1. Introduction
With the international promotion and application of Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) in recent years, how to realize their performance has become an important challenge faced by governments around the world and has increasingly attracted the attention of scholars [
1,
2]. As an important method of realizing performance [
3,
4,
5], reducing transaction costs [
3], promoting innovation and competition [
6,
7,
8] and transferring procurement risks [
9,
10], Performance-based Procurement (PBP) has been widely used in jurisdictions such as the United States [
11], the United Kingdom [
12,
13], the World Bank [
14] and the African Development Bank [
15]. This provides a route towards realizing PPP procurement performance. Specifically, as the core feature of PBP, output specification, which refers to defining performance goals based on outputs or outcomes [
16], is crucial when it comes to realizing the performance of PPP procurement. In particular:
First, output specifications are the core of PBP [
17]. Traditional procurement focuses on input specifications and tells the contractor how to execute the contract in detail. Instead, PBP focuses on output, outcome or quality. That is, the purchaser tells the contractor the expected results and gives them more freedom to decide what to do [
18]. Thus, a core feature of PBP is to define specifications based on outputs or results, rather than inputs, activities and processes [
17,
19,
20,
21,
22,
23].
Second, output specifications are used as the premise to achieve performance in PPP procurement [
24]. They are important documents for PPP project procurement and define which services/outputs are required and which performance objectives are to be achieved [
16]. Many scholars have shown that output specification is an important factor affecting the success of PPP procurement [
25,
26]. Well-drafted output specifications are critical to the development of robust PPP contracts and the successful delivery of long-term services [
27,
28]. If the first stage of the procurement process, namely requirement specification, is not adequately carried out, other stages of the process, especially contract management, may become problematic [
29]. In addition, output specifications also have a major impact on the tendering process and the cost as well as affordability of government agencies [
30]. Furthermore, designing output-based specifications rather than input-based specifications in PPP projects encourages suppliers to adopt more innovative approaches in delivering projects [
28], and meeting output specifications increases user satisfaction [
26]. Additionally, the rules mandating the full implementation of budget performance management in general [
31] and PPP performance management in China in particular [
32] have laid a solid institutional foundation for the pursuit of performance in PPP procurement. This requires that procurement officials pursue performance in PPP procurement and define the project in terms of output specifications.
Therefore, it is very important and timely to study the issue of the definition of output specifications for PPP procurement.
Existing studies have already addressed certain aspects of the issue of the output specifications of PPP projects. Certain scholars have found that output specifications play an important role in the success of PPP procurement (e.g., Jefferies et al. [
25], Osei-Kyei and Chan [
26], Sanders and Lipson [
27] and Lam and Javad [
28]). Additionally, scholars have defined the output specifications of PPP projects from different perspectives. For example, Liang et al. (2019) [
33], Hueskes et al. (2017) [
23] and Akomea et al. (2022) [
34] focused on the measurement of sustainable performance. Yuan et al. (2012) [
35] identified 41 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to measure PPP performance, including stakeholder satisfaction indicators (e.g., public satisfaction and government satisfaction). Ahmad et al. (2021) [
36] categorized a PPP project’s success in four dimensions, namely time, cost, objects and quality or stakeholder satisfaction, reporting that the last is the most significant. Ahmad et al. (2022) [
37] developed a performance framework to evaluate the application of PPP projects based on 10 KPIs and 41 performance measures. Liyanage et al. (2015) [
38] combined three perspectives including project management, stakeholder management and contract management into a holistic measure of the “overall” success of PPP transportation projects. Xiong et al. (2015) [
39] and Yuan et al. (2018) [
40] pointed out that the key contents of performance appraisal during the operational period of PPP projects should include project company management, daily maintenance safety and emergency management and public satisfaction.
To sum up, existing studies have found that output specifications play an important role in realizing PPP procurement performance, and stakeholder satisfaction is gradually being valued as an important element of output specification. These studies have laid a solid foundation for the study of output specifications, though the following gaps in knowledge can be noted: (1) It is still inconclusive as how to define the output specifications of PPP projects, especially in light of the observations that the public, as the main stakeholders of PPP projects, is faced with the dilemma of being marginalized in the process of PPP project advancement [
41], and (2) existing studies have not paid enough attention to the factors that affect the definition of output specifications.
Given this context, this research aimed to fill these gaps by addressing the following questions:
1. How do you define the output specification of PPP projects, notably in terms of user satisfaction?
2. What factors influence the definition of output specifications?
To answer the above two questions, this study took the following two measures: (1) It defined important aspects of output specification through theoretical analysis, especially user satisfaction, and (2) for influencing factors, it analyzed the impact of procurement officials’ self-interest on the definition of output specifications from the two dimensions of corruption and accountability. The reason for this is that the definition of procurement specifications is a decision that is made by procurement officers who are usually self-interested when making decisions [
42]. Taking into account the costs and benefits of the decisions, the procurement officer will make an evaluation, which plays a decisive role in explaining whether the officer engages in rule-breaking behavior [
43]. Generally speaking, the costs include the likelihood of being discovered and the severity of sanctions, and benefits are usually monetary and may also include non-monetary factors [
44]. The former is usually associated with accountability, while the latter is usually associated with corruption. In PPP procurement, these two factors are also particularly prominent. Specifically, on the one hand, PPP procurement regulations have placed constraints on the behavior of procurement officers, and to avert risk from accountability, officers are more inclined to contain their behavior under the constraints of rules [
42]. On the other hand, corruption is also one of the main risks faced by PPP projects in developing countries [
45], and the procurement sector is highly vulnerable to corruption [
46]. In particular, based on the data of 6714 PPP projects in China, we used the Logit regression model to empirically analyze the impact of the two dimensions of accountability and corruption on the definition of output specifications.
The novelties of this paper are as follows: (1) it supplements the relevant research on PPP project output specifications from the perspective of user satisfaction, and (2) it provides the first empirical analysis of the factors influencing the definition of output specifications using data from PPP projects in China, which has become the world’s largest PPP market. This provides explanatory evidence for the factors that influence output specifications. These findings are insightful in the context of improving the definition of the output specifications of PPP projects, which can enhance performance in PPP projects.
This paper commences with a theoretical analysis and research assumptions to provide theoretical support. Then, the research design and empirical results are presented. Next, this paper discusses the results and certain policy implications. Finally, conclusions are presented.
5. Discussion
Through theoretical analysis, we argued that user satisfaction is a key aspect of output specification. However, practical observation shows that only 22% of PPP projects pay attention to user satisfaction in procurement specifications and 78% of PPP projects do not pay attention to user satisfaction in procurement specifications. Through further empirical analysis, this study found that the definition of user satisfaction is influenced by the degree of accountability and corruption. A schematic graphical presentation of the regression results is shown in
Figure 4.
On the one hand, the level of accountability affects the definition of user satisfaction in procurement specifications. The stronger the accountability, the more emphasis there is on user satisfaction in PPP procurement. This confirms the positive effect of an effective governance environment on the success of PPP projects from the perspective of procurement specifications and also confirms the views of Zhang et al. (2015) [
58], Casady (2020) [
1] and others. Admittedly, certain rules on standardizing the implementation of PPP projects have strengthened the emphasis on user satisfaction in PPP procurement, but the lack of attention paid to user satisfaction in PPP procurement practice raises reasonable doubt on the effectiveness of existing rules. For instance, the rules of the MoF [
32] recommend paying attention to the satisfaction of the public sector, private sector and user, but it is not mandatory, which may result in a reduced guiding effect in practice. Only by adhering to user-oriented procurement can government procurement truly gain the trust and support of the public and gain momentum for sustainable development. Government procurement should be “user-oriented”, focused on user needs and be aimed towards user satisfaction. In government procurement, the purchaser, as the user’s agent, proposes procurement specifications on behalf of the user. These specifications should be designed according to the needs and the satisfaction of users. Therefore, it is necessary to further standardize the definition of PPP procurement specifications, pay attention to the importance of user satisfaction in output specifications and strengthen accountability measures for corresponding behaviors, thereby laying a solid foundation for achieving performance-oriented PPP procurement goals.
On the other hand, corruption also affects the definition of user satisfaction in procurement specifications. Regions with higher levels of corruption place less emphasis on user satisfaction. This result confirms the view of Owusu et al. (2017) [
67] that procurement officials tend to create an unfavorable regulatory environment to suppress the exposure of corruption. The user is the direct service object of any PPP project, and the consideration of user satisfaction will undoubtedly increase the supervision of the behavior of government officials. This is also an important reason why regions with higher levels of corruption pay less attention to user satisfaction. Although some existing rules of PPP procurement provide routes for public participation in governance, public participation has not yet been paid enough attention in the definition of procurement specifications. Specifically, first, to protect the public’s right to know, PPP project information is legally disclosed on the PPP comprehensive information platform [
80]. Second, the establishment of a comprehensive evaluation system in which the government and service users participate together and conduct performance evaluations on performance objectives including public satisfaction is required [
57]. However, the above routes are mainly aimed at information disclosure and post-project performance evaluation, and there is no route in terms of regulation for public participation in the definition of procurement specifications. In addition, for the definition of specific procurement specifications, the rules [
60] only stipulate that procurement projects involving public interests and high social concern, including public service projects provided by the government to the public, should carry out specification surveys. However, the specific method of investigation has not been further specified. The Caijin (2020) No. 13 [
32] regulates the definition and management of PPP project performance objectives and indicators, but the definition of performance objectives and indicator systems is only for relevant departments and potential private sectors and the role of users has not been clearly defined. To sum up, none of the above rules mention the importance of public participation in the definition of procurement specifications. However, a socially engaged corruption governance system is an effective route to corruption governance [
68]. Without the participation and cooperation of the public, many anti-corruption measures of the government may be in vain, the implementation costs of anti-corruption policies will increase sharply and the actual effect will be greatly reduced [
71]. Moreover, as the direct audience of PPP projects, the public can potentially not only monitor corrupt behavior but also directly describe the specifications for PPP projects. Therefore, public participation should be strengthened in the process of defining procurement specifications to reduce the impact of corruption on procurement process.
6. Conclusions
Defining output specifications is a basic prerequisite for achieving PPP procurement performance. Referring back to the first research question, it can be seen from the theoretical analysis that user satisfaction is an important aspect of the output specifications of PPP procurement. However, theoretical research has not paid enough attention to this. Moreover, according to the practice of PPP procurement in China, we can see that PPP procurement does not pay enough attention to user satisfaction. Therefore, referring back to the second research question, based on the perspective of user satisfaction, this study empirically analyzed the factors that influence the definition of output specifications from the two dimensions of accountability and corruption with a sample of 6714 PPP projects in China. The study found that: (1) the stronger the accountability, the more attention the procurement officer of PPP project attaches to user satisfaction, and (2) the higher the level of corruption, the less attention is paid to user satisfaction by PPP project officials. The above findings validate the hypothesis of this study.
The contributions of this research are as follows: (1) Theoretically, it focused on the importance of user satisfaction in output specifications and analyzed the impact of accountability and corruption on the definition of output specifications through empirical research. This complements related research on user satisfaction in PPP procurement and explores the factors that influence the definition of output specifications. (2) Institutionally, the above findings also have important policy implications. The definition of PPP procurement specifications in China should be further standardized, and attention should be paid to the importance of user satisfaction in output specifications. In addition, public participation should be encouraged when defining procurement specifications to reduce the impact of corruption on the procurement process. (3) Practically, these findings are insightful in the context of improving the definition of the output specifications of PPP projects, which can enhance performance in PPP projects. They may also be valuable for decision-makers and authorities relevant to the PPP arrangement.
However, there are also some limitations to this study. First, (1) the study only focused on the aspect of user satisfaction and did not examine other components of output specifications. For example, a cooperation model that pursues mutual benefit and win–win results implies that the needs of other stakeholders should also be met. However, as an important aspect of output specifications, user satisfaction is more important. Second, (2) they study focused only on the impact of corruption and accountability on the definition of output specifications. In future research, important aspects and factors that influence output specifications should be explored from other perspectives.