The State-Private Interface in Public Service Provision
Political theory sets out a strong case for the state to play a major role in public service provision. Yet services are often provided by a range of state and non-state actors as well as by collaborative partnerships. This paper surveys the literature, seeking to map arrangements in developing countries and to understand the politics of different types of service provision.
- There is strong evidence that public-private partnerships work best where there is a good fit with local norms and expectations – legitimacy – and structured relationships with institutions that can monitor providers and have the independence to do so. This implies that some level of state capacity and rule of law is important.
- The type of interface that works best varies according to sectoral characteristics and the complexity of a particular service. Even where state capacity is weak, public-private partnerships may effectively carry out simple tasks or elements of service provision that need little coordination among different actors, as long as those partnerships have local legitimacy. More complex programmes are, however, likely to flounder.
- When services are outsourced, it is preferable that the state builds and retains expertise in contracting and, ideally, some capability to provide the same services itself.
- Multinationals’ ability to provide public services is limited, even where there is significant corporate commitment, if the public does not view them as legitimate providers.
- Outsourcing raises accountability and corruption risks in processes such as the award of tenders, contract management and renegotiation, and the ‘revolving door’ exchange of staff between the private and public sector.
- Informal networks of actors who switch between public and private identities to maximise their own gains may undermine the building of sustainable service provision capacity. On the other hand, locally embedded actors and organisations can sometimes provide extra-legal governance that supports service provision.
The paper also highlights gaps in the evidence. Many of these relate to the need to better understand the politics of partnerships from the point of view of both partners. Much of the literature on service provision considers the provision separately from the provider, or considers one actor as having primary agency while another responds.