Governments explore new forms of collaboration with non-governmental, public and private, actors. Scholars speak of a ‘responsibilisation’ of non-governmental actors (Garland 2001). There is ‘a shift in responsibility, a... [ view full abstract ]
Governments explore new forms of collaboration with non-governmental, public and private, actors. Scholars speak of a ‘responsibilisation’ of non-governmental actors (Garland 2001). There is ‘a shift in responsibility, a stepping back of the state’ (Stoker 1998), ‘individuals, the private sector, and third sector groups are set to gain a variety of responsibilities for the management of civic space and the provision of public services’ (Buser 2013: 3). This development can also be seen in the field of infrastructure development. Rijkswaterstaat (RWS), the Dutch governmental body responsible for public infrastructure works and water management increasingly aims to facilitate societal and market-based ideas and practices (Frantzeskaki et al. 2016: 125). Instead of procuring a public good, for example an innovative piece of infrastructure, and commissioning private actors, RWS wants that private actors take the lead in realisation and exploitation of that infrastructure (Grotenbreg & Van Buuren, 2016). In other words, RWS wants to go beyond the principal-agent relation in traditional Public Private Partnerships.
There is not much research yet into these governance processes in which the government (aims to) act as facilitator. In a lot of Public Private Partnerships under study, the government still acts as initiator, principal and/or the main financer of projects. In this our study we do analyse two cases in which RWS chooses for this so-called facilitative role. In this act of facilitation RWS has a lot to gain: embracing external initiatives can save costs, generate public support and lead to innovative solutions. RWS however has also something to loose when it chooses for facilitation: it gives up its role as principal, as main definer and designer of the public good, and will inevitably lose discretion. In a comparative case study we look into the difficulties and dilemmas RWS encounters when its decides to facilitate external initiatives; the arrangements it implements to deal with these difficulties and the effectiveness of these arrangements.
The choice for facilitation can come with many difficulties and dilemmas for authorities in terms of democratic representation, equal treatment and state aid. RWS might lack the necessary competences or organisational features; procedures and regulations can be absent or inadequate. So to make this new form of public-private collaboration a success there is need for new practices of good governance. With our study we aim to respond to this need and make operational what is required.
Buser, M. 2013. ‘Tracing the democratic narrative: Big Society, localism and civic engagement’, Local government studies, 39, , 3-21.
Frantzeskaki, N., Jhagroe, S., Howlett, M., 2016. Environmental Science & Policy 58, 123-130.
Garland, D., 2001. The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grotenbreg, S., & Van Buuren, A. (2016). Realizing innovative public waterworks: aligning administrative capacities in collaborative innovation processes. Journal of Cleaner Production.
Stoker, G. (1998), Governance as theory: five propositions. International social science journal, 50, 155, p. 17-28
I3 - Public-Private Partnerships: Culture, context and governance in a global perspective
