In search of the collaborative advantage of public‐private partnerships: A comparative analysis of Dutch transport infrastructure projects

• Published date: 01 May 2023
• Author: Stefan Verweij,Shreya Anna Satheesh
• Date: 01 May 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13589

RESEARCH ARTICLE

In search of the collaborative advantage of public-private

partnerships: A comparative analysis of Dutch transport

infrastructure projects

Stefan Verweij | Shreya Anna Satheesh

Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of

Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands

Correspondence

Stefan Verweij, Faculty of Spatial Sciences,

University of Groningen, Landleven 1, 9747 AD

Groningen, the Netherlands.

Email: s.verweij@rug.nl

Abstract

The theory of collaborative advantage is a major theory rationalizing the role of

Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). However, the evidence for the theory in the

case of PPPs is weak: the literature lacks studies that compared the actual perfor-

mance and collaboration of PPPs to that of traditionally procured public projects.

The aim of this article is to test the theory of a collaborative advantage of PPPs,

focusing on three common performance indicators: time, cost, and perceived pro-

ject performance. Data were collected on Dutch transport infrastructure projects.

PPPs were compared to traditionally procured projects with non-parametric tests

and robust regression using weighted least squares estimator. It was found that

PPPs have better cost performance but that this performance advantage cannot

be attributed to collaboration. Therefore, it is concluded that no evidence was

found for the theory of a collaborative advantage of PPPs.

Evidence for practice

•PPP projects with DBFM contracts have better cost performance than tradition-

ally procured public projects with D&C contracts

•Collaboration positively impacts perceived project performance

•No evidence was found to support the theory of a collaborative advantage

of PPPs

•Policymakers should stop invoking the theory of collaborative advantage to

rationalize the choice for PPPs with DBFM contracts

INTRODUCTION

The crux of the theory of collaborative advantage is that

collaboration has an advantage over non-collaboration

(Doberstein, 2016). It is the idea that “synergy can be cre-

ated through joint working”(Vangen & Huxham, 2010,

p. 163). This advantage is in terms of achieving goals the

collaborating partners set out to achieve and which are

often operationalized in terms of performance (Bryson

et al., 2016). The existence of collaborative advantage pre-

supposes that collaboration leads to—or is required for—

better performance.

A strand of literature wherein the theory is often dis-

cussed, is Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) (Bovaird, 2010;

Huxham & Vangen, 2000; Roberts & Siemiatycki, 2015;

Weihe, 2008). In the conceptualization and rhetoric of PPPs,

collaborative advantage is one of the “meta-theories ratio-

nalizing the role of PPPs”(Bovaird, 2010, p. 45). It involves

the idea that public and private sector entities in a partner-

ship collaborate and consequently achieve a performance

they alone or otherwise could not have achieved

(Huxham & Vangen, 2000; Weihe, 2008). PPPs would be

characterized by increased collaboration, leading to better

performance. Warsen et al. (20 18) observed that this idea i s

also oft-invoked by consultants and policymakers. How-

ever, the theory’s evidence-base in case of PPPs “has been

relatively weak (…). Key parts of the theoretical founda-

tions have been tested only sporadically and weakly”

Received: 3 November 2021 Revised: 29 November 2022 Accepted: 30 November 2022

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13589

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any

medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

© 2022 The Authors. Public Administration Review published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Public Administration.

Public Admin Rev. 2023;83:679–690. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/puar 679