Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Videos
  • Submit an article
  • More
    • About JSF
    • Editorial Board
    • Published Ahead of Print (PAP)
  • IPR Logo
  • About Us
  • Journals
  • Publish
  • Advertise
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • More
    • Awards
    • Article Licensing
    • Academic Use
  • Follow IIJ on LinkedIn
  • Follow IIJ on Twitter

User menu

  • Sample our Content
  • Subscribe Now
  • Log in

Search

  • ADVANCED SEARCH: Discover more content by journal, author or time frame
The Journal of Structured Finance
  • IPR Logo
  • About Us
  • Journals
  • Publish
  • Advertise
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • More
    • Awards
    • Article Licensing
    • Academic Use
  • Sample our Content
  • Subscribe Now
  • Log in
The Journal of Structured Finance

The Journal of Structured Finance

ADVANCED SEARCH: Discover more content by journal, author or time frame

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Videos
  • Submit an article
  • More
    • About JSF
    • Editorial Board
    • Published Ahead of Print (PAP)
  • Follow IIJ on LinkedIn
  • Follow IIJ on Twitter
Article

Changing Perceptions of PPP Risk and Return: The Case of Brownfield Concessions

James Leigland
The Journal of Structured Finance Winter 2018, 23 (4) 47-56; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3905/jsf.2018.23.4.047
James Leigland
is the technical adviser at Private Infrastructure Development Group in London, U.K
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF (Subscribers Only)
Loading

Click to login and read the full article.
Don’t have access? Sign up today to begin your trial to the PMR platform 

Abstract

In the early 1990s, brownfield concessions served briefly as the flagship of the global public–private partnership (PPP) movement. They were highly recommended by donors and multilateral development banks (MDBs) as ideal solutions to many of the problems facing infrastructure utilities in poor countries. In 1996 and 1997, brownfield concessions were the fastest growing form of PPP. But the Asian financial crisis in 1997 brought a sudden halt to this growth in popularity, and the contract form has never really recovered its early momentum. Why were brownfield concessions so popular in the early 1990s and why did that popularity diminish so quickly? Why did greenfield projects go on to dominate the PPP markets in all developing countries? This article attempts to answer these questions by clarifying the role of bilateral development agencies and MDBs in the rise of brownfield concessions, and explaining why the risk–reward perceptions of private investors subsequently changed so rapidly in the late 1990s.

  • © 2018 Pageant Media Ltd
View Full Text

Don’t have access? Register today to begin unrestricted access to our database of research.

Log in using your username and password

Forgot your user name or password?
PreviousNext
Back to top

Explore our content to discover more relevant research

  • By topic
  • Across journals
  • From the experts
  • Monthly highlights
  • Special collections

In this issue

The Journal of Structured Finance: 23 (4)
The Journal of Structured Finance
Vol. 23, Issue 4
Winter 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on The Journal of Structured Finance.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Changing Perceptions of PPP Risk and Return: The Case of Brownfield Concessions
(Your Name) has sent you a message from The Journal of Structured Finance
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the The Journal of Structured Finance web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Changing Perceptions of PPP Risk and Return: The Case of Brownfield Concessions
James Leigland
The Journal of Structured Finance Jan 2018, 23 (4) 47-56; DOI: 10.3905/jsf.2018.23.4.047

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Save To My Folders
Share
Changing Perceptions of PPP Risk and Return: The Case of Brownfield Concessions
James Leigland
The Journal of Structured Finance Jan 2018, 23 (4) 47-56; DOI: 10.3905/jsf.2018.23.4.047
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Tweet Widget Facebook Like LinkedIn logo

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • GREENFIELD VS. BROWNFIELD CONCESSIONS
    • EXPLANATION #1: MISUNDERSTANDING RISKS
    • EXPLANATION #2: THE BROADER POLICY CONTEXT OF SOE REFORM
    • PPP RISKS AND RETURNS IN A NEW LIGHT
    • CONCLUSION: MYSTERY SOLVED
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF (Subscribers Only)
  • PDF (Subscribers Only)

Similar Articles

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • PERSPECTIVES: CLO Credit Ratings Gone Awry
  • Editor’s Letter
  • Highlights from Global Capital
Show more Article
LONDON
One London Wall, London, EC2Y 5EA
United Kingdom
+44 207 139 1600
 
NEW YORK
41 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10010
USA
+1 646 931 9045
pm-research@pageantmedia.com
 

Stay Connected

  • Follow IIJ on LinkedIn
  • Follow IIJ on Twitter

MORE FROM PMR

  • Home
  • Awards
  • Investment Guides
  • Videos
  • About PMR

INFORMATION FOR

  • Academics
  • Agents
  • Authors
  • Content Usage Terms

GET INVOLVED

  • Advertise
  • Publish
  • Article Licensing
  • Contact Us
  • Subscribe Now
  • Log In
  • Update your profile
  • Give us your feedback

© 2021 Pageant Media Ltd | All Rights Reserved | ISSN: 1551-9783 | E-ISSN: 2374-1325

  • Site Map
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Cookies
  • Privacy Policy