LITERATURE REVIEW
2.2 Public-Private Partnerships
2.2.1 What: Definitions and Typologies of PPPs
As discussed above, many scholars argue that the definitions of PPPs are not in agreement. McQuid observes “the term of “partnership” covers differing concepts and practices and is used to describe a wide variety of types of relationship in a myriad of circumstances and locations.” Ling (2002) claimed that the partnership literature amounts to “methodological anarchy and definitional chaos.” While defining PPPs, there is the distinction between PPPs in a narrow sense and PPPs in a broad sense (Kouwenhoven, 1993). First, let us examine several definitions in a narrow sense:
PPPs are one form of the policy of liberalism in the way public services are produced and delivered to the public (Broadbent and Laughlin, 2003).
PPPs, a joint venture in which one or more governmental units and nongovernmental entities in which one or more governmental units and nongovernmental entities blend resources and authority for a project over a sustained period of time (William, 2009).
There are also definitions in a broader sense:
… there is interaction between government and business, the focus is achieving convergent objectives is on synergy the objectives have both social and commercial characteristics, and the respective identities and responsibilities of the parties involved remain intact (Kouwenhoven, 1993).
The term “public-private partnership” … to describe quite different sets of relationships, such as consultation by public agencies with private businesses or community groups or arrangements such as “load- shedding” of public functions to the private sector (Finney and Grossman 1999).
The partnership concept may be linked to the trend toward network forms of governance, in which public actors take their interdependencies with other actors into account and try to solve governance problems through cooperation rather than through central steering and control (Teisman and Klijin, 2002).
…working arrangements based on a mutual arrangement (over and above that implied in any contract) between a public sector organization with any organization outside of the public sector (Bovaird, 2004).
Is there shared essence in the above definitions? McQuid identifies a couple of assumptions underlying the definitions of partnerships: first, the potential for some form of synergy, that is, “the sum is greater than parts;” second, a partnership involves the development and delivery of a strategy or a set of projects or operations;
third, a partnership involves cooperation and collaboration; fourth, in PPPs the public sector would not purely pursue commercial ends.
Other scholars offer insights in classifying the meaning of PPPs. Linder (1999) identifies six distinct uses in the neoconservative and neoliberal ideologies: 1) PPPs as management reform; 2) PPPs as problem conversion; 3) PPPs as moral regeneration;
4) PPPs as risk-shifting; 5) PPPs as restructuring public service; 6) PPPs as power- sharing.
Similarly, Khanom classifies the various themes on PPPs into four major groups: as a way of managing and governing organizations, as an institutional arrangement for financial relationship, as a development strategy, and also as a language game. He further summarizes that common features of different definitions of PPPs are: first, PPPs are always concerned with cooperation and collaborative activities between different organizations; second, public organizations are always involved in partnership with private organizations; third, there is commitment in a PPP, where a partnership is arranged for long-term duration; finally, PPPs result in some specific goods or services.
Chepaitis argues that three hallmark characteristics which distinguish PPPs from other inter-organizational relationships are: PPPs include public and private (including for-profit and/or non-profit organizations) partners, function as a true partnership, and pursue a public purpose.
Along with the divergent definitions of PPPs, a typology of PPPs also reveals divergent opinions. For the purpose of this research, the researcher will quote three prevalent approaches. The first approach concerns the narrow perspective of PPPs summarized by Pollit (2003a) (see Table 1). This categorization is more centered on PPPs with an economic dimension or infrastructure development. Examined closely, CBP may not fall onto any point on the spectrum in terms of involvement degree by the private sector, because the CBP, obviously, is not aimed at infrastructure development.
Table 2.3 Forms of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) in a Narrow Perspective
Type of Partnership (Private Partner is Responsible for …)
Degree of Private Sector Involvement
Operations-and- maintenances Low
Design-build
Design-build-operate Wrap-around- addition Build-lease-operate Temporary privatization Lease/buy-develop-operate Build-transfer-operate
Build-own-operate-transfer (BOOT)
Build-own-operate High
Source: Pollit, 2003a.
Second, Hodge and Greve (2007) offer another parsimonious typology by identifying two dimensions of PPPs: first, finance; that is, how are the public and private sectors engaged financially in PPPs; the second dimension is organizational:
How tightly organized are public actors and private actors? Under this lens, the CBP can be thought of more between the policy community and issue networks, which are generally defined as “a configuration of individuals concerned about a particular aspect of an issue and the term policy community is used more broadly to encompass the collection of issue networks within a jurisdiction, and both describe the voluntary and fluid configuration of people with varying degrees of commitment to particular cause” (Hall, 1999).
More concretely, the CBP can fall into sub-categorization of the public-private policy partnership, as Rosenau (1995) defines it as the “[f]ormation of cooperative relationships between government, profit-making firms and non-profit organizations to fulfill a policy function.” The CBP is more aimed to enhance trade facilitation and security in the context of Customs.
Table 2.4 A Typology of PPPs Based on Financial and Organizational Relationships
Finance/Organization Tight Organizational Relationship
Loose Organizational Relationship
Tight financial relationship
Joint-venture companies Joint-stock companies Joint development projects
BOT, Sale-and-lease-back
Loose financial relationship
Policy community Issue networks
Source: Hodge and Greve, 2007.
Later, Hodge and Greve (2010) developed their typology and proposed that the partnership terrain can be thought at the broadest level, and that there are at least five families of arrangements: 1) institutional cooperation for joint production and risk sharing; 2) long-term infrastructure contracts; 3) public policy networks (in which loose stakeholder relationships are emphasized); 4) civil society and community development; and 5) Urban renewal and downtown economic development (see Figure 2.1). Similarly, in this rough classification, the CBP can be thought to be linked to public policy networks.
Figure 2.1 Five Families of Public-Private Partnerships as Governance Arrangements Source: Hodge and Greve, 2010.
Institutional co-operation
Urban Renewal/Down town Economic Development
Long Term Infrastructure Contracts
Public Policy Networks
Civil Society/
Community Development
Lastly, Bovaird (2004) attempted to consolidate different typologies against different criteria (see Table 2.5), under which the characterization of CBP can be multi-dimensional. Certainly, it is cross-sectoral, as Customs belongs to the public sector and business falls into the private sector. The relationship could vary along continuum of degree of inter-embeddedness. To some extent, the CBP is usually initiated and dominated by Customs though Customs claims that it is “voluntary” in a normative manner. For the policy area, trade regulation, processing and control at borders are the main scope. Basically, such a relationship could be perceived as
“horizontal” as it is stated that Customs and business are equal parties.
Table 2.5 Types of Partnerships: Perspective of Different Bases
Basis Types Implications on CBP/AEO
Sectoral Partnerships between government with third sector organizations and civil society
associations, with private business, with both business and the third sector.
Mainly with private business
Relationship Loose network, collaborative, power-sharing and contractual
Across the continuum of collaboration
Economic Supply-side, demand-side or mixed partnerships
Generally Customs-dominant or initiating
Policy area Areas of policy objectives Trade regulation, processing and control
Geographical International, national, local Can be at three levels, for AEO generally at national level
Scope Vertical, horizontal and mixed partnerships Aspire to be horizontal, but not be so in reality.
Source: Adapted from Bovaird, 2004.
It could be tentatively concluded that the CBP can fall into broad the concept of PPPs, especially fitting in the niche of public-private policy partnerships or public policy networks. However, the CBP bears little common ground with PPPs in their narrow but common conceptualization as infrastructure development.