Boundary making in public-private-partnerships (PPP): A historical account of the British railway industry

Jintamanaskoon, S and Chan, P W (2014) Boundary making in public-private-partnerships (PPP): A historical account of the British railway industry. In: Raiden, A and Aboagye-Nimo, E (eds.) Proceedings of 30th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2014, Portsmouth, UK.

Abstract

Since its emergence in 1980s, public private partnerships (PPP) have become a predominant approach for delivering social and economic infrastructure in the UK. This has inspired many scholarships into how such arrangements can bring about better performance for all. In much of the extant work, the focus has been on finding more effective ways of configuring the relationships between the public and private parties, often taking assumption that each of these sectors are homogenous entities. In this paper, we raise the question as to whether boundaries between the public sector and private sector are ever so clear cut. We do so by drawing upon an on-going archival study in to British railway industry in the 1960s. We found that the roles played by stakeholders were often messy, and that the labels of what constituted "public" and what constituted "private" were not always clearly defined. Indeed, relationships were often blended between the two spheres. Rather than to focus on finding better ways of bringing the public and private together in delivering PPPs, it is argued that these arrangements between public and private sectors are better studied as fertile context for boundary making and identity formation.

Item Type: Conference Paper (Paper)
Uncontrolled Keywords: archival research; boundary-making; public-private-partnership; railways
Index terms: identity, boundaries, public private partnership, emergence, archival research, public sector, private sector, partnership, drawing
Subjects: property law, contractual arrangements, technical documentation, research design and methodology, industry analysis, administrative law, systems engineering, partnership management, sociology
Topics: Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Design Practice, Legal Issues
Descriptive scope: 3 PCT

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here