Different Concept of Partnership Public Private Partnership Public Private Partnerships bring public and private sectors together

in long term partnership for mutual benefit. The PPP label covers a wide range of different types of partnership including the Private Finance Initiative, the introduction of private sector ownership into state-owned businesses and selling Government services into wider markets and other partnership arrangements where private sector expertise and finance are used to exploit the commercial potential of Government assets. Public-private partnership has recently gained prominence as a term to describe a business relationship in which public and private resources are blended to achieve a goal or set of goals judged to be of mutual benefit both to the private entity and to the public. Under these arrangements, the agency may retain ownership of the public facility or system, but the private party generally invests its own capital to design and develop the properties. Typically, each partner shares in income resulting from the partnership. Such a venture, although a contractual arrangement, differs from typical service contracting in that the private-sector partner usually makes a substantial cash, at-risk, equity investment in the project, and the public sector gains access to new revenue or service delivery capacity without having to pay the private-sector partner. http://ncppp.org/howpart/pppterms.html. While the roles and responsibilities of the private and public sector partners may differ on individual servicing initiatives, the overall role and responsibilities of government do not change. Public private partnership is one of a number of ways of delivering public infrastructure and related services. It is not a substitute for strong and effective governance and decision making by government. In all cases, government remains responsible and accountable for delivering services and projects in a manner that protects and furthers the public interest. http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/policy_research/library/public_private_partnerships.pdf

Public-Public Partnership The narrowest definition of the concept of publicpublic partnerships (PuPs) is the one most commonly used in North America and Europe, which refers to any collaboration between two or more public authorities in the same country. This collaboration may occur between public authorities of the same type and level (usually inter-municipal consortia) or it may occur between different types or levels of public authorities, for example between provincial and local authorities. The concept of a publicpublic partnership (PuP) was developed in the context of privateprivate partnerships. As a result, it can be regarded as a partnership in which there is no private-sector partner. However, there are many definitions for the concept of a publicpublic partnership.
Typology of PuPs according to objectives

Type Service efficiency and/or effectiveness Capacity development and human resources Defence against privatisation Accountability and participation

Sub-type

Improved efficiency of service delivery Improved coverage and access to services Promotion of equity in service delivery

Incorporation of civil society organisations and trade unions in service planning and delivery Improved transparency and accountability in service delivery Source: http://www.equinetafrica.org/

The possible negative outcomes in the event of breaking partnerships between above organizations

Partnership positives

Bringing different people, agencies and values together. Focusing them on some shared challenges and opportunities. Helping us to look at things holistically. Helping us to look at things from different perspectives Helping us to look at things critically. Helping us to see the need for new projects and processes.

Helping us to build interdisciplinary teams to run them. Helping us to avoid building overly big structures that cannot quickly respond to change. Giving us more opportunity to be heard and perhaps to influence others. Giving us more opportunity to listen. Delegating some of the politics to more local contexts. Delegating some of the negotiation and decision-making to those who implement the decisions.

Partnership negatives

Making time management difficult Tying us up in endless meetings and secondment's Distracting agencies away from delivering services Making it unclear who is accountable Giving too much decision-making power to unelected bureaucrats Forcing us to work in unfamiliar contexts Driving us to 'grab the dosh and dish out the work'. Adding to pressures on already overburdened staff.

Source: shetland.gov.uk/

There were some clear examples of negative outcomes. These tended to be associated with services hat did not meet the wishes of the user and which users felt disempowered them or added to their sense of disempowerment.

References: David Hall, Jane Lethbridge, Emanuele Lobina,july 2005, Publicpublic partnerships in health and essential services, http://www.equinetafrica.org/bibl/docs/DIS23pub.pdf http://www.shetland.gov.uk/communityplanning/resourcekit/PositivesandNegative s.htm