Sustaining Public–Private Partnerships for Public Service Provision Through Democratically Accountable Practices

• DOI: 10.1177/00953997211030516
• Author: Moses Onyoin,Christopher H. Bovis
• Published date: 01 March 2022
• Date: 01 March 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211030516

Administration & Society

2022, Vol. 54(3) 395 –423

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00953997211030516

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Article

Sustaining Public–Private

Partnerships for Public

Service Provision

Through Democratically

Accountable Practices

Moses Onyoin1 and Christopher H. Bovis1

Abstract

Despite the multiple stakeholder-centered complexities involved, the

public–private partnership (PPP) modality is increasingly the vehicle of choice

for the provision of public services in the developing world. This article

asks how PPPs might overcome sustainability challenges in a meaningful way

while examining which stakeholder-centered interventions are effective

in facilitating rather than undermining the continuity of the partnership

operations. We draw on the notion of democratic accountability and an in-

depth qualitative sector-level case study in Uganda. The findings underscore

the primacy of practices that help to reduce stakeholder information

asymmetry, increase partnerships’ procedural legitimacy, and improve the

understanding of substantive partnership outcomes.

Keywords

public services, public–private partnerships, democratic accountability,

stakeholders

Introduction

Cross-sector collaboration for the production and provision of public services

is internationally well established as a concept and a practice. Despite the

existence of many variants of collaboration (Bryson et al., 2006; Edelenbos

1University of Hull, UK

Corresponding Author:

Moses Onyoin, Faculty of Business, Law and Politics, Hull University Business School,

University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK.

Emails: M.onyoin@hull.ac.uk; mosesonyoin@gmail.com

1030516AAS0010.1177/00953997211030516Administration & SocietyOnyoin and Bovis

research-article2021

396 Administration & Society 54(3)

& Teisman, 2008; Selsky & Parker, 2005), contractual public–private part-

nerships (PPPs) have generated much wider practical traction and a consider-

able amount of discourse in recent times (Quelin et al., 2017; Soubliere &

Cloutier, 2015; Van Gestel et al., 2014). Expansively defined as a long-term

contractual arrangement involving the private sector in the delivery of public

services (Brinkerhoff & Brinkerhoff, 2011; Broadbent et al., 2008; Broadbent

& Laughlin, 2004), the model’s international application spans a wide array

of public policy sectors (Farrell & Vanelslander, 2015; Hall, 2006; Ruckert &

Labonté, 2014).

Similarly, the model has drawn diverse streams of research and theoreti-

cal considerations as well as an extensive arena of rationalizations.

Theoretically, PPP is considered prominently from collaborative gover-

nance (Adams, 2015; Ansell & Gash, 2008; Nohrstedt, 2016), new public

management (Hyndman & Liguori, 2016), new public governance

(Osborne, 2010), and post–new public management (Christensen &

Laegreid, 2007) lenses. Furthermore, it is extensively rationalized, includ-

ing as an antidote to fiscal and efficiency difficulties (Chen, 2010; Eriksson

& Hellström, 2021; Stafford & Stapleton, 2017), an agile response to the

increasing complexities of public problems (Brinkerhoff & Brinkerhoff,

2011; Gray, 1989; Jacobs, 2010), a risk-sharing mechanism (Currie &

Teague, 2015; O’Flynn, 2009), and an instrument for ideological comprise

(Bradford, 2003; Heuer, 2011). Most recently, the modality has also been

posited as an instrument for fostering entrepreneurship at the local gover-

nance level (Xing et al., 2018) and continues to be emphasized as a key

governance instrument to address development challenges (Stadtler, 2015,

2016; Vestergaard et al., 2020). As a result, since the early 2000s, many

countries in the developed and developing world have intensified efforts to

establish the PPP as an important framework of public service and infra-

structure provision (World Bank, 2015, 2017).

However, multiple and inherent stakeholder complexities underscore the

acute PPP continuity challenge in the operative phase (Diaz et al., 2015;

Hayllar, 2010; Hertogh & Westerveld, 2010; Hueskes et al., 2017; Szmigiel-

Rawska, 2016). First, PPP arrangements involve the multiplicity of contrac-

tual arrangements with multiple actors that come together in a network of

social connections, mutual commitments, and specific contract clauses to

deliver the intended objective (Demirel et al., 2017; Hertogh & Westerveld,

2010). Second, the long concession periods imply greater complexity and

uncertainty as stakeholders change along with their interests and priorities1

(Kwak et al., 2009). Third, different actors bring different strategies, proce-

dures, and loyalties to the project, leading to a high level of unpredictability

(Bourne & Walker, 2005). As a consequence, the model portends the