Partnership Infrastructure Research Articles

Privatization and public-private partnerships

Part 1 Background of privatization: introduction the growth of government. Part 2 The theory of privatization: basic characteristics of goods and services alternative arrangements for providing goods and services. Part 3 The practice of privatization: why and how to privatize the results of privatization contracting for public services divesting enterprises and assets public-private partnerships for infrastructure reforming education and privatizing the welfare state overcoming opposition to privatization the future of privatization.

Space: a challenge for Europe

This Viewpoint presents an industrial perspective of the policies needed to support and advance the capabilities and competitiveness of the European space industry. It is argued that Europe needs a coordinated longterm space policy to help create the climate in which industry can invest in and exploit space. Europe must also accelerate the development of advanced technology products and services, improve its competitiveness in applications and commercial markets including launchers, and secure fair and reliable international partnerships in in-orbit infrastructure and manned space activities. To this end European governments are urged to acknowledge the increasing political, economic and military importance of space and their continuing governance of space activities, and to establish mechanisms that promote industrial competitiveness; the development of the commercial sector; autonomy in key technologies; and international partnerships which are fair and affordable.

The Chickens can Come Home to Roost

Local governments are entrusting private developers with supplying their communities' roads and water, sewer, and drainage systems. In this study, the author examines a 30-year public-private partnership in infrastructure that failed its community. The analysis reflects the vulner-ability of local public authority and citizen participation in the public-private partnership. The case highlights the broader issue of governance in land use as county and state intervention in the partnership contributed to the infrastructure crisis. Overlapping local land-use controls with growth management mandates offered no panacea for governing a private producer of public services.