By Shalini S. Sharma
Public private partnerships (PPP) in education are being discussed as a novelty in policy circles these days. A policy research centre set up by the department of science & technology (DST) at Panjab University recently organized a high-level workshop on this subject to look at policy imperatives which can give a boost to such partnerships. The centre is planning to organize a series of such high-level workshops in other cities as well to take a wider view of stakeholders. Interestingly, the background note circulated by the centre along with the invitation itself listed several examples of successful PPPs which are available within the country. What then would one want to unearth, one may wonder. It’s not rocket science after all. Government has to play the role of a facilitator and private partner has to be the implementer of the project.
Problem comes when government, because of its dominant position, wants to have an upper hand in the partnership and seeks to dictate terms. In the field of education, one PPP project which did not work as per expectations was the setting up of 20 IIITs in this mode. Government was willing to provide land plus 85 per cent or so of the funds and expected the private player to chip in with 15 per cent of the funding requirement only, in addition to running the institute. This may look like an ideal scenario from far but in real terms is stifling for the private player which tends to stay away from it for that reason.
The other problem in such cases is also the government’s very definition of “industry”. When it says “industry” can bring part of the funds and run the project / institute, it actually has in its mind large manufacturing companies such as Tatas and Birlas and Mahindras. If it is IT sector then it has to be either an Infosys or a Tata Consultancy or Wipro. All these companies have forayed into education on their own and for such PPP opportunities send their education related players for consultative meetings. However, when it comes to actual running of institutions then these companies feel uncomfortable since they do not have experience of running educational institutions themselves which can be a very different ballgame from running a company. It is private players in education space, i.e., those who are in the business of running institutions, who show most keen interest in PPPs in education because of the leverage that such a project may provide to their own institution but they are not accepted as eligible by the government which sees them as “education service providers” and not as “industry”. It is this dichotomy which has not led to more PPPs in education than could have been possible.
Another issue is of mistrust. Because of few bad players, the government does not trust the intentions of any private player, no matter how good a track record that entity may have. Working on the principle of lowest common denominator, it frames rules and policies which any self-respecting private player is loathe to accept. Net result is that the government ends up counting the trees and misses the wood altogether.
Box: Ingredients for a good partnership
- Leaders, as in individuals, on both sides who are visionary, have a strong and committed team and who are willing to put the hard work in taking the partnership from an MOU to an engine which is running at full steam
- Mutual respect and trust on both sides to the relationship and a commitment to make it work
- Transparency of operations and clear agreement on revenue split
- Well defined governance structure with clear demarcation of roles and responsibilities
- Dedicated resources, both financial and human resource, who can work on the nitty gritty of the partnership
- Clear road-map with complete understanding of the eco-system, its pros and cons, bottlenecks and hurdles
- Flexibility in attitude and willingness to accept mistakes and openness to make changes / amends
Box: Success stories
The Prime Minister Fellowship for Doctoral Research, a partnership between the government’s Science & Engineering Research Board (SERB) and the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) is a success story as it has completed five years and the scheme is growing. The scheme provides up to Rs 75,000 per month of scholarship to PhD students to do research in partnership with industry. Unlike other scholarship schemes, which encourage only academic research, this scheme provides the opportunity of dual mentorship to PhD students. They get to work with industry which not only provides them one half of the scholarship but also guidance and inputs on how to make the research relevant for its requirement.
The other success story of a partnership is the survey of industry linkages of technical institutes which CII does in partnership with the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) every year.
(The writer is a freelance journalist)
Comments are closed.