Public-Private Partnerships and Service Delivery in the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC)

to the extensive environmental degradation and pollution from oil activities that have occurred in the region since the late 1950s. However, the minority communities of oil producing areas have received little or no currency from the oil industry and environmental remediation measures are limited and negligible. The region is highly underdeveloped and is poor even by Nigeria’s standards for quality of life. Physical Infrastructure and Capital Assets At its foundational level, the term infrastructure refers to the underlying structural framework, physical networks, and public facilities necessary for the survival, economic growth, and operational functionality of a modern society (Fox, 2006). In public economics and development studies, infrastructure is broadly classified into two distinct operational categories: Hard Infrastructure: This encompasses the physical, tangible networks of civil works that drive industrialization and economic interaction. It includes transportation networks (highways, bridges, jetties, railways), energy networks (power grids, substations, transformers), and environmental management systems (potable water pipelines, drainage networks, solid waste management systems). Soft Infrastructure: This refers to the institutional, social, and human capital structures required to maintain a society's well-being and productivity. It includes public healthcare delivery networks (clinics, specialized hospitals), educational systems (schools, vocational training centers), and law enforcement frameworks. In the context of regional development within resource-rich, ecologically complex zones like the Niger Delta, hard infrastructure serves as the primary engine for human capital optimization. Because the region is characterized by difficult riverine, swampy, and estuarine terrains, the construction of physical capital requires specialized civil engineering designs and substantial capital investment. Physical infrastructure acts as a public good; it is frequently non-excludable and non-rivalrous. Consequently, when public intervention agencies fail to provide these critical assets, the localized economy suffers from systemic market failure, keeping rural populations in a cycle of poverty and geographical isolation. Public Service Delivery Paradigms The conceptualization of service delivery within public administration has evolved through distinct theoretical and operational paradigms over the last half-century. Service delivery is defined as the institutionalized process through which public sector organizations distribute tangible goods, vital utilities, and social amenities to citizen beneficiaries to meet localized expectations and expand human capabilities (Kim, 2012; OECD, 2018). E-ISSN 2504-883X P-ISSN 2695 2432 Evolution of Public Sector Service Delivery Paradigms Administrative Paradigm Core Operational Focus Service Delivery Mechanism. Accountability Metrics Traditional Public Administration Bureaucratic compliance, hierarchy, and input tracking. Direct, in-house state execution through civil works departments. Strict adherence to rules, budget consumption, and processing protocols. New Public Management Market efficiency, cost-reduction, and corporate management styles. Outsourcing, competitive bidding, performance-based contracting. Value for Money , output maximization, and cost-benefit ratios. Public Value Governance Citizen satisfaction, community co- production, and social equity. Collaborative governance networks, citizen consultation, local management. Outcome sustainability, public trust, and long-term socio-economic impact. In evaluating an intervention agency like the NDDC, remnants of all three paradigms are visible. While the commission operates on an NPM-inspired model of outsourcing projects to external private contractors through competitive procurement, its internal culture often suffers from the rigid inefficiencies of TPA. Furthermore, contemporary development literature emphasizes that for service delivery to achieve structural efficiency, it must move toward Public Value Governance. This requires a shift from tracking mere financial inputs (budgetary releases) to verifying sustainable outcomes (completed, operational, and maintained facilities) that create genuine public value for host communities (Oyedele, 2012). Theoretical Perspective Principal-Agent Theory One key theory that underpins the concept of PPPs is the Principal-Agent Theory: The agency theory surfaced in 1970 through the amalgamation of economics and institutional theory. Later the agency theory moved beyond the institutional and economic study to various aspects including information asymmetry, risk management, and uncertainty. Agency theory is widely used in multiple disciplines since its origin i.e. four decades ago. Now this theory has captured the focus of project management, corporate governance, and operation management literature (Parker et al., 2018). Agency theory talks about the relationship in projects like Public-Private Partnership projects, the public context refers to the citizens as the ultimate principle i.e. public authority (Mayston, 1993) and the agent is commonly referred to as a private company. Agency theory was originated from the work of Jensen and Meckling (1976). It is an economic relationship between partners by observing them as self- interested and rational actors (Zogning, 2017). Eisenhardt (1989) reviewed two extreme positions on agency theory i.e. the exponents who argued that agency theory is a revolutionary theory (Jensen & Ruback, 1983) and the opponents who stated agency theory is narrow, not clear, and has testable implications. Most researchers have concluded about agency theory that it is unique, clear, and empirically testable that can be used in any organization or business arrangement to address principal-agent issues (Lan & Heracleous, 2010). Agency theory since evolution has boundary issues and there is a need for its further theoretical development (Bendickson, Muldoon, Liguori, & Davis, 2016). This theory explores the dynamics between the government (principal) and the private sector partner E-ISSN 2504-883X P-ISSN 2695 2432 . The principal, typically the government, seeks to achieve public policy goals by contracting private firms to deliver services or infrastructure. The challenge lies in ensuring that the private sector fulfils its obligations and acts in the public’s best interest, rather than simply pursuing its own profit motives. Effective monitoring and clear contractual terms are crucial for minimizing agency problems, such as moral hazard and information asymmetry, which could affect the quality and efficiency of service delivery (Eisenhardt, 1989). The agency theory is related to the Public-private partnership projects in which the adoption of agency theory depends upon the nature of the relationship or coordination between partners as it is linked with the project’s success. The coordination arrangements between partners describe the nature of relationship between the principal and agents. Agency Theory in PPP: The agency theory is related to the Public-private partnership projects in which the adoption of agency theory depends upon the nature of the relationship or coordination between partners as it is linked with the project’s success. The coordination arrangements between partners describe the nature of relationship between the principal and agents. There is an abundance of research articles describing the public-private partnership and many researchers explain the nature of this strategic partnership. Most studies have explained partnership arrangement as embedded features in the inter organizational network (Bendickson, Muldoon, Liguori, & Davis, 2016). According to Jiménez and Pasquero (2004), most researchers have discussed the PPP as the structural term and less attention has been given to the aspects as highlighted by Jiménez and Pasquero (2004) over a long-term partnership environment in the turbulent phase of relationship. Simultaneously, few authors have researched and explained the fact that factually matters i.e. initiatives in PPP (Ogbobe et al., 2009). The focus of such researchers remained on the assumption that PPP is a commonly used and adopted strategy for the delivery of public infrastructure and services. Moreover, the usage of PPP is primarily attributable to efficiency improvement through the joint commitment of the public and private sectors both to tackle the risk. Few researchers have explained that the most common reason for PPP project failure is to manage stakeholders. The key stakeholders in PPP projects are the public whereas the institutions play the role of the agents on behalf of the public. The arrangement to deliver the responsibilities can be viewed and understood well with the perspective of the principal-agent model basing on the dynamics of that specific organization (Rwelamila, 2010). Method The study adopted a descriptive survey research design to examine the effects of public- private partnerships on service delivery in the Niger Delta Development Commission . The design was considered appropriate because it enabled the systematic collection and analysis of data from a large population using a cross-sectional approach. The study was conducted within the Niger Delta region, where the NDDC was established to promote infrastructure, environmental protection, economic growth, social development, and peacebuilding. The target population comprised 1,000 stakeholders drawn from the nine NDDC states, including NDDC officials, community leaders, and PPP partners involved in projects implemented between 2019 and 2024. E-ISSN 2504-883X P-ISSN 2695 2432 Table 1: Population Distribution of the Niger Delta States. S/N STATE POPULATION PERCENTAGE SOURCE 1 ABIA 80 8.0% National Bureau of Statistics 2 AKWA IBOM 150 15.0% National Bureau of Statistics 3 BAYELSA 120 12.0% National Bureau of Statistics 4 CROSS RIVER 90 9.0% National Bureau of Statistics 5 DELTA 180 18.0% National Bureau of Statistics 6 EDO 50 5.0% National Bureau of Statistics 7 IMO 100 10.0% National Bureau of Statistics 8 ONDO 30 3.0% National Bureau of Statistics 9 RIVERS 200 20.0% National Bureau of Statistics TOTAL 1,000 100% Source: Field Survey, 2026. Using Taro Yamane’s formula, a sample size of 285 respondents was determined, while purposive sampling and proportional allocation techniques were employed to distribute respondents on state -by-state basis. Table 2: Proportional Distribution of Sample Size of States by Using Simple Percentage Community Estimated Population Proportion of Total Population Sample Size (n = 285) Percentage (%) Abia 80 0.80 0.80 * 285=23 8.0% Akwa ibom 150 0.15 0.15 * 285 =43 15.0% Bayyelsa 120 0.12 0.12 * 285=34 12.0% Cross River 90 0.90 0.09 * 285=26 9.0% Delta 180 0.18 0.18 * 285=51 18.0% Edo 50 0.50 0.50 * 285 =14 5.0% Imo 100 0.10 0.10 * 285=29 10.0% Ondo 30 0.30 0.30 * 285=9 3.0% Rivers 200 0.20 0.20 * 285 =57 20.0% Total 1,000 1.00 285 100% Source: Field Survey, 2026. Data were collected from both primary and secondary sources using structured questionnaire, interviews, and observation. The instrument was validated through expert review and its reliability was confirmed using Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients of 0.82 and 0.75. Ethical principles of informed consent, privacy, and confidentiality were observed throughout the study. Finally, the collected data were analysed using descriptive statistics, Chi-square, Pearson Product Moment Correlation, and t-test at the 0.05 level of significance with the aid of SPSS software. E-ISSN 2504-883X P-ISSN 2695 2432 Data Presentation Table 3 Questionnaires Administration Copies of Questionnaires Frequency Percentages (%) Administered 285 100% Retrieved 220 77% Numbered not returned 65 23% Total 285 100% Source: Field survey, 2026. Table 3, It is evident that the study administered a total of 285 questionnaire. However, 220 questionnaires were retrieved, indicating a retrieval rate of 77%. This suggests that there was a reasonably high level of engagement from participants, as the majority responded to the questionnaire. Additionally, 65 questionnaires were not returned, accounting for the remaining 23% of the total administered. Overall, the high retrieval rate indicates a level of commitment and interest from participants, which is positive for the validity of the study’s findings. Data Analysis What is the Impact of PPP in Improving Efficient and Effective Public Service Delivery in the NDDC? Table 4: Computational Analysis of the Impact of PPP in Improving Efficient and Effective Public Service Delivery in the NDDC. S/N Variables Respondent Responses No SA (%) A (%) D (%) SD (%) X̅ Remark 1 NDDC has contributed to the infrastructural development of states under the Public Private Partnership arrangement 220 118 (54%) 80 (36%) 11 (5%) 11 (5%) 3.4 Agreed 2 The NDDC has provide an alternative source of funding for capital intensive projects through the PPP 220 31 (14%) 98 (45%) 51 (23%) 40 (18%) 2.55 Agreed 3 Through PPP, the NDDC has been able to embarked on wide scale and skill- oriented capacity building training in the Niger Delta area. 220 20 (9%) 16 (7%) 98 (45%) 86 (39%) 1.86 Disagree 4 Public Private Partnership has created some forms of sustainable development through collaboration with the NDDC in rural communities in the Niger Delta area 220 66 (30%) 110 (50%) 24 (11%) 20 (9%) 3 Agreed 5 PPP initiative has enhanced economic growth and the quality of life of people living in the Niger Delta 220 5 (2%) 55 (25%) 100 (46%) 60 (27%) 2.02 Disagree Source: Researcher’s Fieldwork, 2026. Table 4 presents the respondents' mean ratings regarding the roles of PPP in improving efficient and effective public service delivery in the NDDC. The findings highlight the respondents’ perspectives on the roles of PPP in improving efficient and effective public E-ISSN 2504-883X P-ISSN 2695 2432 service delivery in the NDDC. NDDC has contributed to the infrastructural development of states under the Public Private Partnership arrangement. A significant majority of respondents (54% strongly agreed, 36% agreed) indicated that NDDC has contributed to the infrastructural development of states under the Public Private Partnership arrangement, with a mean rating of 3.4, suggesting strong approval for NDDC. This finding underscores the value placed on NDDC on contribution to the infrastructural development of states under the Public Private Partnership arrangement. NDDC has provide an alternative source of