Title: Public private partnership in BOT (Brought Operate and Transfer)

Statement of problem: Whether this type of setup is a good recourse in the Indian infrastructure system.

Review of literature:


1. Infrastructural Project Finance An Indian Perspective, R.K. Maheshwari and Ashish Maheshwari

Deficiencies in Indian infrastructure as already seen is a major obstacle for achieving and sustaining higher economic growth in India. To attend these problems the economic programme of 1991-96 in tune with economic liberalization and new wisdom of reducing role of public sector, ended the decades long monopolies of public sector in the infrastructure. In response to the new economic policies it assigned to the private sector a significant role in raising sustainability in the level of infrastructural investment and efficiency of infrastructural services.

2. Infrastructure Financing: Trends, Challenges and Experience G Gopala Krishna Murthy.

Traditionally the infrastructural projects were the responsibility of the Govt. in India, but because of the inefficiency of the govt. in the area of budgetary policies, implementation policies and lack of ascendancy forced the government to seek help of the private parties. Thus providing a gradual movement from public sector projects to various forms of Public Private Partnership , with the increasing role of the private sector. This method has been considered to be very vital for the sustained economic development of the country.

Ultimately it has been understood that if we need to prosper in the field of infrastructure with the helping hand of private sector, PPP’s need to be accelerated. Therefore, most financial instruments would have to be increasingly tailor-made in order to suit to concept of PPP’s. These would give rise to a whole new market for financial instruments. However the key issue is that these PPP projects need to be economically viable, prior to being put up for bid to the private sector.  

3. Economics of Infrastructure: Growth and Development, L.N. Dash

Infrastructure is the basic determinant of economic development. All the developed countries have begun their growth process through the development of sound infrastructure. It also plays a critical role in the economic, social and cultural development of developing countries. It can be broadly divided into physical, economic, social and institutional categories. The first category contribute to the economic growth, the second contribute to the human resource development and the third is the financial promoter.

4. Private Initiatives in Infrastructure, Priorities, Incentives and Performance, Michael G. Pollitt,Edward Elgar,USA

The books talks about the policies and infrastructural developments in a country with the prioritized objective, design optional incentives and performance. It talks about the optimum utilizations of the less available resources for the benefit and sustainable development of the economy. It further emphasizes that the PPP’s must be used for the better utilization of the resources given the objectives to be achieved, as Public enterprise is unable to achieve the same.

5. Public Private Partnership, G.Ramesh, Et all, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

The books talk about the complexities in PPP in terms of types, conceptualization, structure, institutions, and financing. It covers a broad sweep ranging from infrastructure to services and utilities and from global to Indian context. It further talks about the issues of PPP in different sectors, which are different in terms of infrastructure and need a different treatment.

6. Public Private Partnership, Issues and startergies, A Lucknow Publications.

The books comprises of different articles published by the Lucknow Publications on the issues relating to PPP in Indian context. It covers different areas of the PPP, its evolution, types and nature. The book addresses articles on structures, models and processes of PPP, it also emphasizes on the creation of sustainable infrastructure.


1. To find the competency and efficiency of such setup in Indian scenario.

2. Was such an arrangement really needed for the development of the infrastructure.


1.The partnership between the Government and the Private enterprises is the right option to develop and enhance the infrastructure of the company.

2. The public sector alone is not sufficient and competent enough to meet up with the infrastructural issues.

Research question:

Whether the government (Public Sector) alone is incompetent and requires the involvement of Private Sector in the infrastructural development of the nation?


The methodology used for carrying out this research will be doctrinal research, where in primary and secondary sources will be considered like books, journals, articles, blogs, etc. It includes the critical and analytical study and analysis of the issue.

Tentative Chapterisation:


Chapter 2. Pre and Post New economic policy scenario.

Chapter 3. Difference between Privatisation and PPPs.

Chapter 4. BOT under the scheme of PPP: Need of an hour.

Chapter 5. Conclusion.


India is aspiring to be the world’s third largest economy. Infrastructure shortages are proving a key constraint in sustaining and expanding India’s economic growth and ensuring that all Indians are able to share in its benefits. To meet this challenge, need for transparency and greater role of community participation in management of public investments, so that under privileged sections of citizen also receive the benefits of increased economic activities.

The initial understanding of PPP’s as a derivative of privatization of public services changed and today it emerged as a collaboration to pursue common goal, while leveraging joint resources and capitalizing on the respective competencies and strengths of public and private partners. PPP has evolved all over the world including India as a viable alternative which provides synergy between the regulatory competence of the government and management skills of the private sector and has found successful applications across all sectors. It not only tens to make government investments more productive, it also opens up possibilities of attracting large private investments in capital intensive sectors.

A public private partnership (PPP) is an agreement between government and private sector for the purpose of provisioning of public services or infrastructure. With a common vision in place, the public and private sector bring to the table their own experiences and strengths resulting in accomplishment of mutual objectives.[1] In order to increase the efficiency of the infrastructural activities the GoI has adopted the PPP, so that the efficiency of the private companies and government undertaking could be improved.

It can be simply defined as different types of contractual agreements between the State and the private sector. With the increasing privatization in the economy, the traditional approach of considering the infrastructural activities of the nation to be the sole responsibility of the State changed and the concept of PPP evolved allowing the private sector to increasingly taking on activities previously considered the exclusive responsibility of the State, as the State became the “buyer” rather than the supplier of the services.

As the word “partnership” suggests, the aim is to create an infrastructure “dream team” by combining the best capabilities of the public (legislation, regulations, social concern) and private (innovation, efficiency, finances) sectors to find a solution to infrastructure-related public needs.[2] PPP therefore describes the structure of the relationship between the two parties and ensures that the best of both contributes to optimal public services. The nature of a PPP depends upon the contextual concept, responding to the investment, institutional, legal and public procurement settings of different areas, also taking into account the nature of individual agreements.

The concept is not only restricted to roads, railways, water, waste and power generation but has also moved in the areas of school, hospital, and health services, increasing its ambit.


The evolution of the PPP’s in India can be traced by dividing the Indian history into three phases, namely phase one the early 20th century, phase two 1991-2006 and phase three after 2006.

In the first phase of early 20th century there were only few PPP models in the area of power generation and distribution in limited areas of Mumbai and Kolkata. There were also few projects like The Great Indian Peninsular Railway Company, The Bombay Tramway company’s Tramway services in Mumbai, etc.

In the second phase of 1991-2006, more than 86 projects worth INR 340 billion were awarded across the country, most of the projects comprising of construction of bridges and roads.

In the third phase of after 2006, there was an increase in the number of PPP model due to favorable policy reforms and innovative PPP structures. The increase in the PPP model can be judged by the increase in the invest from 450 projects worth INR 2,242 billion in 2009 to 758 projects worth INR 3,883 billion in 2011.


These different setups have certain overlapping and crosscutting features, they are:

1. Cooperative and contractual relationships:

PPPs represent cooperation between the government and the private sector. The most successful partnership arrangements draw on the relative strengths of both the public and private sector in order to establish complementary relationships between them. PPP arrangements are long-term in nature, extending over a 15 to 30 year period. This feature, i.e. the time period helps to establish productive relations between public and private sectors. PPPs are used to develop and operate public utilities and infrastructure, after agreeing to the terms and conditions of the contract for providing quality products to the consumers in different areas. These collaborative ventures are built around the expertise and capacity of the project partners and are based on a contractual agreement, which determines appropriate0 allocation of resources, risks, and returns agreed upon.

2. Shared responsibilities

A key feature of PPPs is that the responsibilities are shared between the public and the private parties, which may vary from different contract to contract. In few consortiums, the private sector company plays a significant role in all aspects of delivery of the service, while in others its functions are limited. However, the overall role of government remains unchanged in a PPP: it is the government which remains ultimately accountable and responsible for the provision of high quality services that meet the public need.

3. A method of procurement:[4]

PPPs are instruments for government bodies to deliver desired outcomes to the public sector, by making use of private sector capital to finance the necessary assets or infrastructure. The private company is rewarded for its investment in the form of either service charges from the public body, revenues from the project, or a combination of the two. This renders affordable those projects that might not otherwise have been feasible, because the public body was unwilling or unable to borrow the requisite capital.

PPPs allow the private sector to play a greater role in the planning, finance, design, operation and maintenance of public infrastructure and services than under traditional public procurement models. Moreover, where traditional procurement models begin with the question of what assets the public body has as its disposal and how these might be used to deliver required services, PPP arrangements place the emphasis on the desired service or outcome as identified by the public organisation and how the private sector might help to make this happen.

4. Risk transfer[5]

A key element of PPPs is their potential to deliver public projects and services in a more economically efficient manner. At the beginning of the relationship, potential risks associated with the project are identified and each party adopts those which it is best equipped to manage. The public sector can therefore transfer appropriate risks to the private partner, who has the necessary skills and experience to manage them. For example, overall risk to the public sector can be reduced by transferring those associated with design, construction and operation to the private partner. The incentive for the private body comes in the form of higher rates of return related to high standards of performance.

5. Flexible ownership[6]

PPPs enable flexible arrangements between public and private bodies, where the public body may or may not retain ownership of the project or facility that is produced. In some cases, the private organisation may be contracted only to construct facilities or supply equipment, leaving the public body as owners, operators and maintainers of the service. Alternatively, the public sector may decide it is more cost-effective not to own directly and operate assets, but to purchase these instead from the private entity. Services may be purchased for use by the government itself, as an input to provide another service, or on behalf of the end user.


PPP is generally advised and adopted by the state in the following circumstances:[7]

  • When the project cannot be provided with the financial resources or expertise of the public sector alone;
  • When a private partner would increase the quality or level of service over that provided by the public sector on its own;
  • When a private partner would allow the project to be implemented sooner than if only the public sector were involved;
  • When there is support from users for the involvement of a private partner;
  • When there is an opportunity for competition among prospective private partners
  • When there are no regulatory or legislative prohibitions to involving a private partner in the provision of a project;
  • When the outputs of the project can be measured and priced easily;
  • When the cost of the project can be recovered through the implementation of user fees;
  • When the project provides an opportunity for innovation;
  • When there is a track record of partnerships between government and the private sector;
  • When there are opportunities to foster economic development.


1. Regulatory environment: There in no regulatory body to look into the setup of PPP in India as of now. In order to get better private and international funding a stable regulatory environment is essential.

2. Lack of information: Since there is no regulatory body the PPP lacks a comprehensive database regarding the projects/ studies to be awarded under PPP. The participation will increase if the bidders are provided with the complete and accurate information about the projects.

3. Project Development: Since the concerned authorities do not give importance to activities like detailed feasibility study, land acquisition, environment clearance etc, reduces the interest of the private sector as it leads to many complications like mispricing, delay at the time of execution, etc.

4. Lack of institutional capacity: The limited institutional capacity to undertake large and complex projects at various central levels (central, state and local ) hinders the translation of targets into projects.

5. Financing availability: The private sector is dependent upon commercial banks to raise the debt for the PPP projects. Indian infrastructural companies being highly leveraged, their ability to fund the PPP projects is getting difficult.


There are different types of options available to public authorities to involve the private sector in the procurement process, and within that continuum PPP can take many forms according to the needs of the area in which it is operating. The three different ways to describe the relationship between the relationship of the GoI and Private players are as follows:

1. Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT): The private sector is in charge for the design, construction and operation of the infrastructure under the terms of the contract, with ownership and control recurring to the public sector at the end of the contract.

2. Build-Own-Operate (BOO): Here the private sector retains complete ownership of the infrastructure after completing the design and construction phases and also continues to operate the facility, essentially replacing the government as provider of public services for the length of the contract term.

3. Build-Transfer-Operate (BTO): In this case the public sector assumes ownership of the infrastructure on completion of the design and builds phases, leasing it back to the private sector for operation.


The term as defined above is one of the type of PPP which can be very well understood by its name, wherein each word explains the meaning, i.e.

Build: it is the process of setting up of the infrastructure, collecting and development of the staff and transferring established knowledge.

Operate: it includes the management of the organization, program management, development, maintenance enhancements and product support.

Transfer: it includes the process of transferring the business to a new offshore subsidiary through a valid register, transfer all the assets and handover operations.

BOT offers attractive business benefits over the traditional offshore subsidiary path, like rapid scaling of operations, wider service offerings, quickly filling business model gaps and lower infrastructure set-up costs. It reduced time to operations through utilization of knowledgeable 3rd party management resources responsible for real estate, government rules and regulations, cultural transition, IT infrastructure procurement security, etc.

BOT is a scheme[8] which is a subset of a PPP, dealing in the construction and operation by the private sector which are usually done by the government, or public corporations. Once these assets are setup and ready to use, the private sector use it to recover its investment amount along with the profit and then returns the assets to the government or sell the assets to the government at nominal prices after the end of the contract term. During the working of the contract, the government permits the private company to operate the assets as an agent of the Government. That is to say that the ownership lies with the government, but the firm can be allowed to operate the assets on behalf of the government.[9]

There are certain benefits available to the government, when going for a BOT scheme. There are three main benefits of development of new infrastructure assets through private rather than public financing for a country, firstly because the new assets are financed from the government’s balance sheet, thus preserving the government’s borrowing capacity.

Secondly the private financing and operation is expected to result in lower costs and higher efficiency, flowing from a stronger commercial discipline operating on private firms. Thirdly many studies have shown that private projects can be built with fewer time overruns as compared to their public-financed equivalents.


After the independence the Indian economy started to build up over the base created by the Britisher’s during their rule. In order to secure the economy and control of the country the framers of the constitution were very secure and did not leave even a slight chance so that any other foreigner could control or affect the Indian economy, as a lesson learned from the past. So in order to save their economy and to provide social justice and equality to all the people of the country, there were a lot of restrictions of the trade and commerce and most of the work was undertaken by the state, with no profit no loss motive.

As the economy of the country was very week, the setup in the initial stage turned to be very useful as it helped to reach the country’s economy to a stable position. During that period every work which was related to public at large was attached to state and was considered to be the responsibility of the government. Every area be it transportations, communications, health, manufacturing, etc everything was under the control of government.

After a period of time when the public units started turning sick units due to various reasons like lack of motivation to work, less efforts, excessive security of job, etc. the burden on the government started, now since the country was a socialist country, it could not do work for profit maximization and thus in order to meet up the needs of the people the burden on the government and its borrowing keep on accelerating. It was in 1991, that the government no longer holds the burden and the economic barriers were removed and participation of the private sector was called for in different areas of infrastructure.

After the 1991, when the NEW Economic Policy was accepted under the supervision of Dr. Manmohan Singh, than Finance Minister, who came up with the idea and setup of transferring few areas under the control of the private sector.

From there on the share of the private sector in the Indian economy has increased and is still increasing with better models and schemes. Since the private sector works with the motive of earning profit, the economy not only got stable but is increasing year after year. Now since the country could not give full control of the economy into the hands of the private sector so new models and schemes are being developed so that the partnership between the government and the private players is balanced in a good ratio. The evolution of the PPP schemes can be traced from traditional model of Design-Bid-Build to Operate and maintain to Design-Build and now to Build-operate-transfer and trying to move to Build-Own-Operate, i.e. outright privatization.[10] Thus we are approaching towards a new era of privatization with less sake and control of government in our economy.



The term “privatization” is most commonly used to refer to any shift of government activities or functions from a public agency to the private sector. It is an umbrella term used to account for greater private sector participation in the delivery of public services. Privatization has also been characterized as “sometimes leaving very little government involvement, and other times creating partnerships between government and private service providers where government is still the dominant player.”[11] Specifically, privatization is defined as the economic process of transferring property, such as a building, road, or enterprise system that delivers services from public ownership to private ownership.[12] Now once the company is privatized there is no control of the government over it in terms of production, pricing, diversification, expansion, etc.

Thus, privatization occurs when the government sells public assets to the private sector or when the government stops providing a service directly and relies on the private sector to deliver the service. Ownership is the key for distinguishing privatization.

Public Private Partnership

A P3 is a project in which there is cooperation between the public and private sectors in one or more areas of the design, development, construction, operation, ownership or financing of infrastructure assets, or in the provision of services.[13] Compared to traditional procurement methods, the private sector assumes a greater role in the planning, financing, design, construction, operation and maintenance of public facilities or service delivery.[14] Ideally, a P3 is based on the strengths of both the public agency and the private partner, which are directed toward the achievement of goals that optimize public needs, funds and services. P3s typically involve some combination of design, build, finance, operate or transfer of an asset between the public and private sectors. The project delivery model varies, as each public agency will have its own specific need for considering a P3, ranging from contracting for operations and maintenance of a public facility to the design, construction, financing and operation of a public facility.

Differences between the two:

Privatization and P3s are very similar concepts, both evolving from the concept that private sector is essential for the delivery of public projects or services resulting in the operational and fiscal benefits for a public agency. These differences occur in three primary areas: ownership, structure, and risk. Ownership refers to the party that has and controls the rights or interests in an asset or service enterprise. Structure refers to the resulting contractual arrangements that are used to facilitate privatization or P3s. Risk refers to the responsibilities, financial or legal, that are undertaken by the appropriate party–public, private or shared as conditions of a contract.[15]


A primary distinction between privatization and P3s is ownership of the asset (existing or new) or enterprise system that is the subject of the transaction. When a publicly owned asset or enterprise system is privatized, ownership and responsibility for the asset or enterprise are fully transferred or sold to the private sector.

In a P3, the public agency retains ownership of the asset or enterprise, oversight of the operations and management of the asset, and controls the amount of private involvement. Through a PPP, the public sector sets the parameters and expectations for the partnership and the private sector uses access to capital markets to address the public agency’s needs. If the P3 does not live up to the contractual expectations of the partnership, the public agency can regain complete control of the asset or enterprise system.


Another difference between privatization and PPPs is the structure of the contract that formalizes the involvement of the public and private partner after privatization or the creation of a PPP. With privatization, once an asset or enterprise is sold, the public agency’s involvement is limited to non-existent except possibly in a regulatory role.

In a PPP, there is flexibility with the structure of the agreement, allowing the public and private partners to determine the level of participation of both partners to specifically address the needs of the public agency, while maintaining public agency ownership. While there are many methods for a public agency to transfer ownership of public assets or services to the private sector, the results are the same: public ownership is transferred to the private sector and the public sector is no longer involved in owning or managing the public asset or providing the once-public service.


Risk is not limited to just liability but includes the assumption of responsibility for uncertainties conceptual, operational and financial that could threaten the goals of privatization or a PPP, including design and construction costs, regulatory compliance environmental clearance, performance, and customer satisfaction.

An infrastructure project owned and operated by a public agency subjects the agency to 100 percent of the risks associated with the facility. When an asset or enterprise is privatized, the private owner assumes all risk associated with the asset or enterprise.

With a PPP, which has public ownership and private operation, many (but not all) of these risks can be transferred to the private partner. Risk is typically shared based on the principle that risk should be assigned to the partner that is better equipped to manage or prevent that risk from occurring or that is in a better position to recover the costs associated with the risk.[16]

As a result, privatization and PPPs have been increasingly promoted as possible financing tools for the delivery of public services and projects. Because of the potential long-term impacts of these agreements, it is important for public agencies to have a basic understanding about the differences between privatization and PPPs and the corresponding positives and negatives of each procurement method. While neither privatization nor PPPs is likely to fully replace conventional financing, when used judiciously, they can be a useful financing option for public agencies to consider.[17]


One of the most attractive ways for building infrastructure would certainly be public private partnership, not just to mobilize resources but to execute the projects with greater efficiency. There is variety of rigidity in the public undertaking like labour rigidity, certain laws and accountability, etc. On the other hand private sector can mobilize new technology , can bring in better management and provide services faster and at a lower cost. However private sector is profit motivated and thus we need to create an environment in which private motive is satisfied. At the same time public sector requirement that services are given to everyone and that universal service obligation is also fulfilled and people get public good that they want.

In order to reach the balance, we need to create a public-private partnership mechanism and an environment, in which the best qualities of both the private and public sector are combined with where the investment is done in public good along with the private sector to recover its cost and profit.

Public enterprises are generally accused of lack of transparency, and are accused of giving away silver at a lower or no cost to cronies.

So the PPP setup will give transparency, which is clearly visible to everyone so that there are no undue favors given and the decision taken in the best of public interest.[18] The public sector is often very rigid in the way it deals with some of the things, that could be very expensive, so the combination of Public and private sector gives certain flexibility to the organization to operate at different situations, with least expenses.

PPPs are not the solution for the delivery of all services. There are certain risks in proceeding with PPPs if carried out without critically examining their suitability to specific circumstances. However, government can realize important benefits when public private partnerships are used in the appropriate context. Following are the benefits of PPP.

1. Cost Savings:

PPPs can save anywhere from 6 to 40 percent of the cost of construction and significantly limit the potential for cost overruns through innovative contracting[19]. In addition, because cost savings benefit the private partner, and because the private partner is responsible for cost overruns through fixed-price contracts, the private partner has direct incentives to limit costs.With PPPs, government may be able to realize cost savings for the construction of capital projects as well as the operation and maintenance of services. Cost savings can also be realized by government in the operation and maintenance of facilities and service systems. Private partners may be able to reduce the cost of operating or maintaining facilities by applying economies of scale, innovative technologies, more flexible procurement and compensation arrangements, or by reducing overhead.

2. Risk Sharing:

Traditionally, virtually all of the risk associated with the design, construction, financing, operation and maintenance of a transportation project is borne by the public sector. With PPPs, government can share the risks with a private partner. Risks could include cost overruns, inability to meet schedules for service delivery, or the risk that revenues may not be sufficient to pay operating and capital costs. Proper allocation of project risks to the parties (public or private) that are best able to manage the risks can result in lower overall risk for the project, reduced project costs and accelerated project delivery.

3. Improved Level of Services:

PPPs can introduce innovation in how service delivery is organized and carried out. It can also introduce new technologies and economies of scale that often reduce the cost or improve the quality and level of services.

4. Enhancement of Revenues:

PPPs may set user fees that reflect the true cost of delivering a particular service. PPPs also offer the opportunity to introduce more innovative revenue sources that would not be possible under conventional methods of service delivery.

5. PPPs can shorten project delivery by several years:

By providing access to immediately available private sources of capital, PPPs can accelerate the construction of projects that might otherwise be delayed for years or not be built at all. In addition, the same efficiencies that produce cost savings often enable PPP projects to be constructed faster than traditional projects.

6. Economic Benefits:

Increased involvement of government in PPPs can help to stimulate the private sector and contribute to increased employment and economic growth.

Thus, public private partnership can be very useful but it is not an easy and simple way to solve all the problems. It is necessary to give some deep thought and generate creative ideas. Therefore it could be very well understood that PPP are better off than simple private or public organization. The PPPs have certain advantages and thus are best suited for India and is certainly the need of the hour as, government itself cannot take care of all the issues faced by India.


PPP is the partnership of public-private organizations bringing together efforts from both the public and the private sector to deliver infrastructure mega-projects.the objective of this setup is to give incentives to the collaboration to design the best possible solution to a situation so that the interests of the partners and project results that are better than any one party could achieve on their own.

It has now emerged as a popular term in engaging the private sector in the work of public sector for delivery of services. Its nature is of true partnership sharing objectives, risks, investment and rewards. Since the policy makers in India are emphasizing more on the growth of infrastructure such as airport, seaports, roads, etc the approach has shifted from public enterprise to combined efforts of public and private sector through PPP, with special reference to scheme of BOT. As the resources at our disposal are limited and are precious, so they should not be squandered, therefore we need to attract private players and their capital into infrastructure sectors and ensure that it is utilized in a cost effective manner. As there are so many problems in the Public organizations, and its inability to respond to the needs of the people along with the sustainable development with effective and efficient use of the limited resources, PPP’s must undertake the development of the infrastructure.

In the paper the researcher has tried to understand the concept of PPP, the different types of PPP’s schemes available, the benefits of the PPP, how PPP is different from privatization and how PPP are the need for the development of the infrastructure in our country. The paper concludes after the above study that Public sector is incapable of solely tackling the issues related to the infrastructural issues and requires the intervention of the private players.

End Notes:

Infrastructural Project Finance An Indian Perspective, R.K. Maheshwari and Ashish Maheshwari, The Royal Book Company, Lucknow.

Infrastructure Financing: Trends, Challenges and Experience G Gopala Krishna Murthy, The Icfai University Press.

Economics of Infrastructure: Growth and Development, L.N. Dash, Legal Publications, New Delhi.

Private Initiatives in Infrastructure, Priorities, Incentives and Performance, Michael G. Pollitt, Edward Elgar,USA

Public Private Partnership, G.Ramesh, Et all, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.


[1] Accelerating public private partnership in India, FICCI- E&Y Report, 7

[2] Harnessing the Power of Public-Private Partnerships: The role of hybrid financing strategies in sustainable development, IISD Report, 2012, 2

[3] Facilitating PPP for Accelerated Infrastructure Development in India, Ministry of Finance & Asian Development Bank, December 2006

[4] Developing India’s Infrastructure through Public Private Partnership, A Resource Guide 2008, 14

[5] Ibid

[6] Ibid

[7] Ministry of Municipal Affairs, British Columbia, Canada 1999

[8] Sometimes referred as BOOT schemes.

[9]Infrastructure Financing: Trends, Challenges and Experience G Gopala Krishna Murthy, 51

[10] Public Private Partnership, G.Ramesh, Et all, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

[11] “What is Privatization,” www.privatization.org/ database/whatisprivatization.html (June 6, 2007).

[12] “Privatization,” Encyclopedia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. (June 6, 2007).

[13] Mary Rose Brusewitz, “Public-Private Partnerships in the United States.” Project Finance Legal Advisers Review  2004-2005

[14]Deloitte, A Deloitte Research Study, Closing America’s InfrastructureGap: The Role of the Public-Private Partnership (2007) p. 8.

[15] Privatization v. Public private partnership: A comparative analysis, ISSUE BRIEF, CDIAC,2007.

[16] Clark Construction, “Representative Projects, South County High School,” www.clarkconstruction.com

[17] Supra14 @ 16

[18] Public Private Partnership, Issues and Startergies, A Lucknow Publications pg 20

[19] According to the FHWA 2004 report

(Submitted by Puneet Mishra, a 4th year law student from Institute of Law, NIRMA University, Ahmedabad)

More Under Corporate Law


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

January 2021