How do professionals perceive the governance of public–private partnerships? Evidence from Canada, the Netherlands and Denmark
| Published date | 01 March 2020 |
| Author | Rianne Warsen,Carsten Greve,Erik Hans Klijn,Joop F. M. Koppenjan,Matti Siemiatycki |
| Date | 01 March 2020 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12626 |
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
How do professionals perceive the governance of
public–private partnerships? Evidence from
Canada, the Netherlands and Denmark
Rianne Warsen
1
|Carsten Greve
2
|Erik Hans Klijn
1
|
Joop F. M. Koppenjan
1
|Matti Siemiatycki
3
1
Department of Public Administration and
Sociology, Erasmus University Rotterdam,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands
2
Department of Organization, Copenhagen
Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark
3
Department of Geography and Planning,
University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Correspondence
Rianne Warsen, Department of Public
Administration and Sociology, Erasmus
University Rotterdam, Burgemeester Oudlaan
50, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The
Netherlands.
Email: warsen@essb.eur.nl
Funding information
This work was supported by the Nederlandse
organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
(grant number 409-14-014); and co-financed
by NSOB; Deltares; Rebel group;
Resetmanagement; Twynstra Gudde; and
Rijkswaterstaat.
Abstract
In public–private partnerships (PPPs), the collaboration
between public and private actors can be complicated. With
partners coming from different institutional backgrounds
and with different interests, governing these partnerships is
important to ensure the projects' progress. There is, how-
ever, little knowledge about the perceptions of profes-
sionals regarding the governance of PPPs. This study aims
to exlore professionals' viewpoints about governing PPPs,
and to explain potential differences using four theoretical
governance paradigms. Using Q methodology, the prefer-
ences of 119 public and private professionals in Canada, the
Netherlands and Denmark are explored. Results show four
different viewpoints regarding the governance of PPPs.
Experience, country and the public–private distinction seem
to influence these viewpoints. Knowledge of these differ-
ences can inform efforts to govern PPPs and contribute to
more successful partnerships.
1|INTRODUCTION
Public–private partnerships (PPPs) are by now a well-established organizational arrangement to provide public goods
and services (Grimsey and Lewis 2004). These partnerships can be defined as ‘co-operation between public and pri-
vate actors with a durable character in which actors develop mutual products and/or services and in which risks,
Received: 20 December 2018Revised: 30 July 2019Accepted: 16 August 2019
DOI: 10.1111/padm.12626
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which
permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no
modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2019 The Authors. Public Administration published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
124 Public Administration. 2020;98:124–139.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/padm
costs, and benefits are shared’(Klijn and Teisman 2003, p. 137). The most well-known PPP model is the long-term
infrastructure contracts (LTIC) in which several project phases (design, build, finance, maintenance) are integrated.
This allows for lower coordination costs and optimization gains between project phases (Greve and Hodge 2013).
PPP is a hybrid arrangement in the sense that it cuts across the public and private domains and aims to combine
public and private practices that may prove to be hard to align. The variety of governance ideas and mechanisms
associated with it emphasizes its hybrid character (Alam et al. 2014; Quélin et al. 2017). For instance, public–private
partnerships reflect elements of the New Public Management (NPM) paradigm, including the strong focus on perfor-
mance indicators and contracts as a safeguard against opportunistic behaviour (De Palma et al. 2009). Simulta-
neously, there are clear indications of a collaborative governance paradigm, emphasizing collaboration, trust and
horizontal coordination to achieve win-win solutions (Klijn and Teisman 2003). Because of the different governance
ideas associated with PPPs, partners in PPPs can hold very different views on the most appropriate and desired gov-
ernance perspective and mechanism (Cheung et al. 2010). This may lead to a mismatch of attitudes and
expectations.
Currently the literature on PPP governance is well developed on a macro and a meso level (Van den Hurk and
Verhoest 2015; Hodge et al. 2018; Wang et al. 2018). For example, Hueskes et al. (2017) focus on governance
instruments to realize sustainability considerations in PPPs. It is also widely held that partners in PPPs do not always
share the same expectations and perceptions, which may lead to suboptimal performance or straightforward failures
(Bowman 2000; Reynaers and van der Wal 2018). However, less systematic research has been done on the micro
level, examining the perceptions of professionals regarding PPP governance. Exceptions are Hodge et al. (2017) who
study how Australian professionals react to PPP governance after the contract has been signed and Willems et al.
(2017) who asked Belgian professionals about their perception of PPPs. Yet, a gap exists with regard to systematic,
cross-country comparative research in this respect. Although the application of LTICs is an international practice in
which there has been considerable policy transfer and emulation between countries, governance ideas and practices
have specific effects and meanings in different administrative contexts (see Hodge et al. 2017). The research pres-
ented in this article aims to fill that gap by systematically analysing the perceptions of PPP professionals in three
countries with various levels of PPP experience: Canada, the Netherlands and Denmark.
The central question of our study is: How do professionals involved in public–private partnerships in Canada, the
Netherlands and Denmark perceive the (ideal) governance relationship in these partnerships? We use Q methodol-
ogy which is especially suitable for identifying and systematically analysing these viewpoints (Watts and Ste-
nner 2012).
In the remainder of this article, we first distinguish the four theoretical governance paradigms used to formulate
statements for the Q methodology. Then, both Q methodology and the respondent selection are explained. Next,
the analysis of the viewpoints of PPP professionals shows four different profiles. Finally, we address important con-
clusions and limitations and consider avenues for future research.
2|GOVERNANCE PARADIGMS AND PPPS: A THEORETICAL
EXPLORATION
Within the literature on governance and public–private encounters, we can distinguish paradigms that share a spe-
cific focus on values or governance instruments. In this section, we highlight four paradigms that have proven to be
recognizable and relevant in the view of both academics and practitioners: traditional public administration, New
Public Management, collaborative governance, and a private governance mechanism (cf. Ansell and Gash 2008;
Osborne 2010; Christensen and Lægreid 2011; Koppenjan 2012). These paradigms are not the only possible way to
distinguish ideas on governance, nor are they mutually exclusive (e.g., Pollitt and Bouckaert 2017). Hence, we do not
strive towards a definitive clustering of the governance literature but use the paradigms as a heuristic instrument to
identify and distinguish the perceptions guiding actors involved in PPPs, and inform the development of the Q set.
WARSEN ET AL.125
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting