Managing partnership in public services 1. Ambar WidaningrumDepartment of Public Policy and Management, Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia

Transcription

1 Managing partnership in public services 1 Ambar WidaningrumDepartment of Public Policy and Management, Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia Discussion notes (Preliminary: please do not quote) 1. The borderless state has raised new challenges for the public administration. It calls for new ways of thinking and new ways of doing things, which must not only encompass the management functions of state agencies, but also take into account the broader context of democratic governance. What also needs to be taken into account is how to manage those changes while at the same time preserving the best. Rather than taking unilateral action, it is imperative for states to cooperate in implementing joint solutions. The core concern of governance is to build networks, consensus of similar interests as the basis for building synergies. Aside from being part of future government buraucracy, partnership is also part of public administration dynamics, when the power of various social actors are synergized to achieve a common goal (Vigoda et al., 2002). Partnership is relatively a new perspective derived from good governance to achieve common goals. This paper discusses one type of partnership: public private (and NGO) partnership (PPP). 2. Why PPP? An attention on public sector reform such as improving efficiency, optimizing public services has been intensified since 1990s. Why? Now on, social and economic circumstances are complex and changeable. Sometimes such changes can happen fast and quite unexpectedly. Managing partnership is becoming a concern in line with the development of governance. PPP first became accepted at a time when governments turned to the private sector in an effort to deal with increased popular demands that exceeded their capabilities. Very often the administrative apparatus is cut back when the public budget is diminished. In this environment, PPP, with its promise of increased efficiency as well as effectiveness, is a powerful concept. 3. PPP: theoretical basis. a. The core concern of governance is to build networks, consensus of similar interests as the basis for building synergies. Partnership itself is across-sector alliance in which individuals, group in organization, countries agree to work together to fulfill a common goal; share the risks as well as the benefits. The line of reasoning is simple, actors involved have specific qualities, and if those qualities are combined, the end result will be better for all. Risk sharing is a major consideration for both sectors in combining these qualities. Klijn & Koppenjan 1 This discussion notes are discussed at the 2011 SAPA-GMU International Conference, themed: International 381

2 (1999) stated that the concept of partnership in governance is used to indicate the pattern of relations among actors which are interdependent, including in public policy-making process. Interdependence is the keyword in this approach, in which each actor cannot achieve their own goals without using resources from other actors. Each actor perceives that its own goals can be achieved most effectively with the assistance of the resources of the others. Information, goals and resources are exchanged in the interaction between these actors. This is consistent with the paradigm of building inter-organization relationship in form of networking and strategic alliance (Limerick & Cunnington, 1993; Kickert, Klijn and Koppenjan, 1999) that every government organization or institution should develop strong external relationships with other organizations in order to reach the best for This rationale is in line with the modern public administration principle of governance (Frederickson, 1997 and Peters, 2001) characterized with the presence of networks, either vertically or horizontally, among various elements of the community including government organizations, non-government organizations, quasi-government organizations, profit and nonprofit oriented private organizations, and voluntary organizations. The elements that control each other and have more or less the same degree of access and power then establish a collaboration to build social order and to address different public interests. b. PPP is simply defined as cooperative institutional arrangements between public and private sector actors, in dealing with public services. Government is increasingly faced with dual imperatives between cost containment and service improvement for the entire population. Bovaird (2004) defined PPP is working arrangements based on a mutual commitment between public sector organizations with any organization outside of the public sector. European Commission (2004) defined PPP as a popular method used by public authorities to overcome the budgetary constraints with which they are confronted and to benefit from private-sector knowhow. PPPs are positively valued as a means to e state to move away from being a director operator towards the role of organizer, c. Jorna, Wagenaar, Das and Jezewski (2010) stated that the introduction of PPP into traditional regulatory environments offers a perfect opportunity to analyze how concepts are affected by a migration between organizational arrangements, and in turn, what this change tells us about the difference between those two arrangements. However, not all organizational relationships are ready for and conducive to partnership. Cooperation between different actors, with their distinct goals, values and skills are not easy. Level of antagonism and distrust can exist between the actors involved. Conflict rises when the goal achievement of one or more organization occurs at the expense of goal achievement of others. At an early stage of forming a partnership, some common ground does not need to be found to make progress. Work together to identify core principles that all 382

3 actors can accept and then form the basis for the next stages of cooperation understand the mutual benefit of those activities. d. According to Indonesia Bussiness Links Foundation (IBLF) (2001), there are three principles for cooperation have been regularly in a wide range of situation worldwide: equity, transparency, and mutual benefit. These appear to provide a solid starting point for cross-actor activity. Equity measured by the value of each and the representativeness, with respect, not a power. Transparency in collaborative works provides a good foundation from which trust can grow. The principle of mutual benefit can be quite hard to agree on, since civil society or public organization that are uncomfortable with the profitdriven motivation may be unwilling to accept that a private (business) partner should also be a beneficiary of the partnership. In these circumstances, a helpful ong cross-sector group. e. All sectors want (and benefit from) a society that is stable, healthy, and prosperous. Partnership can be a mechanism for those goals. To summarize, at the heart of strategies for developing and strengthening the cooperation approach is the need to understand the benefits of cooperation to all sectors by: 1) Providing mechanism for each to bring the specific skills, competencies and interests of their sector to common problems or opportunities, on the basis of competency, legitimacy and transparancy that sector has acting on its own; 2) Mobilizing more resources by combining the technical, human, informational, physical, financial resources off all sectors; 3) Ensuring greater awareness of priorities, needs, and roles of each sector, thereby creating a more integrated and stable society; 4) Creating dynamic contact networks: offering channels of influence that on the one hand engage the wider community and on the other impact the policy agenda, and; 5) Replacing conflict with cooperations for all participants. As we know that the cost of conflict is greater, in both time and resources, than cooperation. 4. Experiences of public and private partnership (including NGOs) in carrying out public services in Yogyakarta Province, Indonesia: 2 best practices. a. Joint Secretariat for Kartamantul (JSK): a best practice example of inter-district cooperation. As an implication of authority decentralization, the governments at district and city level in Indonesia currently have the autonomy to organize and manage their natural, financial, and human resources. Although decentralization is promising to make government works better, such decentralized authority also lead to problems. There are 2 (two) major problems related to this. First, the extended local authority is limited to territory, while some public services have area of coverage that cannot be limited by territorial borders. These include highway services, transportation, water management, and so forth. Second, the resulted local ego in, for example, managing natural resources. This egocentrism will lead 383

4 to conflict of interests between regions and the fulfillments of some public service needs of the community will be left unfinished. Many local governments have found it difficult to work in cooperation with their neighboring local governments. These two major problems can only be solved through the establishment of inter-district cooperation to bridge differring local government interests and at the same time fulfill public service needs of the community. The history of JSK began with the concerns about how to manage the increasingly complex urban problems. Under the global urge to strengthen regional economy and to develop healthy and green living environment, three local government administrations (City of Yogyakarta, District of Sleman, and District of Bantul) consider the need to establish a cooperation in the implementation such efforts in order to provide standardized services to the community. Local government faced with reality that the management scope of regional economy and its environmental impacts is not always in line with governmental administrative territory. The efforts to achieve higher economic growth and better environmental management may not be able to do optimally since the territorial scope exceeds the administrative borders, i.e. across administrative territories. Three districts then initiate a cooperation forum in form of joint secretariat called Kartamantul (an abbreviation of Yogyakarta, Sleman, Bantul). The Joint Secretariat for Kartamantul (JSK) is formed as a facilitation forum to ease the coordination between regions in determining the provision of selected city services. JSK also provides mechanisms to solve interinstitutional problems in providing public services. While the services themselves still have to be provided by the respective district/city, JSK serves as the planning, facilitating, and mediating body ( The lesson learned from the establishment of the JSK as an intergovernmental cooperation is the optimation of potentials possessed by each region within the context of regional resource scarcity. It reduces conflict among local government. Furthermore, innovation and initiation from each district will be exchanged and possibly done together. JSK represents an interesting and promising model of coordination, facilitation, and mediation among local governments. This model is highly potential to be implemented in other regions in Indonesia or other countries since many cities in developing countries implement similar models. Cities in Indonesia are experiencing rapid growth in line with the expansion of new housing areas beyond the geographical borders of those cities. The intrinsic interdependency between a city and its surrounding areas in terms of clean water supply, garbage management, and transportation infrastructure is inevitable. 384

5 b. Yogyakarta Emergency Services 118 (YES 118): a best practice example of publicprivate-ngo partnership. YES 118 is a co-operation form in emergency medical services, involving government institutions, police and firefighters unit, private hospitals, and the Indonesian Red Cross. This program was established with the primary purpose of providing emergency medical services to the people: fast and timely ( It is inspired from the success of 911. Data from the state police department that the emergency incidents such as traffic accidents, criminal accidents and other form of emergency incidents were increasing over time. Number of traffic accidents for example, continues to increase along with the growth of vehicle ownership. It called for the city government authority to cooperate in implementing joint solutions. YES 118 is a program of Emergency Medical Services System involving 9 (public and private) hospitals in the city of Yogyakarta, the Central Hospital (RSUP) Dr. Sardjito as a referral hospital, and Indonesian Red Cross (PMI) Branch of the city of Yogyakarta. With an integrated action among actors, they can speed up the response time in emergency medical services. Yogyakarta City Health Office data (2009) mentions that prior to the YES 118, one patient takes more than 30 minutes to access medical care. Nowadays, YES 118 can treat one patient approximately less than 15 minutes. Promptness and quicknessare necessary to reduce the risk of death, disability or complications. All cost of exceeded from that emergency action are covered by the City Government of Yogyakarta through Health Insurance mechanism at the first 24 hours of care in hospitals. What we can be learned from the establishment of YES 118 as a public-private- NGO cooperation is: actors involved have specific qualities, and if those qualities are combined, the end result will be better for all. Within the context of speeding up medical emergency service, this combination is essential to promote quality assurance in service delivery. 5. Concluding notes. Cooperation is necessary to multiply energy by giving supports to establish new communities to reach the joint goals. Implementation of these two above programs has provided some important lessons. First, partnership itself will mobilize more resources, by combining the technical resources, human, information, physical and financial of all sectors: public and private; Second, there are some growing awareness on setting priorities, needs, and their respective roles in order to create more effective public services; Within public service context, such cooperation is very supportive in implementing efficiency and standardization of services between communities, institutions and regions. This will promote the improvement of public services. Third, partnership will change the conflict into cooperation. The expenses resulting from the conflict, both in time and resources, is greater than the costs of cooperation itself. To that end, partnership among 385

6 government agencies, private sector and civil society need to be strengthened by providing policy incentives that ease the process of such cooperation. Role of the government authority in providing those incentives is significant. It can reduce or eliminate the possibility of bottlenecks that will occur simultaneously, when conflicts among the actors involved. References: Bovaird, T. Public-private partnerships: From contested concepts to prevalent practice. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 70: , European Commission. Green paper on public-private partnerships, Retrieved from Frederickson, H. George. The Spirit of Public Administration. San Fransisco: Jossey Bass Publishers, Public-Private Partnership in Poland: A Cosmo, Administration & Society, 42(6) , 2010 Indonesia Business Links (IBL).Managing Partnership in Development. Jakarta, Kickert, Walter J.M., Erik Hans Klijn and J.F.M. Koppenjan (editors). Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for Public Sectors, London: Sage Publication, Limerick, D. & B.Cunnington. Managing the New Organization: A blueprint for networks and strategic alliances. West Castwood, Australia: Business & Professional Publishing Peter, Guy B. The Future of Governing. Second Edition. Kansas: University Press of Kansas, Public Administration: An Interdisciplinary Critical Analysis. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc. Web sources: