Institutional Design for Public-Private Collaboration and Network Integration: The Case of Interlocking Directorate Network among Nonprofit Service Operators in Hong Kong

The current study is an attempt to develop propositions on the relationship between institutional designs for public-private collaboration and network integration amongst private or nonprofit service operators. We use the... [ view full abstract ]

The current study is an attempt to develop propositions on the relationship between institutional designs for public-private collaboration and network integration amongst private or nonprofit service operators. We use the term “regime” to encompass institutional designs for public-private collaboration in service delivery, ranging from trust-based self-organizing coordinating mechanisms, to contractual arrangements and to centralized coordinating mechanisms. Regime change from centralized coordinating mechanisms to contractual arrangements might give rise to increased fragmentation. We argue that actors interact with each other in certain ways that minimize externalities of choices and achieve better coordination. As a case in point, the welfare reform in Hong Kong gave us a chance to study local interactions and network integration amongst private or nonprofit service operators under two regimes and develop propositions.

We employed a mixed methods approach. Archival research was first carried out to contextualize the regime change of public-private collaboration in social service delivery in Hong Kong. Planning has become more decentralized and implementation has relied on performance-based contracting with limited monitoring and competition. Network analysis was then used to characterize local interactions amongst major nonprofit service operators, particularly interlocking directorate, and identify distinct patterns of network integration before (1998/99) and after (2008/09) the regime change.

The results show that the interlocking directorate network after the regime change became more centralized and fragmented, indicating a stronger need for information and coordination as well as a more competitive relations amongst nonprofit service operators. As to the composition of board interlocks, it was revealed that there were significantly more government advisory committees and board interlocks with government links (i.e., board members sitting on government advisory committees) in 2008/09 than 1998/99. This characterizes the new regime for public-private collaboration in service delivery. Finally, propositions were formulated for future testing.