Beyond ‘one size fits all’: how local conditions shape PPP-enabling field development

Abstract

The use of public?private partnerships (PPPs) for infrastructure development has received significant scholarly attention of late, but there remains a need for more work at the programme level. Specifically, there is a need for work that recognizes the way that PPP programmes are implemented differently in different regions, thereby progressing beyond an effectively ?one size fits all? view of PPP programmes. In response, this paper offers a comparative analysis of the historical development trajectories of three contemporary PPP programmes: in British Columbia (BC) (Canada), Victoria (Australia) and South Africa. We begin by recognizing the role played by the UK's private finance initiative as a programme model, and then show how this model was adapted and modified in each of our cases, leading to very different field structures. The study uses a grounded theory building approach and draws heavily on theories of institutional change and structuration. There are two main contributions from this study: (1) we draw attention to the need for a context-specific approach to explain and predict PPP field development and (2) we develop arguments relating to institutional systems and processes that can guide future studies of these and similar fields.The use of public?private partnerships (PPPs) for infrastructure development has received significant scholarly attention of late, but there remains a need for more work at the programme level. Specifically, there is a need for work that recognizes the way that PPP programmes are implemented differently in different regions, thereby progressing beyond an effectively ?one size fits all? view of PPP programmes. In response, this paper offers a comparative analysis of the historical development trajectories of three contemporary PPP programmes: in British Columbia (BC) (Canada), Victoria (Australia) and South Africa. We begin by recognizing the role played by the UK's private finance initiative as a programme model, and then show how this model was adapted and modified in each of our cases, leading to very different field structures. The study uses a grounded theory building approach and draws heavily on theories of institutional change and structuration. There are two main contributions from this study: (1) we draw attention to the need for a context-specific approach to explain and predict PPP field development and (2) we develop arguments relating to institutional systems and processes that can guide future studies of these and similar fields.