There is no universal norm for the most appropriate approach to PPP. While a variety of successful projects can be used to demonstrate elements of PPP that may potentially add value, it is not possible to say that one structure or model is necessarily more universally appropriate than another. While much time has been spent debating the relative merits of different models, particularly those developed by national bodies or historically through specific legal systems, at the end of the day nationalism should bend to commercial and political practicality when designing an appropriate PPP structure. In fact, rather than identifying one specific approach to emulate, designers of PPP projects need to consider advantages offered by numerous projects and approaches. The analysis of what is needed for a particular project or program needs to be made on a country-by-country, sector-by-sector and project-by-project basis.
The model is therefore not meant to be normative, i.e. it does not identify which PPP option would be the most appropriate, most efficient or most effective in any given situation. It does not specify what should be, its task is to report on the nature of a given PPP structure and its key characteristics. The model serves two key purposes. It:
• Facilitates the task of practitioners when seeking to identify relevant lessons learned from other projects, sectors, countries, legal systems and cultures
• Enables the description of a given PPP structure without the confusion associated with political, nationalistic or cultural labels applied to such structures.
For example, when technical experts need to discuss PPP options with policymakers, using this classification model will facilitate the process by avoiding misunderstandings associated with tired or misused vocabulary. Policymakers need a mechanism to compare solutions easily and clearly. The current complexity and confusion of terminology does not help. The classification model allows policymakers to break projects down into their key constituent elements and to compare and contrast such models. It is also a pedagogical tool. By breaking projects down into their key characteristics, it will be easier to explain the importance of these characteristics and how they influence the nature of the project.
Equally, when designing PPP structures to fit the needs of a given country, sector or project, the design team will want to take advantage of the lessons learned from similar exercises and experiences. The model will help the applications of lessons learned from other similar structures across the globe by identifying commonalities amongst those structures and enabling the design team to utilize global good practice.
This exercise, of course, comes with a serious caveat. Delivering infrastructure services is hard to get right, whether they are delivered by the public sector or through PPP. Even where the classification model shows commonalities between structures used in different places in different contexts, the design team needs to be very clear that the context of those projects can have a significant influence on the efficiency of a given PPP structure. It is never enough to simply copy things that have been done successfully in other places; a well-designed PPP project is specifically contextual.