Beyond ‘one size fits all’: how local conditions shape PPP-enabling field development

Abstract

The use of public-private partnerships (PPPs) for infrastructure development has received significant scholarly attention of late, but there remains a need for more work at the programme level. Specifically, there is a need for work that recognizes the way that PPP programmes are implemented differently in different regions, thereby progressing beyond an effectively 'one size fits all' view of PPP programmes. In response, this paper offers a comparative analysis of the historical development trajectories of three contemporary PPP programmes: in British Columbia (BC) (Canada), Victoria (Australia) and South Africa. We begin by recognizing the role played by the UK's private finance initiative as a programme model, and then show how this model was adapted and modified in each of our cases, leading to very different field structures. The study uses a grounded theory building approach and draws heavily on theories of institutional change and structuration. There are two main contributions from this study: (1) we draw attention to the need for a context-specific approach to explain and predict PPP field development and (2) we develop arguments relating to institutional systems and processes that can guide future studies of these and similar fields.

How Do Governments Support the Development of Public Private Partnerships? Measuring and Comparing PPP Governmental Support in 20 European Countries

“…Mahalingam, Devkar, and Kalidindi (2011; see also Matos-Castañ o et al, 2014) developed a framework in which they categorise PPP-enabling institutions into mechanisms that facilitate legitimacy, trust and capacity, and link this with earlier academic work (see e.g. Delhi et al, 2010;Jooste et al, 2011). In their view, legitimacy is fostered by a supportive political environment and clear policies, as well as transparent procurement procedures, whereas trust between public and private actors is fostered by means of clear regulations, standards, clear roles of public actors and ex ante evaluation.…”

“…However, as argued in the literature (e.g. Jooste et al, 2011), countries differ considerably regarding the extent to which they provide governmental support for PPPs in terms of policies and political support, legal frameworks and supporting arrangements.…”

“…Increasingly, academic literature argues that the variations in PPP diffusion and performance across countries is to a considerable extent influenced by the institutional and political context of these countries, leading to weak or strong 'PPPenabling fields' (Delhi, Palukuri, & Mahalingam, 2010;Galilea & Medda, 2010;Jooste, Levitt, & Scott, 2011;Matos-Castañ o et al, 2014;Meunier & Guinet, 2010;Mu, de Jong, & Heuvelhof, 2010). Within economic and sociological neo-institutional theories, institutions are seen as the set of socially constructed frameworks of symbols and resources that both constrains and enables social action (North, 1990;Scott, 2001).…”

“…Thus we can operationalise the elements which are also listed in the academic institutional theory-based literature (see above, e.g. Delhi et al, 2010;Jooste et al, 2011;Matos-Castañ o et al, 2014) in sub-elements and measurable indicators. Second, we develop an index which allows us to compare the governmental support for PPPs in different European countries with different politico-administrative systems, and assess the differences in terms of governmental support between these countries as would be expected based on the trans- formative perspective.…”

Evaluation of the Promotion of Through-Life Management in Public Private Partnerships for Infrastructure

“…However, if we accept the significance of historical and contextual factors for PPPs [23,24], we must also be open to the idea that PPPs in other countries may have an origin and a context more in tune with the efficiency rationale than in the UK. Indeed, Chan and Cheung [25] found that when asked about the reasons for implementing PPP projects, Hong Kong and Australian practitioners rated issues related to improving the overall performance of public projects highly, whereas British practitioners rated financial elements, such as shortage of government funding and avoiding public investment restriction, highly.…”