Public-Private Partnerships in Infrastructure

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Introduction

Globally, the provision of infrastructure such as transportation, water, sewage, gas supply has been the customary responsibility of the respective governments. However, the lack of adequate public and private investment in infrastructure provisioning have been catalysed by population growth and unsustainable urbanisation (Gauba, 2017; African Development Bank, OECD & United Nations Development Programme, 2016). Presently, 55 % of the world’s population live in urban areas and by 2050, 68% of the world’s population is projected to be urban. Therefore, governments globally must develop strategies to improve provisioning of basic services, affordable housing and infrastructure to meet the requirements of the expanding global urban population (UNDESA, 2019). Public Private partnership ("Typical schools PPP stakeholders,") is the utilization of the resources of public authority and that of a private entity to provide a public service (Delmon, 2017).The primary objectives of PPP is the blending of public and private resources to achieve a goal or set of goals judged to be mutually beneficial for both of the private and the public entities ( . Jensen, 2016). Estache and Saussier (2014) have added that PPP projects help to free up government funds for other purposes. Similarly, Välilä (2020) argues that PPP projects provide improved efficiency in public service, innovation, value for money and transparency which ordinarily may hardly be achieved through traditional public procurement methods. Due to these advantages, the concept of PPP has been increasingly adopted globally to deliver infrastructure notably in developed nations such the United Kingdom, USA, Australia, China. For example, presently over 705 infrastructure projects are active in UK (HM Treasury, 2018b). In the USA, PWC (2016) reports that between 1985 and 2010; a total of 363 PPP projects have been recorded. Similarly, Commonwealth of Australia (2017) asserts that over 127 PPP projects have been recorded before 1980 across both social and economic infrastructure such as transport, education and utility sectors in Australia. Also, in China, PPPs accounted for 36 percent of the total infrastructure investment by 1997 (Chen & Doloi, 2008).There is also a growing trend in other developing countries such as India and South Africa. For example, PPP constituted 36% of its infrastructure expenditure while in its 12th development plan, it grew to 50% of its infrastructure investment amounting to about $ 8 billion. Presently, over 758 active PPP projects exist in India (Telang & Kutumbale, 2014) . Similarly, in South Africa, the budgetary provision of over $ 56 billion dollars for infrastructure provision from 2019 to 2022 shall be partly financed through PPP. It is estimated that PPP projects shall account for about $ 1.3 billion representing 2.2% of the projected infrastructure provision by the government(Oxford, 2019). Nigeria is fast becoming a global urban giant (Fox, Bloch, & Monroy, 2017). By the year 2050, it will become the third most urbanised country with 70% of its population living in urban areas and will account for 10% of the of the global population (UNDESA, 2015). The dynamics of urbanisation is a global phenomenon that will continue to reduce the average distance between cities and towns creating a diffusion of urbanisation towards rural areas (African Development Bank, OECD & United Nations Development Programme, 2016). Thereby, it would give rise to a huge demand for infrastructure and the need to upgrade existing services in order to support the economic activities of its growing population ( Guy, Marvin and Moss, 2016; Peterson, 2009). Moreover, the present effort by the government of Nigeria to deliver infrastructure through the traditional procurement route of direct funding have not yielded the required result. Presently, there are over 19,000 uncompleted or abandoned public projects (Umoru & Erunke,2016), which are estimated to gulp over $ 47 billion and would require an estimated 30 years to complete (Ewa, 2013). The situation of abandoned projects has become persistent in Nigeria due to various factors such as poor planning, incompetent project managers, incorrect cost estimates, poor design, political influence, poor funding, corruption etc. (Olalusi and Anthony 2012; Ubani and Ononuju 2013; Ayuba, et al. 2012; Hoe, 2013; Ayodele and Alabi 2011; Sharafadeen, Owolabi & Olukayode, 2018). This will remain so until strategies are put in place to address these issues through alternative means of funding infrastructure (Akinleye, 2017; World Economic Forum, 2018).

Nigeria has, in the recent past, adopted the concept of Public Private Partnerships (PPP) to bridge its infrastructure gap (African Development Bank OECD & United Nations Development Programme, 2016; Akintoye, et al., 2003). However, Nigeria has not recorded much success in PPP implementation due to challenges such as investments in infrastructure development projects which are not commercially feasible from the private sector perspective; the political and the non-commercial risks as well as poor organisational and regulatory capacities to monitor and provide an enabling environment for PPPs (Ahmed, 2011; Babatunde, 2015). However, Ogunsanmi (2014) argues that there was need to address concerns of stakeholders in PPP projects in Nigeria in order to improve project success. Owing to the renewed global interest in the adoption of PPP to bridge infrastructure gap, there has been a growing interest in the issues which make PPP successful in both practice and academia. Therefore, numerous researches have tried to ascertain the critical success factors (CSFs) of PPP projects in different countries (Toor and Ogunlana, 2008; Liu and Wilkinson, 2014; Osei-Kyei and Chan, 2017). A variety of CSFs have been inclined to stakeholder engagement (SE) (Eyiah-Botwe, Aigbavboa & Thwala, 2016). Chinyio and Akintoye (2008) confirmed the importance of SE in the modern forms of construction procurement such as partnering and the Private Finance Initiative (Lhuillery & Pfister) where many stakeholders are involved to ensure that the process could captures the varied stakeholder interests. Though, a variety of stakeholder engagement frameworks exist in construction industry (Bal, Fearon & Ochieng, 2013), very few are specifically tailored to the PPP projects. For example, El-Gohary, Osman and El-Diraby (2006) initiated the development of a SE model for PPP projects. However, Henjewele, Fewings and Rwelamila (2013) argued that it was complicated, limited to engaging stakeholders at the initiation stage and only considered the inputs of the government entity. Therefore, they initiated a framework which emphasized on integrating the ideas of the general public through the project lifecycle. Junxiao Liu, Love, Smith, Regan and Davis (2014) developed a framework using a performance prism, to measure CSF for performance of PPP stakeholder organisations through the project lifecycle. Similarly, based on PPP CSF, Babatunde (2015) developed a guide to help stakeholder organisations involved in PPP projects in achieving higher capability in Nigeria and developing countries. However, his insights on stakeholder engagement governance were also narrow. Casady, Eriksson, Levitt and Scott (2019) have added that standardized judicial and normative rules and procedures are required to govern the interaction between public and private actors. However, established protocols to appropriately engage stakeholder communities when considering PPP projects are also important but lacking in Nigeria (Akintoye & Kumaraswamy, 2017).

Problem Statement

The primary aim of PPP projects is to deliver public governance via collaborative models, characterized by public and private sector cooperation (Andrews and Entwistle 2010). Grimsey and Lewis (2007) and Iossa and Martimort (2015) assert that goal realisation is the principal purpose of private financing as a governance tool in urban development, through investment in superior infrastructure asset development processes. The urban development process traditionally brings about an interplay of different stakeholders and policies that is plagued by potential risks of poor coordination including development of inaccurate targeting strategies, fostering of misconceptions and miscommunication and even the undermining of municipal and local capacity in the long term (Basedow ,Westrope & Meaux, 2017). Further, PPP projects in an urban setting are more challenging because PPP stakeholder organisation have varied institutional goals, norms and expectations which, make partnership between the public and private sector particularly challenging (Wojewnik-Filipkowska & Węgrzyn, 2019). The dearth of appropriate governance mechanisms which provide a platform for engagement through which the public interest can be protected despite the delegation of authority by governments to business concerns has become evident especially in developing economies and in immature PPP markets such as Nigeria (Baker, Justice and Skelcher 2009). Moreover, studies have shown that in Nigeria, a lack of clear coordination between the government, the concessionaire and the negligence towards fostering of public engagement hindered many projects at various stages of development, for example, the Lekki Epe concession toll road in Lagos state and the Abuja land swap project (Change, 2013; Gravito & Alli, 2017). The 2015 Infrascope evaluation of the environment for public private partnership in Africa ranked Nigeria 13th out of the 15 African countries despite its huge population and economic potentials (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2017). The unfavourable PPP environment needs to be improved to attract the local and foreign investors and to ensure sustainability of existing projects. Furthermore, studies on PPP have grown tremendously in the last decades, but the gaps identified in the earlier studies are as the following:

CSF studies in PPP have not critically analyzed engagement of the external stakeholders in the process of urban infrastructure provision.

Perceptions of stakeholders on CSFs for stakeholder engagement in PPP infrastructure projects have not been properly identified.

Studies have not looked at the key theories that impact the governance stakeholder PPP urban infrastructure projects.

Having identified these gaps, this research intends to develop a stakeholder engagement framework that can improve PPP project success in Nigeria. The framework will serve as guide that can foster engagement of PPP project stakeholders in an urban setting. The research shall attempt to answer the following questions:

How are urban infrastructure procured?

How are stakeholder engaged in PPP projects in Nigeria?

What are the critical success factors for stakeholder engagement in PPP urban infrastructure projects Nigeria?

What are the challenges of stakeholder engagement in Nigeria?

What are the key governance mechanisms which can improve stakeholder engagement in Nigeria?

Aims and Objectives

The aim of the research is to develop a strategy that can improve stakeholder engagement in public private partnership urban infrastructure projects in Nigeria. The objectives are:

To explore literature on PPP urban infrastructure delivery strategies.

To establish stakeholder engagement related challenges in PPP urban infrastructure Projects.

To Identify the critical success factors for stakeholder engagement in Nigeria.

To develop a stakeholder engagement framework for public private partnership in urban infrastructure projects in Nigeria.

To validate the developed framework of public private partnership.

1.3 Scope and Limitation of the Study

This study focuses on urban infrastructure projects procured through public private partnerships (PPP) infrastructure management in Nigeria. Throughout the world, PPP is increasingly adopted to deliver infrastructure. With the growing urbanization governments in Nigeria at different spheres are adopting PPP to bridge infrastructure. This research will focus on urban infrastructure that both economic and social in nature. Section 2.3 of the thesis elaborates on the different types of economic and social infrastructures.

Research Methodology Employed

The research objectives of research informed the choice of methods used in the study. A mixed method approach was employed to help answer the diverse and extensive range of the research questions relevant to the objectives, and to guarantee comprehensiveness of the research process. The table below illustrates the research design adopted. The research will be carried out in 3 phases. The methods used were literature review; questionnaire-based surveys; qualitative interviews; and evidence from documentary sources; The Table below maps out the summary of the research flow. The first phase involves critical literature review while in the second phase both literature review while in the second phase, it involves collection of primary and secondary data from the field. In the final phase of the research, the theoretical framework is validated using focus groups. Chapter 5 of the thesis clearly elaborates the research process

Research Structure

To achieve the research flow as indicated in the table above, the thesis shall be structured into nine chapters as briefly detailed below:

Chapter One: It introduces the subject of the thesis, Problem statement justification of research, research question, aims and objectives of the thesis.

Chapter Two: The chapter will provide an overview of the literature on Urban Infrastructure delivery. The methods of providing urban infrastructure. It also discusses public private partnership experiences in other countries and Nigeria as a strategy for infrastructure provision

Chapter Three: This chapter will describe the importance of stakeholder engagement, tools, and techniques and Key principles of engagement and barriers to stakeholder engagement.

Chapter Four: It reviews theories which underpin stakeholder engagement in public private partnership urban infrastructure projects. It attempts to develop a conceptual framework that will guide the research analysis.

Chapter Five: This chapter will describe in detail the research methodology that has been applied in undertaking this research. The chapter would also explain the steps followed and methods employed by the researcher for the purpose of data collection.

Chapter Six: This chapter will focus on detail analysis of the collected data from the face-to-face semi-structured interviews and discussion of the qualitative results of the survey to understand stakeholder perception on the practice of stakeholder engagement in the research context.

Chapter Seven: This chapter will focus on detail analysis of the collected data from questionnaire and discussion of the quantitative results of the survey on critical success factors of stakeholder engagement in the research context.

Chapter Eight: This chapter will focus on development of a conceptual framework for stakeholder engagement readiness assessment of stakeholder organisation. It shall also validate and test the framework detail analysis of the collected data from questionnaire and discussion of the quantitative results of the survey and focuses on issues relevant to shared Goals in the research context

Chapter Nine: This chapter will lay emphasis on discussions of findings and recommendation for future research.

1.4 Contribution to knowledge

I. Theoretical contribution – Development of a theoretical analytical framework using multiple theories to help address issues relevant to stakeholder engagement in PPP projects.

II. Practical contribution – Development of a stakeholder engagement framework that can improve the practice of stakeholder engagement in PPP urban infrastructure projects.

Chapter summary

This chapter gave a background of the research, aims and objectives of the research. It also outlined the research process and suggested the research methodology to be adopted for the study.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses urbanisation and urban infrastructure delivery strategies. It also highlights the concept of public private partnerships as a procurement strategy of infrastructure.

2.2 Urbanisation

Urbanization is a fundamental phenomenon of multidimensional transformation which rural societies go through in order to evolve into modernized societies from sparsely populated areas to densely concentrated urban cities (Oni-Jimoh, Liyanage, Oyebanji, & Gerges, 2018). The word ‘urbanisation’ is often used as a catch-all term to represent urbanisation, urban growth and urban expansion (Fox and Bell, 2016; Fox and Goodfellow, 2017).The term ‘urbanisation’ is used here to refer specifically to an increase in the proportion of a country or region’s population that resides in urban settlements, while ‘urban growth’ refers to an increase in the absolute size of a country or a region’s urban population. These terms are frequently used interchangeably in both academic and policy circles (Fox, 2012; Potts, 2012).Urban means town or city and refers to both built-up agglomerations and the way of life (Antrop, 2000). Since the 1930s, Urban areas have been created and further developed by the process of urbanization (Park & Burgess, 2019). Presently, 55 % of the world’s population live in urban areas and by 2050, 68% of the world’s population is projected to be urban. Therefore, governments globally must develop strategies to improve provision of basic services, affordable housing and infrastructure to meet expanding populations need (UNDESA, 2019).The dynamics of urbanisation is a global phenomenon that will continue to reduce the average distance between cities and towns creating a diffusion of urbanisation towards rural areas (African Development Bank, OECD & United Nations Development Programme, 2016). This trend creates a continuum of towns that make it difficult to separate what is rural and urban (Potts, 2012) and affects all facets of community development, ushering changes in the physical, demographic, economic, and social characteristics (Cobbinah, Erdiaw-Kwasie, & Amoateng, 2015b). It can be said that urbanisation is a product of social, economic and demographic evolution that concentrate population in large towns and cities changing land cover/use, social lifestyle and relations and economic structure. Urban areas provide far more economic growth than rural areas. As illustrated in figure 1 bellow, presently, over seventy five percent of the global GDP is generated in over two thousand Cities. Whereas six hundred cities account sixty percent of global GDP out of which thirty five percent are accounted for by 100 cities.

However, urbanisation can either stimulate or impede growth and development of urban areas in both developed and developing countries if not harnessed properly (Cobbinah, Erdiaw-Kwasie, & Amoateng, 2015a). In the developed world, urbanisation is historically linked to economic growth (Henderson, Roberts, & Storeygard, 2013). However, since the end of the Second World War, developing countries are increasingly becoming urbanised (Glaeser, 2014; Glaeser and Henderson, 2017). Such countries include Bangladesh, Pakistan, Kenya, Nigeria, and Philippines which are presently fast becoming urbanised with some of their cities having up to 11 million inhabitants. The prevalence of poor mega-cities today runs counter to historical experience. In the past, the world’s largest cities were almost all in the most advanced economies (Jedwab & Vollrath, 2019). Excess urbanization beyond the appropriate speed for economy and society to adjust causes various problems. These internal urban issues offset a part of urban productivity gains which are worst indices for the poor in urban areas. Thus, living environment for the urban poor is further worsened, and the informal economy which is characterized by expansion of economic activities not captured by formal statistics and not covered by social security and regulation are severely affected (Iimi, 2005). Conflating these issues is analytically problematic and can lead to confusion about what is happening, and, by extension, what the appropriate policy responses might be (Fox, 2014; Fox and Bell, 2016; Fox and Goodfellow, 2016). In the recent past there has been renewed emphasis on the role of infrastructure as a driver for poverty reduction and competitive advantage of urban areas(Prud’Homme, 2005). How cities prevent the negative impact of urbanisation depends on policies and enabling environment that are put in place (Cadena, Dobbs et al. 2012).

2.2.1 Relationship between Urbanisation, Infrastructure and Sustainable Development

The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) identified sustainable development as that which ``meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs'' (WCED, 1987, page 43). A common understanding of the term in policy is linking economic, social, and environmental concerns to form the so-called `triple bottom line' (Pope et al, 2004). The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) based policy has reiterated that provisioning of adequate infrastructure is key to actualising SDGs and empowering societies globally(Aizawa, 2020). Urbanisation has diverse impact on each society’s historic, economic, environmental, structural and cultural background (Brakman, Garretsen, & van Marrewijk, 2015; Concepción, Moretti, Altermatt, Nobis, & Obrist, 2015; J. D. Miller & Hutchins, 2017; Yach, Mathews, & Buch, 1990). As illustrated in Figure 2, the phenomenon is associated with increased concentration; movement of people within the greater urban areas; changing physical environments increase the need for employment and education socio-cultural changes healthcare needs, housing and transportation. Infrastructure is fundamental in an urban setting because it aids network creation, flux conveyance and induces change in urban areas. The key determinant for the support for sustainable urbanisation is infrastructure. Numerous authors confirmed that infrastructure transforms human settlements from loci of small city-states reminiscent of ancient Greece into the definitive centres of economic and cultural production and reproduction of the new millennium (Bilgili, Koçak, Bulut, & Kuloğlu, 2017; Lin & Du, 2015; Neuman & Hull, 2009). In urban areas, infrastructure matters first because it provides crucial final consumption items to households, particularly water and to a lesser extent energy and telecommunications. In addition to its impact on the aggregate income, infrastructure can also have an impact on income inequality and this issue has attracted increasing theoretical and empirical attention in recent years.

Conceptually, there are good reasons why infrastructure development may have a differential effect on the incomes of the poor, over and above its impact on aggregate income (Cobbinah et al., 2015a). Infrastructure facilitates the poor’s access to productive opportunities, raising the value of their assets. It can also improve their health and education outcomes, thus enhancing their human capital. More broadly, access to and use of infrastructure services including telecommunications, electricity, roads, safe water and sanitation play a key role in the integration of individuals and households into social and economic life (Hashmi, Ishak, & Hassan, 2018; Lloyd-Jones & Rakodi, 2014; Maria, Acero, Aguilera, & Lozano, 2017; Misra, 2019; Palei, 2015). Infrastructure planning can support growth and liveability by refocusing the frame of decision-making to the broader socio-technical system in which physical infrastructure systems are embedded. The uncertainty of urban growth implies that investment decisions may consider alternative interventions with lower requirements for physical capital expansion (McArthur, 2017b). In order to nurture a competitive environment for a service economy in urban areas, the development of infrastructure systems are required, even at the feeder level, as a means of enabling efficient distribution of public value in urban areas (Iimi, 2005). For small and medium industries, especially in developing countries, about half of infrastructure services constitute intermediate consumption for small firms and therefore, the measure of availability of the infrastructure services impacts on their business sustenance. Straub, (2008) asserts that small firms rely on the existence of a suitable and relatively cheap transport and telecommunication network to provide service to existing clients and network with associates and even penetrate new clients. In addition, significant portion of urban infrastructure services are utilised as final consumption by households. Therefore, it impacts on a significant portion of expenditure of urban dwellers especially the poor in developing countries. Foster and Yepes (2005) have shown that households in developing countries spend a significant fraction of their income on water and electricity. For example, in a sample of Latin American countries, households in the poorest quintile often spend more than 5% of their income on water and more than 7% on electricity. Therefore, its availability and affordability are important for sustainable livelihoods in cities. As illustrated in table Table 2 bellow, the value generated from infrastructure arises not just as a facilitator of economic activities but as the provider of the employment in the process of construction and also, it provides employment in the accompanying regulatory and operating services, thereby fostering economic and social benefits (Cobbinah et al., 2015a; McArthur, 2017a).

Therefore, infrastructure is increasingly been utilised as an economic stimulus tool deployed to revamp failing economies. During the global financial meltdown from 2007 to2008, both developed and developing countries invested about 40% of their stimulus into infrastructure funding while advanced economies spent 21% (International Labour Organization 2011). A number of researches have confirmed the causality between expansionary infrastructure policies with improvement of economic performance of the country (Lorde, Waithe, & Francis, 2010; Odhiambo, 2010; Sami, 2011; Shahbaz, Mutascu, & Tiwari, 2012; Solarin & Shahbaz, 2013). In the Scottish construction sector for example, the indirect impact of core construction has a multiplier of 1.6, it is evaluated that each £1 spent on construction generates a total of £2.84 in total of economic activity (Scottish Parliament, 2019). In the European Union, the process of infrastructure provision provides about 18 million direct jobs and contributes to about 9% of the EU's GDP (European Commission, 2019). Therefore, if the lack of infrastructure or low quality infrastructure are key constraints on development and economic activities, then, an increased expenditure on infrastructure may ultimately stimulate innovation as well as economic and social benefits (Agénor, 2010). However, the optimal level of infrastructure required by a society is an issue of contention. Though Samuelson (1954), posits that the level of infrastructure capital for a society is ideal when supplementary infrastructure delivered through private sector efforts shrinks social utility. However, marginal benefits i.e. economic and social benefits, surpass marginal infrastructure expenditure when provided in surplus and can consequently lead to subsidising the cost of doing business within a society and, thereby, diffusing economic advantages to less viable businesses, consequently, increasing their chances of prospering. On the contrary, infrastructure deficit stifles the enabling services and networks required to aid a functional economy, leading to economic failure (Samuelson, 1954). In addition, with a poor infrastructure endowment, the marginal productivity of existing infrastructure will be low and alow-growth equilibrium may be attainable only by the economy; however, a substantial level of infrastructure network expansion would raise the productivity in the society and permit reaching the high-growth equilibrium (Agenor, 2013). Banyte (2008) also analyses infrastructure as the factor that determines successful diffusion and adoption of innovation in the market. However, infrastructure shortages have become increasingly serious as a result of the growing population and the modernization of the global economy, especially in developing countries such as Nigeria (Wang, Kwan et al. 2019). It can be said, that, infrastructure is fundamental to production and other economic activities. It also supports the wellbeing and comfort of the inhabitants of an area. It helps to diffuse economic benefit to the poor. Similarly, it improves competitiveness of cities and improves its internally generated revenue due to flourishing economic activities. The following part of the thesis will investigate the definition of infrastructure, the types and delivery strategies.

2.3 Urban Infrastructure

Urban infrastructure comprises of a socio-technical system of facilities and services, such as power supply, the Internet, telephone services, pipe borne water, refuse collection, health and education facilities and housing and others, which are important to the basic operation of towns and districts (Dong et al., 2018). They consists of capital goods which are not consumed directly; they provide services only in combination with labour and other inputs (Prud’Homme, 2005). They share some common characteristics; they have a high fixed cost, long economic life, the potential to dominate a market and to interact with other infrastructure projects (Office for National Statistics, 2017). Infrastructure is the physical network that channels a flux (water, fluid, electricity, energy, material, people, digital signal, analogue signal, etc.) through conduits (tubes, pipes, canals, channels, roads, rails, wires, cables, fibers, lines, etc.) or a medium (air, water) with the purpose of supporting a human population, usually located in a settlement, for the general or common good. It consists of a long-lasting network connecting producers and service providers with a large number of users through standardized (while variable) technologies, pricing and controls which are planned and managed by coordinating organizations (Neuman & Hull, 2009). In economic terms, however, infrastructure can be a structure which allows for the production and exchange of goods and services. Broadly defined, the concept of infrastructure is not limited to public utilities, but may also refer to information technology, informal and formal channels of communication, software development tools and political and social networks which support the economic system (such as a city or a country). It also encompasses the soft aspects of infrastructure such as operating procedures, management practices and development policies that interact with societal demand and the physical world to facilitate the transport of people and goods and the provision of safe water and energy, among others (Bhattacharyay, 2009; Yumi, 2017).

2.3.1 Categorisation of Urban Infrastructure

Infrastructure could be categorised as economic or social. An economic infrastructure includes transportation, electricity, communication and water and other services or the systems that are important for the economic activity of people. On the other hand, social infrastructure includes housing, educational and health services and other services and systems which are socially inclined (Infrastructure and Projects Authority, 2016). Frank and Martinez-Vazquez (2014) suggest that infrastructure can be classified as a network or point. They note that a ‘network infrastructure’ includes roads, bridge telecommunications, energy infrastructure and so forth, while a ‘point infrastructure’ includes health facilities and educational facilities and so on, which is more common to the social sector and requires human capital to provide optimal services to its citizens, such as instructors and medical practitioners. As illustrated in table 3, Buhr (2003) identified infrastructure based on human wants such as water, warmth, light, health, shelter, security, information, education and mobility.

Torrisi (2009) has argued that, the priorities for infrastructure need depend on the region of the world and the requirements of their citizens. For example, in less developed countries, many attach more importance to a basic infrastructure, such as water and irrigation, while in developing countries the demand for transport and social infrastructure is greater. Similarly, in highly developed countries, electricity and ICT are of greater significance. However, Buhr (2003) has outlined that to achieve the optimal outcomes from infrastructure provisioning three crucial tactics are required to be applied. Firstly, it should serve as medium for economic diffusion i.e. the economic process through provision of mechanisms that can support entrepreneurship, skilled and unskilled labour opportunities, capacity building etc. Secondly serve as a medium for satisfying long and short-term educational requirements. Thirdly, it should serve as medium that fosters social interaction. Therefore, policymakers must select or encourage the procurement of an appropriate form of infrastructure that suits the present stage of a country’s development and context and also embed appropriate mechanisms that will ensure citizens get value for money (Lee, 2015; National Infrastructure Commission, 2017; Perkins et al., 2005).

2.3.2 Urban Infrastructure procurement Systems

Masterman (1995) refers to phrases such as ‘building procurement method’, ‘procurement form’ and procurement path’, which have been used by various authorities when referring to this concept acquiring an infrastructure. According to Franks (1984), procurement system is combination of activities undertaken by a client to obtain an infrastructure. Rwelamila (2000) views it as organizational structure adopted by the client for the management of the design and construction of an infrastructure project. However, Adjei (2016) & Rahmani (2017) suggest that procurement system is the set of agreements prepared to guide the execution of an infrastructure project which must enable the client to meet the objectives set to be realised upon completion of the project. McDermott (1999) adds that procurement system must foster improved technology adoption and process and provide a platform for learning and skill development. A variety of procurement systems exist with different arrangements which differ in terms of how responsibility is apportioned, the sequential order of activity, processes and procedures and, finally the organizational approach in project delivery (Ali et al, 201). The variances in procurement systems impact on project delivery performance (Tang, 2019). Infrastructure could be delivered through community effort, private effort or by the government (see figure). From this point onwards, infrastructure has been delivered through community efforts where a group of persons with a common interest deliver infrastructure to serve their common good. Similarly, there were private endeavours by business interests to deliver infrastructure for economic gains. However, the community efforts lacked sustained efforts and the quality of the infrastructure delivered remained poor and inadequate (Akin, 2016; Mansuri & and Rao, 2004). On the other hand, the private efforts were more profit oriented and where provided, they had high potentials for segregation and unaffordability to some segments of the society (Trangkanont & and Charoenngam, 2014). The essence of government is to cater for the welfare of its citizen (Wilson, 2017), therefore government participation in infrastructure provision remains the most viable form of infrastructure delivery strategy in order to deliver welfare to all its citizens. The following part of the thesis shall discuss on infrastructure procurement strategies adopted by government to deliver infrastructure.

3.3.3 Public Infrastructure procurement system

The procurement of infrastructure by government has been majorly through conventional methods until after the Second World War (1939–1945) (J. B. Miller, 2013). According to Kwakye (2014), the conventional system saw the separation of design from construction and each stage of the production process managed separately. This procurement method may be characterized as a sequential approach: conception, development and implementation phases are each completed and approved before proceeding to the next as has been demonstrated in Figure 2.2 below.

Following that era, numerous procurement systems have emerged. The growing adoption of these procurement systems were basically as result of decimal performance of the traditional procurement types (Pietroforte & Miller, 2002). The second phase was a time of economic decline which saw the gradual shift from traditional to non-traditional procurement systems. The third phase was ushered in by the global economic recovery which saw experienced clients adopting the design and build and management-orientated systems. In the fourth phase, new systems emerged which had been hybrid of both traditional and modern construction procurement systems(Pietroforte & Miller, 2002). Masterman (2002) have categorised the main procurement systems into four different segments such as, the separated procurement system, the integrated procurement system, the management oriented procurement system and the discretionary procurement system. In an earlier contribution, Miller 1995 asserts that procurement systems can be classified according to two dimensions: the type of project delivery and the choice of project finance method (see Figure 1).The vertical axis represents a continuum in which funding responsibilities (i.e. financial risks) for producing, operating and maintaining a facility are shifted from government (direct funding) to private investors (indirect funding). The horizontal axis, instead, represents the extent according to which the various phases of a facility lifecycle are procured separately (segmented procurement) or combined with each other (combined procurement). These two axes form four quadrants according to which different types of project delivery systems are classified (Pietroforte & Miller, 2002). Howes & Robinson (2005) also presented an infrastructure procurement framework made up of four categories (see Figure 2.4) which was delineated into four namely: A1; A2; B1 and B2 quadrants. Within the A1 quadrant the procurement systems, projects are fully funded by governments or public entities with thegovernments having the dormant control over the project. This category comprises traditional method; design and build; fast track; fee contracting; construction management and term contract. On the A2 quadrant, procurement systems which fall within this category such as design and build, packaged deals and turnkeys are characterised with government control. However responsibility for design and construction lies with a single organisation (Masterman 2002; Howes & Robinson, 2005;(Pietroforte & Miller, 2002). However, in the B1 quadrant, procurement, systems are characterised by reduced government control and risk burden. Procurement systems within this quadrant include build-operate-transfer (BOT); partnering; design build operate and transfer (DBOT) and joint ventures. Whereas in the B2 quadrant, procurement systems are characterised by divestiture of risk and financial responsibilities from government to the private sector (Delmon, 2010). These procurement systems include design-build-own-operate (DBOO); design build-finance-operate-manage (DBFOM); build-own operate (BOO); private finance 2 (PF2) and design-build-finance-operate (DBFO) models(Howes & Robinson, 2005 Delmon, 2010).

The Latham report revealed that traditional construction strategies were adversarial and there was need for adoption of more innovative procurement strategies. In this regard, collaborative construction project arrangements have been the subject of many development efforts owing to the frustration felt towards the challenges such as funding and opportunism and conflicts inherent in traditional procurement system. Globally, three approaches have stood out: project partnering, project alliancing and integrated project delivery which are also referred to as public private partnerships (Lahdenperä, 2012). The following part of this study shall focus on PPP procurement strategy which falls within the B1 and B2 quadrant as illustrated in figure above.

2.4 Public Private Partnership PPP

Public Private partnership (PPP) is the utilization of the resources of public authority and that of a private entity to provide a public service (Delmon, 2017). It involves risk sharing through design of hybrid organizations and contracting out management and provision of government business to private entities (Schelcher, 2005). It as a relationship in which public and private resources are blended to achieve a goal or set of goals judged to be mutually beneficial both to the private entity and to the public (J. Jensen, 2016). The goal of PPP infrastructure delivery is due to the need to bridge financial and managerial capability in both centralised and decentralised infrastructures (Davoodi and Tanzi, 2002). It has fast been adopted by politicians as a mechanism to quickly meet up political promises due to short time horizon of their political mandate (Bahl and Bird, 2013). The modern PPP focus for public infrastructure began in Australia and the United Kingdom in the 1990’s (Hodge, Greve and Boardman, 2017). For example, in Australia, notable urban infrastructure projects financed through PPP include the City Link Project in Melbourne and Sydney's Cross City Tunnel and in the United Kingdom the Thames crossing and the London underground expansion have been financed through PPP .Both countries have also used PPP finance projects in health, education and prison among others (Vries and Yehoue, 2013; Jefferies and Rowlinson, 2016). Similarly, in Europe America, Canada and China, the adoption of PPP is on the rise (Hodge, Greve & Boardman, 2017; Long & Wang 2016). In the developing world, success stories of the adoption of PPP in countries such Malaysia, India and South Africa and Nigeria have come forth in the area of urban infrastructure provision such health, housing and transportation services (Walwyn & Nkolele, 2018 Tsukada, 2015; Ismail & Harris, 2014; Yang, Hou &Wang 2013). However, some scholars have argued that there is a growing trend of infrastructure provision through PPP beyond the need to bridge capability and finance, it is a quick way to fulfil the political promises due to short time horizon of their political mandate (Bahl and Bird, 2013; Osei-Kyei and Chan, 2015). It can be associated with opportunism, lengthy procurement process and high transaction cost (Thomassen et al., 2016; Liu and Wilkinson, 2014).

2.4.1 Forms of PPP

PPPs are of various forms can vary by degree of private participation see figure 2 The development and form of PPP vary by country ((Delmon, 2010, 2017).

Design & Build (Das Gupta et al.): DB is an integrated method of project delivery that combines design and construction services into one contract with the private entity as single point of responsibility (Q. Chen, Jin, Xia, Wu, & Skitmore, 2016). The option has some merits over the traditional contract but could pose some risks at the operational phase for the government partner and hence, it may not provide full value “value for money” (Ramsey, El Asmar, & Gibson, 2016).

Private finance initiative (Lhuillery & Pfister): A typical PFI project involves the setting up of a consortium of stakeholders to finance, build operate an infrastructure. As practised in the UK since 1992, the government pays for services rendered to the public on its behalf or user fees are charged by the consortium to recoup its investment (Khaderi & Shukor, 2016).

Design, Build and Operate (DBO): It is the integration of designing a, constructing and operation of an infrastructure in a single contract (Merna & Njiru, 2002). The financing usually comes from the public sector arm of government and the owner ship of asset is retained by public sector whereas, the obligation for the building of infrastructure and its operation through a defined period is the responsibility of the private partner (Merna and Njiru, 2002). Upon the expiration of the contract period, the contract could be renewed or the facility is returned to the public sector (Federal Transit Administration, 1999; Zhang & Kumaraswamy, 2001)

Operational Contracts (O&M): These types of contracts usually span beyond twenty years upon which the facility is returned to the public entity (Tsang, 2002). An existing public infrastructure is given as concession to a private entity and he runs and maintains infrastructure which could sometimes include upgrading or refurbishment (Lai & Yik, 2007).

Design, Build, Finance and Operate (DBFO): The private entity has the contractual obligation for designing, building, financing and operation of the infrastructure. The private partners investment is recovered through user pay fees (McArthur & Sun, 2015).

Build, Own, and Operate (BOO): The private entity independently builds, owns and operates the facility. There is usually a form of leverage given to the private entity to ease the realization of the project. In this form of partnership there is no direct financial contribution from the public entity however there could be leverages such as tax exemption (Bernstein, Gonzalez, & Heikal, 2016).

Private Finance Initiative - The Term Private Finance Initiative (Lhuillery & Pfister) has been defined as a subset of PPP (Quiggin 2004; Li et al,2005; Singaravelloo 2010). The PFI model evolved to become one of the most commonly applied collaborative frameworks amongst national and regional governments around the world. The framework covers a wide spectrum of private sector participation, including management contracts, lease contracts, concessions, and divestiture/privatisation (Ball and Maginn, 2005; HM Treasury 2009). The UK is a leading and typical example of a developed country where the dominant PFI model has been extensively used to manage infrastructure since 1992. Other countries which have adopted this approach include Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Ireland, Japan, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, the United States and Singapore (RICS, 2011). PFI is a legal framework for managing concession projects in the United Kingdom, in which the government (public sector) buys and regulates the services of the private sector in providing public infrastructure (Li and Akintoye 2003). The goal of this framework is to increase the use of private sectors‟ money and management skills in procuring public projects at both central and local authority levels. In effect, the private sector earns more business profit on investment (Akintoye and Beck 2009). Under PFI procurement, the government does not partake in infrastructure construction, as an alternative it purchases service from the private entity for what it uses or in addition a minimum guaranteed purchase of service such as schools, roads, hospital builds prisons etc (Akbiyikli & Eaton, 2006).

Divestiture: Under this model, the government agrees for the private entities to take ownership of an existing infrastructure facility or build a new one. The private entity will have control over all the asset, maintenance and operations. However, the government takes regulatory oversight to ensure that end user charges and service standards are within agreed standards and threshold (Choudhary, Singh, & Gupta, 2019; Kirkpatrick, Parker, & Zhang, 2004). They can come in a variety of structures, for example, Regulatory Asset Base (RAB) partnership where a tariff plan is agreed upon over a long period of time between the government and the service provider. It is aimed primarily at encouraging investment in the development and upgrading of infrastructure (Davis, 2019). The licence to operate and tariff is set by an autonomous regulator who ensures that services and expenditures are in the interest of the users. It is a type of economic regulation typically used in the UK for monopoly infrastructure assets such as water, gas and electricity networks. In 2016, the model was applied successfully for the first time to a single asset construction project of the £4.2bn Thames Tideway Tunnel (TTT) sewerage project (Department of Business Energy & Industrial Strategy, 2019).

The procurement systems which fall within this quadrant are characterised by varying structural complexities and merits. contrary to the conventional wisdom, infrastructure investments do not typically lead to economic growth (may be in the short run) especially if it fails to capture stakeholder expectations (Ansar, Flyvbjerg, Budzier, & Lunn, 2016). Therefore, the decision to embark on an infrastructure development project and the choice of procurement system should be hinged on the needs of stakeholders in the infrastructure project or the program to be formulated on a country-by-country, sector-by sector and project-by-project basis (Carbonara, Costantino, & Pellegrino, 2016; Delmon, 2010).

2.4.2 Global experiences and challenges of PPP

There has been a rise in the adoption of PPPs as procurement system for infrastructure by governments globally (Li et al., 2005a; Leininger, 2006; RICS Policy Report, 2012). It has been reported that about 135 countries now adopt the procurement system as a strategy to build new infrastructure or improve existing stock with an investment magnitude in excess $158 billion globally (World Bank Group, 2016b). The major countries known to have established PPP as a procurement strategy for infrastructure include UK, USA, Canada, Spain, South Africa (Eggers & Startup, 2006). However, most recently, the top five countries with PPP infrastructure investment commitments have been consisted of Argentina, Brazil, China, India, and Mexico (World Bank Group, 2018). It is essential to elucidate summarily the PPPs environment and challenges in some of the countries mentioned earlier. The focus of this study is on stakeholder engagement hence it will focus on stakeholder elated challenges as follows:

UK experience

UK economy has matured through having adopted the strategy to deliver infrastructure and public service through the PFI initiative. Presently about PPP projects are in existence valued at over 705 capital value of £56.6 billion are active (HM Treasury, 2018b). The UK government has incurred an average of £10 billion pound charges towards PFI projects between 2016-2017 representing 0.5% of its GDP and still has an obligation based on existing contracts to pay about £ 200 billion from now till over 2040 (Wolf, 2018). Following the relative successes of PFI in UK, numerous countries are beginning to adopt the strategy to procure infrastructure projects (Khaderi & Shukor, 2016). However, the adoption of PPP to deliver infrastructure has slowed down in recent years. For example 86% of PFI and PF2 contracts were signed before 2010 (House of Commons, 2018). However, due to stakeholder concerns, the government has halted the adoption of PFI strategies for new projects since 2018, however, it will continue to meet obligations of existing contracts through there Lifecyle. However, other forms include successful and established tools relevant to PPP such as Contracts for Difference, the Regulated Asset Base Model and the UK Guarantee Scheme in recent time (Davis, 2019; HM Treasury, 2018a).In the recent past , the government in UK have been unable to meet up to certain PPP obligation. For example, the ‘priority school program has required £1.7 billion for the Future Force 2020 scheme for military accommodation and the rolling stock for the Crossrail project and each has a financial shortfall of £1.2 billion that |UK governments have been unable to pay its private partners. (The Economist, 9 March 2013, 30–32). A report published by the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons, stated that returns to investors have been too high and had led to massive high financial liabilities to public authorities. The report concluded that it could not identify the value for money realised in a lot of PPP projects in UK (Willems & Van Dooren, 2016). There are also evidences of poor management of stakeholder relationships as contributory cause of poor performance of PPP projects in the UK (Smyth & Edkins, 2007)

United States (USA) Experience

PPPs have been adopted in USA from hitherto now. For instance, as early as 1792, the first long-distance stone and gravel road in the country was delivered in Lancaster Turnpike and the intercontinental rail road in 1869 (Smith, 2009). There is no standard approach to delivery of PPP in the USA as opposed to the UK where the standardised approach is the PFI strategy. In addition, USA operates a decentralised management system. Authority to undertake PPPs is typically granted to agencies by the Congress on an agency-specific basis or even on function-specific or project-specific basis (Smith, 2009).Therefore, capturing the total number of PPP projects in USA is difficult. However, PWC (2016) reports that between 1985 and 2010; a total of 363 PPP projects have been recorded, with a total value of US$59.5 billion P3s in the US being represented by toll road concessions. However, the governments and investors are now coming together on a much broader range of projects, including social infrastructure. However, in consideration of the size of the US economy which is six times bigger than the UK economy, it can be said that the full potential of PPP is yet to be utilised to deliver infrastructure in the USA. Presently, much is expected from the PPP market in the US, where the economy is more than six times bigger than the UK economy. There are indications that PPP is witnessing a growth in USA, for example, in 2015, five deals were closed while in 2016, nine deals were closed (InfraDeals, 2015; PWC, 2016). However, some projects have witnessed. The slow maturity of PPP-enabling institutions, legal frameworks, and governance structures is having an effect on America’s PPP growth (Casady & Geddes, 2019). Similarly the laws do not offer adequate incentives, transparency, and accountability for the U.S. to successfully deliver a coordinated PPP program (Geddes & Reeves, 2017; Reeves, Palcic, Flannery, & Geddes, 2017). In certain projects have experienced challenges of devious conduct by key stakeholders and the transaction costs were also huge for example, California freeway SR 91 Express Lanes which had been opened in 1995. Though many highway projects are relatively predictable from a construction cost perspective, these are highly uncertain from a utilitarian perspective. For example, there was relatively little problem in constructing the Dulles highway on schedule. However, use levels on the toll road were significantly lower than anticipated (10,000 per day during the initial month versus 34,000 per day projected) (Vining, Boardman & Poschmann, 2005). PPP in USA also suffer from poor management of stakeholder relationships which is a contributory has been found to be a contributory cause of failure of PPP projects (El-Gohary et al., 2006).

Australian Experience

Australia is considered as one of the most mature PPP markets globally amongst other countries with a strong focus on value for money but operates a rigid PPP framework with few PPP models in operation and thus decreasing its potential for more PPP projects. (Utz, 2013). However, English (2006) asserts that over 127 PPP projects have been recorded before the end of 2005, with a total value of AU$35.6 billion spread across both social and economic infrastructure in the transport, education and utility sectors. According to Infrastructure Partnerships Australia (2019) road and social infrastructure are the most common types of infrastructure delivered through PPP followed by renewable energy generation, passenger rail and water infrastructure (Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, 2019). However, despite its experience and expertise, Australia is still experiencing challenges in implementing some of its PPP infrastructure projects. The ‘East West Link’ is a large PPP infrastructure project that was recently terminated (VAGO, 2015). Similarly the ‘Sydney Light Rail’ project is also experiencing both technical and non-technical challenges (Casimir & McDougall, 2018). The key challenges affecting Australian PPP projects are inclined to skills of key stakeholders, huge cost burden on the public, poor public accountability, efficiency of the Treasury office and balancing competing interests within public agencies which limit decision making within the guidelines which govern PPP in Australia (Mwakabole, Gurmu, & Tivendale, 2019).

Chinese Experience

China is increasingly adopting PPP to deliver infrastructure especially with the wave of urbanisation. Based on 2017 evaluations, over fourteen thousand projects have been delivered through PPP with a value of about US$2.6 trillion (Zhao, Su, & Li, 2018).However, the PPP in China had evolved through various phases. The first wave of PPP expansion took place in the 1980s. Shortly after the opening in 1978, municipalities experimented with BOT projects in the 1980s due to decentralisation of authority. The first attempt in China was the Shenzhen government’s collaboration with a foreign company in a power plant construction(S. Zhang, Gao, Feng, & Sun, 2015). The second phase PPPs accounted for 36 percent of the total infrastructure investment by 1997 but PPP activities share of PPPs quickly dropped to 13 percent in 1998 and to 11 percent in 2002 following the Asian economic crises and issues relevant to poorly structured existing PPP projects which overburdened the government with too much risks and commitments (Chen & Doloi, 2008). The third wave of PPP activities was impacted by the end of world economic crises of 2008 and the ballooning local debts of municipalities. Due to rapid urbanization and increasing need for infrastructure, the central government saw the need to intervene by cleaning up the mess witnessed in the second phase by learning from previous mistakes and establishment of a regulatory PPP framework which induced the establishment of rules at local and regional levels that improved the growth of PPP in China as an infrastructure procurement system (Zhao et al., 2018). However, despite the growth of PPP in China there are issues of poor administrative structures that will align with the guidelines instituted by the governments which contribute to the resolving of the implementation issues. Similarly, there is absent of unified PPP law that can help clarifying the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders(S. Zhang et al., 2015). In addition to this, there is complete absence of the public participation mechanism which obstruct the public, as a stakeholder, from partaking in the designing of the project and in the implementation of the same (Zhao et al., 2018). Trust deficit also exists from the public due to the general culture of Confucian values which is oriented towards fair distribution of wealth rather than wealth production itself (Jong, 2012).

Indian Experience

India is increasingly recognising the importance of infrastructure to sustain its increasing urbanisation and economic growth with GDP growing at an average 7.7 % GDP per annum(Colmer, 2016). In that regard, it has keyed into the concept of PPP procurement with a steady rise in investment over the years. As has been detailed in figure 1, the procurement of infrastructure, in the tenth development plan, amounted to about 24% of infrastructure expenditure while in its 11th development plan, the investment in PPP constituted 36% of its infrastructure expenditure while in its 12th development plan it grew to 50% of its infrastructure investment amounting to about $ 8 billion . Telang and Kutumbale (2014)have reported that as at 2011, India had about 758 active projects. He noted that the success of PPP procurement strategy in India was amplified by the interest taken by the government to boost such partnerships through enactment of various laws and establishment of institutions.

South African Experience

South Africa adopted PPP as an infrastructure procurement strategy following the enactment of the PPP law in 1998. Infrascope ranked the country as the best African PPP market. The country has a strong business infrastructure, a sound financial sector and moderate standards in accounting, regulatory structures and law (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2017). The budgetary provision of over $ 56 billion dollars for infrastructure provision over the next 3 years shall be partly financed through PPP. It is estimated that PPP projects shall account for about $ 1.3 billion representing 2.2% of the projected infrastructure provision by the government. PPPs in south Africa have a short pre-contract lifecycle relatively not more than three years(Oxford, 2019). Although there have been investments in energy projects especially in renewable energy sources, specifically 14 wind power projects and 13 solar energy projects. Similarly, there have been investments in transport and in the water and sewerage sectors, the majority of the PPP investments was in telecommunication sector with over US$27 billion (World Bank, 2015). The positive outcome can also be aligned to local ownership, shareholding and benefit sharing which is a quite exclusive to the south African PPP market but is vital set of requirements for PPPs in south Africa (Oxford, 2019). However, some projects have witnessed challenges such as opposition to the e-tolling on South Africa’s Gauteng freeway upgrade which is the largest infrastructure PPP project in Africa(The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2017). Issues such as high cost burden on citizens, ineffective and unreliable public transport option for the citizens affected the project. In addition, lack of stakeholder engagement and transparency in the project transaction process and poor public enlightenment about the project were identified as issuers which hindered the project (Manley & Gopaul, 2015)

2.5 Urbanisation and infrastructure in Nigeria

2.5.1 Introduction

Nigeria is also Africa’s largest economy with a GDP of $1,951.42. It is presently the 8th largest producer of oil which is its major source of revenue. The growth in agriculture, telecommunications and services have positively impacted on its economic growth rate over the years (World Bank, 2020). However, in recent years its economic growth rate has declined see figure bellow plunging over 62% of its population extreme poverty and if the current trajectory is not checked, the amount of people leaving in extreme poverty will increase from present over 68 million citizens to 110 million people will be in extreme poverty by the year 2030 (Kharas, Hamel, & Hofer, 2018). Various scholars and multinational agencies have identified challenges affecting economic growth in Nigeria to be; policy implementation, corruption, exchange rate inconsistency, money supply and inflation rate and poor public infrastructure (Akekere, Oniore, Oghenebrume, & Stephen, 2017; Akinlo & Lawal, 2015; World Bank, 2016). The culmination of these issue have further impacted on the potential of the country to attract froing direct investment(African Development Bank, 2020; Lawal, 2016; Nwosa, 2019).

It is estimated that the population of the country is about 202 million people, it is Africa’s most populous country (World Bank, 2020). Nigeria is fast becoming a global urban giant (Fox et al., 2017). By the year 2050, it will become the third most urbanised country with 70% of its population living in urban areas, and will account for 10% of the of the global population (UNDESA, 2015). It is currently experiencing shifting demographics with greater number of cities emerging. As detailed in figure bellow, as of 1990 the country had 16 cities with a varied population that ranged between 300,000- 5 million in the year 2018 it was estimated 50 cities were estimated to exist with an urban population that ranged between 500,000 and 10 million and by the year 2030 about 67 cities will become urbanised with a population raging between 5000 and above 10 million.

2.5.2 The State of Nigeria’s Infrastructure.

Nigeria primary delivers infrastructure through the traditional procurement route of direct funding which has not yielded the required results. Presently, there are over 19,000 uncompleted or abandoned public projects (Umoru & Erunke,2016), which are estimated to gulp over $ 47 billion and about 30 years to complete (Ewa, 2013). The dearth of efficient infrastructure, proper urban planning and the spontaneous nature of urban growth accompanied by diverse socio-economic, cultural and environmental issues has constituted serious challenges to urban growth and environmental sustainability in Nigeria (Adebimpe and Peters, 2018). Urban areas in Nigeria have not improved. Instead, they continue to experience a more impoverished situation in their physical infrastructure and social services, such as housing, roads, electricity, water, education and public health (UN Habitat, 2015). The analysis, illustrated in Figure 3, shows the data for 2016 for lower middle-income economies in Africa (African income peers) as well as for lower-middle global income economies (global income peers), specifically Pakistan, India and Indonesia. According to the International Futures forecasting system and the Traditional Infrastructure Index (World Bank, 2016), it shows that Nigeria had one of the lowest levels of access to improved basic infrastructure anywhere in the world, ranking 162 out of 186 countries.

The current stock of Nigerian infrastructure primarily procured through traditional procurement strategies has been subjected to project to corrupt practices, poor workmanship and failed infrastructure which has rendered the several sectors of the economy to lack competitiveness (Manu et al., 2019; Onolememen, 2020). For example, various surveys have highlighted that the efficiency of physical capital assets in Nigeria such as roads, public education facilities, electricity production, health infrastructure and access to treated water compared to other countries within the region is deteriorating and is responsible for about 40 percent of the productivity handicap faced by African firms. Raising Nigeria’s infrastructure stock would boost annual per capita growth rates by 4 percentage points and reduce poverty according to conducted simulations (Calderón, 2009; Sobjak, 2018). A recent report by IMF offered numerous solutions towards closing the infrastructure gap and improvement of efficiency. It highlighted that improvement of the quality of Nigeria’s governance practices to meet sub-Saharan African benchmarks could result in percent reduction in the efficiency gap. It emphasised several areas in improvement in public infrastructure delivery processes, such as improved public governance process which could cut overhead costs and improve expenditure management. Similarly, adoption of alternative infrastructure procurement strategies and multi-year budgeting strategies could lead to improvements in efficiency (International Monetary Fund, 2018). In an effort to bridge the infrastructure deficit in Nigeria, a thirty-year plan, known as the National Integrated Infrastructure Master Plan (NIIMP), was created. The Master Plan constitutes a financial road map for the investment in critical infrastructure across the country. The plan indicates that the transportation sector has an estimated budget of $775 billion, energy $1 billion, water and mining $400 billion, housing and regional development $350 billion, ICT $325 million, social infrastructure $150 billion and vital registration and security $50 billion. Meeting these illustrative infrastructure targets for Nigeria would cost $14.2 billion annually However, at present, Nigeria is spending only $5.9 billion on federal infrastructure leaving a substantial deficit of $4.6 billion (National Planning Commission, 2014). This represents around 7% of the GDP on infrastructure, although this is above the average for sub-Saharan Africa. However recent infrastructure budgetary provisions have been low, for example, in 2018 budgetary expenditure on infrastructure was equivalent to 2.3% of GDP. The government is also grappling with competing demands between capital expenditures and recurrent expenditure such as staff wages and overheads salaries. For example, statistics from Nigeria’s Budget Office indicate that recurrent expenditure was 147% of total revenues in 2018, denoting that the government was obligated to lend money to meet up recurrent expenditures (Business, 2020). Similarly available funds for infrastructure is susceptible to corruption especially large infrastructure projects (Sobjak, 2018). This situation has plunged about 60 percent of the urban population in Nigeria live in slums (Onyemaechi et al., 2015). To meet its infrastructure need over the next ten years and reduce its infrastructural deficit, research suggests a need to increase infrastructure spending to at least 12% of the GDP, this is an amount the Nigerian government cannot solely provide (SANUSI, 2012). To achieve this monumental task of bridging Nigeria’s infrastructure gap about 48% will have to be delivered through PPP while the outstanding 58% will be financed through direct funding from government (Oyedele, 2019).

2.6 Nigerian PPP Experience

PPP infrastructure projects are increasingly becoming popular in Nigeria especially with the enactment the comprehensive National Policy on PPPs in 2009 (Infrastructure Concession Regulatory, 2013). Especially with dwindling government resources and increasing need for new infrastructure and improvement of existing stock, both the federal government and the states have been adopting PPP to bridge infrastructure deficit (Erumebor, 2017). The system of governance in Nigeria is Federation type. The government is divided into the federal , the state and the local governments. There are issues the federal government has sole responsibility to legislate upon, similarly there are those that the state government only may pass laws for items on the residual list whereas the federal government has exclusive right to legislate on issues on the exclusive. The PPP law falls within the concurrent list. . The PPP law in Nigeria exists at the federal level and at some states in the country (G. Nwangwu, 2016). This means that where projects intersect with federal government jurisdiction states must seek approval from the federal government to embark on such projects. The Infrastructure Regulatory Commission (ICRC) is an agency set up by the government to scrutinize FGN's PPP project proposals and monitor execution. It serves as an independent advisory that guides the FGN in its decision to adopt PPP to deliver infrastructure projects through PPP procurement strategy. It also assists state governments in building capacity and diffusing best practices in their bid to establish local frameworks and laws (ICRC, 2012). Indeed, the enactment of the PPP law and establishment of the PPP Unit has improved the PPP investment climate in Nigeria with numerous projects that cut across social and economic infrastructures such as hospitals schools, power generation, telecom, housing roads etc. As detailed in the table 6 below Nigeria has adopted various forms of PPP procurement strategies and many projects are at various stages of execution.

2.6.1 PPP Institutional Framework in Nigeria

The institutional framework in Nigeria cut across all ministries and parastatals in the Federal government (Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission, 2017). As detailed in figure 14 bellow, the PPP framework in Nigeria specifies roles and responsibilities to relevant government organisations and federating units. As stated by Jomo, Chowdhury, Sharma, and Platz (2016) PPP frameworks tries to foster harmonious working relationships between the various governments and private stakeholders in the PPP process by ensuring that there is orderliness in the system and transparency in the decision-making process. Though the Nigerian PPP framework as detailed captures government stakeholders concerned with the project being considered and ensures they partake in the decision-making process from initiation to execution. However, the complexity of a PPP institutional framework affects the decision making process, final configuration of the project and hence, its performance within the project lifecycle (South, Levitt, & Dewulf, 2015; Van Gestel, Voets, & Verhoest, 2012). Moreover, Grimsey and Lewis (2002) asserts that PPP projects are complex because there are multiple numbers of stakeholders involved with a different yet competing interest which must be balanced. The institutional framework indicates decision points and the various stakeholders involved, yet at every point, the decision is done in silos which may create mistrust, increased bureaucracy and conflict of interests among stakeholders especially the public and legislative arm of government. This is validated by the findings of Solomon Olusola Babatunde, Perera, Udeaja and Zhou (2014) where they established that the Lekki-Epe Expressway toll road concession in Lagos, Nigeria suffered implementation setbacks due stakeholder resistance within the political and public spheres. Similarly, the institutional framework does not clearly capture the non-governmental organisations and community representatives as stakeholders in the decision-making process. Nigeria Infrastructure Advisory Facility (2017) asserts that poor stakeholder engagement contributed to community resentment of the PPP projects especially those that are user fee inclined, thus,. . The MMA2 case also highlights that management of politicians ‘expectations and setting realistic project goals hampered the smooth operation of the project. This calls for a strong contract management capability within the Government team. It is also captured in literature that lack of expertise of both the public and private sector stakeholders have been further highlighted as one of the major causes of PPP project failure in Nigeria (Ahmed, 2011; S. Babatunde, 2015).Various researchers have also established that public and private partners’ capacity deficiencies regarding management competency such as stakeholder engagement, is a major barrier to effective PPP project delivery in developing countries (Y. Ahmed & I. Sipan, 2019; Umar, Zawawi, & Abdul-Aziz, 2019; A. Walker, Ameyaw, & Chan, 2015). A recent assessment of PPP environments of 15 African countries ranked Nigeria 13th in terms of enabling environment (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2015). Hence improved capability of the public and private partners in PPPs in Nigeria can help in the successful delivery of PPP projects (Solomon Olusola Babatunde, Perera, Zhou, & Udeaja, 2016; G. Nwangwu, 2016). In view of the importance of stakeholder engagement to successful deliver PPP projects and the lack of skills within the PPP landscape in Nigeria, it becomes desirable to develop a stakeholder engagement readiness framework for both government and private sector organisations involved in PPP infrastructure projects in Nigeria.

Regarding the regulatory framework, some pieces of legislation, including Privatization and Commercialization Act (1999); the ICRC Act of (2005); the Fiscal Responsibility Act (2007), and the Public Procurement Act (2007); were identified in the National Policy on PPP as being relevant to PPP transactions in Nigeria.

Especially in stakeholder engagement related capabilities as it has been identified as a crucial success factor which is hindering the potential of PPP development in Nigeria (G. A. Nwangwu, 2013)

2.6.2 Key Challenges of PPP Implementation in Nigeria

2.6.2 .1 Regulatory related challenges

PPP contracts rely on robust contract governance to ensure that the responsibilities of the private and the public sectors are clearly defined and adhered to (Grimsey & Lewis, 2004). The structure of the PPP Act in Nigeria has restricted authority of The ICRS to ensure compliance with contract terms especially at the government end (Solomon Olusola Babatunde & Perera, 2017b; M. Dada & Oladokun, 2012). In addition, the existing framework does not protect private sector stakeholders framework that need to be put in place so as to empower the public authorities to enter into agreement with the private sector and as well protect the interest of the private sector (Solomon Olusola Babatunde, Opawole, & Akinsiku, 2012; Onuorah, 2014). (M. Dada & Oladokun, 2012; Onuorah, 2014) that there is absence of guidelines to guide public authorities on the drafting of the PPP contract (M. Dada & Oladokun, 2012; Onuorah, 2014) . There are multiple laws in existence which are in conflict with each other creating infighting between government organisations which have oversight (Idris, Kura, & Bashir, 2013; Ikpefan, 2010) For example, due to policy inconsistency a conflict between the ICRC Act and the Privatisation Act presently exists (African Legal Support Facility, 2019; G. Nwangwu, 2018).The ICRC and the Bureau for Public Enterprise BPE were created under both government legislations respectively with similar schedules constantly competing over projects, creating an atmosphere of certainty as to which of the two organisations should have authority over privately financed projects (Abdulsalam, 2014; G. Nwangwu, 2018).There are too many inconsistent government policies and care-free attitudes in the government which could affect the general economy and PPP projects (Idris et al., 2013; Taiwo, 2013). In Nigeria, due to poor political will, PPP projects can be revoked, or a fresh concessioner could be invited in the event a new set of political figures emerge in government. In addition, vested interests in the country in the political and elite circle against PPP can frustrate the project often at the early stage of the project. There are likelihood of corruption and bureaucratic bottlenecks associated with getting approvals which reduces the prospects of investors to partake in the project (Adebiyi, Sanni, & Oyetunji, 2019; Bhanu & Stone, 2016; M. Dada & Oladokun, 2012; Ibietan & Joshua, 2015; Idris et al., 2013) .

2.6.2 .2 Legal related challenges

The slow pace at which the Justice delivery system works is also a major impediment to doing business in Nigeria and which may cause serious delays in a PPP project, but alternatives can be sought by examining alternatives to litigation. There is absence of a comprehensive dispute resolution framework to handle partnership disputes expeditiously in Nigeria (Essia & Yusuf, 2013; Odigbo, Okonkwo, & Eleje, 2014). Oluwasanmi and Ogidi (2014) have argued that government may not wish to continue with the contract, where there are no binding laws. For example, the unilateral termination of concession Agreement for the upgrade, installation and management of automated airport service systems between Federal Airports Aviation Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) and Maevis Ltd. Despite numerous court orders (Momoh, 2019). It has been established that the obsolete legal provisions and the ineffectiveness of judicial processes has compounded the disregard for court orders and judgments by government agencies. which has rendered the private investor with no option for redress in the event of breach of contract terms (Erumebor, 2017). The situation has compounded by the incapacity of ICRC to defend private investors and has also discouraged investors in partaking in PPP project (Essia & Yusuf, 2013; Opawole, Jagboro, Kajimo-Shakantu, & Olojede, 2019) (Dominic, Ezeabasili, Okoro, Dim, & Chikezie, 2015) .

2.6.2 .3 Economic Related challenges

PPP projects are challenged with proper funding in Nigeria. The idea of PPP is to share risks and benefits; however, most projects are holistically funded by the private sector without much government support (Eziyi O Ibem, Aduwo, & Alagbe, 2015; G. Nwangwu, 2018). Essia and Yusuf (2013), posited that, the budgets for counterpart funds for PPP projects are in no way different from other capital projects of the MDA; the ICRC Act fail to address the funding challenges faced by PPP projects. In addition-availability of long term financing that can last 10-15 years with attractive interest rates for the investment opportunities in the Nigerian sector is a key challenge for PPP project implementation (Ekong & Onye, 2013; Ikpefan, 2010). Abubakar and Doan (2017) have added that the lack of awareness of the potential of PPP and wrong perception of risks inherent in the project by bankers push interests’ rates as high as at least 20% in Nigeria. This has impacted on credit access and project viability ofPPP projects (Taiwo, 2013) . Dada and Oladokun (2012) have argued that as a result of such financial constrain, investors are only left with the option of financing the projects directly. Similarly, due to heavy reliance on oil as the main revenue by the Nigeria government, the economy is exposed to commodity fluctuations in the international market. To cushion such effect the government is forced to put in place foreign currency restrictions. The economy is also exposed to instability of inflation rates which are not favourable to PPP investments (M. Dada & Oladokun, 2012; Opawole & Jagboro, 2017). The instability of economic variables is strongly linked to the recurrent request for re-appraisal of PPP agreements which has indirectly reduced project delivery efficiency (Opawole et al., 2019)

2.6.2 .3 Technical capacity related issues

PPPs are quite complex in delivery. The lack of capacity in the public and private sectors remain major obstacles when implementing sound PPP projects. Key players in the sector are oblivious of the key existing regulations guiding PPP transactions in Nigeria (Solomon Olusola Babatunde & Perera, 2017a; S. O. Babatunde, Perera, & Udeaja, 2013; Erumebor, 2017). Various authors have identified the major challenges affecting PPP implementations in Nigeria as internal structure management; poor negotiation skill and lack of management capability in infrastructure projects (Adeniyi, Aje, & Ogunsemi, 2011; Muhammad & Johar, 2019; Onyemaechi, Samy, & Pollard, 2015). This has also lead to poor structuring of PPP project deals (Idris et al., 2013; Onuorah, 2014). Similarly, Oladimeji adds that the lack of expertise for monitoring and evaluating projects has been linked to mismanagement of funds of some ongoing project. There exists a challenge of identifying the best fit technological choices and strategies due to diverse physical geographic, socio-economic, cultural and political factors, affordability, users friendliness, ease of operation and maintenance that can foster engagement of the community in urban projects (Amadi, Carrillo, & Tuuli, 2018; Oduwaye, 2006). The knowledge of the PPP scheme are lacking in both public and domestic private sector organisations (Iboh, Adindu, & Oyoh, 2013; Idris et al., 2013; Onuorah, 2014)

2.6.2 .4 Stakeholder related issues Social

A key function of the government is the provision of infrastructure for the populace. Most Nigerians still view the transfer of this responsibility to the private sector as gross inefficiency especially where it is marred with controversies, as it is the case with Nigeria (Eziyi Offia Ibem, 2011; Ola-awo, Amirudin, Alumbugu, & Abdulrahman, 2018). PPP has been seen by many pundits and the public to be elitist, unaffordable and diversionary (Y. Ahmed & I. A. B. Sipan, 2019; Ogunbayo et al., 2018). Citizens in Nigeria are worried that, if not curtailed, their collective future will be mortgaged to the elites. Particularly in circumstances where there is absence of substitutes to the privatised infrastructure. Some pundits are rather conservative, as they see PPP as the leeway employed by powerful firms and multinationals, primarily driven by profit, to gain entry into the public sector (Adebayo & Ayegbusi, 2017; Fadeyi, Adegbuyi, Agwu, & Ifeanye, 2016; Oluwasanmi & Ogidi, 2014). Fakoya (2010) wrote further on the issue and said ‘‘the people’s complaints centred among others on lack of communication and engagement on the part of government. These problems raise a need for more enlightenment and awareness campaign about the concept and the need for government approved reputable developer employment (Y. Ahmed & I. A. B. Sipan, 2019; S. Babatunde, 2015; Muhammad & Johar, 2019). For instance, the revocation of the PPP contract between Lekki Concessionary Company and Lagos State was mainly due to lack of engagement of the relevant stakeholders, that resulted into legal issue and the eventual contract revocation(Afolabi, 2011; S. O. Babatunde et al., 2013) Partnering arrangement encourages the project participants to have “direct dialogue” in which participants are free to raise their views on issues concerning the project. Any country the culture of which could not support dialogue, may have a problem implementing partnerships . Large numbers of partnering implementation challenges are culture related, it may be an organization, industry or national culture (Ola-awo et al., 2018; Sanni & Hashim, 2013). Inconsistent government policies and care-free attitudes to government properties ranked among the top three challenges(Idris et al., 2013) Another common issue relevant to stakeholder engagement challenge is the issue of insufficient information disclosure which does not encourage optimal investment decisions to both local and international financers (Amadi et al., 2018; Solomon Olusola Babatunde & Perera, 2017a; Mezui, 2012). Similarly, open advertisement of tender opportunities, which should provide every potential partner or contractor equal and unhindered access to tender information and the opportunity to submit bid lack clear information about the project which impacts on information asymmetry issues (Eziyi Offia Ibem & Onyemaechi, 2018; Iboh et al., 2013). It is also adduced that traditional high-handedness and sagacious tendencies of officials; oppression of individuals through the officious language typically being used; asking for bribes in anticipation of services required; tardiness and public officers attitude of exclusive hold on information as power make stakeholder related issues worst in Nigeria (Amadi et al., 2018; Ibietan & Joshua, 2015). These findings indicate that whenever people are displaced, the human costs in terms of disruption to community cohesion, livelihood patterns and way of life, go beyond what can be fully mitigated through compensation packages. Hence, resulted in various disputes that led to prolonged/extensive legal delays in Nigeria(Solomon Olusola Babatunde, Adeniyi, & Awodele, 2017). Similarly, due to ethnic plurality, Nigeria has history of ethnic clashes which has led to political, ethnic and militant groups. (M. O. Dada & Oyediran, 2015; Odigbo et al., 2014)

2.7 Summary of Chapter

Urbanization is a growing phenomenon globally. The trends of urbanisation are shifting population from rural areas to urban areas. The impact of urbanisation has increased the need for infrastructure, because infrastructure has been identified as the corner stone of achieving the true benefit of urbanisation. There exist various infrastructure categorises which impact on different aspects of human livelihoods and operation of cities. Therefore, policymakers must select or encourage an appropriate form of infrastructure which suits the present stage of a country’s development and need of citizens. Similarly, there is need for deliberate effort by both the government and the private sector to consider concerns of the public through engagement in the infrastructure delivery process. Urban infrastructure could be deliver by government the private sector or the community. However, government plays a pivotal role in infrastructure provisioning through a variety of procurement systems which differs in terms of how responsibility is apportioned to both private and public entity. The growing trend of urbanisation and increasing financial constrain on governments globally have ushered in a new wave of adoption of strategies that will apportion less responsibility to government and more to the private sector. PPP is one of such infrastructure procurement strategies currently adopted globally as a strategy to deliver urban infrastructure. A few countries have dominated the practice such as United Kingdom, USA, China, India, Canada and Australia. Similarly, multlateral organisations such as the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, African Development Bank etc. have pushed for policy reforms in developing countries to enable them adopt PPP as a procurement strategy to bridge infrastructure. Countries like South Africa, Malaysia, Ghana Nigeria, etc are increasingly adopting PPP to deliver their infrastructure. Public Private Partnership (PPP) framework is a particular manner of collaboration between government entities and private entities to provide a service or develop infrastructure and facilities. There are various models of PPP procurements. These comprise Build Operate Transfer (BOT), which is the most popular globally. Other models in PPP include Design, Build Finance and Operate (DBFO), Design, Build Operate (DBO), Design, Bid Build (DBB), Build Own Operate (BOO) and Private Finance Initiative (Lhuillery & Pfister) etc. Nigeria is growing into an urban giant however its present stock of infrastructure is dilapidated and inadequate. Majority of its present stock of infrastructure were delivered through direct funding by government however with dwindling revenue due to uncertainties of global benchmark pricing of crude oil which is the backbone of its economy. The government of Nigeria at both the federal and state levels are adopting PPP procurement strategies by partnering with the private sector to bridge infrastructure deficit. Though the PPP strategy offers a lot of advantages, however, literature appraisals indicated that the progress of PPP in Nigeria has been challenged by various governance issues which are related to regulatory, economic, legal, skill gap and stakeholder related issues. For PPP projects to be delivered, sound management practices must be upheld to deliver the cardinal objectives of the project which is time, cost quality and stakeholder expectations. The effective engagement of stakeholders in PPP projects could provide a good enabling environment for all stakeholders to be engaged in order to make the PPP project a success.

The key objectives of infrastructure are time, cost, quality and stakeholder satisfaction. Moreover, the cardinal objective of providing infrastructure by government is to provide public value. However, external stakeholder related issues continue to dominate the factors which cause project failures. Nevertheless, despite the reoccurrence of stakeholder issues in extant literature, not many studies have considered identifying the critical success factors which can help curtail stakeholder related issues in PPP especially in developed countries such as Nigeria. In this regard, the next chapter of research will elaborate on the concept and principles of stakeholder engagement.

CHAPTER 3: STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

3.1 Introduction

This chapter shall review literature on stakeholder engagement, the definition of stakeholders, its principles techniques and tools for engagement.

3.2 Stakeholder Definition

Stakeholders are those groups who can affect or are affected by the achievement of the firm's objective (R. Edward Freeman, 1984). The Project Management Institute (PMI) defines stakeholder as personnel, groups or establishments which could impact or be impacted by or sense itself to be affected by a resolution, action or project outcome. They could be within the interior or exterior of the organization and may be entirely engaged or entirely unengaged in the project or have interests that can progress or harm the project outcome (Project Management Institute, 2017). They are regarded as those groups which willingly consent to partake in an arrangement that can be mutually beneficial to all partakers in a business or project and necessitate sacrifice or contribution on the part of partakers (Donaldson, Werhane and Van Zandt, 2008). To be a stakeholder, one must have an interest or stake in the establishment or business (Orts and Strudler, 2002). Clarkson (1995) views stakeholders as persons which have a stake that are at risk willingly or unwillingly in an establishment, project or business. These stakes could be in form of assets which could be tangible, intangible or monetary (Clarkson Centre for Business Ethics., 1999). A typical PPP project involves many stakeholders and shareholders (Alfen et al., 2009; Wojewnik-Filipkowska & Węgrzyn, 2019), however Wojewnik-Filipkowska and Węgrzyn (2019) singled out the key stakeholders in PPP infrastructure projects as have been highlighted in table 1 as follows:

3.3 Stakeholder theory

The idea of stakeholder theory was ushered into strategic management by Freeman in 1984 (R. Edward Freeman, 2010). However, the initial idea of stakeholder theory was conceived in 1963 by the Stanford Research Institute in the United States as a generalisation of entities of whom a company owes responsibility. The theory has been utilized by numerous scholars to addresses various forms of business–society relations from various points of view (Bosse et al., 2019; Clark, 1939; Miles & Ringham, 2018; Steurer, 2006). Stakeholder theory is concerned with the nature of the relationships between businesses and the society in terms of both processes and outcomes (T. M. Jones & Wicks, 1999). Numerous intellectuals have defined the idea differently but to a certain degree, the predominant view point is that corporations ought to pay attention to the desires, interests and influence of persons that the organisations activities and policies affect (J. Andriof & Waddock, 2017; Frederick, 1992; Shams, Vrontis, Weber, Tsoukatos, & Galati, 2019). However, there are others which criticise the concept. For example, Sundaram and Inkpen (2004) argue that stakeholder theory impedes entrepreneurial risk taking and complicates corporate governance (Sundaram & Inkpen, 2004). Similarly, Margolis and Walsh (2003) claim that stakeholder theory incites disagreements over deeply rooted values of corporate establishments. However, despite these opposing views, it is vital as a theory because it helps to solve the often ignored sociological interrogation on how organisations affect the society (Bonnafous-Boucher & Rendtorff, 2016; Greenwood & Hinings, 2002).

Stakeholder theory has become a focal point for business morals and an unconventional way of governance (Scherer & Voegtlin, 2018; Wicks & Harrison, 2017). This has informed how organisations relate with its stakeholders. Freeman and Moutchnik (2013) argue that organisations relate with stakeholders from three viewpoints of stakeholder classification, namely the internal as the employees and managers, the external stakeholders which include government media, pressure groups society, professionals and local communities while the connected could be the source of finance for example shareholders and distributors (see figure). The application of stakeholder theory to understand business society relationship has been applied from the normative, descriptive and instrumental perspective see figure. The normative perspective considers the functions of the business regarding the wider community. While the descriptive perspective considers corporate characteristics and behaviours regarding stakeholders and the instrumental perspective analyses the connection between business and community relationship and traditional corporate objectives (Donaldson and Preston, 1995).

3.3.1Instrumental Perspective of Stakeholder Theory

Instrumental stakeholder theory considers the performance based consequences for firms having highly ethical relationships with stakeholders, characterized by high levels of trust, cooperation and information sharing (T. M. Jones, Harrison, & Felps, 2018). In an influential article Clarkson (1995) notes that a corporation's survival and continuing success depends upon the ability of its management to create adequate wealth fulfilment or value for all primary stakeholder groups. Additionally, he argues that "the economic and social purpose of the corporation is to create and distribute increased wealth and value to all its primary stakeholder groups, without favouring one group at the expense of others" (1995: 112). Similarly, Jones and Wicks argue that "the interests of all (legitimate) stakeholders have intrinsic value and no set of interests could be assumed to dominate the others" (1999: 207). From the instrumental lens, T. M. Jones et al. (2018) argues that a Communal Sharing Relational Ethics (CSRE) strategy, characterized by an intention to rely on relational contracts, joint wealth creation, high levels of mutual trust and cooperation and communal sharing of property, can lead to what they termed a “close relationship capability.” A close relationship capability helps a firm to co-create more economic value with stakeholders. However, Mason and Mitroff (1981) found out that managers face a requirement to undertake complex levels of analysis of problem when confronting environmental issues especially in infrastructure projects: how to translate individual-level knowledge into organizational level outcomes . Hence, it is important to put in place systemic methods of monitoring business environmental change in such a way that someone can be able to notice any issue when it arises. But, Heugens, Van Den Bosch and Van Riel (2002) have asserted that once firms learn how to span this chasm, they are able not only to address discrete environmental issues, but also to build competitive environmental advantages through the development of integrative organizational competences (Heugens et al., 2002).

3.3.2 Normative Perspective of stakeholder theory The normative perspective of Stakeholder Theory considers the function of the businesses regarding the wider community and this is at the core of stakeholder theory (R. Edward Freeman, 1994). This view was also reinforced by Donaldson and Preston (1995) by demonstrating how the justifications for favouring the normative facet over other facets of the Stakeholder Theory ultimately rely upon normative arguments. A rather different approach to stakeholder analysis is represented by those management writers, who use the approach not only to assist the organization to survive and succeed, but also because it is morally ‘right’ to consider a broad range of stakeholders in business decision making. In this approach corporate social performance and responsibility become centre stage (Carroll & Näsi, 1997; Solomon, 1992) According to the defenders of this approach, management decisions should not be exclusively based on the requirements of either the managers, the stockholders, or the customers. Instead, they argue, an ethical organization should consider the interests of other stakeholders who are affected by these decisions. This is in contrast with an earlier view by Edward Freeman (1994) who argued that the sole objective of the corporation is to make profit to the benefit of its stockholders. In his view, the priorities of managers should lie with their fiduciary duties to the stockholders. Lähdesmäki, Siltaoja and Spence (2019) add that as a way to persuade managers of the benefits of ‘ethical stake holding’ the advocates of this facet of Stakeholder Theory argue that, the ethical management of stakeholder relations can lead to better business outcomes especially if a balance is created between the enduring interests of stakeholders and shareholders of an organisation (Lähdesmäki et al., 2019).This can be achieved through establishment of corporative relations which is fostered by ethical actions by the organisation that can lead to improved trust by its stakeholders. Following this view, business and social objectives converge and become one (Nielsen & Andersen, 2018). This improves cost savings in the project execution leading to more efficient transactions, granting the organization competitive advantage in its operations (Kumar & Pansari, 2016). Though, the complexity of PPP urban infrastructure contracts may reduce the increasing level of goodwill trust, the existence of mechanisms stipulated in the partnership contracts which improve corporation, can foster these positive outcomes (Boxall, Hutchison, & Wright, 2017)

3.3.3 Descriptive stakeholder perspective

The descriptive perspective considers corporate characteristics and behaviours regarding stakeholders (Huse & Rindova, 2001). In order to proclaim the extent of importance of stakeholders to an organisation, a number of interrelated criteria have been developed by proponents of the descriptive stakeholder theory. Mitchel used the relative power criteria to group stakeholders (Ronald K Mitchell, Bradley R Agle, & Donna J Wood, 1997). Clarkson (1995)argues that the criteria for characterising stakeholders involve the primary or secondary stakeholder standpoint. The primary stakeholders have a major impact on the survival of the organisation, whereas secondary stakeholders are those who influence or are influenced by the firm but are not engaged in transactions with the corporation and are not essential for its survival. Ronald K Mitchell et al. (1997) have added that it is pertinent to appraise stakeholder manager relationships systematically, both actual and potential, in terms of the relative absence or presence of all or some of the attributes: power, legitimacy and/or urgency. They argue that a party to a relationship has power, to the extent it has or can gain access to coercive, utilitarian or normative means, to impose its will in the relationship. They argue that legitimacy is a desirable social good, that it is something larger and more shared than a mere self-perception and that it may be defined and negotiated differently at various levels of social organization. He further argues that urgency to attend to a stakeholder presents itself when two conditions are met, such as when a relationship or claim is of a time-sensitive nature and in situations when that relationship or claim is imperative or critical to the stakeholder(Ronald K Mitchell et al., 1997). The contribution of (Frooman, 1999; Savage, Nix, Whitehead, & Blair, 1991) were centred on resource dependency angle. From this angle, it is proposed that the resource relationship (who is dependent on whom) i.e. between the organisation and its stakeholders, determines who has leverage over the other (Frooman, 1999). Savage et al. (1991) have added that each stakeholder has potential to threaten or cooperate with the organizational resources, hence, managers should identify supportive, mixed blessing, non-supportive and marginal stakeholders. He emphasised the need to all-encompassing strategy to alter relationships with stakeholders from less supportive groups to more supportive ones. Jawahar and McLaughlin (2001) have based their descriptive stakeholder theory argument on the premise that organizations face different pressures and threats at different stages in the organizational life cycle. Therefore, at different stages, different stakeholders become critical for organizational survival (Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001). Rowley (1997) argues that firms do not respond to each stakeholder individually, instead, they address the simultaneous demands of multiple stakeholders. However, Jawahar and McLaughlin (2001) went further to show that organizations are likely not only to use different strategies to deal with different stakeholders at a given time but to use different strategies to deal with the same stakeholder over time. However, Wheeler, Fabig, and Boele (2002) analysed company society relationship in Nigeria and revealed that the absence of institutional will and engagement skills limits the corporate responsiveness in their dealings with its stakeholders. He argues that local context issues must be taken into consideration for any strategy to work (Wheeler et al., 2002). In contrast to conventional shareholder’s viewpoint on commercial organisations that interests and benefits of the organisation is its fundamental priority, the proponents of this stakeholder perspective are tilted towards multidirectional mutually beneficial relationships between companies and other stakeholders (although the organization itself is still arguably central to the purpose of such relationships). This can occur to the extent that there is “no prima facie priority of one set of interests and benefits over another”(Donaldson & Preston, 1995).

Following the unification of the three perspectives of Agency Theory, it is established that ethical values translate into human relationships. Most organisations are driven by different value sets which will inform their relationships with external stakeholders. Organisational value sets are mostly inclined to the traditional viewpoint of satisfying only shareholder needs as against the shifting paradigm of pluralistic view of incorporating external stakeholder needs in operations. The traditional viewpoint pits external stakeholders against the corporations especially in PPP project settings. The adoption of SE strategies is still challenged by various factors in PPP project execution in Nigeria which requires an in-depth analysis. The following aspect of the research will discuss external stakeholder engagement and its theoretical underpinnings.

3.4 External stakeholder engagement in PPP Urban infrastructure projects

SE, as an organizational competence, is enclosed within the foundation of an organisation’s resources (Ayuso, Ángel Rodríguez and Enric Ricart, 2006). It is the view of Plaza-Beda et al (2010) that SE is a strategic competence that is interrelated with Stakeholder management. It is also the view of Bryne (2001) that SE is an on-going process that seeks to meet project and stakeholder objectives through the lifecycle of the project or contract. Engagement can also be seen as progression from interacting with the interface physically to becoming cognitively immersed in the content offered by it and then onto proactively spreading the out-comes of this involvement’’(Smith and Gallicano, 2015).Engagement is a ‘‘psychologically motivated affective state that brings extra-role behaviours’’(Kang, 2014). Stakeholder engagement, in some cases referred to as stakeholder management, encompasses the practices which companies undertake to actively involve stakeholders in organizational activities (A. L. Friedman & Miles, 2006). External stakeholder engagement refers to the softer emphasis on supporting influencing and guiding rather than managing stakeholders. (Dalcher, 2016).

3.4.1 The Importance of External Stakeholder Engagement in PPP Procurement

Numerous studies have emphasised the need for engagement of external stakeholders as fundamental to the success of construction projects (Mathur, Price & Austin, 2008; Olander & Landin, 2005; Fewings, 2013). It is also one of the most critical factorswhich determine the success of a PPP project in offering value for money (Chou, 2015; Onyemaechi, 2015 &Osei-Kyei, 2015). As detailed in the figure bellow, for a PPP project, value for money is defined by not just by time, quality and cost but also by the level of user satisfaction of the completed and on-going services rendered (Robertson et al., 2014). Henard and Dacin (2010) argue that SE can enhance a firm's reputation and influence a variety of outcomes through consultation, communication, negotiation, compromise, and relationship building. SE is a fundamental accountability mechanism, which must have a “clear purpose” and be aimed at achieving “agreed outcomes” {Accountability, 2018).

The interests of the multiple stakeholders involved in PPP might not align resulting in contradicting purposes. In such circumstances, SE has a high level of importance to avoid the conflicts and to achieve the success of projects. Effective SE can act as a way of guiding the project team leaders in decision making (Jayasuriya, Zhang and Yang, 2016). SE can serve as a cost-effective and efficient way of creating a better working atmosphere for a project by reducing conflicts, risk and increasing the likelihood of realising the project objectives (International Finance Corporation, 2007; PPP Knowledge Lab, 2017). Engagement stakeholders by organisations in the cause of carrying out their business or project delivery such as PPP infrastructure project is driven by different corporate objectives (Garard and Kowarsch, 2017). According to Institutional Theory, the Society is comprised of various types of institutions such as business, government, family, religion etc. (Powell, 1991; Powell & DiMaggio, 1991). The institutions are motivated by different objectives to engage stakeholders. More specifically, the following objectives are frequently named to justify and motivate engagement stakeholders especially the public (Mostert, 2003; Partridge et al., 2005; Majamaa et al., 2008; Reed, 2008; Garmendia and Stagl, 2010; Robertson et al., 2014; Accountability, 2015; Reed et al., 2018):

Krause (2014) has stated that increasing public awareness of environmental issues; it improves the knowledge basis to enable corporations to learn from stakeholders, resulting in product and process improvements; (AccountAbility and United Nations Environment Programme, 2005).

Increased quality of decisions by drawing on local knowledge; - Inform, educate and influence stakeholders and the business environment to improve their decision-making and actions which impact the company and the society; (AccountAbility and United Nations Environment Programme, 2005). It further enables the understanding of the complex business environment, including market developments and identification of new strategic opportunities; (AccountAbility and United Nations Environment Programme, 2005).

Social learning and developing a shared understanding of the problem dimensions - Having a shared understanding of localised issues is important. Corporations must try to incorporate these issues in their business objectives (Maignan and Ferrell, 2001). It raises mutual understanding between citizens and administration and leads to win-win outcome (Vedder and Krause, 2017). Corporate citizenship activities through outcomes of social learning are therefore perceived as critical factors which enable a firm to become embedded within the fabric of the local community and strengthen the social bond between the firm and community (Maignan, Ferrell and Hult, 1999). Corporate entities should meet social demands in a responsible manner and allow for the pooling of resources (knowledge, people, money and technology) to solve problems and reach objectives that cannot be reached by single organisations (AccountAbility and United Nations Environment Programme, 2005).

Less litigation, fewer misunderstandings, fewer delays and more effective implementation; Public acceptance, commitment and support with regard to decisions and plans; (AccountAbility and United Nations Environment Programme, 2005) This could enable better management of risks and reputation; (Account Ability and United Nations Environment Programme, 2005).

Stronger democratic legitimacy of decisions by allowing the public to have a say in and/or an influence on the decisions at stake; - Lead to more equitable and sustainable social development by giving those who have a right to be heard the opportunity to be considered in decision-making processes; (Accountability and United Nations Environment Programme, 2005).

Social goals such as the building of trust in institutions: - Build trust between a company and its stakeholders- Stakeholder engagement can drive the attainment of some social desires (Reed et al., 2018). For government, it is there traditional responsibility to deliver goods and services to generality of its citizens at a no cost or at an affordable cost even when it does not meet the brake even cost of production. However, for a private organisation their primary objective is to make marginal return on investment (Cronin, Thomas and Page, 1988; Maskin, 2008; Blount and Nunley, 2015). Corporations are increasingly realising that by satisfying social heeds of the community they operate; they can have better business outcomes. The process of stakeholder engagement can build trust between the citizens and the corporations by transforming negative emotions into positive ones. This will impact on risks that can emanate from service disruption as a result of local protest and also improve patronage of service which can transform to economic benefits (Mostert, 2003; Greenwood, 2007; Venturelli, Cosma and Leopizzi, 2018).This can be achieved through different strategies such as partaking in community activities, embarking on social projects and granting contributions to meet community needs (Sloan and Oliver, 2013). For PPP infrastructure projects, trust building is an essential ingredient for project success (El-Gohary, Osman and El-Diraby, 2006).

Economic goals: Positive relationship establishment between corporate citizenship practices and business performance in relation to return on assets, return on investments, profit growth and sales growth. It is also demonstrated that a firm can achieve a range of additional strategic and marketing benefits including enhanced employee commitment and customer loyalty. (Blake, 2007) illustrated how a commitment to corporate social responsibility through a variety of corporate citizenship initiatives at BT has led to a range of benefits including reducing costs and mitigation of risks. Similarly, some organisations leverage on some benefits of stakeholder engagement such as enhanced corporate reputation and relationship improvements to achieve business economic goals (Lim and Greenwood, 2017).

The objectives which inform stakeholder engagement in organisations could be used to characterise their practices. Accountability and United Nations Environment Programme (2005) categorised organisations based on three generational levels (see Figure 15). The first-generation practices are often driven by extrinsic persuasion and issues are handled in a makeshift method and restricted to matters that triggered conflict with stakeholders. These second-generation stakeholder engagement activities are driven by risk management motives to resolve conflicts with stakeholders. It is proactive in nature, seeks to increase stakeholder understanding, comprehensive and continuous dialogue process. This method is becoming more popular in organisations. The third-generation organisations support stakeholders to understand project issues, how to tackle them and reach goals which they could otherwise not reach alone (Accountability and United Nations Environment Programme, 2005).

3.5 Principles of Stakeholder Engagement

Stakeholder engagement governance should be guided by principles (Peterson, 2013). Accountability (2018) has prescribed four major principles that should govern stakeholder engagement (see Figure bellow). These include Materiality, Responsiveness, Impact, Inclusivity as explained below:

3.5.1 Materiality

It relates to identifying and prioritising the most relevant sustainability issues and considering the effect of each issue on its stakeholders and the organisation. Material issues are those that will considerably affect and influence the assessments, choices, activities and accomplishments of an organisation and/or its stakeholders in the short, medium and/or long term (Accountability, 2018). Urban development projects impact on sustainable development issues that encompass not only environmental issues but also social and economic aspects (Keivani, 2010). Urban infrastructure projects, especially, those delivered through PPP have consequences on all aspects of the sustainability paradigm and urban equity. They sometimes side-line local requirements and impose elite governance practices (Keivani, 2010). They create fertile grounds that fosters social exclusion and lack of fit within the broader urban fabric (Thuillier, 2005). Although, PPP procurement system has continued to be advocated as the perfect tool which can accelerate the provision of urban infrastructure projects and enhance competitiveness of cities and improve economic livelihoods of its citizens (Chou and Pramudawardhani, 2015; Jelilov and Kenneth, 2015; Dong et al., 2018). This perception cannot be realised if a broad impact of choices and their impact on all stakeholders are not considered. The key issue is to set in place the appropriate institutional framework and governance mechanisms for policy-making and implementation which would allow for a consecutively and comparatively balanced and pro poor approach to urban infrastructure provision that can optimise and diffuse worldwide and local sustainable developmental benefits (Thuillier, 2005; Keivani, 2010; Osei-Kyei and Chan, 2017).

3.5.2 Responsiveness

It is an organisation’s prompt and appropriate response to material sustainability issues and their associated impacts. Responsiveness is realised through decisions, actions and performance, as well as communication with stakeholders (Accountability, 2018). PPP urban infrastructure projects have failed due to a variety of problems which are relevant to responsiveness. For example projects failed due to lack of awareness of what PPP is, insufficient education on the concept of PPP and lack of detailed information relevant to the contract conditions (Levy, 1996). When private organizations become in charge of services conventionally provided by governments, transparency becomes an imperative requirement for public and external stakeholders who will require access to an organization's internal workings and performances (Altshuler and Luberoff, 2004; Meijer, 2013). This differs from conventional reports or information which private organisations share with the stakeholders to improve their corporate image in conventional as well as privately executed projects (Hood, Fraser and McGarvey, 2006).

3.5.3 Impact

It is the effect of conduct, accomplishment and/or results, on the part of persons or an organisation, on the economy, the environment, society, stakeholders or the organisation itself. Material issues have potential direct and indirect impacts which may be positive or negative, intended or unintended, expected or realised and short, medium or long term based (Accountability, 2018). Urban infrastructure projects inherently come with both risks and benefits. The long term and short term positive and negative impact of an urban infrastructure project on its stakeholders must be identified (Delmon, 2017). Meaningful consultations, early engagement, and awareness programs for the public and other key stakeholders through local media and other means are crucial to identify and agree on what should constitute, long, medium and short run outcomes (Asian Development Bank, 2013). There should be possible key performance indicators to be set to monitor the impact of key issues identified by relevant stakeholders that relate to the environment economy social and economic concerns (Bivens, 2014).

3.5.4 Inclusivity

It is actively proving an opportunity of all identified stakeholders who can affect or be affected by the organisations activity to make inputs in identifying sustainably topics and establishing an accountable and strategic response to them. Capturing all stakeholder inputs through stakeholder engagement is increasingly becoming an important component of infrastructure delivery process. Involving stakeholders at the early stage is important because they tend to be sceptical if they suspect that decisions have been made before initial consultation (El-Gohary, Osman and El-Diraby, 2006). To achieve this, a horizontal integration in the form of greater and better interaction and cooperation between people, sectors and organisations is required (European Union, 2013; Evers and de Vries, 2013).

3.6 Stakeholder Engagement levels

SE is the level at which the opinion of stakeholders is fused in the organisation's decision processes. It consists of the following mechanisms (1) stakeholder issue identification techniques, (2) coordination mechanisms and, (3) prioritization principles (Driessen and Hillebrand, 2013). Level of engagement and methods must be selected based on the specific stakeholder profile, the specific issue to be examined, the relationship context and the organization’s as well as stakeholders’ objectives (Barletti, Larson, Hewlett, & Delgado, 2020; Davies, Selin, Gano, & Pereira, 2012). The level of engagement may vary from simple information to empowerment (Accountability, 2015; Reed, 2008). Similarly, Mostert (2003) identified six main levels of stakeholder engagement in water policy. These are information, consultation, discussion, co-designing, co-decision making and independent decision-making. As illustrated in the figure bellow, there are three main ladders of engagement. The starting point is level zero Stakeholder Management which indicates the absence of stakeholder participation. The second ladder signifies low level of stakeholder participation (awareness, information and consultation) and the third ladder indicates high stakeholder participation (discussion, co-design and co-decision making) (Mostert, 2003). Community participation program, as part of an urban development, is to provide an organized set of activities which serve to establish functional communication between the project initiator and the many communities so as to most efficiently transmit information which is pertinent to the particular stage of the project development process and which will elicit feedback from the community on perceptions of needs, fears and preferences in the proposed or on-going project (Sustrans, 2014).

3.6.1 Stakeholder Communication

Communication plays a vital role as people try to regulate their own activities and to participate in efforts to reach common ends (Birth et al, 2008; Siew et al, 2013; Wright, 2009). Gregory (2003) emphasized on maintaining dialogue to engage stakeholders for mutual understanding and this dialogue enables partners in discussion to exchange views in order to reach agreement on cultural structures, actions and events. Gregory also mentioned that rigorous debate helps to discover truth, increases knowledge, exposes the reasoning processes and facilitates the formulation of correct choices and policies. Rondinelli and London (2002) highlighted on information flow for effective communication amongst the stakeholders. The demand for information from a broader group of stakeholders has resulted in the development of a variety of forms of stakeholder dialogue (Payne and Calton, 2002; Rondinelli and London, 2002; Carlone and Hill, 2008). Adams and Frost (2006) considered that the Internet has become an increasingly important media for corporate communication. Some companies are taking this a stage further and using the internet as part of a stakeholder engagement strategy involving dynamic interaction as expectations regarding the roles of companies with respect to the changing interests of their stakeholders (Andriof et al., 2002). Siew et al, (2013), revealed that to meet the demands of a diverse group of stakeholders, corporations have used a variety of media to present social and environmental information in a form accessible to stakeholders. It also quickly builds a bond that sets the foundation for trust and ultimately lasting business relationships. The 450° feedback process ultimately implemented was designed to provide partners with the tools to compare self-perceptions of their performance (and what they thought they were doing and how they were acting) with averaged ratings provided by others representing several different working relationships (Burström and Jacobsson, 2013). By receiving feedback, both from members of the “internal” engagement team (i.e. direct reports, peers and supervisor), as well as external clients, partners use the data to develop a composite picture of their service relationships. Grunig and Grunig (1992) suggest that ‘‘symmetrical dialogue’’ is a superior form of Communication among the stakeholders where both parties are involved in a ‘‘conversation’’ (J. r. Andriof & McIntosh, 2001) where information is exchanged and knowledge acquired. Chan and Tam (2000) analysed 110 completed construction projects and found that most of the projects had targeted to provide the customers, project managers, designers and contractors with information which could have assisted them become more efficient with their limited resources and, as a result, achieve better quality outcomes. Consequently, appropriate tools must be identified to suit the various stakeholders relevant to a project, however the focal point of this research is the external stakeholders.

3.6.2 Stakeholder Engagement Communication Tools and Techniques

The “Engagement Tools” are designed to provide guidance for engaging stakeholders in the decision-making process to achieve an accepted solution to a transport problem (Plank et al., 1997; Sinclair et al., 2003). Selecting the most effective technique of engagement is crucial to the success of the entire process. Not only can the use of inappropriate techniques give poor results, but in some circumstances, it can create unnecessary barriers to the project, if it appears that the decision-makers are acting in selective mode in who or how they engage (Cascetta and Pagliara, 2013). Different techniques may be used to engage people in the process of urban development project delivery (see table 2 bellow). The figure shows the levels of engagement one to six and it further shows 27 possible engagement techniques and tools to be adopted to achieve the desired level of engagement. However, it is rare to find situations where these models are strictly followed (Mostert, 2003). To increase the likelihood of getting a wide impact of engagement more than one technique is often adopted. The organisational expertise in handling or utilising the choice of techniques or tools, the financial resources available and the timeline also determines the choice of tools and techniques (Mostert, 2003; Raynes-Goldie and Walker,2008; Haico and Rip, 2011). Stakeholder engagement techniques and tools must suit the situation and stakeholders and be guided by principles while instituting a proper stakeholder management process.

3.7 Key Components of Stakeholder Engagement

Stakeholder engagement is an umbrella term encompassing a range of activities and interactions over the life of a project. These can be divided into eight components (see Figure 2), each of which will be discussed in a separate section below: Stakeholder Identification and classification; Information Disclosure ; Stakeholder Consultation ; Negotiation and Partnerships; Grievance Management; Stakeholder Involvement in Project Monitoring; Reporting to Stakeholders; Management Functions (Sequeira & Warner, 2007)

Stakeholder Identification and Classification

Stakeholder analyses and identification have gained significance in project delivery process especially in an increasingly interconnected universe. With any activity of issue be it terrorism, desertification, health challenges or infrastructure provisioning, it is evident that such issues pose a concern to a variety of personnel, groups and establishments and such implication could formulate a power nexus with no one entirely in charge to contain the issues (Kettl 2002). Lecy, 2014 & Gan, (2018) emphasised the importance of stakeholder analysis as fundamental to effective management of relationships within networks. Urban infrastructure PPP projects are inclined to network relationships which are characterised by different actors with differing needs within the project lifecycle which are often in conflict with each other and it is unlikely that all of them can be fulfilled. Thus, Identifying and analysing the various stakeholders becomes an important activity to carry out in urban infrastructure provision in order to identify those which have a stake in a project and the level of influence they have on the outcome of the project. The most common tactics for identifying stakeholders is classifying stakeholders into several groups based on their relative position in the project, level of participation in the project management process or contractual relations between them and the project suggested classifying stakeholders as primary or secondary. While Lester, (2007) posited that stakeholders can be classified as direct or indirect. Molwus (2014) suggests that stakeholders’ classifications could be performed according to their possession of certain attributes, contractual relationships with the project. In their contribution, Ronald K. Mitchell, Bradley R. Agle, and Donna J. Wood (1997) were of the view that stakeholders vary in terms of salience. Therefore, stakeholders should be grouped according how vocal, important and visible they are to a project. Another tactics for stakeholder analysis is the stakeholder map or matrix which positions stakeholders according to power or legitimacy. In addition, the stakeholder circle has also been adopted to align relationships between stakeholders in a network (D. H. Walker, Bourne, & Shelley, 2008) (Bourne, 2008). However, the process of stakeholder identification and analysis does not imply that all likely stakeholders can be satisfied, involved or considered, only the crucial stakeholders are essential and deciding who is a key stakeholder is integrally a political process (Stone 1997), has ethical implications (Lewis 1991; Cooper 1998) and comprises judgment (Vickers and Vickers 1998).

Information Disclosure

Disclosure is a formal-sounding term for making information accessible to interested and affected parties. Communicating such information in a manner that is understandable to your stakeholders is an important first (and on-going) step in the process of stakeholder engagement (Sequeira & Warner, 2007). The idea is to help clients think through relevant issues to disclose not necessarily further information, but greater relevant and useful information(World Bank Group, 2016a). In most developed countries, information disclosure is enshrined with the help of functional democratic systems and efficient bureaucracies , non-governmental organisations with strong social mobilization etc. However, in developing countries, the endogenous demand for information disclosure might be relatively weak or uneven due to the digital differentiation and public information capacity differences, poor bureaucracy etc (Kosajan, Chang, Xiong, Feng, & Wang, 2018). Moreover, what supports better disclosure practices in jurisdictions appear to be the wider government policy on transparency and whether, these policies are, in turn, supported by legislation which, is largely absent in developing countries (World Bank Group, 2016a). (Jayasuriya, Zhang, & Yang, 2016)

Stakeholder Consultation

Consultation is a two-way process of dialogue between the project company and its stakeholders. Stakeholder consultation is about initiating and sustaining constructive external relationships over time. Companies which start the process early and take a long-term, strategic view are, in essence, developing their local “social license to operate(Sequeira & Warner, 2007).The stakeholder consultation process consists of processes which can help identify the variables considered relevant to the system to be managed considering the cause and effect. Identification of variable weight has to be given to each stakeholder concerned based on priority(Gray, Haggett, & Bell, 2005; Neale et al., 2016). However, Jayasuriya, (2016) posits that lack of early consultation with relevant stakeholders has been found to be a major barrier in PPP projects even in matured PPP markets such as Australia. It is also constituting a component of issues which limits stakeholder’s acceptance of PPPs in developing countries(Solomon Olusola Babatunde, Perera, Zhou, & Udeaja, 2015). The process consultation is important in PPP project delivery mechanism because it provides a platform for interaction by stakeholders from a variety of backgrounds to exchange views. It is, however, a process that requires coordination by experts (Kovács & Pataki, 2016).

Negotiation and Partnerships

Negotiation is a process where stakeholders with differences try to reach an agreement through exploring choices and bargaining (Fells & Sheer, 2019). Negotiation and consultation are unlike but associated processes along the range of greater engagement process. Although consultation is disposed to being open-ended and geared towards trading opinions and information, negotiation is geared towards reaching agreement on a specific issue or set of issues identified within the lifecycle of the project (Sequeira & Warner, 2007). Along the engagement continuum, strategic partnerships can evolve between the private partners in the PPP projects and other stakeholders, such as non-governmental organisations and the governments. As opposed to negotiated agendas or promises being executed primarily by the private partner, organisations should seek strategic partnerships through joint activities and collaborative efforts which can lead to the building of social capital(Sequeira & Warner, 2007). Due to complexity of PPP projects, as a result of differing interest of stakeholders including other macro factors such as globalization and strong competition from business rivals, there is a growing need for organizations to have a committed effort in improving efficiency of negotiation skills of their staff in order to help them structure transactions optimally for the organisation (Chapman, Miles, & Maurer, 2017; Kim, Pinkley, & Fragale, 2005). Negotiation skills are often a vital component to both employee and organizational successes (Caputo, Borbély, & Dabic, 2019; Grennan, 2014). However, it entails soft skills which are not conventionally taught in schools but are acquired through experience or specialised training (M. Jones, Baldi, Phillips, & Waikar, 2017). Negotiation has substantial impact on the procedures and the results of urban development processes. However, poor practices can lead to adversarial relationships between participants (Corken & McGreevy, 2016).

Grievance Management

Grievance management helps organisations to strengthen beneficial and lasting relationships and generate feedback which can propel sustained positive business outcomes. The presence of operational level grievance mechanisms is a vital part of a company's tactic to strategic stakeholder engagement (Boladeras, Wild, & Murphy, 2016). Grievance mechanisms are an integral part of a company’s approach to stakeholder engagement. This should not be a stand-alone process or as a substitute for engagement. Rather, it is one element in a mutually reinforcing set of systems and activities which should be adopted at the strategic and corporate levels (Cleland, Wild, & Boladeras, 2014). Grievance mechanisms permit community stakeholders to raise issues with corporations at the project levels and obtain redress in a timely manner without recourse to external legal procedures. However, the lack of concrete remedies at the project operational level is a common source of discontent and contributes to operational level grievance mechanism failures (Turke, 2018). Many stakeholders, especially users may feel that grievance mechanisms created by organisations are not potent enough to resolve issues either because they do not offer a remedy in its entirety or because they provide a remedy that is inappropriate to the context and their prevailing culture in the society (Kaufman & McDonnell, 2016). In certain circumstances, the lack of awareness of existence of grievance mechanisms in projects has denied local communities the ability to seek redress when approaching an organisation to find solutions to daily issues (Turke, 2018). However, proper stakeholder awareness and entrenchment of the mechanism within existing management systems can ensure internal traction of the mechanisms with business process and thus, improving business outcomes (Atkins, 2015).

Stakeholder Involvement in Project Monitoring

Stakeholder involvement in project monitoring is a social, cultural and political process which allows stakeholder groups to collaborate so as to keep track of change together {Doherty, 2016). It is a way that can help satisfy stakeholder concerns and promote transparency through involvement of project-affected stakeholders in monitoring the implementation of environmental and social agenda and other strategies adopted to extenuate issues within the project lifecycle (Kerzner, 2017). The outcome of such an engagement exercise can stimulate commitment of community stakeholders to the project and on issues relevant to their environment and wellbeing. It also makes them have a sense of empowerment as they are engaged to partake in implementing practical solutions to problems facing their societies . Participatory monitoring also fosters relationships between the project and its stakeholders (Sequeira & Warner, 2007). However, a baseline data needs to exist which details the status quo which will serve as indicators before any project or programme gets initiated, so that a comparative analysis can be made between the present situation and the initial status quo at intervals throughout the project lifecycle (Doherty, Klima, & Hellmann, 2016; Guijt, Arevalo, & Saladores, 1998). However, with so much information necessitated by deferent stakeholders and changing development visions, information requirements get modified consequently and the indicators will also change. Therefore, selecting the appropriate indicators becomes a problematic task. It also disrupts organisational processes and could be expensive to implement (Guijt, 1998).

Reporting to Stakeholders

Stakeholder engagement requires feedback back to affected groups. Reports can be tailored to suit a specific stakeholder group. Sustainability reporting is an example of report that enables organisations to informa broad range of stakeholders on environmental, economic and social governance performance of the project (Peters et al., 2016). Similarly, it serves as an avenue to update stakeholders on the stakeholder engagement process by highlighting issues discussed, who participated and what were the outcome of the exercise. Accordingly, it is becoming fashionable for several international codes and standards for corporate reporting to include requirements for implementing and reporting on stakeholder engagement activities (Sequeira & Warner, 2007). However, language barriers and educational levels could pose a challenge when providing reports. Therefore, the report should identify specific stakeholder groups similarly due to disparity between corporate values and societal values. The organisation, if the report does not capture societal concerns, can lose its legitimacy within the society (Patten, 1992). In general, sustainability reporting is meant to address a wide range of stakeholder groups and becomes an essential aspect of an organisation’s general stakeholder engagement and communications plans. The report should be viewed as complementary to, but not a substitute for, the disclosure of information about specific projects to targeted stakeholder groups or as an alternative to reporting back directly to stakeholders on the outcome of prior consultation (Sequeira & Warner, 2007). However, according to sustainability reporting guidelines 4.0 of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI “The organization should identify its stakeholders and explain how it has responded to their reasonable expectations and interests in the positive or negative light” (GRI, 2013).

Management Functions

The management of the Stakeholder engagement process should be treated as an aspect of other core organisational functions. These should have clear objectives and goals, specialised, devoted staff, agreed deliverables and cost bench marks, including top management obligations and supervision instituted in the organisation (Sequeira & Warner, 2007). For organisation to reap the benefit of its business environment and address challenges which emanate from it, there is need for the firms to blend, forge and realign internal and external (Teece, Pisano, and Shuen, 2007, p. 516). Therefore, dynamic managerial capabilities are key to performance. (Cleland and Ireland, 2007). Management functions need to be integrated through the lifecycle of complex projects such as PPP. However, management of capital projects poses complex challenges, including meeting or exceeding the relevant project targets set by owners or financiers.(J, Gary, & Amy, 1997).

3.8 Barriers of External Stakeholder Engagement

A barrier is a challenge that inhibits two individuals or groups from reaching consensus to collaborate or communicate with each other (Oxford Dictionary, 2020). Stakeholder engagement could be a daunting task and challenging. In contrast to internal stakeholders’ external stakeholders are often difficult to identify to engage, negotiate, compromise or clearly articulate the positions (Hall & Vredenburg, 2005; Payne & Calton, 2017). The following list consists of the barriers which have been identified in literature which can hinder external stakeholder engagement.

3.8.1 Conflicting agendas

Stakeholder engagement could experience conflicting agenda from stakeholder groups. First, some individual's preferences may not be reflected by the group consensus. Second, some individual's preferences may not be heard within the group as power relations could lead to some individuals playing a more dominant role. Third, some individual's may not be able to articulate their preferences in a group setting due to lack of confidence, lack of trust in the group or poor group management by the moderator. Fourth, irrespective of whether or not a group can incorporate and reflect the views and values of all those in the group, the process of deliberation can lead to the construction of new group preferences (Sagoff, 1998). The engagement process provides an open process which encouragess discussion and argumentation, often explicitly involving vested interests. As a result the outcomes are far from certain (Spash, 2007).

3.8.2 Scarce resources

Establishment of engagement process can be very expensive. Therefore, engagement process can be highly constrained by budgetary provisions (Fung, 2015). The process could be costly both from resource utilization and expenses point of view, especially for small and medium scale companies since they are more sensitive to the cost and complexity of the overall impact it will have in their business processes. Meng, Huang, Yang, & Su, (2007) have argued that the common notion that external stakeholder engagement process is expensive, usually deters organisations from adopting the strategy (de Luca, 2014; Vandekerckhove, Leys, & Van Braeckel, 2008). Consequently, lack sustainable resource allocations hinders effective and inclusive stakeholder engagement (Mease, Erickson, & Hicks, 2018)

3.8.3 Power conflicts

Too often there has been an inadequate understanding of the internal dynamics and differences which are so crucial to positive outcomes in engagement exercises. This has beenbecause the issues of complexity of community differences including age, economic, religious, caste, ethnic, and, in particular, gender have not been adequately dealt with (Guijt, 1998) and also, the challenge, of lack of a broad popular articulation and agreement on the role of non-electoral public participation in contemporary democratic and corporate institutions decision processes (Fung, 2015). As a result of power conflict, there could be deliberate exclusion of those who hold views which are expected to clash with those who had been not involved in the engagement process (Beierle & Konisky, 2001)

3.8.4 Resistance to change

The traditional view of the firm is to champion shareholder value creation as opposed to balancing values of both internal and external stakeholders to achieve the strategic objective of the firm (Freeman, 2013). Similarly, in the public domain, bureaucrats are averse to the idea of the need to institute citizen’s participation in governance process in order to advance social justice (Fung, 2015). Moreover, project managers, in their part, usually require efficient and orderly decision-making processes characterized by a high degree of certainty and easily implementable actions. On the other hand, it is difficult when many stakeholders are engaged to predict decision outcomes (Spash, 2007).

3.8.5 Hidden intents

Trust is a multidimensional concept that can be affected by participation on several levels. On the personal scale, interpersonal trust allows various participants to let down their guard and work cooperatively without the constant need to question the motives and monitor the actions of others. On the societal scale, social trust allows people to engage in economic, political, and social transactions without undue concern for monitoring and accountability. At an intermediate scale, trust in government agencies allows citizens to delegate responsibility for the management of complex systems, such as those with environmental impacts (Fung, 2015). The decline in this last form of trust between the public and government agencies has created what some have called a `crisis in confidence' in government's ability to manage risks effectively. It is the focus of our interest (Beierle & Konisky, 2001). However, when participants in the SE process are not clear on any background agreement on the purpose of the engagement , common position on agenda makes it difficult for those championing the engagement process to carry out their duties (Gurtner-Zimmermann, 1996; Lawrence, 2012).

3.8.6 Lack of extensive client participation

PPPs are geared towards the outsourcing of public responsibility to private organisations. Therefore, the lead agency must be seen to be committed in the project delivery process (Gurtner-Zimmermann, 1996). Similarly, some silent yet important stakeholders are overlooked in the engagement process which could lead to exclusion of important stakeholder feedback on management alternatives (O'Neill, 2001). Lack of extensive participation could lead to poor external stakeholder perception of the process and the eventual negative outcome of the engagement process (Grover & Krantzberg, 2012; Landre & Knuth, 1993).

3.8.7 Passive stakeholder involvement

The legitimacy deficits of engagement process are often caused by the systematic exclusion of certain groups of stakeholders in the decision-making process. The champions of the engagement process could restrict participants influence over outcomes in the long run could lead to adversarial tendencies of such group of stakeholders when they realise that there inputs have been rendered trivial in the embankment process (O'Neill, 2001).

3.8.8 Subversive stakeholders

Some group of stakeholders can be subversive to the engagement process especially when participating group have the freedom to control the agenda and activities of the engagement process (Fiorino, 1990; Webler, 1995)(Fiorino, 1990). In certain situations, such groups may refuse to provide necessary information, deliberately limiting the access of other stakeholders to required details or concealing important yet not required information related to the project. This could lead to increasing tension within social relationships through extensive, provoking criticism. Such group of subversive stakeholders can also inject “poisoned” ideas into the project—ideas which initially appear reasonable but would be having serious repercussions later, when it’s too late for corrective actions (Rost & Glass, 2009). These kinds of stakeholders make it difficult for other stakeholders to interact with individuals with different perspectives in the engagement process (Mease et al., 2018).

3.8.9 Low turnout in meetings

Effective stakeholder engagement requires extensive reach and inputs of relevant stakeholders. High quality decisions which reflect public values and are more appealing to a broad range of stakeholders can only be achieved when there is collective input from people who have a stake in the issue through an effective engagement process (Beierle & Konisky, 2001) . However, certain groups of external stakeholders may not participate in the engagement process. This could be attributed to lack of interest in the issues to be addressed or regarding other logistical issues. These groups of external stakeholders are frequently more socioeconomically disadvantaged than the broader population (Fung, 2015).

3.8.10 Lack of leadership

The first step of an effective engagement exercise is that of leadership (Landre & Knuth, 1993). Every important engagement process must have a champion, or set of champions, in government civil society, within the community or other groups that has the creativity to adapt some engagement design to particular needs and circumstances (Fung, 2015). However, when the various stakeholder groups do not have a leader who could be politically savvy to identify and organize allies who could assist to articulate and champion their position, the engagement process could suffer repeatedsetback (Landre & Knuth, 1993).

3.8.11 Lack of technical capacity

One of the key constraints which impede the engagement of stakeholders in most countries, especially in the developing countries, is the technical capacity to carry out the process (Eberlei, 2007; MacLachlan et al., 2017). There is chronic lack of agency capacity to conduct outreach and connect with constituents (Mease et al., 2018). However,capacity also requires the knowledge and institutional structure to make changes happen that lead to effective engagement (Beierle & Konisky, 2001). (Landre and Knuth, 1993). Similarly, the level of knowledge and education of the external stakeholder also affects the engagement process (Mease et al., 2018).

3.8.12 Absence of legal requirements for engagement

Successful public engagement and implementation of national policy guideline which, may be rooted in a wide variety of distinct local policies, integration with routines and standard operating procedures, offers a foundation for urban areas to advance the agenda (Betsill, 2001; Burch, 2010). Mease et al. (2018) have argued that the lack of legal requirement which mandates stakeholder engagement in urban development could, make engagement excursive ineffective.

4.10 Summary of chapter

Stakeholders are those groups who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the firm's objective. Stakeholder engagement (SE) is an organizational competence enclosed within the foundation of an organisation’s resources. It encompasses the practices that companies undertake to actively involve stakeholders in organizational activities. One of the most critical factors that determine the success of a PPP project is offering value for money which stakeholder engagement helps in ensuring. This is because interest of the multiple stakeholders involved in PPP might not align resulting in contradicting purposes. However, in such circumstances, SE has a high level of importance to avoid the conflicts and to achieve the success of projects by balancing stakeholder needs and expectations. Existent literature revealed that the objectives that inform stakeholder engagement in organisations could differ and can be used to characterise their practices. Stakeholders could be engaged at different degrees. There are three main ladders of engagement. The starting point is level zero i.e. stakeholder engagement which indicates the absence of stakeholder participation. The second ladder signifies low level of stakeholder participation (awareness, information and consultation) and the third ladder indicates high stakeholder participation (discussion, co-design and co-decision making). Participation of external stakeholders, especially at the community level, is an important aspect of urban development process that seeks to establish a set of activities which serve a medium of functional communication between the project initiator and the community. However, most urban projects rarely engage the community as project stakeholders, for those that attempt to engage them, it is mostly cosmetic which leads to public resistance or protest against the project. Different tools and techniques exist for stakeholder engagement; hence, it is best that multiple types are used. However, SE could be a challenging and cumbersome process, due to a variety of factors which relate to costs, poor skill sets, absence of legal requirements for engagement in urban development and proper management processes to be effective. . The following aspect of the thesis will attempt to develop a theoretical framework that can facilitate identification of key factors which affect SE in PPP urban infrastructure projects in Nigeria.

CHAPTER 4: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

4.1 Introduction

The reviewed studies indicated that collaborative infrastructure provision such as PPP is a key strategy for bridging infrastructure deficit in Nigeria. However, it is essential that the various stakeholders, especially external stakeholders in urban infrastructure provisioning projects, to engage with each other for project success to be realised. However, existing studies have not made a deep analysis of external engagement related issues in urban infrastructure PPP projects especially in the context of Nigeria. Chapter 4 intends to form a theoretical framework that can examine engagement related phenomena through the lenses of multiple theories.

4.2 Defining Theories and Frameworks in The Context of The Research

The clarification and visualising of a phenomena lie in the realm of theories and models (Sabatier, 2007). On the contrary frameworks constrain research and steer the curiosity of researcher to important aspects of the social and physical landscape. Frameworks serve as the basis for a research by specifying groups of variables and universal relationships among them. Frameworks shapes enquiry but cannot independently clarify or prophesise actions and results but rather require theories to establish a phenomenon (Ostrom, 1990, 2000; Ostrom, Gardner, Walker, Walker, & Walker, 1994). This affirms that theories and framework work collectively to explain a phenomenon such as stakeholder engagement in PPP urban infrastructure projects. In this regard, the following part of the thesis will identify and critically evaluate relevant theories which can help in creating a framework that can clearly explain stakeholder engagement issues in PPP projects in Nigeria.

4.3 Rationale for adopting a multi-disciplinary approach

The research adopts the stakeholder theory as its theoretical point of departure. The theory is concerned with the nature of the relationships between business and the society in terms of both processes and outcomes (T. M. Jones & Wicks, 1999). Stakeholder theory is not a single theory per se but an amalgamation of eclectic narratives (Gilbert & Rasche, 2008; Hill & Jones, 1992; Rowley, 1997) which has emerged from, and is subject to, multiple interpretations and applications from business ethics and corporate social responsibility to strategic management, corporate governance and finance.(Miles, 2017). It has also been applied in the field of urban affairs (Deloitte, 2016; M. T. Friedman & Mason, 2004). This research adopts the instrumental approach because it attempts to develop a framework which can improve stakeholder engagement in PPP urban infrastructure projects. As Donaldson and Preston (1995) have asserted that instrumental approach to stakeholder theory proffers solutions which could improve corporate performance. However, PPPs are business relationships between public and private organisations on specific contractual terms towards a project that supports achieving goals of both sectors to provide public value (Fewings, Rwelamila, & Henjewele, 2019). This brings organisations to be institutionally located in a boundary zone, displaying both public and private attributes (Collin, 1998). Reactions to stakeholder issues in private entities are driven by the traditional view that the cardinal purpose of its existence is for economic benefit. On the other hand, the reaction to stakeholder issues in government entities is driven by the cardinal objective of government to meet the aspiration of its people as a whole, not as a fractioned set of stakeholder interests. As Rabaiah and Vandijck (2007) asserts the community is central to their overall strategic existence public and private organisations whether for political, social or economic reasons see table below:

Therefore, responses to stakeholder issues in PPP projects cannot be made within the established economic framework and the traditional view of the firm where the relationship between business and society is driven by the bottom-line objective of the corporation which is economic in nature. This value system can only be countered by a process such as public policy which represents the wishes of society as a whole, not a fractioned set of stakeholder interests that management of an organisation can balance off against each other (Buchholz & Rosenthal, 2004). In order to explain the stakeholder engagement phenomenon in PPP projects in Nigeria, three theories have been adopted (see table below). First, the objectives of Government are driven by established laws and regulations which are guided by Public Policy Theory (Buchholz & Rosenthal, 2004). Therefore, to identify the factors which foster relationships between government and societies the public policy is adopted. Second, for governments to achieve its objectives for infrastructure and service provisioning through PPP to its citizens, the government outsources its services to a private agent to achieve a common goal (Grimsey & Lewis, 2007). This is driven by the Agency Theory (Eisenhardt, 1989).Therefore, to identify the factors within the agency relationship which (governments and private organisations) can influence stakeholder engagement in Nigeria PPP and societies, the public policy is adopted Similarly organisation’s conduct while achieving its organisational objectives are driven by its corporate governance practices which seek to align its values to community stakeholders (Ali, Danish, & Asrar‐ul‐Haq, 2020). This is driven by Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) theory (Carroll, 2008). Hence, the CSR theory will be adopted to guide the identification of factors which could influence community and corporate relationships.

4.4 Agency Theory

The application of agency theory in PPP projects rests on the fundamental aspects of stakeholder management, because both a principal and an agent in any project environment belong to a broader group of project stakeholders (Rwelamila, Fewings, & Henjewele, 2014). Shankman (1999) revealed that “ Stakeholder Theory is in fact the necessary outcome of agency theory and is thus a more appropriate way to conceptualize theories of the firm” and that “ Agency Theory, when properly modified, is at best, a narrow form of stakeholder theory”. The concept of Agency means one party, a principal, hires another party, an agent, to perform tasks desired by the principal. which involves the delegation of some decision-making authority to the agent (Michael C Jensen & Smith, 2000). Rwelamila et al. (2014) have asserted that the people/ community are the true principals in urban infrastructure project see figure however protests are a common phenomenon around PPP projects which are attributed to issues relevant to agency implementation and engagement. Firstly, principal and agent conflict. Secondly, lack of ability to verify the actions or activities of the agent by the principal (information asymmetry). Thirdly, risk sharing related issues (Eisenhardt, 1989). In PPP urban infrastructure project delivery, the principal may face informational disadvantages at either extent (i.e., ‘adverse selection,’ ‘hidden information’), that is, in the contracting stage of the relationship which could lead to an agent This gives rise to the so-called “hidden characteristics” problem (Linder & Foss, 2013), or ex-post (‘moral hazard,’ ‘hidden action’) when the agent may carry out the delegated task in a manner or with an intensity diverging from what would maximize the principal's payoffs (Linder and Foss, 2015) and overlapping of goals, arising from conflicting self-interests of the agents and the principals (Cunliffe and Luhman, 2012).

There exist two lenses of agency theory namely the behavioural and positive agency theory. The behavioural perspective argues that the interests of principal and their agents may tally with the appropriate financial stimulation as reward for their work. The key factors which underpin behavioural agency theory are as the following:

(a) Prevention of depletion of resources and reference requirement.

(b) Choices on unforeseen or unavoidable events

(c) Time discounting

(d) Detesting fairness and discrimination (Camerer, Loewenstein, & Rabin, 2004). Further arguments on the behavioural perspective of Agency theory posit that intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are essential (Pratt, Zeckhauser and Arrow, 1985). And that management are generally not inclined to outcome of engagement which may be able to cause loss to organisation and yet management will not tolerate liabilities of issues that can impede business (Gan, Suresh and Yan, 2004). This means that agents will be loss averse, resulting in an increase in their appetite to take short-term risk. it is also the view of some authors that agents discount time according to a hyperbolic discount function, rather than exponentially, as is the case with financial discounting (Grüne-Yanoff, 2015; Strulik et al., 2016). This will result to preferences for small rewards that occur sooner over larger, later ones.

From the behavioural perspective of Agency theory, The contribution of Bao and Wu, (2017) to this argument is relevant to an agent’s perceptions of equitable compensation in the behavioural lens, He argues that proper compensation of agents for their efforts by agents can lead to improved productivity by the agents (Bao & Wu, 2017). However, Pepper and Gore, (2015) asserts that poor motivation and adversarial relationship between agents and the principal can lead to drop in productivity. The positive lens of Agency theory argues that a corporation provides an environment where network of intricate set of agreements exist. They can clearly be spelt out or assumed between several groups or persons, and that agency costs are caused as a consequence of the diverse wants and promises made between principal and agent (Alchian and Demsetz, 1972; Jensen and Meckling, 1976). A corporation is a legal entity that is independent usually a group of people or a company authorized to act as a single entity to carry out a business or to govern. it encompasses all incorporated entities both government and private including partnerships (The British Academy, 2018). Agency theory focuses on the costs of the possible lack of convergence of interest between principals and agents, referred to as “agency costs. This means the total expenses incurred in the transaction between the agent and the principal which includes costs of arranging, connecting and tracking contracts by the agent (Michael C. Jensen, 2002). Loss can be reduced if proper reward system is incorporated in agreements based on performance of the agent, this is in line with Positive agency theory. Outcome based performance fosters agents to align goals with principal and information asymmetry ensures that the principal can have the agent to behave in manner that suits him (Eisenhardt, 1989a) Gardiner (2005) has argued that community are the key principals in a PPP arrangement see figure 1. However, they are not managed as full-fledged PPP stakeholders which creates a delegation complexity. He also stated that government/public organisational goals are dynamic and intersect with project goals. This situation sometimes necessitates changes to the original project goals by government (emergence of a macro level problem of mission creep) without proper consultation with key principals (community/public) (C1) in figure. The CI arrangement comes with challenges from the delegation side, in the sense that the principals are not given an appropriate opportunity to properly delegate or participate individually. Gardiner (2005) asserts that such situations that imped holistic engagement of the true principals (community) as stakeholders in a PPP projects gives rise to project challenges associated with relationship management a phenomenon he termed as a delegation complexity. Indeed this complexity can impact on the principal focus of Agency theory which is achieving common goals between the principal and agent, through either monitoring or bonding (Eisenhardt, 1989). Grimsey and Lewis (2007) and Iossa and Martimort (2015)assert that goal realisation is the principal purpose of private financing as a governance tool in urban development, through developer investment in superior infrastructure assets. Numerous authors have also emphasised that having a common goal among public and private partners in PPP project is a critical success factor PPP projects (Chan, Lam, Chan, Cheung, & Ke, 2010; Cheung, Chan, & Kajewski, 2012; Ismail, 2013). To this end, it has become pertinent to develop strategies that can help negate impediments to project goal realisation. Though some scholars have identified that the key issues that negate goal realisation are inclined to corporate management which could be tackled through embedment of governance mechanisms and improved governance capability (Jiajia Liu & Tylecote, 2009; Quelin, Cabral, Lazzarini, & Kivleniece, 2019; Xiong, Chen, Wang, & Zhu, 2019). Following this argument Verbeeten (2008) presented key elements of agency theory that can lead to goal realisation to include: setting clear and measurable goals, decentralization of governance process, establishment of performance measurement system, provision of incentives to reward performance, reduced task complexity and characteristics of workforce see figure bellow

4.5 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

Bowen (1999) has reported that Bowen (1953) Was the original proponent of theory of corporate social responsibility (CSR). He asserts that organisations should not solely be driven by economic benefits and rather be vigilant on the way they behave in the society. Following his work, numerous scholars began to give different connotations and scopes of corporate social responsibility from different angles. several people basically associate it with a benevolent contribution; while others ardently embrace it as synonymous to ‘legitimacy, a couple others perceive it as a kind of fiduciary responsibility that mandates higher benchmarks of conduct on the businessmen than on citizens at large(Carroll, 1999). The concept of CSR is not only as a response to higher social expectations but also as a strategy that can help mitigate risks. It also serves as means of meeting sustainable development goals objectives (Rendtorff, 2019; Stawicka, 2017). Communities often mount pressure on organisations such as unrest and litigations which may appear unfair but it has impacted positively in making them aware of their expectations and rise up to them thus creating a new charter in in strategic decisions of organisations through improved stakeholder engagement and business priorities (Dawkins & Lewis, 2003). Traditionally, the factors which matter the most to consumers when forming an opinion of a company are product quality, value for money and financial performance. Now, across a worldwide sample of the public, the most commonly mentioned factors relate to corporate responsibility (e.g. treatment of employees, community involvement, ethical and environmental issues) (R. E. Freeman & Dmytriyev, 2017). Darigan and Post (2009) adds that this shift in organisational behaviour is synonymous to the concept Corporate citizenship which creates important social capital that helps communities adjust to the harsh realities of global change and enables business to interact with government and non-profit organisations for the purpose of assisting people and building constructive community relationships (Darigan & James, 2009). CSR and Corporate Citizenship intersect (Brammer et al. 2012). Corporate citizenship creates important social capital that helps communities adjust to the harsh realities of global change and enables business to interact with government and non-profit organisations for the purpose of assisting people and building constructive community relationships (Darigan & James, 2009).Though people, as citizens stand in some sovereign relationship to the government and the direction of the activity of governing or ‘governance’, however, for corporations to be recognized as acting in citizenly ways they participate in debates, sharing in decision-making and sharing the responsibilities of governing. However, they are not bearers of the political rights that are characteristically seen as fundamental to liberal citizenship. Corporate Citizenship demands relationship building with stakeholders and by responsibly using power and resources at the disposal of organisations which is usually operationalised through stakeholder engagement (Waddock,2011). A lot of organisations are beginning to shift from purely economic agenda to incorporating social and environmental agendas which could be aligned with the triple bottom line of sustainable development. The central purpose CSR is to resolve issues and foster social relations by keying in to community values (Carroll, 2015). Moreover, if organisations do not sufficiently respond to the pressures of society, it could translate to increased business cost and drop in customer patronage, eventually leading to bad corporate image, company alienation from the rest of society, reduced reputation and declining shareholder value (John, 2001).

Carroll (2016) is convinced that ‘‘Corporate citizenship is synonymous to CSR and is akin to a fresh notion of the role of business in society and subject to one's perspective of it; he further asserts that the notion commonly intersects with other philosophies on the responsibilities of for-profit companies in the community. He presents a Pyramid of CSR see figure based on his earlier work that shows the interrelationships of economic, legal ethical and philanthropic responsibilities of organisations to society while carrying out their business activities. The CSR pyramid emphasise that organisations must pursue all responsibilities simultaneously. Though in his earlier work Carroll (1979) conceptualizes that the four types of responsibilities can have relative value or weights differs based on a survey of two hundred and forty-one executives surveyed. He allotted a ratting for each component of responsibly i.e. economic = 3.5; legal = 2.54; ethical = 2.22; and discretionary/philanthropic = 1.30 see figure 1. His findings were later validated by (Aupperle et al. 1985).

4.6 Public Policy Theory

Stakeholder theory is subset of public policy issue which may differ from one area to another due to the impact of public policy difference (Buchholz & Rosenthal, 2004) As stated by Lowi', "policies determine governance” which may be peculiar to particular to jurisdiction. He established in a series of public policy articles which typified public policy to comprise of "regulatory," "distributive," "redistributive," (Lowi, 1964) and "constituency" policies in his later work (Lowi, 1972) . He also added that there are differences between policy types which produce different outcomes when analysing a phenomenon and thus it is best a research should focus on a single policy type among the earlier mentioned four. However, since Lowi’s earlier works, various frameworks have emerged that focused past the particularities of policy developments that provided a guide to researchers and practitioners on how to understand the complicated set of socio-political procedures that generate policies as well as its outputs and consequences (Adler & Seligman, 2016; Althaus, Bridgman, & Davis, 2013; Motta, 2004).There have also been attempts to scrutinise the link between public opinion and policy change, and public opinion and policy outcomes. More recently researchers have remained interested in the subject matter. Their findings have revealed that public opinion a significant impact on a public policy especially on issues that are very prominent and that tracing convergence between policy opinions and policy outcomes can provide a useful insight into policy development(Bull, Gordon, Watson, & Maron, 2016; Drezner, 2001; Stone, 2017; Wlezien, 2017).

Burns and Carson (2009) view a policy paradigm as a composite group of presupposition, ideologies and frameworks that take in to account the relationship between concepts, organisations and organised stakeholders involved in political and bureaucratic processes. They further stressed the need for a policy paradigm to outline challenges and where they emanate. Additionally, such issues must be attended to by organisations concerned. Similarly, the policy paradigm must offer appropriate accessible methods and capital to solve the issues. The policy paradigm should also state the key stakeholders (specifying their roles in solving the issues). Additionally, Burns and Carson (2009) said that a policy paradigm generally recognises agents with unique competence (well-informed, convincing specialists) to describe and resolve the issues.

4.7 Implications of Theories

All the three theories adopted in this research are of strategic relevance to the operation to either government or private organisations in carrying out their affairs. However, they have not been collectively explicitly adapted to evaluate and offer solutions that can ensure effective engagement of public stakeholders in PPP projects. The government agencies and private organisations always perceive external stakeholders as less important stakeholders to be engaged while taking decisions within the life cycle of urban infrastructure projects which often results in project challenges (Bal, Bryde, Fearon, & Ochieng, 2013). The provision of urban Infrastructure through PPP are meant to reverse deep poverty, huge infrastructure backlogs, weak capacity and a scarcity of finance, however, in African cities such as Nigeria, efforts by multinational organisations and private organisations to partner with government have been tipped towards a particular stakeholder segment that can afford the service without due consideration on the impact of the project on external stakeholders (Pieterse, Parnell, & Haysom, 2018).This has resulted in public resentment on PPP projects resulting in project failures. However, despite these hiccups, the present challenge posed by the phenomenon of urbanisation which has intensely increased urban infrastructure need and increased poverty levels in Nigeria urgently calls for models of inclusive urban infrastructure and service delivery which PPP offers (Turok, 2016). However, the engagement process could be challenging especially due the difference of institutional logics of both private and government entities and the dynamics of external stakeholder needs in PPP projects. This necessitates identification of appropriate governance mechanisms which could assist to curtail the challenges of stakeholder engagement in PPP urban infrastructure projects in Nigeria as a way to maximize and diffuse the socio-economic and environmental benefits of PPP projects to the various external stakeholder groups (African Development Bank, 2013; Bank, 2013; Ingram & Brandt, 2013; Tasan-Kok, Atkinson, & Refinetti Martins, 2019). The following aspect of the research will elaborate on governance mechanisms.

4.8 Governance Mechanisms

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) defines governance mechanisms as a control function and a relationship between the managers and the stakeholders of an organization (Oecd, 2011). However, the concept of Governmentality also draws attention mechanism as policies or tactics employed by the state as it represents and intervenes in the specific domains it seeks to govern (Dean, 2017; Mayes, 2020). It lays more emphasis on the specific policy or programmes materialised in distinction with traditional emphasis on abstract principles of rule (MacKinnon, 2000). Such as specific government programmes that are often consistent with underlying political logics (Abdullah & Khadaroo, 2017). Governance in PPP refers to the rules that delineates who is responsible to take decisions, accomplish tasks and be held liable for the conduct of a PPP, and in what manner the conduct should be exercised, such as through engagement with interested stakeholders, transparency in administrative process etc (Andrews, Ferry, Skelcher, & Wegorowski, 2019; Skelcher, 2010) Governance mechanisms are commonly adopted to reduce the risk of hazards and improve relationships with stakeholders through formal control processes (Formentini & Taticchi, 2016; Oecd, 2011; Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003; Wilding, Wagner, Gimenez, & Tachizawa, 2012; Williamson, 1991) such as through process compliance or “behaviour control” (Epstein & Buhovac, 2014; Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003; Porter, 2011). (Tusalem, 2015) asserts that governance mechanism could entail regulation quality, political stability, rule of law, bureaucratic effectiveness, and corruption control. While Amavilah (2015) argues that governance mechanisms could be grouped into political governance economic governance and institutional governance. This also supports the view of Kaufmann, Kraay, and Mastruzzi (2011) which has been the most widely employed in the literature. However, Skelcher (2010) argues that the aspect of governance that concerns PPP are Legal governance, Regulatory governance, Democratic governance, Corporate governance. However, following the theoretical framework, this study adopts aspects of the argument of Amavilah (2015), Kaufmann et al. (2011) and Skelcher (2010). However, following the theories adopted and the relevance of infrastructure to the economic sustainability of urban areas, the study shall argue that Political governance; Regulatory governance, Corporate governance and Economic governance are the key aspects of governance which affect stakeholders in PPP urban infrastructure projects

4.8.1 Political governance

The principal components of political governance is voice & accountability (Asongu & Odhiambo, 2019)by which those in authority are selected and replaced. Good governance arises when political institutions preserve the authority of a sovereign state while gathering together and effectively representing whatever ideas, interests and identities are existent in a society (Hodge, Greve, & Boardman, 2010) Historically, bureaucracies have been considered part of a legitimate democratic order because they are subject to control by a legislature that is itself accountable to the electorate (Bevir, 2006). With the aid of political institutions and laws that will uphold the authority of a government while assembling views, personalities and interests of citizens (Hodge et al., 2010). However with the emergence of markets and networks such as PPP replacing bureaucracies, there is need to ensure that the latter instrument of governance remain appropriately democratic; perhaps there is need to evolve existing norms or usher in new concepts or mechanisms of democracy that is better suited to contemporary governance(Bevir, 2006). More fundamentally, the problem of classification comes into play. PPPs have posed a great deal of categorisation definition issues; they are also often midwifed by executive decisions rather than legislative decisions and thus includes a judgment about technically appropriate means rather than public policy end (Ferlie, Lynn, & Pollitt, 2009; Guttman, 2003). To this end PPP projects have been perceived by politicians as too private thus lacks transparency associated with traditionally procured infrastructure. Consequently, this has triggered arguments from both empirical and normative standpoints on what is, and what should be the degree and nature of constitutional oversight required for PPPs (Bovaird, 2004; Ferlie et al., 2009). Similarly, clarity and certainty of regulations are increasingly required by corporation and citizens from government (Oecd, 2011).The effectiveness of political governance measured with two main indicators, political stability/no violence and voice and accountability (Asongu & Odhiambo, 2019; Kaufmann et al., 2011).

4.8.2 Regulatory governance

The principal basis for regulatory governance system is establishment of rules that joins the public and private entity in the partnership. It covers the legal and contractual commitments on parties, explicitly detailing how they will be enforced. It mainly including rights, allocation, risk sharing, procurement method and financing mechanism and other obligations (Bao, Tang, & Tian, 2019; Casady, Eriksson, Levitt, & Scott, 2020; Wang, Liu, & Li, 2019). The theoretical study of PPP has been stimulated by the central proposition of strategic alignment of public and private organisations, through bonding of resources to achieve a common goal(Grimsey & Lewis, 2007; Koppenjan, Klijn, Warsen, & Nederhand, 2019). However, this brings about potential conflicts which are sometimes offset by assigning responsibilities and incentives to the partner that is best suited to deal with risk at the inception of the contract(Akintoye & Kumaraswamy, 2016; Francesconi & Muthoo, 2006). However, non-contractual approach to public service is vulnerable to decline as a result of private incentives for economic gain. Hence, apart from contractual mechanisms which can provide control and enforcement by public entities , relational mechanisms which are based on trust and positive expectations of collaboration or social sanctions, are required (Henisz, Levitt, & Scott, 2012). A number of research have revealed the importance creating a clear legal framework backed by supporting national laws as a basis is for successful PPP project initiation and implementation (Y. Ahmed & I. A. B. Sipan, 2019; Chan et al., 2010; Li, Akintoye, Edwards, & Hardcastle, 2005). However, due the critical differences in the political, social and economic context of countries, it will be unfruitful to copy legal and organisational solutions from another country's experience. Rather these mechanisms must be adapted to the prevailing countries circumstances. regulatory and legal governance primary role is to provide a structure and control for government to ensure its organisations and officials deliver the needed services to its citizenry without discrimination of class or creed. It also enshrines accountability, diligence of relationship of its officers with its citizens while delivering service (CIPFA & IFAC, 2013). Regulatory governance are measured with two key indicators institutional governance / rule of law and corruption control (Asongu & Odhiambo, 2019; Kaufmann et al., 2011)

4.8.3 Corporate governance

corporate governance is a private organisation’s effort to create an equilibrium between the financial and social goals of the organisation and the distinct and shared goals of the company’s stakeholders (Standard & Poor's, 2002). However, the primary objective of corporate governance in private companies is to ensure profitability of investments (Du Plessis, Hargovan, & Harris, 2018; Shleifer & Vishny, 1997). Essentially, corporate governance concerns itself with ensuring that the enterprise is managed in a manner that does not put the future of the business and investor,s funds at undue risk. A large body of research provides evidence that firm-level corporate governance (CG) matters for firm value and performance(Black, De Carvalho, Khanna, Kim, & Yurtoglu, 2019) Corporate governance mechanisms on firm performance in emerging market setting weak and fluid (Ciftci, Tatoglu, Wood, Demirbag, & Zaim, 2019). Khanna and Palepu (2011) argue that weak corporate governance standards are indicative of corporate “voids” in emerging economies. Moreover, in respect to PPPs not much is known on the internal workings of or organisations on PPP as regard to corporate governance. However, Johnston and Gudergan (2007) and Rubin and Stankiewicz (2001) indicate that the corporate governance of PPP projects could be challenging due to combination of two different organisational managerial systems. However argues that the vast majority of transactions between firms and the public are driven by the two key important attributes of market capitalism trust and reputation (Dixit, 2009)

4.8.4 Economic governance

It is the structure and operation of the legal and social institutions that support economic activity and economic transactions by protecting property rights, enforcing contract, and taking collective action to provide physical and organizational infrastructure (Asongu & Odhiambo, 2019). Through formulation and implementation of policies that deliver public goods and services (Kaufmann, Kraay, & Mastruzzi, 2010). By protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, and taking collective action to provide physical and organizational infrastructure”(Dixit, 2009). Economic governance is fundamental to the functioning of markets, economic activity and transactions. However, Dixit (2003) asserts that the absence of economic mechanisms could deter some stakeholders in the economic sphere to partake in a transaction due to perception of the likelihood of suffering loss or been cheated. Review of extant literature has indicated challenges relevant to stakeholder resistance and negative perception of the nation of PPP infrastructure development in Nigeria see section 2.6.2. PPP transactions have suffered a lot of sceptics about. Thus provision of governance mechanism could impact PPP project success by ensuring that projects offer opportunities to all stakeholders that will be impacted by the project. Storper and Salais (1997) have argued that economic governance is state-driven policy that can influence non-state and noneconomic factors such as subnational social, cultural, and institutional forms. (Kaufmann et al., 2010). It is also measured with two indicators: regulation quality and government effectiveness (Kaufmann et al., 2010)

4.9 Conceptual Framework

This sub chapter discusses the conceptual framework. A conceptual framework is an analytical tool that merges a variety conceptual distinctions and organize ideas in order to give an overall picture of an idea or concept in practice (Shields & Rangarajan, 2013). The conceptual approach towards the involvement of external stakeholders is geared towards minimising unnecessary agitation that might arise from citizens. Through the use of extent literature and theory, a conceptual framework that Illustrates the interrelationships of the key issues that will impact cooperation between private and public organisations and the general community that have a stake in a PPP urban infrastructure project. The framework is shown in figure and explained bellow.

4.9.1 Governance Mechanisms in the context of the conceptual framework

The governance mechanisms have been discussed in section 4.8 and summarised in table. It is assumed that the governance mechanisms can reduce the challenges of engagement and improve attainment of CSF of Stakeholder engagement. The research shall identify stakeholder perceptions of the most important governance mechanisms that must be put in place to foster engagement.

4.9.2 Barriers of stakeholder engagement in the context of the conceptual framework

The Barriers to stakeholder engagement as elaborated in section 3.8 are summarised in the table below. The barriers can affect effective engagement of stakeholders in urban infrastructure projects. However, by establishing effective governance mechanisms, the key challenges can be overcome. The research will investigate the major challenges of SE from the perspectives of stakeholders and identify the key governance mechanisms which can overcome the barriers.

4.9.3 Critical Success factors Of Engagement conceptual framework

critical success factors (CSF) are important functions and organisation must properly carry out in order for its business or aspect of work to be successful (Rockart & Bullen, 1986). The identification of key factors for construction project success enables appropriate allocation of limited resources(Chua, Kog, & Loh, 1999; Tsoy & Staples, 2020). Key stakeholders involved in PPP urban infrastructure project will be asked their perceptions of the CSF of SE. Similarly, they will be asked their onion of the key governance mechanisms that can enhance the attainment of the factor. The Key components of stakeholder engagement as elaborated in section 3.7 and summarised in table below have been adopted as CSF of SE in PPP infrastructure projects.

4.9.4 Effective engagement of the conceptual framework

The key principles of effective engagement have been detailed in 3.5. and summarised in the table below. In the context of this research it is assumed that the various components in the framework in figure will influence the effective engagement of stakeholders which in the context of this research represents the principles of engagement disused in the previous section of the research.

Principles of Effective Engagement

Materiality

Responsiveness

Impact

Inclusivity

4.9.5 Continuum of Stakeholder engagement Strategies in the context of the conceptual framework

The continuum of stakeholder engagement strategy represents the various tools and techniques of engagement within the project lifecycle. The research will identify stakeholder preferences on what they consider as an effective strategy for engagement. In section 3.6.2 the various strategies and tools for engagement have been elaborated however a summary is shown in the table below:

4.10 Summary of Chapter

PPPs are business relationships between public and private organisations on specific contractual terms towards a project that supports achieving goals of both sectors to provide public value. This brings organisations to be institutionally located in a boundary zone, displaying both public and private attributes. Reaction to stakeholder issues in private entities is driven by the traditional view that the cardinal purpose of its existence is for economic benefit. On the other the reaction to stakeholder issues in government entities is driven by the cardinal objective of government to meet the aspiration of its people as whole, not a fractioned set of stakeholder interests. However, the community is central to their overall strategic existence public and private organisations whether for political, social or economic reasons. PPP bring private sector organisations to a boundary between public and private sector organisational goals. Therefor the approach to stakeholder engagement in traditional private sector settings may not be adequate in PPP Three theories namely agency theory, public policy and corporate governance theory were adopted for the research. Agency theory indicates that PPP arrangement comes with challenges from the delegation side, especially when there is lack of convergence of goals between principals and agents. Such situations also imply holistic engagement of external stakeholders especially the true principals (community) which gives rise to project challenges associated with relationship management (delegation complexity). However, instituting outcome-based performance measures can foster alignment of goals between principal and agent. Similarly, it will ensure information asymmetry so that the principal can have the agent behave in manner suitable to the principal. On the other hand, the theory of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) asserts that organisations should not solely be driven by economic benefits, rather be vigilant on the way they behave in the society. Traditionally, the factors which mattered most to consumers when forming an opinion of a company were product quality, value for money and financial performance. However, with changing times, organizations must learn to leverage resources at their disposal to create important social capital which could assist communities adjust to the harsh realities of global change and enables business to interact with the government and non-profit organisations for the purpose of assisting people and building constructive community relationships. On the contrary, if organisations fail to adequately respond to the demands of society, it could lead to increased business cost and drop in customer patronage eventually leading to bad corporate image, company alienation from the rest of society, reduced reputation and declining shareholder value. Public Policy Theory establishes that a series of public policy types determine different outcomes in societies. Public policy are a combination of various presupposition, ideologies and frameworks which take into account the relationship between concepts, organisations and organised stakeholders involved in political and bureaucratic processes such as regulatory," "distributive," "redistributive and “constituency" policies. However, such policies must offer appropriate accessible methods and capital to solve societal issues. The three theories, adopted for this research namely, Agency Theory, Corporate Governance and Public Policy Theory have not been collectively explicitly adapted to evaluate and offer solutions which can ensure effective engagement of public stakeholders in PPP projects. However, the theories collectively show the importance of external stakeholder engagement in decision making processes in organisations. The government agencies and private organisations always perceive external stakeholders as less important stakeholders to be engaged while taking decisions within the life cycle of PPP urban infrastructure projects which often occurs in projects in Nigeria. Hence, the establishment of governance mechanisms to cut across these three theories is essential for effective engagement to be achieved in PPP urban infrastructure projects in Nigeria. Governance mechanisms are commonly adopted to reduce the risk of hazards and improve relationships with stakeholders through formal control processes. The aspects of governance which concern PPP are as the following;

1: Regulatory governance which deals with rules which join the public and private entity in the partnership

2: Political governance which deals with voice & accountability

3: Corporate governance which deals with creating an equilibrium between the financial and social goals of the organisation and the distinct and shared goals of the company’s stakeholders.

4: Economic governance which provides a structure and functioning of the legal and social institutions that support economic activity and economic transactions. Challenges, critical success factors and stakeholder engagement strategies were aligned through a conceptual framework to guide the research to identify the key governance mechanisms which can ensure effective external stakeholder engagement in PPP urban infrastructure projects in Nigeria.

References

Abdullah, A., & Khadaroo, I. (2017). The governmentality and accountability of UK national museums and art galleries. Paper presented at the Accounting Forum.

Abdulsalam, M. M. (2014). Public private partnership policy in Nigeria's infrastructure development landscape: a critical appraisal of the infrastructure Concession Regulatory Act. University of Pretoria,

Abubakar, I. R., & Doan, P. L. (2017). Building new capital cities in Africa: Lessons for new satellite towns in developing countries. African Studies, 76(4), 546-565.

Adebayo, F. A., & Ayegbusi, E. T. (2017). Public-Private Partnership as Mechanism for Employment Creation in Nigeria. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(9), 178-185.

Adebiyi, J. O., Sanni, G. A., & Oyetunji, A. K. (2019). Assessment of political risk factors influencing the corporate performance of multinationals construction companies in northeastern Nigeria. Global Journal of Business, Economics and Management: Current Issues, 9(2), 63-75.

Adeniyi, O., Aje, I., & Ogunsemi, D. (2011). Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats for public-private partners in infrastructure delivery in Nigeria. Journal of Construction Project Management and Innovation, 1(2), 130-154.

Adler, A., & Seligman, M. E. (2016). Using wellbeing for public policy: Theory, measurement, and recommendations. International journal of wellbeing, 6(1).

Afolabi, E. Q. (2011). Examining Public Private Partnership in Nigeria: Potentials and Challenges. Unpublished project presented to the Faculty of Law, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria.

Agénor, P.-R. (2010). A theory of infrastructure-led development. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 34(5), 932-950.

Ahmed, Y., & Sipan, I. (2019). PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP AS A DETERMINANT FACTORS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN ABUJA NIGERIA. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing & Spatial Information Sciences.

Ahmed, Y., & Sipan, I. A. B. (2019). Critical Success Factors of Public Private Partnership for Affordable Housing in Nigeria. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering. ISSN, 2277-3878.

Ali, H. Y., Danish, R. Q., & Asrar‐ul‐Haq, M. (2020). How corporate social responsibility boosts firm financial performance: The mediating role of corporate image and customer satisfaction. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(1), 166-177.

Andriof, J., & Waddock, S. (2017). Unfolding stakeholder engagement. In Unfolding stakeholder thinking (pp. 19-42): Routledge.

Babatunde, S. O., Opawole, A., & Akinsiku, O. E. (2012). Critical success factors in public‐private partnership (PPP) on infrastructure delivery in Nigeria. Journal of Facilities Management.

Babatunde, S. O., Perera, S., Udeaja, C., & Zhou, L. (2014). Challenges of implementing infrastructure megaprojects through public-private partnerships in Nigeria: a case study of road infrastructure. International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction, 3(2), 142-154.

Beierle, T. C., & Konisky, D. M. (2001). What are we gaining from stakeholder involvement? Observations from environmental planning in the Great Lakes. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19(4), 515-527.

Boladeras, S., Wild, E., & Murphy, H. (2016). Oil And Gas Industry Learning Project On Community Grievance Mechanisms. Paper presented at the SPE International Conference and Exhibition on Health, Safety, Security, Environment, and Social Responsibility.

Burch, S. (2010). Transforming barriers into enablers of action on climate change: Insights from three municipal case studies in British Columbia, Canada. Global Environmental Change, 20(2), 287-297.

Carroll, A. B. (2008). A history of corporate social responsibility: Concepts and practices. The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility, 19-46.

Casady, C. B., & Geddes, R. R. (2019). Private participation in US infrastructure: the role of regional PPP units. In Public–Private Partnerships for Infrastructure Development: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Ciftci, I., Tatoglu, E., Wood, G., Demirbag, M., & Zaim, S. (2019). Corporate governance and firm performance in emerging markets: Evidence from Turkey. International Business Review, 28(1), 90-103.

Concepción, E. D., Moretti, M., Altermatt, F., Nobis, M. P., & Obrist, M. K. (2015). Impacts of urbanisation on biodiversity: the role of species mobility, degree of specialisation and spatial scale. Oikos, 124(12), 1571-1582.

Dawkins, J., & Lewis, S. (2003). CSR in stakeholde expectations: And their implication for company strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2-3), 185-193.

Doherty, M., Klima, K., & Hellmann, J. J. (2016). Climate change in the urban environment: Advancing, measuring and achieving resiliency. Environmental Science & Policy, 66, 310-313.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57-74. doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4279003

Estache, A., & Saussier, S. (2014). Public-private partnerships and efficiency: A short assessment. CESifo DICE Report, 12(3), 8-13.

Frederick, W. (1992). Social issues in management: Coming of age or prematurely gray? Paper presented to the doctoral consortium of the social issues in management division. The Academy of Management.

Gardiner, P. D. (2005). Project management: A strategic planning approach: Macmillan International Higher Education.

Gray, T., Haggett, C., & Bell, D. (2005). Offshore wind farms and commercial fisheries in the UK: a study in stakeholder consultation. Ethics place and environment, 8(2), 127-140.

Hashmi, A., Ishak, S., & Hassan, H. B. (2018). The impact of Infrastructure Development on Student Satisfaction. International Journal of Innovative Knowledge Concepts, 6(4), 127-136.

Ibem, E. O. (2011). Public-private partnership (PPP) in housing provision in Lagos Megacity Region, Nigeria. International Journal of Housing Policy, 11(2), 133-154.

J, T. D., Gary, P., & Amy, S. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.

Jomo, K. S., Chowdhury, A., Sharma, K., & Platz, D. (2016). Public-Private Partnerships and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2011). The worldwide governance indicators: methodology and analytical issues. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 3(2), 220-246.

Kumar, V., & Pansari, A. (2016). Competitive advantage through engagement. Journal of marketing research, 53(4), 497-514.

Lhuillery, S., & Pfister, E. (2009). R&D cooperation and failures in innovation projects: Empirical evidence from French CIS data. Research Policy, 38(1), 45-57. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.09.002

Lowi, T. J. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review, 32(4), 298-310.

Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. I. (1981). Challenging strategic planning assumptions: Theory, cases, and techniques: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Meng, F. J., Huang, Y., Yang, S. X., & Su, H. (2007). A framework for extensible collaborative asset-based service engagement. Paper presented at the IEEE International Conference on e-Business Engineering (ICEBE'07).

Mwakabole, G. C., Gurmu, A. T., & Tivendale, L. (2019). Investigation of the challenges facing public-private partnership projects in Australia. Construction Economics and Building, 19(1).

Odhiambo, N. M. (2010). Electricity consumption, labour force participation rate and economic growth in Kenya: An empirical investigation. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 8(1), 31-38.

Onuorah, O. B. (2014). Public Private Partnership, a Veritable Tool for Sustainable Construction in Achieving Quality and Affordable Shelter in Nigeria. The International Journal of Science and Technoledge, 2(5), 287.

Payne, S. L., & Calton, J. M. (2017). Towards a managerial practice of stakeholder engagement: Developing multi-stakeholder learning dialogues. In Unfolding stakeholder thinking (pp. 121-135): Routledge.

Reeves, E., Palcic, D., Flannery, D., & Geddes, R. R. (2017). The determinants of tendering periods for PPP procurement in the UK: an empirical analysis. Applied Economics, 49(11), 1071-1082. doi:10.1080/00036846.2016.1210779

Sagoff, M. (1998). Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods:: A look beyond contingent pricing. Ecological Economics, 24(2-3), 213-230.

Shams, S. R., Vrontis, D., Weber, Y., Tsoukatos, E., & Galati, A. (2019). 13 How Does Stakeholder Engagement Affect Business Model Sustainability? Stakeholder Engagement and Sustainability, 195.

Stawicka, E. (2017). Sustainable development and the business context of CSR benefits on the Polish market. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum. Oeconomia, 16(3).

Thuillier, G. (2005). Gated Communities in the Metropolitan Area of Buenos Aires, Argentina: A challenge for Town Planning. Housing Studies, 20(2), 255-271. doi:10.1080/026730303042000331763

Typical schools PPP stakeholders.

Vining, A. R., Boardman, A. E., & Poschmann, F. (2005). Public–private partnerships in the US and Canada: “There are no free lunches”. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 7(3), 199-220. doi:10.1080/13876980500209363

Xiong, W., Chen, B., Wang, H., & Zhu, D. (2019). Transaction hazards and governance mechanisms in public-private partnerships: A comparative study of two cases. Public Performance & Management Review, 42(6), 1279-1304.

Zhao, Z. J., Su, G., & Li, D. (2018). The rise of public-private partnerships in China. Journal of Chinese Governance, 3(2), 158-176.