apartado 5 bis (nuevo)

Several studies have discussed the differences between the public and private sectors (Vigoda-Gadot and Kapun, 2005; Ghobadian et al., 2004a; Perry and Rainey, 1988; Weintraub, 1997; Cho and Lee, 2001). Dichotomies are created as the profit goals of private organisations are contrasted with the service goals of larger bureaucracies that shape the lives of citizens through public policy (Murray, 1975). One study of management in the public and private sectors found that there were only three major differences and concluded that “…public organizations are more bureaucratic, and public managers are less materialistic and have weaker organizational commitment than their private sector counterparts” (Boyne, 2002, p.97).

Tensions between the private and public sectors also emerge from the management literature that provides a discourse of “public bad, private good” (Jamali, 2004, p.415; Broadbent and Laughlin, 2003). With respect to education, Ball (2007, p.3) observes that the discourse of public sector reform generates a “discourse of distrust” that portrays the public sector as “…ineffective, sloppy, unresponsive, risk-averse and innovation-resistant”. The author considers the role of private actors in ‘entrepreneurial governance’ (Hall, 2003) and the “destatalisation” and the re-articulation of the relationship between organisations and tasks across the public-private divide (Ball,

40

2007, p.3). Any examination of what goes on inside the “black box” of the PPP relationship warrants active consideration of the different philosophies and values of actors and the institutional and behavioural differences inherent in the sectors.

2.3.1.1 Tensions of Philosophy and Ideology

This study focuses on the contribution of actors in two structurally categorised groups (public and private sector) to the strategic direction of a not-for-profit organisation with a developmental purpose. It assumes different ideologies of these two groups. Ideologies may be assumed to be “…the fundamental social cognitions that reflect the basic aims, interests and values of groups” (Van Dijk, 1993, p.258). The importance of ideology in understanding social life is underscored by the fact that “…we all live and communicate with and through ‘ideology’ and we are all both ‘beneficiaries” and ‘victims” of ideology’, thanks to the fact that we speak a language and live in a culture” (ibid.). Meanings of actions are interpreted from an understanding of “cultural models” which are a “…groups’ construction that becomes a resource that an individual may call on to guide his or her actions” (Gee and Green, 1998, p.123). In this study, the existence of an ideology and the presence of cultural models that guide the actions of groups are assumed on the basis of the categorization of actors into roles based on their employment and occupation status. This presents methodological challenges and limitations to the work. Some of the major challenges to PPPs include areas of ideological contestation by those opposed to private ideology, especially from the non- profit sectors that advocate political legitimacy, partnerships and collaboration (Taylor and Warburton, 2003).

2.3.1.2 Institutional and Behavioural Differences

A typology of differences between public and private sector organisations was developed by (Ghobadian et al., 2004b). The authors cite several areas where behaviours of public and private sector actors differ. With respect to motivation, the private sector’s profit motive and the creation of shareholder value is contrasted with the public sector’s concern for the economic, social and environmental well-being of the community (ibid.). Another significant difference is the scope of products or services. In the private sector this is determined by business imperatives and managers exhibit a high level of control and discretion whereas in the public sector this is

41

determined by statutory requirements and/or social considerations (ibid.). Differences are also cited in the pursuit of quality where the private sector is motivated to do so if it makes commercial sense and the public sector assesses quality in terms of social impact. The cultural traits of competitiveness and entrepreneurialism in the private sector are contrasted with fairness and respect for hierarchy and traditions in the public sector (Ghobadian et al., 2004b); the full list of characteristics is presented in Appendix 1. These differences are considered in the relationship between public and private sector actor sub-groups in the PPP.

2.3.2 Voluntarism and the Non-Profit Sector

The non-profit or voluntary sector is considered important to this work as the PPPs are established as not-for-profit organisations where actors contribute voluntarily (e.g. Radin and Romzek, 1996; Waddock, 1988). The voluntary sector includes organisational forms that fall outside the typical definitions of public and private sectors and is variously referred to as the charitable sector, independent sector, voluntary sector, tax-exempt sector, non-governmental organisation, economie sociale or non-profit sector (Salamon and Anheier, 1997). As a result of definitional issues, Salamon and Anheier (1997) suggest “…a movement away from the institutional

notion of non-profit sectors toward an operational definition of non-profit organizations (p.496, their italics).

Salamon and Anheier (1997) describe four major types of definition of the non-profit sector including the legal definition, the economic/financial definition that recognises the differences of source of revenue from market activities or contributions, the functional definition that emphasises the function or purpose for which the organisation is established and the structural-operational definition that emphasizes the structure and operation of the entity. Based on their analysis of the models of non-profits around the world, Salamon and Anheier (1997, p.48) concluded that the “structural-operational” definition of the non-profit sector is “…a useful foundation around which to organize serious thinking about and research”. The authors suggest that there are five guiding principles:

1. The entity must be organized or institutionalized to some extent, private or institutionally separate from government.

42

2. The organisation must be privately as opposed to publicly controlled.

3. The entity must also be self-governing and equipped to control their own activities.

4. Voluntary organisations do not distribute profits to stakeholders or shareholders and surpluses are “plowed back into the basic mission of the agency” (Salamon and Anheier, 1997, p.33). This contrasts with the private for-profit sector that focuses on profit distribution to shareholders. It does not negate the need for a commercial sense and managerialism in the advancement of the cause as advocated by Porter (1985).

5. Not-for-profit organisations must involve “...some meaningful degree of voluntary participation” (Salamon and Anheier, 1997, p.34) and actors are usually involved “…in the giving of gifts of time or other valuables for public purposes” (Salamon and Anheier, 1997, p.13). In the continuing debate on the differences between ‘giving’ and ‘volunteering’ and the way in which they contribute to civic life, Jones (2006) concluded that “…volunteering is most strongly promoted by community ties and increased giving is best explained by personal resources and helping values” (p.249).

The voluntary sector in the UK and the US is well developed and these countries appear to share a conceptual understanding of this sector whereas developing countries are characterised by a general lack of a distinguishable non-profit sector (Salamon and Anheier, 1997). The UK and the US may therefore provide insight into voluntarism in partnerships. The voluntary sector considered here is the private voluntary sector, as opposed to philanthropic organisations, and is “…a set of private organizations providing a wide variety of information, advocacy, and services” (ibid.). The question arises as to whether the voluntary contribution of the private sector in PPPs in developing countries is reflective of social entrepreneurs who implement “private sector strategies for social sector success” (Emerson and Twersky, 1996:quotation in title; Kearns, 2000) or whether it is “…based on the traditions of the voluntary sector itself than in the competition-based management approach inherent in private sector administrative theory and practice” (Bush, 1992, p.391). It is argued that

43

“…administration in the voluntary sector should be mission based and mission driven; be grounded in the historical traditions of altruism, compassion, and philanthropy; remain sensitive to the key value of volunteerism and to the phenomenon of the volunteers themselves; continue to act as mediating structures between the individual, the community, and the public and private organizations of modern society…” (Bush, 1992, p.391).

The production of revenue by doing a social good also appears to be acceptable for non-profits (Dart, 2004) and there may be room for synergies between both views. The research seeks to examine the tensions that affect the nature of private and public voluntary contribution to PPPs established as non-profit organisations in developing countries.

2.3.3 Crossing the Divide

Reaching across sectors to partner requires crossing many divides, including the bridge between the ideology and values of the public sector, the pragmatic concerns of the private sector and the moral codes that guide the voluntary sector. Advantages of partnering in PPP arrangements for the public sector include better programme performance, cost-efficiencies, and better service provision while the private sector gains better investment opportunities or opportunities to expand its business interests (Jamali, 2008). Non-profits are urged to examine how their narrow interests may be perceived as advocacy and to focus on attaining technical and political legitimacy as they seek to participate in new forms of governance (Taylor and Warburton, 2003). The issues raised in examining the divide between the private and public sectors suggest an internal focus on the part of the private sector (Ghobadian et al., 2007). It appears that private actors are motivated in the main by projects that are commercially viable and would be achievable on their terms of engagement (ibid.). Austin and McCaffrey (2002) examined the motivation of businesses and business leadership coalitions to engage in PPP arrangements. The authors found that CEOs choose to become engaged in community affairs in three ways – as individual civic leaders, as corporate CEOs or as members of a business collective (Austin and McCaffrey, 2002, p.40). They found that motivation usually centred on economic crises but then may

44

progress into the experience of the more strategically motivated partnerships. They also found that governance alliances were often pragmatic, functional partnerships that were purpose-driven with a primary focus on particular outcomes usually centred on economic development (ibid.). Their research framework of regime theory led them to describe this as a pro–growth orientation (Austin and McCaffrey, 2002). This study though acknowledges the relational nature of PPPs and stops short of using relational theories to explain its findings. Yet, it is powerfully descriptive and hints at the challenges and competencies required to partner across the divide, as well as the various levels at which PPPs must be considered including the individual actororganisational and institutional levels.

PPPs and other cross-sectoral collaborations result in the blurring of activities and responsibilities towards a “...diffuse forcefield in which public and private interests have to be reconciled” (Jamali, 2008, p.416). The complexity of reconciling opposing values in PPPs to “‘...marry the best of both sectors’ in order to overcome the weaknesses of both” is noted (Baru and Nundy, 2008, p.68). This requires the adoption of the view of partnerships as an opportunity rather than a threat of loss of control (Jamali, 2008). In an attempt to address the realities of partnering, Jamali (2008) suggested that the focus should be on “…identifying common goals, delineating responsibilities, negotiating expectations and building bridges…Attention needs to be accorded to developing mechanisms – structures, processes and skills – for bridging organizational/interpersonal differences and nurturing communication and coordination” (p.427).