ancient cities

622 Public–Private Partnerships
public–private partnerships on economic development,
city government partnerships carry out a variety
of important policy tasks with a broad variety of
nonprofit organizations. Starting in the 1960s, community
development corporations have been key
actors in inner­city revitalization, especially housing
development. Federal funding reductions and program
devolution have increasingly made nonprofit
organizations, as well as for­profit firms, central to
many policy interventions. While no inventory of
city­based public–private partnerships exists, one
study of the 555 largest cities, published in 2001,
found that community­based organizations including
community development corporations were
most likely to work with city governments on
affordable housing, homelessness, and public safety
issues. The extent of collaboration appears to be
growing. Local governments now regularly work
with social services organizations, universities and
community colleges, employer organizations, and
for­profit firms to deliver traditionally public goods
and services such as job training, welfare assistance,
education, health care, corrections, and highway
construction and management.
Partnerships Abroad
Governments in other capitalist democracies have
also promoted partnerships as vehicles for achieving
economic development, urban regeneration and,
perhaps more than in the United States, social
inclusion. Although policies promoting public–
private partnerships date from the 1970s in some
European countries, as in the United States, the
importance of public–private partnerships has
grown since the 1980s. In part, national governments
have turned to partnerships as a strategy to
enhance decentralization of policy making and
implementation.
At the same time, in Europe, a major impetus to
public–private partnerships is supranational: the
European Union (EU). The EU has long required
public–private partnerships for the receipt of structural
funds (that is, policies aimed at alleviating
regional disparities) and encouraged numerous
types of territorial social pacts for a range of
regional, urban, economic development, employment,
and social policy goals. Studies of European
partnerships suggest a few critical differences from
their U.S. counterparts. First, governments are the
dominant actors, even in economic development
partnerships where private, for­profit actors are
most evident. Second, European partnerships tend
to be more “top­down”; national and supranational
actors play greater roles in funding, policy
design, and implementation. Third, despite EU
concerns over social exclusion, particularly in
inner­city areas, and although voluntary­sector
associations are actively engaged in the provision
of housing, job training, and other social services,
community organizations tend to be less important.
Fourth, party ideologies matter to the goals
and balance of power within partnerships.
Governments where social democratic or labor
parties wield power are more likely to work with
public and voluntary­sector partners, less likely to
work with for­profit partners, and less likely to
emphasize purely market objectives.
Japan, too, has a history of public–private partnerships
dating from the end of World War II. In
contrast to Europe, Japanese partnerships focus
overwhelmingly on economic development and
involve national, regional, and local government
relationships with private firms. Often aimed at
attracting private investment to projects with significant
public benefits such as transportation,
these partnerships typically involve joint funding
of projects as well as organizational collaboration.
Similar forms of partnership have been used to
support technological innovation, research and
development, and even welfare provision.
Despite their growing importance, the consequences
of partnerships for urban policy making,
urban governments, and urban citizens remain a
subject of debate. While partnerships can be credited
with successful urban development projects,
evidence is mixed on the extent to which, and
when, partnerships achieve broader goals of economic
development, social inclusion, and citizen
participation. Because the goals, procedures, and
accountability mechanisms of organizations in the
public, for­profit, and nonprofit sectors differ
greatly, crafting workable and effective partnerships
can prove difficult. One study of 105 U.S.
cities with partnerships between government and
community­based organizations found that these
partnerships enhanced city officials’ awareness of
community needs but that accountability problems,
poor communications, and a lack of trust
continued because of differing organizational