Enhancing corporate governance using public-private partnerships (PPPS) incorporating shared incentives and social finance models towards stakeholder and shareholder value in a post-subprime crisis era

Kim, Jasper

doi:10.22495/cocv12i1c7p3

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The second key benefit is related to the ability of SIBs to enhance corporate governance in public–private partnerships related to (a) the use of an efficient system of shared incentives (Kim, ) or the creation of economic incentives to mitigate accountability, quality, and monitoring problems associated with privatisation (Baliga, ); (b) the presence of a collaborative learning process between SIB partners (Smeets, ); (c) the presence of a co‐production mechanism (Farr, ); (d) the flexibility to manage projects to ensure maximum benefit and efficiency (Nazari Chamaki, Jenkins, & Hashemi, ); and (e) the potential interactions with other parties, such as community development professionals (Jackson, ).…”

Section: Analysis Of the Content Of The Contributionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social impact bonds: The evolution of research and a review of the academic literature

Broccardo

Mazzuca

Frigotto

2019

Corp Soc Responsibility Env

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study reviews all the academic contributions to research on social impact bonds (SIBs). It responds to the need for clarification across and within the various perspectives used in the literature. The goal was to assess the approaches used in extant studies and to offer directions for future studies. A bibliometric analysis was performed, and a framework was developed in which the contributions were positioned according to two criteria: (a) a distinction on the basis of research approaches and perspectives on SIBs and (b) an analysis of content according to a protocol that includes key questions corresponding with the most pressing issues in this area. K E Y W O R D S literature review, social impact bond, social impact finance 1 | INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to provide a systematic review of the academic literature on social impact bonds (SIBs). Since their introduction in the United Kingdom in 2010, SIBs have been receiving increasing attention from practitioners and scholars, as evidenced in the nuanced approaches and methods adopted for studying them as well as in the diverse research areas where SIBs have been addressed (Fraser, Tan, Lagarde, & Mays, 2018). To date, a review of SIBs focussed exclusively on academic papers is non-existent. Fraser et al.'s (2018) review included both academic (38 papers) and "grey" literature products (63 papers) from 2009 to 2015. They distinguished the "cautionary narrative" (mainly related to the academic literature) and two other narratives (mainly related to the grey literature) that assumed a pragmatic and ideological perspective of SIBs. At present, SIBs have broadened both in terms of adoption and research interest: This could allow academics to develop both theoretical and empirical analyses. Therefore, exclusive focus on academic contributions is timely because it is possible to reconstruct a scholarly assessment of SIB implementations, theoretical so-far developing arguments, and open issues. The review's strategy was twofold. First, a bibliometric analysis was conducted to explore (a) the evolution of SIBs in the literature; (b) the existence of central contributors and institutions devoted to work on SIBs; (c) disciplinary areas (research categories) that have shown interest in the discourse of SIBs; and (d) the visibility of contributions as measured through their positioning in ranked journals. Second, to develop a framework, academic contributions to SIBs were analysed and positioned according to two criteria: (a) a distinction based on research approaches to and perspectives on SIBs and (b) an analysis of content according to a protocol that includes key questions corresponding to SIBs' most pressing issues as individuated by the Government Outcomes Lab, a centre of academic research and practice for outcome-based contracting and SIBs at the University of Oxford. The current paper makes two contributions. First, it provides a critical analysis of academic contributions that point out directions and frameworks for extant research and future r...

show abstract