Public Private Partnerships in Education

I) WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?

Although access to education has substantially improved, 53% of all children in low- and middle-income countries remain unable to understand age-appropriate text by age 10. Fewer parents are sending their children to government schools, opting instead to enrol them in the low-fee private schools or withdraw them entirely. The Global South is still in a learning crisis.

One tool governments use to try to improve outcomes is public-private partnerships (PPPs). The evidence on whether these ultimately benefit learners remains inconclusive, in part because actors often neglect the political dimension when setting them up. This creates pitfalls at all stages of the PPP process that can undermine gains. 

A new way of thinking about PPPs

PPPs are framed by proponents as synergistic – they allow governments to retain oversight while using the private sector’s capacity and resources to improve service delivery. Technical questions of who funds and who delivers services are central to the discussion, but the political interests of the actors entering into them often remain unsaid. A clearer picture emerges if these are made explicit. 

PPPs can be thought of as:

• Public-focused: These build state capacity as a financier, regulator, manager and/or provider. The private sector develops or improves rather than provides services.
   
• Partnership-focused: These promote long-term cooperation, dividing decision-making, goals, risks and benefits across the two sectors.
   
• Private-focused: These seek to increase and diversify private participation by transferring state responsibilities to enterprise. The government retains some oversight as a client.

Ensuring that public-focused PPPs are consistently pursued – when that model is chosen – is critical to creating long-term sustainability. But the many players and formal and informal rules of the game involved make this easier said than done. 

EDOBEST, a PPP that began in 2018 between the government of Edo State in Nigeria and NewGlobe (formerly Bridge International Academies), provides a useful example of this challenge.
 

II) WHO ARE THE PLAYERS?

PPPs bring together actors with competing interests concerning the role of the state and the market in education. Examples of the most salient players in Edo State include: 

• State government
• State universal basic education board
• Local government education authorities
• Universal basic education commission
• Teacher unions
• Private providers
• Parents and students
• Development partners and donors
• Policy advisors and consultancy firms 
   

III) WHAT ARE THE RULES OF THE GAME?

Formally, PPPs have three stages. Adoption, where governments decide whether PPPs could address their priorities. Design, where governments select the type of partnership, conduct procurement, negotiate contracts and define responsibilities. And implementation, where private partners provide agreed services and monitoring is used to track performance and compliance.

In reality, the PPP process is less linear and shaped by many unspoken, informal rules. These include:

• The need to actively manage contestations between public and private interests
   
• The use of strategic opacity to manage the PPP process
   
• The seldom use of evidence to support the adoption of PPPs 
   
• The threats to implementation posed by the exclusion of teacher union groups 
   
• The government’s role as financier does not determine where power resides within PPPs
   

IV) THE STATE OF PLAY

The government behind EDOBEST made many sound political choices, and at a technical level the programme was a success. But these informal rules also helped create a situation where the government never gained the capacity to replicate NewGlobe’s solutions. By the end of the contract, Edo State faced a choice: stay trapped in a situation of long-term dependency, or lose what had been gained. It chose the latter. 

V) OUR PROPOSITIONS

Managing the politics surrounding PPPs is key to ensuring that reforms not only improve learning outcomes, but also strengthen the state’s ability to sustain those gains over time. There are technically realistic and politically feasible approaches that can help governments better navigate these tensions. We recommend:

• Place politics on the negotiating table from the start: PPPs should not be treated as purely technical reforms. Policymakers must be aware of the politics and integrate this within each planning stage. 
   
• Design public-focused PPPs with clear transition pathways: PPPs intended to strengthen state systems should be structured around handover and long-term public ownership
   
• Monitor political alignment alongside technical performance: Governments should track morale, buy-in, and emerging tensions across the system, not just learning outcomes.
   
• Manage implementation as a political process: PPPs require continuous engagement with teachers, unions, bureaucrats and local actors to maintain support and reduce resistance.