"Although the role of public-private cooperation in providing better and more affordable public infrastructure cannot be completely denied, such cooperation is not omnipotent." Public-private partnerships are used to finance various projects, but a new study by ACCA questions whether such partnerships can bring more value. Private financing model (PFI) and other forms of public-private partnership (PPP) have been widely used in developed and developing countries. The main driver is to finance the demand for new public infrastructure without the need for the government to pay in advance. However, there are huge differences between developed and developing countries in the reasons for adopting PPP. For example, in developed countries such as Britain and Japan, PPP is used to exclude the cost of additional infrastructure from the government balance sheet. In Britain, the Finance Committee of the House of Commons recently concluded that off-balance sheet accounting plays a decisive role in the implementation of PFI. In Japan, the use of purchasing power parity has been greatly reduced since the change of accounting standards and the transfer of debts to the balance sheet. Developing countries have different motives. Maintaining high growth requires improving public infrastructure. Although future taxes can meet the upgrading requirements of these facilities, the government has no funds at present. It makes sense to use PPP because the cost of not improving infrastructure is much higher than other factors. The value-for-money standard-VFM is not important. In contrast, VFM is the core of decision-making in developed countries, but PFI/PPP plans usually fail to meet this standard (as shown by the data of the National Audit Office of the United Kingdom). The ACCA study, led by Professor Graham Winch of Manchester Business School, found that "only in rare cases will people believe that private financing alternatives will bring more value to the British capital than comparable companies in the public sector". In Britain, the application of PPP is very common, because there is no other choice in financing to increase infrastructure. Developing countries may prefer this because they want to use the expertise of the private sector and share the risks of public sector projects. But this reason may also be flawed. In China, cooperative companies may be state-owned enterprises. In Malaysia, investors may be sovereign wealth funds. In fact, "private financing" may be public funds. In developed and developing countries, the technology of public and private sectors may not be enough to maximize the benefits of public-private partnerships. In addition, the experience of developed countries shows that some risks usually cannot be effectively transferred. In a developing country like China, private sector partners require the government to provide a minimum return guarantee, which undermines the incentive mechanism to maximize operational efficiency. Although the role of public-private partnership in providing better and affordable public infrastructure cannot be completely denied, such cooperation is not a panacea, and both public and private sectors must learn from difficult experiences. Fawcett, director of public sector professional affairs at ACCA, explained: "Britain is a leader in using PPP and has made bold attempts in scope and innovation. Like all experiments, there have been mistakes, mistakes and misunderstandings. " "The situation of private financing in the public sector has not yet reached a conclusion. The benefits of' extra' financing, shifting risks from the public sector to the private sector and improving the decision-making process are too vague to be sure that these benefits can exceed the known problems of PPP. " "PPP enables the government to acquire more and better infrastructure earlier and stimulate economic growth. However, in the UK, PPP leads to the debt continuing to exist in the form of flat fees for the next 30 years. The legacy of PPP is reflected in the lack of flexibility in the use of infrastructure and the management of public funds. " Global overview: China: driving factors: the demand for infrastructure for urbanization and rapid economic growth. Public investment is limited by budget problems. There is no clear definition of PPP, legal framework and VFM evaluation system. "Private investment" usually comes from state-owned enterprises. France: PFI has not been popularized in Britain. Government buyers and the private sector (since the financial crisis) lack investment enthusiasm. India: Since 2009, the use of PPP has greatly increased:112 reserve projects, with a value of13.5 billion US dollars. Driving factors: economic growth and poverty alleviation needs. Constraints: poor management and insufficient private sector participation. Indonesia: PPP began to appear in the 1980s. Driving factors: the demand for equitable distribution of infrastructure, rapid economic growth and the desire to transfer project risks to the private sector. Criticism: insufficient ability to transfer risks and nepotism. Japan: The government promised that it would be widely used. The motivation is the "additionality" of infrastructure, not VFM. Due to the change of accounting rules, PFI debt is transferred to the balance sheet, and the public sector is reluctant to use it. Insufficient supervision of PFI project. Malaysia: The government claims that PPP is very successful: it transfers services and employment to the private sector, saves government investment and brings in proceeds from asset sales. Singapore: Only 8 plans have been implemented. Drivers: VFM and private sector expertise. Constraints: the efficiency of existing public sector infrastructure; The management of creating PPP opportunities is weak. South Korea: driving factors: improving infrastructure and paying pensions for the elderly; Risk transfer; Private sector technology; Improved VFM；; ; The plan is to transfer to schools, hospitals and housing. Thailand: transportation; Energy; Telecommunications. The degree of success varies. Constraints: lack of appropriate legal framework; There is no standardized contracting system. Britain: Nearly 30 years' experience. Driving factors: government expenditure restrictions; Off-balance sheet accounting; Extra.