube PPP is ‘Flawed’ and has ‘Failed to Prove’ Value for Money, http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/15116.aspx (15.06.2011).
• UNISON (2005), Overview of Public Private Partnerships in the UK, Unison Briefing, June 2005, www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/B1924.pdf (15.10.2011).