Why Public–Private Partnerships Fail: A Structural Diagnosis of Capital Misalignment

Roshan Ghadamian
Additional contact information
Roshan Ghadamian: Institute for Regenerative Systems Architecture

IRSA Working Papers from Institute for Regenerative Systems Architecture

Abstract: Public--private partnerships remain a dominant instrument for financing public infrastructure despite three decades of contested performance — cost overruns, renegotiations, service degradation, public backlash — across which the reviews find the case for superiority unproven rather than the case against it settled. Existing critiques are empirical, ideological or managerial, and share one assumption: that failure is contingent, and therefore correctable. This paper argues that PPPs fail structurally. Public-good systems are governed by mission cycles — asset lifetimes, capability renewal intervals, intergenerational service obligations — unfolding over decades. PPP capital is governed by return cycles, refinancing windows and contractual termination horizons. Forcing the two together produces systematic misalignment rather than hybrid efficiency. Two failures follow, and neither is an implementation problem. PPPs do not decouple capital from political, financial, capability and civic fragility; and they optimise cashflow timing rather than mission-aligned performance, so embedded extraction is not a side effect but the reason private capital participates at all. Recovery is not the defect; extraction is — capital designed to be recovered and exited cannot regenerate, because regeneration requires capital that returns to a pool which redeploys it rather than to a claimant who removes it. â­ The method is a control case: historic public benefaction, where durable public goods were delivered. Durability came not from donor virtue but from architecture that insulated capital from budgeting cycles and political turnover — which locates the failure in the architecture rather than the ambition. PPP reform is therefore a dead end for this failure, and not for every failure. Contract theory answers the general question conditionally; the contribution here is the dimension where that answer runs out: capability renewal falls due after the concession ends, so the obligation can be written and cannot be enforced. âš ï¸ Handback conditions and retention bonds do reach across that boundary, and the audited record is that they do not hold — across 571 English contracts a quarter are silent on the condition assets return in, 35% of authorities lack rights to monitor maintenance, and four of the nine expired contracts returned assets their authority was unsatisfied with.

Keywords: public--private partnerships; capital architecture; mission cycles; embedded extraction; temporal alignment; public infrastructure; regenerative capital (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: G31 H44 H54 L33 O22 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2026-01
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.irsa.institute/papers/ppp_v1.2.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:evk:wpaper:ppp

DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.6066446

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in IRSA Working Papers from Institute for Regenerative Systems Architecture
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Roshan Ghadamian ().