APA 6th Edition Perko- Šeparović, I. (2007). Upitnost transfera rizika u javno-privatnom partnerstvu. Hrvatska i komparativna javna uprava, 7 (4), 943-969. Preuzeto s https://hrcak.srce.hr/135296
MLA 8th Edition Perko- Šeparović, Inge. "Upitnost transfera rizika u javno-privatnom partnerstvu." Hrvatska i komparativna javna uprava, vol. 7, br. 4, 2007, str. 943-969. https://hrcak.srce.hr/135296. Citirano 26.10.2020.
Chicago 17th Edition Perko- Šeparović, Inge. "Upitnost transfera rizika u javno-privatnom partnerstvu." Hrvatska i komparativna javna uprava 7, br. 4 (2007): 943-969. https://hrcak.srce.hr/135296
Harvard Perko- Šeparović, I. (2007). 'Upitnost transfera rizika u javno-privatnom partnerstvu', Hrvatska i komparativna javna uprava, 7(4), str. 943-969. Preuzeto s: https://hrcak.srce.hr/135296 (Datum pristupa: 26.10.2020.)
Vancouver Perko- Šeparović I. Upitnost transfera rizika u javno-privatnom partnerstvu. Hrvatska i komparativna javna uprava [Internet]. 2007 [pristupljeno 26.10.2020.];7(4):943-969. Dostupno na: https://hrcak.srce.hr/135296
IEEE I. Perko- Šeparović, "Upitnost transfera rizika u javno-privatnom partnerstvu", Hrvatska i komparativna javna uprava, vol.7, br. 4, str. 943-969, 2007. [Online]. Dostupno na: https://hrcak.srce.hr/135296. [Citirano: 26.10.2020.]
Sažetak The paper is based on the belief that public-private partnership is one of the most
important instruments of good governance. However, the complexity, potentials,
and dangers of that institute also must be taken into consideration.
At the beginning of the paper, the author outlines Guidelines of the Government
from September 2006, which introduced the institute of public-private
partnership as exclusively contractual relationship. A critical analysis of the
Guidelines has shown a number of incomplete and disputable provisions as well
as confusion about the principles, objectives, and instruments of public-private
partnership. That situation certainly does not provide sufficient information to
those who would like to use the instrument of PPP, particularly because they are
constantly persuaded that PPP is the best way for satisfying public needs without
additional taxation of citizens.969
Perko-[eparovi} Inge: Upitnost transfera rizika u javno-privatnom partnerstvu
HRVATSKA JAVNA UPRAVA, god. 7. (2007.), br. 4., str. 943–969
HRVATSKA JAVNA UPRAVA
The main part of the paper deals with the practice in Great Britain – the country
that has been using that institute most frequently in the past ten years – and
Australia – the country that often copies British solutions.
Since the legitimation for contractual form of PPP – in Great Britain known
as private financial initiative – often seems to be the allocation of risk, i.e. the
transfer of risk from the public to the private sector, the main part of the paper
deals with these issues: the existence and time of the transfer of risk; public sector
constraints that appear after a contract has been signed in the situation of asymmetrical
powers; and transaction costs.
British and Australian examples are followed by an outline of legal framework
for PPP projects. Several options are shown: BOOT, DBFO (the most successful
and the most common), and DBO.
If we calculate value for money, it is obvious that previous experiences with PPP
more than disputable. »Successful projects« have been and still are the result
of heavy payments to the private sector. E.g. road construction with private financial
initiative: initial construction costs were paid off in only three years, the
private sector makes operative profit of 68%cper annum based on the contract
valid for thirty years. Previous experience has shown that the state has been enthusiastic
in protecting the profit interests of private investors at the expense of its
citizens, i.e. in putting the private interest above the common good. The reality
of this PPP form is far from perfect.
Finally, the author suggests better institutionalisation of PPP processes in
Croatia in order to ensure the best of imperfect contractual forms of PPP.