Public-Private Partnerships, Neo-Liberal Globalization, and Democracy Gulf Comparative Education Society Conference Ras Al Khaimah, UAE 16-17 March 2011.

Public-Private Partnerships,Neo-Liberal Globalization, and

Democracy

Gulf Comparative Education Society ConferenceRas Al Khaimah, UAE

16-17 March 2011

Mark GinsburgAcademy for Educational Development

& University of Maryland

Introduction

PPP concept not new; implemented since 18th century

However, since 1990s, PPPs have become popular model for:– Local/national governments– International development agencies– World Economic Forum: “so that many necessary

advances can be achieved … for the benefit of all”

Conceptualizing PPPs

“few people agree on what a PPP actually is” (Hodge & Greve (2007, p. 545)

“discussions of PPPs often use terminology ambiguously, or loosely defined” (Miraftab, 2004, p. 92)

Issues to clarify:– Who are the (public & private) partners?– What roles do partners play?

Types & Levels of Partnering Organizations

Type of Organization/ Level of Organization

Local National International

Public (government)      

Private (for-profit)      

Private (nonprofit)      

Partner Roles in PPPs

Type of Involvement/Level of Involvement None Low Medium High

Financial Resources

Contributor        

Recipient        

Human Resources        

Management Expertise        

Technical Expertise        

Decision-Making Authority        

Goals        

Strategies        

Budget        

Personnel        

Evaluation        

The Whole World’s A Stagefor Public-Private Partnerships: But What is the “Plot” of the Play?But What is the “Plot” of the Play?

MultilateralOrganizations

National Governments

BilateralOrganizations

International NGOs

MultinationalCorporations

National NGOs

Local NGOsNationalCorporations

Local Governments

LocalCorporations

School/University Institutions

Neoliberal Version of Globalization

Dimensions of globalization– Political– Technological– Cultural– Economic

Neoliberalism: less government, more private sector for “increased efficiency” in production and service delivery

PPPs and Neoliberal Globalization (1)

PPPs “should not be confused with either privatization or with outsourcing” (Davies and Hentschke, 2006, p. 206)

– Some PPPs funded by corporations or NGOs PPPs “are a means of utilizing public sector resources in

… a blend of outsourcing and privatization” (National Council for Public-Private Partnerships, 2002, p. 4)

– PPPs serve as a “Trojan horse” for privatizing government responsibilities (Miraftab, 2004, p. 89)

– “the language of PPPs is a game to ‘cloud’ over other strategies … [e.g.,] privatization” (Hodge and Greve, 2007, p. 547)

– “the construct partnership … [is] a euphemism for privatizing the functions of government without assailing its legitimacy” (Linder, 1999, p. 41)

PPPs and Neoliberal Globalization (2)

Neoliberalism downsizing government revenues search for more “efficient” modes of service delivery– In U.S. “counties, states, … and communities

have hit a ‘tax wall’” (Yates, 2006, p. 2)– In developing countries structural adjustment has

led to less government funding and conditionalities further emphasize privatizing service delivery

Democracies & Democratization

“universal enthusiasm for democracy” (Giddens, 1994) and “global resurgence of of democracy” (Diamond & Plattner, 1993)

concerns about the vitality of democratic institutions (Elshtain, 1994; Lasch, 1994)

Privatized Democracy: implies passive citizen to avoid threat to property relations (Locke; Sehr, 1997)

Public Democracy: assumes active citizen to avoid corruption by those with private/profit interests (Rousseau; Sehr, 1997)

PPPs and Democratization (2)

PPPs applauded for:– involving “decision makers who are accountable to the public”

(Wälti et al., 2004, p. 106)– “creating stronger local NGOs [which] can strengthen civil society”

as a “countervailing power to the state” (Miller-Grandvaux et al., 2002, p. 56)

PPPs criticized for:– reducing “citizen input into the policy process” and increasing “the

influence of the private sector partner” (Rosenau, 1999, p. 17)– giving “responsibility for broader … community interests to the

whims of the private sector” (Chloe, 2002, p. 256)– Allowing “the private sector firm(s) [to] ‘steer’ while the other actors

only ‘row’” (Miraftab, 2004, p. 93)

PPPs and Democratization (2)

Advocates for PPPs stress their value in:– their “operating at arm’s length to centres of political authority” and

thus “offer[ing] greater flexibility in decision processes” (Skelcher et al., 2005, p. 574)

– that “that it is easier [“donors”] to negotiate with NGOs … [because] the political ‘messiness’ of negotiating with governments is absent” (Miller-Grandvaux et al., 2002, p. 43)

Critics of PPPs emphasize that they:– “do not accord with the doctrine of the primacy of politics”

(Skelcher et al., 2005, p. 574)– are “subject to … corporate rules” and thus are “disarticulat[ed]

with notions of deeper democracy” (Skelcher et al., 2005, p. 592)

Conclusion

So, should we form apublic-private partnership?

So, should we form apublic-private partnership?

Thank You Very Much

� جزيًال شكرًا�Shukran Jazilan