1
Deciding on public-private partnership
forms in security
A study on different forms of public-private partnerships in the Netherlands concerned with security, with the goal of explaining which factors play a role in deciding which partnership type is being used.
Master CSM September 2016
Master thesis Daniël de Groot
27th of June 2018 S1906720 Thesis supervisor: dr. Joery Matthys 16988 words 2nd reader: dr. Sanneke Kuipers
2
“The more I looked around me,
the more questions arose”
3
I. Acknowledgements
Firstly, I would like to express my appreciation to my thesis supervisor dr. Joery Matthys, for his support, guidance, knowledge and advice during this thesis trajectory. It was a pleasure working with you.
Secondly, I would like to thank my respondents in Middelland, the municipality of Rotterdam and Securitas for their openness and patience.
This thesis would not have happened without the help of dr. Onno de Zwart, which is highly appreciated.
I also want to show my gratitude to my parents and my brother for their support and motivation throughout my years of study.
Finally, I want to dedicate this thesis to my grandfather, dr. O.J. van der Ploeg, who unfortunatel y passed away before he could see his first grandchild finish a master thesis. It is largely thanks to him that this study was completed.
4
II. Abstract
This thesis sets out to research the factors that play a role in determining the kind of public-private partnership that is chosen. Three partnership forms are distinguished: the concession model, the alliance model and the improvisation model. The alliance model was not found, so only the concession- and improvisation model were further researched. Using factors derived from the rational-, political-, cultural- and institutional approach to policy two cases were studied. The partnership between the municipality of Rotterdam and Securitas for object security (concession model) and Mooi, Mooier Middelland (improvisation model).
The results suggest that the concession model can be explained mainly through rational factors, whereas the choice for the improvisation model was based more on cultural and political factors. The institutional approach provided factors that explained the choice for both partnership forms. Concluding, this research offers a framework for policy makers to decide which partnership form fits their situation best, and some practical recommendations are offered to the actors involved in the partnerships that were researched.
5
Index
I. Acknowledgements ...3 II. Abstract ...4 1. Introduction ...7 1.1 Research question ...7 1.2 Academic relevance...7 1.3 Societal Relevance...8 1.4 Reader’s guide ...9 2. Theoretical framework ... 102.1 Private security industry... 10
2.2 Public private partnerships in security ... 11
2.3 The Partnership forms ... 12
2.3.1 Concession Model... 12
2.3.2 Alliance model ... 13
2.3.3 Improvisation model ... 13
2.3.4 Table of partnership forms ... 15
2.4 Approaches to policy ... 16 2.4.1 Rational... 16 2.4.2 Political ... 16 2.4.3 Cultural ... 17 2.4.4 Institutional ... 18 3. Methodology ... 20 3.1 Research design... 20 3.2 Conceptual model ... 21 3.3 Study design ... 22 3.4 Data collection ... 23 3.5 Operationalization ... 25 3.5.1 Partnership forms ... 25
3.5.2 Factors explaining partnership form choice ... 27
3.6 Validity & Reliability ... 32
3.7 Possible pitfalls ... 32
4. Analysis ... 33
6
4.1.1 Concession model ... 33
4.1.2 Factors influencing the partnership choice ... 34
4.1.3 Conclusion ... 38
4.2 Mooi, Mooier Middelland ... 40
4.2.1 Improvisation model ... 40
4.2.2 Factors influencing the partnership choice ... 41
4.2.3 Conclusion ... 48
4.3 Comparison of the cases... 49
4.3.1 Partnership form ... 50 4.3.2 Rational Approach ... 50 4.3.3 Political approach ... 50 4.3.4 Cultural approach... 51 4.3.5 Institutional approach ... 52 5. Conclusion ... 53
5.1 Answering the research question... 53
5.2 Discussion ... 56 5.3 Practical recommendations ... 58 6. Bibliography... 59 6.1 Academic literature... 59 6.2 Other sources ... 61 Appendix ... 63
Appendix 1. Interview script ... 63 Appendix 2. Interview transcripts ... Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. Interview 1 Wilco Slotboom ... Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. Interview 2 Niels Hoogland ... Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. Interview 3 Peter Geerdink ... Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. Interview 4 Fatima ... Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. Interview 5 Michiel Rexwinkel ... Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
7
1. Introduction
Private security companies are growing both in personnel and in annual turnover (Van Steden & Nalla, 2010). Partnerships between private and public security providers are receiving an increasing amount of attention (Van Montfort, Van den Brink, Schulz, & Maalsté, 2012). These partnerships come in various forms to deal with a wide variety of problems. Several authors provide a framework to distinguish these partnership forms, with the partnerships generally falling under the ‘concession model’, where the public party is in charge and clearly instructs the private party what they expect from them, and the ‘alliance model’ where the parties work together on a more equal basis. A recent development has been the growth of partnerships were citizens take the initiative and shared passions are the driving factor. These kinds of partnerships were coined ‘improvisation model partnerships’ by Van Monfort et al. (2012).
Whilst the research on partnerships offers some ideas on why a partnership is chosen, a clear framework of factors that play a role in partnership choice has yet to be provided. This research sets out to provide that framework by doing a case-study on the various partnership forms that involve the municipality of Rotterdam. Using four approaches to policy, the rational-, political-, cultural- and institutional approach (Bekkers, 2012), several possible factors are operationalized. Interviews and document analysis will then verify which factors played a role for the choice of partnership. This will result in a framework to help policy makers in deciding which partnership form fits their situation best.
1.1 Research question
This paper will use an explanatory research question.
What factors decide how different forms of partnerships between governmental organizations and private security actors are chosen?
To answer this research question a case study will be conducted on two different partnerships between the municipality of Rotterdam and the private actors they work with.
1.2 Academic relevance
The subject of public-private partnerships (PPPs) has been intensively researched in the field of public administration. However, this classic public administration theme is less researched in the field of security. Some research has been done however. Abroad by, among others, Diphoorn &
8
Berg (2014), Buures (2017) and White (2011), but also in The Netherlands by Van Steden & Nalla (2010), Van Steden, Stougie & Van Veldhoven (2017), Van Steden & Sarre (2007) and Van Montfort et al. (2012). The authors vary in their categorization of PPPs, mainly divided between concession model partnership forms and alliance partnership forms. Van Montfort et al. (2012) provide a third, rather uncommon partnership form: the improvisation model. There is some research on partnerships that fit the categorization of an improvisation model by, among others, Specht (2013) and Oude Vrielink, Verhoeven & van de Wijdeven (2013), but none of the research into these kinds of initiatives see it as another form of PPP as Van Monfort et al. (2012) do.
This research will combine the categorizations of PPP of the various authors into our own framework. However, other than only categorizing the partnership, this thesis aims to go further. The goal is to research which factors are important in deciding which kind of partnership is chosen. This is done through a multi-dimensional approach.
These factors are taken from Bekkers (2012), in which he describes four approaches to policy: rational, political, cultural and institutional. These approaches are described using both Bekker’s findings and some of the influential authors that helped form some of the main ideas in the various approaches. From these approaches several factors will be deduced regarding policy decision making. By translating these approaches to decision-making regarding PPP, we aim to find which factors played a role in deciding which partnership form was chosen.
For the field of Crisis and Security Management, the knowledge on private and public partnerships in security would be increased by conducting a case study on one or more of these partnerships. The aim of this research is to deduct, from a government’s perspective, which factors play a role in deciding what kind of partnerships are used. This will also further the knowledge about PPPs in security.
1.3 Societal Relevance
The subject of this research is partnerships between the government and private security actors. Even though some research has been done on this subject, many questions remain unanswered (Van Steden & Sarre, 2007). Van Steden & Sarre (2007) argue that private security companies dominate the policing landscapes in many nations. In the Netherlands in the year 1980 there were 10,000 people under contract as a guard, in 2009 this number rose to 32,000. The gross annual turnover was estimated to be over 1.3 billion dollars in 2009, compared to 429 million dollars in
9
1994 (Van Steden & Nalla, 2010). The growth of private security also means that these companies becoming a larger part of society (Van Steden & Sarre, 2007). Because this growing role private security plays in our society, it’s an interesting subject to do research on. By researching different partnerships and the factors that play a role in forming these partnerships, this research can provide a framework for organizations and networks to form the most fitting partnership in their situation. This can lead to better security solutions.
1.4 Reader’s guide
First a theoretical framework will be established. In this framework the growth of PPPs is explained, then three different forms of partnerships are discussed, followed by the four approaches to policy that will be used to explain the partnership choice. The methodology of this research will then be discussed, including an operationalization of the main concepts and some notes on validity and reliability. Thereafter in the analysis, the data collected on the partnerships with the municipality of Rotterdam is analyzed per partnership, leading to a comparison of the partnerships. Finally the conclusion, answering the research question, discussing the methods and results and providing some practical recommendations.
10
2. Theoretical framework
In this paragraph information on trends in the private security will be provided. The consequences of these trends are then discussed, followed by a more in-depth description of different forms of public-private partnerships (PPPs). Four approaches to policy are described: rational, political, cultural and institutional. Factors that could explain the partnership choice are then deducted from these four approaches.
2.1 Private security industry
In recent decades the private security industry has been growing (Van Steden & Sarre, 2007) and the private security companies are provided more space by governments (White, 2011). The literature on private security mentions several explanations for the growth of the industry. First there are spatial changes. Both Van Steden & Sarre (2007) and White (2011) provide this factor and describe the same phenomenon: the emergence of quasi-public spaces, or ‘mass private property’, as White (2011, p. 88) calls them. These are private properties that are used as public spaces (White, 2011), which need to be secured from risks of “deviant behavior disturbing the ambiance of such sites (Van Steden & Sarre, 2007). Another factor to consider is the growing fear of crime (Van Steden & Sarre, 2007). White (2011) uses the term “security fetishism” or “the desire to ameliorate subjective feelings of insecurity”. The state lacks capabilities to provide the feelings of security the public want (Van Steden & Sarre, 2007). According to White, this lack of capabilities only started to emerge in the 1970s and 1980s, when investment in public services declined. This led to private security companies taking the role from the police to provide subjective security (White, 2011).
This shift to more private security has several consequences. White argues that it affects many core human values, such as “peace, democracy and human rights” (White, 2011). Van Steden & Sarre (2007) briefly touch the subject of the impact of the growth of the security industry on the quality of life, naming democratic rights such as equality, privacy and personal freedom as being possibly under threat by this trend. An important concept related to the growth of private security providers is that of accountability. Bovens defines accountability as “a relationship between an actor and a forum, in which the actor has an obligation to explain and to justify his or her conduct, the forum can pose questions and pass judgement, and the actor may face consequences” (Bovens, 2007, p. 450).
11
2.2 Public private partnerships in security
Another trend is the growth of public-private partnerships (PPPs). The use of these PPPs has grown fivefold in the last decade (Roehrich, Lewis, & George, 2014). In their literature review on PPPs in healthcare, Roehrich, Lewis & George (2014) state that PPPs can combine the strengths of private and public actors to create “an enabling environment for delivering high quality health infrastructures and services.” However, they do state that some more research is needed in this field. One of these areas that need more research is circumstances for creating alliances between private and public actors (Roehrich, Lewis, & George, 2014).
Some benefits that are attributed to outsourcing to private companies are financial savings, leaner business processes, access to capital investment, and business change challenges can be tackled by the private company, instead of taking time away from the management of the public
organization (Rhodes, 2012). These PPPs provide benefits to tax-payers, the public sector and the private sector alike. The improved efficiency and the investments of the private sector can save the tax payers money, the public sector can learn from the private sector and the private sector can save money and time on their business development activities and contribute to national security (Cellucci, 2011). More recently these positive views towards security PPPs have been challenged, with the main problems being disagreements about problem definitions, scopes and methods, complications in information sharing and a conflict between the logics of the safety-oriented public sector and the profit-oriented private sector (Buures, 2017).
In the Netherlands PPPs were first seen as a way to save money. In the 1990’s they were
discussed with a focus on improvement in quality and access to expertise. In practice most PPPs are “loosely coupled forms of co-operation” (Klijn, 2009). There is currently a rise of
decentralized authority’s, so not only the national government, that take part in PPP contracts (Hebly & Klijn, 2016). Hueskes, Koppenjan & Verwij (2016) argue that PPPs in the Netherlands are neither doomed to fail nor are they a “wondermiddel”, their success depends on the context and the way the partnership is applied.
Combining both the growth of private security and the growth of public private partnerships, leads to a growing number of PPPs in security. Van Steden & Sarre (2007) state that the relation between police and private security is “guarded and tentative”, but also that both sectors should develop alongside each other. White explains the complexity in relationships between the state and private
12
security providers by the different roles the state plays in concern to private security: it’s a competitor, contractor, partner and the state offers private security companies their legitimacy. The balance between these roles is fluid (White, 2011). The relationship between public and private security providers can also be categorized by the level of the cooperation, ranging from denying the existence of the other party up to an equal partnership (Diphoorn & Berg, 2014). The focus of this research however, is on partnership forms where the public and private actors work together.
2.3 The Partnership forms
Most of publications on PPPs describe two forms: a model where government is in charge and a model where public and private actor are equal. In the framework presented here, several of these publications are combined to create a more comprehensive framework. Also, a third model, ‘the improvisation model’, by Van Montfort, Van den Brink, Schulz & Maalsté (2012) has been added.
2.3.1 Concession Model
In this form of partnership, the government is in charge, and tasks are outsourced to private companies (Van Monfort et al., 2012). Diphoorn & Berg (2014) call this partnership form a ‘junior partnership’. It signifies an active partnership between public and private security actors, where the public agency takes a leading role. White calls this “the state as a contractor” (2011) whereas Klijn (2009) calls this a “contractual arrangement”, with the public actor specifying both the problem and the solution. In security, government parties tend to outsource security in a concession model type partnership for mainly two reasons: reducing costs and improving flexibility. Additionally, political and ideological reasons can play a role (Van Steden, Stougie, & Van Veldhoven, 2017).
The goals in these partnerships are decided by the public actor, using a clear contract describing both problems and solutions (Klijn, 2009). These clear rules and formulations are also of importance for tendering, selection and delivery of the services (Klijn & Teisman, 2000). According to Van Monfort et al. (2012), the focus on clear, defined and measurable output leads to problems in tackling more complex social problems that are harder to define and solve.
Van Monfort et al. (2012) argue that this form of partnership is mainly used for preventive measures, such as surveillance in public spaces. For a concession model the number of possible partners should be limited, there should be a clear solution direction and there should be consensus on the problem. Financial gains are vital in these situations and is usually one of the goals of the
13
partnership. (Van Montfort et al., 2012). Diphoorn & Berg (2014) state these partnerships is welcomed by both private and public actors in the private security industry. One of the advantages of this form is the relatively low costs of coordination between the various components. There is transparency regarding the rules and regarding inspection, this is done to create trust between the partners (Klijn & Teisman, 2000).
2.3.2 Alliance model
The highest level of interaction between private and public security actor is, according to Diphoorn & Berg, an equal partnership, where all the participating actors are seen as equals (2014). The public and private parties define the problems and solutions together, linking their interests (Klijn, 2009). The focus in this model is less on efficiency, and more on effectiveness for both parties (Klijn & Teisman, 2000) and the partnerships itself (Hueskes, Koppenjan, & Verweij, 2016).
When an alliance model is chosen there are usually more actors involved, but these actors are known beforehand. The solution is found within certain frameworks. The problem definition will be part of the negotiations in the partnership. Money is more of an aid than the goal of this partnership (Van Montfort et al., 2012). Trust is high in this model, because the partners feel they need to co-produce. Transparency is created through accountability towards third parties (Klijn & Teisman, 2000).
2.3.3 Improvisation model
Articles on PPP generally focus on a form of the concession model and the alliance model, but Van Montfort et al. (2012) add a third form of partnership: the improvisation model. This model is not as specific as the alliance and concession models and comes in different forms. This phenomenon is only described within the framework of PPPs by Van Monfort et al. (2012), but other authors have researched these kinds of partnerships under varying names, such as active citizenship, citizen initiatives and citizen corporations.
Partnerships following the improvisation model are usually started by citizens or private actors, to fill in gaps the government leaves open because of budget cuts or other restraints (Van Monfort et al., 2012). Improvisation model partnerships can be seen as a part of the “do-democracy”, where citizens take the initiative and public parties play more of a serving role, putting their trust in the citizens (Oude Vrielink, Verhoeven, & van de Wijdeven, 2013). Van Monfort et. al. (2012)
14
distinguish four roles the government (usually municipalities because of the local characteristics of this partnership model) can play in this partnership: facilitating, connecting, provoking and letting be. Another way to describe the role of the public party in these kinds of partnership is that of “creating encounters”. This is of great importance to reach productive relationships (Specht, 2013). The private party in this partnership must find a balance between independence and making use of what public parties can offer: resources, knowledge and practical support (Bokhorst, Edelenbos, Koppenjan, & Oude Vrielink, 2015).
The role of security in this model can take three different forms: in some improvisation model partnerships security is the main activity. In others security is a by-product, usually of economic goals. The third possibility is that security is seen as an interaction process, where subjective feelings of security and getting to know people in the neighborhood is the main goal. (Van Montfort et al., 2012)
In an improvisation model the number of potential partners is large and largely unknown beforehand. Solutions are found through coincidence and encounters. The problem is usually outside of the realm of security, with security being a welcomed by-product. Money is used to make the partnership possible (Van Montfort et al., 2012). Transparency and trust in this model are built on the shared passion of the different partners.
15
2.3.4 Table of partnership forms
To differentiate between these three forms of partnership, table 1. can be used. This table is partly adapted from Klijn & Teisman (2000) and Van Montfort et al. (2012).
Characteristics Concession Alliance Improvisation
Started by Government Government Private actors
Type of relationship
Government and company are involved in principal-agent relationship
Government and company (or companies) are
involved in joint decision making and production
There is a co-existing relation between government and private actor
Sort of problem and solution specification
Government defines problem, goals, solution and product, and selects private company that can produce it efficiently
Both parties are involved in joint processes early on to develop joint products that contribute to both their interests. Focus on passions instead of problems. Solutions based on coincidence and connecting people Main target Efficiency (quicker and
cheaper)
Solving the problem in a way that helps both parties
Security as: main target/by-product /interaction process Assumed keys to
success
Unambiguous definition of goals, product and rules for tendering, selection and delivery
Interweaving ambitions, rules for interaction, creating commitments and rewarding co-production Searching, co-incidence and organizing encounters Management principles in use Based on principles of project management, assuming a clear principal, clear goals and well-defined product specifications
Based on principles of process management, come across joint goals, joint financing and joint realization and / or utilization Multiple options: Facilitating, connecting, provoking, letting be Specifications of transparency and trust Contractual transparency regarding rules of tendering, selection and delivery and rules of inspection to gain trust
Perceived need of co-production creates trust: transparency is created by way of accountability
Trust because of a shared passion
16
2.4 Approaches to policy
The goal of this research is to determine which factors play a deciding role in the choice for a certain partnership. Even though Van Monfort et al. (2012) provided some direction (the number of potential partners, problem- and solution directions and the role of money) a more elaborate framework of factors can provide more clarity in partnership choices. To create this framework, four distinct approaches to policy will be used: rational, cultural, political and institutional (Bekkers, 2012). This will provide a multi-dimensional explanation for the partnership choice. For each approach a description will be presented on how policy is viewed and reasons for putting policies into place. Out of these approaches several factors that explain policies will be deducted. In the operationalization these factors will be translated into factors for deciding partnership forms, instead of policy in general.
2.4.1 Rational
The rational approach is a classic approach, based on the idea of achieving goals by means that are both efficient, effective and cohesive (Bekkers, 2012). It fits in with the rational actor model described by Allison & Zelikow (1999). This approach argues that actors will make choices based on reaching their goals and objectives. The policy that is chosen will be the policy that appears to be the most effective and efficient way for the organization to reach its goals (Allison & Zelikow, 1999). A policy is thus used instrumentally.
Knowledge and information are preferably of scientific nature and are used to find the best solution to a problem, or: the best way to achieve a goal. Policy makers, according to this approach, should know what society wants, and all the possible policy alternatives to reach that goal, then choosing the policy alternative that reaches this goal in the most effective way (Hanekom, 1987). Knowledge and information also play an important role in monitoring and evaluating policies, again, to improve effectiveness and efficiency (Bekkers, 2012).
From this approach, the government is seen as a unified actor (Allison & Zelikow, 1999), but there is a clear distinction between politics and administration. Politicians supply the goals, and the administration supplies knowledge and eventually the means to reach the goals (Bekkers, 2012).
2.4.2 Political
The political approach is based on the idea that policy is formed through conflict of interest between actors. Decision-making takes places in complex systems that are both connected and
17
fragmented, with outcomes of policies not always correlating with the intentions of the actor(s) that implemented the policy (Buuren, Boons, & Teisman, 2012). This mean that instead of making the rational, ‘best’ decisions, actors push their views, goals and interests in the decision-making process (Bekkers, 2012).
Policies are not seen as neutral instruments, but are seen as power sources, and the choice for a certain policy can be seen as a choice for a power source, and as a way to gain more power. Multiple actors will try to gain influence on the policy and the partners that are chosen to improve the position of their organization. A policy will be successful when it protects or improves the interests of the organization. When the success of a policy is defined from the point of view of the network, the main factor is support. If a partnership is supported by the actors within the network, it is successful (Bekkers, 2012),
Knowledge and information are seen as resources, and policies can be a way to obtain more of this resource. However, knowledge can also be used to bring actors together, creating a shared knowledge base (Bekkers, 2012). Unlike the rational approach, the political approach argues that ‘the government’ does not exist as one actor, but consists of different groups with different goals. Even private parties can influence decision-making (Dahl, 1961). Decisions are made by both political and non-political actors, and there is no clear division between politicians and civil servants (Bekkers, 2012).
2.4.3 Cultural
The cultural approach assumes that every policy has an expressive and symbolic dimension. Policy decisions are not seen as purely instrumental, like in the rational approach, but also as being expressive (Edelman, 1985).
Bekkers (2012) argues that every policy has certain meanings to it, and it can be seen as a way for the government to show that certain issues are important to them. Stories play an important role in the decision-making process and can be used to put certain issues on the agenda, blame actors for these issues and empower other actors to deal with these issues (Stone, 1989).
Important concepts for this approach are interaction and communication, in which frames, framing and re-framing play a vital role. People see the world differently and act differently based on these views (Rein & Schon, 1993). Actors will frame and reframe issues to put problems into a different
18
perspective, making them important or useful. Problems are therefore not objective, but the results of an interaction between the frames of the actors involved with the issue (Buuren, Boons, & Teisman, 2012).
A policy will be the result of an open dialogue between the parties that are involved, with the goal of creating a shared view of the problems and solutions. Another way to evaluate the success of policies is to look at the quality of the interaction process. Knowledge and information is seen in the context of frames of mind of the different actors and are viewed as a way to bring up what actors find important. According to this approach decisions are not only made in classical political arena’s like the local council, but also in newly created arenas for debate, outside of the generally accepted rules and norms (Hajer, 2003).
2.4.4 Institutional
The institutional approach sees policy as path dependent, imbedded in historically grown rules, norms and practices. Lowndes & Roberts state that even though there are various ‘sub-approaches’ within institutionalism, the main idea is that “political behavior and political outcomes are best understood by studying the rules and practices that characterize institutions, and the ways in which actors relate to them” (Lowndes & Roberts, 2013, p. 7).
Path dependence is one of the main concepts of this approach, and it is interlinked with the idea of increasing returns. When a certain policy path is chosen, it becomes less and less rewarding to turn towards another policy path, as the chosen policy will provide increasing returns over time (Pearson, 2000, p. 252).
The policy that will be chosen will therefor be the policy that fits within the current practices, rules and norms. Options outside of this realm will be not be considered. Information and knowledge are a product of one actors view of reality, and actors focus only on the information that fits their worldview (Bekkers, 2012).
For a policy to be successful this approach uses several criteria. First there are the logic of consequence and the logic of appropriateness. The logic of consequence is similar to the criteria of the rational approach: effectiveness, efficiency and cohesion of the policy. The logic of appropriateness focusses on the way the policy fits in with current practices. Policies need to be appropriate for the role of the actor implementing the policy and the current situation (March &
19
Olsen, 1989). This also means that even though a behavior is intentional, it does not have to be the willful. Actions or policies following the logic of appropriateness can be implemented to fulfill the obligations of the role an actor has. Other factors that decide the success rate of a policy are the way the policy fits in the environment and the way the policy succeeds in breaking the habits of current policies (Bekkers, 2012). Finally, decision making in this model is based on rules and procedures This provides stability. With these rules and procedures, the logic of consequence and the logic of appropriateness are regarded (Bekkers, 2012).
20
3. Methodology
In this chapter the design of the research will be discussed. The conceptual model will then be presented. Afterwards a justification for the design of the study will be provided, including an explanation for the cases that were selected. Thereafter the methods that will be used and the operationalization of the central concepts for this research. To conclude the paragraph, validity, reliability and possible pitfalls are being touched upon.
3.1 Research design
This paper will use the following explanatory research question:
What factors decide how different forms of partnerships between governmental organizations and private security actors are chosen
This research will be of a qualitative nature and a deductive approach will be used. To analyze the partnerships, theories on partnership forms and of approaches to policy will be combined. From the four approaches to policy the main factors for policy decisions are taken and adapted to fit into our model of explaining partnership choices. The unit of observation of this research is partnerships between the government and private security companies. The unit of analysis is the relationship between the municipality of Rotterdam and private security actors.
21
3.2 Conceptual model
Combining the theories of PPPs in security and the four approaches to policy leads to the following conceptual model. From each policy approach several factors that might explain the partnership are chosen. These factors and their indicators will be discussed more extensively in the operationalization. A combination of factors from the different approaches will lead decision makers to one of the three partnership forms: a concession model, alliance model or improvisation model partnership.
22
3.3 Study design
The research strategy used in this thesis is that of the case study. This is done for several reasons. Primarily a case study provides an integral image of the research object, and as our research question aims to describe all the factors that play a deciding role for the partnership form, this holistic approach is fitting. Also, case studies should be used when there is no control needed over behavioral events and when there is a focus on contemporary event (Yin, 2003). Both of which are the case in this research.
More practically, a case study provides more ‘maneuverability’, requiring less pre-structuring than for example a survey or experiment (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2010). This proved useful in this thesis as one of the partnership forms that was set out to be researched was not found. Another reason for the use of a case study is the acceptance in the field. The researcher is closer to the object of research than would be the case in more quantitative forms of research, and the results tend to be more practical and recognizable for ‘the field’ (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2010).
There are several forms of case studies, and the one best fitting to answer our research question is that of a comparative case study. As the goal is to research which factors play a role in deciding which PPP form is used, it’s critical to research the different forms of partnerships. To maintain the depth and holistic character of case study research only one case for each partnership form has been chosen.
The selected cases have been chosen for a combination of practical and academic reasons. Both cases are Dutch, as The Netherlands is easily accessible and has a history with PPPs (Klijn, 2009). Both cases will also be studied within one city: Rotterdam. This city was chosen because the researcher already established some possible points of entry into the municipal organization, and because it is a large city, thus providing a larger chance of having all three forms of PPPs. By only studying one municipality the feasibility of the research is improved, and just focusing on one city takes away external factors that might influence the relations that will be researched here.
The goal of this research was to find a case for each of the three partnership forms provide a well-balanced image of the relations between the municipality and private actors. A preliminary research was conducted, both concession-and improvisation model partnerships were found, but alliance model partnerships were not encountered. Therefore, from this point only two cases will be discussed: the concession model and improvisation model. This is a clear limitation of this
23
research, as it will not be possible to make conclusions on all the partnership forms, but this does allow for a more in-depth analysis of the remaining two cases.
The cases that will be researched are:
Case Partners
Concession model Object security Securitas, municipality
Improvisation model Mooi, Mooier Middelland Municipality, citizens, entrepreneurs
Table 2: Case selection
The concession model case is the partnership between the municipality of Rotterdam and security company Securitas, which is hired to secure several municipal locations throughout the city, including City Hall. The improvisation model case is the partnership between the different departments and organizations within the municipality of Rotterdam and the active citizens and entrepreneurs of Mooi, Mooier Middelland. The goal of this partnership is to make Middelland
“mooier” (more beautiful) using co-creation.
3.4 Data collection
For this research two methods will be used. Interviews are conducted to gather data, and documents are used to support this data. Through the respondents on the side of the municipality, snowball sampling will be used to come into contact with the private actors they are working with. The data will then be analyzed using content analysis. Interviews are useful because they make it possible to steer the conversation into the area that is of interest for this research. That makes it possible to find in-depth answers to the question that are posed. Documents can help and provide large amounts of data, but it will be relatively harder to find clear answers to the research questions. Using these different methods will lead to a triangulation of methods. By interviewing people from different organizations and obtaining documents from different organizations, both public and private, there will also be a triangulation of sources. The interviews and documents will then be further analyzed using Atlas.ti, qualitative analysis software, to find meanings and relationship in the data.
24
For the object security case two interviews have been conducted, and two documents have been analyzed. The first interview was held with the municipal head of Toezicht en Beveiliging, responsible for the security of all locations of the municipality of Rotterdam. The second interview has been conducted with the Securitas manager responsible for the municipal operation. Two documents have been analyzed for this case. The plan of action in which the municipality has determined its goals and the methods to reach these goals. The second document is a paper from Securitas on dealing with stakeholder interests.
In the case of MMM three interviews and three documents have been analyzed. The interviews have been conducted with a civil servant responsible for the process guidance, a civil servant responsible for several workgroups and an active citizen. Like many citizens in the area this person is not only active in an MMM workgroup, but also in other, non-MMM groups in the area. The first document for this case is the MMM booklet. This contains all the plans of the different project groups. The booklet has been compiled by a social geographer from the neighborhood, contains images, stories and poetry and at the same time serves as the municipal program. The second document is an evaluation of MMM by research agency Drift in which they analyze the yields of MMM. The final document is the MMM year report of 2016, in which the results from that year and the goals for 2017 are discussed.
Concession Improvisation
Interviews Team manager municipality Civil servant 1 Team manager Securitas Civil servant 2 Active citizen Documents Concept plan of action MMM Booklet
Stakeholders whitepaper Jaarverslag 2016 Drift research
25
3.5 Operationalization
In this paragraph the main concepts of this this will be operationalized. First the two forms of partnerships are operationalized. First the key concepts of the two different partnerships are determined, then defined and in the far-right column indicators for the concepts are described. After that the factors that might explain the partnership have been operationalized. They are divided into the four different approaches: rational, political, cultural and institutional. First the factor itself will be named, a short definition of the factor will be provided, and in the far-right column indicators of this factor are presented. All these factors are derived from the theoretical framework.
3.5.1 Partnership forms
For both partnership forms 3 main concepts are chosen. For the concession model the first concept is a ‘Principal-agent relationship’, meaning that there is a clear principle (the municipality) and an agent that preforms task on the principal’s behalf (the private party). ‘Efficiency and effectiveness’ form the second concept, as these two are critical in reaching the goals for a concession model partnership. Finally, there is ‘Contractual transparency’, meaning that transparency in this partnership stems from the fact that all the rules and goals are well documented between the parties.
The main concepts of the improvisation model are ‘Bottom up’, ‘Passions’ and ‘Encounters’. Bottom up refers to the fact that improvisation model partnerships are usually started by citizens or other private actors. ‘Passions’ are one of the driving factors for these partnerships, which also means that security comes on the second place. ‘Encounters’ refers to the role of civil servants and one of the main goals of this partnership: involving more people through facilitating encounters.
26
Model Concept Definition Indicators
Concession Principal-Agent
relationship
A relationship where the agent preforms tasks on behalf of the principal
- Government defines problem, goals, solution and product - Government selects private company
- Clear goals and rules Efficiency and
effectiveness
Reaching the goals in a way that takes as little time, effort and money as possible
- Focus on costs and savings - Focus on speed
- Chosen partnership as the most effective way to reach the goals Contractual
Transparency
Working clearly, well-defined and unambiguous
- Transparency regarding rules of withdrawal, selection, delivery and inspection
- Goal of the rules is to gain trust
Improvisation Bottom up The projects are started by
private actors/civilians
- Initiated by civilians - Initiated by private actors Passion Passion is the driving
factors, security usually comes second
- Putting a shared passion first - Mentions of passion
- Security on the second place Encounters By organizing encounters
public actors facilitate this form of partnership. Public actors can play several other roles: connecting, provoking and letting be.
- Network meetings - Public actors stating importance of facilitating - Connecting people - Provoking people - Letting people be
27
3.5.2 Factors explaining partnership form choice
The factors that can be used to explain the partnership choice are derived from the four approaches to policy. These factors have been adjusted to fit into our research into partnerships.
From the rational approach four factors are derived. ‘Partnership as instrument’ means that the partnership is used as way to reach goals, with all actors looking for goal maximalization. ‘Focus on costs and benefits’ refers to the idea that all decisions are made based on the costs and benefits actors create by participating in a certain partnership. ‘Measurability’ is important in this approach, and this can be seen in the focus on monitoring, evaluations and scientific knowledge. The last factor is ‘unified decision making’. The municipality is seen as one, unified actor. Goals are set by politicians and the administration decides on the methods and provided the knowledge.
Four factors are also taken from the political approach. According to this approach ‘partnerships are formed through conflict’. Partnerships are also used as a power source, meaning that actors use a partnership to increase their knowledge and improve the interests of their organization. ‘Creating wide support’ is a third factor, meaning that efforts within the partnership are made to bring all the actors together in supporting the partnership. The final factor is that there is ‘mixed decision making’, meaning that the municipality consists of various groups all influencing decision making, with intertwining roles of politics and administration.
The cultural approach supplies us with another four factors. First, the actors focus on symbolism and expressive dimensions of policy. They also value ‘Recognizing worldviews and frames’ of the other actors involved. The interaction process takes priority in this approach and is one of the main ways to measure how successful partnerships are. The final factor derived from the cultural approach is ‘new political arena’s’. Decisions are made outside of the traditional decision making arenas, and citizens are given more influence.
From the institutional approach four factors are taken. First the concept of ‘path dependence’, meaning that decision making is done in line with current rules, norms and practices. The logic of consequence (is it effective and efficient?) and the logic of appropriateness (does it fit?) are next. The logic of appropriateness includes fitting in with norms, rules and practices, but also fitting in with the environment. According to this approach policies are successful when they break with the
28
current norms and practices. The partnership form could thus be chosen with this goal in mind. Finally, decision-making in this partnership is done following clear rules and procedures to provide stability.
In the following table these factors are presented. A definition of the factor will be provided, and so are the indicators that will be used to see if these factors played a role in the partnership choice.
Approach Factor Definition Indicators
Rational Partnership used to
reach organizational goals
The chosen partnership is seen as the best way to achieve a goal
- Partnership used as an instrument to achieve goals - Actors looking for goal maximalization through partnership
Focus on costs and benefits
Decisions are made with costs and benefits as the driving factor
- Partnership chosen because it is the most efficient way to reach the goal
- Partnership chosen because of the efficiency
Measurability Focus on scientific knowledge
- Using knowledge and information of scientific nature
- Focusing on monitoring and evaluations of policy
Unified decision making
Public party acts as a unified actor. Decisions are made by politicians and executed by the administration
- Government acts as one actor
- Lack of conflict between politics and administration - Politicians decide goals - Administration executes
29
Political Partnership formed
through conflict
Partnership is the result of conflict between the views, goals and interests of the involved actors
- Actors push their views, goals and interests
- The form of partnership is the result or compromise of conflict
Partnership as power source
Partnerships are used as power sources and are successful when it improves the interests of the actor. Knowledge is seen as a resource or an instrument to increase the power of an organization
- Looking to improve interests of organization using the partnership
- Using the partnership to gain new knowledge
Creating wide support
Partnerships are successful when all the actors in the network support it. Knowledge can be used to bring actors together
- Efforts made to bring all the actors together in supporting the partnership
- Conducting research together to improve shared knowledgebase and thus bring actors together
Mixed decision making
Government does not act as unified actor.
Administration and politics are mixed and there is no clear
distinction between the two.
- No clear distinction between politics and administration - Government seen as pluriform
- Administration involved in goal setting
- Politicians involved with methods
30
Cultural Symbolism and
expressive
dimensions of policy
There is a focus on the symbolic and expressive dimension of policy and partnerships
- Symbolism used in creating partnership
- Telling a story to explain partnership
- Use of images and imagery - Using the partnership to show certain issues are important
Recognizing worldviews and frames
Actors use open dialogue with naming, framing and re-framing as instruments to bring forward their worldview. Knowledge is also seen as part frames of different actors
- Actors recognize different worldviews and frames - Naming, framing and re-framing issues and events - Knowledge and information seen as part of frames and worldviews of actors
Interaction process first
Partnership is seen as successful when it is the result of open dialogue between involved actors, or because of the quality of the interaction process
- Focusing on an open dialogue
- Creating a shared image of problem and possible solutions
- Focus on quality of interaction process New political arenas New political arenas are
created and not all decision making is done by politicians
- Decision making not only done by politicians
- New ways to give actors a say
- Citizens have a say in decision-making
31
Institutional Path dependence Partnerships are formed
through path dependence, fitting in with rules, norms and practices.
- Staying with the same partnership form because of increasing returns
- Options outside of current rules, norms and practices are not considered
Logic of consequence Is this partnership form an effective and efficient way to reach its goals?
- Partnership is an effective way to reach goals
- Partnership is an efficient way to reach goals
Logic of
appropriateness
Does the partnership form fit with current practices? And does it fit in the environment?
- Partnership fits with current practices
- Partnership fits in the environment
Breaking with current norms and practices
Partnerships can be considered successful when they it succeeds in breaking with the current norms and practices
- New form of partnership - Breaking with current practices
- Breaking with current norms
Decision making following rules and procedures
Decision making is done following pre-set rules and procedures which provides stability
- Clear rules for decision making
- Decisions made following the same procedures
32
3.6 Validity & Reliability
By focusing on only one municipality and two cases, the internal validity of this case study will be relatively high. To further increase the internal validity a careful operationalization has been made. The external validity is lower. The research only focusses on two partnerships within one municipality, and therefore the results of this research might not be applicable to other instances of PPPs in The Netherlands or around the world.
To increase the reliability of this research, a similar, semi-structured interview script will be used for all interviews. This script can be found in the appendix. Depending on the organization and the respondent’s role in the organization different formulations might be used, certain questions will be added or left-out, but other than that the script will be followed. To further improve the reliability, but also the replicability of this research, all the steps of the study are carefully explained, and the choices that have been made in designing this research are explained open and honestly.
3.7 Possible pitfalls
One of the pitfalls that was encountered with this research, is that the case selection does not comply with the expectations. By conducting a small preliminary research into the partnerships of the municipality of Rotterdam, this was found out timely. The research set out to find the factors that could explain the choice for one of the three partnership models, but in practice only two of these models were found. The decision was made to continue the research within the municipality of Rotterdam nonetheless, because changing to a different area would severely threaten the feasibility of the research. Another possible pitfall is in the openness of the organizations. Security can be a sensitive subject, and respondents might be hesitant in answering our questions. To counter this, the interview scripts will be anonymized, and respondents will not be named in the final paper.
33
4. Analysis
In this paragraph the results of the interviews and the document analysis will be discussed for both the concession model case and the improvisation model case. The results are divided using the factors derived from the four approaches of policy: rational, political, cultural and institutional. The results are then compared, and an attempt is made to explain the similarities and differences between the cases. The quotes that are displayed in the analysis have been translated from Dutch by the author.
4.1 Securing municipal objects
The municipality of Rotterdam secures its locations using a mix of municipal employees and employees hired from an external party. This external party is chosen every two years using a tendering procedure focused mainly on costs, quality and education options. For the current period (2018) the best option was Securitas, a security company originating from Sweden, but active in The Netherlands since the year 2000. The company states that it can provide an effective, efficient and integral security solution, taking in account the situation, needs and ambition of their client (Securitas, 2018). The municipality has set four main goals in terms of object security: Being a small and effective organization, creating a safe and hospitable environment, scoring at least a 7 on customer satisfaction and implementing a phased reduction of employees.
4.1.1 Concession model
The objects to be secured have been divided in two categories: high risk and low risk locations. The municipal employees are used in the high-risk locations, whilst the external security guards are used on the low-risk locations and as a flexible ‘husk’ for the high-risk locations in case of sickness or other extraordinary situations. The main reason for working with an external party is the size of the external organization: because it’s such a large company they can deliver extra employees in almost every situation (Manager municipality, 2017). This provides the municipality with more flexibility, which is one of the two main reasons municipalities choose to enter concession model partnerships in security (Van Steden, Stougie, & Van Veldhoven, 2017).
There is a clear principal-agent relationship in this partnership. The municipality sets the rules and makes all the major decisions. Securitas will sometimes provide advice and aims to have a partnership in which they have some more freedom and play a larger advisory role. The municipality is clear however:
34
“Who doesn’t pay, decides. Ultimately, I can cancel tomorrow, so to speak. I do have a contract, but if I receive too many complaints, I quit [the partnership]”
- Manager municipality (2017), translated from Dutch.
There are clear rules for tendering, selection of the partner and the delivery of services. Strict sanctions are used when employees, both from the municipality and Securitas, act undesirably. The partnership is managed through the principles of project management. The goals and rules of the municipality are being communicated clearly to Securitas early on, and Securitas knows what is expected of them. This clearness in turn is also the foundation of transparency and trust within the partnership.
4.1.2 Factors influencing the partnership choice
In this paragraph the factors that have influenced the decision for the concession model partnership are described. This will be done per policy approach, first describing the rational factors and then the political-, cultural and institutional factors.
4.1.2.1 Rational factors
Decision making in the partnership is based on costs and benefits. Even though the municipality is not a commercial business aiming to make a profit, they do aim to be as effective and efficient as one:
“"In 2018 there will be an organization that can withstand any comparison with a private security company. This can be achieved through a small and efficient security department "
- Plan of action 2018 (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2016), translated from Dutch.
The municipality uses the external party to provide the extra layer needed in special circumstances. This option is cheaper than having their own people on stand-by for these situations. Special circumstances can be sick employees, but also large and/or unexpected events such as football championship celebrations and providing shelter and security for refugees. The partnership is thus used instrumentally for these circumstances. The people within the partnership are also used instrumentally. One of the goals is to make the organization smaller and more effective. Employees are constantly being evaluated, educated, and in case they do not meet the requirements, they are moved to other locations or they are let go.
35
These evaluations are not only used for individuals, but also for the partnership and policy as a whole. Client satisfaction, both of citizens coming to the municipality and of the people that are working side by side with the security personnel, is monitored. So are the results of the education process and the goals and interests of the stakeholders within the network. The results of these evaluations appear to be the most important form of knowledge in this partnership.
The final factor from the rational approach is that the government, in this case the municipality, acts as one actor. There should also be a clear distinction between politics and administration. The plan of action (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2016) reveals that decision making in the case of partnership form was made by the concerndirectie, which is part of the administration. The plan of action does not show any mingling of politicians into this decision making, nor does the chosen partnership form lend more power to politicians on the area of object security. None of the interviews mentioned any political influence over the partnership choice. Also, the municipality acts as one actor towards Securitas, and is seen by Securitas as one, unified actor.
All the factors that have been operationalized for this approach can be found in this partnership, making the rational approach well suited to explain the choice for this partnership form.
4.1.2.2 Political factors
The political approach assumes that decision-making takes places in complex systems and policy is formed through conflicts of interest between different actors. The interview with the municipal manager (2017) and the plan of action (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2016) reveal that this policy decision was based mainly on costs and benefits, as working with an external party is the cheaper solution. Neither source mentions any conflict. The tendering procedure could be seen as a conflict between the private security providers, but this conflict is based on who can provide the most effective and efficient solution to the municipality’s problem (Manager Securitas, 2017) and not so much as a conflict between opposing goals, views and interests. It must be noted that there are some competitive sentiments between the two parties in the partnership. Both parties claim to possess more knowledge on security than the other and are not too keen to learn from the other party. Serious conflicts between the two parties seem non-existing however, and these competitive sentiments did not play a role in deciding the partnership form.
The political approach assumes that actors use partnerships as a power source. One of the main reasons partnerships are used according to this approach is to gain more resources, with knowledge
36
as a common example. In this partnership the opposite seems to be true. Neither partner is eager to learn from the other as both organizations imply that their employees provide the best security and that they possess more knowledge about security than the other, and neither organization seems eager to learn from the other. Knowledge is thus not seen as a resource that can be won using this partnership, nor is it used to bring the two actors together. Knowledge and information is used, however, to keep the stakeholders up to date. Which leads us to the next factor derived from this approach: creating wide support.
This partnership fits into a larger, complex network with dozens of stakeholders. Both respondents recognize this complex network and deal with it in their own way. The municipal project leader emphasizes the importance of knowing and talking to the right people and so does the Securitas manager. Both Securitas and the municipality address dealing with stakeholders in the official documents. Securitas provides their employees with information on how to map, involve and analyze different types of stakeholders (Securitas, 2017). The municipality in turn distinguishes 27 internal and four external stakeholders to keep in mind and include in the communication plan (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2016). This fits in with a criterion for success that the political approach utilizes: partnerships are successful when all the actors within the network support it.
As discussed in the paragraph on rational factors, administration and politics appear to be clearly separated in this partnership, with the municipality acting as one actor.
4.1.2.3 Cultural factors
According to the cultural approach, partnerships can be used to indicate that an actor finds a certain issue important. In the case of this partnership only one short notice can be found online about setting up the partnership, not supplied by the municipality (Beveiliging Nieuws, 2009). So, creating the partnership does not appear to be driven by showing the public the importance of securing municipal locations. The information on this partnership can be found mainly in internal documents.
There is no real focus on telling a story or using imagery to improve the partnership. This seem unnecessary because both parties already speak the same language. Both organizations are pragmatic and clear in their goals and intentions. They appear to have the same, pragmatic worldview and frames. This helps with the quality of the interaction process. On the street-level there is a focus on carrying out the same culture:
37
"[By] training together, well, wearing that same uniform already ensures that people are becoming like-minded. And then finally ... Keep telling the same story to all the people. We are one team "
- Manager Securitas (2017) on avoiding differentiation between municipality and Securitas personnel, translated from Dutch.
Using the other indicator for successful policy from the cultural approach, it being the result of an open dialogue between the involved actors, this partnership seems to be unsuccessful. The municipality clearly has the lead and makes all the decisions. However, neither actor has set this ‘open dialogue’ criterium as a goal. The goals they have set are being reached with this partnership, so this indicator seems out of place for this partnership. The decision-making for this partnership took place during official meetings that were documented, and new political arena’s do not appear to have played a role. Nor did citizens have any say in this partnership, other than their satisfaction being monitored.
The partnership has no real focus on the cultural factors that explain policy, other than wearing the same uniform to avoid distinction between the security guards of the municipality and Securitas.
4.1.2.4 Institutional factors
The concept of path-dependence is an important explanatory factor in the institutional approach. For this partnership it is not the first time that Securitas has been selected as a partner. The previous 2-year period Securitas also provided security personnel, and the cooperation goes back to at least 2008 (Beveiliging Nieuws, 2009) so there seems to be some path dependence in the choice of partner. This path dependence can also be seen in the partnership itself. Where Securitas aims for a form where they have more influence, the municipality prefers to stick to the way they have historically participated in the partnership: with them firmly in charge. Other forms of partnership have been considered by the concerndirectie, but eventually the partnership has not gone through any large changes. Path dependence thus plays a role in this partnership.
This partnership was chosen using the logic of consequence, it being the most effective and efficient solution to availability issues, as discussed previously in the paragraph on rational factors. The logic of appropriateness is followed as the partnership fits in with current norms and practices. Also, fitting into the environment seems to have been an important factor in deciding this
38
partnership form. Securitas states the importance of fitting in with known practices in their paper on dealing with stakeholders:
"Our vision is that we always look first at the purpose of the general safety policy of the organization. New measures that are used must match with the policy agreements
- Securitas (2017), translated from Dutch.
The municipality and Securitas both underline that clients should not be able to differentiate between municipal and Securitas security personnel. One of the ways they aim to achieve this is by using the same uniforms.
The final factor to judge policy from the institutional approach, is looking at how the partnership challenges current practices. Securitas aims for a different kind of partnership, one where they have a larger advisory role, or even one where they will take the full responsibility for the security (Manager Securitas, 2017). The municipality’s manager however, seems content with the partnership as it is and for now the concession model will remain (Manager municipality, 2017). As long as this remains, the partnership does not break with current norms and practices.
The decision making in this partnership has clear rules and follows procedures for tendering and selection. Every two years a private party must be selected to provide security personnel, and this tendering procedure has clear rules to it. Rules and procedures do not apply only to the selection process, but also to the partnership itself. Securitas knows what is expected of them and the municipality has clear rules about hierarchy, education, dress-code and behavior on the job.
4.1.3 Conclusion
The rational approach explains this partnership choice well, as all the factors that have been operationalized are found in the interviews and documents. The political approach also offers some explanations on how the partnership was formed, but the factors derived from this approach were not the main driver. The cultural factors were not of importance for either actor in the partnership and did not play a large role in the partnership choice, but both organizations have a similar culture making them appropriate partners nonetheless. Finally, the institutional approach showed that path dependence played a role in the partnership choice. The partnership fits in with the environment
