Public-Public Partnerships: International Experiences and Lessons for SADC Countries Call for Research Proposals from the Municipal Services Project (MSP) and the Southern African Regional Network on Equity in Health (EQUINET). Background The Municipal Services Project (MSP) (www.queensu.ca/msp) is a multi-partner research, policy and educational initiative examining the restructuring of municipal services in Southern Africa. Research partners are the International Labour Research and Information Group (Cape Town), the University of the Witwatersrand (Johannesburg), the Human Sciences Research Council (Durban), EQUINET (Southern Africa), the South African Municipal Workers Union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, and Queen's University (Canada). EQUINET (the Regional Network for Equity and Health in Southern Africa - www.equinetafrica.org <http://www.equinetafrica.org/> ) is a network of institutions in Southern Africa which aim to develop and widen the conceptual understanding of equity in health, carry out research to support scientific debates and policy decisions on equity in health in Southern Africa, engage stakeholders in the health sector from regional to community level, and influence policies and agendas on health at national and regional level in Southern Africa. Public-Public Partnerships (PuPs) The trend towards privatization and "public-private partnerships" (PPPs) in the delivery of basic municipal services and in primary and district level health service provision has received enormous research attention over the past two decades. Less well studied (and less common in practice) are "public-public partnerships" (PuPs). Public-public partnerships are arrangements which do not include for-profit private sector involvement in service delivery in an effort to keep services and infrastructure publicly owned and operated. At the same time, PuPs are an explicit attempt to reconfigure conventional models of public service delivery by expanding the role of labour, community organizations and other public interest and government stakeholders in the planning, implementation and financing of services. A key component of these public-public partnerships is capacity building, with the intent of keeping the service in public hands in the long run. PuPs were used in the expansion of primary health care approaches in the 1990s, as community organisations played a role in the expansion of public health and health promotion elements of health systems. They are a relatively new development on the service delivery front in relation to municipal supply of water and other essential services, but there is increasing interest in them conceptually and politically with ongoing attempts to promote and develop PuPs in a growing number of countries/cities around the world. South Africa has implemented PuPs in the water sector, with mixed success, and there are discussions between South Africa and Brazil about collaborating in the design and implementation of further PuPs. Brazil's success with "participatory budgeting" - while not strictly speaking a "service" - provides the most high profile example of alternative public arrangements for municipal planning. There are also examples in other parts of the world where different levels of government, public sector unions, public service agencies and civil society have worked together to create innovative, efficient, accountable and affordable service delivery systems. Not all have been successful, but each offers a lesson. This research is intended to act as a baseline "concept paper" for additional research by the MSP and EQUINET. It aims to provide information on the state of research on PuPs, an analysis of the conceptual and logistical framework of PuPs that have been implemented, and a discussion of the lessons to be learned from PuPs in SADC countries and elsewhere. Research Questions 1. What research has been conducted on PuPs in the area of basic municipal services (water, sanitation, electricity, waste management) and primary health care services;[1] 2. How have PuPs (in SADC and elsewhere) been conceived philosophically and organizationally, and what are the key commonalities and differences between PuPs that have been implemented; 3. What lessons are to be learned for SADC countries from previous/existing PuPs; Research Design Question 1 This first question is intended to provide a comprehensive, annotated bibliography of research that has been conducted on PuPs in the area of basic municipal services (i.e. water, electricity, waste management, sanitation and primary health care services). This should include academic, governmental, union and NGO research/reports on the subject. The researcher will also provide a critical overview of the nature of these research reports (e.g. how much of it is primary versus secondary research; what kinds of methodologies are employed; what are the main geographic and sectoral foci of the research, is there any ideological bias, etc.). The review should attempt to cover English-language work from around the world but references to non-English research would be helpful. Data collection will involve internet searches, library databases and networking with researchers working in the field. Question 2 The second question is an investigation of the nature of the PuPs -- how are they financed, what is the organizational structure, how effective have they been, etc? Depending on the volume of literature uncovered in Question One, this review can look at all PuPs for which there is sufficient information, or, if the literature is too voluminous the researcher can focus on four or five PuPs that are deemed important for political, economic or other reasons. A third alternative would be a sectoral focus, looking, for example, at PuPs in the water sector or in the area of primary health care delivery. Other options are possible but should be determined in consultation with the MSP and EQUINET after Question One has been completed. Once a focus is determined, the analysis of each PuP should include the following: * when was it first established; * why was it created; * what kinds of processes/debates took place in establishing the PuP; * what are its stated objectives; * how is it set up organizationally; * what kinds of financing mechanisms are employed; * how is the service delivery organized; * what evidence is there of cost-benefit effectiveness; * how successful has it been in achieving its objectives? This case-by-case analysis should be followed by a discussion of the key commonalities and differences between the PuPs investigated. This aspect of the research will rely largely on secondary literature from Question One but may require some primary work in the form of telephonic or email communication with other researchers in the field and perhaps personal interviews with people/organizations involved in PuPs. In the case of SADC-based PuPs there is the possibility of a small, additional budget for travel in the region. Suggestions for future research would also be welcomed, particularly recommendations on PuPs that might yield valuable insights with further, primary research. Question Three This question is designed to elicit recommendations on the introduction and improvement of PuPs in SADC countries (noting that in South Africa several PuPs have been attempted, and there appears to be some political commitment to introducing more). What lessons are to be drawn from the analysis in Question Two for PuPs in a SADC context? What would be the advantages/disadvantages of introducing PuPs in SADC countries? What would appear to be the biggest opportunities/constraints to introducing more PuPs in SADC states? Etc. Again, recommendations for further research to assist in answering these questions would be welcomed. Research Outputs and Timing The following written products will be required as part of the research output: * submission of a draft report covering Question 1 and of options for addressing Question 2 for comment by EQUINET and MSP (by June 30, 2004); * submission a draft report on Question 2 for comment by EQUINET and MSP (by August 30, 2004); * submission of a publishable quality final research report detailing the findings of the research (by September 30, 2004); The report should be 15-20,000 words (no more than 30 pages) and written in an accessible format geared for policy makers, NGOs, unionists and academics. The work will be done under the MSP - EQUINET umbrella, which will be clearly noted on the cover page. EQUINET and MSP will disseminate the report through their networks. The report will be published jointly by MSP and EQUINET as an MSP Occasional Paper / EQUINET discussion paper acknowledging the authorship of the researchers. The publications may also be used by MSP and EQUINET in their web and other publications. While the author will be free to publish the work in any refereed journal, the author agrees to hold any presentation or publication of the work in another forum until after it has been published by EQUINET and MSP in its series. Fees The consultant will be paid a total fee of US$4000 for the paper. The fee will be paid as follows: * US$1 500 on submission of the draft report June 30, 2004; * US$1 500 on submission of the second draft report on Question 2 August 30, 2004; * US$1 000 on submission of a satisfactory final publishable research report September 30, 2004; Should site visits to PuPs in one or more SADC countries be deemed necessary/useful the Project can make up to US$1000 available for this travel, provided a full justification and budget are submitted to and approved by MSP and EQUINET. Conference Given the growing interest in PuPs, the MSP and EQUINET are interested in the possibility of coordinating a conference/workshop on the issue in early 2005 in Southern Africa, using this concept paper and other ongoing research as the basis for the meetings. This conference is not part of the research proposal outlined above, and is not an essential part of the request for proposals, but we invite interested parties to indicate their interest in this idea. Expressions of Interest Interested applicants should submit a 3 page outline of the proposed areas of the study including sources and framework for the bibliography in Question 1 and likely PuPs to be covered in Question 2, a personal CV, and a sample document written by the applicant on any relevant theme. Applicants should submit this information by 12th May 2004 to David McDonald at dm23@post.queensu.ca, co-director of the Municipal Services Project and Rene Loewenson, Programme manager EQUINET, at admin@equinetafrica.org. "Researchers" includes university faculty, students, and professionals working in other contexts (e.g. as independent consultants or staff of non-governmental organizations). Preference will be given to African-based researchers, including African students completing degree requirements in Canada. Applicants will be informed by 1 June 2004 if they have been successful. _____ [1] Includes health education; promotion of food supply and proper nutrition; an adequate supply of safe water and basic sanitation; maternal and child health care, including family planning; immunization against the major infectious diseases; prevention and control of locally endemic diseases; appropriate treatment of common diseases and injuries; and provision of essential drugs;