ancient cities

as diverse as informal cooperation between public
and private actors; direct or indirect public funding
of private organizations or projects; private
funding of public organizations or projects; formal,
often legally chartered, multisector organizations;
special districts, public authorities, and other
“quasi­public” agencies. More specific definitions
clarify the kinds of relationships at work, for
example, differentiating between partnerships
embodied in project­specific, time­limited deals
and organizations with ongoing institutionalized
commitments. On the other hand, partnerships
might be defined only as continuing relationships
with shared responsibilities among public and private
actors, each of which has the authority to
negotiate on its own behalf and each of which
brings resources to the partnership. Others confine
the term partnerships to long­term relationships
codified in legal or financial contracts. Public–
private partnerships usually do not include arm’slength
contracts based on competitive bidding for
specific products or services and generally associated
with privatization strategies.
Historical Evolution
If partnerships are considered in the broadest sense
as public–private collaborations, their origins can
be traced to the close relations between political
and economic elites in the expanding nineteenthcentury
city. Where political machines dominated,
local government utility franchises and building
contracts attracted investors who were sources of
campaign contributions, jobs, and tax revenues.
Nonmachine cities, too, had their public–private
partnerships, as evidenced in various city planning
and municipal reform organizations.
The origins of contemporary partnerships,
whether defined as project­focused, long­term, or
legally chartered collaborations, are generally traced
to federal urban renewal policies (1954–1974).
The urban renewal program required an institutionalized
local capacity to plan and implement
redevelopment projects in order to receive federal
grants and loans. Because many cities lacked
that capacity, this requirement prompted new
government–business alliances. In some cities, business
organizations and committees took the lead
in policy planning and project execution; the local
government’s role was its exercise of eminent
Public–Private Partnerships
621
domain and project funding. In other cities, local
urban redevelopment authorities, quasi­independent
public agencies overseen by appointed, public–
private boards of directors, were in charge. Yet
even here, business organizations typically determined
the parameters of downtown revitalization plans.
Subsequent federal government programs have
continued to foster an expanding array of public–
private partnerships for urban revitalization.
President Jimmy Carter’s 1978 national urban
policy emphasized that governments alone could
not solve urban problems and needed the active
assistance of the for­profit and nonprofit sectors.
The federal Community Development Block Grant
(1974– ) and, more especially, the Urban Development
Action Grant (1977–1989) encouraged local
governments to leverage public monies through
incentives such as subsidized loans and land writedowns
as well as infrastructure spending to stimulate
private industrial and commercial investment,
create jobs, and generate new tax revenues. The
Reagan administration’s enterprise zones and the
Clinton administration’s empowerment zones also
required alliances among governments, firms, and
local community­based organizations to attract jobs
and investment to poor urban neighborhoods.
Although federal funding for urban programs
dried up in the 1980s, the competition for new
investment continued, and many state governments
became active promoters of public, for­profit partnerships.
State governments fostered deal­specific
and more expansive government–business alliances
through special districts, business improvement
districts, and tax increment financing as well as tax
incentives, below­market interest rate loans, and
enterprise zones. Improving the efficiency of government
programs in light of policy devolution also
became a key objective. For their part, local governments
developed entrepreneurial strategies to attract
investors and enhance their competitive advantage.
The goals of partnerships with firms extended well
beyond downtown redevelopment. For example,
partnerships with business were established to
restructure New York City finances after its fiscal
collapse in the 1970s, to plan and manage the
Atlanta Olympic Games, to rebuild Los Angeles
after the 1992 civil unrest, and to help implement a
massive highway project in Boston in the 1990s.
Despite the overwhelming importance of business
to partnerships and the major focus of