Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 18, No. 2 June 2018
ISSN 2204-9029 | Published by UTS ePRESS | ajceb.epress.lib.uts.edu.au
Project Selection and Transparency Factors in Housing Public-Private Partnerships in Nigeria
*Corresponding author: Eziyi Offia Ibem, Department of Architecture, Covenant University, Ota, Ogun State, Nigeria, E-mail: email@example.com
Article History: Received 02/10/2017; Revised 24/03/2018 & 27/05/2018; Accepted 02/06/2018; Published 27/06/2018
Citation: Ibem, E. O., Onyemaechi, P. C. and Ayo-Vaughan, E. A. 2018. Project Selection and Transparency Factors in Housing Public-Private Partnerships in Nigeria. Construction Economics and Building, 18:2, 15-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v18i2.5771
© 2018 by the author(s). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
The application of Public-Private Partners (PPPs) in housing provisioning is on the increase across the world. However, there is a paucity of empirical studies on the specific factors considered at the initiation, and measures taken to ensure transparency at the procurement stages, of PPP housing projects. This study examined project selection factors and transparency measures in PPP housing projects using data sourced from oral interviews with 27 experts in nine PPP housing schemes in Nigeria. Results of the content analysis revealed that the top two selection factors considered by both the public and private sector operators of PPP housing projects in Nigeria are the availability of land and viability of the funding arrangements. Whereas the public-sector partners also consider the availability of competent private sector to deliver the projects, the private developers are concerned with the location of proposed projects. It was also found that the two key measures taken to ensure transparency at the procurement stage of the projects are transparent and competitive bidding and open advertisements of tender opportunities. These imply that before embarking on PPP housing projects, operators should ensure that there is available land in good locations, sound funding arrangements, and measures for achieving transparency in the schemes.
Public-private partnerships, housing, project selection, transparency, Nigeria.
The failure of public and commercial private sectors to independently address the burgeoning urban housing crisis in many countries has given rise to the joint efforts of the public and private sectors in seeking ways to deliver decent and affordable housing through public-private partnerships (PPPs or 3Ps) (Canadian Council for PPP, 2007; UN-HABITAT, 2006; 2011). The evolution of housing PPPs in the different countries can be linked to evidence in the literature (Abdul-Aziz and Jahn-Kassim, 2011; UN-HABITAT, 2006; 2011; Madden, 2011; Taiwo, 2015) showing that PPPs have great potentials to improve access to decent and affordable housing to households with critical housing needs. This view is of course linked to the success of PPPs in infrastructure provision in the different countries as reported in previous studies (see Aziz, 2007; Leccis, 2015; Sanda, Daniel and Akande, 2016; Osei-Kyei and Chan, 2016).
The reviews by Ke et al. (2009) and Tang, Shen and Cheng (2010) have shown that enormous research efforts have gone into the various aspects of PPPs in infrastructure provisioning globally. For example, the existing studies (Li et al., 2005; Zhang, 2005a; Węgrzyn, 2016; Kwofie, Afran and Botchway, 2016; Onyemaechi, 2017) have identified several critical success factors for PPP projects. Among the factors identified are appropriate project identification and selection (Qiao et al., 2001; Węgrzyn, 2016) and transparent procurement process (Zhang, 2005a; Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN), 2009; Gleave, 2012; Węgrzyn, 2016). In housing, studies have examined the objectives and success factors (UN-HABITAT, 2006; Abdul-Aziz and Jahn-Kassim, 2011), challenges (UN-HABITAT, 2006; Trankanont and Charoenngam, 2014) and the modus operandi of PPPs in housing (Aziz and Hanif, 2006; Abdul-Aziz, 2012; Filushina et al., 2015). Other studies are on the contexts in which PPPs have been applied (UN-HABITAT, 2006; Yuan et al., 2012) and their control mechanisms (Abdul-Aziz, 2012). In Nigeria, the existing studies have examined several issues, including the role of partners (Ibem, 2010; Oladokun and Aluko 2012; Ibem and Aduwo, 2012; Taiwo, Adeboye and Aderonmu, 2014), the contributions of PPP (Ibem 2011a; 2011b; Ibem and Aduwo, 2012), the level of awareness of PPP among industry stakeholders and the factors necessitating its adoption in housing (Oladokun and Aluko, 2012). Others have investigated the challenges and prospects of PPP (Ukoje and Kanu, 2014; Olofa and Nwosu 2015; Aduwo, Ibem and Onyemaechi, 2017), the relationship between the operational structure and outcomes (Ibem, Aduwo and Alagbe, 2015), the critical success and motivating factors for housing PPPs (Onyemaechi, Pollard and Samy, 2015; Onyemaechi and Samy, 2016).
Although these studies provide insight into the origin, antecedents, current practice, the outcomes, challenges and prospects of PPPs, they fail to provide adequate understanding of the key factors considered at the project selection stage and the transparency measures in PPP housing schemes in Nigeria. In view of the growing concern over the poor performance of PPP in housing in Nigeria (Ibem 2011a; 2011b) because of several factors including, corruption (Ibem and Aduwo, 2012) and the submission by Greve and Hodge (2011) suggesting that transparency was being threatened by PPPs due to the involvement of the private sector; the current study examined the project selection and transparency factors in public-private partnership housing projects in Nigeria. The specific objectives were to:
- identify the key factors considered at the project selection stage of PPP housing projects in Nigeria; and
- identify and analyse the transparency measures in PPP housing projects in the study area
This study is based on oral interviews with 27 experts selected from nine PPP housing projects in Nigeria. The study therefore contributes to knowledge by revealing how the operators of PPP housing projects in Nigeria are addressing issues of project identification and selection as well as transparency. Findings of this study are considered valuable additions to the current discourse on PPP in housing from the Nigerian perspective.
PPP Project Identification and Selection factors
The application of PPP in public infrastructure and housing provisioning has been receiving increasing attention, particularly in the developing countries where huge supply deficit of fixed infrastructure and housing exists (Miraftab, 2004; Alinaitwe and Ayesiga, 2013). According to Ouenniche, Boukouras and Rajabi (2016), PPP projects can be described as ventures between the public and the private sectors in the development and management of public infrastructure and services hitherto provided solely by government. Evidence in the literature (Grimsey and Lewis, 2004; World Bank, 2006) reveals that a wide range of economic and social infrastructure projects have benefited from the application of PPPs. However, the focus of the current study is on housing PPP projects in a developing country that is confronted with a supply deficit of over 17 million housing units.
According to the World Bank (PPIAF, 2009), there are five distinct stages in the planning, execution and management of PPP infrastructure projects. These are: (i) identification, prioritization and selection stage (ii) due diligence and feasibility studies stage (iii) the procurement stage (iv) award of contract to the winning bidder; and (v) contract management stage. In this study, the focus is on the identification, prioritization and selection; and procurement stages.
Notably, the identification, prioritization, and selection of PPP projects is usually the first stage of PPP projects. Bing et al. (2005) explained that this stage provides operators the opportunity to make strategic decisions on whether the selected project can and should be procured using the PPP option instead of the conventional procurement route. Although the World Bank Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility (PPIAF, 2009) has identified several factors considered at the selection and prioritization of PPP infrastructure projects, the study by Bruggema et al. (2009) found that the factors considered at the identification and selection stage of PPP in low-income housing projects in Kenya are varied. These included (i) consciousness about other partners’ goals and interests (ii) political support (iii) support from target group and financiers (iv) clarity of the benefits to everyone (v) clear definition of financial issues (vi) sufficient approved technical capability (vii) readiness of government to grant necessary approvals (viii) availability of land; and (ix) the willingness of residents to move in the case of slum upgrading projects. Others are (i) reduction of corruption through clear definition of cash flows and the ability of a consortium to manage the houses (ii) clarity about the roles and responsibilities of the parties (iii) availability of highest management personnel of each stakeholder to support the project; and (iv) the availability of the working framework that is based on collaborative arrangement. The authors further explained that these factors were the key determinants of the level of success of PPP in low-cost housing in that country.
From the foregoing, it is obvious that in PPP housing projects, the key factors considered at the project identification and selection stage are related to the prevailing economic, political and institutional environment of the location of the projects. This is understandable because previous studies (e.g. Zhang, 2005a; Chan et al., 2010; Alinaitwe and Ayesiga, 2013) have shown that these are some of the critical success factors for PPP infrastructure projects in general and PPPs in housing specifically (Onyemaechi, Pollard and Samy, 2015; Kwofie, Afran and Botchway, 2016). Moreover, Ibem, Aduwo and Alagbe (2015) and Kwofie, Afran and Botchway (2016) explained that the factors that must be taken into consideration at all stages of PPP in housing are mainly institutional, regulatory, policy and funding issues, and that these factors combine to determine the outcomes of PPP housing projects.
Transparency measures in PPP Housing Projects
Although there are several definitions and conceptions of transparency in the literature, Nelson (2003) was of the view that transparency entails among other things fullness of disclosure of information; accessibility of documents, timely availability of information and the mechanisms for recourse and influence. On the other hand, Greve and Hodge (2011) identified good governance, citizens-as-consumers/costumers and corporate governance as the three key perspectives to understanding transparency. They explained that freedom of information for citizens; openness in dealings with citizens by public office-holders; predictability in decision-making processes and fighting corruption are the key components of transparency. This means that transparency manifests in openness, citizen participation in decision making and intentional sharing of vital and quality information on activities and programmes.
The existing studies (Qiao et al. 2001; Zhang, 2005b; Chan et al., 2010; Alinaitwe and Ayesiga, 2013; Kwofie, Afran and Botchway, 2016) have stressed the need for transparency in the procurement process for successful PPP projects. Hood and Heald (2006) have observed that transparency has become a highly topical issue in PPP endeavours, especially in many developing countries. For example, in Nigeria, Agwor (2015) found that there was little or no transparency in business transactions and in the execution of government programmes and activities. In fact, in 2016, Nigeria ranked 28/100 on the corruption perception index and 136 most corrupted of 176 countries in the world (Transparency International, 2016).In addition, Ibem and Aduwo (2012) found that corruption was one of the factors militating against the good prospects of PPP in housing in Ogun State. It is therefore not surprising that the National Policy on Public-Private Partnership in Nigeria (FRN, 2009) identified transparency as one of the cardinal principles of PPP projects designed to ensure fiscal discipline, achieve a high standard of public and corporate governance, the rule of law, integrity and accountability, fairness, non-discrimination and openness; and elimination of bribery and corruption in the award of PPP contracts in this country.
The UN (2004) explained that in PPP projects, transparency refers to (i) the way in which the design and initiation of such projects, procurement and selection process ought to be organized (ii) the taking into account the interests of all ‘stakeholders’ like, local citizens, NGOs, trade unions, civil society, media, investors, lenders and government; and (iii) the limitation in the use of bribes and corruption to win favours and approval for projects from governments. They further noted that the lack of transparency and incidence of corruption have negative repercussions on PPP projects and can lead to a feeling of frustration and resentment amongst the citizens, hostility, delay in the full implementation and failure of such projects. This view was corroborated by Greve and Hodge (2011) who argued that transparency should be part of all stages of PPP projects and that full disclosure of information on PPP projects at the pre-contract stage enables all stakeholders; including citizens to express their views on the project. They also underscored the importance of timeliness in the release of information on PPP contracts and the adoption competitive tendering process guided by established rules that engender a level playing ground for all interested bidders at the procurement stage. According to OECD (2008), these measures can help operators to achieve an acceptable level of transparency and accountability, leading to public acceptability and support for PPP projects.
From the foregoing review the two key ways for achieving transparency in PPP projects at the procurement stage are to ensure timely provision and unrestricted access to tender information; and the adoption of competitive and transparent bidding process in the selection of private partners and contractors. This means that the essence of transparency measures in PPP projects is to ensure among other things, freedom of access to information by all project stakeholders, openness in dealings with all partners and stakeholders, collective decision-making processes, timely provision of project information and elimination of all forms of bribery and corruption in the projects. Despite this understanding, much is not known on the measures engaged by the operators of housing PPPs in Nigeria in ensuring transparency at the procurement stage of the projects. This is a gap the current study sought to address.
PPP Housing Provision in Nigeria
PPP was officially adopted in housing provision in Nigeria in 2002 through the New National Housing and Urban Development Policy. Previous authors (Oladokun and Aluko, 2012; Aduwo, Ibem and Onyemaechi, 2017) have observed that the adoption of the PPP approach in housing in Nigeria was predicated on the need for the private sector to play more active roles in addressing the huge housing supply deficit and escalating cost of housing, especially in urban areas of the country. These authors identified the three key reasons why PPP was implemented in the Nigerian housing sector to include, the inability of government and commercial private sector to independently address the over 17 million supply deficits of housing units; the need to relieve government of the financial burden associated with public housing; and to improve housing affordability for most urban residents in the country through private sector-led initiatives.
The current housing situation in Nigeria is indeed very pathetic and the most worrisome aspect of it is that the poor and low-income people are the most affected by this situation. According to previous authors (Taiwo, 2015; Aduwo, Ibem and Onyemaechi, 2017), this situation can be linked to the high level of poverty; high cost of housing units; and failure of the past public housing schemes to adequately cater for the needs of this income group in Nigeria. In view of the poor performance of government-led housing delivery strategies in providing decent housing at affordable cost to most Nigerians (Ibem, 2010 and Taiwo, 2015), it was the expectation of many that the adoption of PPPs will help address housing affordability challenge confronting millions of low-income households in Nigerian cities. However, evidence in the literature (Ibem, 2011a; Ibem and Aduwo, 2012; Ukoje and Kanu, 2014; Taiwo, Adeboye and Aderonmu, 2014; Olofa and Nwosu, 2015) shows that no significant progress has been made in affordable housing for the low-income urban residents in this country under the current PPPs arrangement. Among the several reasons adduced for this, include over reliance on the joint venture model of PPP in housing; inadequate supply of land; high interest rate on housing finance, and high cost of building materials; high building standards and the non-involvement of local government authorities and not-for-profit private-sector organisations in PPP housing projects. Others are the lack of proper definition, monitoring, and incidence of corruption in the implementation of PPP housing projects in Nigeria.
It is obvious that the outcomes of PPP in housing in Nigeria are contrary to the evidence in the literature indicating that in countries like Malaysia (Abdul-Aziz and Jahn-Kassim, 2011) and the Philippines (UN-HABITAT, 2006), where PPPs have made significant progress in housing provision for their low-income households. It was on this premise that previous authors (Ibem, 2011a; Ukoje and Kanu, 2014; Aduwo, Ibem and Onyemaechi, 2017) have identified affordability issue as one of the key challenges PPP in housing was yet to resolved in Nigeria.
The data used in this paper were drawn from a larger research project designed to examine the prospects of PPP in urban housing in Nigeria. In view of the goal of the research coupled with the fact that it is an exploratory study, qualitative research involving face-to-face oral interviews was considered the appropriate research strategy. Previous studies (e.g. Ibem, 2010; 2011; Abdul-Aziz, 2012, Ibem, Aduwo and Alagbe, 2015) adopted similar approach.
This research covered the six geo-political zones and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja in Nigeria. In a preliminary survey by the second author, 39 PPP housing projects were identified in aforementioned zones and territory in Nigeria. Of these, 25 projects were identified to have been completed. Consequently, one completed PPP housing project was selected from the Southeast, Southsouth, Northwest, Northcentral and Northeast zones and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT-Abuja). However, three projects were selected from the southwest zone because it had the largest number of PPP housing projects in Nigeria at the time this research was conducted. Table 1 shows the nine PPP housing projects where participants of this research were selected from.
Source: Onyemaechi (2016)
Key informants in this research were purposively selected from each of the nine PPP housing projects. Specifically, only those in the cadres of project managers and senior officers directly involved in these selected PPP housing projects participated in this research. Assistance was sought from the human resource departments of the organizations involved in these projects in identifying those officials who fall under this category. One project manager was selected from each of the private partner in the nine PPP housing projects designated as PP1-PP9. Two officers (R1 and R2) of the cadres of project managers and deputy project managers were selected from the public-sector partners (PSP) in each project and are designated as PSP1-PSP9. This means that 18 officers were sampled from the public-sector partners in the nine housing projects listed in Table 1. In all, 27 officers were interviewed in this research.
The principal data collection strategy used in this research was oral interview. The interviews were based on questions drawn from interview guide designed by the researchers. The adoption of an interview guide was to ensure that the interviews were systematic and comprehensive as explained by Ibem, Aduwo and Alagbe (2015). The questions used were reviewed by experts in academics and practice to ensure that they are consistent with the objectives of the research. The interviews were conducted between December 2014 and February 2015 in the study area, and each interview session lasted for about one hour. All the interviews were recorded electronically and later transcribed into word documents.
The data collected were subjected to content analysis. According to McTavish and Pirro (1990), content analysis is a research tool that helps researchers to determine the presence of certain words or concepts in texts or sets of texts, quantify and analyse the presence, meanings and relationships of such words and concepts, and then draw inferences on them. Palmquist, Carley and Dale (1997) explained that there are two general categories of content analysis: conceptual analysis and relational analysis. Whereas the former helps to establish the existence and frequency of concepts represented by words or phrases in a text; and it is referred to as thematic analysis. On the other hand, the later helps to examine the relationships among concepts in a text. In this research, the conceptual content analysis was conducted because the emphasis was on the identification of the common themes and key concepts that emerged from the interviews. The content analysis was complimented by simple descriptive statistics, which were used in the analysis of proportions and percentages of the respondents on the factors identified in the interviews. The factors were identified and ranked based on the frequency of their occurrence as mentioned by each of those interviewed.
Brief Description of Participants in the Research
The 27 participants in the research were of different professional backgrounds in architecture, civil engineering, building technology, and project management with over 15 years of experience in the Nigerian construction and real estate industry. Of the 18 PSPs interviewed, four were representatives of State government-owned housing agencies and ministries, while 14 were drawn from the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) and the Federal Ministry of Land, Housing and Urban Development. Like their counterparts in the public sector, those drawn from the private sector partners were also of the different professional disciplines in the built environment with over 15 years of work experience in the construction and real estate sectors of the Nigerian economy.
Key Factors Considered in at the Selection Stage of PPP housing projects
The 27 informants were asked to identify the key factors considered at the initiation stage of the PPP housing projects listed in Table 1. Their responses and summary are presented in Appendix 1. From the summary of the result presented in Table 2 it is evident that 20 different factors were identified by the informants. However, a further examination of the factors reveals that the majority (82%) of the operators of the PPP housing projects in both the public and private sectors identified the availability of land for the project as one of the key factors considered at the project identification and selection stage of PPP housing schemes in Nigeria. This is followed by the funding arrangements for the project as identified by around 67% of those interviewed; the availability of competent private sector to deliver the project identified by around 48% of them; and marketability of the housing units identified by around 44.4% of the informants, respectively.
A comparison of the views of the officials from the private and public-sector partners shows that whereas the three top factors considered by the private sector partners are the availability of land, physical location of the proposed project and funding arrangement for the projects, the public-sector partners are concerned with the availability of land, funding arrangements, and the availability of competent private sector to deliver the projects.
Transparency Measures in PPP Housing Projects
The experts were also asked to identify the various measures put in place to ensure transparency at the procurement stage of the PPP housing projects listed in Table 1. Their responses are presented in Appendix 2. From the summary of the transparency measures presented in Table 3, it is however obvious that the operators of PPP housing projects in the study area adopted four key measures in ensuring that there is transparency at the procurement stage of the projects. These measures include: (i) competitive and transparent bidding process identified by around 89% of the experts;(ii) open advertisement of tender opportunities as indicated by 30% of them (iii) strict compliance with the provisions of the public procurement legislation (i.e. the Bureau for Public Procurement act) and (iv) the memorandum of understanding (MoUs) signed by parties to PPP contracts.
From the findings of this research it is evident that the operators of housing PPP projects identified 20 different factors they considered in the project selection and identification stage of PPP housing schemes. In the order of importance to both the private and public-sector partners, these factors are the availability of land, and soundness of funding arrangements for the proposed projects. This result appears to be consistent with that by Bruggema et al. (2009) indicating that the availability of land and clear definition of financial issues were the key prerequisite factors considered in PPP low-cost housing Kenya. This finding is understandable because previous studies (UN-HABITAT, 2006; Ibem and Aduwo, 2012; Taiwo, Adeboye and Aderonmu, 2014) have shown that land and finance were the two critical issues in PPP in housing in Nigeria and other countries. Surprisingly, the issue of affordability of the housing units to the target population, which is a major concern in Nigeria today as captured in the literature (Ibem, 2011a; Ibem and Aduwo, 2012; Ukoje and Kanu, 2014; Aduwo, Ibem and Onyemaechi, 2017) did not emerge as an important factor considered at the project selection and identification stage of the housing schemes investigated. This is probably because the operators already knew the target income groups of the houses; and as such affordability was not a key issue in those projects.
Comparing the views of the public-sector partners with those of the private partners, the result also reveals that the public-sector agencies viewed the availability of land; funding arrangements; the availability of competent private sector to deliver the projects; the impact of the proposed project on the host communities as the top four issues of concern. The emergence of the availability of a competent private sector to deliver the projects as one of the key factors considered by the public-sector partners is not a surprise because previous studies (Zhang, 2005a; Aziz, 2007) have shown that generally, a critical component of the success of PPP projects is the availability and selection of a private-sector partner that offers both the best value and the capability to deliver the required services. Hence, it is ideal for government agencies who intend to embark on PPP housing projects to consider the availability of competent private sector developers before initiating such schemes. For the private partners, emphasis appears to be on the availability of developable land; the physical location of the proposed project; the funding arrangements; and marketability of the housing units to be produced. Others are the profit margin, price of the housing units and risks involved in the project. These factors are indeed very important to every private sector investor in PPP housing projects as explained by the UN-HABITAT (2006). Findings of this study seem to agree substantially with those by Bruggema et al. (2009) in showing that other factors like consciousness about other partners’ goals and interests, political support; and clarity of the benefits to everyone are important considerations at the initiation of PPP housing projects.
Regarding the transparency measures at procurement stage of the housing projects, the study also found that competitive and transparent bidding process was the key measure implemented by the operators interviewed. This finding is not a surprise because according to Chan et al. (2010), transparent procurement process is one of the five main elements of success in PPP projects. Moreover, evidence in the literature (UN, 2004 and FRN, 2009) shows that transparent and competitive bidding process ensures that every tender submitted is evaluated using uniform standards and criteria; and thus, reducing the use of bribes and other forms of corruption in the award of PPP contracts. This is also in agreement with the essence of transparency as a tool for fighting corruption in PPP projects as presented in the literature (see Nelson, 2003; UN, 2004; FRN, 2009; Hodge and Greve, 2011). Again, this finding appears to be consistent with the submission by Greve and Hodge (2011) on the role competitive tendering plays in engendering transparency in PPP projects. Contrary to the finding by Ibem and Aduwo (2012) indicating that corruption was one of the challenges militating against the successful provision of affordable housing for the low-income earners in Nigeria via the PPPs arrangement, this specific finding of this study seems to suggest that the use of bribes and other corrupted practices to win housing PPP contracts is minimal in the study area.
In addition, there is also the use of open advertisement of tender opportunities, which provides every potential partner or contractor equal and unhindered access to tender information and the opportunity to submit tenders. This seems to be in line with the fullness of disclosure and accessibility of information dimensions of transparency at the procurement stage as previously identified by authors (e.g. Nelson, 2003; Greve and Hodge, 2011). Further, apart from taking into consideration the impact of PPP housing projects on the host communities, particularly, for payment of compensation for land acquired for the projects, no evidence was found on how the operators were taking into considerations the interests of local communities as stakeholders in these housing projects as suggested in the good governance literature (UN, 2004; Greve and Hodge, 2011). This might help to explain why host communities where PPP housing projects are in Nigeria often show some levels of resentments to such schemes as reported in an earlier study by Onyemaechi (2016).
This study examined the project selection and transparency factors in public-private partnerships in housing in Nigeria. Based on the findings, the following conclusions are made. First, the two factors ranked top on the list of factors considered in the selection of PPP housing projects by both the public and private sector partners are the availability of land and funding arrangements for the projects. Second, the key transparency measures at the procurement stage of housing PPP projects in Nigeria are transparent and competitive bidding process and open advertisement of tender opportunities.
Findings of this study imply that to ensure PPP housing projects are successful, the public-sector partner that has the responsibility of providing land for PPP housing projects must ensure that developable land is made readily available and in a good location for the private partners to execute the projects. The study also implies that funding arrangement is a critical issue at the initiation stage of PPP housing projects, therefore, intending partners in PPP housing projects must develop sound and viable funding framework for such projects to be considered viable. For the private sector partners, the lesson from this research is that they should develop adequate capacity in the provision of finance and expertise required to deliver housing projects that guarantee value for money if they must be given the opportunity to partner with government in mass housing delivery.
Another key implication of this study is that, as it is true with PPP infrastructure projects, transparency can be achieved at the procurement stage of PPP housing projects through competitive and transparent bidding process and open advertisement of tender opportunities. Among other benefits, these can limit the use of bribery and corruption in the award of PPP housing contracts and improve the transparency rating of such projects. Besides, in future PPP housing projects in Nigeria and other developing countries, there is a need for operators to further enhance the good governance content by taking into considerations the interests of local communities at the initiation and procurement stages of the projects.
This study is limited in three areas. Firstly, by including only nine completed PPP housing projects in the study area; and secondly, by being qualitative in nature. In view of these, it is suggested that future studies should adopt a quantitative approach or a mixed method and include more respondents. The third limitation is that findings of this study are subject to the bias of the 27 experts who served as the key informants in the research.
Abdul-Aziz, A.R. and Jahn-Kassim, P. S., 2011. Objectives, success and failure factors of housing PPPs in Malaysia: Habitat International, 35(1), pp.150-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.06.005
Abdul-Aziz, A., 2012. Control mechanisms exercised in Malaysian housing public-private Partnerships. Construction Management and Economics, 30 (1), pp.37-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2011.654129
Aduwo, E.B., Ibem, E.O and Onyemaechi, P.D., 2017. Challenges and Opportunities in Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) for Housing Low-Income Earners in Nigeria. Advances in Business and Management, 12, pp.145-68.
Alinaitwe, H. and Ayesiga, R., 2013. Success Factors for the Implementation of Public–Private Partnerships in the Construction Industry in Uganda. Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 18(2), pp.1–14.
Aziz, M.A., 2007. Successful Delivery of Public-Private Partnerships for Infrastructure Development. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133(12) pp.918-31. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2007)133:12(918)
Bing, L., Akintoye, A., Edwards, P. J. and Hardcastle, H., 2005. The allocation of risk in PPP/PFI projects in the UK. International Journal of Project Management, 23(1), pp.25-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.04.006
Bruggema, T.M., Voordijk, J.T., de Boer, S.J. and van der Werf, E., 2009. Public-Private Partnerships in low-cost housing, a case study in Nakuru, Kenya: Kidole Kimoja Hakivunji Chawa. [online] Available at: https:// essay.utwente.nl/68863/1/Bruggema-Timon.pdf. [Accessed: 27 June 2017].
Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnership, 2007. Definitions and Models. [online] Available at: http://www.pppcouncil.ca/web/Knowledge_Centre/What_are_P3s_/Definitions_Models/web/P3_Knowledge_Centre/About_P3s/Definitions_Models.aspx?hkey=79b9874d-4498-46b1-929f-37ce461ab4bc [Accessed 14 March 2008].
Chan, A., Lam, P., Chan, D., Cheung, E. and Ke, Y., 2010 Critical success factors for PPP in infrastructure developments: Chinese perspective. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(5), pp.484-94. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000152
Filushina, K.E., Kolyhaeva, J.A, Minaev, N.N., Dobrynina, O.I and Merkuleva, J.A., 2015. Regional Models on Managing the Public-Private-Partnership projects in Housing and Community Complex. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(3), pp.55-62. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n3s5p55
Gleave, S.D., 2012 Study to assess the potential for enhanced private participation in the maritime and air transport sectors in Africa Contract N° ICA/TSP/001 Executive Summary, Final Report. The Infrastructure Consortium for Africa (ICA) hosted by The African Development Bank: Tunisia. [online] Available at : http://www.icafrica.org/fileadmin/documents/Knowledge/Transport/ICA_PP_Maritime_Air_Final%20Report%20exec%20summary.pdf. [Accessed: November 2014].
Grimsey, D. and Lewis, M.K, 2004. Public Private Partnerships: The Worldwide Revolution in Infrastructure Provision and Project Finance. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781845423438
Greve, C. and Hodge, G., 2011. Transparency in Public-Private Partnerships: Some Lessons from Scandinavia and Australia. 1st Global Conference on Transparency Research Rutgers University, Newark, 19-20 May 2011.
Hodge, G.A. and Greve, C. (2011) “Public-Private Partnerships and Public Governance Challenges. In: Osborne, S.E. (ed) The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance. Oxon: Routledge, pp. 149-163.
Hood, C and Heald, D. eds., 2006. Transparency – The Key to Better Governance? Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090550710816519
Ibem, E.O., 2010. An Assessment of the Role of Government Agencies in Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) in Housing Delivery in Nigeria. Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 15(2), pp.23-48.
Ibem, E.O., 2011a. Public Private Partnership (PPP) in Housing Provision in Lagos Megacity Region, Nigeria. International Journal of Housing Policy11(2), pp.133-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616718.2011.573204
Ibem, E.O., 2011b. The Contribution of Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) to Improving Accessibility of Low-Income Earner to Housing in Southern Nigeria. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment. 26(2), pp.201-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-011-9213-1
Ibem, E.O., Aduwo, B.E. and Alagbe, O.A., 2015. An exploration of the link between the operational structure and outcomes of Public-Private Partnership (PPP) in urban housing in Nigeria. International Journal of Construction Project Management. 7(2), pp.101-17.
Ke, Y., Wang, S.; Chan, A.P.C. and Cheung, E., 2009. Research Trend of Public Private Partnership in Construction Journals. ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(10), pp.1076-86. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2009)135:10(1076)
Kwofie, T.E., Afram, S. and Botchway, E., 2016. A critical success model for PPP public housing delivery in Ghana. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 6(1), pp.58-73. https://doi.org/10.1108/bepam-04-2014-0026
Leccis, F., 2015. Public Private Partnerships for Transportation Infrastructure Delivery. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 3(5), pp.21-27. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2015.35004
Li, B., Akintoye, A., Edwards, P. J. and Hardcastle, C., 2005. Critical Success Factors for PPP/PFI Projects in the UK Construction Industry. Construction Management and Economics, 23(5), pp.459-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190500041537
Madden, J.R., 2011. Overcoming Collaboration Barriers in Affordable Housing Public-Private Partnerships. Academy of Management 2011 Proceedings, 2011(1), pp.1-6. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2011.65869640
McTavish, D.G. and Pirro, E., 1990. Contextual Content Analysis. Quality and Quantity, 24(3), pp.245-65. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00139259
Miraftab, F., 2004. Public–Private Partnerships: Trojan horse of neoliberal development? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24(1), pp.89-101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x04267173
Nelson, P. J., 2003. Multilateral Development Banks, Transparency, and Corporate Clients: Public-Private Partnerships and Access to Information. Public Administration and Development, 23(3), pp.249-57.
Oladokun, T.T. and Aluko, B.T., 2012. Public-Private Partnership in Housing Delivery in Lagos State, Nigeria. Proceeding of 2012 International Conference on Construction and Real Estate Management, Kansas City, USA. 1-2 October, pp.246-50.
Olofa, S. and Nwosu, A.,2015. Investigating the problems associated with Public Private Partnership in the process of housing delivery in Nigeria. International Journal of Education and Research, 3(1), pp.133-30.
Onyemaechi, P.D, Samy, M. and Pollard, D., 2015. An Examination of the Critical Success Factors for Public Private Partnership in Housing Projects in Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 17(3), pp.1-20.
Onyemaechi, P. and Samy, M., 2016. Motives and Motivation for Implementation of Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) in Housing Provision in Nigeria. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 7(2), pp.149-57. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2016.v7n2p149
Osei-Kyei, R. and Chan, A.P.C., 2016. Developing Transport Infrastructure in Sub-Saharan Africa through Public–Private Partnerships: Policy Practice and Implications. Transport Reviews, 36(2), pp.170-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1077288
Palmquist, M.E., Carley, K.M. and Dale, T.A., 1997. Two applications of automated text analysis: Analysing literary and non-literary texts. In C. Roberts, ed. Text Analysis for the Social Sciences: Methods for Drawing Statistical Inferences from Texts and Transcripts. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Qiao, L., Wang, S.Q., Tiong, R.L.K. and Chan, T.S., 2001. Framework for critical success factors of BOT projects in China. Journal of Project Finance, 7(1), pp.53-61. https://doi.org/10.3905/jsf.2001.320244
Ouenniche, J, Boukouras, A. and Rajabi, M., 2016. An Ordinal Game Theory Approach to the Analysis and Selection of Partners in Public–Private Partnership Projects. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 169(1), pp.314-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10957-015-0844-3
Taiwo, A.A., Adeboye, A.B. and Aderonmu, P.A., 2014. Housing Finance: The role of the private sector in Public Private Partnership in Housing delivery for the low-income in Nigeria. International Journal of Architecture and Urban Development, 4(3), pp.5-10.
Taiwo, A., 2015. The need for Government to embrace Public–Private Partnership Initiative in Housing delivery to low-income public servants in Nigeria, Urban Design International, 20(1), pp.56-65. https://doi.org/10.1057/udi.2013.37
Tang, L., Shen, Q. and Cheng E., 2010. A Review of Studies on Public–Private Partnership Projects in the Construction Industry. International Journal of Project Management, 28(7), pp.683-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.11.009
Trangkanont, S. and Charoenngam, C., 2014. Critical Failure Factors of Public-Private Partnerships Low-Cost Housing Programme in Thailand. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 21(4), pp.421-43. https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-04-2012-0038
Transparency International, 2016. Corruption Perception Index 2106. [online] Available at: https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016 [Accessed 14 June 2017].
Węgrzyn, J., 2016. The Perception of Critical Success Factors for PPP Projects in Different Stakeholder Groups. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 4(2), pp.81-92. https://doi.org/10.15678/eber.2016.040207
World Bank, 2006. Private Participation in infrastructure projects database. [online] Available at: http://ppi.worldbank.org. [Accessed 25 October 2010].
World Bank Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility, 2009. Toolkit for Public-Private Partnerships in Roads and Highways. [online] Available at: https://ppiaf.org/sites/ppiaf.org/files/documents/toolkits/highwaystoolkit/6/pdf-version/5.pdf. [Accessed 13 June 2017].
Yuan, J., Zeng, A.Y., Skibniewski, M. and Li, Q., 2009. Selection of Performance Objectives and Key Performance Indicators in Public-Private Partnership Projects to achieve value for money. Construction Management and Economics, 27(3), pp.253-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190902748705
Yuan, J., Guang, M., Wang, X., Li, Q. and Sikbniewski, M. (2012) Quantitative SWOT analysis of Public Private Partnership in China based on the perspective of the public sector. Journal of Management of Engineering, 28 (4), pp. 407-420. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000100
Zhang, X.Q., 2005a. Critical success factors for public-private partner- ships in infrastructure development. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(3), pp.3-14. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2005)131:1(3)
Zhang, X.Q., 2005b. Criteria for Selecting the Private-Sector Partner in Public–Private Partnerships. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 131(6), pp. 631-44. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2005)131:6(631)
PPP1-PPP9 =Private Partners in PPP housing projects 1 to 9
PSPP1R1 = Public Sector Partners Respondent No. 1 in PPP housing projects
PSPP1R2 = Public Sector Partners Respondent No. 2 in PPP housing projects
Share this article:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.