5. Insights and conclusions
The New Zealand UFBI PPP case study illustrates that there are very clear differences between the ‘classic’ BOOT PPPs observed in roading and UFB PPPs. Government financing of infrastructure part or fully-owned ultimately by the private partner ‘unbundles’ the elements that characteristically confer economic advantages on classic PPPs. Furthermore, the exposure of the private partner's (typically sunk) investments to the vicissitudes of subsequent government actions (e.g. regulatory changes) increases the likelihood that the private party will be subject to ‘hold up’.
This appears to arise from the government's actions as network funder being separated from the actions of the regulator, leading to the potential for conflicts or gaps to appear between the use of contractual undertakings to regulate the partners' activities on the newly-subsidised UFB network and other regulatory activities governed by other means (e.g. legislation). Unless the government as new network funder can credibly commit to restrain the actions of the government (or its agents) as regulator (or the public party is itself strictly subordinated to control by the regulator, as occurs in local and municipal ventures within a wider national context), then the private party is subject to opportunistic hold-up. If no such commitment is forthcoming, then the pre-contractual resolution is for the private party to include explicit terms in the PPP agreement requiring the public party to compensate it if the legislative and/or regulatory terms do change during the life of the project. Only then is it possible for the financing and operational environment incentives controlled by the public party to be aligned with the incentives of the private party whose sunk assets are exposed. Clearly the exact terms will differ depending upon the quantity and type of assets brought to the agreement, and the risks involved.