In the early nineties private finance could boast broad political interest in the Netherlands. Interest was put to practice and consequently two major Dutch tunnels were privately financed. The Rekenkamer (Dutch NAO) rebuffed this initiative, criticising the unfavourable conditions under which private finance was arranged. In 1997 the Dutch Ministry of Finance initiated a new private finance programme. This time, however, extensive research advanced actual private financing of infrastructure. The Netherlands were lagging behind the UK in terms of PPP experience, therefore much attention was paid to UK experience with the Private Finance Initiative. Research showed however that UK experience was relevant to a limited extent. Pivotal to UK PPP policy was the use of Public Sector Comparator, which indicated whether a PPP offer was value for money or not. The UK instruments, however, did not suffice in the Dutch situation. According to UK policy one had to prove that PPP was not a sound option. This was the reverse case in the Netherlands. One had to prove that PPP was a better option than government infrastructure financing. The result of this policy focus was a method to compare PPP with the traditional government case, which was called the Public Private Comparator. This method is related to standard cost-benefit theory, but uses standard arguments in favour and against PPP. It therefore also shows some insights into the pros and cons of the PPP it is applied for. This method will form a core element of Dutch PPP policy. For the covering abstract see IRRD E104621.


  • English

Media Info

  • Features: References;
  • Pagination: p. 27-37

Subject/Index Terms

Filing Info

  • Accession Number: 00790442
  • Record Type: Publication
  • Source Agency: Transport Research Laboratory
  • ISBN: 0-86050-322-4
  • Files: ITRD
  • Created Date: Apr 11 2000 12:00AM