Public Private Partnership

Public-Private Partnerships(PPP):
A Reality Check and the Limits of Principal Agent Theory

Arie Halachmi, PhD
2011-2011 Distinguished Fulbright Professor

Abstract
Can partnership and contracting out of the production and delivery of what used to be performed by government improve public sector productivity? However, the reality does not always follow the theory. Using an actual case study and a Principal Agent Theory the paper explores and articulates possible limitations of Principal Agent Theory and some issues and possible implications for practitioners and academicians.

Key words: Public Private Partnership (PPP), Education, Principal –Agent, Principal

Bio: Arie Halachmi, PhD is the 2001-2011 Distinguished Fulbright Professor at Linz University (Austria) and the recipient of the American 2010 Paul van Riper Award for significant contributions to the theory and practice of public management. He is professor of Public Management at TSU (USA) and research professor at the National Center of Public Administration at Sun Yat-Sen University (China).
Public-Private Partnerships(PPP):
A Reality Check and the Limits of Principal Agent Theory
Arie Halachmi

Introduction
Contracting out of the production and delivery of services that used to be performed by government is now a common practice in today’s society. Many times this is accomplished through the use of Public-Private Partnerships (PPP). Public-private partnerships as a rubric for describing joint ventures between government and private entities, is very salient topic as can be seen by growing number of panels addressing this subject at the annual conferences of the American Society of Public Administration between 2000 and 2010. Organizations ranging from the European Union to Canadian Heritage not only endorse the partnership idea but actively employ it as a programmatic tool for adapting to what they perceive as changing needs and circumstances (Kinnock, 1998; Canadian Heritage,

References: Acar, Muhitten, Gou, Chou, and Yang Kaifeng (2008). Accountability When Hierarchical Authority Is Absent: Views From Public_Private Partnership Practitioners. The American Review of Public Administration 2008; 38; 3 Argyris, C Allan,J .R. 1999. "Public-Private Partnerships: A Review of the Literature and Practice."Public Policy Paper No. 4. Regina Saskatchewan Institute of Public Policy, University of Regina. Bardach, E., & Lesser, C Benjamin, J., Obeng, K., 1990. The effect of policy and background variables on total factor productivity for public transit. Transportation Research 24B (1), 1–14. Berechman, J., 1993. Public Transit Economics and Deregulation Policy. Elsevier Science Publishers, BV, Amsterdam. Bettignies, Jean-Etienne and Ross, Thomas (2004) The Economics of Public-Private Partnerships. Canadian Public Policy / Analyse de Politiques, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Jun., 2004), pp. 135-154 Boase, J.P Department of Labor Report (1998) Measuring State and Local Government Labor Productivity: Examples from Eleven Services Dicke, L Donaldson, L., & Davis, J. H. (1989). CEO governance and shareholder returns: Agency theory or stewardship theory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Washington, DC. Donaldson, L., & Davis, J Doucouliagos, C. (1994). A note on the volution of homo economicus. Journal of Economics Issues, 3: 877-883. Dubnick, M. J., & Romzek, B. S. (1993). Accountability and the centrality of expectations in American public administration. In J. L. Perry (Ed.), Research in public administration (pp. 37-78). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Gazley, Beth. (2008). “Beyond the Contract: The Scope and Nature of InformalGovernment-Nonprofit Partnerships.” Public Administration Review 68, 1: 141-154. Gazley , Beth , Won Kyung Chang , and Lisa Blomgren Bingham (2006). Collaboration and Citizen Participation in Community Mediation Centers. Review of Policy Research 23 (4 ): 843 – 63 Karlaftis, Matthew (2004) A DEA approach for evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of urban transit systems. European Journal of Operational Research 152 (2004) 354–364 Kearns, K Kearns, K. (1996). Managing for accountability: Preserving the public trust in public and nonprofit organizations.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Klingner, D. E., Nalbandian, J., & Romzek, B. S. (2002). Politics, administration, and markets: Conflicting expectations and accountability. American Review of Public Administration, 32, 117-144. Linder, S and Rosenau, PV (2000) Public-private policy partnerships. MIT Press Cambridge, MA Lissauer, R., & Robinson, P Miller, G. (2000). Above politics: Credible commitment and efficiency in the design of public agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 289-327. Moulton, L. and Anheier, H. (2001), Public-Private Partnerships in the United States: Historical Patterns and Current Trends, The Centre for Civil Society, LSE, London Moynihan, D Nisar, Tahir (2007) Risk Management in Public–Private Partnership Contracts. Public Organizational Review (2007) 7:1–19 Nisar, Tahir (2007) Page, S. (2004). Measuring accountability for results in interagency collaboratives. Public Administration Review, 64, 591-606 Perrow, C Putnam, Robert (2000) Bowling Alone. Touchstone Publishers, New York, NY Radin, B Radin, B. A., & Romzek, B. S. (1996). Accountability expectations in an intergovernmental arena: The National Rural Development Partnership. Publius: Journal of Federalism, 26(2), 59-81. Roberts, N. C. (2002). Keeping public officials accountable through dialogue: Resolving the accountability paradox. Public Administration Review, 62, 658-669. Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1987, May/June). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47, 227-238. Ross, S. A. (1987). The interrelations of finance and economics: Theoretical perspectives. American Economic Review 77:29–34. Savas, Emmanual (2005) Privatization in the City: successes, failures, lessons. Washington, D.C. : CQ Press, 2005 Schaeffer, P Todd, M. and Ware, P. (2000), “Social care, contracts and voluntary sector providers: a view from the UK”, International Journal of Public-Private Partnership, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 233-50. Tomazinis, A.R., 1977. A study of efficiency indicators of urban public transportation systems. Final Report, DOT-TST-77- 47, USDOT, Washington, DC. Van Slyke, D. M. (2007). Agents or stewards: Using theory to understand the government nonprofit social service contracting relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(2), 157–187. Whitaker, G. P., Altman-Sauer, L., & Henderson, M. (2004). Mutual accountability between governments and nonprofits. American Review of Public Administration, 34, 115-1