Abstract
Background: Hybrid partnerships have emerged as a promising approach for addressing the multifaceted challenges in municipal service delivery. South African municipalities have been experimenting with various forms of hybrid partnerships in the context of mounting service delivery challenges.
Aim: This study analyses the intricacies of hybrid partnerships in South African municipalities.
Setting: The study was carried out in the South African municipalities.
Methods: This study used a qualitative methodology within the interpretivist paradigm. To understand and situate hybrid partnerships, this study relied on secondary sources such as credible documents and conceptual analysis. Thematic analysis was utilised to discern recurrent themes, patterns and insights pertaining to hybrid partnerships in South African municipalities, as well as on a global scale.
Results: This study found that hybrid partnerships are frequently hindered by various substantial challenges in South African municipalities. Such challenges include power imbalances among parties, burdensome complex legal frameworks, a lack of transparency in decision-making processes, limited resources, interference from political entities and ambiguities in policies. These issues undermine the collaborative governance approach, which seeks to promote equal stakeholder participation, openness and mutual trust.
Conclusion: Understanding these barriers is crucial for developing effective strategies for enhancing collaboration and improving service delivery at the municipal level.
Contribution: This research provides timely theoretical and conceptual insights into the factors that affect hybrid partnerships in municipal service delivery. Lastly, the study recommends that policymakers and practitioners strive to establish effective strategies to enhance hybrid partnerships and improve service delivery at the municipal level.
Keywords: hybrid partnerships; collaborative governance; service delivery; municipalities; South Africa.
Introduction
In contemporary public management, the effective provision of services by municipalities in South Africa hinges on collaborative hybrid partnerships. Studies of hybrid partnerships over the past two decades have demonstrated several advantages. Most studies have argued that hybrid partnerships in municipal service delivery offer innovative solutions to address governance challenges and improve service quality (Gottlieb et al. 2018).Collaboration between the public, private and non-profit sectors can enhance efficiency, accountability and community engagement (Plaček et al. 2021; Smith 2010). Hybrid partnerships are particularly relevant for addressing complex sustainability challenges (Pinilla-De La Cruz, Rabetino & Kantola 2022; Slavík et al. 2017). These partnerships can also improve service delivery in disadvantaged areas by combining expert knowledge with local community assistance (Aripin & Rulinawaty 2022). However, the successful implementation of hybrid partnerships that foster effective collaboration requires addressing tensions between efficiency, inclusiveness and accountability (Chen 2020; Kroukamp 2005).
While there are numerous studies on alternative service delivery options focussing on pure public and traditional public-private partnerships focussing on specific projects with defined roles, existing studies do not necessarily reflect on the intricacies and practices of collaborative arrangements between public, private and other hybrid arrangements in the South African municipal context (Binza 2008; Bwanali 2016; Fanzo et al. 2021). South African municipalities face mounting service delivery challenges, necessitating innovative governance approaches, such as hybrid partnerships that combine the strengths of public, private and civil society actors (Horn 2018). However, the intricacies of these partnerships in the local context remain poorly understood. These complexities underscore a critical gap in understanding how hybrid partnerships can be effectively structured, managed and sustained to address persistent service delivery failures and promote inclusive equitable outcomes. To deepen our understanding of this phenomenon, our study explores the complexities of hybrid partnerships within the intricate fabric of South African municipalities, highlighting the challenges that define collaborative governance.
We adopt the definition of hybrid partnerships proposed by Gottlieb et al. (2020), who posit that hybrid partnerships are collaborative arrangements between public and private entities that combine different institutional logic and governance structures to address complex societal challenges. Hybrid partnerships can be categorised based on the degree of public-private interaction and the symmetry of partner contributions (Garrette & Quélin 1994). While these arrangements offer potential benefits, they also face challenges in integrating different logics and practices, and their success in creating truly hybrid practices varies (Gulbrandsen et al. 2015).
This study makes several contributions to the literature. Firstly, we complement past studies that have tended to focus on pure public and traditional public-private partnerships. Secondly, this study offers valuable insights and contributes to practical policymaking in the context of governance and municipal administration in South Africa. Thirdly, this research also fosters a deeper understanding of collaborative approaches to ameliorate complex societal challenges and foster inclusive local development trajectories. Finally, the insights gained from this research can inform the design and implementation of more effective and inclusive governance structures and hybrid partnerships in South Africa, contributing to improved service delivery, social equity and accountability at the local level.
Theoretical framework
This study adopted a theoretical lens of collaborative governance to explore drivers and barriers to hybrid partnerships in South African municipalities. According to Nambalirwa and Sindane (2012), collaborative governance is a process in which public agencies engage non-state stakeholders in a consensus-oriented decision-making process to implement public programmes. Collaborative governance theory provides a framework for understanding multistakeholder interactions and addressing public issues through collective action. The aim was to shed light on the complexities of hybrid partnerships in the South African municipal context and identify challenges to their effectiveness. The underlying assumption of collaborative governance is that collaborative arrangements can improve decision-making processes and policy implementation (Crona & Hubacek 2010). Collaborative governance theory asserts that addressing complex societal challenges requires the active participation and collaboration of multiple stakeholders, including government entities, private sector actors, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), community groups and citizens (Koebele 2019).
Collaborative governance theory is grounded in several critical assumptions that shape how it operates and its potential to achieve positive outcomes. One of the foundational assumptions is the interdependence. This perspective posits that the actors involved in addressing complex public policy issues are interdependent. Consequently, collaborative governance brings together diverse participants, including public and private actors, government agencies, non-state stakeholders, and concerned citizens, to work collectively in distinct ways (eds. O’Flynn & Wanna 2008).
Another key assumption was the presence of shared goals. Collaborative governance assumes that stakeholders possess common interests or objectives concerning the public policy issues under consideration. This alignment of goals reduces uncertainty, ambiguity and conflict, fostering more cohesive and effective collaboration (Borger, 2021). The assumption of mutual trust, which is vital for establishing and maintaining effective partnerships, is closely related to shared goals. Trust underpins open communication, information-sharing and joint decision-making processes. It is critical to overcome conflicts of interest, manage power dynamics and foster cooperation among diverse stakeholders (Fitriana 2019).
Inclusivity and diversity are central to this theory. Public governance research highlights the need for collaborative platforms and processes that incorporate a broad spectrum of stakeholders and perspectives from different sectors. Effective problem-solving depends on the active participation of stakeholders, representing diverse interests, expertise and viewpoints (Ansell et al. 2020). This diversity enriches deliberations and ensures that solutions are well-rounded and equitable.
The theory also assumes a process-oriented approach, which emphasises the importance of the collaborative process itself, rather than focussing solely on outcomes. Constructive dialogue, deliberation and shared learning among stakeholders are prioritised. Processes such as joint problem definition, shared decision-making and ongoing evaluation are critical for building trust, enhancing transparency and sustaining long-term collaborative relationships.
Finally, adaptive capacity is a key assumption underpinning collaborative governance. Stakeholders must remain flexible and willing to experiment, learn and adjust strategies to navigate the complexities and uncertainties inherent in public policy issues. This adaptability enhances the resilience and sustainability of collaborative efforts, ensuring that they respond effectively to changing circumstances and emerging challenges.
Within this framework, hybrid partnerships have emerged as a promising strategy for addressing the gaps in public service delivery. The successful implementation of these partnerships requires effective collaboration of various stakeholders, supported by the assumptions of interdependence, shared goals, mutual trust, inclusivity, process orientation and adaptability. These foundational principles enable collaborative governance to achieve impactful and sustainable outcomes to address public policy challenges.
Literature review
This section conceptualises hybrid partnerships. The study also sheds light on the state of municipal service delivery in South Africa.
The concept of hybrid partnerships
Despite debates surrounding the definition of hybrid partnerships, it is understood as a voluntary and mutually beneficial collaboration aimed at creating social or economic value by combining the complementary skills of public and private actors (Quelin, Kivleniece & Lazzarini 2017). According to Yasmin et al. (2022), the term ‘hybrid partnerships’ implies a form of network governance that occurs at the intersection of diverse organisational arrangements involving multiple entities across various sectors and societal domains. Scholars such as Osborne (ed. 2010:416) contend that hybrid governance is a derivative of new public management (NPM), characterised by utilising market-oriented techniques emphasising efficiency, performance and market-oriented principles, combining elements of both public and private sector approaches to seek innovative solutions to address public service delivery challenges.
Hybrid partnerships typically involve two aspects. Firstly, it divides roles and responsibilities between state and non-state actors in service delivery for specific phases of the service cycle (such as funding and management) or different technologies (Moretto et al. 2023:11). Secondly, it involves the emergence of new co-producers, acting as intermediaries, who assume roles and responsibilities between traditional actors engaged in production and delivery systems (Moretto et al. 2023:11). Different elements can instigate hybrid partnerships, ranging from alterations in regulatory structures such as enacting fresh legislation regarding community engagement in urban service provision to an inclination towards profit-centric methods in administering local services. The mounting service delivery challenges in South African municipalities call for hybrid governance strategies for turnaround service delivery.
In municipal contexts, hybrid partnerships might entail combining hierarchical control with negotiation-based elements, network structures, market interventions, privatisation and contracting out (Colona & Jaffe 2016). Various countries have adopted hybrid partnerships by embracing NPM to tackle the perceived shortcomings of traditional hierarchical public administration models, including inefficiency (Christensen & Lagreid 2007). In this scenario, hybrid partnerships are often viewed as a tactic to cut costs and enhance service quality rather than as a method to promote sustainability. Scholars, such as Kooiman and Jentoft (2009), argue that hybrid structures in developing countries have more potential to deliver sustainable outcomes than traditional ones.
This study uses Gusmão’s (2012) definition of hybrid partnerships to maintain focus and clarity, especially when different interpretations or applications of the term exist. As conceptualised by Gusmão (2012), hybrid partnerships denote a collaborative approach to governance that involves the:
[S]imultaneous participation of public, private, and civil society actors in decision-making processes, policy formulation, and service delivery. This encompasses instances where government agencies partner with NGOs, community groups, and businesses to address complex societal challenges, harnessing the respective strengths and resources of each sector. (p. 184)
Gusmão’s (2012) conceptualisation of hybrid partnerships was guided by Gusmão to achieve collective goals. By applying Gusmão’s (2012) definition, researchers can offer insights into the outcomes and implications of collaborative approaches, highlighting their potential benefits and areas for improvement.
A study by Yasmin et al. (2022) on hybrid partnerships in Bangladesh’s Mymensingh found that new partners in the municipality were involved in decision-making, broadening the municipality’s capacity for implementation through collective efforts. The research also reveals that the involvement of non-state actors provides a platform for local communities to engage, share information and promote awareness of strategies and initiatives aimed at fostering sustainability within Mymensingh. As an illustration, routine events such as yard meetings (gatherings of small community groups in front of their homes), often organised by local NGOs or community leaders alongside a small assembly of individuals (12–15), were employed to disseminate updates from member groups. These gatherings play a role in heightening community awareness concerning both personal and environmental health (Yasmin et al. 2022).
In China, infrastructure hybrid partnerships in municipalities such as Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai and Chongqing have demonstrated the dynamic evolutionary roles of participants and have provided implications for government sectors regarding public service delivery and governance strategies (Hu et al. 2023). In the Netherlands, a hybrid approach in the form of public-private partnerships (PPPs) was used to resolve a political deadlock and successfully integrate a municipal highway, light railway, underground station and houses into the Sijtwende Project (Marell, De Jong & Lous 2022). Additionally, hybrid partnerships have been successful in the water and sewage sectors in countries such as the United Kingdom, Ireland and Poland, contributing to the construction and upgrading of water and wastewater infrastructure while ensuring public health and environmental protection (Łakomy-Zinowik 2022). In South Africa, municipalities collaborated with private partners during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to address service delivery challenges and provide essential services (water and personal protective equipment), which led to more efficient and effective service delivery in the developing world (Mamokhere, Mabeba & Kgobe 2022).
However, in contexts such as South Africa, Luckham and Kirk (2013:10) argue that hybrid partnerships emerge in ‘contested Leviathans’, referring to authorities whose ability to provide services is undermined by conflicting vested interests. In this context, the term suggests that while these governmental bodies possess authority and resources, their ability to effectively deliver services is undermined by internal conflicts, competing agendas and vested interests. These conflicts can arise among various stakeholders within the government itself, such as different departments or political factions, as well as among external actors, such as community groups, businesses or political parties. For example, in South African municipalities, contested Leviathans could manifest as clashes between political parties or factions within local governments, disagreements between government officials and community leaders over resource allocation, or challenges posed by corruption and mismanagement. Overall, the contested Leviathans highlighted the complex dynamics and challenges facing hybrid partnerships, where internal conflicts and external pressures hinder their ability to fulfil their roles and responsibilities effectively. Thus, hybrid partnerships incorporate market-oriented techniques and network governance to enhance municipal efficiency and performance. Globally, hybrid partnerships have been applied in various sectors, such as infrastructure development in China (Hu et al. 2023), water and sewage management in Europe (Lakomy-Zinowik 2022) and COVID-19 response in South Africa (Mamokhere et al. 2022). While these models foster innovation and broaden implementation capacities, challenges persist, especially in contexts such as South Africa, where municipal governments are marred by internal conflicts, mismanagement and competing interests, which complicate their effectiveness (Luckham & Kirk 2013). Despite these challenges, hybrid partnerships offer significant potential for enhancing sustainability and improving service delivery (Gusmão 2012; Yasmin et al. 2022). However, there remains a lack of research on the complexities of hybrid partnerships within South African municipalities and the strategies required to effectively navigate these challenges.
Research methods and design
This study used a qualitative approach. Qualitative research entails systematic data generation, analysis and interpretation to address specific research inquiries (Masiya & Lubinga 2023). A qualitative approach was used to gain a deep and nuanced understanding of the hybrid partnerships in South African municipalities. Data were drawn from secondary sources such as scholarly articles, government reports, policy documents, official websites and other relevant publications. The study utilised key databases to collect the data, namely Scopus, ProQuest Central Sabinet and Google Scholar.
The literature selection criterion encompassed three key phrases: pertinence to hybrid partnerships, concentration in South African municipalities, and the provision of insights into the challenges and opportunities associated with hybrid partnerships. Furthermore, all sources, including authenticity, credibility, representativeness and significance, were chosen according to the fundamental criteria of source management (Mogalakwe 2006). The researchers verified the authenticity of all the materials included, ensuring that they encompassed the entirety of important texts authored by prominent writers on hybridity and hybrid partnerships. Credible databases such as Scopus, ProQuest Central, Sabinet, and Google Scholar were used to ensuring that sources were authentic. After selecting the sources based on their relevance, a comprehensive hermeneutical reading process was carried out (George 2020; Wessels 2021) to gain a deep understanding of the complexities and operational methods of hybrid partnerships in South African municipalities. The collected data were analysed using a thematic analysis. Thematic analysis was employed to discern recurrent themes, patterns and insights pertaining to hybrid partnerships in South African municipalities as well as on a global scale. The analysis entailed the process of assigning codes to the literature to classify information according to important topics, such as the primary factors driving hybrid partnerships, obstacles or difficulties encountered in hybrid partnerships, and potential avenues for enhancing hybrid governance (Masiya & Lubinga 2023). The researchers derived themes from the codes by categorising them to identify significant patterns of the crucial practices and difficulties that impact hybrid partnerships in South African municipalities. Finally, the topics were labelled to create a framework for analysis and debate.
Ethical considerations
This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.
Results
This study analysed the key drivers of and barriers to hybrid partnerships in South African municipal service delivery. Using a qualitative approach, the data were drawn from secondary sources. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the collected qualitative data and examine the key themes of the study. After analysing the data, the themes that were generated included various intricacies experienced in hybrid partnerships at the municipal level. These include: (1) power imbalances, (2) legal framework, (3) opaque decision-making process, (4) weak institutional capacity, (5) political interference, (6) lack of a collaborative mindset and (7) resistance to change. The drivers and barriers are discussed in detail in this section.
Power imbalance
Power imbalances in hybrid partnerships can significantly affect the effectiveness and success of collaborative efforts. Ansell and Gash (2008) highlight the challenge of power imbalances when important stakeholders lack the organisational infrastructure to be represented in collaborative governance processes. This lack of representation can hinder the decision-making process and equitable distribution of resources within the partnership, commonly known as asymmetrical resource allocation. Asymmetrical resource allocation is an uneven distribution of resources among partner organisations. Private sector entities may typically have greater financial resources and expertise than municipalities. This asymmetry can result in unequal decision-making power and influence within the partnership, with well-resourced partners dominating the agenda and the direction of collaborative efforts.
Power imbalances can also arise from disparities in access to information and networks (Vincent et al. 2020). Partners with greater institutional knowledge, connections and access to decision-makers may control the flow of information and shape the partnership’s priorities and strategies to their advantage. This can marginalise voices from less influential partners and limit their ability to meaningfully contribute to decision-making processes.
In addition, power imbalances can undermine accountability mechanisms within hybrid partnerships, as dominant actors may resist efforts to establish transparent governance structures and reporting mechanisms, or mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation (Fanzo et al. 2021). This opacity can shield powerful partners from scrutiny and limit opportunities for meaningful feedback and input from other stakeholders, thus reducing the partnership’s effectiveness and legitimacy.
These assertions are confirmed in a study in South Africa, which revealed that the Gautrain hybrid partnership was characterised by unequal power distribution between the government and the private sector consortium, the Bombela Concession Company (BCC) (The Automobile Association of South Africa 2022). Bombela Concession Company is responsible for implementing the project and has considerable influence and control over critical aspects including financing, construction and operational management. This power asymmetry became particularly evident during negotiations over project costs and revenue-sharing arrangements. Bombela Concession Company wielded considerable leverage in these negotiations, leading to criticisms of favourable terms and concessions granted to the private sector at the expense of public interest. This is evidenced by the fact that because of power asymmetry, in 2021, the Gautrain Management Agency (GMA) paid the BCC a Patronage Guarantee (subsidy) of R2.014 billion using funding from the Gauteng Provincial Government. In 2020, the Patronage Guarantee paid to BCC was R1.9 billion. Since 2013, the Gauteng taxpayers have funded the shortfall of riders on the Gautrain by nearly R13bn. Similarly, the Ilembe District Municipality in KZN partnered with Siza Water Company (Pty) Ltd. to provide water services and waste management. However, the biggest criticism of the partnership came from municipal officials and residents who felt that they had been ‘held to ransom’ by a company that had scrupulously advanced its interests (Hemson 2002).
Legal framework
Complex and inconsistent regulations, legal ambiguities and loopholes are some of the significant challenges faced by hybrid partnerships. Navigating the legal landscape can be difficult for hybrid partnerships because of varying regulations that may apply to each component of the hybrid structure. Smith and Jones (2018) highlighted the challenges that hybrid partnerships face in the legal realm. The authors stress that combining different partnership structures, such as general, limited and limited liability partnerships, can result in regulatory ambiguity and conflicting requirements. In turn, this can lead to difficulties in the compliance and governance of hybrid partnerships.
Furthermore, the lack of clarity in the laws surrounding hybrid partnerships can exacerbate the challenges posed by complex and inconsistent regulations (Ittmann 2017). Without clear guidelines and regulations tailored to hybrid partnerships, such entities may struggle to understand their legal obligations and rights. This issue is underscored in the research conducted by Pandey and Johnson (2019), who discuss the need for comprehensive and cohesive legal frameworks that address the unique characteristics of hybrid partnerships.
In environments in which laws are vague or subject to interpretation, influential stakeholders may exploit regulatory loopholes or influence regulatory processes to advance their interests at the expense of broader societal goals. This risk of regulatory capture can undermine the integrity and effectiveness of hybrid partnerships, thereby eroding public trust and legitimacy. In a report by the International Business Society (2020), case studies demonstrated how regulatory challenges have hindered the growth and development of hybrid partnerships in various industries.
In the South African municipal context, there are concerns that composite legislation that includes Treasury Regulation No. 16 of 2004, the Municipal Systems Act (No. 32 of 2000) and the MFMA is cumbersome and complex, resulting in a culture of rule-bending and a tendency to use corrupt means to avoid these rules. The complexity of legislation and policies has also contributed to the slow rollout of hybrid partnerships. In the case of the e-toll project initiated to finance the upgrade and maintenance of Gauteng’s road infrastructure, partnering with the South African National Roads Agency (SANRAL) and a private consortium, electronic toll collection (ETC), it was revealed that its implementation faced significant legal challenges. A critical legal constraint arose from the legal challenge mounted by the Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance (OUTA). This civil society organisation contested the legality and constitutionality of the e-tolling system. The OUTA also argued that the decision to implement e-tolling lacked proper consultation, violated the rights of motorists, and contravened constitutional principles of administrative justice and the right to freedom of movement (OUTA 2024). E-tolling was eventually scrapped in 2024.
Opaque decision-making processes
The impact of opaque decision-making in hybrid partnerships can have significant implications for the functioning and outcomes of such partnerships. Opaque decision-making refers to decision-making processes that are unclear or not easily understood (Mastrogiorgio & Lattanzi 2023). In the context of hybrid partnerships, this can lead to challenges in understanding how decisions are made and the factors influencing them. This lack of transparency can impact various stakeholders’ influence on decision making processes. When decision making processes in hybrid partnerships lack transparency, stakeholders (including the public) may feel excluded or uninformed about the key decisions that affect them. This opacity can lead to perceptions of unfairness, a lack of accountability and distrust in the partnership’s governance structures. Furthermore, this can lead to the risk of corruption allegations. Without precise mechanisms for transparency and accountability, opaque decision-making processes can create opportunities for corruption, favouritism and conflicts of interest.
In the South African municipal context, some instances have been characterised by non-disclosure of hybrid partnership arrangements between the public and private partners on the grounds of ‘commercial confidence’, protection of ‘property rights’ or on the grounds of data protection, which raises transparency issues. Using Gautrain as an example, Fombad (2015) states that transparency issues include the non-disclosure of partnership information, inadequate budgetary information, corruption allegations and the absence of explicit bidding criteria. Negotiations between the public and private partners were conducted in closed, private settings on the grounds of ‘commercial confidence’, including a contract clause between governments and private agencies to ensure secretiveness in the partnership.
Weak institutional capacity to drive hybrid partnerships
Weak institutional capacity can significantly influence hybrid partnerships as it can hinder an organisation’s ability to champion and embed new programmes and approaches effectively. This can lead to challenges in building the field and community of practice and strengthening the staff and organisational capacity (Amde et al. 2014). Furthermore, weak institutional capacity can impact organisations’ ability to engage in relational coordination, which is crucial for social value creation in hybrid partnerships (Caldwell, Roehrich & George 2017). In the context of hybrid partnerships that involve multiple stakeholders, organisations may face difficulties in engaging with various institutional logics, leading to challenges in navigating institutional complexity, particularly when weak institutional capacity limits their ability to deploy solutions for engaging with multiple institutional logics (Perkmann et al. 2019).
A study by the South African Local Government Association (SALGA 2020) revealed that South African municipalities did not have sufficient specialist capacity (technical, financial and legal) to drive hybrid partnerships. Moreover, the study posits that the complexity of developing hybrid partnerships and managing contracts after procurement is critical, and often, specialist capacity is in short supply in both municipal and private sector environments. For example, the Mbombela water concession, which includes a private partner, Silulumanzi, is responsible for operating, maintaining and managing the existing water and sewerage structure. However, because of institutional capacity challenges on the part of the municipality, it brought in the United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Finance (WASH-FIN) in cooperation with the Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) and the Danish Embassy in November 2018 to assist in renegotiating the contract. It was discovered that the municipality also lacked contract monitoring (USAID 2010).
Political interference
Political interference can pose a significant challenge to hybrid partnerships, affecting their trajectory and success and highlighting the complex interplay between politics and partnership dynamics (Klein 2022). Political interference undermines the autonomy of institutions and distorts decision-making processes, leading to decisions driven by political considerations rather than evidence-based analysis, stakeholder input or best practices. According to Mandiriza (2022), the ‘limited’ political term of office and a lack of stability in the local government sphere contribute to the slow adoption of hybrid partnerships. Furthermore, the author notes that politicians have planning horizons limited to their term of office, which is 5 years in South Africa. When they assume office, they bring on board ‘petty projects or flagship projects’ to create a ‘leadership legacy’. The short-term planning and pursuit of self-interest by politicians within the term of office exclude projects that require more than 5 years to execute or accomplish. Some hybrid partnerships take more than 5 years and can easily be seen as products of the previous administration and risk cancellation. For example, SALGA (2020) found that a new council term in the Drakenstein Municipality led to an overwhelming vote to cancel the municipality’s waste-to-energy project that had been awarded to a private partner, Interwaste. Taute (2019) observed that:
In the Central Karoo District, when there are political changes municipalities experience stopstart changes in their administration. For the District and several other municipalities, they must consequently restart or change collaborative agreements when they have dedicated a substantial amount of time to the agreement. (p. 83)
Studies by the China-Africa Business Council (2020) confirm that political interference is the main barrier to hybrid partnerships. In addition, Likhanya (2022) concludes that political interference by government spheres is a key element that can lead to the failure of hybrid partnerships.
Policy inconsistencies and uncertainty
Policy inconsistencies and uncertainty present challenges to hybrid partnerships. Policy inconsistencies can arise from divergent ideological or theoretical underpinnings within a municipality or organisation (Knowles 2021). For example, conflicting policy objectives may emerge because of competing political ideologies, bureaucratic infighting or leadership changes. This can lead to a lack of coherence and coordination in policy formulation and implementation, thus hindering the effectiveness of the overall policy framework.
Moreover, policy uncertainty can stem from various sources, including ambiguous legislative languages, volatile political environments and unpredictable economic conditions. Such uncertainty can create hesitancy among stakeholders as they may be unsure about the future direction of policies and their potential impact. This can lead to a lack of investment, reluctance to innovate and an overall instability in the policy environment.
According to Sebitlo (2022), there is a lot of policy uncertainty around hybrid partnerships in South Africa. Furthermore, with the advent of coalition municipal governments, ideological differences in policy adoption and implementation affect policy priorities, including hybrid partnerships (De Vos 2021). For example, Eberhard and Raine (2016) reveal that the South African Government established Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement (REIPPP) to promote the development of renewable energy projects through private sector investment and participation. However, the implementation of the REIPPP programme has been marked by policy inconsistencies and regulatory uncertainties, which pose challenges for private sector investors and project developers. A significant example of policy inconsistency in the REIPPP programme relates to changes in renewable energy tariffs and procurement frameworks. Over the years, governments have revised tariff structures and procurement processes multiple times, leading to uncertainties and delays in project development.
The absence of a collaborative mindset
The absence of a collaborative mindset can act as a significant barrier to the success of hybrid partnerships. When organisations fail to embrace a collaborative approach, it can lead to resistance, a lack of trust and a failure to integrate systems and processes (Ungureanu et al. 2018). This lack of collaboration can hinder the development of common ground for successful interaction, preventing meaningful and voluntary entry into co-creation (Wong et al. 2022). In addition, this may lead to indecision and a restricted scope of collaboration, impeding the development of mutually beneficial partnerships (Pinilla-De La Cruz et al. 2022).
Existing research emphasises the importance of a collaborative mindset in fostering generative partnerships and inclusive business models (Taute 2019). In the South African context, a pertinent example of the lack of a collaborative mindset in hybrid partnerships can be observed in the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA), which has hesitated to partner with private sector entities despite its challenges in developing and servicing rail infrastructure. This is witnessed in Ittmann’s (2017) work, which quotes PRASA’s unwillingness to enter partnerships, arguing that partnerships worldwide are fraught with severe challenges, complexities and even total failure. This is despite the fact that PRASA incurs huge financial losses. For example, in the 2020/2021 fiscal year, it recorded a loss of R1.9bn, while in the same year, its operating costs increased to R15.5bn and its revenue decreased by R900 million, because of network and train unavailability caused by infrastructure damage and COVID-19 restrictions (Dlamini 2022).
Resistance to change
Hybrid partnerships often require organisations to change their existing ways of working, which can be met with resistance. If an organisation is unwilling or unable to adapt to the partnership structure or requirements, it can hinder collaboration and prevent it from achieving its intended goals. Furthermore, challenges such as resistance to co-creation, navigating institutional norms and ensuring inclusivity can hinder the effectiveness of these partnerships (Bovill et al. 2015). The South African context reveals that legislative requirements concerning the procurement of services create the perception that it is quicker and easier to source services from an internal municipal body or municipal staff. This adds a legislative layer of resistance to hybrid procurement (XS-Axis Consulting 2013). In some instances, municipalities consider the option of a hybrid partnership as an indicator of their ability or capacity to provide the basic services required by the community they are meant to serve, thereby creating a veil of resistance. Additionally, political mistrust of hybrid partnerships is evident in some municipal communities. From an ideological perspective, labour unions view hybrid partnerships as forms of privatisation and see them as a threat to job creation (Binza 2008). For example, the labour movement in South Africa was at the forefront of protesting key hybrid partnership projects, such as e-tolls in Gauteng and planned projects in Cape Town (Bwanali & Rwelamila 2016). This aligns strongly with the theory of collaborative governance, which emphasises the importance of multistakeholder partnerships in addressing complex societal challenges.
Discussion
This study explored the complexities of hybrid partnerships in South African municipalities. This study found that hybrid partnerships are frequently hindered by various substantial challenges in South African municipalities. Such challenges include power imbalances among parties, burdensome complex legal frameworks, a lack of transparency in decision-making processes, limited resources, interference from political entities and ambiguities in policies. This undermines the collaborative governance approach, which seeks to promote equal stakeholder participation, openness and mutual trust as crucial elements of effective municipal governance. For example, this study finds that hybrid partnerships are affected by the presence of power imbalances among parties. This can result in unequal participation in decision-making processes, as more influential partners often prioritise their interests over those of less influential partners, such as community opinions. This phenomenon not only weakens the collaborative mindset that is crucial for hybrid partnerships but also poses a risk of isolating the same communities that these partnerships strive to support.
In addition, the legal system for hybrid partnerships in South Africa is sometimes perceived as onerous and complex, which may deter collaboration. The interplay between various legislative frameworks, such as the Municipal Systems Act and Municipal Finance Management Act, generates an environment of uncertainty that could impede innovation and flexibility. This intricacy can develop a culture in which individuals actively search for loopholes or partake in unethical actions to traverse an intricate legal system.
Furthermore, the study found that the absence of transparency in decision-making processes poses a significant barrier to the efficacy of hybrid partnerships. A lack of transparency among stakeholders can result in distrust and perceptions of unfairness. The absence of transparency can lead to a feeling of exclusion and disengagement among community members and other stakeholders, diminishing their inclination to engage in relationships.
The study also found that municipal institutions frequently have difficulties in efficiently overseeing hybrid partnerships because of inadequate resources, scarcity of trained personnel and ineffective governance structures. These constraints might hinder the execution and enduring viability of collaborations, as municipalities may encounter difficulties in fulfilling their obligations.
Political intervention has also been observed as a challenge in hybrid partnerships. Political intervention can compromise hybrid relationships, especially when political goals outweigh collaborative objectives. Finally, the presence of contradictory policies and the lack of clarity regarding the future trajectory of local governments were found to provide an unstable and uncertain atmosphere for hybrid partnerships.
These findings undermine collaborative governance theory, which highlights the significance of equitable stakeholder involvement, openness and shared confidence in attaining efficient governance. In addition, these findings are affirmed by a number of authorities such as Borys and Jemison (1989), who assert that hybrid partnerships are affected by aspects such as institutional complexity, governance and stability. Jang (2020) also argues that the establishment of hybrid partnerships is an intricate and dynamic procedure influenced by interpersonal and environmental factors. Russo (2006) argues that although these arrangements have the capacity to provide creative resolutions to social problems, their effectiveness may be constrained by legislative frameworks, as exemplified in the context of corporate taxation.
Challenges, such as power imbalances, legal complexities and political interference, highlight the intricacies inherent in achieving effective collaboration. These challenges often undermine the principles of inclusiveness, transparency and accountability that are central to collaborative governance, hampering partnerships’ ability to achieve their intended goals. Understanding these barriers is crucial for developing effective strategies for enhancing collaboration and improving service delivery at the municipal level.
The findings of this study are significant because they provide critical insights into the challenges that affect hybrid partnerships in South African Municipalities. These insights underscore the need to address power imbalances, enhance transparency and reform legal frameworks to support collaborative governance. Furthermore, the results emphasise the importance of building capacity within municipal institutions to effectively manage partnerships. In addition, the results can be used by actors in municipal governance to formulate strategies that foster equitable and sustainable collaboration, ultimately improving service delivery and promoting social equity in South African municipalities.
Although this study sheds light on the challenges of hybrid partnerships, it is not without limitations. Firstly, document review is a valuable qualitative research method, which has two primary limitations that must be acknowledged. The use of secondary sources has the potential to provide incomplete or outdated information, as documents may not fully capture recent developments or context-specific nuances. In addition, bias in document creation, whether intentional or unintentional, can skew findings, as authors may emphasise certain perspectives while omitting others. Secondly, the research focusses on South African municipalities, which may limit the generalisability of the findings to other consultations, build trust and improve stakeholder engagement.
Thirdly, this study does not delve deeply into the specific mechanisms through which power imbalances and legal complexities influence outcomes, leaving room for further investigation. Lastly, reliance on qualitative data may introduce subjectivity, underscoring the need for future research to incorporate quantitative analyses to validate and extend these findings.
To address the challenges identified in this study, there is a need to establish guidelines that support equitable stakeholder involvement to promote collaborative efforts in the decision-making processes. To address the current legal ambiguities, there is a need to reform the existing legislation to acknowledge collaboration between municipalities, the private sector and other third-sector stakeholders to promote stable intersectoral partnerships.
Opaque decision-making processes in hybrid partnerships can erode public trust, reduce efficiency and compromise accountability. To address this issue, it is imperative to enhance transparency by ensuring public access to decision-making data. This can be achieved by establishing and publishing standardised protocols that clearly outline the procedures and criteria governing the decision-making processes in hybrid partnerships. To address the weak institutional capacity to drive hybrid partnerships, municipalities must invest in training programmes that provide specialist capacity in managing hybrid partnerships. To mitigate political interference, municipalities need to develop policies that safeguard hybrid partnerships from undue political influence, ensuring that collaborative objectives take precedence over the political agenda.
To address the challenge of fostering a collaborative mindset in hybrid partnerships, municipalities must communicate transparently, raise awareness of the importance of such partnerships and actively engage stakeholders early in the planning and decision-making processes. This approach helps stakeholders feel a sense of ownership over change, enhancing collaboration and commitment.
Conclusion
This study examines the intricacies of hybrid collaborations in South African municipalities. The results suggest that these collaborations, although potentially groundbreaking and advantageous, are frequently hindered by various factors. These challenges include power imbalances among parties, burdensome complex legal frameworks, a lack of transparency in decision-making processes, limited resources, interference from political entities and ambiguities in policies. These challenges undermine the collaborative governance approach, which seeks to promote equal stakeholder participation, openness and mutual trust as crucial elements of good government. To overcome these challenges, hybrid partnerships in municipalities should address these problems to provide innovative solutions to local problems and boost the welfare of communities in South Africa.
Acknowledgements
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
Authors’ contributions
T. Musekiwa. was the primary researcher, T. Masiya. supervised the research project and contributed to the drafting of the published article. S.L. reviewed the article and strengthened the methodology and findings sections.
Funding information
This research received funding from University of Pretoria’s Department of Research and Innovation through their Postdoctoral Fellowship Research Grant (Grant no.: A1E146).
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, T.M. upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.
References
Amde, W.K., Marchal, B., Sanders, D. & Lehmann, U., 2019, ‘Determinants of effective organisational capacity training: Lessons from a training programme on health workforce development with participants from three African countries’, BMC Public Health 19(1), 1557. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7883-x
Ansell, C. & Gash, A., 2008, ‘Collaborative governance in theory’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
Ansell, C., Doberstein, C., Henderson, H., Siddiki, S. & ‘t Hart, P., 2020, ‘Understanding inclusion in collaborative governance: A mixed methods approach’, Policy and Society 39(4), 570–591. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2020.1785726
Aripin, S. & Rulinawaty, R., 2022, ‘Hybrid government: Mixed and hybrid models of public service delivery in disadvantaged, foremost and outermost regions’, KnE Social Sciences 7(9), 1109–1123. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v7i9.11001
Binza, S.M., 2008, ‘Public–private partnerships in metropolitan government: Perspectives on governance, value for money and the roles of selected stakeholders’, Development Southern Africa 25(3), 297–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/03768350802212089
Borys, B. & Jemison, D.B., 1989, ‘Hybrid arrangements as strategic alliances: Theoretical issues in organizational combinations’, Academy of Management Review 14(2), 234–249. https://doi.org/10.2307/258418
Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., Felten, P., Millard, L. & Moore-Cherry, N., 2015, ‘Addressing potential challenges in co-creating learning and teaching: Overcoming resistance, navigating institutional norms and ensuring inclusivity in student–staff partnerships’, Higher Education 71(2), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9896-4
Bwanali, S. & Rwelamila, P.D., 2016, The role of public private partnerships in the provision of infrastructure projects, viewed 02 July 2019, from http://openbooks.uct.ac.za/cidb/index.php/cidb/catalog/download/3/1/121-4.
Caldwell, N.D., Roehrich, J.K. & George, G., 2017, ‘Social value creation and relational coordination in public-private collaborations’, Journal of Management Studies 56(4), 906–928. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12268
Chen, C. & Man, C., 2020, ‘Are good governance principles institutionalised with policy transfer? An examination of public–private partnerships policy promotion in China’, Australian Journal of Social Issues 55(2), 162–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.99
China-Africa Business Council, 2020, Final report on public private partnership livelihood projects in Africa: Policy and performance, viewed XX September 2024, from https://www.g77.org/pgtf/finalrpt/INT-19-K04-FinalReport.pdf.
Christensen, T. & Lægreid, P., 2011, ‘Complexity and hybrid public administration – Theoretical and empirical challenges’, Public Organization Review 11, 407–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-010-0141-4
Colona, F. & Jaffe, R., 2016, ‘Hybrid governance arrangements’, European Journal of Development Research 28, 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2016.5
Crona, B. & Hubacek, C., 2010, ‘The right connections: How do social networks lubricate the machinery of natural resource governance?’, Ecology and Society 15(4), 18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03731-150418
De Vos, P., 2021, ‘The constitutional-legal dimensions of coalition politics and government in South Africa’, in S. Booysen (ed.), Marriages of inconvenience: The politics of coalitions in South Africa, pp. 235–266, Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflection, Johannesburg.
Dlamini, K., 2022, PRASA is failure on many levels – And improvement is slow and inadequate, Corruption Watch, viewed XX September 2024, from https://www.corruptionwatch.org.za/prasa-a-failure-on-many-levels-improvement-is-slow-and-inadequate/.
Eberhard, A. & Raine, N., 2016, ‘The South African renewable energy independent power producer procurement programme: A review and lessons learned’, Journal of Energy in Southern Africa 27(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-3051/2016/v27i4a1483
Fanzo, J., Shawar, Y.R., Shyam, T., Das, S. & Shiffman, J., 2021, ‘Challenges to establish effective public-private partnerships to address malnutrition in all its forms’, International Journal of Health Policy and Management 10(12), 934–945. https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2020.262
Fitriana, K.N., 2019, ‘Collaborative governance in handling COVID-19 for elderly social services’, Journal of Social Studies (JSS) 18(1), 119–146. https://doi.org/10.21831/jss.v18i1.49569
Fombad, M.C., 2015, ‘Governance in public–private partnerships in South Africa: Some lessons from the Gautrain’, Journal of Southern African Studies 41(6), 1199–1217. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057070.2015.1117240
Garrette, B. & Quelin, B., 1994, ‘An empirical study of hybrid forms of governance structure: The case of the telecommunication equipment industry’, Research Policy 23(4), 395–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(94)90004-3
George, B., 2020, ‘Revisiting public management as a design science’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 30(3), 524–526. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa015
Gottlieb, S.C., Frederiksen, N., Koch, C. & Thuesen, C., 2018, ‘Institutional logics and hybrid organizing in public-private partnerships’, in C. Gorse & C.J. Neilson (eds.), Proceeding of the 34th annual ARCOM conference, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, Belfast, September 03–05, 2018, pp. 383–392.
Gottlieb, S.C., Frederiksen, N., Koch, C. & Thuesen, C., 2020, ‘Hybrid organisations as trading zones: Responses to institutional complexity in the shaping of strategic partnerships’, Construction Management and Economics 38(7), 603–622. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2020.1738514
Gulbrandsen, M., Thune, T., Borlaug, S.B. & Hanson, J., 2015, ‘Emerging hybrid practices in public–private research centres’, Public Administration 93(2), 363–379. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12140
Gusmão, A., 2012, ‘Hybrid governance: Electing community leaders: Diversity in uniformity’, Local-Global: Identity, Security, Community 11, 180–191.
Hemson, D., 2002, ‘Water, concessions and poverty: A South African case study’, Indicator South Africa 19(2), 55–60.
Horn, A., 2018, ‘The history of urban growth management in South Africa: Tracking the origin and current status of urban edge policies in three metropolitan municipalities’, Planning Perspectives 34(6), 959–977. https://doi.org/10.1080/02665433.2018.1503089
Hu, S., Zhao, R., Cui, Y., Zhang, D. & Ge, Y., 2023, ‘Identifying the uneven distribution of health and education services in China using open geospatial data’, Geography and Sustainability 4(2), 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2023.01.002
International Business Society, 2020, Regulatory challenges and the development of hybrid partnerships: Case studies from various industries, International Business Society, viewed 10 February 2025, from https://ibsocietyuga.wordpress.com/.
Ittmann, H., 2017, ‘Private–public partnerships: A mechanism for freight transport infrastructure delivery?’, Journal of Transport and Supply Chain Management 11 11(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4102/jtscm.v11i0.262
Jang, H., 2020, ‘Partnership between staff and family in long-term care facility: A hybrid concept analysis’, International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being 15(1), 1801179. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2020.1801179 https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2020.1801179
Klein, K., 2022, ‘It’s complicated: Examining political realities and challenges in the context of research-practice partnerships from the school district leader’s perspective’, Educational Policy 37(1), 56–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048221130352
Knowles, K.D., 2021, ‘An analysis of emerging governing coalitions at the local level in South Africa with a specific focus on Johannesburg and Nelson Mandela Bay’, PhD thesis, Unpublished, University of the Free State.
Koebele, E.A., 2019, ‘Integrating collaborative governance theory with the advocacy coalition framework’, Journal of Public Policy 39(1), 35–64. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X18000041
Kooiman, J. & Jentoft, S., 2009, ‘Meta-governance: Values, norms and principles, and the making of hard choices’, Public Administration 87(1), 818–836. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01780.x
Kroukamp, H., 2005, ‘E-governance in South Africa: Are we coping?’, Acta Academica 37(2), 52–69.
Łakomy-Zinowik, M., 2022, Public-private partnership in the context of sustainable development on the example of the water and wastewater sector’, Journal of Security & Sustainability Issues 12(1), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.47459/jssi.2022.12.9
Likhanya, M., 2022, Public-private partnerships (PPPs) and some insights into their failure, viewed 11 September 2024, from https://www.ppmattorneys.co.za/public-private-partnerships-ppps-and-some-insights-into-their-failure/.
Luckham, R. & Kirk, T., 2013, ‘Understanding security in the vernacular in hybrid political contexts: A critical survey conflict’, Security and Development 13(3), 339–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/14678802.2013.811053
Mamokhere, J., Mabeba, S.J. & Kgobe, F.K.L., 2022, ‘The contemporary challenges municipalities face in effectively implementing municipal service partnerships’, EUREKA: Social and Humanities 2, 58–69. https://doi.org/10.21303/2504-5571.2022.002303
Mandiriza, T., 2022, Assessment of factors influencing the adoption of public private partnerships in water infrastructure projects in selected municipalities, viewed 11 September 2024, from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/548246044.pdf.
Marell, M.H., De Jong, J. & Lous, F., 2022, ‘Public private partnership Sijtwende: Turning political deadlock into public benefit’, in J. Saveur (ed.), Reclaiming the underground space, vol. 2, pp. 1135–1139, Routledge, London.
Masiya, T. & Lubinga, S., 2023, ‘The influence of social media on transparency and accountability of the South African public sector’, Studies in Media and Communication 11(7), 42–56. https://doi.org/10.11114/smc.v11i7.6151
Mastrogiorgio, A. & Lattanzi, N., 2023, ‘Opaque decision-making in organizations’, International Journal of Organizational Analysis 31(5), 1243–1256. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-12-2022-3523
Mogalakwe, M., 2006, ‘The use of documentary research methods in social research’, African Sociological Review/Revue Africaine De Sociologie 10(1), 221–230.
Moretto, L., Faldi, G., Rosati, F.N. & Teller, J., 2023, ‘Coproduced urban water services: When technical and governance hybridisation go hand in hand’, Frontiers of Sustainable Cities 4(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2022.969755
Nambalirwa, S. & Sindane, A.M., 2012, ‘Governance nexus and service delivery in Uganda Nambalirwa’, Journal of Public Affairs 5(2), 13–23.
O’Flynn, J. & Wanna, J. (eds.), 2008, Collaborative governance: A new era of public policy in Australia?, ANU Press, Canberra, viewed 14 September 2024, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt24h315.
Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance (OUTA), 2024, The official death of e-tolls is a master class in rightful civil defiance, viewed 14 September 2024, from https://www.outa.co.za/blog/newsroom-1/post/the-official-death-of-e-tolls-is-a-master-class-in-rightful-civil-defiance-1335.
Osborne, S.P. (ed.), 2010, The new public governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance, Routledge, New York, NY.
Pandey, S.K. & Johnson, J.M., 2019, ‘Nonprofit management, public administration, and public policy: Separate, subset, or intersectional domains of inquiry?,’ Public Performance & Management Review 42(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2018.1557382
Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M. & Hughes, A., 2019, Academic engagement: A review of the literature 2011–2019, Research Policy 50(1), 104114. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3461621
Pinilla-De La Cruz, G.A., Rabetino, R. & Kantola, J., 2022, ‘Unveiling the shades of partnerships for the energy transition and sustainable development: Connecting public–private partnerships and emerging hybrid schemes’, Sustainable Development 30(5), 1370–1386. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2288
Plaček, M., Špaček, D. & Ochrana, F., 2021, ‘Public leadership and strategies of Czech municipalities during the COVID-19 pandemic–municipal activism vs municipal passivism’, International Journal of Public Leadership 17(1), 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPL-06-2020-0047
Quelin, B.V., Kivleniece, I. & Lazzarini, S., 2017, ‘Public-private collaboration, hybrid partnerships and social value: Towards new theoretical perspectives’, Journal of Management Studies 54(6), 763–792. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12274
Russo, R., 2006, ‘Partnerships and other hybrid entities and the ec corporate direct tax directives’, European taxation 46(10), 478–486.
Sebitlo, O.K., Mbara, T. & Luke, R., 2022, ‘The state of South Africa’s public–private partnership practices in transport projects: Problems and potential’, Journal of Transport and Supply Chain Management 16, 733. https://doi.org/10.4102/jtscm.v16i0.733
Slavíková, L., Syrbe, R.U., Slavík, J. & Berens, A., 2017, ‘Local environmental NGO roles in biodiversity governance: A Czech-German comparison’, GeoScape 11(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1515/geosc-2017-0001
Smith, J.Q., Jones, M.R. & Brown, C.D., 2018, ‘The future of work: Implications for managerial innovation and resource management’, Business Horizons 61, 1–12.
Smith, S.R., 2010, ‘Hybridization and nonprofit organizations: The governance challenge’, Policy and Society 29(3), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.06.003
South African Local Government Association (SALGA), 2020, The review of the public-private partnership uptake by South African municipalities, Waterkloof, Pretoria, viewed 12 September 2024, from https://www.cityenergy.org.za/the-review-of-the-public-private-partnership-uptake-by-south-african-municipalities/.
Taute, N., 2019, ‘Alternative service delivery mechanisms: The use of collaborative partnerships’, Masters dissertation, Stellenbosch University.
The Automobile Association of South Africa, 2022, Gautrain expansion a disastrous financial decision, viewed 12 September 2024, from https://aa.co.za/gautrain-expansion-a-disastrous-financial-decision/.
Ungureanu, N., Valentin, V., Gheorghe, V., Mirela, D. & Bianca-Ștefania, Z., 2018, ‘Influence of biomass moisture content on pellet properties – Review’, Engineering for Rural Development 17, 1876–1883. https://doi.org/10.22616/ERDev2018.17.N449
USAID, 2010, The Mbombela public private partnership water concession, viewed 14 September 2024, from Brief https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00ZGXX.pdf.
Vincent, K., Carter, K., Steynor A., Visman, E. & Wågsæther, K.L., 2020, ‘Addressing power imbalances in co-production’, Nature Climate Change 10, 877–878. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00910-w
Wessels, J.S., 2021, ‘Meaningful knowledge about public administration: Ontological and situated antecedents’, Administrative Theory & Praxis 43(4), 431–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2021.1920813
Wong, A., Wong, F., Wong, M., Chow, K., Kwan, D. & Lau, D., 2022, ‘A community-based health–social partnership program for community-dwelling older adults: A hybrid effectiveness–implementation pilot study’, BMC Geriatrics 22(1), 789. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-022-03463-z
XS-Axis Consulting, 2013, PPP country paper, viewed 12 September 2024, from https://www.sadc-dfrc.org/sites/default/files/south_africa_27012014.pdf.
Yasmin, T., Farrelly, M.A., Rogers, B.C., Krause, S. & Lynch, I., 2022, ‘Hybrid and multi-level adaptive governance for sustainable urban transformations in the global South: A secondary city case study’, Frontiers in Water 4(756273), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2022.756273
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
