Governance of public—private partnerships: lessons learnt from an Australian case?

Large infrastructure public—private partnerships (PPPs) in Australia have revealed significant governance problems. The aim of this research is to examine the technical-rational and social contractual issues of PPPs within the broad context of risk, and accordingly propose a governance framework. The research builds on international PPP literature to develop an analytical conceptualization. It uses document review and interviews to construct a case study of a Cross City Tunnel (CCT) toll-way in Sydney, which became operational in August 2005 and failed in December 2006. The research indicates that failure within this so-called PPP largely occurred within the technical-rational governance system due to unforeseen risks. This led to a breakdown in the social contract, through political risk. A governance system that enhances risk assessment and diminishes the likelihood of negative political behaviours is required. Points for practitioners To develop a more considered risk assessment process within the technical-rational environment, negotiation and contractual processes need deeper analysis to identify factors that could affect PPP success or failure. This would involve taking the potential impacts of identified technical-rational and social risk factors through to a logical conclusion for the project and the partners. Furthermore, this research confirms that a basic system of PPP governance needs to encompass behavioural rules, which could include appropriate sanctions and penalties within the contract. Breach of rules could involve mediation but improved PPP governance may be better achieved through an independent, oversight authority.

[1]  Jennifer M. Brinkerhoff,et al.  Partnerships Between International Donors and Non-Governmental Development Organizations: Opportunities and Constraints , 2004 .

[2]  Erik-Hans Klijn,et al.  Partnership Arrangements: Governmental Rhetoric or Governance Scheme? , 2002 .

[3]  J. Diamond.  Au revoir to partnerships: what's next ? , 2006 .

[4]  G. Hodge.  The risky business of public–private partnerships , 2004 .

[5]  J. Friend,et al.  Partnership meets politics: managing within the maze , 2006 .

[6]  Roger Wettenhall,et al.  The Rhetoric and Reality of Public-Private Partnerships , 2003 .

[7]  Peter R. J. Trim.  Public–private partnerships in the defence industry and the extended corporate intelligence and national security model , 2001 .

[8]  Tony Bovaird,et al.  Public–Private Partnerships: from Contested Concepts to Prevalent Practice , 2004 .

[9]  Jennifer M. Brinkerhoff.  PARTNERSHIP AS A SOCIAL NETWORK MEDIATOR FOR RESOLVING GLOBAL CONFLICT : THE CASE OF THE WORLD COMMISSION ON DAMS , 2002 .

[10]  Matthew Potoski,et al.  Managing contract performance: A transaction costs approach , 2003 .

[11]  Heiko Borchert,et al.  Public–Private Partnerships in Switzerland: Crossing the Bridge with the Aid of a New Governance Approach , 2004 .

[12]  Pierre Sadran.  Public–Private Partnership in France: a Polymorphous and Unacknowledged Category of Public Policy , 2004 .

[13]  M. Haque.  Governance Based on Partnership with NGOs: Implications for Development and Empowerment in Rural Bangladesh , 2004 .

[14]  Cliff Hardcastle,et al.  Risks Overview in Public‐Private Partnership , 2008 .

[15]  Chris Skelcher,et al.  The Dynamics of Multi‐organizational Partnerships: an Analysis of Changing Modes of Governance , 1998 .

[16]  Jean Shaoul,et al.  Partnerships: for Better, for Worse? , 2003 .

[17]  Pamela Bloomfield,et al.  The Challenging Business of Long‐Term Public–Private Partnerships: Reflections on Local Experience , 2006 .