Manifestaciones de la Entidad Cedente sobre las características de los Activos Cedidos

The development of partnership approaches has evolved in many countries due to the global changes that have exerted pressure on governments in terms of public service provision. Political, socio- economic and resource constraints are some of the factors that have led to challenges for governments. A realisation that no one actor possesses all the necessary competencies to deal with the demands raised by the governance of various areas thus emerged (McQuaid, 2010). These factors led to the endorsement of the partnership approach as co-operative efforts between various actors to work together towards achieving specific goals or strategic objectives (McQuaid, 2010).

2.11.1 What is partnership?

Partnership is defined as collaboration between individuals or organisations, both in the public and private sector, for the achievement of common goals or strategic objectives. In public-private partnerships, emphasis is placed on mutual agreement by various actors towards the improvement of urban economies and quality of life. Bailey (1994) contributed to defining public-private partnerships, describing them as an integration of various interests in order to prepare for agreed upon strategic objectives in a given area. Sellgren (1990) chose to define partnerships from the economic development perspective, and cited the inclusion of funding by various agencies as an element or criterion for partnership (Bennett and Krebs, 1994).

The research findings by Osborne (2010) suggest that the transformation of most governments shaken by the turbulence and complexity of public policy has caused a shift towards government functions being performed by private agencies with more competencies, in order to give them accountability, focus and to allow for effectiveness.

In some cases, however, it was found that the very nature of these partnerships caused exploitation and ambiguity in terms of accountability (Osborne, 2010). Defining a partnership was thus not an easy concept for most authors.

In an attempt to put more emphasis on defining partnerships, Montuori and Conti (1995) differentiated partnerships according to the relationship between the partners involved. The authors drew on previous writings and outlined a dominator model and a partnership model as two distinct

30

approaches to emphasise differences between partnerships. The dominator model is explained as one that discriminates and put emphasis on power hierarchies dominated by command and control, where a partner at the top of the pyramid is feared and thus seem to be the dominant decision maker. Conflict in this model is avoided and/or repressed, and often has explosive results if manifested (Montuori and Conti, 1995). Their partnership model, however, has flatter hierarchies and more interaction between partners; conflict is addressed in an open manner with interventions for resolution.

There is an open dialogue and mutual respect between partners. The latter model has received much support from scholars and authors, yet some warn against the assumption that in a partnership there is homogeneity between partners. This would be an unrealistic assumption and would not sustain successful partnerships, taking into consideration that stakeholder groups are different and often bring unique qualities not familiar or supported by other groups in the partnership (Beaulieu and Pasquero, 2002).

Various authors have explored the dimensions, characteristics or traits of partnerships. Some traits that have been common amongst scholars include the five dimensions or traits as discussed by (McQuaid, 2010). Firstly, the author mentioned the purpose of the partnership or what the partnership seeks to achieve as an important trait, in the sense that partnerships are driven by varied reasons. A partnership may seek to attract extra external resources, maximise efficient use of internal resources, or it may be driven by a project that requires long term implementation (McQuaid, 2010). In project specific driven partnerships, Warhurst (2001) emphasised the importance of stakeholder expectations, policies, innovations, management of reputations and proper governmental plans as important attributes.

Secondly, the key actors involved in the partnership and structure of the relationship are an important factor. This concept was critically acclaimed by Checkland and Scholes (1990), where the involvement of various stakeholders was perceived to be an important process in which there is an opportunity for creative and deep thinking into how things will evolve in the future and how this will impact on all stakeholders.

Key actors in a project driven partnership can include governments, public bodies, communities, grant makers, non-governmental organisations, and the private sector. The involvement of these partners may vary according to their areas of operation, influence and public service mandate

31

(McQuaid, 2010). Another dimension for key actors in a partnership is the structure of the partnership, which ranges from constitutional, which is mandated by government, to contractual, which is legally binding and non-contractual, which are just general agreements for cooperation (McQuaid, 2010). Thirdly, the timing or stage of involvement in the partnership process is important, as changes over time - through the scope of the project, the turnover of the project partners or the duration of the project - may have adverse effects on the partnership as a whole, since the composition of the stakeholders is diachronic and thus changes over time (Beaulieu and Pasquero, 2002).

Fourth, the geographical area of the project may have an effect on a partnership based on the internal and external influences in that particular area. The fifth dimension is on how the partnership is going to be rolled out or implemented. This involves an exploration of mechanisms on the provision, control and roll-out of resources (McQuaid, 2010).