Value for money tests and accounting treatment in PFI schemes

By David Heald. 2003

234 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Building and Construction, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cd3f9b74797974d3f540c71b64f693b3c71c55ee

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Building and Construction

1. Mervyn K. Lewis
2. Darrin Grimsey
3. M. Spackman

In Strategy and Management

1. Mervyn K. Lewis
2. Darrin Grimsey
3. David Heald
4. M. Spackman
5. Adjo Amekudzi
6. Dorothy Morallos

Citations in the corpus

• Public Private Partnerships: The Worldwide Revolution in Infrastructure Provision and Project Finance (2004, background): “It is true that the pivotal issue with respect to the accounting treatment revolves around where the risks lie, and judgements about the relative importance of different kinds of risk are likely to be paramount, for example, the balance between construction risk, design risk, demand risk and residua”
• Public Sector to Public Services: 20 Years of 'Contextual' Accounting Research (2008, unknown): “The accountings themselves have created some of the arguments for the adoption of the new structures of provision (for example through the arguments that PPP/PFI provides value-for money (see, Heald, 2003”
• Fiscal Transparency: Concepts, Measurement and UK Practice (2003, background): “…under the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and the extent to which decisions on projects have been driven by considerations of accounting treatment (Heald 2003); the location of activities outside the general government boundary (Jowit 2002); triple counting of increases in public expenditure…”
• Are Public Private Partnerships value for money? (2005, methodology): “Prominent amongst those recently questioning the validity of the value for money methodology areBroadbent, Gill, and Laughlin (2003) , Broadbent and Laughlin (2003) , Heald (2003) , andShaoul (2005) .8 On the specific issue of the application of PFI to the UK’s National Health Service (NHS), earlier”
• Public-private partnerships: lessons from the British approach (2002, background): “Heald, 2003).8 A second source of bias is that, with all projects, there is more scope for bad surprises than good surprises. The authors of the report note that ‘the jury is still out’ on how far PFI projects will deliver the promised benefits promised. Subsequent work by the Na ional Audit Office ”