Thursday, November 23, 2017
  Search 
Home
Opportunities
Partners
Publications
About Us
 
 
Please enter your email here, we would like to keep you informed.
 
 
Connect With Us - Facebook RSS
<November 2017>
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930
Sections
Liberty In The News
Liberty Events
Conference Proceedings
Culture
Agriculture
Democracy
Development is the Key
Economic Freedom
Education for Life
Enterpreneurship
Environment
Freedom of Expression
Freedom to Trade
Globalization for the Good
Health is Wealth
Intellectual Property Rights
International Relations
Liberty is Security
Limited Government
Principles of Politics
Privatisation
Population - the ultimate resource
Property Rights
Regulatory Affairs
Rule of Law
Tax Freedom
Facts & Figures
Opportunities
Competitions
 Privatisation
 
India's PPP juggernaut
Mint, India Saturday, March 29, 2008

Ramesh Ramanathan
The Planning Commission estimates that PPP will account for 30% of the estimated $1.5 trillion infrastructure investment required in the 11th and 12th Plans, or about Rs 600 crore per day, each day, for the next decade or more. While agreeing that the state must cede to market forces in some areas, most of us can't see a total capitulation of the state. The cautionary note is especially relevant for India. After all, we have experience with the largest PPP initiative in history. It was called the British East India Company, writes Ramesh Ramanathan in the Mint

The Planning Commission estimates that PPP will account for 30% of the estimated $1.5 trillion infrastructure investment required in the 11th and 12th Plans

 

The UPA government is aggressively pushing public-private partnerships (PPP) in infrastructure development. The Planning Commission estimates that PPP will account for 30% of the estimated $1.5 trillion infrastructure investment required in the 11th and 12th Plans. The desired PPP share comes to Rs2 trillion a year, or Rs600 crore a day. This is larger than the Centre’s Plan budget this year.

 

There is no doubt that private sector participation will be required—but PPP is not just a new way of financing India’s infrastructure deficit—it is a fundamental rewiring of the relationship between the state and the market. A World Bank report on private participation in highways states, “In the development of PPP projects, five types of constraints must be overcome: political and bureaucratic, legal and regulatory, financial, methodological and implementation.” In short, pretty much every aspect of government functioning!

 

Given the magnitude of this impact, we cannot rush headlong into a love affair with PPP without the necessary checks and balances—the benefits of private sector efficiencies will come at a price.

 

Let me offer two examples where we need to rethink how we develop PPPs. The first is greenfield international airports. Since Bangalore’s international airport agreement was signed in 2004, unanticipated air traffic growth is raising genuine capacity questions, and the need to retain the current airport without disturbing the economics for the airport consortium, Bangalore International Airport Ltd. They are, rightfully in their interest, not only suggesting that the contract is cast in stone, but that India will suffer reputational risk in renegotiation.

 

The government is finding it difficult to play what is clearly a sovereign role of the state in protecting public interest because its commercial stake in the airport has compromised its position. A report on PPP workshops for state chief secretaries conducted by ADB and the department of economic affairs states, “A key lesson learnt from international experiences is that governments often get overenthusiastic to get private sector participation by offering excessively concessional terms...” Incidentally, there were more than 70 modifications to the concession agreement for the Lima Airport in Peru in just three years, arising out of changes to the “rules of the game” or failures in the original contract design.

 

The second example is SEZs. Here, the damage is even worse. States are taking minority stakes in SEZs, for which they are willing to cede access to one of the most powerful weapons in the arsenal of government—eminent domain, the ability to notify and acquire private land for public purpose. The revised SEZ guidelines and the Land Acquisition Act amendment in Parliament don’t go far enough in creating sufficient checks. Put crudely, these examples are nothing short of bartering the sovereign role.

 

Jerold Oppenheim, who worked for the US attorney general’s office for three decades, writes in a report he co-authored, Democracy and PPP: “States should be cautious about any cession of control to private for-profit interests. The American experience shows (a) very difficult path that requires very strong public, labour, and other NGOs to advance public interests of quality, safety, reasonable and affordable price, transparency and democracy.”

 

Even China—yes China!—has learnt that PPP projects require consultation. In a PhD thesis, Governing Urban Water Flows in China, Lijin Zhong writes of the impact of public hearings on water tariffs: “Public hearings made government decision-making processes more transparent and legitimized, and difficult decisions (such) as price increases more acceptable.”

 

Beyond pointless hand-wringing, can anything concrete be done? Yes. We need state governments to establish full-fledged PPP departments, replacing the wishy-washy “PPP cells” being contemplated today—PPP isn’t about cells, it’s about the entire organism. Let these departments be mandated with developing the core competencies, policy framework and public discourse necessary for calibrated PPP to succeed. This is in the best interest of all—those who want to push ahead with projects, and also those who want thoughtful engagement.

Here we need mature, nuanced debates, not pugilistic rhetoric that gets thrown across entrenched corners of the ideological boxing ring. The reality is that India’s majority is in the middle —acknowledging that while government must cede to market for

Author : Mr Ramanathan is co-founder, Janaagraha. Möbius Strip
Tags- Find more articles on - economic reforms | eminent domain | India infrastructure | land acquisition | ppp | public private partnership | SEZ

Post your Comments on this Article

Name  
Email    
Comment  
Comments will be moderated

More Related Articles
Privatisation
More Articles


 
An Initiative of
LIBERTY INSTITUTE, INDIA
All rights reserved.