Kamu Özel İşbirliği Modeline İlişkin Değerlendirmeler Bağlamında Özel Finans Girişim Modeli

Gelişmiş ve gelişmekte olan ülkeler sıklıkla Kamu Özel İşbirliği (PPP) Modeline başvurmaktadır. Model, Birleşik Krallık’ ta Özel Finansman Girişimi (PFI) ve Özel Finans 2 (PF2) Modeli olarak farklı bir yorum ile uygulanmaktadır. Bu çalışmada Özel Finans Girişim Modelleri geleneksel PPP Modeli ile karşılaştırılarak avantajları ve dezavantajları açısından tartışılmaktadır. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre PFI’ ın, özellikle finansal kriz sonrasında ve özel ortaklığın başarısızlığı durumunda, kamunun garantör konumunda olması sebebiyle risk tahsisinde başarılı olamadığı görülmektedir. 2008 Küresel Finansal Krizi sonrasında Birleşik Krallık’ ın PFI modeline ilişkin tecrübeleri de örnek niteliğindedir. Öte yandan kamu kesimi tarafından avantaj olarak kabul edilen projelerin bilanço dışı olması ve devlet borçlarında görülmemesi, mali şeffaflık ilkesi gereği uygun olmadığı gibi devletin gerçek bilançosunun finansal kriz ve başarısızlık dönemlerinde ortaya çıkması kamu maliyesi için mali risk unsuru olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Son yıllarda PPP pazarında hızlı bir gelişme gösteren Türkiye de mali şeffaflık ve bilanço dışılık konusunda aynı süreç ile karşı karşıyadır.

Within The Scope Of Critical Evaluations On Public Private Partnership Model; PFI Model

Developed and developing countries are often performed the Public Private Partnership (PPP) Model, is used in the UK with different interpretations as the Private Finance Initiative (PFI), and the Private Finance 2 (PF2) Model. In this study, those PFI Models were compared to the traditional PPP Model and discussed in terms of advantages and disadvantages. The study indicated that the using of PFI models are not adequate for risk allocation as the public is the guarantor position, especially in failure of the private partnership, and after the financial crisis. In this perspective, the UK’s experiences with the PFI models are exemplary after the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. However, the public sector are considered as advantages performing the PFI models in projects due to off the balance sheet and not placed in government debts which are detrimental effect on the principle of fiscal transparency and the emergence of the state's real balance sheet during financial crisis and failure periods appears as a financial risk factor for public finance. Consequently, Turkey is the one of the most developing country using with PPP model in the last two decades, faced with the same problems in fiscal transparency and off the balance sheet.

PDF

___

Bäckstrand.K. (2008). The Rise of Transnational Climate Partnerships. Global Environmental Politics .
Booth Lorna, S. V. (2015). PFI: Costs And Benefits.
Curtain.K, & Betts J. (2017). Busting Some of the Public Private Partnership Myths from a Government Perspective , Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 76, no. 3.
Demirag, I. & Khadaroo I. (2011). Risks and the financing of PPP: perspectives from the financiers. The British Accounting Review, Cilt. 43 No. 4 .
Dillon, M. (2010). Operating PFI Contracts Problems, Pitfalls and Their Solutions Construction Study Centre London, United Kingdom.
Eğilmez, M. (2014). “Yap İşlet Devret ve Hazine Garantisi”, Kendime Yazılar.
EPEC, (2012). “United Kingdom: England PPP Units And Related Institutional Framework,”.
Froud, J. (2003). “The private finance initiative: risk, uncertainty and the state”,. Accounting, Organizations and Society, Cilt . 28 No. 6, ss. 567-589.
Guide, R. (2017). Public Private Partnership Reference Guide 3.0.
Hall, D. (2008). “Critique of Ppps”, . Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU), European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU).
Hellowell, M. A. (2007). “New Development: The PFI: Scotland’s Plan for Expansion and its Implications.” . Public Money and Management 27, no. 5.
Karahanoğulları, Y. (2012). Kamu Özel Ortaklığı Modelı̇nin Malı̇ Değerlendı̇rmesı̇. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi Cilt :67 No:2 .
Mackie, P., & Smith,N. (2005). “Financing roads in Great Britain”,. Research in Transportation Economics, Cilt. 15 No. 1.
OECD, (2008). Public-Private Partnerships: In Pursuit of Risk Sharing and Value for Money.
NAO, (2009). Private Finance Projects; Report, London: United Kingdom .
NAO, (2018). Pfı and Pf2 , January.
Spackman, M. (2002). “Public–private partnerships: lessons from the British approach”, . Economic Systems, Cilt. 26 No. 3.
Starodubtseva, V., & Booth, L. (2015). PFI: Cost and Benefit.
Treasury, H. (2012). ‘A new approach to public private partnerships’.
Treasury, H. (2018). Budget 2018 Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and Private Finance 2 (PF2).
Vickerman, R. (2004). “Maintenance incentives under different infrastructure regimes”, . Utilities Policy, Cilt. 12 No. 4.
Wang, N. (2011). “Risk allocation in the operational stage of private finance initiative projects”, . Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, Cilt. 25 No. 6.
Zhang, X. (2006). “Public Clients’ Best Value Perspectives of Public Private Partnerships in Infrastructur Development,” . Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Sayı: 132/2 .
Http://Www.Gbrconsulting.Gr/Articles/PPP%20in%20Europe%20- %20Lessons%20from%20the%20UK.Pdf . (2018).
https://data.eib.org/epec. (2019).
https://www.european-services-strategy.org.uk. (2018).