2006 Fiscal Year Final Research Report Summary
Comparative Legal Study of PFI
| Project/Area Number |
17330007
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Section | 一般 |
|---|
| Research Field |
Public law
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Yokohama National University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
KISUGI Shin Yokohama National University, International Graduate School of Social Sciences, Professor, 大学院国際社会科学研究科, 教授 (10092644)
|
|---|
| Co-Investigator(Kenkyū-buntansha) |
IKEDA Tatsuhiko Yokohama National University, International Graduate School of Social Sciences, Professor, 大学院国際社会科学研究科, 教授 (20323941)
IWASAKI Masaaki Yokohama National University, International Graduate School of Social Sciences, Professor, 大学院国際社会科学研究科, 教授 (20183014)
IMAMURA Yoichi Yokohama National University, International Graduate School of Social Sciences, Professor, 大学院国際社会科学研究科, 教授 (30160063)
KOIKE Osamu Yokohama National University, International Graduate School of Social Sciences, Professor, 大学院国際社会科学研究科, 教授 (10241738)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2005 – 2006
|
| Keywords | PFI / Comparative legal study / public interest / private interest / administration by contract / PPP / Privatization / profit making motivation |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
This study is a comparative legal study on PFI system between UK, France, Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan. This study focuses the changing role of governments and markets, how the concept of public interest has been changed by the current returning movement to the small government ideal after 1980s, and how the new ideal of public interest should be reconstructed in the countries above listed.
In Japan, PFI system doesn't work well still now. To improve the quality of administration by PFI, it is important to introduce a mechanism to monitor the process of the PFI project by the third party. In France, though the PPP is employed in many public administrations as a trial to go beyond the limit of the traditional administrative tools of "administration by contract", they are very circumspect to expand privatization policy in their public administration.
Generally there are two different ways to use the activities of non-public private person, persons, or a group as a means of public adminis
… More
tration. The first one is by classifying private activities into two categories, those with profit making motivations and those with non-profit concerns, employ only the latter as a means of public administration. The second and the new approach is to recognize profit making activities directly as a non-contradictory tool of public administration. PFI is a representative of the approach.
Legal theories don't analyze enough the nature of the profit making activities as a means to achieve public purposes. The relationship between public expenses that might increase a particular person's private profit and the resulting increase of public interest by such expenses is not theoretically explained enough.
Considering the general situation of government finance in many countries, PFI, PPP or any new tools that uses private profit making motives as a particular public administration will increase from now on in 21^<st> centuries. We need to keep studying the nature of profit-making activities as a means of public administration. Less
|
Research Products
(10 results)
