Preparing for disaster: a comparative analysis of education for critical infrastructure collapse

This article explores policy approaches to educating populations for potential critical infrastructure collapse in five different countries: the UK, the US, Germany, Japan and New Zealand. ‘Critical infrastructure’ is not always easy to define, and indeed is defined slightly differently across countries – it includes entities vital to life, such as utilities (water, energy), transportation systems and communications, and may also include social and cultural infrastructure. The article is a mapping exercise of different approaches to critical infrastructure protection and preparedness education by the five countries. The exercise facilitates a comparison of the countries and enables us to identify distinctive characteristics of each country’s approach. We argue that contrary to what most scholars of security have argued, these national approaches diverge greatly, suggesting that they are shaped more by internal politics and culture than by global approaches.

Public-private partnerships and efficiency in public procurement of primary healthcare infrastructure: a qualitative research in the NHS UK

Aim There is growing interest in the contribution of public-private partnerships (PPPs) bridging the shortage of financial resources and management expertise in developing public healthcare infrastructure. However, few studies have evidenced PPPs’ ability in increasing efficiency in public procurement of primary healthcare infrastructure. The aim of this study was to assess to what extent PPPs would increase efficiency in public procurement of primary healthcare facilities. Subject and Methods A qualitative analysis, adopting a realistic research evaluation method, used data collected from a purposive sample of public (n=23) and private sector staff (n=2) directly involved in the UK National Health Service Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT). Results We find a positive association of LIFT helping to bridge public sector capital shortages for developing primary care surgeries. LIFT is negatively associated with inefficient procurement because it borrows finance from private banks, leaving public agencies paying high interest rates. The study shows that some contextual factors and mechanisms in LIFT play a major part in obstructing public staff from increasing procurement efficiency. Conclusion PPP’s ability to increase efficiency may be determined by contextual factors and mechanisms that restrict discretion over critical decisions by frontline public sector staff. Developing their capacity in monitoring PPP activities may make partnerships more efficient.