Public–private partnerships (PPPs) are pivotal in addressing societal challenges and enhancing public value. The evolution of PPPs, particularly through outcome-based contracts (OBCs), underscores their focus on generating tangible benefits while linking financial resources with impact. However, the potential of PPPs is often challenged by contractual issues, conflicting objectives and lack of trust between public and private actors, leading to opportunistic behaviours. Social impact measurement (SIM) emerges as a potential management tool to address these contract-related challenges by fostering transparency, accountability and credibility. However, the literature is rarely focused on the practical implementation of SIM as a management instrument and on its role in affect relationship dynamics and value creation. This study aims to address this gap by exploring a SIM negotiation process in a PPP using a process tracing methodology. The findings suggest that if SIM is applied as a managerial tool, with specific characteristics such as an independent evaluator, a participatory approach to measurement construction, and knowledge exchange, could help to align stakeholders with PPP objectives.
AgarchandNileshLaishramBoeing. 2017. “Sustainable Infrastructure Development Challenges Through PPP Procurement Process: Indian Perspective.” International Journal of Managing Projects in Business10 (3): 642–662. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-10-2016-0078.
2.
Albertson KevinFox ChrisChrisO’LearyGaryPainterJessicaLabarbera. 2018. Outcome-Based Commissioning: Theoretical Underpinnings. Bristol, UK: Policy Press, 13–30. Payment by Results and Social Impact Bonds.
3.
BeachDerekPedersenRasmus Brun. 2019. Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines. Michigan, USA: University of Michigan Press.
4.
BennettAndrewCheckelJeffrey T.. 2018. Process Tracing. UK: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
5.
Berrone PascualRicart Joan EnricIsabelDuch AnaValeriaBernardoJordiSalvadorPiedraPena JuanRodriguezPlana Miquel. 2019. “EASIER: An Evaluation Model for Public–Private Partnerships Contributing to the Sustainable Development Goals.” Sustainability11 (8): 2339. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082339.
6.
BoardmanAnthony E.ViningAidan R.. 2012. “The Political Economy of Public–Private Partnerships and Analysis of Their Social Value.” Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics83 (2): 117–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8292.2012.00457.x.
7.
BöhmE.BackhausC.EggertA.CumminsT.. 2016. “Understanding Outcome-Based Contracts: Benefits and Risks From the Buyers’ and Sellers’ Perspective.” Journal of Strategic Contracting and Negotiation2 (1-2): 128–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055563616669740.
8.
BovairdTonyDaviesRhodri. 2011. “Chapter 7 Outcome-Based Service Commissioning and Delivery: Does it Make a Difference?” In New Steering Concepts in Public Management. London, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 93–114.
9.
BoyerEric J.Van SlykeDavid M.RogersJuan D.. 2016. “An Empirical Examination of Public Involvement in Public–Private Partnerships: Qualifying the Benefits of Public Involvement in PPPs.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory26 (1): 45–61.
10.
Bozeman, B. 2019. “Public values: Citizens' perspective.” Public Management Review 21 (6): 817–838.
11.
BraunVirginiaClarkeVictoria. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology3 (2): 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
12.
CappellanoFrancescoMolicaFrancescoMakkonenTeemu. 2023. “Missions and Cohesion Policy: Is There a Match?” Science and Public Policy51 (3): 360–374.
13.
CheckelJ. T.. 2008. “Process Tracing.” In Qualitative Methods in International Relations, edited by KlotzA.PrakashD.. Research Methods Series. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
14.
ChouJ. S.LeatemiaG. T.. 2016. “Critical Process and Factors for Ex-Post Evaluation of Public–Private Partnership Infrastructure Projects in Indonesia.” Journal of Management in Engineering32 (5): 05016011. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000436.
15.
CollierDavid. 2011. “Understanding Process Tracing.” PS: Political Science & Politics44 (4): 823–830.
16.
CrasnowSharon. 2017. “Process Tracing in Political Science: What's the Story?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A62: 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.03.002.
17.
De PieriBenedettaChiodoVeronicaGerliFrancesco. 2023.“Based on Outcomes? Challenges and (Missed) Opportunities of Measuring Social Outcomes in Outcome-Based Contracting.” International Public Management Journal26 (3): 437–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2022.2077490.
18.
FitzGerald ClareT. S.EleonorC.MaraA.. 2023. “Contractual Acrobatics: A Configurational Analysis of Outcome Specifications and Payment in Outcome-Based Contracts.” Public Management Review25 (9): 1796–1814. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2244501.
19.
Forrer JohnKee James EdwinNewcomerKathryn E.EricBoyer. 2010. “Public–Private Partnerships and the Public Accountability Question.” Public Administration Review70 (3): 475–484.
20.
George GerardFewer Thomas J.SergioLazzariniMcGahanAnita M.PhanishPuranam. 2024. “Partnering for Grand Challenges: A Review of Organizational Design Considerations in Public–Private Collaborations.” Journal of Management50 (1): 10–40.
HeinrichCarolyn J. 2002. “Outcomes-Based Performance Management in the Public Sector: Implications for Government Accountability and Effectiveness.” Public Administration Review62 (6): 712–725. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00253.
23.
HodgeGraeme A.GreveCarsten. 2017. “On Public–Private Partnership Performance: A Contemporary Review.” Public Works Management & Policy22 (1): 55–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724X16657830.
24.
HueskesM.VerhoestK.BlockT.. 2017. “Governing Public–Private Partnerships for Sustainability: An Analysis of Procurement and Governance Practices of PPP Infrastructure Projects.” International Journal of Project Management35 (6): 1184–1195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.02.020.
25.
IossaE.SaussierS.. 2018. “Public Private Partnerships in Europe for Building and Managing Public Infrastructures: An Economic Perspective.” Journal of Public Economic Theory. 89 (1): 25–48.
26.
JacksonEdward T.2017. “Evaluating Social Impact Bonds: Questions, Challenges, Innovations, and Possibilities in Measuring Outcomes in Impact Investing: Jacs.” In Innovative Measurement and Evaluation of Community Development Practices. Routledge, 92–100.
27.
JacksonS. F.KollaG.. 2012. “A new realistic evaluation analysis method: linked coding of context, mechanism, and outcome relationships.” American Journal of evaluation33 (3): 339–349.
28.
JohnstonErik W.DarrinHicksNingNanJenniferAuer C.. 2011. “Managing the Inclusion Process in Collaborative Governance.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory21 (4): 699–721.
29.
LiangY.WangH.. 2019. “Sustainable Performance Measurements for Public–Private Partnership Projects: Empirical Evidence from China.” Sustainability11 (13): 3653. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133653.
30.
Liu JunxiaoLove Peter E. D.PeterDavis R.JimSmithMichaelRegan. 2015. “Conceptual Framework for the Performance Measurement of Public–Private Partnerships.” Journal of Infrastructure Systems21 (1): 04014023.
MazzeiM.TeasdaleS.CalòF.RoyM. J.. 2020. “Co-Production and the Third Sector: Conceptualizing Different Approaches to Service User Involvement.” Public Management Review22 (9): 1265–1283. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1630135.
33.
MazzucatoM. 2021. Mission Economy: A Moonshot Guide to Changing Capitalism. London, UK: Penguin.
34.
MillnerR.MeyerM.. 2022. “Collaborative Governance in Social Impact Bonds: Aligning Interests Within Divergent Accountabilities?” Public Management Review24 (5): 729–751. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.2000253.
35.
Nazari ChamakiF.JenkinsG. P.HashemiM.. 2019. “Social Impact Bonds: Implementation, Evaluation, and Monitoring.” International Journal of Public Administration42 (4): 289–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2018.1433206.
36.
NetoD. D. C. E. S.CruzC. O.SarmentoJ. M.. 2017. “Understanding the Patterns of PPP Renegotiations for Infrastructure Projects in Latin America: The Case of Brazil.” Competition and Regulation in Network Industries18 (3-4): 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1783591718790712.
37.
NichollsA.TeasdaleS.. 2019. “Dynamic persistence in UK policy making: the evolution of social investment ideas and policy instruments.” Public Management Review236 (6): 802–817. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1699948.
38.
O’connorC.JoffeH.. 2020. “Intercoder Reliability in Qualitative Research: Debates and Practical Guidelines.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods: 19 . https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220.
39.
PetersenO. H.HoulbergK.. 2016. “Cost Savings or Real Efficiency Gains? Heterogeneous Effects of Involving the Private Market in Public Service Delivery.” Journal of Strategic Contracting and Negotiation2 (3): 206–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055563617691989.
40.
ProvostC.EsteveM.. 2016. “Collective Action Problems in the Contracting of Public Services: Evidence From the UK’s Ministry of Justice.” Journal of Strategic Contracting and Negotiation2 (3): 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055563616678640.
41.
QuelinBertrand V.SandroCabralSergioLazzariniIlzeKivleniece. 2019. “The Private Scope in Public–Private Collaborations: An Institutional and Capability-Based Perspective.” Organization Science30 (4): 831–846. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1251.
42.
RamusTommasoVaccaroAntonino. 2017. “Stakeholders Matter: How Social Enterprises Address Mission Drift.” Journal of Business Ethics143: 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2353-y.
43.
RawhouserH.CummingsM.NewbertS. L.. 2019. “Social Impact Measurement: Current Approaches and Future Directions for Social Entrepreneurship Research.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice43 (1): 82–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258717727718.
44.
ReevesEoin. 2008. “The Practice of Contracting in Public Private Partnerships: Transaction Costs and Relational Contracting in the Irish Schools Sector.” Public Administration86 (4): 969–986. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2008.00743.x.
45.
SaldañaJohnny. 2021. “Coding Techniques for Quantitative and Mixed Data.” In The Routledge Reviewer’s Guide to Mixed Methods Analysis, 151–160. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203729434-14.
46.
ScognamiglioF.SancinoA.CalóF.Jacklin-JarvisC.ReesJ.. 2023. “The Public Sector and Co-Creation in Turbulent Times: A Systematic Literature Review on Robust Governance in the COVID-19 Emergency.” Public Administration101 (1): 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12875.
47.
StephanU.PattersonM.KellyC.MairJ.. 2016. “Organizations Driving Positive Social Change: A Review and an Integrative Framework of Change Processes.” Journal of Management42 (5): 1250–1281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316633268.
48.
TropeanoTommasoBellazzeccaEnricoBengoIrene. 2024. “Exploring the Functions and Role of Social Impact Measurement in Enhancing the Social Value of Public–Private Partnerships: A Systematic Literature Review.” Public Policy and Administration, 09520767241238644.
VecchiVeronicaNiccolòCusumanoCarterCasady B.StefanoGattiEmanueleBorgonovo. 2022. “Addressing Adverse Selection in Public–Private Partnership (PPP) Procurement: An Agent-Based Approach.” Public Works Management & Policy27 (4): 371–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724X221112930.
51.
WilliamsonOliver E. 2000. “The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead.” Journal of Economic Literature38 (3): 595–613. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.38.3.595.
52.
XiongWeiNinghuaZhongFengWangMuyangZhangBinChen. 2022. “Political Opportunism and Transaction Costs in Contractual Choice of Public–Private Partnerships.” Public Administration100 (4): 1125–1144. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12760.
53.
YinRobert K. 2003. “Design and Methods.” Case Study Research3 (9.2): 84.
