One of the criticisms sometimes leveled at the PSC is that it focuses solely on the financial cost to government of PPP or traditional procurement. A more comprehensive approach would also take into account the differences in expected benefits, and compare the net economic benefit under PPP or under public procurement. On the other hand, as Grimsey and Lewis note [#118, page 353], this adds further complexity to the value for money analysis over the PSC approach, and could risk making the results even more subjective.
For example, the EPEC's note on non-financial benefits of PPP [#84] suggests how some of the benefits of PPP-as described in Section 1.3: Infrastructure Challenges and How PPPs Can Help-could be quantified, and added to a more typical PSC analysis.
Few countries have introduced this kind of analysis in practice. New Zealand's new PPP program is an exception, and adopts cost-benefit analysis as the main tool for assessing procurement options. New Zealand's PPP guidance material [#189, pages 6-12] asks practitioners to identify the possible benefits of PPP over traditional public procurement-from among the value drivers as described in Box 1.2: PPP Value Drivers-and where possible to assign dollar values to each benefit.
In many developing countries' PPP programs, the aim is not just to reduce cost, but to transform service delivery. For example, governments hope that roads will be better maintained, thus delivery much greater benefits in terms of trade and economic development. These changes in service levels and quality cannot be captured by comparing fiscal costs of PPP and public procurement. Where these expected benefits are important, and quantitative value for money analysis is desired, economic cost-benefit analysis may be the better approach.