Public-public partnerships (PUPs) in water

A comprehensive global analysis of the use of public-public partnerships in water in over 60 countries.

A crisis for public-private partnerships (PPPs)?

The credit squeeze and recession are combining to make PPPs almost impossible to finance, anywhere in the world. Traditional government borrowing and procurement can still be used to implement infrastructure programmes.

Public-public partnerships (PUPs) in water

Water operators need to be efficient, accountable, honest public institutions providing a universal service. Many water services however lack the institutional strength, the human resources, the technical expertise and equipment, or the financial or managerial capacity to provide these services. They need support to develop these capacities. The vast majority of water operators in the world are in the public sector – 90% of all major cities are served by such bodies. This means that the largest pool of experience and expertise, and the great majority of examples of good practice and sound institutions, are to be found in existing public sector water operators. Because they are public sector, however, they do not have any natural commercial incentive to provide international support. Their incentive stems from solidarity, not profit. Since 1990, however, the policies of donors and development banks have focussed on the private companies and their incentives. The vast resources of the public sector have been overlooked, even blocked by pro-private policies. Out of sight of these global policy-makers, however, a growing number of public sector water companies have been engaged, in a great variety of ways, in helping others develop the capacity to be effective and accountable public services. These supportive arrangements are now called 'public-public partnerships' (PUPs). A public-public partnership (PUP) is simply a collaboration between two or more public authorities or organisations, based on solidarity, to improve the capacity and effectiveness of one partner in providing public water or sanitation services. They have been described as: “a peer relationship forged around common values and objectives, which exclude profit-seeking”.1 Neither partner expects a commercial profit, directly or indirectly. This makes PUPs very different from the public–private partnerships (PPPs) which have been promoted by the international financial institutions (IFIs) like the World Bank. The problems of PPPs have been examined in a number of reports. A great advantage of PUPs is that they avoid the risks of such partnerships: transaction costs, contract failure, renegotiation, the complexities of regulation, commercial opportunism, monopoly pricing, commercial secrecy, currency risk, and lack of public legitimacy.2 PUPs are not merely an abstract concept. The list in the annexe to this paper includes over 130 PUPs in around 70 countries. This means that far more countries have hosted PUPs than host PPPs in water – according to a report from PPIAF in December 2008, there are only 44 countries with private participation in water. These PUPs cover a period of over 20 years, and been used in all regions of the world. The earliest date to the 1980s, when the Yokohama Waterworks Bureau first started partnerships to help train staff in other Asian countries. Many of the PUP projects have been initiated in the last few years, a result of the growing recognition of PUPs as a tool for achieving improvements in public water management. This paper attempts to provide an overview of the typical objectives of PUPs; the different forms of PUPs and partners involved; a series of case studies of actual PUPs; and an examination of the recent WOPs initiative. It then offers recommendations for future development of PUPs.

Cross-cultural partnerships must talk to build trust

Academic partnerships bring knowledge and drive economic growth, but success depends on good communications that build trust, says Tim Gore.

Global research collaboration: the UKIERI India-UK initiative – lessons from practice for sustainable international partnerships

As knowledge development is claimed to underpin the development of globalisation, interest in research collaboration and its internationalisation has become more widespread. This paper looks at the motivations behind, and development of, higher educational collaborations with a focus on research collaboration, and also compares some of the key issues surrounding academic collaborations. It employs current thinking on strategic alliances and in particular on social network and social capital theories to judge how collaborations can best be encouraged and managed. The paper uses the specific case of India-UK relationship as an example and looks at the context and motivation for collaboration in these two countries. It presents the UK India Education and Research Initiative (UKIERI) and reviews how this initiative deals with the issues discussed by current writers in relation to collaboration, as well as drawing lessons from the initiative for research collaboration more widely.

Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) summary paper

The summary of three reports on PPPs in Europe, including a critical overview, a study of alternatives, and a study on the protection of working conditions, in the context of EU law on procurement and other subjects.

Creative leadership & communities of practice

This Second Wave presentation focused on 'Creative Leadership and Communities of Practice', with particular reference to issues of trust affecting young people, unemployment and wider uncertainties in an economic recession when people were facing job cuts and in a social environment characterised by cynicism and a downturn in trust. Young people who join Second Wave are brought into a community of practice (CoP) (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1999) involving a dynamic, fluid process which is distinctive in its transformative power to change people's lives. The philosophy behind this involves Dewey's notion of the 'active self' (Dewey, 1916) and the theories of 'social constructivism' (Vygotsky, 1978). The process fosters trust, confidence and social learning (Bandura, 1977; Vygotsky, 1978) in which young people join in with a dialogue involving participation in the youth-centred creative space. The 'border zone' (Heath, 1994) in that creative space enables young people to connect with each other in the specialist field of youth arts. The youth-centred partnerships involved lead to greater confidence and development in a range of important artistic, social, cognitive and emotional skills and opportunities. Ultimately, the young person may become engaged in multi-agency working with Second Wave's external partners. Throughout all of these processes, young people are encouraged progressively to develop a more 'active self' to engage proactively with many different beneficial opportunities relating to the performing arts. In an era in which there has been a loss of trust in public life this is particularly important. If trust is defined in part as a belief in the honesty, competence and benevolence of others, it tends to act like 'social glue', cushioning difficult situations and enabling actions to take place easily that otherwise would not be permissible. The Edelman Trust Barometer for 2009 has recorded a marked diminution of trust in corporations, businesses and government, as a result of the credit crunch. While the US and parts of Europe were showing recovery from a generalised loss of trust by mid-year 2009, the UK had not. Social attitudes in Britain may be hardening - from being a nation of sceptics we may be becoming a nation of cynics: for example, only 13% of the population surveyed by Edelman trust politicians to tell the truth. In this situation, there is a need to promote positive measures to build trust. The presentation aims described key aspects of Second Wave's approach to identify and disseminate its model of good practice to make this more explicit and accessible to others. It is with awareness of the profoundly challenging circumstances facing young people, particularly but not exclusively in inner city urban areas such as Deptford, and the valuable contribution youth arts work can make to their well-being and development, that the presentation was carried out. In an era of generalised mistrust, the work done at Second Wave is crucial in empowering and supporting young people to find a positive and creative direction as part of the community.

Finance for water and sanitation as a public service

Drawing on empirical evidence gathered through the PSIRU database, this contribution aims at addressing the potential of public finance to enhance the provision of water supply and sanitation as a public service. It highlights the problems associated with (and the disappointing results obtained from) resort to Private Sector Participation and private finance, both historically and in the last 15-20 years, in developed and developing countries. It also addresses the advantages of using public finance as a more cost-effective and equitable instrument to achieve developmental objectives such as the expansion of service coverage and development of water and sanitation infrastructure. The potential of public operations in maximising developmental impact from the social, economic and environmental points of view is then explored referring to specific examples from a variety of countries and regions. These include the in-house restructuring of public operations to enhance transparency, accountability and effectiveness, as well as the use of Public-Public Partnerships (PUPs) to build capacity. Attention is devoted to the specific financial requirements of expanding sewerage services at global level to achieve MDGs or broader developmental goals. These requirements are revisited in light of a regional breakdown of coverage gaps, available resources and development aid flows. These findings challenge the established view among international and bilateral agencies that expanding sewerage services in developing countries is excessively costly and should be abandoned as a priority because unaffordable. This contribution draws on a number of PSIRU Reports, and particularly the following. - http://www.psiru.org/reports/2008-03-W-sewers.pdf - http://boell-latinoamerica.org/download_es/agua08_privatizacion_LA_2007.pdf - http://boell-latinoamerica.org/download_es/agua08_agua_un_servicio_publico.pdf - http://www.psiru.org/reports/2006-03-W-investment.pdf All PSIRU Reports are accessible at http://www.psiru.org/publicationsindex.asp.

When the shift hits the critical fan: a Foucauldian analysis

In the past 15 years in the UK, the state has acquired powers, which mark a qualitative shift in its relationship to higher education. Since the introduction and implementation of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 and the Higher Education Act 2004, a whole raft of changes have occurred which include the following: Widening participation; the development of interdisciplinary, experiential and workplace-based learning focused on a theory-practice dialogue; quality assurance; and new funding models which encompass public and private partnerships. The transformation of higher education can be placed in the context of New Labour’s overall strategies for overarching reform of public services, as set out in the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit’s discussion paper The UK Government’s Approach to Public Service Reform (2006). An optimistic view of changes to higher education is that they simultaneously obey democratic and economic imperatives. There is an avowed commitment through the widening participation agenda to social inclusion and citizenship, and to providing the changing skills base necessary for the global economy. A more cynical view is that, when put under critical scrutiny, as well as being emancipatory, in some senses these changes can be seen to mobilise regulatory and disciplinary practices. This paper reflects on what kinds of teaching and learning are promoted by the new relationship between the state and the university. It argues that, whilst governmental directives for innovations and transformations in teaching and learning allegedly empower students and put their interests at the centre, reforms can also be seen to consist of supervisory and controlling mechanisms with regard both to our own practices as teachers and the knowledge/ learning we provide for the students.