Abstract
This chapter critically reviews seminal literature on PPPs, in order to identify core congruent issues, motif, basics and environment as necessity to answer the quests for quality service delivery so rampant world over. It draws out a number of key themes to better understand why the quest for PPP has turned out to be the ‘driving tone' for all governments, even though successive reports/news prints, have uncovered many challenges in their implementation. Acknowledging that there is no one clear definition, strategy or template for the effective partnering, findings from extant literature highlight principles and critical success factors (CSFs) deemed integral to augmenting PPP performance and success. So, whilst governments invariably conducts their businesses with a smaller ration of strategic partnerships than commonly believed, and accepting private partners dominance has predominantly remained, it is advocated that there is an exigent need to disentangle the PPP initiative through some form of proper risk analysis in the project phases. The case for this is presented through a relationship schema that maps the fabric, reliance and drivers for PPP success.
The purpose of life is to collaborate for a common cause; the problem is nobody seems to know what it is. - Gerhard Gschwandtner
TopTriangular Motif For Public-Private Partnership
According to Hayford (2013), the core of any partnership is the idea of shared authority and responsibility, joint investment, sharing liability/risk taking and mutual benefits. As a result of these, Shen, Platten and Dang (2006) claims that a PPP is characterized by involvement of two or more actors (at least one from the public and another from the private sector) with each party being a principal. Cheung, Chan and Kajewski (2009b) attest that PPP is an establishment of an enduring and stable relationship among actors implying that the parties enter into a long-term relationship. Delmon (2010) maintains there is transfer of resources from both parties. These resources could be material, authority or other symbolic values meaning that no matter how small, each participant brings something to the partnership. Trafford and Proctor (2006) articulate that there is usually a shared responsibility for outcomes or activities which closely relates it to the core highlighted above.