Towards Understanding Relational Aspects of Inter-organizational Collaboration: An Exploration of Public-private Partnerships in Pakistan

• Author: SIDRA IRFAN, YAAMINA SALMAN, NASIRA JABEEN, SABEEN IMRAN AHMAD AND NIGHAT GHULAM ANSARI

Abstract

One of the most significant current discussions in the public management agenda over the last couple of decades is public-private partnerships (PPPs). Despite the positive rhetoric, huge efforts are required to reap the advantages of PPPs and overcome the many potential challenges. In meeting these challenges, it is important to understand and manage inter-organizational relationships (IORs) between the public and private sector organizations involved in a public-private partnership arrangement. However, ‘limited scholarly attention has been devoted to the on-going managerial life of a PPP’ (Weihe, 2010, p.510). This research paper contributes to a better understanding of the ‘on-going managerial life of a PPP’ by presenting an empirical study of educational PPPs in Pakistan.

Keywords: Public-private partnerships, Inter-organizational relationships, Educational PPPs, Primary education, Third sector, CARE, ITA

1. INTRODUCTION

   Markets and hierarchy are often seen as distinct and opposing mechanisms for the provision of public services. However, due to increasing interdependence of various public and private sector organizations, the boundary between public and private sectors has become blurred (Pollitt, 2003). Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are situated on this boundary. PPP is a specific type of inter-organizational collaboration that is distinct in one fundamental way that it involves public-private interaction and thus ‘demand[s] a specific and individual analysis’ (Noble and Jones, 2006: 914). PPPs have been a hot topic of discussion during the last two decades or so (Bovaird and Tizard, 2009; Hodge, Greve, and Boardman, 2010; Osborne, 2000).

   There is an increasing tendency, both in the industrialized world and in developing and transitioning countries, to involve the private sector in public service delivery. Despite the positive rhetoric, huge efforts are required to reap the advantages of PPPs and overcome the many potential challenges (Huxham, 2003; Skelcher, 2005). In meeting these challenges, it is important to understand both structural and relational aspects of PPPs.

   The formal and structural aspects of PPPs have been discussed in depth in the existing PPP literature. This includes discussion to explore the conceptual boundaries of PPPs (Klijn and Teisman, 2005; Klijn, 2010; Skelcher, 2005), analysis of the institutional design of partnership and modes of governance (Lowndes and Skelcher, 1998; Skelcher, 2010), designing contracts and allocating responsibilities, risks and rewards (Hodge, 2004), assessing economic worth (Boardman and Vining, 2010), investigating the relationship between democratic practices (e.g. public interest issues, accountability and transparency), design of partnerships (Skelcher, Mathur, and Smith, 2005), and discussing the outcomes of PPPs (Gazley and Brudney, 2007; Hodge and Greve, 2007).

   It is argued by some PPP scholars that the dominance of this ‘macro-level’ analysis has resulted in relatively limited scholarly attention to the ‘micro-level’ analysis of operational and relational aspects of collaboration (Noble and Jones, 2006; Weihe, 2010). This imbalance limits our understanding of the diverse and dynamic nature of relationships within PPPs. This research paper contributes to filling this gap by presenting an empirical study of PPPs in the education sector in Pakistan.

   The paper presents an analysis of two in-depth case studies where two non-governmental organizations (NGOs) entered into separate PPP arrangements with the Government of Punjab. Their involvement was part of the government’s ‘Adopt-a-school’ programme, which aimed ‘to uplift the standard of education’ in the adopted state schools. This paper presents and explores the different inter-organizational relationships (IORs) found in the two case studies. It then seeks to address the question of why these differences have emerged given that the two cases share the same policy context and, in theory, operate under the same policy model of partnership. Answering this question requires going beyond the structural aspects into the relational side and is important for better understanding of PPPs. The paper is divided into four sections.

   The first section outlines the conceptual framework used in the study, focusing on organization identity and mutuality as important dimensions for analyzing IORs. The second section explains the context in which PPP initiatives were introduced in the education sector of Pakistan and introduces two case studies where the state and private not-for-profit organizations have entered a PPP arrangement called ‘Adopt-a-school’ programme. The third section examines the dynamics of IORs in the ‘Adopt-a-school’ case studies. Style of management and leadership approach are identified as important factors influencing mutuality and the dynamics of IORs. The final section concludes by discussing the implications of the findings for theory and practice.

2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

   The concept of ‘inter-organizational relationships’ (IORs) is sometimes viewed as an umbrella term to represent the organizational forms or structures that diverse partnership arrangements can take (J. M. Brinkerhoff, 2002; Huxham, 2003). IORs are also viewed from a process perspective (Levine and White, 1961; Ring and Van de Ven, 1994; Thomson and Perry, 2006). Here they are seen as ‘the sequence of events and interaction among organizational parties that unfold to shape and modify an IOR over time’ (Ring and Van de Ven, 1994: 91). Under the process perspective IORs are seen as the developmental process as opposed to the structural form these relationships take. This paper largely adopts a process perspective in analyzing IORs but acknowledges that it is often impossible to draw neat distinctions between structures and processes.

   The existing literature on collaboration and partnerships provides different theoretical frameworks to encapsulate the complexity inherent in the variety and contexts of these relationships. This paper draws on the framework presented by Brinkerhoff (2002) to analyze IORs within partnership arrangements. Brinkerhoff (2002) has identified two dimensions as key to understanding IORs: organization identity and mutuality.

   ORGANIZATION IDENTITY

   The defining characteristic of PPPs is the dual identity that partners share: their own distinct organization identity and the partnership identity (Huxham, 1996; Thomson and Perry, 2006; Wood and Gray, 1991). This usually leads to tension between pursuing individual organizational goals and achieving partnership goals. Thomson and Perry refer to this tension as ‘the process of reconciling individual and collective interests’ (2006: 26) and it is a recurring theme in the existing literature on partnerships and collaboration. Brinkerhoff (2002, 2002b) examines organization identity at two levels. First is the organization’s own mission, goals and constituencies and with respect to this the ‘maintenance of organization identity is the extent to which an organization remains consistent and committed to its mission, core values and constituencies (2002: 23). Secondly, organization identity refers to the comparative advantages of the sector an organization belongs to.

   It is generally argued in the partnership literature that in order to reap the synergistic rewards of a partnership, it is essential to maintain these comparative advantages. Organizations which get involved in PPPs arrangements need to maintain their unique identities in the context of increasing interdependencies developing over time (Ring and Van de Ven, 1994). Partnerships are seen as an exchange relationship whereby each partner is chosen and assigned responsibilities according to the comparative advantage that each is presumed to contribute to the partnership. These exchange relationships are also discussed with respect to the strategic alliance literature (e.g. Levine and White, 1961; Ring and Van de Ven, 1994) and from a resource dependence perspective (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978).

   Technically if organization identity is lost, comparative advantage is lost and there would be nothing unique on the part of that partner to contribute to partnership. In such a case there is no rationale for justifying the huge efforts required for partnership working.

   MUTUALITY

   Mutuality refers to interdependence among partners in a partnership or similar arrangement (J. M. Brinkerhoff, 2002; Thomson and Perry, 2006). The social dilemma of individuals pursuing their individual welfare rather than the joint welfare has always been discussed as the main problem in the face of any attempts targeted at collective benefits (Olson, 1965; Ostrom, 1990). However, Ostrom (1998) has argued that it is possible to curtail the costs related to collective action by ‘building conditions’ that can help in dealing with difficulties of getting individuals to pursue collective interests. Mutuality acts as an incentive or motivating factor to enter into partnership arrangements and encourages partners to pursue collective goals by giving them a sense of ownership. This is usually done by providing opportunities for partner organizations to jointly determine the partnership procedures.

   This implies that mutuality helps to solve the collective action problem by providing partners with a mechanism to reconcile individual and collective interests (Thomson and Perry, 2006; Wood and Gray, 1991). Participative decision making, shared power arrangements, reciprocal accountability, transparency, information sharing, joint determination of programme activities and mutual respect are commonly used indicators of mutuality.

   METHODS

   The study consists of two case studies, Co-operation for Advancement, Rehabilitation and Education (CARE) and Idara-e-Taleem-o-Aaghai (ITA), both of which are NGOs and are selected mainly due to their prominence in the field. The information and analysis presented in the paper is based on 46...