Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Watch your back, America : PPPs gaining ground

by Agnes a Paris Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 05:48:21 AM EST

The use of special-purpose public-private partnerships (PPPs) by U.S. government agencies and departments to meet their financing requirements started only recently, with a ten to fifteen year delay vs Europe.
The alleged flexibility provided by PPPs gives federal departments that have the authority to enter into these instruments an avenue to meet their expanding capital requirements.
NB : A PPP is a business entity--such as a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, or grantor trust--that is established by the private sector for a single specified purpose.

This diary specifically focuses on infrastructure transportation.
The recent sudden interest in PPP structures has resulted primarily from actions by specific state and municipal leaders, including Chicago Mayor Richard Daley (Chicago Skyway), Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana (Indiana Toll Road), Gov. Rick Perry of Texas (Trans-Texas Corridor), and Gov. Tim Kaine and former Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia (various projects).


While more are expected, presently just a handful of U.S. toll roads have been funded through PPP structures, including the following:

  1. Dulles Greenway, a 14-mile toll road northwest of Washington, D.C. was originally constructed as a privately owned PPP toll road, was purchased in 2005 by the Macquarie Infrastructure Group.
  2. Virginia Route 895, a nine-mile toll road south of Richmond constructed as a PPP toll road. The project's sponsor (the Pocahontas Parkway Association) announced in 2005 that it is considering selling the roadway concession to another private entity.
  3. State Route 91 Express Lanes : 10 miles of HOT lanes south of Los Angeles originally constructed as a PPP toll road. The toll lane concession was repurchased by the state in 2003 to eliminate a noncompete clause that restricted capacity improvements along the corridor.
  4. State Route 125, a 9.5-mile toll road southeast of San Diego expected to open in early 2007. It is being constructed as a PPP by San Diego Expressway L.P., which is 100% owned by the Macquarie Infrastructure Group.
  5. Chicago Skyway, an eight-mile toll road east of Chicago originally constructed with public funds. The $1.83 billion, 99-year concession was purchased in a 2005 privatization by a consortium of Cintra SA and the Macquarie Infrastructure Group.
  6. Indiana Toll Road, a 157-mile toll road in northern Indiana originally constructed with public funds. The $3.85 billion, 75-year concession was purchased in a 2006 privatization by a consortium of Cintra SA and the Macquarie Infrastructure Group.

The last two transactions represent an enormous change in U.S. toll road financing and have created a big splash that continues to ripple throughout the U.S. surface transportation sector.
Not surprisingly, this has resulted in many state, local, and regional providers of roadway infrastructure stepping back to evaluate their capital programs in the context of the evolving public-private partnership (PPP) model.
Faced with the prospect of diminishing resources for roadway investment, global interest by investors and operators, and encouraged by visible support from elected officials along with the growing acceptance of tolling technology, federal and state authorities are increasingly laying the legal and political groundwork to allow for PPP arrangements. Toll road and bridge PPP projects are currently being discussed publicly in at least 18 states.

In the transportation sector, practical issues, such as how quickly and cost effectively the toll projects can be delivered, along with public policy issues regarding control and sharing of financial risks as well as benefits, will be central to the debate over PPPs in the toll road sector.
These issues beg the following questions, among others: How will new greenfield projects with unknown revenue potential attract private capital, which, to provide competitive rates of return to investors, might require the high degree of leverage observed in the Chicago Skyway and Indiana Toll Road concessions?
Given the poor history of toll revenue projections, what other forms of financial support could project sponsors look to? If alternative payment mechanisms are incorporated, will they work to diffuse the risks to bondholders or other lenders?
The answers to these and other questions remain to be seen as sponsors and the developer community evaluate the growing pipeline of potential PPP projects and look to global examples for application in the U.S. market.

With respect to a toll road or bridge, a PPP has traditionally referred to the public and private sectors' medium- to long-term sharing of traffic and operating risk, capital cost risk, maintenance cost risk, and toll revenue reward. Recently, the term PPP has also been applied to a wide spectrum of toll road financing and ownership structures: from cost- and profit-sharing partnerships to complete privatization through sale or long-term leases.

To illustrate, even though the Chicago Skyway and Indiana Toll Road are now completely privatized, a minimal amount of state oversight is still being maintained, requiring the private concessionaires to meet annual road maintenance standards and to add lanes when necessary to meet traffic congestion standards. Nonetheless, privatization--particularly the addition of equity ownership and the distribution of dividends--represents an enormous change in U.S. toll road financing.

Toll road PPP and privatization projects typically fall into two categories: "greenfield" and "brownfield" projects.
Greenfield projects refer to the construction of new toll roads and bridges. Brownfield projects frequently relate to the privatization of an existing toll road or bridge by means of a very long-term lease.
Optimally, privatizations permit local governments to avoid future capital expenditures on the privatized road and also provide funding for new greenfield projects. High-occupancy toll lanes, or HOT lanes, represent a hybrid of these two categories. HOT lanes are new toll lane capacity constructed alongside existing highways.
Although the brownfield and greenfield categories do not determine the financing and ownership structure of the road, they do have distinct credit characteristics--particularly regarding traffic risk.

Will increased fuel prices and tolls decrease the propensity to drive alone? Will the cycle of more drivers each year, more congestion, and endless highway expansion finally break?
Many think not, and additional sources of funding for highway construction are being sought. PPPs are a possible source of additional highway and bridge funding, as they provide debt and equity from the private market to fund toll road capital needs.
The European experience reminds though, that there is no one best way.

I have worked on most of the transactions mentioned above, so feel free to ask questions, I will be happy to answer if the info does not fall into confidentiality provisions.

Display:
She's back!! (and with a vengeance!! Glad to see you back writing...just keep things balanced, so you don't have to go away again!)

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia
by whataboutbob on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 06:02:36 AM EST
You're more than right !First good resolution : stop writing on office hours.
For the revenge, see the next Windmill instalment, hopefully soon to come. That will be real fun. Bob (the one in Alex's series) will look a real wimp compared to the Windmill protagonists.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 07:34:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
...AgnesaParis... Special Treatment N°001... </bob>
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 08:42:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There wouldn't be a need for private capital to fund what should be public projects if the governments captured enough tax revenue from the corporate sector.

Any privatized road or similar has to end up costing the users more because of the need for it to return a profit.

A typical US example. The non-profit NY Blue Cross health insurance program was recently made for-profit. Previously they advertised that they paid out 94-96% of premiums to service claims. Now that it is private they brag about 75% payout. The difference, profit and the salaries of the top managers. At a non-profit a salary of more than $200,000 brings public rebuke and investigation. As a private company the CEO can easily earn millions plus stock options.

For example, the CEO of Wachovia Bank (the 11th largest bank in the US and mostly regional) made $17 million last year in total compensation.

Privatizing government functions is the beginning of the end of civilized society. It is followed shortly by private police.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 11:27:40 AM EST
Indeed. The usual lie is 'it's saving public money.'

It isn't. What it's really doing is taking one set of public money in the form of taxes, adding another set of public money in the form of tolls and payments, and moving this money to shareholders and CEOs.

The risk factor is usually negligible, because - in the UK at least - it's traditional for the government to bail out large infrastructure projects when they get into financial difficulties because it can't afford to let them fail.

With proper taxes on capital and speculation there would be no question of not being able to afford large projects, or having to transfer the real cost back to those sectors who can least afford it.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 12:33:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Seems to me you and rdf are being a little dogmatic on this one.  This is a brief description of the Chicago Skyway project and the benefits, mentioned above in the diary:
John Schmidt: I think the big benefit for a city or for a state that does this is you can potentially get a lot of money out of an existing piece of infrastructure, such as a toll road, and use that money for other purposes and to meet other needs. If you have an asset such as what the mayor of Chicago decided was true of the Chicago Skyway, which is a toll road and bridge that was built in the 1950s and no longer needed to have public investment in it. As it turned out, Chicago got $1.83 billion for that asset from a private operator that the city could put to work for other purposes. It can be a very good way to raise capital that the city or state can then put to better use.
Chicago is a very well run city, here's a recent Economist article.  Frankly if the mayor, knowing the city's needs and available options, decides to privatize a toll road and use $1.83 billion in other areas where he thinks it's more needed, I would go with his decision, rather than an arbitrary opinion that these kinds of programs with the private sector are not good for government.
by wchurchill on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 08:59:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think it is more complicated than that.  Toll roads and toll bridges have differing impacts on different communities.  Tolls discriminate against the poor in ways taxes can be shaped to avoid.  The private company probably took out a much bigger loan than 1.83 billion to  finance payment to the city as well as infrastructure improvements.  Does this 1.83 billion constitute all the taxes paid, or will they be contributing taxes for the next thirty years or so?  If so, aren't the citizen indirectly paying those taxes anyway?  Of course, the whole area around Chicago is rife with toll roads, and this is perhaps just a way of life there.  I personally would rather see moderately paid public officials taking care of this highway than exorbitantly (I suppose) paid CEO's of private companies.  

I do have a bias.  I hate toll roads and am happy that there are very few in California.  I hate--hate--the number of stops I had to make going from Madison, WI to Chicago. (Most gas is wasted during acceleration.)  You have to figure in the waste that goes into paying people to take care of the toll system as well, and the environmental costs of slowdowns due to toll booths.

I love the roads in France, but the tolls are INSANE.  On the other hand, in France, one can choose not to take the roads because there is a lot of investment in public transport.  In that sense, it makes sense to discourage driving, since it is generally wasteful...

So, maybe you are describing a good deal, I don't know.  That means I really don't mean this as a contradiction of what you are saying.  I'm just raising questions.

From a community standpoint, though, I think a real discussion of the costs of a highway are more fruitful than a one-time payment.  

by andrethegiant on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 09:15:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Tolls discriminate against the poor in ways taxes can be shaped to avoid.

Yes, but remember that taxes can also be shaped to discriminate even more against the poor.  Two words: George Bush.

I personally would rather see moderately paid public officials taking care of this highway than exorbitantly (I suppose) paid CEO's of private companies.

Andy, -- welcome to the site if you're new, by the way (not sure) -- I would invite you to come to West Palm Beach, if you ever get a chance within the next year or two.  The government officials in charge of roads there are so incompetent that it's just stunning to me.  I have never -- I'm not exaggerating -- seen a higher concentration of stupidity (and laziness) in my life.  The downtown roads have been under construction for about five years, I'm guessing, and they're still nowhere near complete.  If it's not the CEO receiving the money, it's the bureaucrats pulling on themselves while they wait for more money from the state legislature.

At least with private ownership, the tolls and quality could be regulated, as utilities companies are.

These are not large roads in downtown West Palm, either.  We're talking about three blocks per street, on two or three streets.  Five years and still not done.  Small businesses are getting crippled by it, with no help from the government.  The mayor actually bought signs and placed them on street corners to let people know that it was the fault of the bureaucrats and the state government.  They (the bureaucrats and the state government), then, promised to get it done, immediately.  That was three months ago.  Still no progress, as far as I know.

If you ever visit Orlando, which has got to be the Capitol City of Toll Roads, you'll discover that the toll roads are a hell of a lot nicer (and easier on your car) than the regular roads.  We also have these odd devices, "Sun Passes," that allow us to pass through toll plazas and pay without slowing down.  You register the device online and set up a debit card, which is charged when the device receives the toll signal.  As any stereotypical Italian Mafia Don on television would say, "It's a beautiful thing."

Remember, too, that public roads are no walk in the park, in terms of starting and stopping.  Anyone who has ever driven on I-95 knows that.  (I've probably spent six months of my life sitting in traffic jams on I-95, and it's not because I've driven on it more than the average person.)  Rare is the occasion when I have to put up with massive traffic on a toll road -- probably because all of the impatient drivers try to avoid toll roads.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 11:43:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the welcome.  I've been hanging out here for the last week or so.  I've been reading Jerome's stuff at Kos for ages and finally came over here, where there seems to be a great community.

Anyway, I took the test:

Economic Left/Right: -8.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.18

I'm sure that will surprise no one.  Really, I'm not against PPPs, so to speak, and I'm not under the illusion that all government-run insitutions work perfectly.  I wouldn't support either without serious skepticism.

by andrethegiant on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 04:03:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's definitely more complicated than that.  I've watched things over the years in Chicago, having lived a lot of my life there, so I know some of the pluses and minuses about the city.  I'm quite confident that in this case the mayor would have had financial advisors looking at this to make sure it was a good deal for the city; and that he would have good uses for the $1.83 billion.  The value in this case would not be difficult to establish, as the toll road has been functioning for years, providing data for estimating revenues, as well as maintenance costs.  The value would have been established based upon discounting estimated future cash flows from the project, and not from taxes paid in.

I am more open than many on the website to letting capitalism work.  Leaders should have some flexibility to make good decisions for their communities and try creative things.  If those leaders are talented, and Mayor Daley absolutely fits in that category, a city can benefit greatly--I don't know if you linked to the article in the Economist on Chicago or not.

I didn't see you on the political compass chart.  You might be interested in taking the test and see where you fit on the chart--it's not a good/bad thing obviously, but it simply allows us to look at the chart and see where we are all coming from.  Migeru would update the chart with your info, if you're interested.

by wchurchill on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 11:54:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Use this link to the Political Compass instead.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 11:56:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
thanks Migeru, this is a very complete link.  You may have seen my comment under the debate on actual facts.....by Jerome.  What you have a Wiki is great, maybe what is needed is just more visibility to it, so that people can use it more, take the test, etc.  I think you know best here--I just find it such a great tool I would like others to be able to make use of it, and I think it drops out of site.
by wchurchill on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 12:37:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You should put your debate comment in the open thread! And it was Alexandra that set up  the wiki page.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 01:18:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Results:

Economic Left/Right: -8.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.18

I'm even more to the left than I thought.

by andrethegiant on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 04:04:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You're making the libertarian socialist corner even more crowded.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 04:23:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am more open than many on the website to letting capitalism work.
Are you as open to letting it crash and burn? </snark>

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 11:57:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I am more open than many on the website to letting capitalism work.

Well, Jerome and asdf have us all beat on support for capitalism, judging by the chart.  But I ranked third on it, so there! :D

This doesn't really fit neatly into capitalism (or socialism or any of the other economic "isms"), because roads tend to fall more so into the public-sector sphere of influence, but with some characteristics that would fit well with capitalism.  Unfortunately, roads are not like (say) canned food.  There isn't an opportunity for a lot of choice, so, at best, you end up with imperfect competition and require some public involvement.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 12:07:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"more open than many on the website."  I bow to the superior capitalistic view of the three of you.  -:)  <comment meant in good fun>

I also agree with your comments on the toll project.  You said it very well--it doesn't fit neatly into the model, has some place where it fits, and others where it doesn't.  

by wchurchill on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 12:29:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It all depends on how well the contracts are monitored and enforced.

Given the crony politics of the Republican Party and in urban Democratic areas like Chicago, I'm not optimistic.

by TGeraghty on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 01:13:54 PM EST
I would suggest that few governments have the capacity to  properly monitor (and indeed write) this kind of contract in competition with a firm like Deloitte employed by the private side of the situation.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 01:34:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think so, especially when a significant fraction of the policy makers fall into one of two groups: (1) those who don't want monitoring so they can get away with their rent-seeking activities; and (2) those who think you can just turn all this stuff over to the market and everything will just take care of itself.
by TGeraghty on Tue Mar 28th, 2006 at 05:12:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You have to keep in mind that governmental bodies are advised by the same kind of investment banks and lawyers as the private party.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 08:10:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Which only increases the costs of the project...

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 08:47:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Clever guess !
And this makes the day of investment banks, technical advisory boutiques and legal firms. I suspect the latter make the most of it, as they charge by the hours, whereas investment banker advisory fees are generally lump-sum.  

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 08:54:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Just issue bonds and raise the money to pay them back with usage fees. You don't need no investment banks, no legal advisors, no contracts, no nuthin'.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 08:59:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah, but in that case the inefficient public organisations would inevitably mismanage the project. Well known fact. This never happens with PPPs.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 09:00:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What is "the project", the financing or the running of the operation?

With bonds and tolls there is not camplicated financing to mismanage, nor any crooks and nannies [sorry, nooks and crannies] for corruption to take place.

The running of the operations can be outsourced if there is a concern that it will be incompetently managed by the public servants, and the cost of outsourcing figured into the financing calculations.

Unless, of course, the point of PPP is a Keynesian stimulus of the [quite crucial and strategic] financial engineering sector.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 09:07:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
the point of PPP is a Keynesian stimulus of the [quite crucial and strategic] financial engineering sector

You have a clue here, Mr Holmes...

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 09:27:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I hate to be right. [Well, not usually, but in this particular case I do.]

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 09:28:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I do sympathise ;)

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 09:40:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Unless, of course, the point of PPP is a Keynesian stimulus of the [quite crucial and strategic] financial engineering sector.

Maybe, but I think many (most?) Keynesians would probably prefer the government-run roads, because officials can always hire the unemployed to build and improve roads in a recession and jack up aggregate demand a bit -- the real-world, Depression-era version of Keynes's "bury notes in bottles and hire people to dig them up" story.  It's a great excuse to spend a ton of money during a recession.  When the road is in private hands, you don't get to decide that.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 12:16:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That was a snark: I meant that the whole thing is just designed to create lots of jobs for financiers.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 01:15:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You never know these days.  The Bushees did, after all, start a war to provide business for their cronies.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 02:09:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
well lordy day :-)  Drew and I agree on something!

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 02:47:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I take advantage of catching you here De Anander, to ask for your view on the following : a good friend of mine contends that I should stick to "societal" diaries like the ones on prostitution, as I am not qualified to write on economic stuff. What d'you think ? Women go back to emotions where they belong ?

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 04:09:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I say, who the fsck thinks prostitution is not an economic or political issue?  excuse my cryptoprofanity, but it's one of the largest cash-flow businesses in the world, multinational in nature, intimately (ahem) connected to militarism and resource-extractive imperialism, inextricable from issues of class and race as is all sweatshop labour, and surely the paradigmatic case of totalising consumerism and neoliberal/randian econ theory made flesh.

I know not how to contact you offboard Agnes, but if you trust another gnome w/your email addy who also knows mine -- jerome maybe?  I'd like to send a document expanding on some of these points, which would be too far OT to start discussing here.

lastly I would say, who imagines that emotions do not drive what many soi-disant adult males laughingly call their "rational" political behaviour and decisions?  

I think of Dubya post-911, pumping his fist in the air, shouting "F--k Saddam, we're taking him out!" ... even disregarding that kind of flagrant dickheaded militarist fantasy, neolib econ dogma has to be one of the least empirical intellectual cults of recent decades;  no matter how often its theories are disproven in real life, its true believers claim that more of the same would have worked.  if feedback from realworld outcomes doesn't affect the theory, then the theorist has lost touch with rationality, at least in any sense that I understand the word :-)  was it Albert E of fond memory who said that the definition of madness was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?

which leads us ineluctably to the curious human pattern of pseudo-rationality -- a compulsive state of mind obsessed with quantification, taxonomy, control and rule enforcement to the point of madness and violence -- another topic entirely and one I've often been curious about.  it manifests in, for example, kabbalistic insistence on secret numerological messages in well known (or obscure) texts, or the complex and often sophisticated calculations of astrologers... working at a major Observatory I have seen several times over my career thick wodges of paper mailed to us by lonely compulsives, the pages covered margin to margin with densely and often meticulously lettered equations, diagrams and text, all disproving General Relativity or the existence of a hidden 2nd moon of Earth or such like.  these we recognise as a harmless madness, but the same obsession surfaces in the bizarrely detailed and "rational" Nazi guidebooks on how to identify Jews by the precise measurement of facial features, or the pseudo-experiments done in the camps in the name of "science".

I think I have quoted this before but here we go again, as it seems relevant...
   
Lovers of small numbers go benignly potty,
Believe all tales are thirteen chapters long,
Have animal doubles, carry pentagrams,
Are Millerites, Baconians, Flat-Earth-Men.

Lovers of big numbers go horridly mad,
Would have the Swiss abolished, all of us
Well purged, somatotyped, baptized, taught baseball:
They empty bars, spoil parties, run for Congress.

anyway, the Love of Numbers may be the root of much joy (who can resist Feynman's delight in "finding things out" or the satisfaction of solving an engineering problem without breaking the spar the first N times?)  but surely it has been also the root of much evil.

much is presented as "rational" just because it is dressed up in a lot of numbers and arcane computational methods (which I generally dismiss with the shorthand "Ptolemaic");  this confuses many people to the point where I have had friends who say they "distrust rationality" entirely because, after all, the Nazis were so bloody rational and scientific!  the border  between science and elaborate hierophancy, mathematics and mumbojumbo, gets harder to detect the further out of one's own computational grasp the math gets.  ironically much that appears "obvious" and "simple" or like common sense actually requires a monstrously complex calculation to describe (detailed fluid dynamics of a breaking wave, behaviour of traffic in an urban core, the life processes and energy transfers in a cubic foot of soil...)

well, I ramble (thou ramblest, he/she rambles, they ramble... O let us ramble!) as usual.                                                                                                                                            

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 05:35:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the border  between science and elaborate hierophancy, mathematics and mumbojumbo, gets harder to detect the further out of one's own computational grasp the math gets.

And sometimes even when it's within one's own computational grasp.

The most poisonous and evil thing about politics and economics is that they pretend to offer absolutes - growth is up so many percent, unemployment is so many percent - while these figures are really just a way to rationalise a set of beliefs and values about how people should behave.

The most important thing anyone can do today is to debunk and reveal those beliefs and values - because they're presented as unquestionable givens, when in fact they're very much man-made, and can potentially be re-engineered and reworked almost ad lib.

So for example worrying about unemployment is a waste of time unless there's broad agreement about what people value. Is it social justice? Personal acquisitiveness? Easy access to resources? Cooperation? Competition?

Once you know what your goal is, you can make rational decisions about how to reach it. If you don't, or if you allow someone else to set those social goals for you, you're in no sense free.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 06:16:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
all disproving General Relativity or the existence of a hidden 2nd moon of Earth

schwupps!  that should have read

all disproving General Relativity or proving the existence of a hidden 2nd moon of Earth

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 08:54:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Didn't guard your tongue there and accidently spilled the beans on the second moon?

You asronomers try to keep it a secret just because you want it all to yourselves. All that cheese, one thinks you should share it with the rest of us but NOOO, you want it all...

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Thu Mar 30th, 2006 at 08:45:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ahhh, that's what I call a nice bit of Wensleydale...

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Thu Mar 30th, 2006 at 04:57:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
with my diary warning about facts and reality.

the Love of Numbers may be the root of much joy (who can resist Feynman's delight in "finding things out" or the satisfaction of solving an engineering problem without breaking the spar the first N times?)  but surely it has been also the root of much evil.

I regret you did not post that out there. Anyhow, this is a fantastic contribution. If you can move it to the reality diary, pretty please do. I am disappointed that thread did not trigger more interest. Maybe it was construed as a mere discussion around the relativity theory, or maybe I should have picked out a catchier title, such as "Love of numbers : the new totalitarianism ?"

You can reach me at agnes.mazurek@laposte.net.
Not everything over there needs go through Jérôme :)

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill

by Agnes a Paris on Thu Mar 30th, 2006 at 02:32:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Do you really think these people love numbers?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 30th, 2006 at 03:20:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
love .
Worth an investigation.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Thu Mar 30th, 2006 at 04:00:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, if you're willing to classify snuff pornography under "romance" I'll allow you to classify what these devious bean counters do as "love of numbers".

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 30th, 2006 at 04:02:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You spared yourself another dive in the dictionary, eh ? Well done. :)
I fortunately only have a very theoretical idea of what snuff pornography is, but it certainly is NOT romance.


When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Thu Mar 30th, 2006 at 04:52:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Regarding snuff, if you liked the movies The Others or Abre los Ojos [forget about the inferior remake "Vanilla Sky"], you might want to try Tesis.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 30th, 2006 at 04:58:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why the troll ratings?  Did I miss something?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Mar 31st, 2006 at 01:04:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
She asked for them, so we obliged.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 31st, 2006 at 01:06:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah.  "I see," said the blind man.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Mar 31st, 2006 at 01:09:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Now, now, De.  It happens more than we'd think, I suspect. ;)

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu Mar 30th, 2006 at 10:48:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So that's tue what they said in the "Wag the Dog" movie ?? What a shock ! :))

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 04:26:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
true, not tue.
Let's say it is a lapsus. tue is the French for kill.


When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 04:35:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
ps: Did you hear Dominique De Villepin's great Freudian slip today at the Assemblée, on the CPE?

"Nous attendons la démission du Conseil Constitutionnel"

("we are waiting for the demission of the Constitutional Council" => decision ... for our readers from far away who don't know the word "demission", rarely used in English, it means "resignation")

by Alex in Toulouse on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 04:41:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
oh, glad you are here.
As Jerome mentioned in aother thread I am too tired to embed the link to (I apologise Jerome), there was another juicy lapsus : le contrat premiere embuche...
I bet today's issue of le Canard enchaine is a collector.

Indeed, I don't know whether the whole Supreme Court resigning would be a good thing or a bad thing for Dominique. If they invalidate the CPE, he can get out of that morass la tete haute

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 04:49:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
From the Pollock book:

The new Dartford and Gravesham PFI hospital, for example, cost £94 million to build, but this figure escalated to £115 million when the costs of fees and finance were added in.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 11:42:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That doesn't seem like a lot assuming that the project was financed over 30 years...

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 11:51:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I may be getting journal access again soon, so I should be able to dig out the whole study and see what the finance costs would have been under a purely public approach.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 12:52:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I will come up with other examples tomorrow as for the financing costs portion in such projects.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 04:11:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, that pushes the failures of PPP towards the "implicit contract" problem I note in another comment.

However, there are large questions to be asked about conflict of interest. The PPP contracts are designed by these consulting firms for the government. Those consulting firms equally get a lot of money advising bidders for the process.

Further, it's in the interests of the consulting firms to stimulate the PPP industry as a whole, rather than enforce contracts in a way that might sour private companies on involvement.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 09:15:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Consultants are a bane.

My local borough used to have neighbourhood forums overseeing the spending of about £200k a year of council tax for local projects run by all kinds of groups, from the local police to volunteer associations.

After three years, they've decided to axe them. Apparently they hired some consultants to evaluate the forums, and the consultants said theforums should be scrapped and instead "managers" hired to oversee areas 1,500 people strong. The managers are supposed to find out (how?) what the people need, and act accordingly. There is no explicit mechanism for citizen involvement any longer, and the whole consultation was carried out "with secrecy" so that the neighbourhood forums are pissed off and the two wards on the boundary of which I live have decided to set up a trust to pursue their own projects in the future. So, you see, something actually came out of 3 years of regular meetings, even if the consultants didn't think so.

Grrr...

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 09:26:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's more than that. The technical consulting staff ùmost of time comes from the big engineering, construction or toll-road companies. So the so called "independent" reports they write are construed not to directly offend their former colleagues. It's a smal world...
So you have to read between the lines, whenever reading a traffic audit report, a power market study, or a wind production assessment.
To deal with the risk conflict of interest, banks protect themselves by selecting a distinct traffic advisor than the one who works for the corporate sponsor. However, the banks advisor is selected out of a shortlist put together by the sponsor...
inside the banks themselves, the legal tool of control is theoretically the confidentiality and exclusivity agreement the bank signs with the industrial company that promotes the project.
The same team is not theoretically allowed to work on the advisory and on the financial structuring side, the former's duty being to look after the client's interest ie negotiate the lowest margin, the latter trying to obtain the highest margin.
Now those are compliance rules...

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 09:36:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In the PPP French prisons deal that has just been closed by a big French construction company, the government was advised by one of the top three project finance banks world wide, and one of the top five legal firms.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 08:12:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Contrary to direct "one-shot" investment by the public entity, a PPP scheme enables the public entity to transfer the investment cost to private partners, mostly banks, as equity makes up a bare 5% of financing needs. Financings put in place stretch over 30-year periods, which means that banks fund the investment and then get repaid form monies the special purpose vehicle receives form the public authority.
One needs not be a rocket scientist to understand that the net present value of a 30 year debt exceeds by far the initial investment amount; So yes, PPPs are more costly than a standard direct disbursement by the public entity.

Now the main argument brought forward by PPP supports is that outsourcing to private partners make the project more efficient and better managed. This is partly true. Indeed, if the project is badly managed, this causes poor maintenance records and bad performance.
The PPP contract between the public entity and the spc sets very precise performance levels for all the tasks to be performed. The standard number of items indicating performance in a PPP contract is several hundreds. For a hospital, this covers the frequency of cleaning as well as the number of lights that default.

If the performance criteria are not met, the public entity applies penalties, ie the project company receives less cash. This can ultimately jeopardise debt service.
Considering the clout of the banks involved in the financing, the monitoring of project performance and contract fulfilment is very close. Banks have so-called "step-in rights" into the operation and maintenance contracts, ie the right to ultimately fire and replace sub-contractors if the good performance is put at risk.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill

by Agnes a Paris on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 05:21:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Except of course when the contract is badly screwed up by the public body ...
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 05:27:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You are right, this often happens that the governmental body requires design changes during the construction period.
The additional costs are mirrored in the availability payment(the monies that the public body will cash out during the repayment period)so lenders are safe. Taxpayers are not.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 07:56:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
is the conventional wisdom says that UK PFI is a great success. If evidence was needed, the buzz in Continental Europe is really a blatant one.  
My feeling is that "ordinary" people (as opposed to experts) have a much more realistic view of the PFI/PPP shortcomings than specialists (financiers, constructors, lawyers, governmental bodies).
As for Continental Europe, the PPP buzz has one very simple explanation : budget deficit and EU convergence criteria.
But I am only repeating what Metatone already pointed out. Book cooking (no, not cooking books-Okay, this one was bad) has bright days ahead.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 08:09:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My feeling is that "ordinary" people (as opposed to experts) have a much more realistic view of the PFI/PPP shortcomings than specialists (financiers, constructors, lawyers, governmental bodies).
This is clearly a case of groupthink, assuming that there is no malice involved.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 09:34:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
One needs not be a rocket scientist to understand that the net present value of a 30 year debt exceeds by far the initial investment amount; So yes, PPPs are more costly than a standard direct disbursement by the public entity.
Ok, help me out here. The smallest discount rate you could use to calculate the "present value" would be the yield of the government's own 30-year bonds. So, [safely] assuming the government does not have the cash in hand, it would be cheapest for the government to just issue long-dated bonds to finance public projects. Those bonds would be bought by private institutions, some of them the same as the ones lending the money in the PPP scheme. So, why do PPPs at all? Is this just an elaborate justification for a simple financial engineering scheme to make a few percent a year off the public treasury at no added risk?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 05:31:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, PPP serves two purposes:

  1. As you say, in many contexts it provides the private firm with a guaranteed income by ostensibly taking the risk of the project on. (Of course, most of the time, they don't.) That is their incentive to do it.

  2. For the government it is simply cooking the books, it allows capital investments to be undertaken without the costs being counted in government borrowing statistics.

One suspects that Gordon Brown became so enthusiastic about PFI/PPP when he realised his "Golden Rule" was going to box him in.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 07:06:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You are right. However, the rate which is commonly used is not that of matching tenor government bonds, but that of debt cost (ie the margin), which makes the whole thing more more costly.
The same rule applies for any project financed deal (conventional power generation, renewables, telecoms...) How would banks otherwise justify the existence of such activity ? Okay, I am being overly cynical here.

One key point to understand the underlying rationale of PPP schemes is that the purpose is not cheap funding for efficient projects. PPP is based on an accountancy twist, shifting the expense from the investment section to the operation section of the public budget, and stretching the debt burden on a long time period, for future generations to bear the brunt of the equipment they benefit from. Quite simple...

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill

by Agnes a Paris on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 07:52:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You are right. However, the rate which is commonly used is not that of matching tenor government bonds, but that of debt cost (ie the margin), which makes the whole thing more more costly.
Exactly. And both you and Metatone have confirmed that this is all creative accounting brought about by the Euro convergence criteria and the stability pact. And that, in its turn, is a result of surrendering our economic policy to the narrow monetarism of the ECB that only cares about controlling inflation.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 08:38:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's what we can call efficient deconstruction of the PPP conventional wisdom !

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 08:52:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Jesus f-ing Christ, is the looting of Europe now irreversible?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 09:00:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The PPP contract between the public entity and the spc sets very precise performance levels for all the tasks to be performed. The standard number of items indicating performance in a PPP contract is several hundreds. For a hospital, this covers the frequency of cleaning as well as the number of lights that default.

Of course, those of us who have worked in PPP created facilities have observed that anything forgotten in the original contract is essentially unfixable due to the terms of the contract.

Following on from that, we realise that there are two problems here:

a) The original contract assumes immense importance and the reality is (as I have remarked in another comment) that the private side of the arrangement tends to have a massive advantage in most of the contract negotiations and it is the public service that loses out by this.

b) The other fundamental problem is that an awful lot of running a hospital or other medical facility resides in "informal" working practice. Keeping things running smoothly requires understanding and co-operation between the users and providers of the facility. It's a very big question to ask if you can even write some of this down at all, let alone write it into an enforceable contract.

The result of this is that the contract rarely provides an equivalent level of service to public provision and this is rarely compensated for by "efficiency savings."

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 07:01:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Agnes .. I think you know my feeling on this.
PPP are just great for car realted infraestructure. Tolls should be everywhere.. and very expensive. So I support all the projects and anything that makes roads more expensive and with no tax money.

On the other hand, enough taxes should be collected on gas tax to create a whole train or other electric powered transport. Underground in any city. trams everywhere.

Regardin PPP in other public services areas... i have my doubts. I will trust you. j eje jeje

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 07:00:47 AM EST
I also have my doubts, but cannot express them too bluntly, in case big brother is watching. Glad you did it for me !
Glad also to see you back, I must have missed your previous posts as I have not seen your sign for a long time.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 07:53:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
On the bright side:

Here's one company actually paying the price of messing up for a change.

And I have to say it couldn't happen to a more deserving company.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 09:17:23 AM EST
To anyone interested in PPP/PFI in the context of the UK NHS (but particularly Agnes) I would recommend this book:

NHS Plc: The Privatisation of Our Health Care  
by Allyson M Pollock

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 09:23:03 AM EST
Thank you ! I will buy it when I'm in London in two days time.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 09:39:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Be sure to get the paperback edition with the updated epilogue. I actually have not got to the end yet, so I don't say that the update is actually valuable, but it's an extra, not an edit, so it's still better to buy it than the old edition, I believe.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 11:13:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, on reflection I should qualify the recommendation. The discussion of PFI/PPP exists inside the book rooted in a general history of the NHS and it's relations with the private sector. I find this interesting, but it's probably not so interesting for someone who is mostly thinking about the PPP issue. It's not just a book about PPP.

Clear?

As mud, probably...

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 11:22:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nope. Pristine.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
by Agnes a Paris on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 04:12:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There is a moral argument for having public works projects financed by the public. Citizens should be made to feel that they are part of society and have certain obligations and responsibilities.

One of these obligations is paying taxes for public use projects. The more of these there are the more the public understands where their taxes go and the less tax resentment.

In my county several of the richer villages don't have any public parks, instead the wealthier residents join the local golf and country clubs. This keeps their taxes lower to the general public's detriment.

There are many other ways to finance public works projects without making them privately owned. In the US we have lots of special purpose "authorities". For example the Port of NY Authority which owns (among other things) the World Trade Center site. There is also the NY Thruway Authority which built and maintains the toll road that goes up the center of the state. These are run by political appointees (not totally ideal), but raise their money in the private equity market, and being quasi-governmental can offer tax free municipal bonds which keeps down financing costs.

Just because there are failures with oversight does not mean that the government should not own public infrastructure. It just means better oversight.

It is standard neo-con and libertarian propaganda to say that private companies can run things more efficiently and cheaper than the government. It is just not true. Social Security and Medicare have an overhead cost of 2-3%. Private health and retirement insurance has cost of 10-30%. If there weren't money to be made at the expense of the public then private firms wouldn't be interested in the deal. How many times are people going to be sold the same phony bill of goods?

The head of Social Security is a government official making (I would estimate) $150,000. This person oversees an enterprise that serves 65+ million people.
The local for-profit hospital CEO makes ten times as much and services, perhaps, 10,000 people. As I said before after private hospitals, private parks, private roads, comes private communities with private police.
Just look at how South Africa was under apartheid, walled: armed housing.

As an aside, in the East we now have transponders on our cars which allow tolls to be collected without stopping at toll booths.
 

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Wed Mar 29th, 2006 at 12:49:55 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]