In the literature review, it was found that a number of authors have analysed both the positive and negative aspects of PPPs. For example, Noble and Jones (2006) reported that managers involved in the PPP projects were found to hold differing views on the success of the project. Some managers had no concerns about loss of personal control or organisational autonomy, possessed no preconceived views of a negative nature about the opposing sector, and accepted the level of risk involved. These managers tended to focus on the positive aspects of the potential PPP and believed in its success. On the other hand, some perceive PPPs to be a threat and these managers tended to harbour fears of loss of personal and/or organisational autonomy, possessed preconceived negative views of the opposing sector, and perceived high levels of risk.
According to Bovaird (2004) a major problem of a partnership approach to public issues is that it brings fragmentation of structures and processes, which in turn leads to a blurring of the responsibilities and of accountability as the partnership is itself the accountable body and there is no mechanism by which the partners can be held accountable. In addition, recent evidence suggests that the lack of accountability leads to difficulty in learning from past experiences (Hodge & Greve, 2007). As noted by Callender (2007), the use of proprietary or private companies as the legal entity accepting and managing private sector involvement in a PPP has limited reporting requirements. This forces government to use powers inherent in the Audit Act of the State or Commonwealth to investigate the success (or otherwise) of the financial outcomes of the PPP.
According to Bovaird (2004) the key stakeholders have expressed diverse opinions about their involvement in PPPs. Staff feared losing their jobs or experiencing worse conditions of employment after being transferred from the public to the private sector. However, on the other side of the coin, some staff experienced a perceived improvement in employment conditions. Politicians generally fear losing control over policy making and service delivery management. However, some have grasped the new opportunities that arise with PPPs and have been able to further their own vision of how public services should be delivered. Service users and citizens feared becoming objects of a profit making partnership rather than a public service ethos. From the public surveys, however, the following conclusion has been made: many service users are unaware or uninterested in the legal ground of the organisation which provides the services as long as the services are up to an appropriate standard.
Tarrant (2007) agrees that controversy surrounds PPPs. Over the past decade the media coverage of PPPs suggests that they are mad, bad and dangerous to be involved in. However, they are also responsible for some of the most cost- and time-saving and effective developments which, on many occasions, have not been recognised. Recent studies in UK found that PPPs run over budget less often and are delivered behind schedule less often compared to similar government operated projects (Hodge & Greve, 2007; Tarrant, 2007).
There are several factors that limit the development of PPPs in Australia: high bidding cost, limited national market and lack of contract standardisation. Additionally, the overall scope of the projects is reduced because the government is reluctant to include service delivery in the PPPs. As a result, there is a reduced likelihood that the private sector will acquire a fair share in the Australian PPP market (Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC, 2003a, 2003b; Keating, 2004). Authors are united in the belief that the experience with development and implementation of PPPs has been, thus far, mixed. The overall conclusion is that the economic and financial benefits of PPPs are still subject to debate and uncertainty (Hodge & Greve, 2007).