19
As can be seen above, this classification is not appropriate for general application since it is
tailored for public-private partnerships in frostbelt cities. In addition, the classification by
Stewman and Tarr is insufficient for urban development partnerships. In this regard, physical
or bricks-and-mortar partnerships are particularly relevant. Stewman and Tarr do not provide
a more detailed differentiation of bricks-and-mortar partnerships. But as we have seen in
preceding sections of this chapter, there are different periods of public-private partnership
building in the US. Consequently, there do exist different physical development partnerships.
Eisinger, in contrast, provide a more detailed distinction of development partnerships. He
distinguishes between the following three types of partnerships: (1) indirect partnerships, (2)
more focused partnerships cemented by grants and subsidies, where government plays the role
of subordinate or junior partner, and (3) joint ventures, where government shares risks and
even equity interests (Eisinger, 1988:23). This classification is by far more relevant for a
consideration of urban development partnerships as the one by Stewman and Tarr. As
Eisinger considers only partnerships between local governments and enterprises for economic
development I apply the distinction of partnerships to urban development with some
restrictions. State enterprise zones and public rehabilitation loans and grant programs may be
considered as indirect partnerships; a more focused or formalized partnerships may be
Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) and the federal empowerment zone program (EZ/EC);
and joint ventures in urban development are joint development projects or development
corporations where the local government may have an equity position. Although local and
state governments provide tax incentives, loans and grants to the private sector through the
enterprise and rehabilitation programs I tend to consider those relationships as indirect
partnerships instead of more focused one since partnership building is not explicitly expressed
in the programs. In this regard, Eisinger’s typology of public-private partnerships is only
partly applicable to urban development. The federal EZ/EC program, however, differs from
state enterprise zones. The empowerment program is the most recent urban revitalization
program of the federal government. Public-private partnerships and joint development
projects are basic components of the program. While enterprise zones are “geographical
target tax incentives”, the EZ/EC program combines “federal tax incentives with direct
funding for physical improvements and social services”. Moreover, the program aims at
private sector investment and “participation by community organizations and residents” on
the other hand (President Clinton’s National Urban Policy Report 1997:45). Therefore, the
program fits into the second category of more formalized partnerships as partnerships are
explicitly demanded and supported by the government. The third kind of partnership, joint
development projects, are by and large a focal point of development partnerships. All
together, this typology is very useful for further consideration.
Squires made two different distinctions of public-private partnerships. First, he entitled his
book concerning partnerships Unequal Partnerships and argues in its introduction that:
“what has frequently been overlooked is the inherently unequal nature of most partnerships.
Frequently they exclude altogether the neighborhood residents most affected by development
decisions [...]. Public goals often go unmet and democratic processes are undermined [...]. The
principal beneficiaries are often large corporations, developers, and institutions” (Squires, 1989:3).
The distinction between equal and unequal partnerships is an often used dichotomy taking the
equality or better the inequality of public and private partners as deciding factor of
differentiation. A similar term is for instance employed by Krumholz. He describes
downtown-focused public-private partnerships as unbalanced partnerships (Krumholz,
Rebuilding America’s Cities, 1982:178). Squires also concerns public-private partnerships in
conjunction with an ideology of privatism with the supreme private sector and the public
sector as junior partner. (Squires, 1991:197). He distinguishes two types of partnerships with