Public-private partnerships and questions in public procurement

This study explores the connections of public procurement official
perceptions of public-private partnerships and their contracting decisions for
public infrastructure projects. Detailed discussion of previous scholarship and its
focus on policymaking and project evaluation of public-private partnerships
leaves a gap in the public policy process – implementation. Procurement officials
are presented in the role of policy implementers rather than agents in a principalagent
approach. This attempts to address a shortcoming of the description that
these officials do nothing more than purchase. Arguments are put forth that these
officials are given additional levels of discretion when faced with contracting
decisions. Specifically, procurement officials observe that public-private
partnerships provide sets of project consequences. A survey instrument is designed to explore the differences in perceptions
that procurement officials have with respect to public-private partnerships and
traditional contracting out. Survey failures result in findings only being able to
attempt a more general view of public-private partnerships. Results allow
perceptions to be placed in a decision-making model based on a project phase
approach that develops on the assumption that tasks contracted to private
vendors produce project consequences. Furthermore, analysis of significant
consequence perceptions indicate that those perceptions do not provide a
rationale for a procurement official’s decision-making on whether to contract
using a public-private partnership for public infrastructure projects. Independent
sample t-tests, controlled correlations, multiple ANOVA and linear regression
analyses show that perceptions of consequences, the perceptions of differences
of those consequences across project phases, relationships of consequences to
perceptions of efficiency and effectiveness proxies and a bounded rationalitybased
model of decision-making for procurement officials are all inconclusive.
Discussion focuses on the development of consequences and phases as
defining and clarifying public-private partnerships. Further discussions are
presented for procurement officials with respect to their decision-making and
possible role as policy implementers. Conclusions fail to uncover any inferential
results. The research finds its primary contribution in the conceptual discourse of
public procurement official roles and public-private partnership definitions.