[afro-nets] Public-Public Partnerships in SADC countries

[Patrick Burnett <patrick@fahamu.org.za>]

Call for Research Proposals: Public-Public Partnerships
-------------------------------------------------------

International Experiences and Lessons for SADC Countries

Call for Research Proposals BY MAY 12 2004 from the Municipal
Services Project (MSP) and the Southern African Regional Network
on Equity in Health (EQUINET).

Background

The Municipal Services Project (MSP) (http://www.queensu.ca/msp)
is a multi-partner research, policy and educational initiative
examining the restructuring of municipal services in Southern
Africa. Research partners are the International Labour Research
and Information Group (Cape Town), the University of the Wit-
watersrand (Johannesburg), the Human Sciences Research Council
(Durban), EQUINET (Southern Africa), the South African Municipal
Workers Union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, and
Queen's University (Canada).

EQUINET (the Regional Network for Equity and Health in Southern
Africa - http://www.equinetafrica.org) is a network of institu-
tions in Southern Africa which aim to develop and widen the con-
ceptual understanding of equity in health, carry out research to
support scientific debates and policy decisions on equity in
health in Southern Africa, engage stakeholders in the health
sector from regional to community level, and influence policies
and agendas on health at national and regional level in Southern
Africa.

Public-Public Partnerships (PuPs)

The trend towards privatization and "Public-Private Partner-
ships" (PPPs) in the delivery of basic municipal services and in
primary and district level health service provision has received
enormous research attention over the past two decades. Less well
studied (and less common in practice) are "Public-Public Part-
nerships" (PuPs).

Public-public partnerships are arrangements which do not include
for-profit private sector involvement in service delivery in an
effort to keep services and infrastructure publicly owned and
operated. At the same time, PuPs are an explicit attempt to re-
configure conventional models of public service delivery by ex-
panding the role of labour, community organizations and other
public interest and government stakeholders in the planning, im-
plementation and financing of services. A key component of these
public-public partnerships is capacity building, with the intent
of keeping the service in public hands in the long run.

PuPs were used in the expansion of primary health care ap-
proaches in the 1990s, as community organisations played a role
in the expansion of public health and health promotion elements
of health systems. They are a relatively new development on the
service delivery front in relation to municipal supply of water
and other essential services, but there is increasing interest
in them conceptually and politically with ongoing attempts to
promote and develop PuPs in a growing number of countries/cities
around the world. South Africa has implemented PuPs in the water
sector, with mixed success, and there are discussions between
South Africa and Brazil about collaborating in the design and
implementation of further PuPs.

Brazil's success with "participatory budgeting" - while not
strictly speaking a "service" - provides the most high profile
example of alternative public arrangements for municipal plan-
ning. There are also examples in other parts of the world where
different levels of government, public sector unions, public
service agencies and civil society have worked together to cre-
ate innovative, efficient, accountable and affordable service
delivery systems. Not all have been successful, but each offers
a lesson.

This research is intended to act as a baseline "concept paper"
for additional research by the MSP and EQUINET. It aims to pro-
vide information on the state of research on PuPs, an analysis
of the conceptual and logistical framework of PuPs that have
been implemented, and a discussion of the lessons to be learned
from PuPs in SADC countries and elsewhere.

Research Questions

1. What research has been conducted on PuPs in the area of basic
municipal services (water, sanitation, electricity, waste man-
agement) and primary health care services?

2. How have PuPs (in SADC and elsewhere) been conceived philoso-
phically and organizationally, and what are the key commonal-
ities and differences between PuPs that have been implemented?

3. What lessons are to be learned for SADC countries from previ-
ous/existing PuPs?

Research Design

Question 1
This first question is intended to provide a comprehensive, an-
notated bibliography of research that has been conducted on PuPs
in the area of basic municipal services (i.e. water, electric-
ity, waste management, sanitation and primary health care ser-
vices). This should include academic, governmental, union and
NGO research/reports on the subject. The researcher will also
provide a critical overview of the nature of these research re-
ports (e.g. how much of it is primary versus secondary research;
what kinds of methodologies are employed; what are the main geo-
graphic and sectoral foci of the research, is there any ideo-
logical bias, etc.). The review should attempt to cover English-
language work from around the world but references to non-
English research would be helpful. Data collection will involve
internet searches, library databases and networking with re-
searchers working in the field.

Question 2

The second question is an investigation of the nature of the
PuPs -- how are they financed, what is the organizational struc-
ture, how effective have they been, etc.? Depending on the vol-
ume of literature uncovered in Question One, this review can
look at all PuPs for which there is sufficient information, or,
if the literature is too voluminous the researcher can focus on
four or five PuPs that are deemed important for political, eco-
nomic or other reasons. A third alternative would be a sectoral
focus, looking, for example, at PuPs in the water sector or in
the area of primary health care delivery. Other options are pos-
sible but should be determined in consultation with the MSP and
EQUINET after Question One has been completed.

Once a focus is determined, the analysis of each PuP should in-
clude the following:
* when was it first established;
* why was it created;
* what kinds of processes/debates took place in establishing the PuP;
* what are its stated objectives;
* how is it set up organizationally;
* what kinds of financing mechanisms are employed;
* how is the service delivery organized;
* what evidence is there of cost-benefit effectiveness;
* how successful has it been in achieving its objectives?

This case-by-case analysis should be followed by a discussion of
the key commonalities and differences between the PuPs investi-
gated.

This aspect of the research will rely largely on secondary lit-
erature from Question One but may require some primary work in
the form of telephonic or e-mail communication with other re-
searchers in the field and perhaps personal interviews with peo-
ple/organizations involved in PuPs. In the case of SADC-based
PuPs there is the possibility of a small, additional budget for
travel in the region.

Suggestions for future research would also be welcomed, particu-
larly recommendations on PuPs that might yield valuable insights
with further, primary research.

Question Three

This question is designed to elicit recommendations on the in-
troduction and improvement of PuPs in SADC countries (noting
that in South Africa several PuPs have been attempted, and there
appears to be some political commitment to introducing more).
What lessons are to be drawn from the analysis in Question Two
for PuPs in a SADC context? What would be the advan-
tages/disadvantages of introducing PuPs in SADC countries? What
would appear to be the biggest opportunities/constraints to in-
troducing more PuPs in SADC states? Etc.

Again, recommendations for further research to assist in answer-
ing these questions would be welcomed.

Research Outputs and Timing

The following written products will be required as part of the
research output:

* submission of a draft report covering Question 1 and of op-
tions for addressing Question 2 for comment by EQUINET and MSP
(by June 30, 2004);

* submission a draft report on Question 2 for comment by EQUINET
and MSP (by August 30, 2004);

* submission of a publishable quality final research report de-
tailing the findings of the research (by September 30, 2004);

* The report should be 15-20,000 words (no more than 30 pages)
and written in an accessible format geared for policy makers,
NGOs, unionists and academics.

The work will be done under the MSP / EQUINET umbrella, which
will be clearly noted on the cover page. EQUINET and MSP will
disseminate the report through their networks. The report will
be published jointly by MSP and EQUINET as an MSP Occasional Pa-
per / EQUINET discussion paper acknowledging the authorship of
the researchers. The publications may also be used by MSP and
EQUINET in their web and other publications.

While the author will be free to publish the work in any refe-
reed journal, the author agrees to hold any presentation or pub-
lication of the work in another forum until after it has been
published by EQUINET and MSP in its series.

Fees

The consultant will be paid a total fee of US$ 4,000 for the pa-
per. The fee will be paid as follows:

* US$ 1,500 on submission of the draft report June 30, 2004;

* US$ 1,500 on submission of the second draft report on Question
2 August 30, 2004;

* US$ 1,000 on submission of a satisfactory final publishable
research report September 30, 2004;

* Should site visits to PuPs in one or more SADC countries be
deemed necessary/useful the Project can make up to US$ 1,000
available for this travel, provided a full justification and
budget are submitted to and approved by MSP and EQUINET.

Conference

Given the growing interest in PuPs, the MSP and EQUINET are in-
terested in the possibility of coordinating a conference / work-
shop on the issue in early 2005 in Southern Africa, using this
concept paper and other ongoing research as the basis for the
meetings. This conference is not part of the research proposal
outlined above, and is not an essential part of the request for
proposals, but we invite interested parties to indicate their
interest in this idea.

Expressions of Interest

Interested applicants should submit a 3 page outline of the pro-
posed areas of the study including sources and framework for the
bibliography in Question 1 and likely PuPs to be covered in
Question 2, a personal CV, and a sample document written by the
applicant on any relevant theme.

Applicants should submit this information by 12th May 2004 to
David McDonald <dm23@post.queensu.ca>, co-director of the Mu-
nicipal Services Project and Rene Loewenson, Programme manager
EQUINET, at <admin@equinetafrica.org>.

"Researchers" includes university faculty, students, and profes-
sionals working in other contexts (e.g. as independent consult-
ants or staff of non-governmental organizations). Preference
will be given to African-based researchers, including African
students completing degree requirements in Canada.

Applicants will be informed by 1 June 2004 if they have been
successful.

--
Patrick Burnett
mailto:patrick@fahamu.org.za