Public-private partnerships generally have a contractual duration of 25 to 30 years or more. Funding is partly provided by the private sector, but requires payments from the public sector and/or users during the duration of the project. The private partner is involved in the design, completion, implementation and financing of the project, while the public partner focuses on defining and monitoring compliance. Risks are shared through a negotiation process between public and private partners, but ideally they are not always tailored to everyone`s ability to assess, control and manage them. The motivations of city managers in the United States to explore public and private services are different. According to a 2007 survey, two main reasons were cited: cost reduction (86.7%) tax pressure, including tax restrictions (50.3%). No other motivation exceeded 16%. However, in the 2012 survey, interest focused on the need to improve processes (69%), to create relationships (77%), better results (81%), resource use (84%) and the belief that providing collaborative services is “the right thing to do” (86%). Among those interviewed, the provision of public services by contract with private companies peaked at 18% in 1977 and has declined since then. Today, the most common form of common service provision is government-to-government contracts, which have increased from 17% in 2002 to 20% in 2007. “At the same time, about 22% of local governments stated in the survey that they had repatriated at least one service they had already provided through another private agreement.”  Note: Although the main characteristics of each category are summarized, there are overlaps between the categories and the name given to a given agreement, this classic categorization may not reflect.
It is also necessary to determine whether a specific classification is enshrined in the laws of the host country, as in the case of many civil courts where there are strict definitions of “concessions” and “firms”. The examples of agreements in this section are not all agreements relating to infrastructure projects. They are not designed as “models.” In the development and development of an agreement, legal advice should be sought to ensure that it is appropriate and feasible in the circumstances of a particular project, sector and country. You will find the terms and conditions of this website about PPPLRC. Social impact bonds (also known as pay for Success Bonds) are “a public-private partnership that funds effective social services through a results-based contract,” as defined by Social Finance Ltd.  They work over a fixed period of time but do not offer a fixed rate of return. In general, the repayment to investors depends on the outcome of certain social results.  A similar system, development impact obligations, is being implemented in developing countries.
A 2013 study published in the State and Local Government Review found that definitions of public-private partnerships vary widely from community to community: “Many public and private public servants advocate for any number of activities when the relationship is actually contractual, franchised or sending a previous public service to a private or non-profit organization.” A broader term for these agreements is “common service delivery,” in which public bodies work with private companies or non-profit organizations to provide services to citizens.   Finally, as in any situation where property and decision rights are separated, public-private partnerships can create complex problems between principals. This can facilitate corruption, payments to political developers and general rents, by linking private parties who make important decisions about a project they will benefit from and liability to taxpayers, who take at least part of the consideration and who, as far as the case is concerned,