Public Works Management & Policy

Ireland has almost two decades of experience with using public private partnerships (PPPs) for the procurement of social infrastructure such as schools, courthouses, and health facilities. This article focuses on Ireland’s schools sector where 27 school buildings with an estimated capital value of €500 million have been procured via PPP to date. We review the changes that have occurred to the governance of PPPs and supporting institutional structures, which have evolved considerably over the past 20 years. Evidence of policy learning has led to the development of detailed PPP guidelines and the establishment of a centralized PPP agency with responsibilities that exceed international norms. We highlight how the development of PPP institutions has been an ongoing and gradual process, which will continue to evolve if concerns in relation to accountability and transparency are to be addressed.

Once regarded as core public sector business, Australia’s prisons were reformed during the 1990s and Australia now has the highest proportion of prisoners in privately managed prisons in the world. How could this have happened? This article presents a case study of the State of Victoria and explains how public–private partnerships (P3s) were used to create a mixed public–private prison system. Despite the difficulty of determining clear and rigorous evaluation results, we argue that lessons from the Victorian experience are possible. First, neither the extreme fears of policy critics nor the grandiose policy and technical promises of reformers were fully met. Second, short-term success was achieved in political and policy terms by the delivery of badly needed new prisons. Third, the exact degree to which the state has achieved cheaper, better, and more accountable prison services remains contested. As a consequence, there is a need to continue experimentation but with greater transparency.

This article draws on a qualitative case study comparing two U.K. primary health care schemes which were entered into as part of the Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT) policy. LIFT takes the form of a social infrastructure Public Private Partnership (PPP) where public procurers and private suppliers work together in active long-term partnering agreements to deliver local primary health care facilities. The organizational structure is that of a joint venture company which is jointly owned by public and private partners, with the expectation that by having both the public and private sector represented on the company board partnership working between the two sectors is enhanced. The two schemes studied delivered contrasting results. One scheme showed how the private sector dominated the board, making partnership working difficult to achieve in the context of directors following their fiduciary role to maximize profits for shareholders. However, the findings from the second scheme showed that partnership working and LIFT success may be dependent on trust, general business ethos, and key personalities working together. Policy makers should therefore pay attention to not only the organizational structures, but also how the private sector controls and governance are exercised to benefit all stakeholders.

Italy, as many other countries, adopted the design–build–finance–maintain (DBFMO) Anglo-Saxon model to build new hospitals. This model proved to be rigid, nontransparent, nonvalue for money, and unaffordable. The aim of this article is to analyze the main drawbacks of the traditional DBFMO public–private partnerships (PPP) contract applied to the health care sector, by referring to the Italian experience, and to discuss the evolutions, conceived through an inductive/deductive approach, conducted in a context of deep collaboration between academia, health care authorities, and market players to make PPP contracts more value for money, flexible, and affordable. The article provides also an example of the role of academia in closing the rigor–practice gap by supporting and facilitating an institutional change.

Notwithstanding the deployment of tools to standardize delivery processes, public–private partnerships (PPPs) have encountered significantly different experiences across a broad spectrum of applications during their long-term contractual phase—including those in Ontario Canada, one of the world’s most active PPP markets. This article conducts an in-depth case study of the PPP for the new Bridgepoint Active Health care Hospital, an award-winning 464-bed hospital and administration facility delivered using a design–build–finance–maintenance PPP. This article reveals the role of personalities, relationships, and strong leadership in bringing a successful project to fruition in the face of complex, intersecting challenges. In this context, the PPP is only one variable in explaining the overall success of this complex and highly visible social infrastructure project.

Asset recycling (AR) has gained attention in the United States as a way of improving life cycle asset maintenance and realizing maximum value from existing public infrastructure. In an AR program, proceeds from leases or sales of mature, underutilized public assets are reinvested in much-needed infrastructure improvements. Although the benefits of AR are often noted in both academic and policy circles, the academic literature on AR has not yet explored AR’s application to social infrastructure. To address this gap, we explore the concept of AR and its relevance for U.S. social infrastructure. We first examine the steps and conceptual features of a “fix-it-first” AR approach to social infrastructure. We then use Infrastructure Ontario’s Capital Planning Program as a case study to highlight the potential viability of such programs. Finally, we conclude by discussing the benefits and challenges of adopting AR policies in the United States.

Using data from the 50 states, this exploratory study looks at public university use of public–private partnerships (P3s) for a particular type of social infrastructure, student housing. The relation between state social infrastructure P3s enabling legislation and public university P3 student housing project closures is analyzed. A deep dive is conducted into the legislative requirements of four states (California, Florida, Georgia, and Virginia) that have specific enabling legislation governing public university use of P3s for social infrastructure. The study finds that public universities have a 20-year history of utilizing social infrastructure P3s for student housing. A relationship is found between state social infrastructure P3 enabling legislation and increased public university use of P3s for student housing. The study also finds that states with specific public university P3 social infrastructure enabling legislation place decidedly different requirements on their use.

No matter how widely they may be defined, new social infrastructure projects can learn much from previous public–private partnership (P3) policies as well as from current global experience. What can be learned, though, and how? This article adopts a theoretical policy learning perspective and investigates what public works researchers and policymakers might get out of focusing on policy learning in more detail. Three perspectives are presented as follows: the technical approach, the professional/coalitional approach, and the experimental approach. International case illustrations are presented to illustrate P3 policy learning over space and time.