Theoretical aspects of the main risks in the implementation of public-private partnership projects and algorithm of their minimization

This article focuses on the analysis of risks arising in the process of implementing joint projects between the state and the business community and the algorithm for minimizing them. Public-private partnership (PPP) is one of the forms of cooperation where risks are redistributed between project participants, which subsequently forms a more efficient budget allocation. Political and financial risks are described as one of the main ones arising within the framework of public-private partnership (PPP), and the risk allocation system consists in the fact that a specific type of risk under the contract is borne by the partner who has the skill and experience of effective management to manage and control this risk. PPP allows to distribute risks between partners, which creates conditions for the effective functioning of social infrastructure facilities.

The conditions for optimal redistribution of risks between partners are also presented and an algorithm for minimizing risks for the implementation of successful PPP projects is proposed. This algorithm can be used in real practice by PPP participants when deciding on the implementation of a joint project, taking into account potential risks. allowing such a partnership to become one of the most productive. Most often, the state bears political risks or makes corrections to regulatory legal acts, while the business community is responsible for business risks.

1. Ameyaw E.E., Chan A.P.C. Evaluation and ranking of risk factors in public-private partnership water supply projects in developing countries using fuzzy synthetic evaluation approach // Expert Systems with Applications. – 2015. – No. 42 (12). – P. 5102–5116.

2. Li B., Akintoye A., Hardcastle C. VFM and Risk Allocation Models in Construction PPP Projects // School of Built and Natural Environment. – Glasgow: Glasgow Caledonian University, 2001. – P. 20.

3. De Palma A., Leruth L.E., Prunier G. Towards a principal-agent based typology of risks in public-private partnerships // Reflets et Perspectives de la Vie Economique. – 2012. – No. 51 (2). – P. 57–73.

4. Ghorbani A., Ravanshadnia M., Nobakht M.B. Survey of Risks in Public Private Partnership Highway Projects in Iran // Smart Construction and Management in the Context of New Technology: Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Construction and Real Estate Management. – 2014. – P. 482–492.

5. Jingning Y., Wenkang L. Risk Assessment Model of Urban Subway Based on Public Private Partnership Mode // Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Engineering Applications (ISDEA 2015). – 2016. – Art. 7462715. – P. 700–703.

6. Leruth L.E. Public-Private Cooperation in Infrastructure Development: A Principal-Agent Story of Contingent Liabilities, Fiscal Risks, and Other (Un)pleasant Surprises // Networks and Spatial Economics. – 2012. – No. 12 (2). – P. 223–237.

7. Marques R.C., Berg S. Risks, contracts, and private-sector participation in infrastructure // Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. – 2011. – No. 137 (11). – P. 925–932.

8. Santoso D.S., Joewono T.B., Wibowo A., Sinaga H.P.A., Santosa W. Public-private partnerships for tollway construction and operation: Risk assessment and allocation from the perspective of investors // Journal of Construction in Developing Countries. – 2012. – No. 17 (2). – P. 45–66.

9. Sfakianakis E., van de Laar M. Fiscal effects and public risk in public-private partnerships // Built Environment Project and Asset Management. – 2013. – No. 3 (2). – P. 181–198.

10. Varnavsky V.G. Public-private partnership: in 2 vol. – M.: IMEMO RAS, 2009. – Vol. 1. – 312 p.

11. Klimov P.E. Risks allocation in projects of public-private partnership // Economic Systems Management: Online Research Journal. – 2012. – No. 8 (44). – P. 1–18.

12. Scharinger L. A new model of the investment partnership between the state and the private sector // Russian Economic Journal. – 2004. – No. 9–10. – P. 41–52.