Applying the Framework to the Cases

Comparative analysis

How can we explain the different degree of effectiveness? Before we start to discuss our results, we have to introduce a typology of PPPs, which helps to identify patterns and to better understand the covariation of independent variables. In the literature on PPPs, many authors attempt to categorize the various types of PPPs, mostly according to their main objectives or functions (Tesner 2000, 73-77; Witte et al. 2003; Nelson 2002). Service-providing partnerships fill operational gaps by distributing resources and services in areas of limited statehood. Especially in the area of development cooperation, many PPPs were initiated to provide services, such as the distribution of antiretroviral therapies to combat HIV/AIDS (like the Global Fund), or the construction of water and energy supply systems in urban slums (such as the Water and Sanitation for the Urban Poor PPP). Standard-setting partnerships establish new rules, for example by drafting minimum standards and in some cases implementing them via a certification scheme (like SA 8000). Knowledge-transfer partnerships seek to generate new expertise, provide a forum for exchange of the best practices, and transfer this knowledge to governmental or nongovernmental actors in developing countries (like the Global Water Partnership). While we did not use such a heuristic in designing our sample, we now see patterns along the lines of three different types of partnerships, that is, variation according to the main type of output the PPP produces. Indeed, one main finding of our research is that the factors contributing to the effectiveness of PPPs covary with regard to the specific function or type of PPPs. As our discussion of results will show, some independent variables matter for all types of PPPs—others matter only for a specific type.

Having this in mind, we will now turn to explaining the different degree of effectiveness described in section three. Table 5.5 shows the results of our

TABLE 5.5 Results

PPP

Type

DV

Wl

W2

IV3

IV4

TV5

Effect

Institutionalization

Management

Capacity

Learning

Inclusion

О

P

D

1.

GAVI

Service

3

3

3

3

3

2/3

3

2

2.

GF

Service

3

3

3

3

3/2

2

2

2

3.

WSUP

Service

2

3

3

2

3

2

2

2

4.

GAEL

Service

2

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

5.

IAVI

Knowledge/Service

2

1/3

1/3

1/2

3

2/3

3

1

6.

4C

Standard

2

3

3

3

3

2

2

3

7.

SA 8000

Standard

2

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

8.

GNESD

Knowledge

2

1

1

1

3

2

2

2

9.

GAIN

Service

2

3

1

2

3

2

1

2

10.

WCD

Standard

2

1

2

1

3

1

1

2

11.

GC

Knowledge

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

12.

BPD

Knowledge/Service

2

1

1

1

2

2

3

2

13.

PPPHW

Knowledge

2

1

1

1

2/1

2

1

1

14.

REEEP

Service/Knowledge

2

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

15.

GWP

Knowledge

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

16.

GAWC

Service

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

17.

GVEP

Knowledge/Service

1

1/2

1/1

1/2

1/2

1

1

1

18.

RBM

Service

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

19.

IAAH

Knowledge

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

20.

WCTE

Standard

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

21.

CVI

Service

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Note: 3 = high; 2 = medium; 1 = low; A = change over time to.

twenty-one case studies for the aforementioned five hypotheses. It lists the abbreviation of each PPP, the type, and the categories for the dependent (DV) and the independent variables (IV).

The degree of institutionalization matters for most PPPs. We find a striking correlation between high levels of effectiveness and a high degree of institutionalization. This provides strong support for our first hypothesis. Overall, eight PPPs score high on the most important dimension—obligation—and all those show at least medium effectiveness. And all PPPs with low effectiveness share a rather low degree of institutionalization. These PPPs commit members only voluntarily; there are no binding rules or conditions. They lack enforcement mechanisms, third party monitoring, and they only vaguely define obligations and secondary rules. For example, the dissolved Children Vaccine Initiative (CVI) only broadly sets the target to “vaccinate the world’s children” and fails to establish rules or obligations for its members (Schaferhoff 2008a). Even in the case of the World Committee on Tourism Ethics (WCTE), where a dispute settlement body was established, obligation and delegation remain low, because members can significantly limit the authority of the body by refusing to give the required permission on individual cases (cf. Kaan 2007b). Another example is the GWP’s many purely nominal members—a sign that there is no obligation at all. Moreover, most of these low effective PPPs have a weak process management and often also lack measures for capacity building and institutional learning.

Standard-setting and service-providing PPPs with a low degree of institutionalization and a weak process management (RBM, WCTE, CVI, see table 5.2) have been hardly able to reach their output goals and did not achieve desired outcomes and impact. Knowledge-transfer partnerships seem to be the exception. Overall, they display lower degrees of institutionalization: International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI; 1996-99), Global Network on Energy for Sustainable Development (GNESD), GWP, and the International Alliance Against Hunger (IAAH) score low on all dimensions. Nevertheless, the knowledge network GNESD is relatively successful although obligation, precision, and delegation are very low. Also, IAVI was extremely successful in its first phase as knowledge-transfer PPP. Apparently, the pure exchange of knowledge does not necessarily need a high degree of institutionaliza- tion—this task is different from the provision of services, which brings with it an enormous management of resources, distributive effects, and problems of free riding or misuse. If the latter problems arise, PPPs need a high degree of institutionalization and good management procedures to be successful.

The degree of institutionalization is of less importance for the task of knowledge creation and awareness-raising. Instead, the effectiveness of knowledge- transfer PPPs seems to depend on opportunities for organizational and social learning.

While the more effective partnerships provide for capacity building, we do not find support for the hypothesis that capacity building is a necessary condition for effectiveness. In particular, several of the moderately effective PPPs, such as Social Accountability (SA) 8000, lack capacity building initiatives. External evaluations, however, suggest that capacity building is essential to achieve long-term sustained success on the ground.

The relevance of organizational learning and inclusion is even less clear. We find no positive correlation between organizational learning and effectiveness; however, none of the PPPs with low effectiveness show signs of high responsiveness and institutionalized learning. With regard to the inclusion of stakeholders, successful and moderately effective PPPs score medium or higher.5 However, the PPPs with low effectiveness vary from low to high degrees of inclusion. If we take a closer look at the three subgroups, inclusion matters most for the standard-setting PPPs. Moreover, relatively effective standard-setting PPPs such as the Common Code for the Coffee Community (4C) and SA 8000 have set precise norms and delegated monitoring functions to external organizations (i.e., display a higher degree of institutionalization) and show good process management.

 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >