Public-Private Partnerships in Urban Development in the United States



B. Public-Private Partnerships defined

In this chapter I seek to define partnerships in greater detail. The partnership concept suffers
from problems of general application. Thus, one is left with certain basic characteristics of
public-private partnerships such as shared risks and benefits among participants since
partnership definitions are neither conceptually neat nor empirically rigorous. (Haider, D. in:
Davis, P. 1986:139). Moreover, there is no general model of public-private partnership but
rather a range of possible models since each development partnership has to be tailored to
different local circumstances (Bennett; Krebs, 1991:82). The word public-private partnership
has increasingly applied to many initiatives and a wide variety of meanings. As there is no
binding definition, analysts employ the term public-private partnership differently.
Consequently, this may cause misunderstandings and disagreement. For example, though the
federal urban renewal program (1949-1974) is widely considered an early model of public-
private partnerships in urban development in which local governments undertook actions for
land management to develop conditions sufficient to lure private investment into inner cities
(Squires 1989, Levine 1989, CUED 1978, Lyons and Hamlin 1991, Barnekov; Boyle and
Rich 1989), some scientists, however, object to this view. Stephenson doubts this assumption
since the public sector depended entirely upon the private sector in urban renewal
development projects. He asserts that a partnership “implies a dynamic interactive
collaboration between sectors” (Stephenson, M. O., 1991:111).

With the boost of public-private partnerships in urban development in the 1980s literature
about public-private partnerships increased as well. As a consequence, public-private
partnership has been an “abused” and “overworked” term in the US particularly in the 1980s
(Whelan, R. K, 1989:236). Discussions of urban partnerships are based on different
perceptions. Some scholars (Fosler; Lyall; Davis) consider public-private partnership a broad
political alliance between city hall or the mayor and the business community on the other
hand in order to achieve collaborative efforts to revitalize cities for mutual benefit.
Accordingly, public-private partnerships are regarded as a continuous process, “requiring a
stable network of interpersonal relationships developed over a considerable period of time”
(Lyall, 1982:52). In this regard, public-private partnership is a multisectoral coalition rather
than a development agreement. An example for such an urban coalition is the “Chicago
Central Area Committee” that was founded for the improvement of Chicago’s CBD. But even
the description of partnerships as processes is not homogenous in the literature. Whereas
Lyall refers to working relationships between public officials and mayors with business
associations that have developed, for instance, in committees or through informal structures,
Hamlin and Lyons, however, consider the term process as the “total vehicle for making the
project happen” (Hamlin, R. E.; Lyons, T. S., 1996:172). Here, the word process goes beyond
organizational structures.

But public-private cooperation does not necessarily develop and grow as the term process
assumes. Cooperative arrangements have also been drawn up in response to specific urban
problems in single development projects. Public-private cooperation based on development
agreements or public sector provisions of subsidies and incentives to developer are described
as public-private partnership by some scholars (Krumholz). Even enterprise zones are
considered to be public-private partnerships by proponents of this premise (Collman 1989,
Wolf 1990, Haar 1984) as the public sector offers tax incentives to businesses in special
geographical areas. Accordingly, the term public-private partnership is based on a broad
definition that encompasses a wide variety of partnership activities.

By and large the word public-private partnership embraces three meanings in terms of
institutionalization. First, analysts refer to public-private partnerships when speaking about
informal multi-sector relationships usually in efforts to draw up plans for downtown
revitalization. Second, scholars use the term to describe public-private deals and agreements.



More intriguing information

1. The name is absent
2. STIMULATING COOPERATION AMONG FARMERS IN A POST-SOCIALIST ECONOMY: LESSONS FROM A PUBLIC-PRIVATE MARKETING PARTNERSHIP IN POLAND
3. The Folklore of Sorting Algorithms
4. The name is absent
5. The name is absent
6. Mortality study of 18 000 patients treated with omeprazole
7. Expectations, money, and the forecasting of inflation
8. IMMIGRATION AND AGRICULTURAL LABOR POLICIES
9. Activation of s28-dependent transcription in Escherichia coli by the cyclic AMP receptor protein requires an unusual promoter organization
10. How do investors' expectations drive asset prices?
11. QUEST II. A Multi-Country Business Cycle and Growth Model
12. Computing optimal sampling designs for two-stage studies
13. Optimal Taxation of Capital Income in Models with Endogenous Fertility
14. WP 48 - Population ageing in the Netherlands: Demographic and financial arguments for a balanced approach
15. Strengthening civil society from the outside? Donor driven consultation and participation processes in Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRSP): the Bolivian case
16. The name is absent
17. Crime as a Social Cost of Poverty and Inequality: A Review Focusing on Developing Countries
18. ADJUSTMENT TO GLOBALISATION: A STUDY OF THE FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY IN EUROPE
19. The Impact of Optimal Tariffs and Taxes on Agglomeration
20. Self-Help Groups and Income Generation in the Informal Settlements of Nairobi