What do ministers and their advisers say to the critics of Public–Private Partnerships? Results from a mixed‐methods study

Abstract

Public–private partnerships (PPPs) have become an increasingly common model for government infrastructure delivery around the world. However, despite their widespread use, scholarship has been generally sceptical. This study identified 14 common policy and governance criticisms and observations of PPPs as they relate to the interests of citizens. Through interviews and surveys with 23 former government ministers—including 15 former premiers—and 87 political advisers, it tested levels of agreement with each criticism and observation. Its quantitative results find that politicians and their advisers agree with six of those criticisms/observations, reject three, and are neutral towards five. However, qualitatively, respondents were generally supportive of the PPP model, defending it against many of the criticisms and observations tested, particularly against apparent transparency shortcomings and the notion that the uptake of PPPs is motivated by direct electoral benefits. They also believed many criticisms of PPPs are overstated or could apply equally to the so‐called traditional procurement models. However, respondents cited significant human capital concerns about the ability of governments to achieve superior financial outcomes through effectively negotiated and monitored PPP contracts. The paper then notes that elected decision makers can identify apparent shortcomings in the PPP model, yet still accept its usage and considers why this might be the case.Points for practitioners Politicians and their advisers accept some of the criticisms and observations made by scholars in relation to PPPs and citizen interests. Notwithstanding that, politicians and their advisers generally believe that PPPs are a technically superior delivery model when compared against its alternatives. Politicians and their advisers do not accept a number of assertions made by scholars, including that PPPs have undermined government‐to‐citizen accountability; that PPPs have been associated with a de‐skilling of the public‐sector and that the Public Sector Comparator has been set‐aside when governments have chosen to do so. They also rejected assertions that PPPs had required governments to obscure more information from citizens. Politicians and their advisers strongly believed that effective PPP contracts were critical to government achieving financial value through the PPP model. They believed the ability of government to achieve this was heavily depending on having capable public servants who could plan, negotiate and monitor PPP contracts. They believe governments can not easily find and retain said capable staff.