PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP Oleh: Azhar Kasim
Pengertian Public-Private Partnership 1. Kerjasama pemerintah dengan privat (swasta) dalam penyelenggaraan pelayanan atau produksi barang publik, dalam bentuk kontrak, franchises, atau grants 2. Privatisasi proyek infrastruktur yang kompleks dan melibatkan banyak pihak, swasta dan pemerintah
Pengertian Public-Private Partnership 3. Kolaborasi formal antara swasta (bisnis privat), pemerintah daerah dan pemimpin masyarakat untuk memperbaiki kondisi fasilitas perkotaan, seperti sekolah, pelatihan tenaga kerja (job training), pembangunan perumahan, dsb
Exclusion Infeasible Feasible
Diagram Tentang Berbagai Barang & Jasa E.S. Savas, 1982 Private Goods
Toll Goods
Toko, Bengkel Mobil Perguruan Tinggi Restaurant, Hotel, Rumah Sakit
Angkutan Umum Jalan Tol Taman Nasional TV Kabel, Asuransi
Common – Pool Goods
Collective Goods
Air Bawah Tanah, Udara Garam di Laut Sungai, Danau
Individual
Taman Kota, Jalan Umum Pemadam Kebakaran Vaksinasi Mercu Suar, Siaran TV
Consumption
Joint
EL/Public Service and Privatigation/2003
Keterkaitan Pemikiran Savas dengan Harding & Preker No Harding & Preker
E. Savas Private Goods
1
Budgetary Units
2
Autonomous Unit
3
Corporatized Units
4
Privatized Units
V V
Toll Goods
V V
Collective Goods
Common Pool Goods
V V
X X X X
Figure 3.1 Diagram showing the exclusion and jointconsumption properties of various goods & service. “Pure” goods are shown at the four corner points Consumption
Private Individual
Exclusion
Feasible
Goods
•Taxi Service •Restaurant •Mass Trasit •Communication •Cable •Store-bought goods hotel service TV (e.g., food, auto, housing) •Professional education •Higher education •Bridge •Insurance turnpike •Fish in a creel •Weather •Elective Surgery •Medical Care forecast •Theater • Water supply, •Refuse removal Stadium Electric power, library Sewer service •Elementary •National Parks education •On street parking •Fish in stocked lake •Open range
Infeasible
•Rivers lake
CommonPool Goods
Joint
•Water in underground aquifer
•Fish in the sea •Minerals in the ocean •Air
•Watching parade, Fireworks, air show •Central Park •Fire protection •Streets •Watching auto •Police protection Road race, marathon •Air and water Pollution control, lighthouse •Vaccination •Broadcast TV National defense
Toll Goods
Collective Goods
Belgium
El
om
Te le c
75% more than Australia 75% Austria
Po
st
m un ic
Private sector more than 75% Public sector 25% 50%
ec at t io Ga ricit n y s Oi lP Co rod al uct io n Ra ilw ay Ai rli s ne Mo s to rI St n ee d u st l ry Sh ip bu ild in g
Figure 6.1 EXTENT OF STATE-OWNED ENTERPRISES, BY COUNTRY (1980)
na Australia na Austria na
Belgium
Brazil
Brazil
Britain
Britain
Canada
Canada
France
na
France
West Germany Holland
West Germany na
na
India Italy
Holland India
na
na
Italy
El
om
Te le c
75% more than Japan 75% Mexico
Po
st
m un ic a
Private sector more than 75% Public sector 25% 50%
ec t t io Ga ricit n y s Oi lP r Co odu ct al io n Ra ilw ay Ai rli s ne Mo s to St r I n ee du l st ry Sh ip bu ild in g
Figure 6.1 EXTENT OF STATE-OWNED ENTERPRISES, BY COUNTRY (1980)
na
Japan Mexico
South Korea
na
South Korea
Spain
na
Spain
Sweden
na
na
Sweden
Switzerland
na
na
na Switzerland
United stated
Source: The Economist, 4 January 1986, 72. Reproduced with permission. Includes Conrall. Note: Extensive denationalization has taken place in Britain Since 1980.
United stated
Figure 1: Traditional Conceptualization of Relationship between Citizen and Government – Baseline Government Obligations
Accountability Linkages
Administrative Obligations
Market Transactions
Market
Citizen Obligation
Figure 2: Conceptualization of Relationship between Citizen and Government During the Orthodox Era (the late 19th century until the early 20th century)
Accountability Linkages
Government Obligations Administrative Obligations
Citizen Obligation Market Transactions
Market
Figure 3: Conceptualization of Relationship between Citizen and Government during Self Examination Era (the New Deal Era 1932-1950) Government Obligations
Accountability Linkages
Administrative Obligations
Market Transactions
Market
Citizen Obligation
Figure 4: Conceptualization of Relationship between Citizen and Government during the Era of Diversity (1960s1970s) Government Obligations Accountability Linkages
Administrative Obligations
Market Transactions
Market
Citizen Obligation
Figure 5: Conceptualization of Relationship between Citizen and Government during the Era of Market-Based Reforms (1980-2000s) Government Obligations
Accountability Linkages
Administrative Obligations
Market Transactions
Market Market
Citizen Obligation
Citizen – State Contractual th Relationship during 20 Century Factors of Orthodox Era Self – Diversity Market – Citizen – (Citizen as Government Owner) “Contract” Relationship
Examination (Citizen as Beneficiary)
Implementation Era (Citizen as Participant)
Centered Reforms (Citizen as Customer)
Persetujuan untuk hubungan perjanjian
•Persetujuan secara implisit melalui penerusan tempat tinggal dengan scope wilayah pemerintahan •Persetujuan explisit atau penerusan barang bukti melalui partisipasi politik
•Persetujuan secara implisit melalui penerusan tempat tinggal dengan scope wilayah pemerintahan •Persetujuan explisit atau penerusan barang bukti melalui partisipasi politik
•Persetujuan secara implisit melibatkan pengaturan swasta melalui peningkatan tempat tinggal dengan scope bidang market •Persetujuan eksplisit melalui partisipasi dan turunan barang bukti politik melalui non-oartisipation dalam market
•Persetujuan secara implisit melalui penerusan tempat tinggal dengan scope wilayah pemerintahan •Persetujuan explisit atau penerusan barang bukti melalui partisipasi politik
Citizen – State Contractual Relationship during 20th Century
Factors of Orthodox Era Citizen – (Citizen as Government Owner) “Contract” Relationship
Self – Examination (Citizen as Beneficiary)
Diversity Implementation Era (Citizen as Participant)
Market – Centered Reforms (Citizen as Customer)
Obligasi (peraturan) warganegara
•Warganegara adalah penerima jasa pemerintahan (new deal)
•Warganegara adalah participant aktif dalam operasional pemerintahan •Partisipasi “grassroots” dalam mendukung atau melawan policy pemerintahan
•Wargenegara adalah customer dalam market dengan ketentuan pemerintahan dalam barang dan jasa
•Warga negara adalah participant pasif dalam pemerintahan
Citizen – State Contractual Relationship during 20th Century
Factors of Orthodox Era Citizen – (Citizen as Government Owner) “Contract” Relationship
Self – Examination (Citizen as Beneficiary)
Diversity Implementation Era (Citizen as Participant)
Market – Centered Reforms (Citizen as Customer)
Obligasi (peraturan) pemerintah
•Pemerintahan bertindak untuk menyediakan batas keamanan sosial untuk warga negara (social security)
•Pemerintahan memperluas batas keamanan nasional •pemerintah bertujuan untuk menyediakan perlindungan dari perasaan eksternal. “Musuh” seperti komunis
•Menarik kembali batas keamanan sosial untuk “disadvantage” •Memberikan lebih kebebasan bagi yang sudah sukses
•Pemerintahan adalah hanya terbatas kepada perlindungan warganegara dari bahaya “eksternal” •Melindungi dari monopoli
Citizen – State Contractual Relationship during 20th Century
Factors of Orthodox Era Citizen – (Citizen as Government Owner) “Contract” Relationship
Self – Examination (Citizen as Beneficiary)
Diversity Implementation Era (Citizen as Participant)
Market – Centered Reforms (Citizen as Customer)
Obligasi (peraturan) administration
•Adminstration menjadikan “sadar diri” •Administration sebagai sosial dan politik respon
•Administrator sebagai pelayanan sipil menurut kesadaan bersosialisasi •Administrator pada “grassroots” atau “street-level”
•Administrator sebagai audit kontrak •Administrator adalah enterpreneur
•Administration sebagai suatu mekanisme
Citizen – State Contractual Relationship during 20th Century
Factors of Orthodox Era Citizen – (Citizen as GovernOwner) ment “Contract” Relationship
Self – Examination (Citizen as Beneficiary)
Diversity Implemen-tation Era (Citizen as Participant)
Market – Centered Reforms (Citizen as Customer)
Pertanggung -jawaban/ pengawasan mekanisme
•Pertanggungjawaban melalui prosedur mekanisme •Pengawasan politik melalui pemilihan, pembagian kekuasaan, dan kekeliruan legislatif dalam administrasi
•Pertanggungjawaban melalui prosedur mekanisme •Pengawasan politik melalui pemilihan, pembagian kekuasaan, dan kekeliruan legislatif dalam administrasi
•Accountability (pertanggungjawaban) adalah definisi orientasi aktif melalui efisiensi, penyampaian secara efektif dari outputs
•Pertanggungjawaban melalui prosedur mekanisme •Pengawasan politik melalui pemilihan, pembagian kekuasaan, dan kekeliruan legislatif dalam administrasi
Citizen – State Contractual Relationship during 20th Century
Factors of Citizen – Government “Contract” Relationship Pertanggung -jawaban/ pengawasan mekanisme
Orthodox Era (Citizen as Owner)
Self – Examination (Citizen as Beneficiary)
Diversity Market – Centered Implementation Reforms (Citizen as Era (Citizen as Customer) Participant)
•Kontrol melalui keterlibatan langsung warganegara atau keterlibatan terhadap wakil warganegara
•Dalam kasus kontrak diluar jasa dan pekerjaan, kontrol adalah to maintain melalui ketentuan resmi dan kepabilitas audit terhadap pemerintahan dalam hal referensi untuk kontrak didalam market •Dalam kasus swasta market tidak terkontrol
Citizen – State Contractual Relationship during 20th Century
Factors of Orthodox Era Citizen – (Citizen as Government Owner) “Contract” Relationship
Self – Examination (Citizen as Beneficiary)
Diversity Implementation Era (Citizen as Participant)
Market – Centered Reforms (Citizen as Customer)
Interaksi State Market
•Pemerintahan menjadi terlibat dalam “market: untuk pengganti kerugian disfungsi market (depresi) •Mengambil kunci philosohy untuk pengeluaraan •Pemerintahan mendominasi market selama PD II
•Pemerintahan semakin terlibat dalan kontak militer selama PD II •Pemerintah melakukan distribusi kembali kekayaan melalui program pemerintahan dalam pengadaan sosial
•Pemerintahan semakin aktif dalam market dengan menggunakan alat market untuk memberikan pelayanan umum •Pemerintahan menyerahkan beberapa pelayanan public kepada market •Pemerintahan dipengaruhi oleh globalisasi dalam ekonomi pasar (market)
•Interaksi pemerintahan dalam “market” adalah terbatas untuk memecahkan monopoli dan memberantas kolusi (laissez faire) •Membuat peraturan dalam industri
Pengaruh Kompetisi Market Quasi Non Market Competition Market Competition Productivity
+++
+
0
Cost Reduction
+++
+
0
Quality
+
++
0
Fees
++
+
0
Personnel
--
0
0
+++
++
0
Work Load
+
+
0
Employment Security
--
0 to -
0
Risk of Efficiency Loss
Yes
No
No
Risk of Bad Governance
Yes
No
No
Work Condition
Interdependence of Goals (Selected Goals) If…then
Market Quasi Non-market Competition Market Competition
Efficiency & Productivity
+++
+
---
Quality
++
+++
0
-
0
+++
Employment
Kompetisi (1) 1. Elemen kompetisi merupakan unsur penting dalam menciptakan pelayanan publik yang efisien dan berkualitas 2. Market competition adalah bentuk persaingan yang paling cocok untuk persaingan antar penyelenggara pelayanan publik oleh sesama oranisasi privat (private-private competition) maupun antar org privat dan publik (private-public competition)
Kompetisi (2) 3. Quasi market adalah bentuk persaingan antar sesama instansi pemerintah penyelenggara pelayanan publik (public-public competition) 4. Non-market competition adalah bentuk persaingan berdasarkan tolok banding (benchmarking)
Kompetisi (3) 5. Privatisasi menjadi lebih mahal apabila tidak ada persaingan. 6. Proses privatisasi yang tidak transparan dan tanpa persaingan sangat rawan terhadap praktek korupsi, kolusi dan nepotisme
Characteristics of For-profit versus Nonprofit Governance For – Profit Sector
NonProfit Sector
•Grow market capitalization through products and services
Mission
•Delivery services to key constituencies
•Financial performance
Measure
•Financial performance balanced with other measures
•CEO is sole boss
Leadership
•CEO reports to non executive chair
Characteristics of For-profit versus Nonprofit Governance For – Profit Sector NonProfit Sector •Small •Executive committee is relatively inactive •No operations committee •Predictable profiles, often senior business professionals •Predictable roles •Predictable hours •Long service •Highly paid
Board Composition
•Large •Executive committee is vital but can get out of control •Nominating committee constantly at work •Operations committee essential
Board Members
•Diverse profiles often incorporating potential financial donors •Diverse roles •Antisocial hours •High turnover •Expected to donate
Table 1: Client – Contractor – Relations
Characteristics of Goods and Service Low specificity “mass production” Low strategic relevance
Type of Interaction between Client and Contractor
•Weak position of contractor due to number of available •Weak adjustment flexibility, low flexibility of contractor sufficient •Price as central parameter •Local availability of contractor is not relevant •Short-term relation, procurement
Type of Market and Supplier Structure
•High accessibility to market •Big private enterprise are dominating •Risk of oligopolies
Table 1: Client – Contractor – Relations
Characteristics of Goods and Service High specificity “core business” strategic relevance
Type of Interaction between Client and Contractor
Type of Market and Supplier Structure
•Strong position of contractor due to highly specialized production •High adjustment flexibility and high flexibility of contractor necessary •Cooperation determines specification of contract; not necessarily price as central parameter •Local availability relevant •Long-term partnership preferred
•Low accessibility to market •Local government units are dominating •Risk of monopoly
Fig.1: Institutional Choices for Public Service production
Specificity
High
D
A
C
B
Low Low
High Strategic Relevance Picot and Wolff 1994, 78 (fig.5)
Fig.2: Institutional Choices AND Market Situations
procurement
Industrial mass production
Pluralistic markets
Monopoly
Internal
Lo production St ngCo ra te m “Make” t e rm pe gic c t it i pa ont on rtn rac be er tin tw sh g ee ips Sh n or pu t -t bli er ca m nd co nt pr r iva a “Buy” ct i te ng
Oligopolistic markets
High Specificity
High Strategic Relevance
Competition between Public & Private Service producers Competition Arrangements
Inter-Unit Competition
Intra-Unit Competition
Public-Private Competition
Private-Private Competition
Market Competitions
Quasi-Market Competition
Non-Market Competition
CONTRACTING OUT SERVICE DELIVERY
COMPETITIVE SERVICE ARRANGEMENT
Private Monopoly
Competition
Unresponsive Expensive
Improve Quality Reduce Costs
