PPPs are handled in various ways by Southeast Asian countries. Some define the legal terms of these partnerships and set up dedicated implementing agencies to carry out projects. Others assign certain government agencies to include PPPs in their portfolios. Malaysia, for example, established the Public-Private Partnership Unit under the Prime Minister's Department in the early 1980s to coordinate projects that have an impact on the economy.
The Public-Private Partnership Center of the Philippines was set up as a one-stop service to handle PPP processes by an executive order in 2010 as an attached agency of the National Economic and Development Authority, the government's economic planning agency. Thailand set up the Public-Private Partnership Unit under the State Enterprise Policy Office to prepare PPP strategic plans and to evaluate proposed projects. Viet Nam established the Public-Private Partnership Office under the Ministry of Planning and Investment to coordinate PPP projects. Various institutions are responsible for Indonesia's PPP programs; these include the Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs, the National Development Planning Agency, the Ministry of Finance, and line ministries. To speed up priority projects, President Joko Widodo established the Committee for the Acceleration of Priority Infrastructure Delivery in 2014 to coordinate infrastructure policy.
Having several agencies responsible for PPPs can potentially lead to overlaps of authority and prolong processes. The differences in PPP policy frameworks in Southeast Asia are largely influenced by internal variables that include governance systems (for example, decentralized countries have more decision makers and regulations); fiscal capacity; and judicial systems. There is no evidence showing that one system is better than another if the system is efficient and reliable. It arguably does not matter whether a country has a dedicated PPP law or whether PPP legislation is embedded in other laws; the main thing is a strong regulatory environment for PPPs.
Coherent investment policies for PPPs are vital. Incoherent policies confuse potential PPP investors and prolong processes, thereby reducing investor confidence and the government's credibility. A major complaint from PPP investors in Southeast Asian countries is on changing and discriminative regulations, especially on equity, landownership, and nationality biases.
Public sector capacity is another vital requirement for implementing PPPs effectively, since these are more complex than other types of public investments and require specialized knowledge. Southeast Asian governments tend to treat PPPs like traditional procurements, which results in incompatible restrictions and eliminates the advantages of these partnerships. This typically leads to risk-averse behavior by public agencies wanting to shift PPP project risks to their private partners. In Indonesia, the inability to handle complex PPPs resulted in some projects becoming traditional public procurements or being assigned to SOEs. This happened to a rail link project linking Jakarta's airport to the city center, which was listed for a PPP but eventually went to an SOE.
Despite different PPP systems, factors common to the success of PPP projects in Southeast Asian countries include coherent PPP policies, officials being knowledgeable on PPPs, and a willingness by the public sector to forge partnerships with the private sector. This is a necessary condition for successful PPP development programs. In Southeast Asia, however, the technical capacity of public agencies is usually not on a par with their private partners, which can complicate negotiations. At the same time, implementing agencies must have sufficient powers to make decisions, lead the PPP process, and decide on timely solutions to problems. A good example of an agency that can do this is the Public-Private Partnership Center of the Philippines, which has the full support of the President and, as such, can effectively deal with various sectors across different tiers of government. Malaysia's Public-Private Partnership Unit is under the Office of the Prime Minister. Other PPP units in Southeast Asia are often under the finance ministry or the national development agency.
Transparency surveys rank corruption as one of the biggest problems in doing business in Southeast Asia's developing countries. It is, therefore, essential that governments tackle this and other factors undermining a good investment climate. For PPPs, this means making processes transparent and accountable, which can reduce opportunities for corruption. One reason why Thailand embarked on PPPs was to reduce corruption, and a notable piece of legislation for this was transferring the approval process for private participation to the Cabinet under the Private Participation in State Undertakings Act of 1992. The act also created ex ante checks and balances for PPPs (Nonthasoot 2011).