The development of homeland security partnerships: A comparative analysis from the financial security arena

The development of three partnerships in the Banking and Finance Critical Infrastructure Sector of homeland security is examined, analyzed, and compared, and implications for theory drawn from such analysis. The public-public partnership comprises the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The public-private partnership consists of two partnerships, one between the Financial and Banking Infrastructure Information Committee (FBIIC) and the Financial Services Sector Coordinating Council (FSSCC), and the other between the Department of Homeland Security and the Financial and Banking Sector. The private-private partnership is a partnership amongst twelve global private sector Wolfsberg banks. A multiple case study exploratory research design is used. Data is obtained from in-depth interviews and archival sources. Existing knowledge on networks is used to examine (a) the development of three homeland security partnerships; (b) the role of the government in homeland security partnership development, information sharing processes across partnerships, and accountability mechanisms across partnerships and (c) implications of the findings for public administration practice. Government plays a key role in network development---as network builder in the public-public partnership; as network manager, network participant, network coordinator, and regulator in the public-private partnership; and as regulator in the private-private partnership. Political, managerial, and technical barriers to information sharing in public-public and the DHS-private sector partnership hampered partnership development; absence of such barriers in the FBIIC-FSSCC partnership and the Wolfsberg partnership contributed to partnership development. Political accountability promoted partnership development in the public-public and public-private partnerships; hierarchical accountability hampered partnership development in the public-public and public-private partnerships; professional accountability hampered partnership development in the public-public partnership and promoted partnership development in the public-private and private-private partnerships; legal accountability promoted partnership development in the public-private and private-private partnerships. An imposition of a network structure on an existing bureaucracy helped explain several aspects of partnership development in the public-public partnership.