We investigate yardstick competition between local jurisdictions in which pure rent-seeking
incumbents undertake an identical infrastructure project choosing be- tween two contractual
arrangements with different financing profiles, namely traditional procurement (TP) and public-
private partnership (PPP). We show that a mixed regime, in which TP is used in one jurisdiction
and PPP in the other, is likely to arise when projects are mildly lucrative, and/or jurisdictions
have a moderate fiscal capacity. We find that, in the mixed equilibrium, incumbents provide
different levels of public services, face different probabilities of re-election, and obtain different
rents. The adoption of different forms of project governance permits incumbents to disguise
themselves and undermine voters' ability to assess their performances. Therefore, yardstick
competition is hindered, even if jurisdictions display identical revenue capacities