Globe Spotting


Reportagen & Analysen


SPECIAL 'Public Private Partnership': Literatur

USAID partnert vor allem mit US-Konzernen

Ein Bericht der Brookings Institution analysiert die Öffentlich-Privaten Partnerschaften (PPPs) der US-amerikanischen Entwicklungsbehörde USAID zwischen 2001 and 2014. Mit 62 'Partnerschaften' führt Microsoft Corp. die Liste an, gefolgt von Coca-ColaChevron, Cisco Systems und Intel. Ein Beispiel für diese Kooperationen ist das Stipendienprogramm Wings to Fly, an dem neben der Equity Group Foundation und der Mastercard Foundation auch die bundeseigene KfW-Bankengruppe beteiligt ist. Eine Zusammenfassung von Adva Saldinger, March 2016.

The United States Agency for International Development has been engaging in public-private partnerships for more than 15 years, but understanding who the partners are, what the impacts are and the key trends of those partnerships has often been a challenge.

In recent years USAID has improved its data collection and made public past PPP data that provides a look into how the agency engages with the private sector.

This week the Brookings Institution, a think tank based in Washington, D.C., released a report that analyzes USAID PPPs between 2001 and 2014. The report, Brookings said, was created to enrich the considerable discussion that USAID and the development community has devoted to PPPs in recent years by providing the key data points to dissect the nature of those partnerships.

In total, USAID engaged in about 1,600 PPPs between 2001 and 2014, though only 1,481 were analyzed for this report. Here’s what you need to know about USAID PPPs:

A ‘typical’ partnership

The majority, or 63 percent, of USAID’s PPPs lasted two to four years, and 90 percent were complete in five years.

PPPs most often only have one resource partner, as was the case 41 percent of the time. Very few, just 16 percent, have more than five.

Seventy-seven percent of PPPs engaged at least one type of business sector partner, such as a company, corporate foundation or industry association. The remaining quarter involved nonpublic entities such as philanthropies or nonprofit organizations.

Budget wonders

The total investment in those 1,481 PPPs was $16.5 billion, equal to $1.18 billion on average per year. Nearly three-quarters of those investments were less than $5 million each.

Where in the world?

USAID has had PPPs in 119 countries, 54 of which have hosted 10 or more. Colombia has hosted the highest number of PPPs with 109, followed by South Africa, India, the Philippines, Georgia, Kenya, Afghanistan, El Salvador and Peru.

Sectors of interest

Economic growth, trade and entrepreneurship has the most PPPs, at 328, with health and agriculture and food security rounding out the top three sectors with the most PPPs. Of those sectors, health had the highest share by value, with 47 percent of total PPP investment.

Who’s involved

The company with the most PPPs is Microsoft Corp., which with 62 partnerships has done nearly double the next company on the list: The Coca-Cola Co., Chevron, Cisco Systems and Intel Corp. round out the top five. Those are just a few of the more than 4,000 organizations that that have been a resource partner in one or more PPPs. Of those that have been in more than five partnerships, about half are corporations, 21 percent are NGOs and the rest are other donors, foundations and educational institutions.

Rate of engagement

USAID has launched on average 105 new PPPs every year from 2001 to 2014, but the rate of new partnerships during those last few years dropped off slightly.

Between 2005 to 2007, USAID started an average of 145 new PPPs per year, but between 2012 to 2014, that average dropped to around 90 new partnerships per year.

While this may seem a surprise given the agency’s commitment to engagement with the private sector, there are several possible explanations, according to the Brookings report. In some cases the definitions for a PPP may have changed, so something that may have qualified in the past might not today. The other potential explanation is the rise of other forms of financial, political and business alliances that devote similar resources as PPPs, such as USAID’s Development Credit Authority or multistakeholder initiatives such as Power Africa or Feed the Future.

Biggest bang for the buck

When USAID partners, it does so in part to leverage resources from other organizations or businesses. Global PPPs provide the best leverage ratio — bringing in $7.68 in partner investment for every dollar of USAID investment. Compare that to the overall average leverage ratio of a dollar to $2.45 for all PPPs. So while those global PPPs are only 5 percent of the total, they account for 36 percent of the value of all PPPs.

That means that the $4.7 billion that USAID put toward those 1,482 PPPs between 2001 and 2014 was matched by $11.5 billion from partners.

Much like the total number of PPPs saw a decline in recent years, the average leverage ratio also seems to have dropped: to about 1-to-1, meaning that partner resources come closer to merely matching USAID inputs.

Going local

Only the most recent 2014 data details where a partner is based, but looking at that data shows that about half of the resource partners in active partnerships are local to the region. The other half were often headquartered in the United States. There is some indication that the investments of local partners are smaller than their foreign counterparts. While detailed data doesn’t exist to see how local partnerships are trending over time, Devex recently reported about the focus some USAID missions have put on them and how they differ from those with multinational corporations.  

The Brookings report attempted to determine whether there was a pattern in why certain countries engage in more PPPs, and it found few answers. Some countries had dedicated staff and clear policies to encourage PPPs, like Colombia, but others, like the Philippines, did not.

Moving toward shared value?

Brookings also analyzed the data to evaluate how the business sector engaged in PPPs and whether they took a shared value approach. The findings, which Brookings determined by analyzing and coding the partnerships, reveal clear links between business interests and involvement in PPPs.

Of the PPPs that engaged the business sector, the report found that roughly half had a direct commercial interest tied to the partner’s business. That could mean the partnership was related to increasing product demand, strengthening supply chains or improving workforce productivity. An additional 29 percent had a “strategic” benefit for the company by strengthening the enabling environment or addressing other market externalities.

Interestingly, the analysis also found that large multinational companies and corporate foundations were more frequently associated with philanthropic PPPs rather than PPPs with shared value. Conversely, shared value was highest by far among business associations

The report also showed that it’s not just about the money. In 79 percent of PPPs with a business partner, those partners contribute technical expertise.

Devex reporter Naki B. Mendoza contributed to this article.

Originalbeitrag (mit allen Links): 9 things to know from a new report on USAID PPPs, by Adva Saldinger @deveximpact11 March 2016.

USAID's Public-Private Partnerships. A Data Picture and Review of Business Engagement. By George M. Ingram, et al. Global Economy & Development Working Paper 94, February 2016. Download (pdf)

Services back under public control

Dezember 2015:The report 'Our public water future' reveals "that over the last 15 years, 235 cases of water remunicipalisation have been recorded in 37 countries, impacting on more than 100 million people. Moreover the pace of remunicipalisation is accelerating dramatically, doubling in the 2010-2015 period compared with 2000-2010." The launch of the book comes in the wake of Jakarta’s decision in March 2015 to annul its privatised water contracts. Cases are currently concentrated in high-income countries, with 184 remunicipalisations compared to 51 in low- and middle-income countries. The great majority have taken place in two countries: France, home of two of the world’s private water companies, Suez and Veolia, and the United States. Lead editor and Transnational Institute water expert Satoko Kishimoto said: There is "strong evidence that remunicipalisation brings immediate cost savings, operational effectiveness, increased investment, higher levels of transparency and accountability."

Our Public Water Future: The global experience with remunicipalisation. Edited by Satoko Kishimoto, Emanuele Lobina and Olivier Petitjean. Published by Transnational Institute et al, April 2015. Download (pdf 1,67mb)

Vereinte Nationen GmbH & Co. KG

Oktober 2015: „In zunehmendem Maße fördern die UN marktbasierte Ansätze und Multi-Stakeholder Partnerschaften als das Geschäftsmodell für die Lösung globaler Probleme.“ Dieser Befund der Mitautorin Barbara Adams fasst die Studie „Fit for Whose Purpose? Private Funding and Corporate Influence in the United Nations“ des Global Policy Forum (September 2015) treffend zusammen.

So bestimmt beispielsweise die Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, deren Einfluss auf die Weltgesundheitsorganisation WHO ein ganzes, informatives Kapitel gewidmet ist,  „heute weitreichend den Gesundheitssektor“, während die UN-Organisation selbst weitgehend handlungsunfähig ist, wie sie bei der Ebola-Krise in tragischer Weise unter Beweis stellte. Mit ihren Milliarden-Spenden für Impfprogramme hat die Stiftung „auf der einen Seite Marktabhängigkeit geschaffen, mit dem Vorrang für technische beziehungsweise technologische Ansätze, auf der anderen Seite von den notwendigen Anstrengungen, die institutionellen Kapazitäten des öffentlichen Gesundheitssystems zu stärken, abgelenkt.“

Klarsichtig spricht die WHO-Chefin Margaret Chan darüber, wie "Big Tobacco, Big Food, Big Soda und Big Alcohol" die Gesundheitspolitik unter Druck setzen und beeinflussen - durch Lobbygruppen, Gerichtsverfahren und Geld: „Marktmacht setzt sich problemlos in politische Macht um.“ Und: „Der Einfluss der Stakeholder, besonders des privaten Sektors, in zahlreichen Bereichen wächst sehr schnell, während die institutionellen und regulatorischen Kapazitäten vieler Länder schwach ausgeprägt bleiben “.

Materialreich zeigt die Studie an zahlreichen weiteren Beispielen die Auswirkungen „Globaler Partnerschaften“ zwischen Vereinten Nationen und Konzernen, die weit in die Ausgestaltung und Umsetzung der jüngst von den UN verabschiedeten Nachhaltigkeitsziele SDGs reichen. Dazu gehört auch die „Scaling Up Nutrition-Initiative“, bei der über ein „Business Network“ Länder dazu gebracht werden, „Unternehmensinteressen in ihren Ernährungsstrategien zu berücksichtigen“.

Gezwungen, sich nach anderen Geldgebern umzusehen, hätten die UN inzwischen weder Mittel noch Zeit, ihre Rolle von „unparteiischer Regel- und Normsetzung, von Politikkoordinierung und Global Governance angemessen zu erfüllen“, sondern würden zum „Vertragsunternehmen für bilaterale und öffentlich-private Projekte “. Transparenz, Rechenschaftspflicht und demokratische Verfahren bleiben dabei auf der Strecke, so die Klage. Offensichtlich sind die Ursachen dafür aber nicht nur fehlendes Geld: „Versagen und Schwächen des UN Systems (sind) ein Ergebnis bewusster Entscheidungen von mächtigen Regierungen, UN-Chefs von UN-Organisationen und Programmen, und einflussreichen Unternehmens-Akteuren“.

Wenn dem so ist, bleibt allerdings unklar, wer die umfassenden Empfehlungen der Studie eigentlich umsetzen könnte - vom Aufruf an die Regierungen, mehr Geld bereit zu stellen, bis zu Tobin Tax und Verschmutzungsabgaben, von der Aufforderung, negative Auswirkungen von Partnerschaften offen zu analysieren, bis zu Forderungen nach Regulierung, Transparenz und klaren Regeln für die Zusammenarbeit mit der Privatwirtschaft, um unzulässigen Einfluss auf die Politik der UN zu verhindern. Offen bleibt, wer überhaupt ein Interesse – und die Macht – hat, die UN aus dem Griff der Konzerne  zu retten.

Vielleicht stößt ja wenigstens die letzte Empfehlung auf offene Ohren - der eher zaghafte Hinweis, zivilgesellschaftliche Gruppen sollten die Situation der Vereinten Nationen ganz genau analysieren und beobachten und „möglicherweise ihr Engagement überprüfen “.

Barbara Adams; Jens Martens, Fit for whose purpose? Private funding and corporate influence in the United Nations. Bonn/New York (Global Policy Forum) September 2015. Download (pdf-Datei 2,5mb)

Private Infrastrukturfinanzierung teuer und riskant

Juli 2015: From the abstract: "Public-private partnerships (often referred to as PPPs) are increasingly promoted as a way to finance development projects. Donor governments and financial institutions, such as the World Bank, have set up multiple donor initiatives to promote changes in national regulatory frameworks to allow for PPPs, as well as provide advice and finance to PPP projects."

"PPPs also feature prominently in the discussions around the post-2015 and the financing for development agendas. Currently, there is a strong push to increase the involvement of the private sector in the development arena and to promote PPPs as key tool to reach the soon to be agreed sustainable development goals."

"This report shows that the last decade has seen a huge increase in the amount of money invested in PPPs in developing countries. From 2004-2012, investments in PPPs increased by a factor of six, from US$ 22.7 billion to US$ 134.2 billion. This has been driven by economic growth and thus the need for infrastructure development, but also by low interest rates in developed countries which has driven investors to ‘search for yield’ elsewhere. Although investments in PPPs fell in 2013 to US$ 84.4 billion, current estimates indicate that the developing world will experience a new wave of PPPs in the near future."

"However, it is important to note that despite the promotion of PPPs, private finance only provides about 15–20 per cent of total infrastructure investment. The lion’s share is still provided by the public sector, and this situation is likely to continue. Therefore, questions remain about why so much focus is placed on the private sector rather than improving public sector delivery."

"This report looks at the empirical and theoretical evidence available on the nature and impact of PPPs, and analyses the experiences of Tanzania and Peru."

Maria José Romero, What lies beneath? A critical assessment of public private partnerships and their impact on sustainable development. Published by eurodad et al, July 2015. Download (pdf 1,4mb)

Siehe auch: Where is the public in PPPs?Analysing the World Bank's support for public-private partnerships. By María José Romero, eurodad, September 2014. Blog-Beitrag

'Partnerschaft' von Regierung, Business und Bauern

Juli 2015: Aus dem Abstract: "This research seeks to understand how public-private-producer partnerships (PPPPs) in agricultural value chains can be designed and implemented to achieve more sustained increases in income for smallholder farmers and broader rural development. PPPPs involve cooperation between government and business agents, working together to reach a common goal or carry out a specific task, while jointly assuming risks and responsibilities, and sharing resources and competences. They also explicitly involve farmers (or producers), hence the fourth ‘P’ is added to the more familiar designation of ‘public-private partnerships’."

"The research also considers the role of PPPP brokers as independent facilitators who support the process of exploring, designing and implementingPPPPs. The research is based on four case studies of agricultural value chain PPPPs developed through projects financed by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) in Ghana, Indonesia, Rwanda and Uganda. In each country, local research teams collected data through a mixture of semi-structured interviews, field visits and focus group discussions (FGDs) with local market chain actors, smallholder farmers and other community members, and relevant experts. These were not impact assessments, and represent instead a snapshot in time. However, the aim was to gain insights into the outcomes of the PPPPs so far, and how these have been influenced by the way the PPPP was designed, implemented and brokered."

Thorpe, J. and Maestre, M., Brokering Development: Enabling Factors for Public-Private-Producer Partnerships in Agricultural Value Chains. Published by IDS and IFAD, June 2015. Download (pdf 3,7mb)

Addressing conflicts of interest in PPPs

Januar 2015: There is no standard global definition of precisely what a public-private partnership is. This Briefing from the European Parliament Think Tank looks at how the EU attempts to strike a balance by combining broad definitions of conflicts of interest with a number of legal tools.

Where is the public in PPPs?

From the review by María José Romero, Eurodad, September 2014:

"The World Bank Group’s recent strategy promotes public-private partnerships (PPPs) and suggests intensifying support to them in the future. However, this July report from the Bank’s Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) has revealed a worrying lack of proven poverty impact from Bank Group interventions involving PPPs. The report assesses how effective the Bank Group has been in supporting countries to use PPPs from 2002-2012. There is currently no unified definition of a PPP. The IEG considers that PPPs are “long-term contracts between a private party and a government agency, for providing a public asset or service, in which the private party bears significant risk and management responsibility”. According to the IEG report, from 2002 to 2012 Bank Group support to PPPs increased about three fold. In 2012, it accounted for $2.9 billion through lending, investments and guarantees. Investments from the Bank’s private sector arm, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), and guarantees from the Bank’s political risk insurance arm, the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), mostly benefit PPP projects in middle-income and upper-middle-income countries (65 per cent and 72 per cent respectively), while the Bank targets a higher share of low-income countries (68 per cent). The IEG states that “PPPs need to be reviewed in relation to their contribution to the institution’s main goals”, namely fighting poverty and promoting shared prosperity."

IEG, World Bank Group Support to Public-Private Partnerships: Lessons from experience in client countries, FY 02–12. Download (pdf file)


SPECIAL 'Public Private Partnership': Weitere Literaturhinweise

Wasserprivatisierung in Manila aus Unternehmenssicht (2014)

3. September 2014: Das private VersorgungsunternehmenManila Water hat, veröffentlicht von der Asiatischen Entwicklungsbank ADB, ein Buch herausgegeben, in dem es "reveals how change management was adopted by the company to transform the water utility into a world-class service provider. In this book, Manila Water tells its story - the story of a water utility’s amazing transformation that is anchored on tapping the unlimited potential of important yet often underappreciated corporate resources. This is the secret of Manila Water’s success. Within each and every employee's story, when told collectively, is Manila Water's secret told."

Aus der Ankündigung der ADB: "Thebook highlights the case of the Manila Water Company as a successful story of utility reform. It notes that Manila Water faced a number of challenges prior to emerging as a successful model for public-private-partnerships (PPPs). It includes chapters on: the water crisis and privatization; the PPP through a concession framework; the concession agreement; addressing the supply shocks and managing risks; corporate-style governance; enable; empower; excel; emerging challenges and issues; and conclusions. Emerging challenges identified in the book include: urbanization and increased population; regulatory risk; climate change; replicating the PPP model in top metro cities; and the internal challenge of developing new talent and leaders in the water sector. In order to address these challenges, the book highlights the importance of expanding wastewater services, addressing the gap between willingness-to-pay and the need for system improvements, considering creation of a regulatory office independent of Manila Water to reduce regulatory risk, addressing unforeseen events, including climate change-induced droughts and floods, and continuing to address barriers to expansion of Manila Water services to other urban zones around Manila.

Virgilio Rivera, Tap Secrets: The Manila Water Story. Published by ADB, July 2014. Download (pdf file).

Siehe dazu: Uwe Hoering, Wasser in Manila - Ein Globalisierungs-Lehrstück, November 2010 (Download pdf-Datei, 159kb), und Wasser für die Megacities - das Beispiel Manila. Briefing Papier Nr. 3 zum Hintergrundpapier "Wasser für Nahrung - Wasser für Profit". 2006 (Brot für die Welt). Download (pdf-Datei 44kb), auch in englisch (pdf-Datei 37kb)

Rethinking Public Services in the Global South (2014)

Mai 2014: Abstract: "After three decades of privatization and anti-state rhetoric, government ownership and public management are back in vogue. This book explores this rapidly growing trend towards ‘corporatization’ - public enterprises owned and operated by the state, with varying degrees of autonomy. If sometimes driven by neoliberal agendas, there exist examples of corporatization that could herald a brighter future for equity-oriented public services."

"Drawing on original case studies on Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Malaysia, the Philippines, Tunisia and Uruguay, this book critically examines the histories, structures, ideologies and social impacts of corporatization in the water and electricity sectors, interrogating the extent to which it can move beyond commercial goals to deliver progressive public services. The first collection of its kind, it offers rich empirical insight and theoretical depth into what has become one of the most important public policy shifts for essential services in the global South."

Rethinking Corporatization and Public Services in the Global South. Edited by David A. McDonald. 2014 (Zed Books)

Alternative Organisation öffentlicher Dienstleistungen (2013)

December 2013: Summary: "Reflecting on the need to ground visions of future public services in the existing practices and experiments, the author uses the “publicness” concept as a vision inspired by, and inspiring, the ongoing struggles and initiatives to defend and transform public services. In this context, the paper analyses the role of Public-Public Partnerships (PuPs), which have emerged as a trade union response to privatisation and Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs), in enhancing some of the key dimensions of the “publicness” concept, namely: equity and efficiency; participation and accountability; and solidarity and sustainability. In conclusion, the author argues that participatory PuPs represent “actually existing” forms of resistance, which by pursuing goals of enhancing the “publicness” of public services, contribute at building and strengthening new visions of public services and serve as spaces for the emergence of alternative ways of organising public services and work in the public sector."

Zusammenfassung: "Die Notwendigkeit reflektierend, dass Zukunftsvisionen von öffentlichen Dienstleistungen in existierenden Praktiken und Experimenten gründen müssen, benutzt die Autorin das Konzept von „Öffentlichkeit“ als Vision, die von bestehenden Auseinandersetzungen und Initiativen um die Verteidigung und Neugestaltung öffentlicher Dienstleistungen inspiriert wird und diese gleichzeitig inspiriert. In diesem Kontext analysiert das Papier den Beitrag von Public-Public Partnerships (PuPs), die als Antwort der Gewerkschaften auf Privatisierung und Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) entstanden sind, zur Hervorhebung einiger zentraler Dimensionen des Konzepts der „Öffentlichkeit“, namentlich: Gerechtigkeit und Effizienz, Teilhabe und Rechenschaft sowie Solidarität und Nachhaltigkeit. Zum Abschluss argumentiert die Autorin, dass partizipative PuPs eine „tatsächlich existierende“ Form von Widerstand repräsentieren, die dadurch, dass sie die „Öffentlichkeit“ öffentlicher Dienstleistungen hervorheben, dazu beitragen, neue Visionen von öffentlichen Dienstleistungen aufzubauen und zu stärken und als Raum für das Hervorbringen von alternativen Möglichkeiten zur Organisation von öffentlichen Dienstleistungen und Arbeit im öffentlichen Sektor zu fungieren.

Edlira Xhafa, Alternative Ways of Organising Public Services and Work in the Public Sector: What Role for Public-Public Partnerships? Working Paper der DFG-KollegforscherInnengruppe Postwachstumsgesellschaft, Nr. 09/2013, Jena 2013. Download (pdf-Datei)

Siehe dazu auch die Literaturhinweise "Alternativen zur Privatisierung"

Infrastruktur-PPPs in Europa (2013)

November 2013: Online resource that scrutines infrastructure public-private partnerships in Europe: "There is a growing body of evidence that suggests that PPPs can have detrimental effects on public budgets and provision of public services. Nevertheless, they continue to be promoted in many countries, including in the Arab Spring countries. The Website "Overpriced and underwritten - The hidden costs of public-private partnerships" offers evidence to counter the frequent arguments about the supposed advantages of PPPs. With extensive background analysis, case studies from across Europe and new updates, we hope the site will be a useful source of information."

Quelle: CEE Bankwatch Network

Chancen für PPP in Indiens Landwirtschaft (2013)

Oktober 2013: Der große und früher einmal sehr effiziente Bewässerungssektor in Indien, auf dem die 'Grüne Revolution' aufsetzte, wurde in den vergangenen Jahren vernachlässigt, was zu sinkender Effizienz, Produktivität und Einkommen führte. Wie die Landwirtschaft in Indien insgesamt ist auch die Bewässerungslandwirtschaft weitgehend kleinbäuerlich strukturiert und bietet der steigenden Zahl von Landlosen saisonale Arbeitsmöglichkeiten. Die National Water Policy (NWP) und die Absichtserklärungen, die nur langsam wachsende Agrarproduktion zu fördern, weisen beide auf eine verstärkte Einbindung privater Investoren (Private Sector Participation, PSP) hin, von der Finanzmittel, Technologie und besseres Management erwartet werden. Die Bestandsaufnahme zeigt zahlreiche Ansatzpunkte und Initiativen dafür auf und hofft, dass "PPP opportunities may arise if agricultural reforms in the form of contract farming, improvements in inputs, markets, agro industries, and retail links are coupled with irrigation development and management efforts."

Varma, H.K., et al, Exploring Public-Private Partnership in the Irrigation and Drainage Sector in India. A scoping study. Asian Development Bank, 2012. Download (pdf-Datei 2,5mb)

When Business Meets Aid (2013)

Oktober 2013: Die Kooperation von Entwicklungsorganisationen mit kommerziellen Unternehmen hat in den vergangenen Jahren immer größere Ausmaße angenommen. Damit sind unter anderem Erwartungen verbunden, dass das 'Kerngeschäft' der Unternehmen entwicklungspolitische Ziele unterstützt - wie beispielsweise in der "German Food Partnership". Zweitens würden öffentliche Güter durch private Unternehmen bereitgestellt - Beispiel Wasserversorgung. Stichwörter, die die Rollenverteilung eher vernebeln als klären, sind 'Inklusive Geschäftsmodelle', 'Pro-Poor-Versorgungsketten', 'Öffentlich-private Partnerschaften' (PPP) und 'Produktentwicklungs-Partnerschaften', beispielsweise im Pharmabereich. Auf der Grundlage von Fallstudien werden Empfehlungen für die Expansion derartiger Partnerschaften im öffentlichen Dienstleistungsbereich gegeben.

Abstract:"International development agencies are increasingly looking to business as a partner in achieving development outcomes. Engaging business in development has become a central plank of many countries’ aid policies. However, the potential of public-private partnerships for development is still largely unrealised. Business and development agencies would benefit from a better understanding of what forms of practical partnership might be constructed, for what purposes and with what likely impact. We propose a new framework for thinking about practical engagement between business and development agencies. It is based, in the first instance, on a distinction between partnerships that increase the development impact of core business activity, and those that contribute to the private provision of public goods. Within this framework we discuss development agencies’ existing involvement in inclusive business ventures, pro-poor supply chain initiatives for internationally-traded products, public-private partnerships for service delivery, and product development partnerships in health. In each of these four areas we provide short case studies and identify a set of issues for further consideration in future work. We close with some observations on cross-cutting issues, including the slenderness of the evidence base in this field, and the fragmentation of existing initiatives. Our main conclusions are three. First, the next generation of enterprise challenge funds should be designed on the basis of a broad evaluation of their predecessors and explicit consideration of a set of issues that we identify. Second, more effective brokerage arrangements, and some flagships, will be needed in order to expand public-private partnerships for service delivery. Third, a comprehensive review of product development partnerships should be undertaken which, among other things, compares them to market-based alternatives."

Margaret Callan, Robin Davies, When Business Meets Aid: Analysing Public-Private Partnerships for International Development. Development Policy CentreDiscussion Paper No. 28, April 1, 2013. Download (pdf-Datei 611kb)