Upitnost transfera rizika u javno-privatnom partnerstvu ; Controversiality of risk transfer in public- private partnership
U radu se polazi od shvaćanja da je javno-privatno partnerstvo (JPP) jedan od najznačajnijih instrumenata dobrog upravljanja, pri čemu treba voditi računa o složenosti tog mehanizma, mogućnos tima i opasnostima koje u sebi nosi, posebno ako ga se uzima u njegovoj reduciranoj ulozi – kao instrument privatnog investiranja za zadovoljenje javnih potreba. Upravo takav uski koncept dolazi do izražaja u Smjernicama Vlade Republike Hrvatske donesenim u rujnu 2006., kojima se uvodi isključivo ugovorni oblik JPP-a i koncesije. Rad upozorava na nedovoljnu sustavnost, konzistentnost, jasnoću i cjelovitost pristupa, koja čini upitnom proklamiranu svrhu Smjernica da potencijalnim partnerima pruži informacije, koje sadržavaju dovoljno odgovora kad oni razmišljaju primijeniti li ili ne JPP. Kako bi se došlo do dodatnih informacija, najveći dio rada posvećen e prikazu instituta isključivog ugovornog oblika JPP-a kroz praksu zemalja (prvenstveno V. Britanije i donekle Australije) kojega najviše primjenjuju u posljednjih 10-ak godina, pri čemu je naglasak na problemima transfera rizika. ; 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.
