Browse by: "2016"
Index
Title Index
Year Index
There is a drive towards delivering and operating public infrastructure through public-private partnerships as opposed to traditional approaches. The assessment of the value for money achieved by the two alternative approaches rests on both the cost of financing, and the efficiency in delivery and operation. This paper focuses on the cost of financing, and in particular the cost associated with transferring risk from the public to private sphere. If capital markets are efficient and complete, the cost of private and public financing should be the same, with the relative delivery and operational efficiency remaining as the primary determinant of value for money. However, evidence suggests the risk transfer to a public-private partnership entails an inefficient risk pricing premium. We argue that a high price for public-private partnerships results from large risk transfers, risk treatment within the private sector, and uncertainty around the past and future performance of PPP consortiums. The corollary of the finding is that the efficiency gains from a PPP need to be much higher than previously understood to deliver better value for money than under a traditional approach.
Some OECD jurisdictions exclude public interest policy considerations from merger control. Others consider public interest factors, such as financial stability, public security and plurality of media in their merger assessments. The paper gives an overview of whether public interest considerations, and other non-competition challenges faced by jurisdictions, are accommodated by competition law, and particularly by merger control rules. It was prepared as background for a discussion held at the OECD in June 2016 on public interest considerations in merger control.
This paper was prepared as background for a discussion held at the OECD in June 2016 on disruptive innovations in legal services. It introduces recent disruptive innovations in legal services markets, as well as the overarching trends giving rise to them. It also explores the role for competition authorities in the face of legal services disruptive innovation, particularly with respect to competition advocacy and summarises the rationale for legal services regulations and their composition.