Suchergebnisse

This report takes as its starting point the view that the nature of any social institution. including a system of income security, is better understood if it is seen in historical depth and historical context. A definitive history of the Australian social security system remains to be written, although the calendar of major events and legislative changes are documented in the writings of Professor T H Kewley and in various publications released by the Commonwealth Department of Social Security. In relation to the subject matter of this report, for example, to know that moral provisions were enacted in 1908, said by the Minister responsible in 1971 to have fallen into disuse and (nearly all) repealed in 1974, is to know very little. The reality of a statutory provision owes much to those who administer it – judges, ministers and public servants and the present paper concentrates on what the administrators did with the provisions, and why they did those things. The moral provisions discussed in the report were never as monstrous in practice as might have been imagined, but they serve to raise the question of the ethical standards and purposes that they brought to the system of income security, and of the obligations imposed on the people who make claims on it. If honest acceptable answers to such questions cannot be found it may be that we are acting as the blind instruments of economic forces at best, or of prejudice at worst.

PurposeThis paper summarises the main research findings from a detailed, qualitative set of structured interviews and case studies of private finance initiative (PFI) schemes in the UK, which involve the construction of built facilities. The research, which was funded by the Foundation for the Built Environment, examines the emergence of PFI in the UK. Benefits and problems in the PFI process are investigated. Best practice, the key critical factors for success, and lessons for the future are also analysed.Design/methodology/approachThe research is based around 11 semi‐structured interviews conducted with stakeholders in key PFI projects in the UK.FindingsThe research demonstrates that value for money and risk transfer are key success criteria. High procurement and transaction costs are a feature of PFI projects, and the large‐scale nature of PFI projects frequently acts as barrier to entry.Research limitations/implicationsThe research is based on a limited number of in‐depth case study interviews. The paper also shows that further research is needed to find better ways to measure these concepts empirically.Practical implicationsThe paper is important in highlighting four main areas of practical improvement in the PFI process: value for money assessment; establishing end‐user needs; developing competitive markets and developing appropriate skills in the public sector.Originality/valueThe paper examines the drivers, barriers and critical success factors for PFI in the UK for the first time in detail and will be of value to property investors, financiers, and others involved in the PFI process.