How Infrastructure Public–Private Partnership Projects Change Over Project Development Phases

Abstract

This research adds to work on the development of infrastructure public–private partnership projects (P3s), which is a rapidly growing mode of infrastructure service delivery. Infrastructure P3 projects typically have a long life cycle, but little is understood about the nature of the changes that such a project goes through over the phases of its life cycle. This article contributes to project research as it studies the changes that an infrastructure P3 project goes through over its life cycle and suggests how those changes can be governed over the life cycle of the project. The research is empirically informed from an in-depth case study of a highway transportation P3 in California over a 20-year period. This research shows that the developmental phases of P3s differ by dramatic changes in the composition of stakeholder networks and the use of institutional logic. First, employing social network analysis (SNA), we map the network of stakeholders in the P3 case and show how the stakeholder network changes over four phases. Second, we identify how different stakeholders use formal and informal institutional logic in their interactions, and demonstrate that the dominant institutional logic employed in the P3 changes from informal to formal over the P3’s life cycle. We further show how this change in the P3’s dominant institutional logic corresponds to the dynamism in the stakeholder network. We propose that infrastructure P3s should be analyzed and governed as the dynamic arrangements they are—constellations of stakeholders that change individually and undergo change collectively over a long life cycle of different phases.

Governing and (re)producing project governance

“…First of all, only a few projects can be fully assessed in the light of life-cycle costs because most of them are in their implementation phase (Cui, Liu, Hope, & Wang, 2018; De Castro e Silva Neto, Cruz, Rodrigues, & Silva, 2016;South, Eriksson, & Levitt, 2018). There are scarce insights into the PPP exploitation phase (e.g.…”

“…On the other hand, some researchers have pointed out that PPP programs are usually misaligned to the institutional and social context (Matos-Castaño, Mahalingam, & Dewulf, 2014;South et al, 2018). Furthermore, PPP development and outcomes at the project level are necessarily contingent upon the policy struggles and political contexts .…”

“…In other words, contractual and relational governance mechanisms are mutually constituted over time to grapple with the multilevel identities of project participants (Bygballe et al, 2015). PPP governance becomes a process of interacting agents adjusting the actual operation of formal and informal structures by giving meaning to their work and relationships, supported by social scripts of social behaviour (South et al, 2018).…”

“…From the neo-institutional perspective, the governance problem is the result of institutional complexity that generates conflicts between competing public and private institutional logics, added to the immaturity of a PPP as an institutional arrangement itself (Saz-Carranza & Longo, 2012;South et al, 2018;Villani, Greco, & Phillips, 2017). Actors rely on "existing institutionalized modes of interaction, regardless if they fit the situation or are compatible with other stakeholders from other perspectives" (South et al, 2018, p. 65).…”

“…Therefore, temporary and permanent coevolve over time at multiple levels of organizing. However, recent research reminds us that temporary forms of inter-organizational collaborations can outlast permanent structures (Brookes, Sage, Dainty, Locatelli, & Whyte, 2017;South et al, 2018). These insights point to the existence of structural properties emerging from front-end governance agreements that resist or absorb exogenous disturbances and are activated by purposive actions during the execution of intended plans.…”