In all the projects evaluated in-depth, the main reason for choosing the PPP route was to launch investment programmes which would not have been possible within the available public-sector budget, within a reasonable time. Other benefits may also have been anticipated from using a PPP but were not critical to the decision. In two cases, the Provider actually took over significant amounts of public-sector debt which had been previously incurred in building part of the project.
This does not imply that PPPs are nothing more than a device to limit government borrowing:
• PPPs involve a genuine sharing of risks between the public and private sectors.
• In most cases the PPP approach enabled the public sector to accelerate the construction of key infrastructure, to the economic benefit of the country concerned, and usually with ancillary environmental or social benefits. The EIB's own analyses of these projects confirmed this benefit.
• The growth of PPPs is part of a wider change in the role of the state from a direct provider of services to that of a facilitator and regulator of these services.
On the negative side, as well as possibly increasing costs, it can be difficult to build flexibility into PPP Contracts, and changes may be expensive. This makes them less suitable for projects which will be affected by, e.g., policy or demographic changes. This is demonstrated by a transport project. Although change was anticipated from the outset, the actual process has been slow and expensive. The Provider is in the position of a preferential, if not monopoly, supplier and the contractual arrangements are complex.