Advertisement

Institutional Transformation of Public Private Partnership to Ensure Low Transaction Costs: Case Study of Infrastructure Provision at the Ministry of Public Works and Housing of the Republic of Indonesia

  • Yolanda Indah PermatasariEmail author
  • Sudarsono Hardjosoekarto
  • Roy Valiant Salomo
Original Paper
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

This paper provides an example of reconstruction of Public-Private Partnership (PPP) as governance structure at the ministrial level, using a perspective of transaction costs (Ho et al., J Manag Eng, Ho et al. 2015). This reconstruction is required since the performance of PPP scheme and interest of private sector to participate in the infrastructure provision is still practically low. Soft Systems Methodology-based Action Research (Checkland and Scholes 1990; Checkland and Poulter 2006; Hardjosoekarto, Syst Pract Action Res 25:493–509, 2012, Human Resource Manag Res. 3 49-53, 2013; Hardjosoekarto et al. 2013) is used to explore the form of PPP governance in organizational level as a part of hierarchy of policy formulation (Bromley 1989). According to previous study conducted by Ho, Levitt, Hsu, and Tsui, three main sources of transaction costs are identified: principal-principal conflict, renegotiation and hold-up problem, and soft budget constraint. This paper, however, only focuses on renegotiation and hold-up problem as the main sources of transaction costs. It is suggested that in the implementation of PPP, the Ministry of Public Works and Housing required a PPP Unit that serves as champion on the top by establishing new Directorate General that specially handling infrastructure investment.

Keywords

Public-private partnership Governance structure Transaction cost analysis Institutional transformation 

Notes

References

  1. Akintoye A, Beck M, Kumaraswamy M (2015) Public-private partnership: a global review. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asian Development Bank (2007) Public-private partnership handbook. ADB Business CentreGoogle Scholar
  3. Barton J, Stephens J, Haslett T (2009) Action research: its foundations in open systems thinking and relationship to the scientific method. Syst Pract Action ResGoogle Scholar
  4. Bromley DW (1989) Economic interests and institutions: the conceptual foundations of public policy. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Checkland P (1999) Systems thinking, systems practice. In: Jon Wiley & sons ltd. Baffins Lane, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  6. Checkland P, Poulter J (2006) Learning for action: a short definitive account for soft system methodology and its use for practitioners, teachers and students. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  7. Checkland P, Poulter J (2010) Soft systems methodology. In: Reynold M, Holwell S (eds) System approaches to managing change: a practical guide. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Checkland P, Scholes J (1990) Soft systems methodology in action. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  9. Economist Intelligence Unit, Asian Development Bank (2015) Evaluating the environment for public-private partnership in Asia-Pacific: the 2014 infrascope. Asia-Pacific InfrascopeGoogle Scholar
  10. Hardjosoekarto S (2012) Construction of social development index as a theorical research practice in action research by using soft systems methodology. Syst Pract Action Res 25:493–509.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-012-9237-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hardjosoekarto, S (2013) Dual imperatives of action research: lessons for theoretical research practice to construct social development index by using soft systems methodology. Human Resource Manag Res Sci Academic Pub 3:49–53.  https://doi.org/10.5923/j.hrmr.20130301.10
  12. Hardjosoekarto S, Yovani N, Santiar L (2013) Institutional strengthening for the role of mass media in disaster risk reduction in Japan and Indonesia: an application of SSM-based action research. Syst Pract Action Res. 27:227–246  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-013-9282-z
  13. Ho SP, Levitt RE, Tsui CW, Hsu Y (2015) Opportunism-focused transaction cost analysis of public-private partnerships. J Manag Engin.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000361
  14. Kim KS, Jung MW, Park MS, Koh YE, Kim JO (2018) Public private Partnership Systems in the Republic of Korea, the Phillipines, and Indonesia. ADB Economics Working Paper SeriesGoogle Scholar
  15. National Planning Agency (2014) Rencana pembangunan jangka menengah nasional (RPJMN) 2015–2019 [National medium-term development plan 2015–2019]. National Development AgencyGoogle Scholar
  16. OECD (2008) Dedicated public-private partnership units: a survey of institutional and governance structures. OECD Publishing, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sankaran S, Tay BH, Orr M (2009) Managing organizational change by using soft systems thinking in action research projects. Intl J of Managing Projs in Bus 2(2):179–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Uchiyama K (2009) A concise theoritical grounding of action research: based on Checkland’s soft systems methodology and Kimura’s phenomenological psiciatry. Institute of Business of Daito Bunka University, JapanGoogle Scholar
  19. Williamson OE (1979) Transaction cost economics: the governance of contractual relations. J Law EconGoogle Scholar
  20. Williamson OE (1999) Public and private bureaucracies: a transaction cost economics perspective. J Law, Econ Org 15(1):306–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Yescombe ER (2007) Public-private partnership: principles of policy and finance. Butterworth-HeinemannGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Social and Political SciencesUniversitas IndonesiaJakartaIndonesia

Personalised recommendations