Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

QUESTION:

What is the impact of institutional environment on the


project?
Introduction:
Due to the complex current financial situation, many governments in developing
and developed countries are procuring road projects through Public Private
Partnerships (PPPs).
The institutional environment where PPPs take place influences project
performance and program continuity. In a propitious environment, PPPs entail
advantages for public and private parties in the form of Value for Money (VfM).

Institutional deficiencies and conflicts:


Institutional deficiencies can lead the partnership to failure, predominantly when
conflicts emerge between public and private parties. To understand how the
institutional setting influences project performance there is a need for a context
specific approach.

No link between different institutions:


As stated by Jooste, Levitt and Scott (2011), understanding the particular dynamics
of PPP development in different environments expands on the knowledge about the
link between the institutional environment and project performance to ensure
project success.

Different contexts present different institutional


environments:
Given that different contexts present different institutional environments, we
analyze two different settings with similar project volume and age implementing
PPPs in the road sector: the Netherlands and Tamil Nadu. In this research, we
examine the institutional environment in both contexts, the evolution of these two
institutional settings from the implementation of the first PPP projects in the road

sector, and the impact of the institutional environment on project outcomes at


different points of time. Our goal is to study the influence exerted by the
institutional environments in PPP programs progress.

In case of intervention:
Firstly,
we evaluate the policy interventions in both environments since the
implementation of the first PPP projects in the road sector through secondary data
analysis.

Secondly,
we analyze the influence of these policy interventions on the institutional
environment for PPP development by applying the framework proposed by
Mahalingam (2011) which categorizes the institutional environment in specific
institutional capabilities necessary for PPP success.

Thirdly,
We follow a case study approach to collect data about four projects developed in
Different points of time for each location.

Extending the framework(with some examples:


Our results show that the institutional environment has an influence in project
development, extending the framework proposed by Mahalingam (2011). We find
support for Jooste, Levitt and Scotts (2011) statement which recognizes that PPPs
are implemented differently in different regions, progressing beyond a one size
fits all view of PPP programs. Starting from a similar degree of maturity, we
observe a completely different evolution in Tamil Nadu and the Netherlands as a
result of the different institutional settings present. Interestingly, we find that,

once applied in the project, the institutional capabilities react affecting other
institutional capabilities in return, confirming Jooste, Levitt and Scotts (2011)
proposed link between structuration theory and PPP development.

Political interference:
We find support to state that later developments depend upon earlier developments
directly influenced by political willingness.

Impact of changing traditional conditions:


With the passage of time old ways and methods changes with the new one for
making the projects and planning due to new technology.

Conclusion:
We conclude that how the institutional capabilities have been built plays a key role
for project performance and political willingness is a key factor to determine the
evolution of the institutional environment towards PPPs.