Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are often regarded as the solution for time and budget overruns in large infrastructural projects, but not all are successful. This raises the question of what really makes PPPs work. Focusing on the role of relational aspects, this article examines the degree to which trust and managerial activities correlate to the perceived performance and cooperation process in PPP projects. A multilevel analysis of survey data from 144 respondents involved in Dutch PPP projects shows that both trust and management correlate significantly to the perceived performance of these projects. Moreover, trust is associated with a good cooperation process.
In explaining public-private partnership (PPP) performance, both contractual and relational conditions play a role. Research has shown that these conditions may complement each other in successful PPPs. However, which specific combinations of conditions and how these combinations may influence PPP performance remains unclear. Building on the ideas of neo-institutional economics, principal-agent theory, relational contracting, and governance theories, this article explores the mix and match of contractual aspects and relational characteristics in successful PPP projects. A fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) of 25 PPP projects in the Netherlands and Flanders (Belgium) was used to test how contractual factors, such as the use of sanctions and risk allocation, and relational conditions, such as trust and conflict management, jointly shape the performance of PPPs. The results show three different combinations of conditions that match with high performing PPPs. These configurations often consist of a mix of contractual and relational conditions, which confirms our initial expectation that these factors complement each other, but a combination of only relational conditions is also present.
A general assumption in public sector research is that public organizations have to be efficient and innovative to overcome challenges such as demographic changes and digitization. This argument has been discussed in light of ambidexterity theory, for example. However, only little public sector research has focused on "how" public organizations reach ambidexterity. We take this question into account and focus on design and leadership conditions that are necessary or sufficient for ambidexterity. More precisely, the main question of this article is: Which combination of leadership and design conditions plays a role for ambidexterity in public organizations? We theoretically rely on the concept of ambidexterity, collected data in Belgian public cultural centers, and analyzed the data via the set-theoretic method Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). We can conclude from our analysis that six different combinations of design and leadership conditions were found to be sufficient for ambidexterity in our dataset. What is more is that public organizations combine design and leadership conditions of both structural and contextual ambidexterity to balance simultaneously exploitation and exploration. Hereby this article provides new theoretical and empirical insights and offers opportunities for further ambidexterity research in public organizations.
In public–private partnerships (PPPs), the collaboration between public and private actors can be complicated. With partners coming from different institutional backgrounds and with different interests, governing these partnerships is important to ensure the projects' progress. There is, however, little knowledge about the perceptions of professionals regarding the governance of PPPs. This study aims to exlore professionals' viewpoints about governing PPPs, and to explain potential differences using four theoretical governance paradigms. Using Q methodology, the preferences of 119 public and private professionals in Canada, the Netherlands and Denmark are explored. Results show four different viewpoints regarding the governance of PPPs. Experience, country and the public–private distinction seem to influence these viewpoints. Knowledge of these differences can inform efforts to govern PPPs and contribute to more successful partnerships.
Public branding is a new governance strategy in the public sector. Local governments, for instance, use brands to attract target groups to the city, such companies, tourists, or citizens. But how do target groups actually value this governance strategy? This article zooms in on the purpose of branding, as perceived by companies as a target group in a branding campaign. Q methodology is used to study the subjective viewpoints of 33 company owners in a neighborhood in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, that was branded as the Rotterdam Makers District. The analysis reveals that company owners prefer a transparent branding process in which they are recognized as coproducers of the brand and can add their story to the brand message that is conveyed to target audiences. These findings add to the resonating call in the literature to make more use of governance theories in the field of branding.
Evidence for Practice• Companies prefer branding as a public governance strategy as long as the brand manager is transparent about the aims and setup of the branding campaign. • Given the preferences of companies in this study, the legitimacy of a local government's branding campaign very likely increases if companies are recognized as brand coproducers. • Public branding can be used as a vehicle to mobilize a community of companies as brand ambassadors.• Companies will contribute to a branding campaign if doing so provides them with an added value (i.e., brand equity), instead of being only a public stakeholder.
During the COVID‐19 lockdowns in the Netherlands, numerous solidarity initiatives emerged, providing relief to those affected by lockdown measures. These initiatives have an important added value for a society under crisis as they provide instant solutions to timely, crisis‐related needs, strengthen connectivity between stakeholders and divide the burdens of the crisis. The durability of these initiatives is however a concern and although the literature on durability of community‐based initiatives is growing, there is a lack of understanding how initiatives can sustain under the challenging dynamics of a major crisis. Using a fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis of 14 COVID‐19 solidarity initiatives in Rotterdam, this article explores whether conditions for the durability of community‐based initiatives in general (social capital, organizational resources, transformational leadership, and government support) also apply during a crisis, with special attention of the configurations of conditions under the challenging context of the COVID‐19 pandemic.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.