The non-economic costs that may arise upon the dissolution of a PPP are somewhat more difficult to calculate. The identification of such costs is possible, but assigning a monetary amount to such identified issues is not always possible. The non-economic costs can be seen from the perspective of both the private sector partners and the public authority involved in the project. A common cost associated with both sides is the damage to reputation suffered when a commercial relationship concludes on unamicable terms. When a PPP venture does not turn out according to expectations both parties seek to save not only their economic bottom line but also, quite importantly, parties also seek to save 'face' or reputation. The certainty associated with a long-term public contract is a desirable investment for any private firm. The building up of a strong track record and a 'public partnership brand' is thus an important consideration if a private consortium is seeking to establish itself as a dependable counterpart to the implementation of public projects. Likewise, if a government is seeking to market itself as an attractive prospect for private investment and thus reap the benefits of private funding, reputation is also a key factor.
The reputational factors influencing the government are also relevant in the context of the 'public eye'. A commercial dispute with a private sector investor may be damaging to a governments commercial reputation in the investment community, but if this very same dispute was to translate into public objection and concern, such an injury to a government's reputation may be fatal to the longevity of an Administration's tenure. It is this non-economic political cost that this paper seeks to highlight in the context of the New South Wales Labor government and several recent high profile PPP failures in that state.