Public-Private Partnerships

PA — 2026-08-08 Original Getting the Priorities Straight: Public Values in AI Adoption Jinke M. Oostvogel, Matthew Young, Bram Klievink Abstract ABSTRACT Artificial Intelligence (AI) is adopted in public organizations as a transformative innovation, yet how value prioritizations unfold in AI adoption processes remains underexplored. Therefore, we ask: How do public values unfold in AI adoption processes in public organizations? We conducted a qualitative case study of an AI adoption process at the radiology department of a Dutch academic hospital after the decision to adopt is made and before implementation, using ethnographic fieldwork, interviews, and document analysis. Our findings highlight how public values and the AI adoption process are balanced in the transition from the initiation to the implementation stage. We find a recursive relationship between public values and the AI adoption process. We show an interplay of instrumental and intrinsic values. We highlight the importance of top‐down adoption decisions for how public values are perceived, and we show the importance of public organizations ensuring public values are safeguarded in public‐private partnerships.

PMR — pp. 1-30 2026-07-02 Original The promise and performance of social impact bonds Clare J. FitzGerald, Alec Fraser, Carolyn J. Heinrich, Mikkel Munksgaard Andersen Abstract This article examines social impact bonds (SIBs), first scrutinizing early discourse on their promises—increased accountability through competitive public-private partnerships, outcomes measurement, and a learning approach to performance management—drawing on theories of New Public Management and New Public Governance. Then, a structured review of empirical research is used to evaluate SIB performance against their public management reform promises. Findings show that while SIBs sometimes foster intersectoral collaboration, they can also surface power imbalances, institutionalize gaming, and inadvertently reduce public accountability. A faltering commitment to robust outcomes measurement is also demonstrated, with negative implications for effective governance and public value.