Public-Private Partnerships: Organisational Conformity of Private Providers to Meet Market Demands

1. Public-Private Partnerships: Organisational Conformity of Private Providers to Meet Market Demands Mahlubi Mabizela Human Sciences Research Council Programme for Research on Private Higher Education (PROPHE)

2. Structure of Presentation • Background • PPPs in Historical Perspective • Policy Environment • Theoretical Framework for Analysis of the PPPs • A Typology of PPPs • What Underpins PPPs? • Conclusion

3. 1. Background • Based on empirical study of PPPs in the provision of HE in SA. • The study sought to answer why PPPs? what shapes & forms they take? What purposes they serve? Their contribution to HE landscape. • The study involved total of 12 publics & 57 privates with 58 partnerships and covering 55 885 partnership students

4. 2. PPPs in Historical Perspective • ‘Old generation’ Partnerships • Occurred prior late 1980s • PPPs that include Professional Institutes, some Comprehensive Correspondence Colleges and some religious colleges • ‘New generation’ Partnerships • Started in the 1990s • Largely comprise public sector franchised programmes offered face-to-face at the private partner institutions

5. 3. Policy Environment of PPPs • A laissez faire - developed despite 1984 policy on PPPs. • This was due to a liberal constitution, but the 1997 HE legislation regulated PPPs. • National Plan on HE of 2001 that further tightened operations of PPPs in HE.

6. 4. A Theoretical Framework for Analysis of PPPs • ‘Natural selection model’ as applied in socio-economic sciences

7. 4. A Typology of Partnerships • Both a finding and a tool for analysis. • Set on the basis of: • nature of the relationship and • purpose of the partnership • type of business of private partners • focus of private partner’s services • other functions private partners perform

8. The Typology (continued) • Service Partnerships (9). • Professional Institutes Partnerships (1). • Tuition Partnerships. • Specialist Partnerships (24). • Comprehensives (11). • Capacity Development (3). • Access Partnerships (7).

9. (findings continued 1) • 85% private partner institutions for-profit. • 85% students in distance education private partner institutions. • 51% programmes in Business and Management Studies. • 64% students in Education

10. (findings continued 2) • Private partner institutions flexibly provide physical access to HE in areas where public institutions are unable to reach – in the cities and not rural areas. • Despite many programmes in Business and Management studies a huge demand is in teacher qualifications upgrading, hence education enrolls most students. • Paradoxically, there is a demand for face-to-face contact in distance education provision.

11. (Implications continued 2) • Existing tight government policy needs balancing with making facilities available to educators to upgrade their qualifications without leaving their workplaces. • No nurturing of private partner institutions – except in very few partnerships • No set goals and objectives for partnerships.