Governing Public-Private Partnerships in Denmark: What are the preferences from public and private partners?

Public-private partnerships for infrastructure projects - which essentially can be viewed as a form of cooperation between public and private actors - have enjoyed popularity throughout the world. However, despite its... [ view full abstract ]

Public-private partnerships for infrastructure projects - which essentially can be viewed as a form of cooperation between public and private actors - have enjoyed popularity throughout the world. However, despite its popularity the collaboration between public and private actors can be complicated. With partners stemming from different institutional backgrounds, with different preferences, different approaches to risk taking, and different interests the way these partnerships are governed is important to align interests and ensure the progress of the project. The question as to how these partnerships should be governed poses a challenge. Although PPPs are often based on elaborate contracts, a number of different governance mechanisms are possible, ranging from strict output oriented control mechanisms to a more horizontal, network-like approach. Moreover, because of their different background, public and private partners might have substantially different ideas on how PPPs should be governed. 

We have only little knowledge about the perceptions of public and private partners regarding the governance of PPP projects, and the differences and similarities between them. Yet these perceptions may have far reaching influences on how PPPs evolve, on the collaboration challenges that occur, and on the values that the PPPs will create. Using the Q methodology, this paper explores the preferences of both public and private partners on the governance relation in public-private partnerships in Denmark. Research into PPPs using this method is still rare. To study the different perceptions towards governing PPPs, we invited public and private professionals to sort 24 statements on how public-private partnerships should be governed. These statements are based on four theoretical governance perspectives: Traditional Government, New Public Management, Network Governance and a Private partner Perspective. 39 respondents, all involved in different PPP-projects in Denmark, participated in the project. The number of respondents is sufficient in line with the Q-methodology. Factor analysis on the sorted statements of respondents will enable us to identify different profiles of actors with more or less the same preferences regarding the governance relation in PPPs. The profiles can be characterized by looking at which statements from which theoretical perspective are dominant. Subsequently, we will analyse if and how these different profiles are related to the respondents’ role in the project, their experience with PPPs, and the type of projects the respondents are involved in. Denmark was slow in initiating PPP projects, but now have 30+ PPP projects. The paper will therefore bring new knowledge about perceptions of PPPs and their implications in an advanced OECD-country.