Public-Private Partnerships and Sustainable Development

Introduction

Given the performances delivered by numerous private institutions, the glaring differences between outcomes in the public and private sectors call for a paradigm change in state operations for service delivery. If the necessary changes are ignored, we shall continue to experience mismatched and unsustainable development outcomes that undermine cohesive efforts in development. Government and private sectors have been seen to apply completely different measures of leadership and quality improvement in goods and services (Morse, 2010; Reay and Hinings, 2014). This paper evaluates the institutional changes needed to establish a working partnership between these two competing factions — government and private sectors — in order to deliver sustainable development outcomes in a region (Vurro et al., 2010).

Partnering Rationale

Partnership is a cohesive, widespread, and all-encompassing means of ensuring that the developments sought are long-term, coherent with social expectations, and sufficiently inclusive to tackle even the most intractable difficulties (Vangen and Huxham, 2003). Partnering toward a unified course eliminates the probable duplication of activities that may occur when competing parties seek to outdo each other. The partnership phenomenon has also received criticism relating to leadership and managerial challenges and the difficulty of meeting intended goals (Vangen and Huxham, 2003). Nevertheless, the available literature and policy provide sufficient background information to facilitate the formulation of a formidable partnership even between competing institutions (Hudson and Hardy, 2001).

To achieve a formidable and cohesive partnership, Hudson and Hardy (2001) identify six guiding principles. First, there is a need to accept and recognize partnership as a necessity. Second, one must uphold the realism and clarity of purpose. Third, emphasis must be placed on ownership and commitment by the partners. Fourth, partners need to develop and maintain trust. Fifth, there must be a plan consisting of robust and clear partnership arrangements. Finally, partners must monitor, learn from, and measure each stage of the planning and implementation process (Hudson and Hardy, 2001).

Vangen and Huxham (2003) agree that these six principles, if properly implemented, will contribute to success. However, proper mediation between the parties is necessary when setting objectives that are aligned with each party's own goals and with the agreed mode of governance and leadership. With this in mind, Vangen and Huxham (2003) recommend that a skilled facilitator maintain a comprehensive overview of each party's interests and factor those interests in while keeping each party fully and well informed.

A facilitator must be fully knowledgeable about both public and private institutions in order to act as an agent of change. According to Vangen and Huxham (2003), the facilitator will need to reach out to the parties, encourage them at each step, empower them, and highlight the next probable outcome. The partnership is further reinforced when goals are met and each partner feels that their invaluable input, as well as that of their partners, has contributed meaningfully (Vangen and Huxham, 2003).

Deeper trusting relationships will develop as each party observes outcomes matching expectations and fulfilling their obligations within the partnership. Similarly, Hudson and Hardy (2001) recommend that the facilitator begin by convincing partners of the ideals of the partnership, then set small, realistic goals that each party can pursue and see through to completion. The realization of these outcomes will elevate trust levels. Where significant power differences exist between parties, transparent communication is recommended to ensure that trust — however small — is not eroded through limited interaction.

Hudson and Hardy (2001) observe that a partnership is capable of surviving the dynamics of the global economy given the parties' ability to adapt and learn with flexibility. The two parties are attempting to bridge sectors whose traditions and operational standards differ significantly, which stands as a stumbling block — especially where rigidity to change in perspective is present. A governance structure incorporating the varied traditions of both parties will need to be developed from sustained relations and interactions, while the parties themselves will need to maintain an open mind toward their potential partners.

Hudson and Hardy (2001) propose capacity-building exercises aimed at giving each party an understanding of their potential partner's work ethics and practices. Partners would receive an orientation covering each other's culture, work styles, and attitudes toward time and deadlines. With this understanding, parties can relate to one another and begin to incorporate different work styles, ethics, and practices while still upholding their own. In this way, learning emerges as an integral means of attaining cross-sector partnership, since it helps build mutual understanding.

Sustainable Development Through Collaboration

Googins and Rochlin (2000) observe the potential of collaboration between public and private actors, arguing that such collaboration will serve as a new model within socioeconomic systems. The likely outcome of such relations depends on the parties' ability to appreciate the collaborative bond that binds them. Through this bond, common outcomes are achieved and each partner gains a distinct advantage (Glasbergen, 2011). Huxham and Vangen (2005) argue that by bundling their core competencies, partnering institutions complement each other's strengths and weaknesses.

A collaborative advantage is realized through this complementing effect, allowing parties to appreciate each other's contributions to the relationship. This appreciation is what ultimately contributes to sustainable development, since each party's input meets the other's in a complementary way. For collaborative advantage to be achieved, it is necessary that the internal aspects of each party's institution align or interact to some degree with the other. The institutional processes of setting targets, describing goals, and fostering interaction culture must all be in alignment (Glasbergen, 2011). This alignment creates the necessary bond for each institution to treat the other as a pertinent element in its operations, and the resulting cohesive effort will grow to provide stronger and more sustainable development (Huxham and Vangen, 2005).

Where alignment between the two institutions' internal environments is absent, an improper relationship will result. According to Huxham and Vangen (2005), this leads to a lack of mutual understanding and a failure to appreciate and recognize each other's input and contributions. The collaborative advantage likely to be realized in such a case is minimal, owing to internal misalignment.

Huxham and Vangen (2005) further observe that, to realize sustainable development through partnership, each party must hold equal and shared responsibility in the operation. Neither party should be in a position to regulate the behavior of the other, and all parties must have equal rights in decision-making. As noted earlier, an emphasis is placed on ensuring that parties have equal access to information (Kim et al., 2012). The degree of mutual dependence should be comparable and reciprocal. These sentiments reflect those of Glasbergen (2011) and others regarding sustainable relations, development, and collaborative advantage.

Conclusion and References

The evidence reviewed throughout this paper consistently points to the same conclusion: effective cross-sector partnerships between public and private institutions require deliberate institutional change, structured facilitation, and a deep appreciation of each partner's organizational culture and logic. Without these foundations, collaborative advantage remains unrealized and development outcomes become fragmented and unsustainable.

List of References

GLASBERGEN, P. 2011. Understanding partnerships for sustainable development analytically: The ladder of partnership activity as a methodological tool. Environmental Policy and Governance, 21, 1–13.

GOOGINS, B.K. & ROCHLIN, S. 2000. Creating the partnership society: Understanding the rhetoric and reality of cross-sectoral partnerships. Business and Society Review, 105, 127–144.

GREENWOOD, R., OLIVER, C., SUDDABY, R. & SAHLIN-ANDERSSON, K. 2008. The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. United States: SAGE Publications.

HUDSON, B. & HARDY, B. 2001. 'What is a "successful" partnership and how can it be measured?' Bristol: The Policy Press.

HUXHAM, C. & VANGEN, S. 2005. Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and Practice of Collaborative Advantage. London: Routledge.

KIM, N., SUNG, Y. & LEE, M. 2012. Consumer evaluations of social alliances: The effects of perceived fit between companies and non-profit organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 106, 163–174.

MORSE, R.S. 2010. Integrative public leadership: Catalyzing collaboration to create public value. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 231–245.

REAY, T. & HININGS, C.R. 2014. Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30, 629–652.

VANGEN, S. & HUXHAM, C. 2003. Enacting leadership for collaborative advantage: Dilemmas of ideology and pragmatism in the activities of partnership managers. British Journal of Management, 14, 61–76.

VURRO, C., DACIN, M.T. & PERRINI, F. 2010. Institutional antecedents of partnering for social change: How institutional logics shape cross-sector social partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 39–53.