IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v35y2017i5p765-783.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cognitive distance in public procurement and public–private partnerships: An analysis of the construction sector

Author

Listed:
  • Annalisa Caloffi
  • Francesca Gambarotto

Abstract

Public–private partnerships (PPPs) are understood as collaborative devices that can be used to achieve both efficiency and innovation. For this potential to be realized, however, some significant obstacles to effective collaboration must be overcome, such as the cognitive distance that often separates public and private agents. In order to deepen our understanding of the collaboration problem, this article assesses the size and characteristics of cognitive distance by looking at agents operating in the construction industry in Italy and Slovenia. Our analysis detects the presence of different types of cognitive distance in different socio-economic contexts, suggesting that cognitive distance is not simply the outcome of individual intentionality but also of social context. We argue that there is constructive room for policies supporting the efficiency and diffusion of PPPs that will facilitate the emergence of context-specific intermediaries to smooth the progress of collaborative work.

Suggested Citation

  • Annalisa Caloffi & Francesca Gambarotto, 2017. "Cognitive distance in public procurement and public–private partnerships: An analysis of the construction sector," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(5), pages 765-783, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:35:y:2017:i:5:p:765-783
    DOI: 10.1177/0263774X16680108
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0263774X16680108
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0263774X16680108?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wuyts, Stefan & Colombo, Massimo G. & Dutta, Shantanu & Nooteboom, Bart, 2005. "Empirical tests of optimal cognitive distance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 277-302, October.
    2. Arwin van Buuren & Jurian Edelenbos, 2004. "Why is joint knowledge production such a problem?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(4), pages 289-299, August.
    3. Annalisa Caloffi & Federica Rossi & Margherita Russo, 2015. "What Makes SMEs more Likely to Collaborate? Analysing the Role of Regional Innovation Policy," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(7), pages 1245-1264, July.
    4. Darrin Grimsey & Mervyn K. Lewis, 2004. "Public Private Partnerships," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2438.
    5. Howells, Jeremy, 2006. "Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 715-728, June.
    6. Catrien J. A. M. Termeer, 2009. "Barriers To New Modes Of Horizontal Governance," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(3), pages 299-316, May.
    7. Erik-Hans Klijn & Geert R. Teisman, 2003. "Institutional and Strategic Barriers to Public—Private Partnership: An Analysis of Dutch Cases," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 137-146, July.
    8. Nooteboom, Bart & Van Haverbeke, Wim & Duysters, Geert & Gilsing, Victor & van den Oord, Ad, 2007. "Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 1016-1034, September.
    9. Arthur T. Denzau & Douglass C. North, 1994. "Shared Mental Models: Ideologies and Institutions," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1), pages 3-31, February.
    10. David Pickernell & Adrian Kay & Gary Packham & Christopher Miller, 2011. "Competing Agendas in Public Procurement: An Empirical Analysis of Opportunities and Limits in the UK for SMEs," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 29(4), pages 641-658, August.
    11. Hedley Smyth, 2008. "The credibility gap in stakeholder management: ethics and evidence of relationship management," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(6), pages 633-643.
    12. Patricia Carrillo & Herbert Robinson & Chimay Anumba & Nasreddine Bouchlaghem, 2006. "A Knowledge Transfer Framework: the PFI context," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(10), pages 1045-1056.
    13. Ekaterina Osipova & Per Erik Eriksson, 2011. "The effects of cooperative procurement procedures on joint risk management in Swedish construction projects," International Journal of Project Organisation and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(3/4), pages 209-226.
    14. Nuno Ferreira da Cruz & Pedro Simões & Rui Cunha Marques, 2013. "The Hurdles of Local Governments with Ppp Contracts in the Waste Sector," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 31(2), pages 292-307, April.
    15. Ron Boschma, 2005. "Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 61-74.
    16. Bart Nooteboom, 2000. "Learning by Interaction: Absorptive Capacity, Cognitive Distance and Governance," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 4(1), pages 69-92, March.
    17. Karl E. Weick & Kathleen M. Sutcliffe & David Obstfeld, 2005. "Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 409-421, August.
    18. Guido Codecasa & Davide Ponzini, 2011. "Public-Private Partnership: A Delusion for Urban Regeneration? Evidence from Italy," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(4), pages 647-667, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. EW Stapper & M Van der Veen & LB Janssen-Jansen, 2020. "Consultants as intermediaries: Their perceptions on citizen involvement in urban development," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 38(1), pages 60-78, February.
    2. Obwegeser, Nikolaus & Müller, Sune Dueholm, 2018. "Innovation and public procurement: Terminology, concepts, and applications," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 74, pages 1-17.
    3. Michael Himmel & Matti Siemiatycki, 2017. "Infrastructure public–private partnerships as drivers of innovation? Lessons from Ontario, Canada," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(5), pages 746-764, August.
    4. Andrea, Bastianin & Chiara F., Del Bo, 2019. "Procurement in Big Science Centres: politics or technology? Evidence from CERN," Working Papers 410, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised 21 May 2019.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Haasnoot, Cornelis W. & de Vaal, Albert, 2022. "Heterogeneous firms and cluster externalities: how asymmetric effects at the firm level affect cluster productivity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    2. Christian Omobhude & Shih-Hsin Chen, 2019. "The Roles and Measurements of Proximity in Sustained Technology Development: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-30, January.
    3. Villani, Elisa & Rasmussen, Einar & Grimaldi, Rosa, 2017. "How intermediary organizations facilitate university–industry technology transfer: A proximity approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 86-102.
    4. Alexandra Rese & Anke Kutschke & Daniel Baier, 2016. "Analyzing The Relative Influence Of Supply Side, Demand Side And Regulatory Factors On The Success Of Collaborative Energy Innovation Projects," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(02), pages 1-43, February.
    5. den Hamer, Pieter & Frenken, Koen, 2021. "A network-based model of exploration and exploitation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 589-599.
    6. Ellen Siu, 2018. "Interorganisational collaboration in Academic Health Science Centre: A case study on King’s Health Partnership," Working Papers 40, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised Feb 2021.
    7. Kristina Jespersen & Damiana Rigamonti & Morten Berg Jensen & Rune Bysted, 2018. "Analysis of SMEs partner proximity preferences for process innovation," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 51(4), pages 879-904, December.
    8. Martijn van den Hurk & Marlies Hueskes, 2017. "Beyond the financial logic: Realizing valuable outcomes in public–private partnerships in Flanders and Ontario," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(5), pages 784-808, August.
    9. Pierre-Alexandre Balland & Ron Boschma & Koen Frenken, 2020. "Proximity, Innovation and Networks: A Concise Review and Some Next Steps," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2019, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Mar 2020.
    10. Lorenzo Cassi & Anne Plunket, 2014. "Proximity, network formation and inventive performance: in search of the proximity paradox," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 53(2), pages 395-422, September.
    11. Kaihuang Zhang & Qinglan Qian & Yijing Zhao, 2020. "Evolution of Guangzhou Biomedical Industry Innovation Network Structure and Its Proximity Mechanism," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-20, March.
    12. Mariia Shkolnykova & Muhamed Kudic, 2022. "Who benefits from SMEs’ radical innovations?—empirical evidence from German biotechnology," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 1157-1185, February.
    13. Gallo, Julie Le & Plunket, Anne, 2020. "Regional gatekeepers, inventor networks and inventive performance: Spatial and organizational channels," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    14. Wallin, Tina, 2017. "An empirical study of firms’ absorptive capacity and export diversification," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 452, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    15. Massimo G. Colombo & Massimiliano Guerini & Cristina Rossi-Lamastra & Andrea Bonaccorsi, 2022. "The “first match” between high-tech entrepreneurial ventures and universities: the role of founders’ social ties," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 270-306, February.
    16. Hung, Shiu-Wan & Cheng, Min-Jhih & Hou, Chen-En & Chen, Nai-Rong, 2021. "Inclusion in global virtual teams: Exploring non-spatial proximity and knowledge sharing on innovation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 599-610.
    17. Kabirigi, Michel & Abbasiharofteh, Milad & Sun, Zhanli & Hermans, Frans, 2022. "The importance of proximity dimensions in agricultural knowledge and innovation systems: The case of banana disease management in Rwanda," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    18. Sverre J. Herstad, 2018. "Beyond ‘related variety’: how inflows of skills shape innovativeness in different industries," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(2), pages 396-420, February.
    19. Fassio, Claudio & Geuna, Aldo & Rossi, Federica, 2019. "International knowledge flows between industry inventors and universities: The role of multinational companies," Papers in Innovation Studies 2019/13, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    20. Max-Peter Menzel, 2008. "Dynamic Proximities – Changing Relations by Creating and Bridging Distances," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 0816, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Oct 2008.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:35:y:2017:i:5:p:765-783. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.