1. Subject of the public-private partnership needs to be redefined because it is too broad and in practice it will enable implementation of projects in a number of new areas, where there are risks of their inefficiency or gushing of the profit of private investors to public finances of the state and end users of services.
Article 6 refers to the “Subject of the public-private partnership” and includes a large number of areas in which projects can be implemented. However, the implementation of such projects should be approached very carefully, especially given the sensitivity of public finances and the lack of experience in applying them in a range of newly proposed areas.
Also, the proposer of the law should carefully consider numerous negative experiences in the application of public-private partnership projects in the region, as well as the countries of Western Europe, especially the United Kingdom, which is the “cradle” of the public-private partnership model, in which a good part of the risk and enormous profit of private investors “gushed” to the budget and taxpayers. It is the experience from the Western Europe that has shown that public-private partnerships should not be used in certain sectors due to difficult monitoring of business and threats to declining quality of services due to cost reduction, such as health care, education, prisons, public water supply, railways.
It is therefore necessary to take into account all potential risks and redefine the subject of public-private partnership in order to anticipate only those areas where it is estimated that the public-private partnership projects could be effective and without a high risk to public finances of the state and end users of services.
Complet document download HERE (PDF)
