Bilan Et Perspectives Des Contrats De PFI Britanniques (1992-2012) (The British Private Finance Initiative: Some Lessons from the First Twenty Years (1992-2002))
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alors qu’en decembre 2012, le Tresor britannique publiait un rapport preconisant une refonte du modele des PFI et definissant quelques pistes de restructuration pour les futurs partenariats public-prive, proposant une plus forte participation publique au financement des contrats (aux fonds propres ou a la dette), proposant de re-internaliser certains risques et mettant en question l’opportunite d’integrer au sein du contrat global certaines fonctions detachables, il est particulierement interessant de tirer le bilan des vingt premieres annees des PPP britanniques. En effet, la politique de PFI lancee en 1992 marqua le nouveau depart des PPP et s’imposa comme un modele, transpose dans la quasi-totalite des Etats. Notre propos est donc d’analyser les determinants et les traits caracteristiques de ce modele, les critiques dont il fut l’objet a partir de l’alternance de 2010 et enfin les pistes d’evolutions dessinees avant la publication des propositions du Tresor. The paper takes stock of the performance achieved by the British PPP/PFI since 1992. It questions the limits of this policy and highlights both its gains for the public contractor and its most frequent pitfalls. The assessment of the results of the implementation of public-private partnerships as one of the main methods for public procurement is all the more important than the new British Government harshly criticized the PFI Model. The capacity of such deals to achieve the value for money was challenged, especially after the financial crisis, because of the extra-costs of private financing. Nevertheless, if PFI contracts appear as “too costly, opaque, and inflexible”, the United Kingdom remains the first European user of PPPs, both in terms of contract numbers and in terms of capital value. At the time when the Treasury advocates for a new PFI model – the PF2 – it appears necessary to evaluate the first twenty years of the British experience and to draw lessons for other European countries, also involved in such a policy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".