In that case partnerships are “deal specific” and are only struck for special development
projects. Finally, public-private partnerships are described as organizations (Ledebur
1984:204). In this way, partnerships are based on institutional commitments including
downtown development corporations, economic development corporations or committees.
Stephenson notes that “when institutionalized, public-private partnerships have typically been
project or deal driven” (Stephenson, M. O., 1991:125).
Some authors do not use an exact definition of public-private partnership ahead of their
discussion of public-private cooperation issues. Others define their perceptions of public-
private partnerships more or less precisely and comprehensively from a scientific point of
view. To come up with a definition of public-private partnership, however, it may be helpful
to define partnerships from a law point of view at first and then apply this definition to urban
development. According to Friedman a partnership is:
“An agreement between two or more entities to go into business or invest. Either partner may bind the
other, within the scope of the partnership. Each partner is liable for all the partnership’s debts. [...]”
(Friedman, J. P. 1997:249).
As each partner is liable for the debts, this kind of partnership is called ‘mixed partnership’
(Hamlin; Lyons, 1996:31). Another form of partnership may be a ‘limited partnership’:
“[...] in which there is at least one partner who is passive and limits liability to the amount invested
[limited partner], and at least one partner whose liability extends beyond monetary investment [general
partner]. “(Friedman, J. R. 1997: 149)
A general partner is an entrepreneur and manager, while the limited partner is a passive
investor. A limited partnership must have at least one general partner. Consequently, for a
partnership to exist, two or more partners need to engage in business together and share the
profits. How can this simple concept applied best to development partnerships as a special
form of partnerships?
Public-private partnerships are often defined too narrow as the definitions do not consider
important elements of public-private cooperation. The definition by Leithe and Joseph can be
used as example:
“A pubic/private partnership can be defined as an activity undertaken by government and business to
provide public services that either entity finds impossible or less economical to perform on its own”
(Leithe; J., 1990: 105).
Indeed, it is important to mention that public-private partnerships are a trade-off between the
participants in order to pool resources and certain abilities in a development project that the
partners could not have carried out alone. But Leithe and Joseph speak only about provision
of public services. Therefore they only take various forms of privatization used to finance
local government needs such as contracting out into account. Important components of
partnership activities in urban development such as public subsidies for private projects or co-
development accompanied by negotiated public benefits are not included.
The most cited definition, however, is the one formulated by the Committee for Economic
Development (CED) in their ground-breaking publication ‘Public-private partnerships. An
Opportunity for Urban Communities’:
“Pubic-private partnership means cooperation among individuals and organizations in the public and
private sectors for mutual benefit. Such cooperation has two dimensions: the policy dimension, in
which the goals of the community are articulated, and the operational dimension, in which those goals
are pursued. The purpose of public-private partnership is to link these dimensions in such a way that