The public-private partnerships and the new development of Public Administrations
- 3 minutos de lectura
Because public-private partnerships, the public administrations have undergone a number of changes that go beyond the provision of community services; It is a profound change in ideology and structure through which public institutions are developed.
Similarly, this change is also reflected in the way that are being perceived state institutions.For the person in the street, first beneficiary as a citizen who pays his taxes for public entities either local, regional or national level, begins to redefine the concept of the “public” to assimilate, consciously or unconsciously, that goods public are not only provided by private, but also may be being managed, optimized and operated by them, under the observation of the public sector.
I by focusing on the changes generated in public administration, I think the biggest change generated, and produces a domino effect described above is based on the change of a change of pyramidal organizational structure (highly hierarchical) to a horizontal nature (networking) . This change in structure, common in many private sector companies, radically changing the way in which public companies operate; introducing concepts such as efficiency, competitiveness, achievement of objectives and measurement processes.
The change in structure, from the hierarchical to network, start working around multiple network strategies, which not only take into account the opinion or position of the leaders of the organization, but also take into account the various parties or state bodies seeking mutual cooperation for the provision of public services. These strategies introduced multiple logical network based on consultation and negotiation for policy analysis work; finding its equilibrium more on the interaction than in the deliberate imposition(Koffijberg, Bruijn&Priemus, 2012a, p.263).
Upon generation public-private partnerships, not only planned to achieve (or intend to achieve) specific objectives as an ultimate goal.Processes within each of the offices (public and private) through negotiation of interests that are articulated to work in a coordinated manner are also changed.Processes within each of the offices (public and private) through negotiation of interests that are articulated to work in a coordinated manner are also changed. This articulated work is constructed from two scenarios of vital importance to analyze in this new work logic network type; processes and chain of command for decision-making.
Regarding organizational processes, these negotiations eventually become joint agreement to start work not only share the common goal as a basic object of the alliance, but also the difficulties and risks involving conduct such projects mixed character.As is mentioned by Koppenjan,talking about Public-Private Partnership should be understand as“a form of structured cooperation between public and private parties in the planning, construction and / or exploitation of infrastructural facilities in which they share or reallocate risks, costs, benefits, resources and responsibilities”(Koppenjan, 2005a, p.137).
Relation to decision making, this paradigm shift also has strong implications in relation to the organization of the chain of command, and the communication flow orders directives throughout the organization. Briefly, these changes can be grouped into three main ideas (Koffijberg, Bruijn&Priemus, 2012b, p.264):
- The vision of the organization ceases to depend exclusively on the directive of the organization (one person with his personal views, vices, tradition, etc.) to become articulated by all bodies belonging to the organization
- The coordination of work goes the fulfillment of an order to the development of logically structured processes. That is, a “step by step” that follow an evolutionary order to coordinate workforce, achieving goals and finally achieving the objectives initially planned.
- With no single actor in charge of the work but a coordinated team, these can be generated from different kinds of political negotiations between the actors representing the public sector and private sector, to determine the qualities of the alliance (risks, benefits and the like), procedures, goals and objectives to achieve.
This is, as described Koppenjan referring the public-private partnership, a process“interactive negotiation and assessment process in which actors, prior to engaging in formal cooperation agreements, define the content of the project, investigate possibilities and risks, arrive at agreements on the distribution of costs, benefits, risks and responsibilities, and decide upon the arrangements that will govern their cooperation” (Koppenjan, 2005b, p.138).
In short public-private partnerships have changed (or transformed) the logics with which the actions entrusted to public entities operate; both internally and externally.In this regard, the provision of public services (consumer services, policy making, etc.) by government entities that establish partnerships with the private sector, change the way they relate within (internal processes) and abroad (general citizenship) through the development of political processes (public services) from the political interests of each of the parties.
The decision is the result of the “interaction” of multidependent agencies and the ability to work a way to be able to network planning and negotiating elements that help achieve goals and objectives (Koffijberg, Bruijn&Priemus, 2012c, p.265), and finally from my point of view, the actions of the public sector (in similarity with the private sector) in the development of plans, planning strategies, measurement, evaluation and improvement of processes both internal and external.
- Koppenjan, J. J. F. M. (2005). The Formation of Public‐Private Partnerships: Lessons from Nine Transport Infrastructure Projects in The Netherlands. Public Administration, 83(1), 135-157.
- Koffijberg, J., de Bruijn, H., & Priemus, H. (2012). Combining hierarchical and network strategies: Successful changes in Dutch social housing. Public Administration, 90(1), 262-275.