Geert Teisman

Institutional and Strategic Barriers to Public-Private Partnership: An Analysis of Dutch Cases

Public—Private Partnerships (PPPs) are becoming popular in Europe, but does the reality match the idea of co-operating actors who achieve added value together and share risks? An analysis of three PPPs in the Netherlands suggests that, in practice, PPPs are less ideal than the idea. Partners have difficulty with joint decision-making and organization and tend to revert to traditional forms—by contracting out and by separating responsibilities.

Partnership Arrangements: Governmental Rhetoric or Governance Scheme?

It has become popular to advocate partnership arrangements. Such partnerships may be seen as new forms of governance, which fit in with the imminent network society. However, the idea of partnership is often introduced without much reflection on the need to reorganize policy-making processes and to adjust existing institutional structures. In this contribution, we discuss the ambiguity of partnerships. An empirical basis is provided by means of an analysis of the policy making on the expansion of the Rotterdam harbor. This case indicates that although new governance schemes are being proposed and explored, they still have to comply with the existing procedures in which they are imbedded. Governments especially are not prepared to adjust to governance arrangements. Policy making continues to be based on self-referential organizational decisions, rather than on joint interorganizational policy making. This raises questions about the added value of intended cooperative governance processes.

Models For Research into Decision‐MakingProcesses: On Phases, Streams and Decision‐Making Rounds

This article elaborates on the question of how complex decision making can be analysed. Three conceptual models are compared: the phase model, the stream model and the rounds model. Each model is based on specific assumptions about what decision making is and how it should be analysed. The phase model focuses on successive and distinctive stages in a process, i.e. defining a problem, searching for, choosing and implementing solutions. The stream model emphasizes concurrent streams of participants, problems and solutions, defining decision making as the connection between these streams. The rounds model combines elements of the other two models, in assuming that several actors introduce combinations of problems and solutions, and create progress through interaction. Each model generates specific insights, as is shown from the example of the ‘Betwe line’, a railway line intended for the transport of cargo, in the Netherlands. The phase model concentrates on decisions taken by a focal actor; the stream model focuses on the coincidentallinks between problems, solutions and actors; and the rounds model on the interaction between actors.

Complexity Theory and Public Management

Abstract The idea that decision-making processes and management in public policy and public administration are complex has entered the minds of practitioners and scholars in public administration. Insights from theories on complexity, however, have hardly been used in public administration and management. In other social sciences, like economics for instance, an evolutionary approach has received far more attention. The question whether such a complexity theory approach could help to increase our understanding of public management phenomena is an intriguing one. In this volume the reader will find a selection of articles on public management using insights from the complexity theory. Before we present the seven articles, which all deal with notions from the complexity theory and apply them to phenomena in the public sector, we will briefly introduce some basic ideas concerning this theory.

Public – private partnership: on the edge of project and process management. Insights from Dutch practice: the Sijtwende spatial development project

The aim of this paper is to describe and analyze the management strategies of cooperation in public-private partnerships (PPPs) in spatial planning. We describe a specific case study: the Dutch location development project ‘Sijtwende’. We deal with the main question of what this case teaches us about the management of complex processes of cooperation between public and private partners. We will describe the difficulties in the cooperation. Furthermore, we will look for important breakthroughs in the process of collaborative development of the area. In this paper we combine theoretical thoughts on PPP models, and management and empirical insights from out in-depth case study, in order to find balances in using project and process management strategies for managing complex spatial planning processes.

Toward legitimate governance strategies for climate adaptation in the Netherlands: combining insights from a legal, planning, and network perspective

In general, the issue of climate change is characterized by uncertainty, complexity, and multifacetedness. In the Netherlands, climate change is in above highly controversial. These characteristics make it difficult to realize adaptation measures that are perceived as legitimate. In this article, we analyze the main difficulties and dilemmas with regard to the issue of legitimacy in the context of climate adaptation. We conceptualize legitimacy from a legal, a planning, and a network perspective and show how the concept of legitimacy evolves within these three perspectives. From a legal perspective, the focus is on the issues of good governance. From a planning perspective, the focus is on the flexibility, learning, and governance capacity. From a network perspective, issues of dialogue, involvement, and support are important. These perspectives bring in different criteria, which are not easy compatible. We describe and illustrate these legitimacy challenges using an in-depth study of the Dutch IJsseldelta Zuid case. From our case study, we conclude that, from a legitimacy perspective, the often acclaimed necessity to be adaptive and flexible is quite problematic. The same holds true for the plea to mainstream adaptation into other policy domains. In our case study, these strategies give rise to serious challenges in relation to good governance and consensus—two indispensable cornerstones of legitimacy.

Symposium on water governance. Prologue: water governance as a government’s actions between the reality of fragmentation and the need for integration

This special issue on water governance pays attention to the aspect of fragmentation and integration from an international point of view. We want to give insights into how different countries — the USA, South America and Europe — are dealing with fragmentation in water issues. This first contribution was partly an introduction on the theme of water governance and the fragmentation—integration public administration discussion, and partly gave case illustrations from the Netherlands (two delta areas) in showing how fragmentation and attempts at integration took place. These two cases illustrated that fragmentation is manifest and attempts at integration are alive, but are often not effective. On the one hand (southwestern delta) integration is sought for through centralization (top-down coordination) and creating one overall formal structure (through legislation), on the other hand (IJsseldelta-South) we saw that integration is difficult to manage leading to crowding out and fading out effects (from central, regional integration efforts to local integration efforts). Points for practitioners Water resources, especially fresh water, will become one of the scarcest resources for humans, societies and ecosystems. In several areas of the world this is already quite evident. A third of the world’s population lives in water-stressed countries. Water governance is also crucial in terms of water surplus. Almost all the deltas in the world will face flooding problems, and three-quarters of the world’s population live in deltas. The joint starting point for this symposium on Water Governance is the existing fragmentation of responsibilities in this field. Achieving cooperation and integration in such fragmented systems is a core problem in governance.

Complexity and Management of Improvement Programmes

Abstract This contribution aims to understand how governance processes evolve and why the destination often deviates from initial expectations. In contrast to the common idea that deviations are caused by a lack of quality of the initial decisions we will argue that deviations are generated by the interaction in the throughput process between three loosely coupled action systems: (1) initiating system, (2) surrounding systems and (3) contexts or landscapes. All three develop ambitions and behaviours, which tend to interfere with each other. The case study provides evidence for the assumption that dramatic changes in context and initiating and surrounding systems happen. Processes evolve in a changing landscape. Implementation enrols as combinations of guidance by initial decisions and self-organizing action systems involved. Finally the proposition is made that processes benefits from management that combines the ability to adapt to change with the willingness to keep on course.

Towards a perspective of system synchronization in water governance: a synthesis of empirical lessons and complexity theories

In this manuscript we conclude the special issue on Water Governance. We look back on the different contributions and discuss different interesting insights from the three contributions focusing on Wisconsin, California and Southern Ecuador. We place these insights into a new perspective on integration, i.e. system synchronization, which the authors consider to be an option for integration in complex governance systems, where nobody is in charge. Points for practitioners In this epilogue we have picked the fruits of the contributions to this symposium. We have come to another way of looking at the fragmentation—integration debate in public administration, i.e. system synchronization. By discussing different water cases from Wisconsin, California and Southern Ecuador, we have arrived at three principles of system synchronization: Synchronization means self-organization and variation; Synchronization means thinking and acting between self and the larger whole; Synchronization means operating on and beyond the boundaries of subsystems. These principles are needed to realize system synchronicity in which different subsystems largely hold their identity, but strive for coherence.

Water governance: Facing the limits of managerialism, determinism, water-centricity, and technocratic problemsolving

We are proud to present you the very first issue of the International Journal on Water Governance (IJWG). The aim of this journal is to become an important source of knowledge on governance of complex water systems, and a source of inspiration for all professionals in the water domain to improve the governance capacity. We want to focus on actual and urgent theoretical issues and bring them further by application and elaboration in the domains of water. From a variety of disciplines, we will gather new insights on what constitutes the governance capacity with regard to specific topics, like water quality, flooding and scarcity.