In
the last couple of decades, the 3P model of development has emerged as a new
instrument of social, economic and infrastructural development all over the
world but there are many dimensions, problems and prospects to it. No doubt, it
is paradigmatic shift in the conventional models and approaches to development
but at the same time, it has caused and created many heartburns and problems as
well. Some of these 3P approaches are marred by corruption, nepotism, favouritism and other controversies.
Problems related to
land acquisition, protest of farmers and encouragement to chrony capitalism are
common allegations against the 3P model. It is also stated that it allows
private sector to loot openly national and natural resources at the cost of
environment and ecological balance. Big business houses and large
multinationals try to deceive people and the government in the name of
development. Is there anyway out of this crisis? Are these allegations concrete
and true in their substances and spirit? Is it not one of the best alternatives
available for development at present? Can government alone afford to bear the
cost of social and economic infrastructural development on its own? Can we
match international standard and expertise and State-of-art technology without
3P model.
These are some mind boggling questions which need urgent
answers. The paper tries to look into the reality and rhetoric of 3P
model. It is neither absolute boon or bane for present day society. No doubt,
it is the need of the hour. Ever increasing demand and need for development
cannot be fulfilled by state alone. We need partners in development. Peoples’
participation, role of civil society and media can help 3P model. Transparency,
openness and accountability can provide solution to many of its problems faced
by the 3P model.
There are fantastic examples in the world which show that how
the 3P model can create wonders and miracles if implemented in a proper and
just way. PPPs represent a paradigm shift in mobilizing both resources
and expertise for expanding and improving public services through
well-conceived infrastructure projects. There are several alternatives
available but the one that is, broadly speaking, adopted in the country is that
where capital investment is made by the private sector on the strength of a
contract with government to provide agreed services. The model can be based on
a BOT, BOO or BOOT arrangement or an acceptable close variant of these.
The
risks are to a considerable extent transferred to the private partner who is expected
to manage these better on the basis of his experience, capabilities and
flexibilities available to him. Since infrastructure projects often do not
generate commercial returns in the short or medium run, incentives have to be
provided by the government to the private partner which may be in the form of
capital subsidy. It may be a one time grant or annuity for a fixed span of
time. This is termed as Viability Gap Filling. In some cases projects can be
supported by providing revenue subsidies, tax breaks or even guaranteed
revenues for a fixed period. Such projects involve massive investments and,
therefore, have to be carefully designed to make these bankable entities.
