Talk:Public-private partnership
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] re: WHO and Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization
I'm inclined to say that these are not P3s since their operations weren't transfered to the private sector. For public policy purposes P3s are significant because they represent a form of privatization. For a NGO to receive donations from the private sector does not make it private. Dhodges 23:48, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- 1) I know that half of the budget from the WHO is financed by private foundations.
- 2) in GAVI the B%M-Gates Fundation has a permanent seat in the supervisory board of GAVI.--Nerd 16:47, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
- It is an issue of control, not finance. Sufficient finance suggests control (as does the board seat) - so fine for GAVI. But even if the WHO figure is true it almost certainly means largely or entirely privately cofinanced projects. Those projects will be PPPs, but not the WHO, since the private sector has no control over the organization - it is controlled by states. And the organization can choose to enter into as many or as few privately cofinanced projects as it wishes - it is not itself a PPP! Rd232 17:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Would anyone object to the material on WHO and Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization being moved to their respective main articles? ( after writing an article for Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization) This material may be important in its own right but it doesn't say much about what a P3 is. --Dhodges 01:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] no objection
no objection here. NGO by definition is not a Public Private venture. Government isn't involved in an NGO, or shouldn't be. The WHO is not a public private venture. RacerZero 19:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, my above comment was made April 6th and referred to the edit of the time. I'm fairly satisfied with the modifications that have been made.-Dhodges 00:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] revised intro
I'm frankly dubious about the new introduction. Particularly, it seems to suggest that government will always put up the cash. One of the objections which is often made to P3 is that governments (which represent a very safe investment for lenders) can raise funds more cheaply than the private sector. -Dhodges 02:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
See this web site for more info on PPP http://ncppp.org/howpart/index.html
It has been my experience that PPP ventures rarely have anything to do with privatizing government programs but are very often joint ventures using government revenue and authority and private industry experience and capital to do some project. Very often sports arenas and convention centers are constructed with PPP venters.
This was why I changed the original intro. The original seamed to suggest that PPP ventures always involve privatization of government functions. In fact that is rarely the case. RacerZero 05:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Just a reminder that Wikipedia is an international project. A contributor's experience in, for example, the U.S. is not necessarily reflective of that in other countries. The United States already has a far more prominent private sector and as such has less scope for privatisation. -Dhodges 16:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Woah
Sydney sure has a lot of PPPs listed here compared to other places. Is that symptomatic of our government? Or are we missing examples of PPPs from other places of the world? -- Newhoggy | Talk 13:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- There are a lot in the UK and Victoria also, but NSW (Sydney specifically) has been one of the biggest markets for this stuff. JQ 23:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
