PhD Literature Review Sample: Public-Private Partnerships in Romanian Education: Evaluating Government’s Role in Collaboration

Key Factors Informing the Emergence of Public-Private Partnerships in Education

Public-private partnerships are usually defined as collaborative agreements between private commercial firms and public state institutions aimed at the realisation of strategic government initiatives (Casady & Baxter, 2020; Engel et al., 2018; Nguyen et al., 2018). In the educational sector, these alliances have been widely utilised in the previous decades to overcome a number of problems and limitations. On the one hand, traditional education providers usually rely on existing infrastructures and standard solutions, which makes it difficult to respond to the rapidly changing needs of learners (Hong et al., 2023). The size and inflexibility of public sector systems frequently make it easier to outsource some teaching processes to specialised third parties with unique expertise in particular spheres instead of developing such competencies internally (Jaafar et al., 2023). On the other hand, state-run educational institutions frequently suffer from various inefficiencies, as shown by the COVID-19 pandemic. In this aspect, the use of private sector providers can create cost savings (Mitra, 2020).

Additionally, public-private partnerships in education are considered sources of education enrichment and the promotion of innovation and creativity in education (Dobrosotskiy et al., 2019; Ojha et al., 2022; Ramolobe & Khandanisa, 2024). These effects are explained by the fact that many advanced areas of knowledge have emerged in recent years. As a result, many traditional education providers lack expertise in these niche spheres, which is detrimental to learners. Collaboration with private educators addresses this gap and ensures that service recipients get relevant and high-quality information about certain subjects and develop marketable and up-to-date skills (He & Ismail, 2023). According to Wang et al. (2018), such projects are realised by most developed countries, including China, Australia, Spain, the UK, and Portugal, with the number of public-private collaborations growing at an increasing pace every year. With that being said, such alliances require proper governance schemes and infrastructural arrangements supporting them in order to succeed.

As noted by Hong et al. (2023), problems in this sphere are similar to mergers and acquisitions (M&A) in commercial firms, where different company cultures and company sizes lead to conflicts and clashes. Similarly, large and inflexible systems of public education may not be natively compatible with cutting-edge private learning platforms without substantial mutual adjustments. Another potential benefit of public-private partnerships in education, mentioned by Jaafar et al. (2023) and Musenero et al. (2023), is increased access to education and the ability to build capacity and capabilities of public education providers. According to Kusumasari (2023), public-private partnerships can also take the form of commercial organisations assisting public schools in resource acquisition and the realisation of transformational reforms. Such support can include grants, subsidies, teacher training, construction works, and consulting services (Nayak, 2019). In these schemes, the success of these initiatives may depend on the quality of planning, transparency, and accountability of all involved stakeholders.

It can also be noted that commercial firms succeed and thrive due to the presence of competitive pressures (Ali et al., 2024; Opawole & Jagboro, 2018; Opawole et al., 2019). Their involvement in the provision of educational services by public sector institutions also has to incorporate this standpoint and create rivalry between different providers to stimulate their advancement and improvement. This mentality may be different from the worldview adhered to by traditional institutions and may create potential conflicts during public-private sector partnerships’ realisation (Pangarso & Setyorini, 2023). Transparency and community involvement represent yet another factor informing the adoption of public-private partnerships in many areas (Salman et al., 2023). Commercial firms usually have strong performance measurement instruments that have been successfully applied in collaboration schemes in many sectors, such as healthcare. This reduces overall costs and ensures that the services provided to population members have good cost efficiency and are financially sustainable in the long-term perspective (Villela & Paredes, 2022). At the same time, the involvement of additional stakeholders in public sector operations increases transparency. As a result, private firms raise concerns if they recognise sub-optimal decisions and involve local communities and regulators in higher-level discussions to oversee the realisation of joint projects.

Specific formats of public-private partnerships in education can include charter schools (Twinomuhwezi & Herman, 2020), joint projects between public schools and technology companies (Remington & Yang, 2020), workforce development programmes between businesses and community colleges, schools’ collaborations with non-profit organisations (Mao, 2023), and various formats of projects involving private investors offering resources on philanthropic or for-profit basis (Kim & Kwa, 2020). The diversity of such schemes also implies that they seek to address different learners’ needs ranging from higher-quality learning for children to specialised learning for grown-up professionals. This complexity increases the difficulty of developing one-size-fits-all regulatory frameworks and increases the need for government interventions in such public-private partnerships (Feldman, 2020). Additionally, the selection of the most optimal private sector organisations for certain alliances frequently involves bidding procedures that have to be supervised by state authorities in order to prevent problems and provide dispute resolution options whenever necessary.

In summary of the above, public-private partnerships in education can be seen as an instrument attracting external funding to the public sector, as well as a way of reforming this traditional industry through collaborations with more advanced or specialised education providers (Edwards et al., 2017; Kim & Kwa, 2020; Levey et al., 2020). With that being said, the resulting diversity of such relationships can make it more difficult to regulate this sphere and ensure that they lead to productive collaboration and create the desired outputs (Osei-Kyei et al., 2017). This may be especially problematic for local governments, since failures in the context of education affect members of the general population and reduce their satisfaction with government agencies responsible for such projects (Walsh et al., 2020). This informs the need to investigate the key motivations and factors driving the adoption of public-private partnerships in Romania, which is reflected in the following research question:

RQ1: What are the key factors informing the adoption of public-private partnerships in Romanian education?

The Role of Government in Public and Private Sector Collaboration

Government has many possible roles within the scope of public-private partnerships (Jaafar et al., 2023; Ojha et al., 2022; Xu, 2023). It can act as a regulator providing the legislative context for such relationships and/or platforms for their realisation. This perspective makes it a supervising third party controlling the behaviours of public and private entities from an observer standpoint and adding new regulations and interventions to ensure that the outputs of such projects match its expectations (Hong et al., 2023). However, this standpoint keeps governments distant from specific initiatives and limits their role to industry regulators. Additionally, it can also maintain direct involvement in such partnerships as an end customer or an investor, which can make specific projects more lucrative to other investors due to this direct control and engagement (Dobrosotskiy et al., 2019; Xiao & Lam, 2022). These schemes may be especially relevant in such spheres as education, where local governments are perceived as the parties responsible for the quality of public services by the general population. Hence, any problems in such operations may affect their reputation and have to be closely monitored and prevented.

One of the factors explaining the need for government interventions in public-private partnerships is the complex nature of such collaboration schemes, as mentioned by Ma et al. (2023). On the one hand, the adoption of such services is demand-driven, which calls for prompt response from both parties. However, their limited capability to coordinate their relationships, create shared infrastructures, and share responsibilities and functions may require interventions from governments supervising such projects (Dzhikiya et al., 2023). On the other hand, the effectiveness of such guidance can be moderated by the skills and competencies of specific authorities (Xiong et al., 2020). Many rural administrations lack the resources, knowledge, and capabilities required to initiate and supervise public-private partnerships, which limits their introduction to large cities with well-established and experienced government bodies (Ali et al., 2024). In this scenario, their role may be limited to supervision rather than active involvement as suggested earlier.

Specific measures facilitating the process of public and private sector collaboration usually include the identification of success measures (Xiao & Lam, 2022), the quantification of project milestones (Castelblanco et al., 2024), the establishment of key performance indicators (Hueskes et al., 2017), and the introduction of effective monitoring systems and other project management tools (Owotemu et al., 2022). These activities overlap with the aforementioned regulatory role of governments setting the frameworks and policies governing the analysed collaboration schemes. Such functions may be crucial due to the need to also align such projects with applicable state standards and national education goals in an accountable and transparent manner (Engel et al., 2018). With many smaller businesses and institutions lacking the expertise to develop such frameworks on their own, state governments may be more effective in setting universal standards and best practices that become obligatory for all members of public-private partnerships (Wang et al., 2018). In the educational context, this may be seen as a widespread role due to the high levels of standardisation required from education programmes in most countries.

Another role of governments in public-private partnerships reflects their involvement as quality assurance bodies and investors increasing the trust of private investors in such schemes (He & Ismail, 2023; Kusumasari, 2023; Owotemu et al., 2022). As shown by OECD data, up to 81% of higher education in Poland, 85% in Belgium, 79% in France, and 72% in Ireland is financed by commercial organisations (Dzhikiya et al., 2023). This indicates that public-private partnerships are effectively used by developed countries as a way of ensuring superior results in comparison with private investments or public management (Jaafar et al., 2023). As opposed to both of these scenarios, long-term relationships imply that both parties collaborate and exchange their knowledge, competencies, and suggestions as opposed to single-time transfers of money from one party to another (Musenero et al., 2023). The involvement of governments as investors and quality assurance providers further implies that such partnerships will be closely supervised and monitored for compliance with all applicable regulations, which reduces potential risks in this sphere.

Additionally, such authors as Castelblanco et al. (2024) and Salman et al. (2023) highlight the role of governments as crisis managers in public-private relationships. More specifically, they can provide guidance in challenging situations such as global economic disruptions and coordinate the actions of different stakeholders, including local communities. This may also involve the provision of financial support and investments to ensure that public-private partnerships address both their own goals and the objective set forth by education systems, even if the latter does not create immediate value for all involved parties (Villela & Paredes, 2022). Specific phases of government control over such relationships, outlined by Hueskes et al. (2017), may include project identification, detailed preparation, procurement, and project implementation phases. These elements ensure that the involved bidding processes used in the selection of private contractors will be transparent and will result in mutually beneficial contractual agreements (Pangarso & Setyorini, 2023). Similarly, government involvement may protect both parties from non-performance of obligations, with the government introducing the required sanctions, rewards, and dispute resolution strategies.

Summarising the above, the government’s role in public-private partnerships may range from industry regulators providing the legislative frameworks and platforms for such alliances (Nayak, 2019) to their active participant as an end customer or an investor directly supporting them with its resources (Kim & Kwa, 2020; Twinomuhwezi & Herman, 2020). According to the analysed studies, a greater degree of involvement is generally associated with higher degrees of control and transparency and greater trust towards such collaboration projects (Osei-Kyei et al., 2017). These considerations can make them more attractive for other investors willing to invest their money into the partnerships explicitly supported by the local government and its own resources. At the same time, the existing evidence related to the sphere of education remains limited, with no such recent research being available in Romania (Walsh et al., 2020). This forms a gap in knowledge that this thesis seeks to address by evaluating the role of local government in public-private partnerships in this sphere. The results will answer the following research question:

RQ2. What is the role of government in public-private partnerships in Romanian education?

References

Ali, S., Bhutta, S., Ahmad, S., Ansari, A., Ahmed, A., & Qadir, Y. (2024). Effectiveness of public‐private partnerships on educational access and quality of primary and secondary schooling in low‐and middle‐income countries: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 20(2), 1385-1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1385

Casady, C., & Baxter, D. (2020). Pandemics, public-private partnerships (PPPs), and force majeure | COVID-19 expectations and implications. Construction Management and Economics, Routledge, 38(12), 1077-1085. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2020.1817516

Castelblanco, G., Guevara, J., & De Marco, A. (2024). Crisis management in public–private partnerships: lessons from the global crises in the XXI century. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 14(1), 56-73. https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-11-2022-0174

Dobrosotskiy, V., Semenova, G., Kazarinova, E., & Falina, N. (2019). Venture investments into digital education in the conditions of industry 4.0: problems of attraction and directions of usage. On the Horizon, 27(3), 213-218. https://doi.org/10.1108/OTH-07-2019-0035

Dzhikiya, M., Karp, M., Bart, T., & Kukushkin, S. (2023). Public-private partnership as a mechanism of education management in the structure of the social and investment model of economic growth. Frontiers in Education, 8(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1132644

Edwards, D., DeMatthews, D., & Hartley, H. (2017). Public-Private Partnerships, accountability, and competition: theory versus reality in the charter schools of Bogotá, Colombia. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(1), 1-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2556

Engel, E., Fischer, R., & Galetovic, A. (2018). The joy of flying: efficient airport PPP contracts. Transportation Research, 114(1), 131-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2018.05.001

Feldman, J. (2020). Public-Private Partnerships in South African education: risky business or good governance? Education as Change, 24(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAP-11-2022-0127

He, L., & Ismail, K. (2023). Do staff capacity and performance-based budgeting improve organisational performance? Empirical evidence from Chinese public universities. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01523-2

Hong, S., Kim, B., & Lee, S. (2023). A public health crisis in the university: impact of crisis response strategies on universities’ transparency and post-crisis relationships during COVID 19 pandemic. Public Relations Review, 49(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2023.102287

Hueskes, M., Verhoest, K., & Block, T. (2017). Governing public–private partnerships for sustainability: An analysis of procurement and governance practices of PPP infrastructure projects. International Journal of Project Management, 35(6), 1184-1195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.02.020

Jaafar, J., Latiff, A., Daud, Z., & Osman, M. (2023). Does revenue diversification strategy affect the financial sustainability of Malaysian Public Universities? A panel data analysis. Higher Education Policy, 36(1), 116-143. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-021-00247-9

Kim, S., & Kwa, K. (2020). A closer look at risk factors for Public-Private Partnerships in Singapore: six case studies. Asian Journal of Political Science, 28(2), 142-163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02185377.2020.1780142

Kusumasari, B. (2023). Critical success factors of Public-Private Partnerships in the education sector. Public Administration and Policy, 26(3), 309-320. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAP-11-2022-0127

Levey, R., Connors, A., & Martin, L. (2020). Public university use of social infrastructure Public-Private Partnerships (P3s): an exploratory examination. Public Works Management and Policy, 25(3), 298-311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724X19899404

Ma, L., Christensen, T., & Zheng, Y. (2023). Government technological capacity and public–private partnerships regarding digital service delivery: Evidence from Chinese cities. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 89(1), 95-111. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523211018849

Mao, Y. (2023). The distortion of Public-Private Partnerships in China: an institutional perspective of central-local government relations. Administration and Society, 55(4), 752-776. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997231158343

Mitra, R. (2020). COVID-19 is killing education budgets: are educational public-private partnerships an answer? Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 5(3), 255-264. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-07-2020-0056

Musenero, L., Baroudi, B., & Gunawan, I. (2023). Critical issues affecting dispute resolution practice in infrastructure public–private partnerships. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 149(3), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1061/JCEMD4.COENG-12902

Nayak, B. (2019). Reconceptualising public private partnerships (PPPs) in global public policy. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 15(3), 259-266. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJEMSD-04-2018-0041

Nguyen, D., Garvin, M., & Gonzalez, E. (2018). Risk allocation in U.S. Public-private partnership highway project contracts. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 144(5), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001465

Ojha, V., Ghosh, J., & Pradhan, B. (2022). The role of public expenditure on secondary and higher education for achieving inclusive growth in India. Metroeconomica, 73(1), 49-77. https://doi.org/10.1111/meca.12353

Opawole, A., & Jagboro, G. (2018). Compensation mechanisms for minimizing private party risks in concession-based public-private partnership contracts. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 36(1), 93-120. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBPA-09-2017-0041

Opawole, A., Jagboro, G., Kajimo-Shakantu, K., & Olojede, B. (2019). Critical performance factors of public sector organizations in concession-based public-private partnership projects. Property Management, 37(1), 17-37. https://doi.org/10.1108/PM-09-2017-0052

Osei-Kyei, R., Chan, A., Javed, A., & Ameyaw, E. (2017). Critical success criteria for Public-Private Partnership projects: international experts’ opinion. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 21(1), 87-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/1648715X.2016.1246388

Owotemu, A., Daniel, C., & Abubakar, H. (2022). Evaluating the management of public private partnerships for the provision of affordable housing in Nigeria. Journal of Service Science and Management, 15(4), 392-415. https://doi.org/10.4236/jssm.2022.154024

Pangarso, A., & Setyorini, R. (2023). The drivers of e-learning satisfaction during the early COVID-19 pandemic: Empirical evidence from an Indonesian private university. Cogent Education, 10(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2149226

Ramolobe, K., & Khandanisa, U. (2024). The role of public–private partnership in achieving local government sustainable development. Africa’s Public Service Delivery & Performance Review, 12(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.4102/apsdpr.v12i1.816

Remington, T., & Yang, P. (2020). Public-Private Partnerships for skill development in the United States, Russia, and China. Post-Soviet Affairs, 36(5), 495-514. https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2020.1780727

Salman, F., Hashemi, S., & Foroghi, D. (2023). Feasibility of establishing operational budgeting in Iraqi public universities. Risks, 11(2), 44-62. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks11020044

Twinomuhwezi, I., & Herman, C. (2020). Critical success factors for Public-Private Partnership in universal secondary education: perspectives and policy lessons from Uganda. International Journal of Educational Administration and Policy Studies, 12(1), 133-146. http://dx.doi.org/10.5897/IJEAPS2020.0656

Villela, R., & Paredes, J. (2022). Empirical analysis on public expenditure for education, human capital and economic growth: evidence from Honduras. Economies, 10(1), 241-260. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10100241

Walsh, C., Mital, A., Ratcliff, M., Yap, A., & Jamaleddine, Z. (2020). A Public-Private Partnership to transform online education through high levels of academic student support. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 30-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.14742/ajet.6107

Wang, H., Xiong, W., Wu, G., & Zhu, D. (2018). Public–private partnership in Public Administration discipline: a literature review. Public Management Review, 20(2), 293-316. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1313445

Xiao, Z., & Lam, J. (2022). Effects of project-specific government involvement actions on the attractiveness of port public-private partnerships among private investors. Transport Policy, 125(1), 59-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.05.008

Xiong, W., Chen, B., Wang, H., & Zhu, D. (2020). Public–private partnerships as a governance response to sustainable urbanization: Lessons from China. Habitat International, 95(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2019.102095

Xu, H. (2023). Does government support affect private partners’ profitability in public–private partnerships? Evidence from China. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01723-w